Can retrocausality solve action-at-a-distance? + Consciousness is made of atoms, too

[Syne]

Everyone can see that it is no ad hominem, since you clearly went completely off topic when I asked you to support your own assertion. And I really don't know how else to characterize someone acting like they want to discussion science only to dodge every point by trying to poison the well with irrelevancies.

[Magical Realist]

Everyone can see that it is no ad hominem, since you clearly went completely off topic when I asked you to support your own assertion. And I really don't know how else to characterize someone acting like they want to discussion science only to dodge every point by trying to poison the well with irrelevancies.

Right..telling someone they're not acting adult isn't an ad hominem. You know about as much on this topic as retrocausality. Why am I wasting bandwidth listening to you?

[Syne]

Yet, you still haven't demonstrated you know what experimentally equivalent interpretations of QM are. Nor explained the dearth of scientific excitement about retrocausality, nor even acknowledged the authors', of that paper, own admission that their view is not experimentally verified.

You're wasting your time because you are both incapable of understanding the science and too compulsive to stop yourself from uselessly defending your ignorance. I would be truly amazed if you could manage to prove me wrong. And the sad things is that all it would take is a modicum of self-control.

[Magical Realist]

Yet, you still haven't demonstrated you know what experimentally equivalent interpretations of QM are. Nor explained the dearth of scientific excitement about retrocausality, nor even acknowledged the authors', of that paper, own admission that their view is not experimentally verified.

You're wasting your time because you are both incapable of understanding the science and too compulsive to stop yourself from uselessly defending your ignorance. I would be truly amazed if you could manage to prove me wrong. And the sad things is that all it would take is a modicum of self-control.

And more obnoxious ad hominems...Now not only am I not adult and stupid but I'm compulsive and ignorant and lacking in self-control. Oh woe is me. How shall I ever recover..lol!

[Syne]

I never said you were stupid (and I can only imagine why you'd opt to assume that yourself). Apparently you won't ever recover...see continued prattling on about nothing to avoid the topic of this thread. Can you even answer the simplest of questions to verify your scientific understanding?

Do you understand the difference between QM experiments and QM interpretations? Look it up if you need to...I'll wait.

[Magical Realist]

I never said you were stupid (and I can only imagine why you'd opt to assume that yourself). Apparently you won't ever recover...see continued prattling on about nothing to avoid the topic of this thread. Can you even answer the simplest of questions to verify your scientific understanding?

Do you understand the difference between QM experiments and QM interpretations? Look it up if you need to...I'll wait.

So now I'm prattling on ignorant of the difference between experiments and interpretations. lol! You just can't stop can you? Why did you even bring your hateful ass over here to this group to poison it with your vitriol? Did they finally ban you at Sci Forums for your homophobic rants?

[Syne]

So now I'm prattling on ignorant of the difference between experiments and interpretations.

I'm really not sure...which is why I asked.

lol! You just can't stop can you? Why did you even bring your hateful ass over here to this group to poison it with your vitriol? Did they finally ban you at Sci Forums for your homophobic rants?

This is the off topic prattling I was talking about. It's clear you have some long-held grudge against me for some perceived slight. But no, I haven't been banned...and you're on my ignore list on the other forum. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, hoping you can manage to extricate yourself from old grudges and carry on a rational discussion.

It should be apparent why I'm not hopeful. Instead of just answering a simple question, you instantly assume its an insult and get defensive. In a discussion of science, you should really try to use facts as your defense instead of old grudges.

[Magical Realist]

So now I'm prattling on ignorant of the difference between experiments and interpretations.

I'm really not sure...which is why I asked.

lol! You just can't stop can you? Why did you even bring your hateful ass over here to this group to poison it with your vitriol? Did they finally ban you at Sci Forums for your homophobic rants?

This is the off topic prattling I was talking about. It's clear you have some long-held grudge against me for some perceived slight. But no, I haven't been banned...and you're on my ignore list on the other forum. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, hoping you can manage to extricate yourself from old grudges and carry on a rational discussion.

It should be apparent why I'm not hopeful. Instead of just answering a simple question, you instantly assume its an insult and get defensive. In a discussion of science, you should really try to use facts as your defense instead of old grudges.

