Recent content by Sambuco

I'm sharing a link to a paper by Wiseman & Cavalcanti that compares the two versions of Bell's theorem and how the two different camps ("realists" and "operationalists") react to them. An earlier work by one of the authors (Wiseman), although very similar, delves much deeper into Bell's papers...

J. S. Bell, "The theory of local beables", Epistemological Lett. 9 (1976). Lucas.

I have the same feeling. There is much discussion about this, since the "locality" assumption that Bell defines in his 1964 paper is closely related to the idea of "parameter independence" or "non-signaling", rather than to his later "local causality". The problem is that the notion of locality...

Although I'm fully on board with the "operationalist" view, I agree that some passages in Englert's text are somewhat problematic, beyond what @Matterwave mentions about "violation of Bell's theorem" not being a good way to refer to "violation of Bell's inequalities." For example: "And just...

I have to say I've never been a big "fan" of the Frauchiger-Renner no-go theorem because of these kinds of issues. I find local friendliness no-go theorem much clearer. Continuing somewhat with what I said in the previous post, I think part of the discussion surrounding the Frachiger-Renner...

While what you say isn't "wrong", of course, it's not how things are usually viewed in an ##\psi##-epistemic interpretation like QBism or RQM. Let me explain. In RQM, the central role is played by events ("the friend saw spin up"), and the wave function is only (and nothing more than) a way to...

Oh, I think I understand what you're saying now. Assumption (ii) about "definite outcomes" is a way of saying that it's a single-world interpretation. That is, when the friend measures the spin of the particle, he obtains a definitive result (spin up, for example) and that's the end of it, there...

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're saying, but in any case, I think an example might help. Let's take the Wigner's friend experiment. Suppose that when the friend measures the spin of the particle in the z-direction, he observes spin up. Therefore, spin up is a fact relative to the...

To learn about Brukner's point of view, you can read this paper. Lucas.

PBR theorem rules out ontological models in which the wave function plays an epistemic role. Common ##\psi##-epistemic interpretations (Copenhagen, QBism, RQM) do not correspond to ontological models, since they presuppose that the wave function is the most complete possible representation of a...

Since I don't think anyone has mentioned it before, I'm sharing this paper where Del Rio and Renner respond to Polychronakos' work. Lucas.

Since I am a "relational guy" :wink: I would like to clarify a few points about how RQM deals with Wigner's friend experiment. The description is correct, but I would remove the word "effective," as it suggests that there is another, more fundamental state than the one assigned by the friend...

In order not to distract the discussion too much, I would like to focus on this statement because I think it is the core of the confusion. Before the swap, the quantum state is (eq. (1) in Ma's paper): ##\ket{\psi}_{1234} = \ket{\psi^-}_{12} \otimes \ket{\psi^-}_{34}## As I demonstrated, it...

As I said before, my previous #198 is not a suggestion that Ma's eq. (1) and (2) are the same, but rather a mathematical proof. Seriously, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to help. It is not my intention to confront on personal terms. In fact, I appreciate the vehement way you discuss...

I have provided you with a mathematical proof that Ma's eq. (1) and (2) are the same. If you don't understand we can help you, but stop talking nonsense. Lucas.