DOCSLIB.ORG

Accommodating Retrocausality with Free Will Yakir Aharonov Chapman University, [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Chapman University Chapman University Digital Commons Mathematics, Physics, and Computer Science Science and Technology Faculty Articles and Faculty Articles and Research Research 2016 Accommodating Retrocausality with Free Will Yakir Aharonov Chapman University, [email protected] Eliahu Cohen Tel Aviv University Tomer Shushi University of Haifa Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/scs_articles Part of the Quantum Physics Commons Recommended Citation Aharonov, Y., Cohen, E., & Shushi, T. (2016). Accommodating Retrocausality with Free Will. Quanta, 5(1), 53-60. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.12743/quanta.v5i1.44 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Science and Technology Faculty Articles and Research at Chapman University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mathematics, Physics, and Computer Science Faculty Articles and Research by an authorized administrator of Chapman University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Accommodating Retrocausality with Free Will Comments This article was originally published in Quanta, volume 5, issue 1, in 2016. DOI: 10.12743/quanta.v5i1.44 Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. This article is available at Chapman University Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/scs_articles/334 Accommodating Retrocausality with Free Will Yakir Aharonov 1;2, Eliahu Cohen 1;3 & Tomer Shushi 4 1 School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Schmid College of Science, Chapman University, Orange, California, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 3 H. H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. E-mail: [email protected] 4 University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel. E-mail: [email protected] Editors: Kunihisa Morita, Danko Georgiev & Kelvin McQueen Article history: Submitted on September 22, 2015; Accepted on December 17, 2015; Published on January 11, 2016. etrocausal models of quantum mechanics add 1 Introduction further weight to the conflict between causality Rand the possible existence of free will. We an- Time-symmetric formulations of quantum mechanics are alyze a simple closed causal loop ensuing from the in- gaining growing interest. Using two boundary conditions teraction between two systems with opposing thermo- rather than the customary one, they offer novel twists dynamic time arrows, such that each system can fore- to several foundational issues. Such are the Wheeler– cast future events for the other. The loop is avoided Feynman electromagnetic absorber theory [1], Hoyle and by the fact that the choice to abort an event thus Narlikar’s theory of gravitation [2], and Cramer’s trans- forecasted leads to the destruction of the forecaster’s actional interpretation [3]. Among these, however, the past. Physical law therefore enables prophecy of fu- Aharonov–Bergmann–Lebowitz rule [4] and Aharonov’s ture events only as long as this prophecy is not re- two-state vector formalism [5] are distinct, in that they vealed to a free agent who can otherwise render it even predict some novel effects for a combination of for- false. This resolution is demonstrated on an earlier wards and backwards evolving wave functions. When per- finding derived from the two-state vector formalism, forming a complete post-selection of the quantum state, where a weak measurement’s outcome anticipates a otherwise counterfactual questions can be intriguingly an- future choice, yet this anticipation becomes appar- swered with regard to the state’s previous time evolution. ent only after the choice has been actually made. To These advances, however, might seem to come with quantify this assertion, weak information is described a price that even for adherents is too heavy, namely, dis- in terms of Fisher information. We conclude that an missing free will. While quantum indeterminism seemed already existing future does not exclude free will nor to offer some liberation from the chains imposed on our invoke causal paradoxes. On the quantum level, par- choices by classical causality, time-symmetric quantum ticles can be thought of as weakly interacting accord- mechanics somewhat undermines quantum indetermin- ing to their past and future states, but causality re- ism, as it renders future boundary conditions the missing mains intact as long as the future is masked by quan- source of possible causes. This might eventually reveal tum indeterminism. Quanta 2016; 5: 53–60. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY-3.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Quanta j DOI: 10.12743/quanta.v5i1.44 January 2016 j Volume 5 j Issue 1 j Page 53 causality to be just as strict and closed as classical causal- quantum counterpart of these two paradoxes where inher- ity. If the future is, in some sense, already there to the ent indeterminism saves causality. We show that within point of being causally equal to the past, free will (which the two-state vector formalism, although both future and is defined in Section 2) might appear to be as illusory as it past states of the system are known, genuine freedom is has appeared within the classical framework. We aim to not necessarily excluded. We then define and quantify show this is not necessarily the case. The two-state vector weak information that is the kind of information coming formalism is no worse off than classical physics, or other from the future that can be encrypted in the past without formulations of quantum mechanics as it pertains to the violating causality. incorporation of free will. In other words, free will is not precluded even when discussing a quantum world having both past and future boundary. 3 Interaction between Two Systems In this special issue of Quanta, dedicated to Richard with Opposing Time-Arrows Feynman and discussing time-symmetry in quantum me- chanics, we examine what might seem to be a problem in To demonstrate the possibility of knowing one’s future these formulations, namely the notion of free will [6]. Dis- and its consequences, we discuss a highly simplified clas- cussion of this kind might at first be regarded as philosoph- sical gedanken experiment. Naturally, there are imme- ical in character, but we hope to formulate the problem diate difficulties with such a setup. For example, can rigorously enough to yield nontrivial physical insights. two regions in space have opposite time arrows to begin with? Can observers inside them communicate? These and other questions deserve further probing, but we focus 2 The Problem here only on what would happen if several conditions are met, rather than whether and how they can be achieved. Following Russell and Deery [6], we propose defining Consider, then, a universe comprised of only two free will as follows. Let a physical system be capable of closed, non-interacting laboratories located at some dis- initiating complex interactions with its environment, gain- tance from one another. Suppose further that their ther- ing information about it and predicting its future states, as modynamic time arrows are opposite to one another, such well as their effects on the system itself. This grants the that each system’s future time direction is the other’s past. system purposeful behavior, which nevertheless fully ac- Finally let each laboratory host a free agent, henceforth cords with classical causality. Now let there be more than Alice and Bob, capable of free choice. one course of action that the system can take in response It is challenging to create a communication channel to a certain event, which in turn lead to different future between two laboratories of this kind. An exchange of outcomes that the system can predict. Free will then de- signals is possible in the following form. A light beam is notes the system’s taking one out of various courses of sent from the exterior part of one laboratory to the other’s action, independently (at least to some extent) of past boundary, where a static message is posted. The beam is restrictions. This definition is very close in spirit to the then reflected back to its origin. If the labs are massive one employed in [7], i.e. the ability to make choices. It enough, the beam imparts only a negligible momentum should be emphasized that even in our time-symmetric transfer. context, free will means only freedom from the past, not The gedanken experiment proceeds as follows (Fig. 1): (b) from the future (see also [5]). t1 : Bob sends a light-beam (red arrow) to Alice’s lab. (b) In classical physics, conservation laws oblige any event t2 : He receives through his returning beam a message to be strictly determined by earlier causes. In our con- from Alice saying: “Let me know if you see this message” text, this might apparently leave only one course of action (dotted blue world-line). (b) for the system in question, and hence no real choices. t3 : Bob posts a confirmation saying: “I saw your When moving to the quantum realm, free will might be message” (red world-line). recovered [7], but then again, if one adds a final boundary Then there are the following events in Alice’s lab: (a) condition to the description of the quantum system, can t1 : Alice sends a light-beam (blue arrow) to Bob’s free will exist? We shall answer both classical and quan- lab. (a) tum questions on the affirmative, employing statistical t2 : Alice receives through her returning beam of par- and quantum fluctuations, respectively. ticles that scattered off Bob’s message, i.e. she gets the In what follows, we analyze a classical causal para- information from Bob through this beam reflected from dox avoided by the past’s instability.
Recommended publications
  • Elementary Explanation of the Inexistence of Decoherence at Zero

