XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.paranormal, alt.atheism   
   XPost: soc.history   
   From: jtem01@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/26/25 3:20 PM, JTEM wrote:   
      
   > Google:  Retrocausality   
   >   
   > Google:  Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser   
   >   
   > Though that second one has two proposed interpretations that avoid the   
   > issue of retrocausality. This is to be expected, as "Evidence" is never   
   > "Proof," it's supportive of or, more accurately, "Consistent with a   
   > specific hypothesis." You need a convergence of evidence to ever "Proof"   
   > anything, and even then nothing is 100% proven. Not in science.   
      
   What is *Shocking* is that the collective saw this, looked for one of   
   alternative explanations that dispute it but, being retarded, cherry   
   picked one that explicitly states that is does NOT exclude   
   Retrocausality!   
      
   Yeah. That was the issue:  Retrocausality.   
      
   THAT was what the collective was trying to dispute. But it's so stupid   
   that it can't even read a cite, much less understand it, BEFORE it posts   
   it in defense of it's stupid assertions...   
      
   "As suggested in this video by Craig Gidney, you can make a classical   
   version of the experiment, with no quantum weirdness, and still get   
   supposed retrocausality in the results."   
      
   The issue is that the collective have no clue what so ever that there's   
   a difference between AN OPINION and a FACT.   
      
   The writer of the page cited holds an opinion. The collective needs   
   that opinion to be true in order to pretend it's stupidity isn't   
   stupidity. So, the collective can't discern the writer's opinion from   
   scientific fact....   
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)