Recent content by iste

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?

I would say that an "indivisible stochastic process" is not a stochastic process. It doesn't have the multi-time joint probabilities to be interpreted as such and has nothing to say about those things. It is just a set of conditional probabilities which has nothing to say or even entail about...

Sure, but the quantum dictionary and the Born rule basically have the same form. The difference is kind of trivial, and I think that can be used to make point. No one interprets the Born rule as giving you a stochastic process, only a probability. And so how can the dictionary give you anything...

He is just postulating their existence. There is nothing in the formalism saying that there are multi-time joint probabilities. He is saying you can choose your own joint probabilities that marginalize to these conditional probabilities. But my point is that without sone further formal result...

Yes, its definitely a Kuhnian shift as it introduces something that implies a new ontology or metaphysics that didn't exist before. I think another poster Bhobba said something like you cannot get non-relativistic quantum mechanics out of relativistic quantum field theory, only a relativistic...

Yes, but Barandes explicitly says that such a process exists underlying the indivisible probabilities. He is saying there is an objective stochastic process of the kind you are objecting to, but we just don't have epistemic access to it. And I am saying that if you are postulating such objective...

No, the correspondence is between the operator formalism and a conditional probability in a manner no fundamentally different to the Born rule as a correspondence. You can postulate that these conditional probabilities can be found by marginalizing a stochastic process but this is an...

A stochastic process has to have multi-time joint probabilities. Barandes theory doesn't give you any which means that the quantum-stochastic correspondence doesn't actually define a correspondence to a stochastic process, only to some probabilities. If the stochastic-quantum correspondence...