On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:56:41 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 6:45:32 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:22:51 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:15 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> As for quantum stochastic retrodependency (which physicists avoid like >>>> vampires avoid sunlight), it simplifies the "puzzles" of QM, meaning that, >>>> for the most part, the articles you see talking about the "spooky action >>>> at >>>> a distance" or "many wolds" of QM you can dump in the trashcan and save a >>>> lot of time! >>>> >>> >>> The trouble is that these retrocausal "explanations" do not actually >>> explain anything! They sound like they should: "The formation of the EPR >>> pair depends on the future setting of the polarises as well as on the state >>> preparation." (Or something similar). But no detailed dynamics are ever >>> given, and the supposed explanation is even more mystical than "spooky >>> action at a distance...." >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> Bingo --- ting ding ting ding ... . Thanks Bruce. Since QM is time >> symmetric or invariant in its form with respect to time direction whether >> you define time forwards or backwards, or do so for some partition of a >> density matrix or wave, makes no difference. Retrocausality in effect >> solves nothing. Nonlocality and the contextual nature of QM, eg the >> Mermin-Peres square that gives Kochen-Specker, have no definition with >> respect to any time direction. If you have locality in QM then it is still >> not possible to think meaningfully of counterfactual definiteness (CFD), or >> if QM is regarded as nonlocal only then can you have CFD, such as with Many >> Worlds Interpretation. It makes no difference whether the observables >> measured are considered forwards or backwards evolving. >> >> LC >> > > > Retrocausality in effect solves nothing. > > It solves wasting any time reading papers about QM many worlds, > non-locality, all the nonsense you read today. > > [If one views QM as a generalized measure on a space of histories, then > one sees not only how quantal processes differ from classical stochastic > processes (the main difference, they satisfy different sum rules), but also > how closely the two resemble each other.] > via Rafael Sorkin > > @philipthrift >
Anyway, as you know well, I "adopted" the retrocausal view 20 years ago via* Victor J. Stenger,* who pointed of course to Huw Price. @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/49768bb3-f597-40af-aa83-0a280e3c6b07%40googlegroups.com.
