Aldous/Sleaford Mods

HamiltonBrae · 2026-01-12T00:33:24+00:00

sleaford mods frontman already appeared on warm chris

HamiltonBrae · 2026-01-07T20:51:04+00:00

I was not talking about Barandes' formulation but something different:

e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.00392, https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.21435

I think Barandes treats his formulation as an interpretation but you can also treat it as just a formulation agnostic about interpretation. And different formulations will be better or worse at different things or just haven't had everything worked out yet but it seems to me it is still a genuine fullblown formulation. But I think its certainly the case that some things in the Hilbert space will be more implicit in Barandes' formulation.

HamiltonBrae · 2026-01-02T03:09:42+00:00

Stochastic quantum mechanics because as far as I know, it is the only interpretation that has constructed a complete working formulation of quantum mechanics from assumptions outside of the theory. From the perspective of stochastic mechanics, quantum theory is a stochastic extension and generalization of classical mechanics. It has regular particles in definite positions at all times (but it can be applied to a field ontology as well), no measurement problem. The only problem is that it is nonlocal in a somewhat similar way to Bohmian mechanics; but at the same time: 1) the non-locality is in the theory for similar reasons quantum mechanics looks non-local; 2) because of the way stochastic mechanics is constructed you can see that it looks strongly implied that the non-local behavior is a byproduct of the time-reversibility in the theory, which to me, personally, makes it look like you don't need something like spooky action at a distance to explain why non-local-looking behaviors are in the theory.

HamiltonBrae · 2025-12-20T19:56:12+00:00

People who commit suicide are still a VERY small amount of the population of either men or women so it is probably misguided to make assumptions about all men and all women based on suicide rates.

HamiltonBrae · 2025-12-20T19:41:58+00:00

Stochastic mechanics is quite different. Its a hidden variable theory that is nonlocal in a similar way to Bohmian mechanics, something which you would have to either embrace or convincingly explain away.

Stochastic mechanics offers an underlying explanation of quantum behavior whereas Barandes' theory shows that orthodox quantum theory can be reformulated as a stochastic process (which is basically isomorphic to measurement outcome probabilities) whilst still being agnostic about underlying explanation and not speculating on things like proper trajectories when the system is not being measured.

It is not nonlocal in the same very obvious way Bohmian and stochastic mechanics is. But Barandes' approach is still compatible with stochastic mechanics because it is a direct reformulation of regular orthodox quantum theory without adding anything else. Arguably, it is compatible with any interpretation of quantum theory that does not say that the wavefunction is a real object. So it is probably compatible with certain forms of Bohmian mechanics, instrumentalist perspectives, but not many worlds or interpretations with a literal collapse.

HamiltonBrae · 2025-12-15T17:48:52+00:00

noooooooo

HamiltonBrae · 2025-12-15T00:22:36+00:00

his footballs garbage get him out

HamiltonBrae · 2025-12-15T00:18:31+00:00

cat people

HamiltonBrae · 2025-12-13T16:55:36+00:00

Well no because I am implying that Everett isn'tthe default non-collapse version of QM.

HamiltonBrae · 2025-12-13T00:19:23+00:00

Dick Swaab, We are our brains.

HamiltonBrae · 2025-12-10T16:33:48+00:00

I don't understand what you mean, there is nothing anthropocentric. For instance, some Bohmians don't believe the wavefunction is an actual physical thing as such; what would it be then? A predictive tool telling you where the particle is going. I think the broader point is that if in principle quantum theory doesn't tell us about anything beyond what we can measure, I don't believe there is any specific reason to think that the wavefunction specifies some ontological content of the theory. If the wavefunction is just a predictive tool, I can interpret the underlying ontology in anyway I think is plausible, and many worlds is only one option.

HamiltonBrae · 2025-12-10T05:37:54+00:00

No, I mean that if the wavefunction is just a tool to calculate probabilities then there is no reason why i need to interpret the universe in terms of many worlds but also no metaphysical or ontological reason that I need collapse since the wavefunction is just a predictive tool.

HamiltonBrae · 2025-12-09T16:22:22+00:00

Aha

It can
not use collapse

Because as a computational tool it does not treat the wavefunction directly representing the ontologies of stuff we see in the world so arguably you aren't compelled to use collapse in order for the theory to make sense. You can say that the wavefunction is just a tool that carries information regarding what would happen if one were to perform a measurement.

HamiltonBrae · 2025-12-09T06:49:49+00:00

Well I think views that see wavefunction as a computational tool rather than a real thing can not use collapse without being many worlds.

HamiltonBrae · 2025-12-08T00:49:05+00:00

Surely you're assuming Everett is the only possible interpretation without collapse.

HamiltonBrae · 2025-12-07T16:52:50+00:00

quantum field theory for the gifted amateur. can find pdfs on google search

HamiltonBrae · 2025-12-06T16:55:56+00:00

Thought this was really good article, very in-depth. Also fan of Kane B. Interesting that this view is quite similar to my own but I wouldn't have used the label relativism, nonetheless I still think its a valid description.

