Recent content by Fra

Typo. Sloppy writing again. It should say mutually exclusive not independnent. /Fredrik

Yes that's in the direction! Except the premises in that theorem such assuming that our beliefs form a hilber space hilbert space structure along with the "geometrisation" by assuming that independent means orthogonal are highly non-trivial assumptions. This is a little more than 2 real numbers...

I personally think the presumed selection of the born rule should follow from some sort of argument that can't possibly be specific to the mwi weirdness. I agree that alot seems highly circular. I think its part of hte "quantum logic" in the sense of a generalised probability theory. Maybe...

Although this is diverging from the topics, this is critical IMO to any "relational picture", if you require that the relata must be able to encode their relations. Here assuming that a primordal relata can index things in a continuum, is a very huge jump/omission in reconstructions. So this is...

Even with above definition I can't help thinking that any description, is still necessarily contextual. Ie the description itself exists or is manifest somewhere. 1) Physical contexts, then there are two, The self-context, ie the moon itself or the environment ("macroscopic objectivity")...

It is? Not sure if i want to know how? Maybe that explains why it is one of the few interpretations I never really made sense of. /Fredrik

So you think the obvious answer is no (and I agree). Then what is their relation? Because at the same time they arent unrelated. If we take wavefunction to conceptually represent the observational contexts information about the system. Then the "wave function of the moon" can not explicitly...

This was my point, the entire discussion here is to seek understanding of the descriptive mathematics. Ie. to map the mathematical structures to some explanatoty insightful picture of reality. Without this Rovellis just matches two pictures but does not explain its emergence. Any, the final...

I agree that Barandes view has similarities with RQM, but many interpretations are similar. My own critique of Barandes is that he does not give a first-principles construction of Gamma. In that sense the stochastic-quantum correspondence is still a correspondence, not yet a deeper explanation...

Id say in Barandes view another fellow susbsystem takes this role of instrument/agent. we can "calculate" in any view. But we can only verify under certain conditions. Just like a stochastic agents "actions" will not be changed until it is informed of a change. The stochastic constraint (if we...

Before i comment more.. one question. Do you mean, it is not enough for you that "only" the probability of configuration is there? Ie you want the explicit config vs timr in there? Not its probability. Is that it? /Fredrik

I agree with alot of what you write, but it seems this is the key issue... So You and iste seem to be questioning the point of saying configurations are real if they do not generate future evolution in the usual trajectory-law sense. You also seem to see this as a metaphysical prejudice of...

I've tried to understand what your objection really is... I wonder if the disagreement is on terminology after all. When I read this again it sounds like your definition of "physical" is something that must constitute an objective beable? and that constitutes a partition of the sample space...

Perhaps i misunderstand the core of your objection, but here is a comment on what I think you might mean. In a game of expectations, which I think we have at hand, the stochastic constraint of one one subsystem, must not be dependent on the "true values" of configuration of other subsystems...

My motivation is rooted in a different paradigm - ABM-like rather than ordinary system dynamics, so I am not sure I can convety this out of context. I will just give a few short statements as hints. In my view dynamical laws are emergent and replaced, or at least grounded, by stochastically...