Recent content by Fra

I am guessing the presumed objection is not the correspondence itself. But that the a TYPE of indivisible stochastic process is very different from the divisible old style random processes. Thus the "faith" may be required - in order to work more in stochastic pictute - in wether this...

As Barandes does not construct the stochastic process - he has provided a correspondence to QM, and the gamma is constructed from the correspondence using the hilbert/hamiltonian, the scepsism is expected and rationa, similar to Alberts thinking. [This is and was my first objection to Barandes...

I would rather say that to me, that having "probability of histories" out of the way is not peculiar, it is a good sign! Not by a remote chance a defiency. This is because that is imo a "non-physical" context. Which Barandes calls out of empirical reach. But for me that is not a practical...

I now listened to the key part where Albert keeps asking what is the fundamental law but isn't satisfied with Barandes saying "it's just stochastic", while Barandes struggles with understanding the category of answer Albert wants, which seem to reason from the traditional equation/system...

I think at the heart of Barandes proposal and insight (and I fully agree with him even if there are missing pieces of his puzzle) is that Bell's definition and use of locality is not useful to understand natures causal interconnections! It is rather a reciepe for confusion to insist analysing...

My problem with Barandes is mainly this: The gamma matrices are not specified by the theory itself; they are specified from the correspondence; by using the hilbert space representation and the hamiltonian. This in Baranders pictures (as well as it QM! Barandes makes no worse of course) this...

Where does he claim the probabilities for trajectories exist? As far as I recall he has said that trajectories exists and is real, and probabilities for transitions - not trajectorires exist. This is not a contradiction or problem for me though, because the ontology of the trajectories traced...

This is a deeper comment, but to me the conceptualy solution prevents the infinite regress you refer to is: In the generealized theory of measurement and inferences (that we still don't have), I think any question, and any measurment, is strictly contextual. And each context has a natural...

Thanks for another long youtube clip :oldbiggrin: I wonder what there is to learn in it. Skimming Alberts perspective I find his argumentation originating from the paradigm that I probably don't share. The main value of emergence, solves the problem of "why these laws" without fine tuning. If...

It is! It is superior in many ways, in particular as it takes the physics of measurement seriously, that you can't like in classical physics alway reduce the interaction strenght so that you can make inferences without disturbing the system. It also acknowledges that inferences can be...

I didnt mean todo that, but yes we were. But I thought we were disussing possible "explanations" beyond the descriptions, ie how can we "understand" what we know are "facts" here and now. And I suggested the logical possbility that the "explanations" to what is happening here now, locally - is...

The fallacy here is that here you over-extrapolate the acutual domain of corroboration (human scale observation) to apply universally, all the way from creation of the universe[which we cant observe]. This is what is often labeled the "cosmological fallacy". I fully agree that the theory as it...

Empirically well motivated from alot of experiments yes. But understanding a deeper explanation for the specific empirical facts, and their domain of validity is what is missing. /Fredrik

Elevating something to a postulate or axiom, means that within the theory, it is something you do not further need to explain. But a theory (regardless how well corroborated it is) is never more intuitive or understandable than the plausibility of it's the postulates it rests on. As I see it...

I agree with this hook. This was discussed in other threads. Barandes is making good contributions, but the picture he provides is critically incomplete still to serves as a resolution. The specific part is a missing first principle new reconstruction of the transition probabilitites (gamma). So...