In the middle of all the talks about many worlds and what not, I find it curious that people don't seem to accept "static spacetime" ontology with QM the way they do with classical mechanics. After all, in relativity the light beam literally travels along its own simultaneity plane (if we are allowed to use such concepts in discussion), effectively causing it to arrive "at the same time" it begun its journey. Or rather, we should see the "motion of the light beam" as a static connection in spacetime which does not evolve over time in any sense, but rather simply exists just the way we find it to be in our experience. It is only in our point of view that the light is not found to be simultaneously at the origin and at the destination! The simple fact is that if simultaneity is relative, your future has already happened from the point of view of many observers in motion in your inertial frame. And nothing moves in spacetime; things are in motion only in our experience, time is an illusion and the future and past exist "all the time". Since this is what Einstein believed in, I find it curious that he was troubled by the "spooky action at a distance" associated with QM. Shouldn't it have been abundantly obvious to him, that when you talk about the "action at a distance" with entangled photons, there is absolutely no sense of thinking in terms of measurement causing a reaction elsewhere in spacetime "simultaneously". The reaction could be simultaneous only in one arbitrary inertial frame, and actually in his model the whole experiment existed as a static shape in spacetime. If one believes this, it shouldn't be too mysterious to find out that it seems like at the "departure" the photon already knew how it was going to be measured, and as such its "future" measurement appears to affect the entangled photon already at departure. It is not mysterious to find out that the universe seems to know about the future if you believe future exists all the time anyway. --- We see the energy of a so-called photon in one place at one instant, and little bit later we find it elsewhere. We have a certain idea about the motion of the photon that we think must have happened over a certain "period of time". One way to describe the mystery is to ask, how can all the "possible" routes of the photon interfere with each others when in measurements we always find the photon at one place after all? This is difficult to explain only in so far that you consider time to really flow forward. Relativity says that from the point of view of the photon itself no time passed at all "during" its travel. The state of the destination did not evolve in time "during" this travel, or another way to put it, the distance traveled was exactly 0, or yet another way to put it, the state of the destination was at the event "photon arrival" already when the photon "began its journey", or more accurate way to put it, the light [/b]did not travel at all; the "motion of the photon" is at most a static connection between origin and destination. Simply put, our idea about the trajectory of a photon is how a tiny particle would have traveled the distance in a newtonian world. In spacetime this trajectory is a static shape that exists all the time between the static shapes that are "the motion of measurement equipment". Also, the photon is an idea about a tiny particle, when we should probably avoid saying too much, and just talk about energy or information making its way from one piece of matter to another, one way or another. It should be plain to see how this shape of "information transfer" between pieces of matter could be determined by simple laws to exist in spacetime (not to "form" over time, but to "exist" in a static sense) exactly the way it is found to be by studying the reactions of matter. The "shape of the travel" is a wavelike shape where interference occurs, and there is no sense in claiming that measurements "at one point of time" cause something to change or move elsewhere in spacetime. In dual-slit experiment, the shape of the static connections simply *are* such that the energy indeed does use both routes from our point of view. If we put a piece of matter to block the other route we find the connections to exist accordingly. It is wrong to think "the photon would need to know about the slit on its way to the shade", because the light is at the source at the same moment it is at the slit. In delayed choice experiment - blocking the other slit while the photon "is already in its way" - from the point of view of the photon, the block was there already when the journey "began". To say we blocked the route after the photon departed is an assertion made from some arbitrary inertial frame, usually the lab frame. We can consider similar experiments with gravitational lensing, where the measured photons have been on their way for hundreds of years in our frame, and the simple fact is the same; the measurement device was in place when the photon started its journey, if a journey it may be called. There is no mystery at all in any delayed choice experiment, apart from the mystery of spacetime itself. So it seems to me that the "spooky action at a distance" could be seen as a case of two static connections that interfere with each others at one point in spacetime. When we measure a property of a photon, and this measurement appears to affect the state of another photon elsewhere "instantly" (in lab frame), in spacetime ontology the motion of photon A is a static connection between "departure" and "measurement", and motion of photon B is a static connection that exist in a different simultaneity plane, but their shapes are nevertheless connected at one point in spacetime; the point when in our experience the source "emitted the photons". Thus it is entirely possible, if not even likely, that the photons really do interfere at departure in such manner that the "future" measurement of photon A has a measurable effect on photon B. If you are clinging to newtonian terminology of time, it is as if the information about the measurement that occurred to photon A flowed backwards in time back into the source, where it interfered with the photon B as it was starting its journey. But in spacetime ontology all we see are static shapes. This may not readily explain everything about QM, but shouldn't we nevertheless use the concept of spacetime absolutely when thinking about QM phenomena, at least in so far as we think spacetime is a valid concept at all? If I can kick off the criticism myself, it seems to me, that the difficulties with this view are mostly the same ontological difficulties that are associated to relativity theory, namely that our future already exists and nothing moves in spacetime, which makes it much harder to explain what in the physical world causes us to experience motion in our conscious experience, or what causes us to experience there is a "now" moment at all. What causes the illusion? If instead motion really was metaphysically real instead of spacetime, we would be much closer to explaining conscious experience. For this reason I would not be too surprised if someone came up with more elegant model where motion metaphysically exists, where there is only one "now" moment, and past and future does not exist apart from our own ideas about them. Well, I guess what I'm asking is, why are we talking about ideas where measurement causes a metaphysical motion/change somewhere in spacetime when at the same time we don't believe anything moves in spacetime?