Dear Jiri,

I think my answer to your modified QM is contained in my last sentence above.

The empirically well established wave function that I am referring to is defined in configuration space, and hence nonlocal. If it is used consistently (as in decoherence theory), you may call it “real” (if you like). Indeed, individual states of isolated…[Read more]

The irreversible “dislocalization of superpositions” over many degrees of freedom (decoherence) is an objective process that leads to dynamically automous “branches”. This does not require any bipartition. However, since this dislocalization does not eliminate the superposition globally, its importance for what we observe can only arise from the…[Read more]

I tried to emphasize that – similar to Everett – I am assuming the existence of fundamental “observer” systems, which need only be vaguely known to be localized somewhere in the brain for this purpose. (It would be great if you could find out more about them!) All other subsystems are a matter of convenience, and usually chosen as local systems,…[Read more]

Dear Miroljub,

my point was that your arguments regarding definitions are correct but irrelevant for the measurement problem in terms of Everett. Nothing ever “branches” objectively in any definition. Instead of repeating my arguments let me invite you to read pp. 14-15 and pp. 18-19 of my first reference.

We may simply be discussing different…[Read more]

Dear Miroljub,

you are certainly right that concepts like entanglement or decoherence depend on an arbitrary definition of systems (subsystems of the universe). Therefore, branches cannot (and need not) be exactly defined; these branches are merely a matter of convenience.

What IS important is a concept of local observers that is compatible…[Read more]

Mark, I hope your proposal and its relation to the empirical world and to our generally quite successful concepts and theories (including quantum mechanics) will be further discussed and explained in the main workshop.

Regarding its classification, my “hidden variables” were certainly meant to be understood in a causal picture (which you seem to…[Read more]

One more re-Mark: If you presume the path integral, you certainly presume the wave function (or the SPP). But what is its interpretation if you also presume hidden variables?

Mark, I don’t understand your model sufficiently (and it would not be my job) to define its meaning and intentions, but you have already indicated what you may have in mind. (That’s enough for a tentative classification.) So I am not yet ready for a discussion in detail, but I wonder how you describe or explain your “events” (and their pro…[Read more]

Thanks, Ruth – although I did not recognize a universal ontic wave function that explains definite measurement outcomes.

Thanks, Ruth, your second paragraph is precisely what I tried to suggest and what hopefully will help us not to misunderstand each other. Can you recommend a paper (or part thereof) where the transactional model is generally defined (if possible without relying on pedagogical examples a la Wheeler-Feynman, that is, without using classical…[Read more]

There is indeed considerable confusion about the most pressing problems of quantum theory and, depending on them, their possible solutions. It is even more unfortunate that this confusion seems to be accompanied by a certain amount of prejudice (for or against some kinds of proposals). Since it seems that statements starting with ”I believe that ……[Read more]