Recent content by gentzen

Lack of "causal power" means something slightly different than lack of causality. Lack of "causal power" occurs for example if trajectories in Bohmian mechanics are allowed to be discontinuous, but without specifying any rules for the discontinuities. Or rather, the only rule for the...

ETH, Ithaca, ...?

What I understood from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35118/can-the-montevideo-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-do-what-it-claims is

Yes, in "quantum foundations". That is why I said "normally": This is about understanding Barandes' motivations, not necessarily about agreeing with him.

Here is Barandes' own definition from the abstract:

If you want to read something recent from Jacob Barandes, I would rather go with Barandes certainly has his reasons why he proposed his "indivisible stochastic process" interpretation: A wavefunction in configuration space is not a thing we would normally call "real". So he goes with a...

I didn't know that Omnes takes that position (or has taken that position at some point in the past). So when you group Griffiths with Hartle, you are basically just objecting to the common grouping of Omnes and Griffiths?

Not for me. The worst offender is Depending on how one interprets this, either all proponents of CH would trivially agree with it, or else even Robert Griffiths would strongly disagree. I guess you had the interpretation in mind were everybody would trivially agree. But on the other hand, you...

Honestly, I find this description unnecessarily ambiguous. And assuming you had used clearer language, would different CH proponents really disagree on this technical level? And I disagree with your claim that Griffiths would share the position of Hartle and Gell-Mann. I am certainly not alone...

Well, you can tell a story where the system has ... You can also tell another story, consistent with itself and measurement results, but inconsistent with the previous story. That is a bit different from Bohmian mechanics, where there is only one story, which is unique. But the independence...

The path is a possible consistent story. But it is not the only possible story. In this sense, it is not physically real. But it is more than just a probability function.

The formalism offers a way to have coarse grained descriptions and their compatible refinements. You are supposed to use those coarse grained description in a suitable way to allow reasonable stories for the experimental setup under discussion. In this sense, the path is one the system might...

Are you aware that CH also has a formalism? Is your tough time related to that formalism? Or more to boiling down CH to „some essence“ that can be easily compared with other interpretations?

At least CH does not reject this statement, if you limit the meaning of „trajectory“ to suitably coarse grained descriptions.

On the mathematical level of the Schrödinger equation, 'preparation' (~= initial values) and 'measurement' are defined as mathematical operations. It could also make sense to explicitly define 'control' as a combination of 'measurement' and 'classical action taken in response to measured result'...