On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 2:00:43 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:28 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 1:14:32 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:53 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10 Jun 2019, at 08:54, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 4:34 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Retrocausal hidden variable models are completely compatible with >>>>> experiments, unless QM itself is wrong. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If retrocausality is right, then QM itself is certainly wrong. In the >>>> EPR situation, the singlet state is rotationally symmetric in standard QM, >>>> and this cannot be the case if that state is dependent on the future >>>> polariser settings. Conversely, if QM is right, retrocausality is >>>> impossible. >>>> >>>> >>>> If QM with collapse is right, I would understand and agree. That is why >>>> Deutsch see the “retrocausality” has a semantic variant of the many-worlds >>>> interpretations, but I have not entirely figure out if this makes sense >>>> >>> >>> It makes no sense at all! Deutsch has gone completely off the rails over >>> quantum mechanics. He is essentially abandoning the theory as it currently >>> stands. The argument from symmetry is, to my mind, a total killer of any >>> retrocausal explanation -- retrocausality must destroy the very symmetry >>> that is at the heart of the QM predictions for the singlet state, Collapse >>> and many worlds are all irrelevant to this argument. >>> >>> The non-locality of the quantum singlet state is irreducible, and >>> neither retrocausality nor many worlds has any impact on this central >>> conclusion. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>>> in the Omnes-Griffith-Gelman-Hartle view of the many-worlds. That would >>>> be nice and eliminate t’hooft’s need of “super-determinism” (mechanism is >>>> trivially "super-deterministic" in the third person view, but not at all >>>> in >>>> the first person views—that plays a role for >>>> free-will/self-determination). >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>> >> >> "quantum mechanics [is] a theory of quantal histories, without ever >> needing to call on state-vectors, measurements, or external agents as >> fundamental notions" >> >> Rafael Sorkin >> https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/people/rafael-sorkin >> >> The whole thing about quantum "states" is just a cult view, like a >> religion. >> > > > Sorkin has a long history of misunderstanding the basis of quantum > mechanics. Paths, or quantum histories, are just a way of calculating > probabilities -- there is no ontology there. Just like Feynman diagrams, > virtual particles and all that. Merely calculational techniques with no > ontological content. Quantal histories do not eliminate the notion of the > "quantum state". > > Besides, quantal histories no more eliminate non-locality than does > retrocausality or many worlds. > > Bruce > >> >>
Of course in the reflective histories model there are histories and (their mirror images) futures. - https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/mirror-mirror/ Like I've said, people can wander through life believing in what they want. I did not have *God* speak to me and tell me the absolute truth about these things, like some apparently have. @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/e193897b-27b5-4fb9-af92-226c0c3aaad9%40googlegroups.com.
