Recent content by pines-demon

Read on correspondence principle here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bohr-correspondence/ As with all Bohr principles, the guy was so cumbersome about it that we do not really use any of his principles anymore only Bohr understood them.

Do you have a reason to put an accent in Barandes -> Barandés? It is not the first time I seen it here.

I mean something more human level. Imagine that one tries to reproduce an entanglement experiment à la Mermin, you drop some assumption and you get an interpretation. Bohmians remove the idea that particles cannot communicate, superdeterminists remove the idea that detectors are not conspiring...

which paper?

Can you provide a simple example of what would that look like?

Sure but I am talking about the dynamics (the indivisible part).

I can’t because I do not have any clear example of this kind of non-Markovian dynamics in other contexts.

A mathematical correspondence is not an interpretation. Is a Wick rotation an interpretation? for me Barandes vision is missing a toy model preferably unrelated to quantum mechanics.

This is the part were I remain skeptic, the dynamics remains nonlocal in the Bell sense but local in Barandes sense. We are repeating the same claims with different wording. Edit: I would be interesting to see which other interpretations are local in Barandes sense, probally every...

Where does he claim that?

As you say, he is saying that there is nothing "spooky" (I disagree). He is trying to focus the conversation on his redefinition of causality. My problem is that all that he has shown is already known. I don't get what is interesting of his causal locality. The real deal is Bell theorem, which...

Again showing this is a play on words and definitions and not really explaining anything.

Sure but we already know quantum mechanics, in any of its interpretation does not violate non-signaling so if by causal locality he means that then it is pointless definition.

In this sentence the heavy lifting is being done by stochastic dynamics. This has nothing to do with what I said.

Skimming through it, it seems that again he throws away Bell's local causality, uses his new "causal locality" and everything is (causally) local again. Ok, but is causal locality locally causal? I guess the answer is no.