pines-demon said:
I mean something more human level. Imagine that one tries to reproduce an entanglement experiment à la Mermin, you drop some assumption and you get an interpretation. Bohmians remove the idea that particles cannot communicate, superdeterminists remove the idea that detectors are not conspiring with the particles/experimenters, but what would be a good analogy for Barandes?
I would say... unlike bell HV, which correlates
STATES via objective beables of which we are just ignorant; so we marginalize over them. Barandes constrains the stochastic
behaviour (ie this is what replaces dynamical law in his view) of two entangled systems. Stochastic-quantum dictionary says this holds, but WHY this is, in some intuitive way, does not follow from correspondence. He just offers two views, and we can choose in which view, the open problems seems easier to solve. Trying to understand dynamical law and causation.
So I think any answer to your question, must add something that isn't in Barandes papers.
For me the real question here, is where is the physical support, ie what enforces, physical law? The normal system dynamics paradigm of hamiltionian flow certainly does NOT answer this either! Physical law is just assume to be a mathematical constraint that we think nature follows. It certainly raises questions on the nature of causality, even befor Barander paper.
In barandes view, instead of a hamiltonian flow in some statespace, we seen to have a collection of stochastic subsystems where the only "law" is constraints on the transitions. Here the question becomes, how can you enforce such transition probabilities, and have them correlated like in the entangled systems - without a bell type hidden variable? Barandes does not explain WHY. His correspondence just shows - this is true if QM is true.
It is a matter of ambigous interpretation and extrapolation to find the explicit analogy you seek. But what seems most natural to me at least is to think that the correlated stochastic behaviour is mediated with a common evolved history, that is preserved (ie entanglement not broken) as long as the two subsystems are not disturbed by the environment. This does not involve a bell type HV. And stochastic behaviour is not a "state", it is only revelaed when you interact with something. That is exactly what we have in these experiments.
To make this analogy even deeper, one unavoidably enters the kind of speculations we arent supposed to do on here.
/Fredrik