iste said:
My inclination is that emergeables must be as real as beables. In terms of measurement and the Born rule they seem on equal footing. The only difference is that one isn't explicit in the stochastic process; it seems implicit (e.g. in the averaged dynamics) but equally real property of the world, not just of a measuring device. I haven't seen anywhere to my knowledge Barandes' formulation actually picking some preferred beable perspective on the universe; I believe he has even said his formulation is open about ontology. Surely his dictionary would allow you to take any quantum observable and make it a beable. Position beable where momentum is emergeable. Momentum beable where position is emergent.
Spin is an interesting example. Personally, I think that the outcomes of a spin measurement plausibly may very well be entirely a property of spin "measurements" in the moment rather than outside of the measurement. But I don't actually know, obviously. Just seems plausible to me. But surely, even though Barandes talks about spin as an emergeable from dilation, couldn't you describe or directly translate quantum spin as a beable? If that is the case, what would the stochastic process of the unmeasured universe (the spin part) between measurements represent if spin outcomes really were something that only exists after the measurement interaction. In that case, the spin beable between measurements couldn't be real in general but would have an instrumentalist interpretation. It seems to me that even though cases like position and momentum beables / emergeables can be seen as equally real between measurements arguably (albeit measurements will be disturbing), the formulation doesn't seem able to in and of itself specify what the stochastic process representing something in the universe means if it is plausible that outcomes of spin measurements are created in the moment of measurement. How could that stochastic process mean something outside of measurement if the outcomes being described only turn up after the measurement interaction? But maybe they don't, you tell me.
The pace of the discussion here went on faster than i could keep up, so not sure where to start rejoin. But in short I have a feeling that
iste is trying to get an intuitive handle on the configuration spaces and what they can mean it exotic cases(where classical mechanical models breaks down) such as fermion spin states.
I think this is good to contemplate, but my way to handling this would required stepping outside of the basic SQC itself. The the line between reflection and speculation becomes fine IMO.
I have a feeling Morbert tries to stick more cleanly to SQC in the discussion, buy you want to get and understnading of it from your perspective. I symphatise with this.
SQC says there is a GSC and thus a configuration space, that correspondes to fermion dynamics in hilbert space. But what does it mean to understand the configuration space? It's just an mahtmaticla correspodence?
To me such understanding come first when we have a (first principle) the configuration space (and thus beables) from a minimal starting point. A starting point simple enough that noone will need further explanation. Ie we need to explain emergence of the "fermion" configuration space. This is something i can imagine when interpreting the GSC from ABM perspective, but then we are not discussing Baranders paper and its direct speculation. I simply can't offer a good answer without som speculation, so this is where it will have to stop to respect the formum guidlines.
The closes reflection that may be rooted in some issues of Barandes picture is that, I would say the "observer indepedence" of the division events is still dependent of how the total system is divided in subsystems. This is the non-trivial part, where I think the physics hides. If you divide a total system into parts, and insist that that is what you have, you need to ADD information. The division is simply ambigous. But Barandes SQC doesnt worry about that. The correspondence is there for any division. But different divisions describes a differnt physical system. And when you push this up to the "total universe" and consider a "closed system", you may thinkg that this is objective, but I disagree with that. I think - again via my projections from ABM and IGUS thinking the interal processes and decompositions correspond to "internal processes" of the system. Ie. internal "computations". An IGUS can be imagined to have different substructures, divide memory to entertain complementary data at hte same time, but in a shared mode (implying a generalized uncertainty relation). This is just general comments, without adding specific specualtiosn.
Then it means, different internal reorganisations of a system, although not immediately visible from outside, does make it a different "observer". This is why in my thining AOE does not hold. It hold if you freeze the ambigous division of the whole system. But for me, it is clear that the division into parts carries physical content.
This I think may also create beables from emeargables, via interal reorganisations. After all the "configuration space" is generically ABSTRACT space. It does not necessarily need to have a simple correspondence to a 3D classical mechanicsm model. I view the configuration space, information theoreitcally as a choice of the IGUS encoding.
Barandes SQC does not explain this, and he is also somewhat agnosic of the meaning of the space, just like the meaning of hilbert space is even more obscure. But the GSC is at least classically looking from each inside perspective. But not from the system perspective. So it is a step forware but more work todo? I would only guess that Barandes would both expect and appreciate discussing potential connections to the correspondence. That is how i see its value. It does not immediately solve all the problems. I think he encouraged others to examine what the GSC would mean for various systems in one of his youtube interviews.
I hope it is clear that I am not putting forward any speculation here, I am just hinting general potential directions for sake of reflecting on SQC from different perspectives.
/Fredrik
