On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 3:35:11 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:41 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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 >
Big deal. Physicists are so dumb they don't have a "mechanism" for gravity yet. Some are looking for "gravitons"! @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/0ca34509-86ac-4899-aafc-0f49af3f4fb4%40googlegroups.com.
