On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:57 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. * > You should stop being impressed by bullshit such as this in New Scientist, Philip -- NS is about as unreliable a science reporting rag as you can get! Bruce -- 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/CAFxXSLQVEFnNKaL%3Dy-uV5rLEgG8Z3wKMKFQy0U2KU0xU--A5Pg%40mail.gmail.com.
