Recent content by iste

Imo, this is just over-reading incidental phrases. If Barandes was seriously about promoting some kind of distinction then he would explicitly assert statements about the difference. Possibly, but if frequentist probabilities sufficiently characterized in terms of something like law-of-large...

Those are your words, not Barandes'. I just don't think the opinions you are saying reflect what it seems to me that Barandes is saying in his talks and papers. I am not criticising the interpretation as such, I am criticizing how Barandes seems to be presenting the connection between the...

Interpretation in the sense of any regular quantum interpretation. There is the Hilbert-space formalism, and then how people choose to interpret that. I am talking about how, in the same way, there is the indivisible stochastic formalism and then how you give an interpretation to that formalism...

Theres no transparent distinction between formalism and interpretation here, putting interpretation in a nice box unambiguously distinct from interpretation-independent formalism. I don't know if this description has any interpretation in it. You could list off orthodox quantum axioms like that...

Well you'll have to point out the distinguishing going on because it's not immediately apparent to me when watching that.

This is a fine criticism if there is evidence that Barandes transparently distinguishes interpretation from formalism. Point it out. I already discussed it earlier. If there are definite trajectories and a particle has a definite position at all times in an experimental trial then logically...

But he doesn't transparently distinguish formalism from interpretation and even makes specific arguments against other interpretations like Bohm, Many-worlds, Copenhagenism. The distinction between a "general stochastic process" (which could be a misnomer given what is said in the arxiv paper I...

Barandes has never made this distinction though. He presents it as one indivisible approach. And if the interpretation is different from the formalism then I would say it is incomplete in the sense that the most successful interpretations that postulate trajectories are accompanied by...

I disagree. I think its throughout his lectures; interviews; and papers, his interpretation and the formalism are put in one box and a clear distinction between them is never made. I think Barandes thinks the formalism justifies his interpretation, but I don't think it does. If Barandes does not...

Sure, but the supposed philosopical contribution of the indivisible approach is compromised because you can't say it implies any novel interpretation without begging the question and presupposing that interpretation. If the formalism doesn't specify a trajectory then I can interpret it in anyway...

It is a sufficient condition (for possibly discontinuous trajectories) but you can't get this out of the thoery. You have to import it, postulate it yourself. The theory is so sparse that there is no notion that describes a single, individual particle as having taken a definitive path because...

This is a mistake, and should read: "What is most salient to me is the suggestion that Barandes' interference has nothing to do with, perhaps even inconsistent with the paper's preferred notion of indivisibility which is pretty big given that a bunch of ither stuff like superposition...

From what I read, this paper seems to imply some serious ambiguities in Barandes' work about what indivisibility actually mean, and when you use the characterization the paper thinks is best, his definitions just don't add up. What is most salient to me is the suggestion that Barandes'...

I feel like there can't be a fact of the matter if Barandes' formalism doesn't tell you how to construct trajectories. Saying they're discontinuous I think must come from an outside assumption. But I thino just because you cannot see a reason why trajectories wouldn't allow discontinuity isn't...

No, all physically meaningful probabilities. If you have a probability describing a physical system that is not approximated frequentially when you repeat a scenario indefinitely, then that probability is wrong. Well it depends on your notion of causality or laws; but I am not proposing to...