On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:56:41 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 6:45:32 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:22:51 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:15 PM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> As for quantum stochastic retrodependency (which physicists avoid like >>>> vampires avoid sunlight), it simplifies the "puzzles" of QM, meaning that, >>>> for the most part, the articles you see talking about the "spooky action >>>> at >>>> a distance" or "many wolds" of QM you can dump in the trashcan and save a >>>> lot of time! >>>> >>> >>> The trouble is that these retrocausal "explanations" do not actually >>> explain anything! They sound like they should: "The formation of the EPR >>> pair depends on the future setting of the polarises as well as on the state >>> preparation." (Or something similar). But no detailed dynamics are ever >>> given, and the supposed explanation is even more mystical than "spooky >>> action at a distance...." >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> Bingo --- ting ding ting ding ... . Thanks Bruce. Since QM is time >> symmetric or invariant in its form with respect to time direction whether >> you define time forwards or backwards, or do so for some partition of a >> density matrix or wave, makes no difference. Retrocausality in effect >> solves nothing. Nonlocality and the contextual nature of QM, eg the >> Mermin-Peres square that gives Kochen-Specker, have no definition with >> respect to any time direction. If you have locality in QM then it is still >> not possible to think meaningfully of counterfactual definiteness (CFD), or >> if QM is regarded as nonlocal only then can you have CFD, such as with Many >> Worlds Interpretation. It makes no difference whether the observables >> measured are considered forwards or backwards evolving. >> >> LC >> > > > Retrocausality in effect solves nothing. > > It solves wasting any time reading papers about QM many worlds, > non-locality, all the nonsense you read today. > > [If one views QM as a generalized measure on a space of histories, then > one sees not only how quantal processes differ from classical stochastic > processes (the main difference, they satisfy different sum rules), but also > how closely the two resemble each other.] > via Rafael Sorkin > > @philipthrift >
Anyway, as you know well, I "adopted" the retrocausal view 20 years ago via* Victor J. Stenger,* who pointed of course to Huw Price. @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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/49768bb3-f597-40af-aa83-0a280e3c6b07%40googlegroups.com.
