IMO the main objection to MWI here applies just as much to classical probability theory. Until I understand why classical probability works I find it hard to worry about QMhttps://twitter.com/logicians/status/1053293445643624448 …
-
-
Replying to @sigfpe
I completely agree with you, Dan! People should be arguing about "the collapse of the probability distribution" versus the "many-worlds interpretation of probability theory"? Half the problems with interpreting QM are problems with probability theory. Entanglement is new.
7 replies 0 retweets 31 likes -
Replying to @johncarlosbaez @sigfpe
"Entanglement," sadly, is something of a red herring. It's not the existence of indecomposable elements in the tensor product of the state space with itself that matters. The thing to focus on is the structure of the algebra of observables (as superselection rules make clear.)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
The phenomena that people associate with the word "entanglement" all trace back, ultimately, to the assumption that the center of the algebra of observables consists only of multiples of the identity. What counts as pure, and what counts as mixed, depends upon what is observable.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.