Hi Pete,
I think I’m close to understanding faithfulness. Let me respond to your last paragraph so you can correct me as necessary.
Retrocausality avoids the non-locality conclusion of Bell inequality violations by denying statistical independence (SI). It does this by providing a causal mechanism that hides a true statistical dependence (where we thought we had SI), thus Wood and Spekkens claim that such causal mechanisms are fine-tuned a la superdeterminism (and therefore, undesirable). Is this correct?
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.