Talk:Retrocausality

message: Reverse Causation redirects here - this is an epidemiological concept that is not the same as the physics concept retrocausality. I am happy to delete the redirect, or to create a disambiguation page. Any views?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.82.163 (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I updated the article from it's original incarnation, to include what might make a decent introduction. I mentioned just enough to not get into detail, and also lightly address the common arguments I've seen about it. I might try getting back to it sometime in the near future if others don't tackle it first, but I think that's all for today. --'Kash 00:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Article

message: Someone recently edited the main article to add "(not true but cant be assed to explain but read Newscientist What's done is done… or is it? * 28 September 2006* Patrick Barry* Magazine issue 2571)." A notation like this belongs in the discussion page, not in the main article, so I have removed it.
Additionally, I have a subscription to New Scientist, have read that article, and no emperical observations of retrocausality have yet been made. The article discusses an experiment designed by Professor John G. Cramer, as mentioned above, and this experiment has not yet been performed. --'Kash 22:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussions and editing

message: Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, Acceptable sources, none of the sources given here are reliable for the purposes of an article on a scientific topic. The article either needs to be deleted, changed to address the topic from a mass media perspective, or supported by proper references for a scientific article per ArbCom, such as textbooks or articles in reputable peer-reviewed journals in the appropriate field. With the current sources, it is not possible to write a verifiable (WP:V) article on the topic as a scientific or philisophical concept. --Philosophus T 06:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper sources

message: Original research does not belong on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the notion of retrocausality is proved false in most modern physics textbooks. This is never mentioned in the article. Also, if retrocausation were possible, we would have memories of the future. Clearly that is not the case.
Retro-causation could indeed be possible.  The past while appearing solid, may in fact be fluid and subject to change all the time.  Our past would be part of that change so we would not be aware of this motion. Perhaps this is the root of Einstiens hidden variable. -AMO  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.64.254 (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: Assuming this survives AFD in its current form...
*On the philosophy side:
**A citation for Hume's definition of causality would be nice.
**Some discussion on how retrocausality related to predestination/free will would be great, but will need a source.  I didn't find one.
**Should there be any discussion of "hard" time travel here, rather than just the wikilink to the article?  Should we have include a  with a quick summary, as currently done with tachyons in science?
*On the science side:
**The blurb on Feynman's positron model badly needs expansion.
**Should any more tachyon information be included, given that tachyons are generally interpreted not to induce causal violations in time-like systems?
**Did I miss anything that is/was actually legitimate science?
--Serpent's Choice 14:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also work on the introduction. Right now, it seems to imply that such phenomena actually exist. --Philosophus T 20:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and altered.  The mid-AFD article quick-fix is rarely the final draft, and I'll admit to having written a fairly slipshod lede at first.  However, I do want to discuss the wording of the denial-of-reality.  "Generally discounted" is a weaker denial than I might give similar concepts, but there are enough open questions regarding CTCs in heavily deformed space that I'm reticent to drop the bar on it any harder in the lede.  I'm ambivalent about my current "no observation ... has been confirmed" wording versus a similar "has never been observed" -- is the Crough/Clay superluminal "cosmic ray" significant (and directly applicable) enough to contraindicate the simpler phrasing? Serpent's Choice 06:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Things to do

message: I'd argue that the new version by  Serpent's Choice is a big improvement!
I'm concerned about one particular sentence:
:"However, no observation of retrocausality has never been confirmed, and the concept is generally discounted by both modern philosophy and mainstream science"
I'd argue for dropping that sentence, even though I agree with it. We should make clear that retrocausality is not scientifically confirmed, but a sentence like that is hard to give direct citation for. The fact that retrocausality is *not* mainstream should be evident to any reader who reads the whole article carefully. The alternative, which might be very laborious, is for the editor to find another published commentator who actually states 'No observation of retrocausality has ever been confirmed..', and then cite that comment. EdJohnston 05:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually added that sentence in response to the concerns of Philosophus, above, who felt that the lede at the time (which is as it is now, minus that line) came too close to implying that retrocausality was an observed or recognized phenomenon.    I know what a morass the fringe/pseudoscience/speculative/etc. material has been of late, so I've tried to tread lightly around the wordings -- although I'm not really any happier with that phrasing.  Any suggestions for more compelling prose that resolves Philosophus's admittedly legitimate concern?  Serpent's Choice 05:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could go through the list of authors in the AAAS symposium, and check whether any of *them* reported actual experiments on retrocausality, by themselves or others. If not, then you could summarize the drift of what they said. Like: 'No author at the recent symposium.. knew of any actual experiments..'  The phrase 'generally discounted', while very likely true, is hard to cite adequately for WP:V. Also, trying to generalize about modern philosophy is like trying to bottle a cloud. EdJohnston 17:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Made another shot at fixing the lede into something acceptable that doesn't seem to give excessive implication of plausibility.  Serpent's Choice 07:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewritten article is much better than the previous stub 

