On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 6:08:48 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:57 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]
> <javascript:>> 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
>
It's not that i'm impressed by a CPT-symmetric *biverse *(introduced by
others, including Victor J. Stenger, "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning"). It'
that it's better than all the (other) BS.
@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/5bb9b9f2-9174-4c4e-b31b-27a766e3801b%40googlegroups.com.
