iste said:
Which features of Bohm do you find impalatable, out of interest?
When discussing "interpretations" my perspective is always on solving the open foundational problems such as for example
- Reduce fine tuning as it deflates explanatory value (Cosmological constant + SM model parameters or vacuum selection in string theory... all these manual settings suggests we really are missing something, string theory had an ambition here, but traded the SM parameter emergecen for something even worse in the vacuum selection)
- Problem of time (distinction between evolution and dynamics and their different contexts)
- Observer/Measurement problem (meaning and resolution of tension between inferential perspectives)
I think any pure interpretation of a model, in the sense of just thinking differently about the same math will never solve these problems. But it can help identify conceptual handles including different mathematical models that via correspondence make equivalent descriptions/predictions.
My preferences for which interpretations I find palatable are purely rooted in how likely I think their perspectives is to help make progress among the many, likely related, open questions.
I see largest potential using tools like ABM models of evolutionary IGUS, and comparing BM and SQC BM has an akward perspective that does not naturally mate with ABM and IGUS - but SQC does.
One of the key issues is that the nomological guide in both SQC and BM needs to be determined from Schrödinger Eq then via correspondences we get guidance or transition probabilites. This is both unsatisfactory.
But the difference is the nomological guidance in BM sits at global system dynamics level. Ie you need to consider the global system to make an inference about the future, and also specify initial conditions of the global system. This is fine at some Gods view level, but it is invalid for any subsystem view.
In SQC the nomological guidance sits at the subsystem/part level, even if there is a global time dependence, and the stochastic process in time, is independent of the initial conditions of other remote subsystems.
To try to fix the problems in SQC view, seems to be easily merged with ideas from ABM, seeking first principle constructions of the transition probabilities and release ourselves from the schrödiner equation and the hamiltonian. The transition probabilities could instead be perhaps understood as evolutionary atttractors in some way. This is possible thanks to the fact that Barances moves the dynamical law, from system level to stochastic subsystemlevel.
To fix the problem in the BM view, seems hard, beacse the causal rules is hardcoded at global, system level. But an real observer is a subsystem, and inferences at system level seems to be out of information capacity bounds for a real observer. And although mathematically a possibile in a descriptive sense, it gets opaque as it hides the constructing principle of internal interactions, which is alos why it gives apparent non-local effects, but I have no idea how to work with it from the inference perspective or how it helps a real observes learn about its environment - which I see as the central task; and how it describe it from the inside and not from an gods view.
So the main key is the level of where the nomological constructs work. System dynamics as universal paradigm is deeeply problematic, because it emergence there are usually more like dynamica attractors, that are essentially fine tuned via initial conditions or priors. With a bigger model of evolutionary attractors, self-organisations fixes the fine tuning as part of hte physical process. The only problem is that, the evolutionary changes can't always be captured bt a timeless law; ie embedded in a higher dimension. Trying to do that misses the point as it keeps trying to put the ruling constraints in a bigger fictional embedding.
/Fredrik
