Recent content by Fra

It is true that there is an apparent "circularity" here, but it is indeed part of the open problem. Especially when you try to summarize this briefly, as to keep this on topic. There is a chicken and egg situation. What comes first, the observer or the observed etc. Do you explain one in terms...

I meant, the whole construction of quantum mechanics, with state preparations and repeated statistics, and tomography IMO requires a "background" where the units of spacetime, including clocks are defined. IF you change this background context, then the whole quantum phenomenology as deformed...

To me it's problematic because this "spacetime" implies an external observer. It's not a problem for any particle physics experiment, but it is conceptually a problem for unification questions. I figured, but what i described would reverse of that logic. Ie. the qbist stands imo more naturally...

Yes agreed, and we can leave it at that, I guess we also get no further clues to the interpretational issues of relativity. I was trying to elaborate a bit as i think the KG/Dirac that is the standard example of introducting relativistic QM in a heuristic manner, with a tang that never left...

Not sure why i got back to this old thread, but regarding the OT and "relativistic interpretation of QM" I think indeeed the introduction of fermions (which are as we know hardware to understand classical, what "IS" a fermion really?), and it's relations to bosons (and thus the KG -> Dirac)...

I think there are two issues with electrical currents in the body. 1) At once extreme is tissue damage ~ internal or external burns, but this takes quite some energy. 2) But long before that at much lower energies the main risk of cardiac arrythmia which is the main issue to start with...

Alot can be said about that "defintions" of states and measurements are cast in the language of linear algebra as the mathematical structure used in QM is based on assuming the "wavefunctions" form linear spaces...even with that in place people do "interpret".. Assmuing you are approaching this...

I don't agree the essence of the ideas are traditional Bohmian philosophy. I do however see a conceptual relation to the non-traditional "solipsist hidden variables", even thought that is only conceptually, the actual theory is still missing. But as I see it, agent-defined "solipsist" hidden...

This is a good question, and while it is a mathematical concept in the abstractions, just like there are different "interpretations" of probability, that must somehow be reflected in physical view of "sampling". In a pure minimal statistical interpretation, like the typical one for QM, the...

The conceptual idea in several your links are indeed just in line with what I mention! although there are many deep and difficult open problems with the approaches, so tricky that I think many are rejected by the ideas. Some quotes from the references illustrating the conceptual hooks...

Yes I think it's related... 1) Different observers generally have different incompatible information, this may sometimes be cured by transformations that defines the communication, and this is then related to interaction terms. When no transformations exists, perhaps one can consider the...

That term, is from Barandes... You are right of course Bell did not use that term, neither do I, but however we label it, it is IMO one of two key assumptions going into Bell's ansatz. I mean this ansatz in Bells's paper -- https://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/files/vol1p195-200_001.pdf IMO, if...

Given that Barande rejects the markov divisibility (which is the KEY problem in Bell ansatz that is essentially the same as the "physicists ignorance" assumption) then we do NOT have kind of causality that bells theorem applies to, so it's fair to give it a new name. I think it's not just a...

This is the point. My view, and I think that is one Barandes keys as well is that the ansatz of Bell simply does not apply to the general case. Barandes puts is so that markov divisibility is wrong in the general case - and them specificially in the case of quantum interactions. The difficulty...

I planned to comment more detail but lodbrok responded well on the filtering part so no need to rephrase that. So I will shorten my comments, and focus on what I think the key points and the focus of the thread? As already said in the thread, the full unfiltered data at Alice/1 & Bob/4 is not...