Recent content by Sambuco

A new paper (arxiv:2602.23491) seems relevant to the issues we're discussing here. Given its length, I need to reread it to draw conclusions. In summary, the authors criticize Barandes' formulation/interpretation (particularly in section 7 of the article), pointing out several issues. To mention...

Can we really be sure that the trajectories will be discontinuous? I think so, but the fact that the formalism only deals with epistemic probabilities makes me doubt it. I think he's talking about the creation/annihilation of particles in the relativistic regime (QFT), not the possibility of...

I hope to have a little more time to study the QRP in detail, as I find it very interesting. My pleasure! :smile: Lucas.

In fact, he discussed quantum eraser for a simplified double-slit experiment in the lecture notes I shared in post #342. Lucas.

The mechanism stems from the non-Markovian nature of the stochastic process, meaning that the measurement results depend directly on past particle interactions. This is why I compared it to the operational/textbook interpretation (post #343), which also argues that the correlation is due to the...

Regarding (a), I believe it cannot be deemed merely as a formulation, such as the path-integral, since it postulates a particular ontology, given by the configuration of the systems at each instant in time. Lucas.

I'm not sure what kind of "explanation" you are referring to here, but Barandes' proposal explains the correlation as well as bohmian mechanics does, albeit, of course, in a very different way. I think the novelty lies in the fact that indivisibility provides a justification for rejecting...

Regarding entanglement, I would like to make a brief preliminary comment on how it is addressed from the orthodox/textbook interpretation. When someone asks what causes the correlation between two spatially distant events in an EPRB-type experiment, the answer from orthodox/textbook...

Yes, that's right. It was clear that Maudlin didn't fully appreciate Barandes's interpretation, so much of the talk consisted of Barandes describing the motivation and circumstances that led him to develop his interpretation and, finally, explaining how it works. There wasn't much time left for...

For those interested, Barandes has uploaded several papers (six in total), although two in particular seem relevant to the discussion that has taken place here: A Deflationary Account of Quantum Theory and its Implications for the Complex Numbers In this paper, he discussed Markovian embedding...

Ok, I see. I'm sympathetic to the QRF program since it aligns with my relational view of quantum mechanics. In any case, although both consider that the observer is also made of quantum "stuff", to me von Neumann is merely arguing in favor of the well-known arbitrariness in choosing where to...

What do you mean by that? In my opinion, von Neumann points out that the exact location of the Heisenberg cut is arbitrary, but that it must be somewhere, which could be interpreted as meaning that the observer as a whole cannot be on the side of the observed object. I'm also intrigued by what...

This is a key point! In one of his many talks, Barandes said that, in his formulation, the typical spatial non-locality that arises from the usual interpretations of Bell's theorem can be reinterpreted as a "temporal non-locality". Lucas.

I must say that it would not have been bad if Barandes had chosen other words for his principle of "causal locality", instead of simply swapping the order in "local causality". Lucas.

Following on from what I mentioned in the previous post, these are two different concepts. In the case of QM, we know that it is causally local, according to Barandes' stochastic-quantum theorem, but it is not locally causal, according to Bell's theorem. Lucas.