Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Question

[rkastner]

you can find it here: http://transactionalinterpretation.org/

Scroll down a bit

 

[DrChinese]

you can find it here: http://transactionalinterpretation.org/

Scroll down a bit

I liked the PowerPoint presentation, Ruth. Nice job of delineating some of the differences between TI and CI.

 

[alexepascual]

you can find it here: http://transactionalinterpretation.org/
Scroll down a bit

Thanks Ruth, I'll take a look at the material in your website and let you know if I have questions or comments on it.

 

[rkastner]

Thanks Dr. Chinese! :)

 

[alexepascual]

Causality is a very slippery notion indeed. I do address this in Chapter 7 of my book.

Ruth, I have now read chapter 7. In it you say:
"As noted in Chapter 1, traditional approaches to measurement in quantum theory
inevitably end up needing to invoke an ‘observing consciousness’ in order to ‘collapse’
the wave function (or state vector) and bring about a determinate outcome, necessitating
speculative forays into psycho-physical parallelism"
I would like to understand if this means you see psycho-physical parallelism as a problematic concept and if this is so, why you think there is a problem with it.
Thanks.

 

[rkastner]

I view psycho-physical parallelism as problematic in the context of interpreting physical theory because it is so speculative, and because it does not appear to be based on any sort of physical theory. As Kent has noted, "we don't have a good theory of mind." In Chapter 1 I quote from Kent (2010): "“...the fact that we don't have a good theory of mind, even in classical physics, doesn't give us a free pass to conclude anything we please. That way lies scientific ruin: any physical theory is consistent with any observations if we can bridge any discrepancy by tacking on arbitrary assumptions about the link between mind states and physics.” (A. Kent, 2010, from Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality , p.21)