On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 8:25:10 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > 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 >
Just out: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24232330-200-weve-seen-signs-of-a-mirror-image-universe-that-is-touching-our-own/ *We've seen signs of a mirror-image universe that is touching our own.* *New experiments are revealing hints of a world and a reality that are complete reflections of ours. * @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/153b8c5b-0fdf-4924-bf6a-7177697dc54a%40googlegroups.com.
