Recent content by Morbert

Now you're charging him with not "promoting" a distinction, and you're contriving a misreading. I don't know if there is much substance here for me to respond to. And even if they exist in this narrow metaphysical sense, they are not law-like, and hence we should not expect a theory to reproduce...

He shows we can interpret quantum systems as systems with a definite, classical configuration, evolving unistochastically in time. The ontology is similar to Bohmian mechanics, but without the guiding nomology.

They are Barandes's words. They are in the correspondence paper abstract. He explicitly says "can be". I mean regular and expressible as a law. An omniscient observer might observe something, but that doesn't mean they will observe the same thing again under the same initial conditions. The...

"This paper argues that every quantum system can be understood as a sufficiently general kind of stochastic process." The correspondence is not a necessary condition for the interpretation. Yes we have discussed this earlier, and I said the knowing of something by an omnipotent being does not...

You're confusing criticism of other interpretations (which he does) with insisting a formalism necessitates a metaphysical hypothesis (which he doesn't). I.e. Arguing for the merits of an interpretation by pointing out difficulties in others is clearly distinct from arguing an interpretation is...

From https://arxiv.org/html/2507.21192v1 "Schur-Hadamard products are not widely used in linear algebra, in part because they are basis-dependent. For the purposes of analyzing a given indivisible stochastic process, however, this basis-dependence is unimportant, because the system’s...

His argument is that "every quantum system can be understood as a sufficiently general kind of stochastic process unfolding in an old-fashioned configuration space according to ordinary notions of probability". You are insisting he is arguing the correspondence he establishes forecloses...

The formalism is what allows us to understand quantum systems as a sufficiently general kind of stochastic process, but the formalism does not depend on the interpretation. The formalism is instead justified by its correspondence with standard quantum theory. If you want to interpret these...

@iste is not merely remarking that the interpretation is peculiar. He is framing it as question begging when instead the microphysical ontology of this interpretation is, as Barandes says, "a speculative metaphysical hypothesis", which are standard ingredients to an interpretation.

There's no question begging, as the interpretation, like any other interpretation, is presented as an interpretation, not a self-justifying conclusion.

Most interpretations require some speculative import. But iiuc you are saying this requires some additional contrivance above and beyond other interpretations and I just don't see it. For example, while the conditional probabilities are sparse, the standalone probabilities are not, and...

It sounds like you are saying a definite configuration at all times is an insufficient condition for an actually existing trajectory. Why?

The same phenomenon that induces decoherence in standard QM, induces division events in the new formalism. Barandes characterizes decoherence as "leakage of correlations into the environment when viewed through the lens of the Hilbert-space formulation". Division events can be tied to the same...

There are analogues with decoherence, but division events are entirely deriveable within the new formalism. They occur in descriptions of systems when their information leaks into external degrees of freedom, "when a system is not isolated from a noisy and intrusive environment" [Barandes]. QM...

The particle only couples to the environment once it strikes the detector screen. Before this, it evolves unitarily, and its trajectory to the screen is what is non-markovian under this formalism. If you place a detector at the double slits, then it will be coupled to the environment at the...