You initially started this by making sweeping generalizations about retrocausality without even reading the articles posted or researching the links to experiments supporting it. The rest becomes you chasing your own tail trying to prove from cherry picked statements that retrocausaility isn't true because it is just an interpretation. Right..much as every theory in science is an interpretation---evolution, relativity, gravity, electricity. Somehow we were supposed to share your assumption that because retrocausality was merely a theory explaining the facts that it wasn't valid. But ALL theories are like this, and are embraced for how much they explain with the least amount of assumptions. This is what I showed with the quote about why retrocausality should be taken seriously. Then it all became a running flame thread about how horrible a person I am which has nothing to do with the thread. So there you have it---the reason I'm not taking you very seriously here and never have in the first place. Everything becomes about you trying to cover your ass about what you have previously stated and never admitting you were mistaken. And I'm not interested in debating your infallibility every single time here.

[Syne]

You initially started this by making sweeping generalizations about retrocausality without even reading the articles posted or researching the links to experiments supporting it. The rest becomes you chasing your own tail trying to prove from cherry picked statements that retrocausaility isn't true because it is just an interpretation. Right..much as every theory in science is an interpretation---evolution, relativity, gravity, electricity. Somehow we were supposed to share your assumption that because retrocausality was merely a theory explaining the facts that it wasn't valid. But ALL theories are like this, and are embraced for how much they explain with the least amount of assumptions. This is what I showed with the quote about why retrocausality should be taken seriously. Then it all became a running flame thread about how horrible a person I am which has nothing to do with the thread. So there you have it---the reason I'm not taking you very seriously here and never have in the first place. Everything becomes about you trying to cover your ass about what you have previously stated and never admitting you were mistaken. And I'm not interested in debating your infallibility every single time here.

OMG! This is absolutely priceless! THANK YOU, MR!

The rest becomes you chasing your own tail trying to prove from cherry picked statements that retrocausaility isn't true because it is just an interpretation. Right..much as every theory in science is an interpretation---evolution, relativity, gravity, electricity. Somehow we were supposed to share your assumption that because retrocausality was merely a theory explaining the facts that it wasn't valid.

LOL! You just admitted that you don't know the difference between QM experimental results and QM interpretations! And you don't even realize it. LOL! You seem to be conflating the admittedly ignorant argument of "it's only a theory" with the very well-known fact that there are many experimentally equivalent interpretations of QM. I honestly can't believe you were foolish enough to "open your mouth and remove all doubt". You REALLY should have taken my suggestion to look it up.

All valid interpretations of QM are experimentally equivalent. IOW, they must all comport with all known experimental results. Interpretations are merely attempts to explain "why" we get those results, but all interpretations are working from the exact same pool of results. And if an interpretation does not predict the same results as experiments, it is invalid. I never said retrocausality was invalid (since I haven't seen any of it that directly conflicts with experiment)...but it hasn't predicted experimentally found results that other interpretations fail to. All interpretations that comport with experiment, including retrocausality, are equally valid. So when choosing between equally valid interpretations, parsimony is a good starting point. And the lack of excitement from scientists about retrocausality bears this out.

But ALL theories are like this, and are embraced for how much they explain with the least amount of assumptions.

The "least amount of assumptions" is what parsimony means. You know, Occam's Razor.

This is what I showed with the quote about why retrocausality should be taken seriously.

You did not. In order for retrocausality to be parsimonious, there must be evidence that there is good reason to assume a mechanism unseen in experiments. If that good reason is the unifying of QM and relativity, where are the results of this tremendous breakthrough? I've already shown you where the author's themselves "don’t claim that retrocausality is the only option". So why are you trying to make a stronger argument than the actual scientists involved?

Everything becomes about you trying to cover your ass about what you have previously stated and never admitting you were mistaken.

In light of this proof that I am, indeed, right.....this seems nothing but projecting, especially considering how I have been the only one attempting, in vain, to get this thread back on topic.

Thanks again for completely confirming everything I said. I couldn't have asked for more.

[Magical Realist]

In light of this proof that I am, indeed, right.....this seems nothing but projecting, especially considering how I have been the only one attempting, in vain, to get this thread back on topic.

Thanks again for completely confirming everything I said. I couldn't have asked for more.

LOL! Covering your own ass again just as I said. You never learn do you?

Pan to Syne dancing around giddy that he was right all along. What is wrong with you?


Oh btw, consider this "interpretation"---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...wards.html

I never said retrocausality was invalid

Really now? It appears you don't know what you are claiming here:

"Does assuming retrocausality make anything work better? No. It just appeases our desire for a single, unified view of physics. IOW, retrocausality is wishful thinking."