message: Feynman later employed retrocausality to provide a proposed model of the positron.  In this model, electrons moving backward in time would appear to possess negative electric charge.  Further understanding of antimatter has rendered this model largely obsolete.
Electrons moving forward in time have negative electric charge, don't they? Should the above sentence say "positive" or was the suggestion that electrons are moving backward in time? --Hitchhiker89talk 19:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and now fixed.  Somehow the claim that I "missed a sign change" in my math seems weak in a text article.  =)  Serpent's Choice 04:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positrons 

message: Although I've run across a few web references to Hawking's "top-down cosmology" as retrocausality, I'm inclined to consider them in error and not include them here.  Hawking's proposal is clearly a revised anthropic principle, but nothing inherent in that concept actually alters the past.  Serpent's Choice 07:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are conflating the anthropic principle with Hawking top-down thesis, it seems to me. Those are two different subjects. The anthropic principle simply states that theories about the universe must comply with the requirement of being favorable to the development of sentient life. Hawking's top-down theory presumes to show how "constraints" defined by the present state of the universe "selected" initial conditions at the beginning of the universe. It is a quantum mechanical model in which "no boundary" conditions at the beginning of the universe (conditions in which time didn't exist) dissolved the separation between past, present and future. Retrocausality isn't the best word to describe that state of affairs. It is not as if one thing is causing the other, or that one thing happens before the other. James725496 (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top-down Cosmology 

message: To what extent is it appropriate or necessary to include coverage of pseudoscientific theories on this topic (as described at WP:FRINGE), such as those presented in Journal of Scientific Exploration?  Serpent's Choice 09:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there would have to be a lot of discussion of the pseudoscientific topic in mainstream circles, as described in WP:FRINGE#Examples. ("including but not limited to scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and even the United States Supreme Court"). This mainstream discussion would need to be documented in mainstream references. EdJohnston 21:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I took a shot at it.  Other than one reference to the Journal of Scientific Exploration, my journal sourcing was exclusively from BMJ and Foundations of Physics.  It could probably do with at least one more pair of eyes for quality concerns, nevertheless.  Serpent's Choice 06:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing pseudoscience 

message: RetrocausalitySCORES IN KEY AREAS	RetrocausalitySCORES IN KEY AREAS	RetrocausalitySCORES IN KEY AREAS	RetrocausalitySCORES IN KEY AREAS	RetrocausalitySCORES IN KEY AREAS	RetrocausalitySCORES IN KEY AREAS
Legality                         	A                                	A                                	A                                	A                                	
Neutrality                       	A                                	A                                	A                                	A                                	
Writing                          	A                                	A                                	A                                	A                                	
Sources                          	A                                	A                                	A                                	A                                	
Citations                        	                                 	B                                	B                                	B                                	
                                 	                                 	                                 	                                 	                                 	
The only problem I see in this article is that some paragraphs are missing citations.  The writing is no doubt readable, and it flows very nicely.  For a subject that doesn't attract an organized countermovement, you would expect that much in the GA, on top of neutrality, which I believe has been achieved here.  The sources are no problem.  Overall this is a good article.  However, let someone else have the final say.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 03:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a few more references throughout and cleaned up some wording.  The only paragraphs without citations at this time are brief passages that serve as organizational introductions to fully-cited subsections.  Serpent's Choice 21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have defined the bilking argument, identified Faye more clearly, added a gloss for CTCs, and provided more substantial revision of the section on Cramer, including a discussion of another experiment in the field.  I've also improved or expanded wikilink targeting throughout.  How's it looking? Serpent's Choice 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice, good work. Could you take another look at the "in popular culture" proposal I made above to see if my remark is justified? And on a side note: I am receiving visitors until the beginning of next week and probably won't be able to take another look until Tuesday. So don't worry if I am not responding to any changes until then — if you worry about what else to do, you could compare if you missed out on any other proposals I made above, as I said, I don't have time to double-check right now myself, sorry for that! And: thanks for your work on this topic! Best wishes, Johnnyw talk 17:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress evaluation for GA

