Ioannis Kogias

Ioannis Kogiasjk423

Jul 27 2017 19:52 UTC
Ioannis Kogias scited Optimal Port-based Teleportation
Jul 27 2017 19:52 UTC
Oct 10 2016 00:15 UTC
Aug 18 2016 20:14 UTC
Ioannis Kogias scited Quanta and Qualia
Jul 08 2016 14:24 UTC
Ioannis Kogias scited Entropy accumulation
Jul 08 2016 14:24 UTC
Jun 21 2016 09:42 UTC
May 05 2016 11:31 UTC

Makes sense! Thank you for all the explanations and clarifications, I really appreciate it. Cheers

May 04 2016 08:17 UTC
May 03 2016 13:06 UTC
May 03 2016 13:04 UTC
May 02 2016 13:45 UTC

I guess what I am really asking/wondering is whether it's legitimate to characterize theories as "inconsistent" in this context, as this term is commonly used to characterize theories that are self-contradictory when it comes to observable quantities. Otherwise, how would it be possible to have an inconsistent/contradictory theory that is absolutely correct in any possible setup? This doesn't sound right. Also this points, in my mind, to the existence of possible explanations that you perhaps didn't consider.

For example, the featured non-locality in the SW Bohmian mechanics can remotely change the quantum state of a distant observer B1 (including his *story*) depending on what measurements another observer B2 performs on the particle that is entangled with B1. Have you considered such explanations in the grounds of non-local change of stories?

May 02 2016 12:04 UTC
Apr 30 2016 19:08 UTC

Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation.
If I may call *A = (r = tail ==> w **?** ok)* a parameter that can take two values, then A is a free parameter of the theory and its value does not affect anything that is observable. Many theories may have such unobservable free parameters; e.g., classical electromagnetism (EM) features the gauge. You can use the theory of EM differently, and choose a different gauge, but still observe the same experimental results. Does this makes EM inconsistent?
It seems to me that under this definition of self-consistency, any theory with free parameters would be "inconsistent". Is there a fundamental difference between what you are referring to and the "free parameter" concept?

Apr 30 2016 02:17 UTC

Hi Renato,
it's great that you follow this site and reply to questions. Can i ask you the following, as it is very counter-intuitive to me and central to your paper: How is it possible to have two theories T1 and T2 that give exactly the same experimental predictions, but T1 is self-consistent while T2 is not? I guess i could re-phrase the question as: How can a theory not be self-consistent when it makes all the correct predictions for all possible experiments? What determines the self-consistency if not the experimental accuracy of the theory?

where,
T1 = Interpretation of quantum theory that involves many worlds

T2 = --- // ------------------ // ----------------------- single world

Apr 27 2016 09:16 UTC
Ioannis Kogias scited Quantum Shannon Theory
Apr 13 2016 12:51 UTC
Apr 13 2016 12:51 UTC
Apr 11 2016 12:10 UTC