Recent content by pines-demon

It is just the arrow of time, never heard of thermodynamics time.

Just trying to contribute to the answer of PD here. In some interpretations, like Bohmian mechanics you get the same result every time because it is deterministic. It is deterministic without the need of parallel branches, but with the addition of hidden (nonlocal) variables.

When I first started in PhysicsForums I used to just post links of articles I found interesting. Every time I got various messages telling me "what is interesting??", "do you have a question about it?" and "are you just link dumping articles?". So please consider telling us something personal...

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.