Recent content by Morbert

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...

"Inserting the observer into the Schrödinger equation, it seems, allows transformative new perspectives on century-old questions." Von Neumann effectively did this almost a century ago in his Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. I.e. While there is an observer-observed divide, the...

The latter Zeilinger paper maps nicely onto section VIII of Barandes's new prospects paper. We have 7 subsystems: particles 1,2,3,4 (which we will relabel P, Q, R, S) and Alice, Bob, and Charles (A, B, and C respectively). The initial state, before any preparation into Bell states...

Some links that might be relevant. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.16935 In section VIII the formalism is applied to a basic EPR scenario. https://shared.jacobbarandes.com/documents/double-slit-interference-unistochastic-lecture-notes Lecture notes on the double-slit experiment...

I just don't see the interpretational challenge. At each time the system is in a definite configuration, with a likelihood given by the dynamics.

The configuration space isn't Markovian or non-Markovian. It's the ordinary configuration space of classical physics.

You just read off the ontology from the configuration space on the stochastic side of the correspondence.

Objective collapse and no-objective-collapse theories disagree about what happens in the realm of superobservers. Barandes's interpretation is staunchly in the no-objective-collapse camp in this regard. And I wouldn't agree that it doesn't reach the level of a standard interpretation. The...

Note that causal locality here refers to Barandes's principle, not Bell's principle of local causality.

Yes. The question is whether the Bell sense actually captures the notion of nonlocal influence if dynamics are non-Markovian. From "La Nouvelle Cuisine" If dynamics are non-Markovian, then the full specification of beables in region 3 will not sufficiently specify what happens in the backward...

@Sambuco said it well here: In Barandes's reformulation, the derived conditional probabilities can pertain directly to microphysical configurations of the measured system. This permits a stronger inference from the no-signalling principle: That microphysical systems, spacelike-separated for the...

@selfsimilar Your concerns are somewhat vague. As a starting point: Do you accept that the above approach is consistent with the predictions of textbook QM?