Dear Travis and Aurelien, this time it seems most appropriate to address you together.

I agree that we have no proof that quantum mechanics is retrocausal, or for that matter that quantum mechanics is not retrocausal. Some interpretations via their definition leave no room for retrocausality, but then they don’t show that retrocausal thinking…[Read more]

Dear Travis, as regards the “unacknowledged assumption”, I refer you to my first reply to you and to my replies to Ken and to Aurelien, especially the part that begins “Likewise, in returning to Travis’s question”.

Shabbat shalom [I’ll be offline until tomorrow night]
Daniel

Dear Travis, you have misunderstood. What I meant by “exceeding the speed of light” was superluminal signaling, exactly in the sense of Aurelien’s comment, to which I responded: “Clearly, you cant use this scheme to transmit faster than light signal which could then be equivalent to backward causation and convince me.” I do not rule out…[Read more]

Thank you all for your comments and questions! I will try to do justice to them.

1. Dear Miroljub, the only variables I considered were those taking values ±1 and averages of many such variables. The goal was to investigate simple correlations subject to the Bell-CHSH inequality. I did not attempt to investigate anything beyond such…[Read more]

Dear Mirojlub Dugic,

Thank you for your question. I definitely intend for Bob’s measurements of B and B’ to be collective. In the classical limit, which we assume here, there is no contextuality just as there is no complementarity.

Daniel