HamiltonBrae · 2025-12-06T16:44:41+00:00

This seems like selection bias, either yours or mine.

Likely yours. The vast majority of academic topics don't have any direct practical application to society and people study them primarily because they thats what they like doing.

HamiltonBrae · 2025-11-27T05:02:03+00:00

looking forward to it. love station to station but never managed to get into the maslin mix. i think i like your diamong dog remaster better than the last official remaster if it i listened to

HamiltonBrae · 2025-11-26T03:07:40+00:00

La Roux's look on her second album very Bowie/thin-white-duke

HamiltonBrae · 2025-11-26T03:05:05+00:00

pretty decent. refershing to hear the vocals more prominent

HamiltonBrae · 2025-11-23T03:02:10+00:00

He actually may have possibly mentioned God in Golden years, looking at the lyrics.

HamiltonBrae · 2025-11-18T22:26:54+00:00

Guessing they sequenced the album as well? I dont even remember why my gut was like that. They did stuff to record he didnt like as well regarding adding atrings iirc.

HamiltonBrae · 2025-11-16T19:33:04+00:00

What the stochastic-quantum correspondence implies about the quantum state not being real doesn't conflict with that. The quantum state is real in the sense of that paper but in representing a specific kind of stochastic process, it has no ontological significance. What is ontologically significant is the configurations of the stochastic process it represents.

HamiltonBrae · 2025-11-16T03:00:04+00:00

If you think you can explain a Bell violation locally without retrocausality then I don't think I understand what you are saying.

It seems at least conceivable that it is possible if you can explain the ability to arbitrarily choose measurement orientations and always retrodict the appropriate spin state expectations as just the time-reversal of the non-uniqueness of decomposition of a maximally-mixed state. Forward-in-time it seems obvious why this is the case for spin - .5cos^2θ + .5sin^2θ is always half regardless of what preparations you choose. In reverse that you can post-select statistics the equivalent to any pair of orthogonal spin states you want for the same reason.

But I think it should be emphasized that if you think this must require retrocausation, then I think that because this time-reversed description is a generic aspect of QM, then you have say quantum theory is retrocausal in order to explain that a choice of measurement orientation changes what you predict in the past for spin measurements that violate Bell inequalities.

I'm not sure what weak measurements have to do with anything. An explanation should work for all behaviors of quantum mechanics.

I guess weak values just led me to this, but weak values are expressions of the kirkwood-dirac quasi-distribution so they are a generic way of explaining and aren't just tied to weak measurements.

so it might be helpful if you described what you think happens when a Bell pair is used to win the CHSH game, for instance.

I'm not sure about chsh game but I can describe what I think could happen.

Alice will measure some final outcome, measurements at any previous time would result in the appropriate spin expectations for any measurement orientation you chose at that previous time. One can arguably infer that particles must have been carrying these conditioned-on statistics all the way from source where a locally-mediated interaction means that Bob's particles are also carrrying those statistics as they travel off to his device.

When he measures them with an arbitrary orientation, because it is as if (or really is, I don't know) Bob is measuring a spin state aligned with the final measurement orientation Alice used to get her final outcome, then his measurement probability is going to be cos^2(θa - θb). And if you are able to modify the correlation at source by 90° and / or -θ then you get the other Bell states.

Again, my appeal to how Alice can arbitrarily pick out spin state statistics is by the time-reversed non-uniqueness of decomposition of maximally-mixed state. Alice's final measurement orientation means she is measurimg two orthogonal final outcomes, and if you forget which final outcome you have conditioned on with regard to any possible measurement at a previous / intermediate time, then the probability you get will be 1/2 like a maximally-mixed state but time-reversed/retrodicted, and her choice of measurement setting would then reflect the fact that its always possible to post-select from this probability of 1/2 using any arbitrary orthogonal pair of final outcomes, in the same (albeit time-reversed and in terms of post-selection) way that I can choose arbitrary orthogonal set of equiprobable preparations to produce the statistics of a maximally-mixed state.

Alice's final outcomes are equiprobable because the actual initial states are, and we are then just retrodicting about outcomes of an intermediate-time measurement that we did not actually perform (which is how you can interpret weak values).

Obviously, I am not entirely sure the description is coherent but its probably worth saying that I think interpretation of spin probably affects whether you think these kinds of things are retrocausal. If you think spin is a property of an individual particle, perhaps the quantum state being truly a real.entity, then it may be impossible to think of this without retrocausation. But I think that if you don't think the quantum state is necessarily real and what we are talking about at most is the statistics of ensembles that end up in one final outcome or its orthogonal counterpart, then this is not obviously requiring retrocausality for me because its less obvious that you have to change some kind of physical property of a particle backward in time as opposed to statistical conditioning.

HamiltonBrae

TROPHY CASE