〈 Berger | Dillon 〉

I know you know what you’re talking about, I just disagree with you on this point

Just out of curiosity. The probability that we talk about in QM, do you think of it as a Bayesian ir as frequentists?

I haven’t thought about it very deeply, Since I thing being an everettian is the way to go

I might be wrong, but I think thats the key point of our disagreement. Repeting experiments so that we can reconstruct known asymptotic stated may be inherently frequentists. While imagining paths from the particles point of view sounds very Bayesian to me.

Well I’m not sure about that, I try to keep my statements about QM independent of interpretation If I had to refine I would say: ‘there is no meaningful way to say a fundamental particle is in the state (x,p).’ Implying that it does not follow any trajectory

You (and the cloud chamber, the room, the planet, etc.) get entangled with the particle. Once it interacts with the particles in the cloud chamber, it entangles with them (and you), which localizes the particle in some location given some environmental eigenstate.