4 ms·

Well, yeah, there is that... I suppose one could argue that lacking an a-priori explanation for the way probability is allocated over state-space is equivalent

Well, yeah, there is that... I suppose one could argue that lacking an a-priori explanation for the way probability is allocated over state-space is equivalent to lacking an explanation for measurement, but that seems to me like claiming that we have no answer to how thermal emission of light works because we can't explain the measurement rule in QM, which I expect most physicists would balk at. Yea, there is still work to be done at a lower level, and there are other competing explanations at this level, but that doesn't mean that we don't have an explanation at this level. "How does the Born Rule work?" is a lower-level question than "how does measurement work?"

repsilat 7y ago
The "measurement problem" is really a Copenhagen-specific thing -- "measurement" is the fundamental and identifying mechanism of the interpretation, and it's problematic. And In the Copenhagen interpretation the Born Rule is inextricably tied to measurement outcomes. I guess you could say that MWI removes the wishy-nastiness around what constitutes measurement, when it happens etc, and that could constitute "solving the problem", but I think - Some of "the problem" has just been moved outside those borders. (And fine -- the MWI doesn't need to solve every problem to be an improvement. And I do think it's an improvement.) - The Born Rule is weirder* in the MWI. In Copenhagen it's axiomatic: We explicitly roll the dice, a nondeterministic outcome happens, that's the mechanism. In MWI it's an afterthought: The wavefunction evolves deterministically, and oh-by-the-way you should weight the likelihood of finding yourself here or there by the squared amplitude. Maybe that's unfair though?