There are some interesting papers ("Quantum theory from rules on information acquisition" and Quantum theory from questions) that derive quantum mechanics from principles closely related to Rovelli's formulation. However, they do not go beyond a reconstruction of the formalism.
Lucas.
That's possible. However, absoluteness of observed events is closely related to a certain kind of relationality, and Barandes says: "This interpretation has a thoroughly realist orientation, and does not entail parallel universes, nor does it involve perspectival or relational notions of...
I wonder how Barandes' interpretation deals with some recent no-go theorems, such as this work by the Cavalcanti group. It gives up locality assumption?
Lucas.
Interesting! I suppose that, given the stochastic-quantum correspondence, such post-selected transition maps should also be valid in Barandes's formulation. In any case, I was referring to the case without a which-slit detector, but rather to a conventional double-slit experiment (source, slit...
I think it's possible to distinguish the stochastic-quantum correspondence theorem from an interpretation based on a specific ontology. Barandes favors an interpretation of the formalism where there is a configuration of the system for each instant in time, but I don't think that's the only...
I agree with your last two posts. Thanks @Morbert! :smile:
As an aside, it seems to me that Barandes's formulation does not necessarily imply an ontology where the configuration of the system is defined at every instant. Therefore, I believe the formulation is compatible with an interpretation...
No. What I said (or at least tried to say) is that if there is information (even in the environmental degrees of freedom) about the outcome of the event at ##t'##, this makes it a division event, and the standalone probability of a future event is exactly ##p_i(t) = \Gamma_{ij}(t \leftarrow...
I agree, but... The issue I tried to address in my last post is about how it is possible, within Barandes's formulation, to restrict the system configuration for ##t > t'## to only one of the possible branches, while still preserving the other branches for those cases with superobservers...
I will attempt to describe a position that seems reasonable to me. First, transition matrices define a nomological entity that is only relevant to the extent that we have (contingent) information about the outcome of an event. That is, given a division event at ##t'##, the standalone probability...
I think the main motivation for the collapse postulate is that repeated measurements should yield the same outcomes.
That's true if, knowing that the system configuration is ##q_j## at ##t'##, we postulate the transition map ##p_i(t) = \Gamma_{ij}(t \leftarrow t')##, but you said that this is...
I think you're confusing two different things. For interference to occur, the different branches of the wave function must recombine into a single one, to put it briefly. That's not my argument. What I'm saying is that, even with the branches quite far apart, the configuration of the system can...
If I understand correctly, you're saying that, in some way, all the branches are still present, even though the probability of interference is negligible. Now, how does the model account for the system's configuration corresponding to only one of those branches? How does it differ from a model...
I'm not sure which of the following two possibilities you're referring to when you say that ##p(z_i\omega_i, t | z_j\omega_j,t') = \Gamma_{ij}(t\leftarrow t')## doesn't represent the exact dynamics:
1. The transition matrix doesn't accurately reflect the dynamics because the division event...
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but after a division event isn't the definition ##p(z_i\omega_i, t | z_j\omega_j,t') = \Gamma_{ij}(t\leftarrow t')## equivalent to the collapse postulate? If that is the case, Barandes' formalism is equivalent to quantum mechanics based on Hilbert spaces and...