On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 1:42 AM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 8:20:07 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> . All you have to do is come up with the dynamics of the retrocausal >> mechanism that explains the Aspect experiments. >> > > > I did: *The reflective path integral w/logical variables*. > That is not the Aspect experiment. You are condemned as a charlatan by your silence on the important issue. >> >> Bruce >> >> > > Of course I'm a charlatan. I've never claimed to be anything else. > > What are you? > Someone interested in physics......to the exclusion of unevidenced dogma. Look, Price has been banging on about retrocausal explanations of violations of the Bell inequalities for 30 or more years. And before that, there have been many years of similar ideas, such as Cramer's transactional interpretation and so on. On the surface, these ideas might seem plausible and attractive. But the fact is that even after all this time, they have succeeded in persuading only a few weak-minded individuals. Now why might that be? My explanation is that these ideas have never been applied to give convincing dynamical explanations for anything. In fact, if you try to apply retrocausal ideas to the Aspect experiment, you rapidly run into insuperable difficulties, and are forced to conclude that retrocausality can give only classical correlations -- the result that Lawrence alluded to some time ago. 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/CAFxXSLTZ68EotOG3kSWDMdoi4Frk1Wwc11AA3uuxgVjtz4n5EQ%40mail.gmail.com.
