Recent content by Fra

I would say it rather makes the concept of objective probability less plausible as fundamental in a theory or interpretation where you insist that measurements and expectations are physical interactions and encodings as opposed to armchair mathematical constructs and "not real". Ie. it makes it...

I would want it to be computable for any given confidence level, but a given "computer". So if you imagine an embedding of inifite dimensions, it would have to be constructed as some limit of computable models to be of any use. So I agree that to entertain that the "solution" lies in some...

I read more, not sure from what conceptual background the authors come, but it seems via a detour their main conclusion/insight is simply that we need more than formal deductive systems to find a theory of everthing. I personally didn't need this paper to realise this, although the association...

Interesting topic, I will look into this and comment back. My first hunch is that the conclusion is plausible. But I'm cureious about their arguments... will read and get back. /Fredrik

Spot on. I thini its a matter also of definition of "AOE". As I skimmed the Bong article, this was baked into their definition of AOE? This is why I said I think it's rejected. But definition was theirs, not my choice. IT sort of depends on what you really mean by "absoluteness", just ontic...

Jusy to explain the "philosophy" what I had in mind is not just word plany, its just related to a computational complexity association. But I hoped the conceptual things came acroess without going into details, beucase the details can change without affecting the abstraction. I find that...

If that is as far Barandes ever wants to take it, I think we are missing out making the most of the idea he started. I personally see a different reason, as I have an interential perspective (because making inferences about reality is to me what "we" do). Here I see ontological and...

My issue is this: I agree it's not indexed by an explicit observer, but i see it as indexed by an implicit observer. Unlike qbism and other things, Barandes indeed does not entertain the notion of "observer" or "agent", but the only way Barandes picture makes sense to me is to identify...

The Stochastic-Quantum Theorem (SQT?) is an embedding theorem saying that a general stochastic system GSS can always mathematically be seen as a subsystem in and unistochastic embedding system. This in itself isn't connected to QM. Eq 65 on p9 in arxiv:2309.03085 Then and only then, when we...

The issue here is from my perspective fully analogous to the issue I have with with bell ansats. And what Barandes calls the divisibility assumption in bells ansats. In LF the corresponding "issue" is the assumption AOE (i) on page 4 of arxiv:1907.05607. This is what tries to make the beables...

Ah! Of course, your "error correction" works well! If that was the point then I agree with you. This is what i mean with seeing configuration space as "abstract" but still understandablecin terms to classical probability - not classical mechnics. /Fredrik

The pace of the discussion here went on faster than i could keep up, so not sure where to start rejoin. But in short I have a feeling that iste is trying to get an intuitive handle on the configuration spaces and what they can mean it exotic cases(where classical mechanical models breaks down)...

When discussing "interpretations" my perspective is always on solving the open foundational problems such as for example Reduce fine tuning as it deflates explanatory value (Cosmological constant + SM model parameters or vacuum selection in string theory... all these manual settings suggests we...

I'll get back to this later, have been busy and not had time to add readable posts in the Barandes thread either. I will get back and compare BM with Barandes SQC from a different angle, that illustrate common problems of Bohmian and Barandes picture, but what makes one more palatable. But none...

Fair enough, but I didn't even count Bohmian mechanics, as it introduces so many new issues that are far more impalatable to me that the original problem, seeking increasingly more "improbable" loopholes etc :nb) I only pay attention to it when Demystifier has a "bad day" and presents it like...