Recent content by Morbert

He would know the frequencies, but the question is whether those frequencies would be describable by some regular lawlike expression. E.g. If, to derive these frequencies, we would need access to the enormous record of the existing configuration at all times, that's not useful to us mortals.

In configuration space, yes in a sense (this discontinuity would make it hard to build a phase space representation). So long as it's understood that it always has a configuration at any time. There is no time where it has actually disappeared.

It is a trajectory through ordinary configuration space so e.g. a quantum theory of a free particle would correspond to a particle with a definite position evolving stochastically. A field theory would correspond to fields with definite configurations etc.

It wouldn't be continuous. It would not at all be classical, or Bohmian-like. Our glimps would be the standalone distribution ##p(t)## and the sparse conditional probabilities ##p(i,t_i | j,t_j)## from which we can infer the likelihood of outcomes of tests on the system. The trajectory would be...

An omniscient observer would not have to use our physical laws. They would know the actually existing trajectory: They would know the definite configuration of the system at any time. The actually existing trajectory is not generated by our laws. Instead our laws codify what we can say about...

100% agree here. This sounds like an objection against probabilistic dynamics in general, not just this interpretation. E.g. Standard QM will provide a probability distribution over coarse-grained trajectories, without selecting one that actually happens. Is it your opinion that there must be...

The paper expands on the unification. Both classical and quantum physics would share a common ontology, and classical dynamics would emerge from quantum dynamics.

What do you mean by incoherent here? I can understand a personal rejection on some normative grounds about how an interpretation ought to be, but stochastic maps as dynamics of systems with definite trajectories is logically consistent and readily conceptualized.

arXiv:2601.18720v1 is a good find (another very recent one that may be of interest is arXiv:2602.22095). It is good to see discourse emerging in literature, beyond imprecise podcasts. For the purposes of this thread it's good to keep the distinction between specific practical significances or...

We're happy to accept that, if our dynamics are Markovian, then interactions between two systems can cause classical correlations. Why are we less happy to accept that, if our dynamics are more general/non-Markovian, then interactions between two systems can cause stronger...

As a quick aside: People like Peres and Fuchs only maintain that a theory that describes a microscopic reality and reproduces the predictions of QM is nonlocal. From "Quantum Theory Needs No Interpretation"

Ok, so long as it's understood that the selection of a decoherent set amounts to the identification of a set relevant to us at the time, and not an additional axiom of the theory. Different selections of a decoherent set don't amount to different, competing quantum theories.

A quick comment about the decoherent histories section: "To give decoherent histories meaning in the context of an unobserved universe, one set of histories must be selected objectively in such a way that the decoherence condition is satisfied." If by objective you mean a more correct or...

What's nice about DH is it's an interpretation of any quantum theory. I.e. any theory with a non-commutative algebra of observables. For concrete examples, these papers by Hartle (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9304006, https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9508023) skectch some examples of histories in...

I mean plainly that the physical system of a human observer can always be placed on the "observed" side of the divide, as explained by von Neumann. I.e. It was understood by von Neumann that the body of an observer has a quantum mechanical description. The Scientific American article describes...