On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 1:16:47 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 10:52:02 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:25 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> 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. >>> >> >> >> Apart from not solving anything, and the problem of the absence of any >> dynamical explanation as to how retrocausality might work to eliminate >> non-locality, the real problem is that retrocausal explanations have been >> ruled out experimentally. >> >> The seminal experiment by Aspect, et al., published in 1982 really put >> the last nail in the coffin of retrocausal explanations. The point is that >> in Aspect's experiment, the polariser settings were chosen while the >> photons were in flight -- in other words, at some time after the singlet >> pair was created. So there is no way the photons, travelling back in time >> at the speed of light, could ever reach the original singlet state after >> they had detected the polariser setting. The best they could do would be to >> carry the polariser setting back half way, but no way could they reach back >> to the interaction that created the original singlet state. >> >> So all these years, Huw Price and his cronies have been talking absolute >> rubbish -- their theory has already been falsified by experiment. >> >> Bruce >> > > Didn't Vic Stenger also claim that retro-causality solved the quantum > non-locality problem? AG >
Exactly so! It seems some forget history, or as confused as they were 20 years ago. @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/8836ee9a-89e4-408c-9912-e2bc02f90cfa%40googlegroups.com.
