Issue #26 ~ This newsletter is about retrocausality, which is the notion that an effect could precede its cause. The TV goes off before you pressed the remote control. You die, only then to be born later.
I might dedicate a proper blog to this. Bell is underpinned by two assumptions: locality and reality (pre-existing local hidden variable based on c numbers). I think our experiments show that the c number based reality cannot be true, but that locality - as far as we have tested it - is perfectly fine. Q numbers are the only (reasonable) way we know how to stay local and reproduce correlations in Bell's inequalities.
Do you have any recommended articles that explain your take on superposition and Bell's inequality. You mentioned q and c numbers. What are some good articles to read about those?
Good post! Re "this kind of stuff has since been frequently blown out of all proportions" - yes, but this doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't seriously weird phenomena, or that those are not somehow related to retrocausality. To me, that "even though we assume that our perceptions are fully determined by the values of physical quantities, they are not fully determined by our pasts" points to a sort of determinism that is global, but not local in space or time, and this sort of determinism is flexible enough to leave plenty of room for S's (I’ll let you guess who S is) more things.
I might dedicate a proper blog to this. Bell is underpinned by two assumptions: locality and reality (pre-existing local hidden variable based on c numbers). I think our experiments show that the c number based reality cannot be true, but that locality - as far as we have tested it - is perfectly fine. Q numbers are the only (reasonable) way we know how to stay local and reproduce correlations in Bell's inequalities.
Do you have any recommended articles that explain your take on superposition and Bell's inequality. You mentioned q and c numbers. What are some good articles to read about those?
Good post! Re "this kind of stuff has since been frequently blown out of all proportions" - yes, but this doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't seriously weird phenomena, or that those are not somehow related to retrocausality. To me, that "even though we assume that our perceptions are fully determined by the values of physical quantities, they are not fully determined by our pasts" points to a sort of determinism that is global, but not local in space or time, and this sort of determinism is flexible enough to leave plenty of room for S's (I’ll let you guess who S is) more things.