On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:41 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 6:06:48 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > > I'll look at it sometime and formulate it in σCP. > > Programming (programming languages) is the future of physics. > I very much doubt that! > >> 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 >> > > > There are a bunch of people working on both retrocausal and contextual > models, Some are physicists and mathematicians, not just philosophers. > And they are all wrong. > Its an open question (there is nothing closed* in physics). > Many things are "closed": the luminiferous aether, caloric, epicycles, etc, etc. > ts the Physics Gestapo that wants to swarm in (on what they see as the > "weak-minded individuals") and say it is ruled out of bounds. > Not "ruled out of bounds", just work through the details and show us how it works in practice. That is the element that is missing from all the hype you persist in posting. If you could come up with a convincing dynamical account of retrocausation as it operates in a real physical experiment, then you might have a smidgen more credibility. 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/CAFxXSLS7NVuZMaMJght%3DV8V25X15%2Bh12AtaPVsUbEAJNesbNSg%40mail.gmail.com.
