- #246
Fra
- 4,178
- 619
sounds like leading to via, embedding things in a bigger system. Ie. embedd the non-markovian interactions in a much larger system that is markovian?iste said:There is something kind of like that in the stochastic mechanical interpretation though from a very different perspective to yours. The particle is interacting with a background which is hidden insofar that it is not mentioned explicitly in quantum mechanics. It would be conservative interactions between particle and background which are related to the indivisibility.
for eample https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.00103 ?
This "type" of solution, which is also analogous to how one tries to make true evolution, as a simple entropic dynamics, has the same conceptual flaws and IMO will not solve the problem, without creating more and often bigger problems, which cripples the "explanatory value" of the constructions.
Note sure what this means, did he elaborate more clearly on this somwhere that i missed when skimming?iste said:Yes; for Barandes, the external observer is explicitly modeled as part of the stochastic system.
For me "external observer" is an idealisation and fiction, it has a value to simplify models for small subsystem, but in realist, there are only internal obsevers.
But I think of "internal observers" as a kind of stochastic agents existing in and thus interacting with the environment, but the environment is unknown. But this observers is not "modelled" externally, only other internal observers can model other observers. And two internal observers have different views - non more right than the other one.
Rovelli has a nice quote in the context of this Relational QM (before he goes south...).
"Does this mean that there is no relation whatsoever between views of different observers? Certainly not..."
-- C. Rovelli, Relational Quantum Mechanics
"There is an important physical reason behind this fact: It is possible to compare different views, but the process of comparison is always a physical interaction"
-- C. Rovelli, Relational Quantum Mechanics
So the key question is again, what is the NATURE of this physical interaction? Rovellis answer, was - quantum mechanics. But this is a non-answer, as long as no-one understands quantum mechanics, but then again his interpretation served not to unifiy all interactions, it's mainly to build a quantum theory of gravity. (from there on he goes south IMO.. )
I think the key to the non-markovian nature here is the nature of this physical interaction. Embedding this in a bigger space, is cheating. We need to solve the problem without changing perspective, and that is how I envision a kind of stochastic process but taking place in an unknown space. So the space itself, is evolving as observer moves through it. Which is similar to how GR works. So there is interesting enough, conceptual similarities with the dynamics in space, and the evolution of space - and the stochastic processes in some space, and the evolution of this same space in the quantum foundations. Is it a coincidence? I suspect not? And this thing, is also I think exactly why the markovian divisibility isn't be true; there is "information" not only in the state, but in the state of the space as well, but I think not in the sense of a state embedded in a bigger one; that attempt of explanation totally misses the point of what is to be explained.
/Fredrik