3 ms·
Many-Worlds has flaws comparable to many other leading interpretations, which is why it's not a large majority view among quantum information and foundations re
by n4r9 11y ago
Many-Worlds has flaws comparable to many other leading interpretations, which is why it's not a large majority view among quantum information and foundations researchers. Explaining why the observable universe is Born-rule typical is a major issue for Many-Worlds.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9703089.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9703089.pdf is a good discussion of this issue, which I don't think has yet had a satisfactory rebuttal. A more up to date version is at http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0624 http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0624
It's silly to insist that every article about quantum phenomena should refer to any particular interpretation of the mathematics.
- spacehome 11y agoI thought that explaining the Born rule is a problem for every interpretation.
- n4r9 11y agoIt is for many, but not all. Generally speaking, it's less of an issue for interpretations that give an epistemic role to the wavefunction. Perhaps an extreme example, but in the "QBist" interpretation the wavefunction and Born rule are merely a convenient calculus for the prediction of future interactions with the system. It's not the only way to encode this probabilistic information, but it's nice and compact. The issue is then not "why the Born rule?" but "why this particular set of probabilities over potential outcomes?". Then again, a lot of people find the very idea of epistemic interpretations of quantum theory distasteful, especially in light of the Bell, Kochen-Specker and PBR type inequalities.