Recent content by Morbert

From the paper: I suspect this is the part of the paper that will be most alien to readers (apart from the algebraic QFT which will be esoteric to readers in general). But I think this is not surprising as this thermal interpretation aspect is also the most novel aspect of the paper.

The interpretation would be the conceptualization of a quantum system as a system with a definite classical configuration, evolving stochastically in accordance with non-Markovian dynamics.

From section 3.9 "The decoherent-histories framework" in "The Emergent Multiverse" by Wallace

It offers a reformulation that might prove to be useful beyond foundational/conceptual questions, and there would be no problem in someone adopting the formalism without subscribing to any speculative metaphysical hypotheses. This isn't unusual. E.g. David Wallace makes heavy use of the...

No. The operationalis/instrumentalist account is probabilistic and has no objective collapse. Consistent histories is probabilistic and has no objective collapse. Recent nonmarkovian reformulations are probabilistic and have no objective collapse.

I still need to read the paper properly to give a proper response, but in the AOE section they have "ii. P(a|cd,...)" and "iii. P(b|cd,...)". Since c and d are on the righ hand side of the |, I read these as sparse directed conditional probabilities, conditioned at the time when Charlie and...

I'm not sure what you mean by this but I don't think I agree, and it would take us too far into philosophy for my comfort.

The only relevance systems that partition into a measured system and a measurement device/environment have is they are the systems we are typically interested in. The formalism can be applied in principle to the universe as a whole, or to a single isolated hydrogen atom, never to be measured...

Remember though that in this formalism, the configuration a system or subsystem is in is not indexed to any observer. In which case if the above is a rejection of AOE, then this formalism does not reject AOE.

I don't see how the bit in bold is true if dynamics are non-Markovian. [edit] - I.e.: AOE + Markovian dynamics = joint probability exists no AOE + Markovian dynamics = joint probability doesn't exist AOE + non-Markovian dynamics = joint probability doesn't exist It's not too important. At...

@Sambuco Re/ Wigner's friend:

I am not sure what GSC is. Do you mean GSS (generalized stochastic system)? What Barandes shows is that we can associate any quantum system with a stochastic process unfolding on a classical configuration space of arrangements, and dynamics given by stochastic maps, allowing us to conceptualize...

This stochastic formalism rejects everywhere-divisible dynamics, something Bong et al don't consider. This is perfectly reasonable, given how new this stochastic approach is. But ultimately we can have a conditional probability fail to obtain while any observed event is still "a real single...

Honestly, I'm not, as it is what connects a mathematical result to a physical interpretation. It's what lets you regard a quantum system as a generalized stochastic system with dynamical laws and a microphysical ontology. But I have explained that many times by now.

@iste One reason this discussion has gone on for so long is I wasn't sure I fully understood your concern. But now I'm pretty sure I do, and so I will start to wind down the conversation on my end unless some new aspect not previously articulated is brought up.