    Elementary Explanation of the Inexistence of Decoherence at Zero

    Elementary explanation of the inexistence of decoherence at zero temperature for systems with purely elastic scattering Yoseph Imry Dept. of Condensed-Matter Physics, the Weizmann Institute of science, Rehovot 76100, Israel (Dated: October 31, 2018) This note has no new results and is therefore not intended to be submitted to a ”research” journal in the foreseeable future, but to be available to the numerous individuals who are interested in this issue. Several of those have approached the author for his opinion, which is summarized here in a hopefully pedagogical manner, for convenience. It is demonstrated, using essentially only energy conservation and elementary quantum mechanics, that true decoherence by a normal environment approaching the zero-temperature limit is impossible for a test particle which can not give or lose energy. Prime examples are: Bragg scattering, the M¨ossbauer effect and related phenomena at zero temperature, as well as quantum corrections for the transport of conduction electrons in solids. The last example is valid within the scattering formulation for the transport. Similar statements apply also to interference properties in equilibrium. PACS numbers: 73.23.Hk, 73.20.Dx ,72.15.Qm, 73.21.La I. INTRODUCTION cally in the case of the coupling of a conduction-electron in a solid to lattice vibrations (phonons) 14 years ago [5] and immediately refuted vigorously [6]. Interest in this What diminishes the interference of, say, two waves problem has resurfaced due to experiments by Mohanty (see Eq. 1 below) is an interesting fundamental ques- et al [7] which determine the dephasing rate of conduc- tion, some aspects of which are, surprisingly, still being tion electrons by weak-localization magnetoconductance debated.
  • Bell's Theorem and Its Tests

