Fra's latest activity

I would say that indivisibility would be closest to the violation of absoluteness of observed events.

Thanks Peter, that looks better. Sorry for the mess. /Fredrik

I just used magic moderator powers to edit the post and remove that paragraph. Please take a look and make sure I did it right.

I apparently forgot to remove it, in despite of me writing I did, and now the edit option is gone 🙄 /Fredrik

I think it explicitly does! But this ontology is understood differently, the same thus goes for that there is a definitey history also...

We think differently so I am not sure if I see the objections but they seem to be conceptual and not about the math? but as Barandes...

David Albert writes: "It gives us (in particular) probabilities that the configuration of the world will be this or that at any time t...

It's quite simple: Transition probabilities, not standalone probabilities, make up the nomological content of the reformulation. No...

I think already at the introduction, I can sense the approach and the immediate hunch is that I do not share Alberts analysis... Albert...

I get your point, it does raise problems! Also in the normal paradigm, we shouldnt confuse them. But here we try to probe deeper I...

I agree. But the passive nature of the screen is an approximation that is valid just because its huge. Fundamentally passive observer...

But in the traditional view (system dynamics) where else is causal power encoded, if not in initial conditions and dynamical law? As I...

Many subquestions here, and Alberts paper was long i skimmed it yeasterday but i think one of his issues is that Barandes seems to not...

Equation (56) from this paper is an example of a subsystem's transition matrix divisible at ##t'##. The transition matrix...

I don't understand this paragraph Division events will give rise to more than probability distributions. They will give rise to directed...