Article written by

Avatar of Mark Stuckey

5 Responses

  1. editor
    editor at | |

    This paper has been sent out to peer review.

  2. Avatar of Peter J. Lewis
    Peter J. Lewis at | |

    This is good stuff. It really help to position what you're doing against what others are doing.

    I think it's right to say that the difference between yourselves and Price & Wharton is largely a matter of stress. They stress the backwards causation, you stress the acausal constraints. But they have the acausal constraints too, and you have the backwards causation (construed in a sufficiently deflationary manner).

    A small point: on p.6 you suggest that any account that uses the statistical independence loophole is retrocausal. I don't think that can be right, because you can at least envision a conspiratorial theory with only past-to-future causation (Bell's "superdeterminism"). But what you say immediately after that sentence sounds right: global constraint models are retrocausal under a suitable analysis of causation.

    On the difference between your model and TSVF: I guess I don't see the TSVF as particularly dynamical. Granted, you've got these two vectors that evolve forwards and backwards in time. I don't know how DFBV describe them, but it looks to me like they're a kind of heuristic -- what's real is the discontinuous photon trajectory (where the two vectors overlap). That is, you could construe DFBV and yourselves as proposing alternative methods of constructing one and the same thing. (Although I'm not exactly sure what the end result of your construction is -- see below).

    On the specter of instrumentalism: What exactly is the ACGC a constraint on? Waves, particles, both? No -- you say "neither". You don't mean "nothing", right? In some places you say the source-sink energy transfer is unmediated, but then it does start to smell of instrumentalism -- the constraint is just a constraint on the detector clicks. In other places you say the constraint is a constraint on a spacetimesource element -- which looks like a spatiotemporal entity (or at least an entity that has a spatiotemporal aspect).

    (Incidentally, it's not so clear that TSVF answers "waves" to the above question. They would certainly say "photons", but it's not clear what a photon is for them. It's whatever is represented by the regions of overlap of the two waves. Maybe it’s a spacetimesource element!)

  3. editor
    editor at | |

    A referee report has been received.

  4. […] Full Text Download (921k) | View Submission Post […]

Please comment with your real name using good manners.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.