Deviations from the Born rule should be derived from timelessness-cognizant game theory for multipartite systems in order to find equilibria from first principles.
that would make more sense to me, though I still don’t believe that timeless equilibria have much to do with anything. The relationship between simulatee and simulator is completely asymmetric, the simulatee is at the mercy of the simulator in the Vast majority of cases.
As for the origin of the Born rule itself, I certainly don’t believe it has an origin in terms of multiverse-appropriate decision theory. Quantum mechanics is incomplete, it’s a type of statistical mechanics that arises from some class of more fundamental theory that we haven’t yet identified, and the Born rule—that is, the feature that probabilities come from the product of a complex number with its complex conjugate—specifically results from features of that more fundamental theory; that’s how I think it works.
But doesn’t statistical mechanics also fall out of decision theory? Or are you saying that perspective is not a useful one in that it doesn’t explain the arrow of time? (I’m really tired right now, I apologize if I’m only half-responding to the things you’re actually saying.)
Yup. Bayesian agents aren’t good at thinking about themselves, and if you can’t think about yourself you’re in trouble when someone starts offering you bets. I feel like there must be a way in which the whole thing is ironic in a philosophically deep way but I can’t quite put my finger on it.
Basically there is ontology that reifies decision theory as fundamental and reasons about everything in terms of it. It’s a powerful ontology, and often it is a beautiful ontology. Even better it’s still inchoate and so it’s not yet as beautiful as it someday will be.
If you had said
that would make more sense to me, though I still don’t believe that timeless equilibria have much to do with anything. The relationship between simulatee and simulator is completely asymmetric, the simulatee is at the mercy of the simulator in the Vast majority of cases.
As for the origin of the Born rule itself, I certainly don’t believe it has an origin in terms of multiverse-appropriate decision theory. Quantum mechanics is incomplete, it’s a type of statistical mechanics that arises from some class of more fundamental theory that we haven’t yet identified, and the Born rule—that is, the feature that probabilities come from the product of a complex number with its complex conjugate—specifically results from features of that more fundamental theory; that’s how I think it works.
But doesn’t statistical mechanics also fall out of decision theory? Or are you saying that perspective is not a useful one in that it doesn’t explain the arrow of time? (I’m really tired right now, I apologize if I’m only half-responding to the things you’re actually saying.)
I don’t see how.
Are you using decision theory to refer even to the process whereby you decide what to believe, and not just the process whereby you decide what to do?
Yup. Bayesian agents aren’t good at thinking about themselves, and if you can’t think about yourself you’re in trouble when someone starts offering you bets. I feel like there must be a way in which the whole thing is ironic in a philosophically deep way but I can’t quite put my finger on it.
Basically there is ontology that reifies decision theory as fundamental and reasons about everything in terms of it. It’s a powerful ontology, and often it is a beautiful ontology. Even better it’s still inchoate and so it’s not yet as beautiful as it someday will be.