Recent content by iste

Nevermind, after thinking about it and looking at Albert's document I can see how my revised view was the wrong picture and can see how the stochastic process describes stuff between measurements but obviously in its limited and constrained way. Nonetheless, from my perspective, the reason the...

I don't understand what you mean, I have just pointed at a fact about the theory that it requires the measurement device as part of the indivisible stochastic process in order for it to produce quantum mechanics. If the theory described things when they were not being measured, this would not be...

They say in the article that formally-speaking the absoluteness assumption implies assumption of joint probability, which is the kind of assumption also violated in indivisibility. But I think the breakdown of this joint probability distribution would be cashed out in terms of mutually-exclusive...

I mean  incomplete in the sense that Barandes says that the indivisible stochastic process cannot account for the phase in the quantum theory it is being translated to unless the measurement device is explicitly incorporated into the stochastic process. The stochastic process of the atuff you...

Your previous post to me. It just seems clear to me that is the indivisible approach cannot account for all the information in the quantum theory it is being translated to without evoking the measurement device, it doesn't make sense that the theory that can be talking about stuff in the...

But it does not give a complete characterization of quantum mechanics without the measurement device as a subsystem of the indivisible stochastic process.

I would say that indivisibility would be closest to the violation of absoluteness of observed events.

Can you source this in his papers?

What is your preferred kind of interpretation mayI ask? I agree don't think Barandes' formulation talks about things when measurement device is there so it doesn't compel a specific perspective deeper ontologies. I may think some make more sense than others but I don't think the formulation can...

Yes, but I would be assuming this anyway if we are talking about beables. And the emergeable / beable distinction isn't necessarily relevant either because a beable is an emergeable when the system is viewed from a different perspective, e.g. position vs. momentum basis.

But positions at different times is also clearly contextual. Either way, if beables are always belong to a specific measurement context, the theorydoes not talk about them outside of a specific measurement context.

Yes, in https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.10778 he seems to acknowledge that there is no meaning to trajectories without constructing higher-order conditional probabilities which he says he leaves to future work: "To the extent that quantum theory is empirically adequate, the higher-order conditional...

But surely this happens all the time elsewhere in science?

Well, I guess there is nothing more to be said. I can only reiterate that with Barandes' stochastic-quantum dictionaries like the one given at the bottom of Morbert's #51 having PVMs baked into the correspondence, I find it hard to justify that the unistochastic transition probabilities can be...

Then make rebuttles to my points: e.g. The unistochastic marginal probabilities are just the Born probabilities: i.e. measured probabilities in QM. The stochastic-quantum correspondence matches the unistochastic transition properties to a Hilbert space representation in terms of projectors...