Recent content by Fra

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 says "Unlike stochastic-collapse theories [14, 15], this paper does not invoke any fundamental violations of unitarity, nor does it require introducing any new...

David Albert writes: "It gives us (in particular) probabilities that the configuration of the world will be this or that at any time t given its configuration at the initial time t0 – but (unlike, for example, Bohmian Mechanics) it tells us nothing about what path the world may have taken...

I think already at the introduction, I can sense the approach and the immediate hunch is that I do not share Alberts analysis... Albert writes: "The fundamental ontology of Jacob’s version of quantum mechanics – at least in the non-relativistic first-quantized case - consists entirely and...

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 think this confusion is real and not only meta stuff. So my perspective is to accept the problems(including confusion) of what are object level facts and how those...

I agree. But the passive nature of the screen is an approximation that is valid just because its huge. Fundamentally passive observer is a fiction to me. In practice passive observer is a limiting case. But once you consider the actual limit. I loose track of explanations and how dynamical law...

But in the traditional view (system dynamics) where else is causal power encoded, if not in initial conditions and dynamical law? As I see it the topics are related. IMOH the true causal power, would be best understood in an expanded ABM model if which not onlt barandes formulation but also QM...

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 release himself from the hamiltonian flow in the hilbert space, thus the lack of first principle construction of dynamical law. I think this is correct, but...

As to the agent part, its partly originated from qbism. But the the perspective change I refer to sits at the mathematical modelling perspective, and is general, and not something I brewed, and is not itself an interpretation i think. I tried to add perspectives as it helped me at least...

I don't use the "agent" label as specific claim of the screen, I used it as a change of conceptual modelling perspective, as my opinon is that it is at the heart of the problem. Agent/observer or observed/matter is to me mainly a matter of perspective of inference (and not a ontological claim in...

My interpretation is that it's because the screen is just like the rest of us (an agent). Ie. If if we know the possible answers our decisions and behaviour reflect the uncertainty, but once we get the answer, it's precisely one of the possibilities, and our decisions align. I think the screen...

I wont add more than necessary here, but as the OP was a sociologist, and this came up... I'll just add this. IMO this is at least related to the type of explanation you want. The idea of deterministic chaos that needs fine tuning is conceptaully simpler as it is based on the traditional system...

As often I fail to convey the point. I was not confusing things - I was attempting a deeper but subtle comparasion between two things to provide a fresh perspective, but still keeping it brief. 1. a measurement, which leads to a "measurent outcome" 2. an general inference, which leads to a...

By creating it, rather than just finding it? Ironically, the old idea of objective hidden variables explaining outcomes (applied to QM), is conceptually similar at inference level, to the idea that the truth exists objectively before it's at hand. As we know from Bell's theorem, the...

Conceptually I think of it so that, when a "fundamental theory" is indistiniguishable from an "effective one" is a contextual question itself and and this is a statement about the capacity of when the physical context itself interactionwise decouples from the details. This itself then also...

I agree you did a great job on that mission! I Agree with all this. This is why by "observers" i dont mean observer as per qm, because they are fiction. I mean a generalized notion of "observers" of which the quantum observer is a limiting case only. This limiting structure is sufficient for...