message: Hi!
OK, no big objections here after the first read. There are some things that need clarification I believe, or could be elaborated upon to make the article more accessible. In detail:
In the 1950s, Michael Dummett wrote in opposition to such definitions, stating that there was no philosophical objection to effects preceding their causes.[6] This argument was rebutted by fellow philosopher Anthony Flew[7] and, later, by Max Black's "bilking argument".[8] A more complex discussion of how free will relates to the issues Black raised is summarized by Newcomb's paradox.
To better understand how sentences 2 and 3 relate: what is the bilking argument? (which issues raised black?)
Jan Faye
There's no wiki link, maybe it would help to say s.th. Jan Fay, a philosopher of the University of Ulm, Germany, or something
CTC arise from some exact solutions to the Einstein field equation. 
I'd quickly explain what CTCs would imply. I know that's at the CTC article, but for a better understanding of the following sentences, it seems necessary. I'd propose to add s.th. like "A CTC is a world line of an object returning to origin, which would seem to imply at least the theoretical possibility of retrocausality and timetravel."
proposed an alternative theory.[25] University of Washington physicist John Cramer presented the design for an experiment to test this theory at an American Association for the Advancement of Science symposium, subsequently receiving some attention from the popular media,[26][27] although the experiment has never been performed as of 2006.
please clarify. the idea proposed relates to the tachyon idea, I think? add the basic idea of the proposal (taken from the src: "Cramer's approach to explaining entanglement is based on the proposition that particles at the quantum level can interact using signals that go both forward and backward in time") to better connect this proposal with the following paragraph regarding tachyons.
In popular culture
Can you elaborate on the example given? if you cite example, why not explain how retrocausality (or time-travel) works in Hogan's novel.
I haven't really looked at the other GA criteria yet (WP:MoS, images, sources), at a first glance everything seems fine, that's why I decided to focus on the prose. Good work by the way :) I will return shortly to check the other criteria, but as of now, I'd probably just put it on hold to because of the minor issues raised above. Well, read you soon I hope! Johnnyw talk 11:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have defined the bilking argument, identified Faye more clearly, added a gloss for CTCs, and provided more substantial revision of the section on Cramer, including a discussion of another experiment in the field.  I've also improved or expanded wikilink targeting throughout.  How's it looking? Serpent's Choice 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice, good work. Could you take another look at the "in popular culture" proposal I made above to see if my remark is justified? And on a side note: I am receiving visitors until the beginning of next week and probably won't be able to take another look until Tuesday. So don't worry if I am not responding to any changes until then — if you worry about what else to do, you could compare if you missed out on any other proposals I made above, as I said, I don't have time to double-check right now myself, sorry for that! And: thanks for your work on this topic! Best wishes, Johnnyw talk 17:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: Fair enough, looking good, thanks for addressing the issues I mentioned above. The article passes of course. I'd wish to see a bit more of info in the popular culture section, since it only covers literature right now: A short mentioning of other forms of media and a quick explanation of the idea used in the Hogan's novel would be desirable. Well, that's it: congratulations and thanks for your work. --Johnnyw talk 11:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA pass

message: I removed the current-events tag from this article.  Although there is some ongoing research into the topic (Cramer, et al.), that is true of all topics in science.  There is no "current event" in this field in the typical sense: no sudden breakthrough (or expectation of one), no major event that would lead researchers or readers to expect that in a day's, week's, or month's time the content of this page would be different.  The alternative would be to tag nearly all pages about science topics with the current-events tag, but I am reasonably certain that does not follow from current practice and procedure.  Serpent's Choice 03:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag removal 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. 
Some minor suggestions for improvement, outside the GA review process:
*I thought this sentence in the "As physics" section intro encroached on NPOV: "In general, models that appear to permit retrocausality or time travel are often thought to possess mathematical artifacts or to simply be conceptually flawed."  It should be sufficient to discuss the theories and let the weight of evidence for each side speak for itself.
*There's a brief allusion to Costa de Beauregard's alternative theory of quantum entanglement—it would be nice if a brief explanation of this theory was included.
-- jwandersTalk 23:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps (Pass)

message: With this edit, User:RudolfBerger has removed all mention of pseudoscience from the article. Since this wording has been in place for a long time, and has some justification, I proposed that any removal should have discussion here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New editor has removed mention of pseudoscience 

