What if it had seemed that there was no way to get the Born rule with just simple decoherence—what if that seemed to clearly imply a uniform probability rule. Would the random collapse view seem more plausible then?
No. Eight strikes and it’s out. There is no possible reason for adopting a theory that unphysical, or even spending more than thirty seconds thinking about it, without crushingly unmistakable experimental evidence that nails it down.
If you’re postulating new fundamental physics, things that don’t show up microscopically but do show up macroscopically, to explain the Born statistics, there would be a hundred better possibilities that don’t violate Special Relativity.
One thing you’re currently having trouble explaining is not an excuse to import magic out of nowhere and say, “Oh, that must be the explanation.” Doesn’t work for intelligent design and it doesn’t work for collapse either.
Eight strikes and it’s out. There is no possible reason for adopting a theory that unphysical, or even spending more than thirty seconds thinking about it, without crushingly unmistakable experimental evidence that nails it down.
If the Born rule comes from decoherence, and if decoherence comes from the SWE, the Born rule comes from what you would class as acceptable physics. In fast, since the Born rule is part if what makes QM work, any MWI type theory must justify it. You replied as tthough you read “the Born rule ” as “mysterious nonlocal collapse process”. The Born rule is just a piece of maths,
What if it had seemed that there was no way to get the Born rule with just simple decoherence—what if that seemed to clearly imply a uniform probability rule. Would the random collapse view seem more plausible then?
No. Eight strikes and it’s out. There is no possible reason for adopting a theory that unphysical, or even spending more than thirty seconds thinking about it, without crushingly unmistakable experimental evidence that nails it down.
If you’re postulating new fundamental physics, things that don’t show up microscopically but do show up macroscopically, to explain the Born statistics, there would be a hundred better possibilities that don’t violate Special Relativity.
One thing you’re currently having trouble explaining is not an excuse to import magic out of nowhere and say, “Oh, that must be the explanation.” Doesn’t work for intelligent design and it doesn’t work for collapse either.
If the Born rule comes from decoherence, and if decoherence comes from the SWE, the Born rule comes from what you would class as acceptable physics. In fast, since the Born rule is part if what makes QM work, any MWI type theory must justify it. You replied as tthough you read “the Born rule ” as “mysterious nonlocal collapse process”. The Born rule is just a piece of maths,