Recent content by iste

I'm not making a claim that there's something metaphysical or ontological about QFT; I am saying it implies a metaphysics or ontologies regarding the universe that are radically different than before its conception.

No, you can have a process with trajectories that move randomly but at the ensemble-level it is described by the probability density function evolving deterministically. The deterministic Schrodinger evolution is arguably analogous to the deterministic Fokker-Planck evolution which can describe...

But random processes can also be described eith a deterministic time-evolution so I don't think the fact Schrodinger evolution is deterministic necessarily indicates anything.

I think I change my mind, thinking about it; I think more assumptions and interpretation of what the probabilities are or are not about is needed to say they violate Kolmogorovan probability axioms. But they look like they do at face-value.

Sure, but then you cannot create a function here interpretable as a joint probability that satisfies all of the Kolmogorov axioms! If thats not appropriately called "non-Kolmogorov" then I guess its a semantics issue of the name used to refer.

But isn't the quantum phase-space (formulation) characterized by a breakdown in Kolmogorvianity? Or from generic hidden-variables perspective, non-Kolmogorovianity is a consequence of underlying Kolmogorovanity + context-changes.

I have lost track of the thread arguments, so can I ask what is the sigbificance and consequence of this statement again for entanglement swapping regarding Bohmian mechanics (and orthodox)?

New Barandes paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04354

Thomas Kuhn lecture about early days of quantum physics.

Fair enough, that sounds similar to my criticism in the thread.

Yes, 100%. The aim of serious Bohmians and Barandesians might be partly to see if what we find intuitive can hold in quantum theory, which would arguably make a simpler solution to both measurement problem and classical limit. From my perspective, measurement disturbance would itself could...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this if these values have probabilities given by the central correspondence equation of the theory. You don't have to interpret the inequality you give as b not having any physical meaning - a measurement of b just disturbs c, like Bohmian effective...

Wave realism is exactly the opposite of what Barandes is going for, and his formulation can be applied to fields such that you have a perspective of fields based on classical-like configurations, and which is not wave-realist (or operator-realist aa such). I also give a link to another...

You can call an indivisible stochastic process anything you want, it doesn't change anything about the fact it has no necessary connection to stochastic trajectories. You don't actually know that if you're not going to actually demonstrate it. And the only examples that do exist, mainly...

What is it about the indivisible approach that attracts you though; i would have thought to our kind of perspective doesn't necessarily need this kind of indivisible view?