scerir wrote:
David Barrett-Lennard

> Isn't "non-locality" simply associated with
> the ability for the "future" to affect the "past"?

Imo future and past means time, and light cones, etc.
If there is no flow of time, there is no past, and
no future.

The association between non-locality and "retrocausality"
(for lack of a better word) is anything but simple! In any
case it has less to do with the flow of time than with its
negation! It is better understood in the context of the
"block-universe" conception in which time does not flow
at all but all events are somehow coextensive...
Granted this is easier to project into euclidean space-time
than into minkowski space-time but not impossible.
But I may be wrong. Because, at this level, as
pointed out long ago by Finkelstein it is
difficult to distinguish between subject and
object. So it is possible a self-interaction
(self-reference!) governed by some internal
parameter, instead of time.

This reminds me of an unknown italian poet (XVIII sec.)
who wrote: "Era il tempo che il tempo ancor nun era tempo".
Unfortunately this poet is so little known that I also
forgot his name! Anyway my poor translation is:
"Once upon a time the time wasn't yet time."

Finkelstein: "The Physics of Logic" [in "Paradigms and
Paradoxes", ed. R. G. Colodny, 1971, pag. 60]:
 "There is, to be sure, a genuine problem in the phenomenon
of quantum measurement, but I will not discuss it here. It
concerns *introspective* systems, were subject = object so
that the basic conception of a single subject observing an
ensemble of objects must be modified."

Finkelstein's observation may be correct about measurement
in general but I don't see where it has anything to do with
the possible bearing on retrocausation!


Joao Pedro Leao  :::  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
1815 Massachussetts Av. , Cambridge MA 02140
Work Phone: (617)-496-7990 extension 124
Cell-Phone: (617)-817-1800
"All generalizations are abusive (specially this one!)"

Reply via email to