    Bell's Theorem and Its Tests

    PHYSICS ESSAYS 33, 2 (2020) Bell’s theorem and its tests: Proof that nature is superdeterministic—Not random Johan Hanssona) Division of Physics, Lulea˚ University of Technology, SE-971 87 Lulea˚, Sweden (Received 9 March 2020; accepted 7 May 2020; published online 22 May 2020) Abstract: By analyzing the same Bell experiment in different reference frames, we show that nature at its fundamental level is superdeterministic, not random, in contrast to what is indicated by orthodox quantum mechanics. Events—including the results of quantum mechanical measurements—in global space-time are fixed prior to measurement. VC 2020 Physics Essays Publication. [http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-33.2.216] Resume: En analysant l’experience de Bell dans d’autres cadres de reference, nous demontrons que la nature est super deterministe au niveau fondamental et non pas aleatoire, contrairement ace que predit la mecanique quantique. Des evenements, incluant les resultats des mesures mecaniques quantiques, dans un espace-temps global sont fixes avant la mesure. Key words: Quantum Nonlocality; Bell’s Theorem; Quantum Measurement. Bell’s theorem1 is not merely a statement about quantum Registered outcomes at either side, however, are classi- mechanics but about nature itself, and will survive even if cal objective events (for example, a sequence of zeros and quantum mechanics is superseded by an even more funda- ones representing spin up or down along some chosen mental theory in the future. Although Bell used aspects of direction), e.g., markings on a paper printout ¼ classical quantum theory in his original proof, the same results can be facts ¼ events ¼ points defining (constituting) global space- obtained without doing so.2,3 The many experimental tests of time itself.
  • Geometric Phase from Aharonov-Bohm to Pancharatnam–Berry and Beyond

    Geometric Phase from Aharonov-Bohm to Pancharatnam–Berry and Beyond

    Geometric phase from Aharonov-Bohm to Pancharatnam–Berry and beyond Eliahu Cohen1,2,*, Hugo Larocque1, Frédéric Bouchard1, Farshad Nejadsattari1, Yuval Gefen3, Ebrahim Karimi1,* 1Department of Physics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5, Canada 2Faculty of Engineering and the Institute of Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 5290002, Israel 3Department of Condensed Matter Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel *Corresponding authors: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract: Whenever a quantum system undergoes a cycle governed by a slow change of parameters, it acquires a phase factor: the geometric phase. Its most common formulations are known as the Aharonov-Bohm, Pancharatnam and Berry phases, but both prior and later manifestations exist. Though traditionally attributed to the foundations of quantum mechanics, the geometric phase has been generalized and became increasingly influential in many areas from condensed-matter physics and optics to high energy and particle physics and from fluid mechanics to gravity and cosmology. Interestingly, the geometric phase also offers unique opportunities for quantum information and computation. In this Review we first introduce the Aharonov-Bohm effect as an important realization of the geometric phase. Then we discuss in detail the broader meaning, consequences and realizations of the geometric phase emphasizing the most important mathematical methods and experimental techniques used in the study of geometric phase, in particular those related to recent works in optics and condensed-matter physics. Published in Nature Reviews Physics 1, 437–449 (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s42254-019-0071-1 1. Introduction A charged quantum particle is moving through space.
  • Annual Report to Industry Canada Covering The

