David Albert - What theories qualify as quantum theories without observers? 

I Love the view here from the high ground; the place where it does not suffice to merely shut up and calculate.

David's consternation at introducing the conference rather than as a "formal" contributor seems both telling and confusing. On one hand he seems to squarely grasp the scope of the issue, and on the other renounces any association or involvement with it. Both views are totally valid, is David the Pontius Pilate of Physics?

In his opening remarks he states his problem. He wants QM to be understandable in classical terms - 6:40 !

Great Talk!

Every point in the field has the same information. When an observer passes through it , yesterday (the past) interacts with tomorrow (the future, ,delayed choice) and it make the Now ( the observers perspectives at that time) three collapse's of the same state making a virtual background we see,

Ah crap this is how I have been accidentally interpreting Quantum Mechanics for years

Do you know what the aim of artificial intelligence is ? That is to create a computer that understand the world just as bad as we humans do ;-) Hi hi

The simplest quantum theory takes its cue from Reinhold Furth and models a system as a Hamiltonian system plus a bit of Brownian motion on the scale of Planck's constant. This theory cannot describe wavelike behaviour, but tables, chairs and baseballs all have Compton wavelengths less than the Planck length, so we need not be too worried. Advantages of this theory are the lack of any arrow of time issue and the lack of any need for an army of philosophers to explain it to us. Any more upmarket theory should preserve these advantages. I will kick off the next level by proposing that we need to add co-ordinated tachyonic Brownian motion to any numerical solution of the coupled Dirac and Maxwell equations.

There are no observers in the Copenhagen interpretation. ;-)

sounds like shenanigans

At 28:24 Albert says that we can have no empirical way of using Bohm's particle trajectories. But this is only currently true, when electrons, photons, and atoms are generated in beams with only the crudest of (statistical) positions in spacetime. Certainly we will soon be able to manipulate single electrons and single photons, in which case the experimental results validating Bohm's deterministic trajectories will have eminent practical application. Imagine being able to aim a single electron at a silicon target and knowing for sure what effect it will have on the doping of a tiny area of the target, based on knowing the quantum guiding force and the exact initial position of the particle. We won't be limited to statistical patterns (distributions), but we'll be able to correct the aiming of the particle (with variable but known precision) to account for the device geometry by knowing its wave function.

David Albert reminds me of Einstein, in that he wants to cling onto the most "classical" interpretation of the world, even within the framework of quantum mechanics, and he therefore rejects Everett and Qbism. These "tunnel" into his realm of his "philosophical shenanigans". Whatever interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, reality is a strange thing indeed, and it will not be constrained by the limits of human intuition or adhere to human aesthetics. We should have learned that by now?

My God what is he talking about?

My God, are you trying to make this as annoying as possible?

Can we generalize this? How about science without scientists? This idea is funny as fuck. In practice, it fails the unfalsifiability test. QTWO is pseudoscience.

Particles do not exist. Or maybe they do. I think it's time for 'scientists' to get back to God and the Bible.