- #176
Delta Kilo
- 329
- 22
No, it is obviously different. superdeterminism does not by itself imply retro-causality. Instead some constraints are placed on the initial conditions which somehow pre-determine the outcomes of all Bell-type experiments (including experimenters' choices) in the future. These initial conditions then evolve forward in time according to laws of physics, causing all these pre-determined outcomes to eventuate.jadrian said:exactly. it should be called super determinism. it should be called universal causality.
And the other way around, retro-causality does not mean total super-determinism.
Too bad, you are at least 25 years late. See http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html. Although I personally don't like it, or rather don't see a point. It does not clarify what measurement apparatus is, where does preferred basis come from and what happens to Shroedinger's cat. It keeps all these thorny questions swept under the carpet.jadrian said:if I am the first with this this then i claim it. adrians universal causality
But then transactional interpretation does not hold a monopoly on advanced wave solutions. After all, MWI is sufficiently weird, those who accept it might as well go for broke and add retro-causality to the mix.