    Annual Report to Industry Canada Covering The

    Annual Report to Industry Canada Covering the Objectives, Activities and Finances for the period August 1, 2008 to July 31, 2009 and Statement of Objectives for Next Year and the Future Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics 31 Caroline Street North Waterloo, Ontario N2L 2Y5 Table of Contents Pages Period A. August 1, 2008 to July 31, 2009 Objectives, Activities and Finances 2-52 Statement of Objectives, Introduction Objectives 1-12 with Related Activities and Achievements Financial Statements, Expenditures, Criteria and Investment Strategy Period B. August 1, 2009 and Beyond Statement of Objectives for Next Year and Future 53-54 1 Statement of Objectives Introduction In 2008-9, the Institute achieved many important objectives of its mandate, which is to advance pure research in specific areas of theoretical physics, and to provide high quality outreach programs that educate and inspire the Canadian public, particularly young people, about the importance of basic research, discovery and innovation. Full details are provided in the body of the report below, but it is worth highlighting several major milestones. These include: In October 2008, Prof. Neil Turok officially became Director of Perimeter Institute. Dr. Turok brings outstanding credentials both as a scientist and as a visionary leader, with the ability and ambition to position PI among the best theoretical physics research institutes in the world. Throughout the last year, Perimeter Institute‘s growing reputation and targeted recruitment activities led to an increased number of scientific visitors, and rapid growth of its research community. Chart 1. Growth of PI scientific staff and associated researchers since inception, 2001-2009.
  • David Bohn, Roger Penrose, and the Search for Non-Local Causality

    David Bohn, Roger Penrose, and the Search for Non-Local Causality

    David Bohm, Roger Penrose, and the Search for Non-local Causality Before they met, David Bohm and Roger Penrose each puzzled over the paradox of the arrow of time. After they met, the case for projective physical space became clearer. *** A machine makes pairs (I like to think of them as shoes); one of the pair goes into storage before anyone can look at it, and the other is sent down a long, long hallway. At the end of the hallway, a physicist examines the shoe.1 If the physicist finds a left hiking boot, he expects that a right hiking boot must have been placed in the storage bin previously, and upon later examination he finds that to be the case. So far, so good. The problem begins when it is discovered that the machine can make three types of shoes: hiking boots, tennis sneakers, and women’s pumps. Now the physicist at the end of the long hallway can randomly choose one of three templates, a metal sheet with a hole in it shaped like one of the three types of shoes. The physicist rolls dice to determine which of the templates to hold up; he rolls the dice after both shoes are out of the machine, one in storage and the other having started down the long hallway. Amazingly, two out of three times, the random choice is correct, and the shoe passes through the hole in the template. There can 1 This rendition of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, 1935, delayed-choice thought experiment is paraphrased from Bernard d’Espagnat, 1981, with modifications via P.
  • Retrocausality in Energetic Causal Sets Arxiv:1902.05082V3 [Gr-Qc]

    Retrocausality in Energetic Causal Sets Arxiv:1902.05082V3 [Gr-Qc]

    Realism and Causality II: Retrocausality in Energetic Causal Sets Eliahu Cohen1, Marina Cortesˆ 2;3, Avshalom C. Elitzur4;5 and Lee Smolin3 1 Faculty of Engineering, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 5290002, Israel 2 Instituto de Astrof´ısica e Cienciasˆ do Espac¸o Faculdade de Ciencias,ˆ 1769-016 Lisboa, Portugal 3 Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 31 Caroline Street North, Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2Y5, Canada 4 Iyar, The Israeli Institute for Advanced Research, POB 651, Zichron Ya’akov 3095303, Israel 5 Institute for Quantum Studies, Chapman University, Orange, CA 92866, USA November 3, 2020 Abstract We describe a new form of retrocausality, which is found in the behaviour of a class of causal set theories, called energetic causal sets (ECS). These are discrete sets of events, connected by causal relations. They have three orders: (1) a birth order, which is the order in which events are generated; this is a total order which is the true causal order, (2) a dynamical partial order, which prescribes the flows of energy and momen- tum amongst events, (3) an emergent causal order, which is defined by the geometry of an emergent Minkowski spacetime, in which the events of the causal sets are em- arXiv:1902.05082v3 [gr-qc] 1 Nov 2020 bedded. However, the embedding of the events in the emergent Minkowski spacetime may preserve neither the true causal order in (1), nor correspond completely with the microscopic partial order in (2). We call this disordered causality, and we here demon- strate its occurrence in specific ECS models. This is the second in a series of papers centered around the question: Should we accept violations of causality as a lesser price to pay in order to keep realist formula- tions of quantum theory? We begin to address this in the first paper [1] and continue here by giving an explicit example of an ECS model in the classical regime, in which causality is disordered.
  • Testing Superdeterministic Conspiracy Found

