Recent content by Fra

Think then of normative probability as the stochastic constraint of a predictive encoder. It not necessarily describing the correct future statistics, it is more like describing the expectations of the future like a "predictive encoder" extrapolating historical patterns, and are normative to...

All descriptive probabilities yes. Descriptive probabilities become normative only when combined with the stationarity assumption, that a limited samples is representative. This assumptions of course holds well for all normal subatomic physics. The timescale for repeating the...

But this view is a plain descrpitive probability of all time history, which in itself has zero predictive value in the situation where you want to guess the near future from a limited sample. Descriptive statistics give no insight into causal mechanisms at all. What I seek is, is a causal...

difference between history and the future? 1st level is that the future is probabilistically known, but probability is contextual to the present. History is a fact if we assume that all historical evens are "recorded" and stored in some non-volatile memory ("macroscopic world" - our objective...

For me the only conceptual resolution to this is the insight that the laws of nature is emergent. I see it like this: Its exactly because nature does not "know" that the natural resolution is stochastic progression, but one that is constrained by interaction history. Each subsystems "random...

Yes I see it as two distinct levels. Confusing them does not help. About 2, i personally would not phrase it as unifying quantum and classical physics, but the promise is much bigger. Yes using conventional probability theory to understand how quantum probability emerge yes, this is partiallt...

My ambition is much larger than that though. I hop it can help unify the intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives. But of course there is "evidence" until someone has filled in the missing parts. But they are related as the instrisic perspectives (micro-local) the view is classical like. The...

In conventional paradigm, the physical dynamical law is essentially encoded in "just" differential equations. I think this can maybe be challenged, with the new perspective of Barandes. But surely "just Gamma" vs "just diffs" is not the improvment IMO. This is exactly my issue as well. But the...

I would say... unlike bell HV, which correlates STATES via objective beables of which we are just ignorant; so we marginalize over them. Barandes constrains the stochastic behaviour (ie this is what replaces dynamical law in his view) of two entangled systems. Stochastic-quantum dictionary says...

I'll try to sharpen the exact place in Barandes exposition where my conceptual issues are and where the ontology is unclear, and the context where I think more research would be extremely interesting. If we start by a more general stochastic process, that is NOT unistochastic, then tsirelson...

For me it is interesting as a first step in preparing for a pardigm change from where the heart of causality, the dynamical law, lives at global system level, to where it lives at microphysical/subsystem level. The two paradigms I envision here are system dynamics, and agent based modelling...

But at least he attempts to give us a new handle: this is where i see a progressed stance, althogh without full solutions. IMO the missing link to make his new conception of causal microphysical law (transition probabilities) is their construction/origin/emergence(*). IF one consider them...

I now skimmed the youtube video and seeing how they argue, I am more convinced that I had some wishful thinking of that paper and the authors new insights, I the insight of questioning the constructing principles seems to be absent from the authors, this is clear in the video as well. Their work...

I thought my third paragraph made it clear, but there is another go before I'm lost for xmas days: This is related to the discussions of quantum version of Einsteins hole argument, as has been elaborated in many plances, but different phrases are used. So its not just the covariance vs...

By "no preferred" vs "equivalence" observer/frame, I simply mean that the latter adds the assumption of existence of some information preserving transformation that makes the equivalence manifest (ie diffeomorphisms). This isn't a speculation about something, just a structural note. I think it...