Mark,

Well, I guess the fact that evidence continues to point to the impossibility of HVs. Every time someone thinks they find a loophole that allows for HVs, it is usually fairly rapidly closed.

Ken,

The multiverse *could* be a BW (or a BU, I guess). There’s no reason it couldn’t be. In any event, I still see the “future events as HVs”…[Read more]

Mark: well, I see two options here. Either randomness is merely a representation of our lack of knowledge (after all, the probability distributions you describe are only meaningful in the context of gaining knowledge, i.e. experiment), which would seem to suggest hidden variables are required to invoke a BW, or the multiverse exists in order to…[Read more]

Funny you should mention Eddington. I have gone back and re-examined some of his stuff and have come to the conclusion that he was actually an operationalist at heart. I don’t think he bought the ontological status of spacetime. In fact it is quite clear he didn’t. I just never thought about it in depth until last week’s RQI-N meeting.

Regarding…[Read more]

Ken,

You are going to have to sell me on the block universe (again) next weekend when we tape the inaugural episode of Quantum Conversations. I can buy retrocausality on the micro level so I do not think the two ideas are necessarily connected. I think the block universe is merely a way to make retrocausality seem palatable on the macro level,…[Read more]