🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct26.201649.11871@wixer.cactus.org> sparky@wixer.cactus.org (Timothy Sheridan) writes:
>From: sparky@wixer.cactus.org (Timothy Sheridan)
>Subject: Time symetric causality.
>Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 20:16:49 GMT
>
>Can the future explaine a q fluctuation.  ie 'if it has to turn out a given
>way then that is the pre initial condidion'
>
>The EPR experiment seems to say that something somewhere else can effect an
>event. So why cant the future be involved.? 
>Perhaps the 'Dice' are behind us.
>
>Tim.
>
EPR was supposed to show that QM was incomplete.  It purported to do this by 
showing that as it stood QM involved non-locality.  It was this, rather than 
the indeterminism itself, which was the object of the paper.  [By the way 
EPR is not an `experiment' in the normal sense.]  Not all kinds of non-
locality are problematic, but with some it is possible to rig things so that 
effects precede causes (which is sort of what you seem to be talking 
about).  This may not sound like such a problem, but one can derive the 
consequence that it is possible to get the effect of a _decision_ to take 
place before the decision.  Such an example shows why some versions of non-
locality are so strenuously resisted: they involve destroying the 
intelligibility of the world.

You need to be far more clear about what you mean by the future being
`involved.'  (Certainly the way I _want_ parts of the future to be (ie the
`final cause') is crucial in explaining/predicting my motivated actions.)
o------------------------------------------o------------------------------o
| David Spurrett, department of Philosophy |  `I have seen the truth, and |
| University of Natal, Durban              |   it makes no sense.'        |
| email: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za      |              - OFFICIAL!     |
o------------------------------------------o------------------------------o