
Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Is there an inconsistent friend? in the forum Workshop on Wigner’s Friend 2018 6 months ago
Everyone,
Have a look at this Physics Forums Insight to see our take on Wigner’s friend.Richard,
When you get a chance, let us know if we have correctly characterized your view in that PF Insight. I can make changes anytime.Mark

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Is there an inconsistent friend? in the forum Workshop on Wigner’s Friend 2018 6 months, 1 week ago
Thnx for the detailed response, Richard. Let me see if I totally understand it.
The state given by your Eq 13 applies to any of the three possibilities for the definite, single outcomes recorded by Xena and Yvonne in one world, i.e., heads or tails or tails+, respectively, prior to Zeus and Wigner making their measurements.
Eq 13 says that if…[Read more]

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Is there an inconsistent friend? in the forum Workshop on Wigner’s Friend 2018 6 months, 2 weeks ago
Hi Richard,
I much prefer your presentation of FR in Quantum Theory and the Limits of Objectivity (2018), so I will refer to that. Looking at your Eq (13) and understanding that there exists an objective fact of the matter about what Xena and Yvonne have recorded for their measurements (h or t and + or , respectively), it seems unavoidable that…[Read more] 
Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Is there an inconsistent friend? in the forum Workshop on Wigner’s Friend 2018 6 months, 2 weeks ago
Thnx, Richard. I figured that was the answer, but I wanted to make sure before I fashioned a response (forthcoming).

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Is there an inconsistent friend? in the forum Workshop on Wigner’s Friend 2018 6 months, 3 weeks ago
No one in the topic on Frauchiger and Renner (FR) “Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself” (2018) answered this question, so I’ll post it here.
FR talk about a measurement of h> – t> by Wbar on the isolated lab Lbar. What does this measurement mean? If Lbar is a quantum system for Wbar, then all possible Hilbert space…[Read more]

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Response to Frauchiger and Renner in the forum Workshop on Wigner’s Friend 2018 6 months, 3 weeks ago
I read Frauchiger and Renner (FR) “Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself” (2018) and I’ve read several responses in this workshop, but I have a question that has not been answered.
FR talk about a measurement of h> – t> by Wbar on the isolated lab Lbar. What does this measurement mean? If Lbar is a quantum system for W…[Read more]

Mark Stuckey joined the group Workshop on Wigner’s Friend 2018 7 months ago

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 3 years, 4 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 🙂

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 3 years, 4 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 3 years, 4 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]

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 3 years, 4 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.

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Does the psiepistemic view really solve the measurement problem? in the forum 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers 3 years, 4 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.

Mark Stuckey commented on the post, Concerning Quadratic Interaction in the Quantum Cheshire Cat Experiment 3 years, 6 months ago
Wow, that typo was only on Physics Forums for 30 seconds before I caught and fixed it, literally. Obviously, the paper was accepted for publication in International Journal of Quantum Foundations.

Mark Stuckey wrote a new post, Concerning Quadratic Interaction in the Quantum Cheshire Cat Experiment 3 years, 9 months ago
We believe the weak interaction of the quantum Cheshire Cat experiment must be linear if the weak values are to support the quantum Cheshire Cat interpretation, i.e., that a particle and one of its properties are spatially separated. For example, even though Denkmayr et al. measured the proper weak values for quantum Cheshire Cat in their neutron interferometry experiment, they did so using a quadratic interaction. We show how the quadratic interaction in their experiment destroys the quantum Cheshire Cat interpretation. Indeed, if the quantum Cheshire Cat interpretation is established per the weak values alone, regardless of the degree of interaction, then Denkmayr et al.’s experiment would be a reductio against the interpretation.

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic General "Block Universe" Discussion in the forum Timesymmetric theories 3 years, 10 months ago
Hi Ian,
What’s wrong with HV’s? What do you find objectionable about the spacetimesource element and adynamical global constraint of RBW, for example? Or Ken’s classical fields and L = 0 constraint?
Just curious 🙂

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic General "Block Universe" Discussion in the forum Timesymmetric theories 3 years, 10 months ago
Like Ken, I don’t understand why people use (tacitly or explicity) a Block Universe (BW) for retrocausality then add a “pseudotime” or metatime to artificially create a dynamical notion of “causation.” If you want a robust Now/Becoming, it will cost you lots more formal machinery than a bare BW. But, if you’re willing to pay the price, you can…[Read more]

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Possibilist Transactional Interpretation in the forum Timesymmetric theories 3 years, 10 months ago
Hi Ruth,
I’ve seen Cramer’s “pseudotime” process of TI mentioned in several topics of this forum being proposed as a way of introducing change and Becoming to the BW (blockworld). I have no idea what metatime change means empirically and neither it seems do they. In my opinion, if you want an empirically/experientially meaningful notion of…[Read more]

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Quantum Oblivion and Hesitation in the forum Timesymmetric theories 3 years, 10 months ago
Thanks for the detailed reply, Avshalom.
It’s a statement of ignorance of course, but I don’t know how to think about “pseudotime” processes relative to our experience. A metatime notion of “change” strikes me as absolutely meaningless. In contrast, the individual proper time frames of PTI are quite apprehensible and have everything you want…[Read more]

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Retrocausation vs Retrodiction in the forum Timesymmetric theories 3 years, 10 months ago
Hi Bob,
I read Ch 24 and I don’t see what you’re proposing for an ontology that accounts for the Mermin device outcomes. All I see are principles of quantum mechanical formalism, which don’t provide any ontology. What physically, not formally, explains the correlations?
Thanks,
Mark 
Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Quantum causal models, faithfulness and retrocausality (onl. 7/16 @ 11pm UTC+10) in the forum Timesymmetric theories 3 years, 10 months ago
Hi Pete,
I think I’m close to understanding faithfulness. Let me respond to your last paragraph so you can correct me as necessary.
Retrocausality avoids the nonlocality conclusion of Bell inequality violations by denying statistical independence (SI). It does this by providing a causal mechanism that hides a true statistical dependence (…[Read more]
 Load More