4 ms·
That’s awesome, and maybe I misunderstand his argument (very possible, in fact my main reason for posting this comment). Am I not understanding the arguments be
by astrophysician 7y ago
That’s awesome, and maybe I misunderstand his argument (very possible, in fact my main reason for posting this comment). Am I not understanding the arguments being made here? I have not been following these developments regarding using Bayesian stats in QM, it’s just that if Bayesian stats doesn’t help us understand QM it doesn’t mean there’s a “hole” because Bayesian stats makes no claim whatsoever that it has any applicability to QM. Am I just not understanding?
- bjornsing 7y agoI very much agree. It’s well known that probability theory is insufficient to explain the evolution of a QM system (i.e. the Schrödinger equation cannot be expressed in terms of probability). This is an interesting fact about QM, but in no way constitutes a hole in probability theory or Bayesian statistics.