




Jiri Soucek replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 5 years, 10 months ago
Dear Matthew Leifer,
Thank you very much for your comments. These are very helpful for me. In general I agree with your remarks but some points are to be discussed.
In general, it is clear that QM must be an applied probability theory and it is clear that this probability theory cannot be the Kolmogorovian probability theory.
1. The first…[Read more]

Jiri Soucek replied to the topic The measurement problem revisited in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 5 years, 10 months ago
Dear Shan,
I have a comment and a critical remark to your argumentation.
I shall consider the property (C1) in the more complete formulation:
(C1x) the wave function of a physical system is a complete description of the individual system.
You write “The first approach is to deny the claim (C1), and add some additional variables …”.
I think…[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 5 years, 10 months ago
jiri soucek,
I am somewhat sympathetic to the view that quantum theory should be understood in terms of some sort of nonKolmogorovian probability theory. However, there are a couple of problems with this.
First, it is not just since 2008 that this option has existed. There are currently a few dozen competing generalized probability theories…[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 5 years, 10 months ago
Hi Shan,
Turning back to your question in #3303, concerning randomness:
A central point of the paper I posted in this forum is that all of the probabilities in retrocausal quantum models can be classical/conventional in the sense that they all result from a lack of knowledge. But there are two different parts of this. First is the knowledge…[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 5 years, 10 months ago
Shan,
“In fact, the writing of this paper is mainly motivated by your words in your review paper. You said, “A straightforward resolution of the collapse of the wavefunction, the measurement problem, Schrodinger’s cat
and friends is one of the main advantages of psiepistemic interpretations…. The measurement problem is not so much resolved by ps…[Read more] 
Jiri Soucek replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 5 years, 10 months ago
Dear Matthew,
I have some comments
1) The very idea of the ontological models is based on the assumption that there exists only one probability theory – the standard Kolmogorov theory. But from 2008 there exist two probability theories – the Kolmogorov (linear) probability theory and the new quadratic probability theory published in…[Read more]

Jiri Soucek replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 5 years, 10 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 5 years, 10 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 🙂

Shan Gao replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 5 years, 10 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 5 years, 10 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 5 years, 10 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 5 years, 10 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 5 years, 10 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 5 years, 10 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… 🙂

Ken Wharton replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 5 years, 10 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 5 years, 10 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.
 Load More