    Testing Superdeterministic Conspiracy Found

    Testing Superdeterministic Conspiracy Found. Phys. 41:1521-1531 (2011), arXiv:1105.4326 [quant-ph] Sabine Hossenfelder Nordita What is Superdeterminism? • No free will: Not possible to chose detector settings independent of prepared state. • “Conspiracy” theories: misleading expression. • Really: Nonlocal correlations necessary, but • Not necessarily spooky at a distance. • Hidden variables, yes, but not necessarily realist. Nonlocality “A theory will be said to be locally causal if the probabilities attached to values of local beables in a space-time region 1 are unaltered by specification of values of local beables in a space-like separated region 2, when what happens in the backward light cone of 1 is already sufficiently specified, for example by a full specification of local beables in a space-time region 3…” ~ J. S. Bell Why Superdeterminism? • Because I like it. • Because it’s possible and hasn’t been ruled out since Bell’s theorem can’t be used. • Logically: Can never be ruled out, but certain models can be ruled out. • Try to be as model-independent as possible. What kind of Superdeterminism? • Assume: Hidden variables come from environment. • Assume: dofs beyond experiment’s scale decouple. • Assume: Born rule fulfilled. • No assumptions about collapse or likewise. How to test Superdeterminism? • Main difference to standard QM: The same initial state will lead to the same outcome. No indeterminism. • But “the same state” now means “the same hidden variables”. So we don’t know how to prepare the “same” state twice. • Avoid problem by repeating measurements on one state. Use non-commuting variables. Testing Superdeterminism • Repeatedly measure non-commuting variables on one state.
  • 2. Superoscillations.Pdf

    2. Superoscillations.Pdf

    When the Whole Vibrates Faster than Any of its Parts Computational Superoscillation Theory Nicholas Wheeler December 2017 Introduction. The phenomenon/theory of “superoscillations”—brought to my attention by my friend Ahmed Sebbar1—originated in the time-symmetric formulation of quantum mechanics2 that gave rise to the theory of “weak measurements.” Recognition of the role that superoscillations play in that work was brought into explicit focus by Aharonov et al in 1990, and since that date the concept has found application to a remarkable variety of physical subject areas. Yakir Aharonov took his PhD in 1960 from the University of Bristol, where he worked with David Bohm.3 In 1992 a conference was convened at Bristol to celebrate Aharonov’s 60th birthday. It was on that occasion that the superoscillation phenomenon came first to the attention of Michael Berry (of the Bristol faculty), who in an essay “Faster than Fourier” contributed to the proceedings of that conference4 wrote that “He [Aharonov] told me that it is possible for functions to oscillate faster than any of their Fourier components. This seemed unbelievable, even paradoxical; I had heard nothing like it before. ” Berry was inspired to write a series of papers relating to the theory of superoscillation and its potential applications, as also by now have a great many other authors. 1 Private communication, 17 November 2017. 2 Y. Aharonov, P. G. Bergmann & J. L. Libowitz, “Time symmetry in the quantum meassurement process,” Phys. Rev. B 134, 1410–1416 (1964). 3 It was, I suspect, at the invitation of E. P Gross—who had collaborated with Bohm when both were at Princeton—that Aharonov spent 1960–1961 at Brandeis University, from which I had taken the first PhD and departed to Utrecht/CERN in February of 1960, so we never met.
  • Rethinking Superdeterminism

    Rethinking Superdeterminism

    ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 06 May 2020 doi: 10.3389/fphy.2020.00139 Rethinking Superdeterminism Sabine Hossenfelder 1 and Tim Palmer 2* 1 Department of Physics, Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Frankfurt, Germany, 2 Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom Quantum mechanics has irked physicists ever since its conception more than 100 years ago. While some of the misgivings, such as it being unintuitive, are merely aesthetic, quantum mechanics has one serious shortcoming: it lacks a physical description of the measurement process. This “measurement problem” indicates that quantum mechanics is at least an incomplete theory—good as far as it goes, but missing a piece—or, more radically, is in need of complete overhaul. Here we describe an approach which may provide this sought-for completion or replacement: Superdeterminism. A superdeterministic theory is one which violates the assumption of Statistical Independence (that distributions of hidden variables are independent of measurement settings). Intuition suggests that Statistical Independence is an essential ingredient of any theory of science (never mind physics), and for this reason Superdeterminism is typically discarded swiftly in any discussion of quantum foundations. The purpose of this paper is to explain why the existing objections to Superdeterminism are based on experience with classical physics and linear systems, but that this experience misleads us. Superdeterminism is a promising approach not only to solve the measurement Edited by: problem, but also to understand the apparent non-locality of quantum physics. Most Karl Hess, importantly, we will discuss how it may be possible to test this hypothesis in an (almost) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States model independent way.
  • Disentangling the Quantum World

