The error correction idea is extremely interesting to me, and I think a few other people here.
See the 'Retrocausality in QM' entry on Stanford's phil pages, specifically the 'Transactional Interpretation'.
How's that for a Final Cause. Eat your heart out, Aristotle.
The error correction idea is extremely interesting to me, and I think a few other people here.
@PS @ARM
See the 'Retrocausality in QM' entry on Stanford's phil pages, specifically the 'Transactional Interpretation'.
How's that for a Final Cause. Eat your heart out, Aristotle.
There are many people whose opinions I respect, but none of them are right about everything. Know what to listen to and what to ignore.
Regarding retrocausality, it shows the hoops you have to jump through if you want to maintain the currently accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics. I prefer superdeterminism to escape all that madness: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full
There are many people whose opinions I respect, but none of them are right about everything. Know what to listen to and what to ignore.
Regarding retrocausality, it shows the hoops you have to jump through if you want to maintain the currently accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics. I prefer superdeterminism to escape all that madness: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full
(post is archived)