And also good is:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.4348"
As an acausal account, RBW rejects any kind of common-cause principle and holds that detector clicks and the like are not evidence of microscopic dynamical entities propagating through space and impinging on the detector. Rather, detector clicks evidence rarefied subsets of relations comprising the Source, detector, beam splitters, mirrors, etc. in the entire worldtube of the experimental arrangement from initiation to outcomes, i.e., in an ‘‘all at once’’ (blockworld) fashion. Therefore, causality, dynamical entities and dynamical laws are emergent features in our view, not fundamental. In this way, we have been able to provide an account of NRQM that resolves all the foundational issues therein.
And reference is made therein to Price and Backwards Causation (BCTS) as well:
As we have argued elsewhere(14), the blockworld (BW) perspective (the reality of
all events past, present and future including the outcomes of quantum experiments),
which is necessarily at the heart of most time-symmetric approaches, is implied by RoS.
Thus, Huw Price(15), who calls this perspective the “Archimedean view from nowhen,”
was motivated to take seriously the idea of time-symmetric QM (TSQM) and so-called
backwards causation in quantum mechanics (BCQM). As he says in his book defending
BCQM(16): “the aim of the book is to explore the consequences of the block universe
view in physics and philosophy.” Price is attempting to construct a local hidden variables
interpretation of NRQM that explains EPR-Bell correlations with purely time-like
dynamics or backwards causation. According to Price(17), BCQM provides an explanation
of the Bell correlations “which shows that they are not really non-local at all, in that they
depend on purely local interactions between particles and measuring devices concerned.
They seem non-local only if we overlook the present relevance of future interactions.”
The key explanatory move that Price makes is to have information travel backwards
along the light cones of the EPR particles, converging at the source of the entangled state.
Presumably, this is the point in spacetime where the entangled state is “prepared.” The
picture is that the future measurement in separate wings of an EPR apparatus is as much
the cause of the (earlier) entangled state as the converse, so the entangled state at the
Source1 is as much the “effect” of a causal chain “originating” with the measurement of
the entangled state at the detectors as the converse. This is to put the point directly in
terms of backwards causation. The causal connection is not between the space-like
separated experimental outcomes, but rather it is time-like between outcomes and
Source. Essentially, in backwards-causation time-symmetric (BCTS) approaches, one
eliminates the directional nature of a causal relationship so that there is no distinction
between “A causes B” and “B causes A,” but rather it is merely the case that “A and B
are causally related.” In this sense, the outcomes of QNL experiments are “causally
related” to the state preparation so the demand for a causal relationship (per the violation
of Bell’s inequality) between the space-like separated, correlated outcomes is achieved by
allowing for the fact that outcomes “influence” the state preparation (thus, the term
“backwardly causal” although “bi-causal” might be more appropriate). BCTS provides
for a local account of entanglement (one without space-like influence) that not only keeps
RoS, but in some cases relies on it by employing its blockworld consequence. Given the
future boundary condition in spacetime, one is free to view configuration space (the wave
function) as a mere calculational device (because we need only take the actual outcomes
of experiments seriously), thus rendering the quantum and spacetime pictures apparently
fully harmonious2.
Despite the potential explanatory power of BCTS, we have shown(18) that it is not
sufficient to account for all QNL experiments in a local fashion. For example, in the
quantum liar experiment (QLE) entanglement is generated via the spatiotemporal
configuration of the experimental set-up in a way not explicable by any kind of commoncause principle and its deepest explanation therefore requires invoking the entire actual history of the experiment in question. QLE, if it is to be interpreted in a way that saves locality, requires a different conception of entanglement than that offered by BCTS.
