Thank you very much Mike for sharing this. I like the positivity you use to conclude the article too (the mention of Stojanovic and the constraint that perspective enforces on multiplicity of simultaneous outcome).
May I ask you, my present thinking is that - something in line with the multiple-perspective-exclusion tenet, it seems to me that the existence of solely one detector (observer) is why we have a constraining factor. We have given the stochastic matrix (please forgive if my terminology is incorrect) a single potential result with which to express a multiplicity of (superposed ) potential results.
I love to study human cognition, because day by day it unravels as less and less rational and more and more affective, inattentive, and exclusive. What I keep seeing, is that it is we (and not Nature) that constrain probability using expectation (please see Neisser) such that subsequent contradiction of the constraining possibilities becomes impossible. It is only contradictory in the sense we have established a bounded expectation and now Nature must follow our requisite ruleset. This all seems counterintuitive to me. Why should Nature care what we expect? Like A or B or C -- with/without the options "none of the above", and "all of the above" -- maybe we must afford the responder the full range of choice before reaching a conclusion as to its opinion/selection? As in Allport's "Selection for Action", the premise we often hold seems to be there is only one intent or expectancy permissible/extant simultaneously. That would be true for one observer/detector - but there seems always the probability for multiple. Our "observance history" and future seem to subtend reality because we impose singular history on the phenomena which does not have a history until observed.
If you don't mind, could you please share what you think? Your insights seem so much better than mine, and I would much appreciate your thoughts.
Article Quantum probability, intuition, and human rationality