
Jiri Soucek replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
Dear Shan,
I am suprised that you consider the psiepistemic view together with the idea that all observables have preexisting values.
I understand the psiontic view as the standard assumption that each pure state represents the possible state of an individual system. For me the psiepistemic view means that not all pure states represent the…[Read more] 
Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
Thnx for the reply, Yehonatan. You don’t need to concern yourself with the details of our approach, as you noted it doesn’t bear directly on your specific motives. I just wanted you to be aware of the fact that your 4D global perspective has company đź™‚

Shan Gao replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your interesting comments, some of which I basically agree.
But I think you misunderstood my paper. The paper does not aim to show the (realist) psiepistemic view cannot solve the measurement problem. Rather, it only shows that the psiepistemic view does not provide a straightforward resolution or a dissolution of the…[Read more]

Matthew Leifer replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
Shan,
We have had so many discussions about this now that I am beginning to think that you are being deliberately obtuse, and trying to court controversy where there ought to be none.
Let me first note that not all ontological models solve the measurement problem, psiepistemic or not. Some do and some don’t. Since Bohmian mechanics can be fit…[Read more]

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
Yehonatan, I read your paper. Is it published someplace, so we can reference it? Your approach shares many of the values found in the Relational Blockworld. See http://www.ijqf.org/wps/wpcontent/uploads/2015/06/IJQF2015v1n3p2.pdf.

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
Shan, there is no superdeterminism in retrocausality with global constraints. Superdeterminism entails a timeevolved story per the Newtonian schema (NS), i.e., invoking a physical mechanism that “causes” the experimentalist to make certain choices. In Wharton’s Lagrangian schema (LS), the explanation is spatiotemporally holistic, e.g., Fermat’s…[Read more]

Arthur Fine replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
Shan, Thanks for the post. Here are a few thoughts.
1. You catchout the ontogical models view at a weak point. For what they call “psiepistemic” has to do with possible overlap of ontic states in the preparation of distinct state functions. But that has nothing to do with explaining collapse on measurement. In the earlier literature, as in…[Read more]

Ken Wharton replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
Mark: concerning “realist psiepistemic view”. There’s no problem with the basic idea, so long as “realist” clearly modifies “view”. But a different parsing might make it seem that “realist” modifies “psi”, which would imply exactly the opposite of psiepistemic (psiontic). That’s all I was getting at… đź™‚

Ken Wharton replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
Shan: I’m not sure what you mean by “essential randomness”, or whether that would be ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But you are correct to imply that if there is some ‘special observable’ A in the real system that is perfectly correlated with the measurement B that we utilize on that system, then this correlation needs to be explained causally.
One option is…[Read more]

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
Ken, why do you think “realist psiepistemic view” is “an interesting choice of words”? The title of our last RBW paper in IJQF was “Relational blockworld: Providing a realist psiepistemic account of quantum mechanics” which we wrote after extensive correspondence with you.

Ken Wharton replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
Thanks for this, Shan.
I’m worried you’re setting up a bit of a straw man version of psiepistemic models (you call it the “realist psiepistemic” view, an interesting choice of words). I’d be surprised if there were many (or any!) quantum foundations people who take such a view.
Specifically, you are ascribing the following logic to anyone…[Read more]

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
As Price & Wharton point out, once you consider QM to be giving 4D distributions in spacetime (Lagrangian schema), rather than timeevolved distributions in configuration space (Newtonian schema), mysteries like the MP are resolved trivially. This is a psiepistemic view.

Miroljub Dugic replied to the topic The End of the ManyWorlds? (or Could we save Everettâ€™s interpretation) in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
Hi Aurelien,
Nice post!
Regarding ontology of MWI, it appears that a preferred structure (partition into subsystems, including virtual subsystems) of the Universe is needed. Otherwise sufficiency of decoherence for defining “branches” and/or reality of “world branching” are at stake. More technically: there exist mutually irreducible,…[Read more]

Kelvin McQueen replied to the topic How to solve the structured tails problem of dynamical collapse theories? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
This is an interesting solution. A version of it is discussed in section 4.4. of “Four Tails Problems for Dynamical Collapse Theories”. There it is discussed in the context of the matterdensity interpretation of GRW (sometimes called “GRWm”). The “denser” brains are the ones with the experiences of measurement outcomes. Since high density is…[Read more]

Jiri Soucek started the topic The absolute and relative truth in quantum theory: the superposition principle in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
Using concepts of the absolute and relative truth in quantum mechanics (QM) we obtain that the individual superposition principle is scientifically unfounded and, as a consequence, the solution to the basic quantum observer`s problem.
We shall define the concept of a truth in the situation where different theories may have the same empirical…[Read more]

Aurelien Drezet replied to the topic Can Bohm's theory really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
Dear Shan dear all, I gave a kind of reply to Shan’s work concerning psycho physical parallelism in the topic ‘The End of the ManyWorlds? (or Could we save Everettâ€™s interpretation)’
with best regards AurĂ©lien

Aurelien Drezet replied to the topic The End of the ManyWorlds? (or Could we save Everettâ€™s interpretation) in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
Dear Lev, don’t worry: my aim was only to recognize the influence that your view on MWI has on mine (your work on bohm with the ‘surrealistic’ bullet and the cat was very great as well). I will add a sentence that you dont share my view.
with best regards AurĂ©lien 
Lev Vaidman replied to the topic The End of the ManyWorlds? (or Could we save Everettâ€™s interpretation) in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
I thank Aurelien for citing my works, but his acknowledgement to me at the end of his paper is misleading. Although I tried to explain my views to him in a couple of emails, I failed. Reading his presentation of my views I could not recognize them at all. I disagree with everything I saw in Aurelien paper.
Lev Vaidman 
Ken Wharton started the topic Measurements as External Constraints in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
When two systems are in spatial contact, it’s natural for the bigger system to constrain the smaller system, not viceversa. For instance, consider classical statistical mechanics. When one system has an overwhelming number of possible internal states, it will act like a thermal reservoir for smaller systems in contact with it, constraining the…[Read more]

Peter J. Lewis replied to the topic Can Bohm's theory really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 8 years, 8 months ago
OK, good. But I guess I’m inclined to stick to my guns here — the relative positions of the particles determine the measurement outcome. Suppose the first particle is the one whose spin is being measured, and the second particle marks the top of the detection screen. Then if the two particles end up close together, the incoming particle is…[Read more]
 Load More