    Disentangling the Quantum World

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Apollo Entropy 2015, 17, 7752-7767; doi:10.3390/e17117752 OPEN ACCESS entropy ISSN 1099-4300 www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy Article Disentangling the Quantum World Huw Price 1;y;* and Ken Wharton 2;y 1 Trinity College, Cambridge CB2 1TQ, UK 2 San José State University, San José, CA 95192-0106, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] y These authors contributed equally to this work. * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +44-12-2333-2987. Academic Editors: Gregg Jaeger and Andrei Khrennikov Received: 22 September 2015 / Accepted: 6 November 2015 / Published: 16 November 2015 Abstract: Correlations related to quantum entanglement have convinced many physicists that there must be some at-a-distance connection between separated events, at the quantum level. In the late 1940s, however, O. Costa de Beauregard proposed that such correlations can be explained without action at a distance, so long as the influence takes a zigzag path, via the intersecting past lightcones of the events in question. Costa de Beauregard’s proposal is related to what has come to be called the retrocausal loophole in Bell’s Theorem, but—like that loophole—it receives little attention, and remains poorly understood. Here we propose a new way to explain and motivate the idea. We exploit some simple symmetries to show how Costa de Beauregard’s zigzag needs to work, to explain the correlations at the core of Bell’s Theorem. As a bonus, the explanation shows how entanglement might be a much simpler matter than the orthodox view assumes—not a puzzling feature of quantum reality itself, but an entirely unpuzzling feature of our knowledge of reality, once zigzags are in play.
  • Final Copy 2020 11 26 Stylia

    Final Copy 2020 11 26 Stylia

    This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from Explore Bristol Research, http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk Author: Stylianou, Nicos Title: On 'Probability' A Case of Down to Earth Humean Propensities General rights Access to the thesis is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License. A copy of this may be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode This license sets out your rights and the restrictions that apply to your access to the thesis so it is important you read this before proceeding. Take down policy Some pages of this thesis may have been removed for copyright restrictions prior to having it been deposited in Explore Bristol Research. However, if you have discovered material within the thesis that you consider to be unlawful e.g. breaches of copyright (either yours or that of a third party) or any other law, including but not limited to those relating to patent, trademark, confidentiality, data protection, obscenity, defamation, libel, then please contact [email protected] and include the following information in your message: •Your contact details •Bibliographic details for the item, including a URL •An outline nature of the complaint Your claim will be investigated and, where appropriate, the item in question will be removed from public view as soon as possible. On ‘Probability’ A Case of Down to Earth Humean Propensities By NICOS STYLIANOU Department of Philosophy UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol in ac- cordance with the requirements of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Faculty of Arts.
  • Retrocausality and TGD

    Retrocausality and TGD

    Retrocausality and TGD M. Pitk¨anen Email: [email protected]. http://tgdtheory.com/. June 20, 2019 Abstract This article was inspired by the preprint \Is a time symmetric interpretation of quan- tum theory possible without retrocausality?" of Leifer and Pusey related to the notion of retrocausality. Retrocausality means the possibility of causal influences propagating in non- standard time direction. The conjecture is that retrocausality could allow wave functions to be real and allow to get rid of the problematic notion of state function reduction. The work is interesting from TGD view point for several reasons. 1. TGD leads to a new view about reality of wave function solving the basic problem of quantum measurement theory. In ZEO quantum states are replaced by zero energy states analogous to pairs of initial and final states in ordinary positive energy ontology and can be regarded as superpositions of classical deterministic time evolutions. The sequence of state function reductions means a sequence of re-creations of the superpositions of classical realities identified as space-time surfaces. The TGD based view about scattering amplitudes has rather concrete connection with the view of Cramer as I interpret it. There is however no attempt to reduce quantum theory to a purely classical theory. The notion of the \world of classical worlds" (WCW) consisting of classical realities identified as space-time surfaces replaces space-time as a fixed observer independent reality in TGD. 2. Retrocausality is basic aspect of TGD. Zero Energy Ontology (ZEO) predicts that both arrows of time are possible. In this sense TGD is time symmetric.