message: The In literature section of the article cites multiple examples of self-fulfilling prophecy as examples of retrocausation. This seems to me to be a miscategorization, since the prophecies that cause their own predicted outcome exist prior to the outcome that they cause, and therefore are not examples of retrocausation. One might argue that, at least within the fiction, it is the future event that causes the prophecy, making it retrocausation, but the same can be said of all prophecies about the future, thus making self-fulfilling prophecies not a specific example of retrocausation. Unless someone weighs in on this subject, I'm just going to go ahead and completely change, replace, or simply remove the section. (How exactly, I haven't decided yet, but I promise to try to be minimalist, since the appearance of retrocausality in fiction doesn't seem to be a very important aspect of the concept.)
Alweth (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In literature -- really examples of retrocausation? 

message: I understand that a recent book discusses the possibility of retrocausation from a theological point of view: That prayer can have an effect on the past, that the Redemption of Christ can redeem people who were dead long before the birth of Christ, and that death in the world can precede the cause of that death, namely the Fall of Adam and Eve. I do not have access to the book, but perhaps it deserves mention:
William Dembski
The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World
Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2009
ISBN: 978-0-8054-2743-1
TomS TDotO (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A friend has suggested to me that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception provides an example of retrocausation from two points of view: (1) Mary's exemption from Original Sin at the time of her conception predates the cause, namely the Redemption (2) it was also dependent upon her free choice to accept the offer to be the mother of the Redeemer. I do not feel qualified at all to write much about this. And, to repeat myself, I haven't even seen Dembski's book. I know, be bold, but this seems a little too much for me. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget John 9:2. The Apostles seemed to regard backward-causality as a perfectly reasonable explanation for a man's blindness. The Church Fathers likewise did not hold to a strictly linear view of time, and Eastern Christians still don't. It was only around the time of the Reformation and Enlightenment that western Christians (especially Protestants) adopted a more linear, rationalistic, and "modern" view of time. Retrocausality is not a novel idea; belief in forms of it was and is the norm, rather than the exception, among most non-WEIRD cultures and societies.  FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  In theology 

message: I removed the following nonsense: Although further understanding of antimatter has rendered this model largely obsolete, it is still employed for conceptual purposes, such as in Feynman diagrams.
Which is talking about the standard idea that antiparticles are particles going backwards in time. This point of view is known to be mathematically equivalent to other descriptions, which describe time as only going forward. It is not made obsolete by anything at all. Earman is a philosopher.
Further, the notion of "cause" and "effect" are not violated by the description of antimatter as going backwards in time. The notion of cause and effect are macroscopic, involving intentional actions and their consequences, and other highly entropy-loaded words. The microscopic laws of physics simply tell you what happens without using terms like "cause" or "effect" (except for illustrative purposes--- to communicate the idea). So even if you interpret antiparticles as backwards-in-time moving particles, they still "cause" things into the future.Likebox (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earman and Antimatter 

message: A better term is to say that they move "sideways in time" I suppose. But tachyons are fully compatible with causality, but the article already says that.Likebox (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tachyons don't move back in time 

message: "This is not considered part of science, since the distinction between cause and effect in physics is not made at the most fundamental level."
When I first read this sentence, I thought it meant that retrocausality was simply pseudoscience, although now I'm thinking it means that science simply cannot address the question of whether there is retrocausality.
If what I'm now thinking is correct, would it be better to change the sentence to:
"This question is not considered part of science, since the distinction between cause and effect in physics is not made at the most fundamental level."
JumpDiscont (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence confused me too, I'd appreciated it if an expert changed or clarified it.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  specific sentence 

message: There's an article that describes the retrocausality experiments. GregorB (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experiments 

message: Substituted at 04:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Retrocausality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615211907/http://www.ellerman.org/a-common-fallacy/ to http://www.ellerman.org/a-common-fallacy/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Citing the exact page of a book is a Wikipedia policy and guideline. If you don't like the "aesthetic degration" then open the book in question and provide the page that supports the information which relies on the reference. Bright☀ 07:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needed 

message: I'm very familiar with bias in WP articles on so called 'fringe subjects', but am surprised to find it prominent in this article, with what looks like a preponderance of dismissive comments.  Just a thought — I don't in fact believe in retrocausality myself, but I also believe in articles displaying a 'neutral point of view', which is not much in evidence here. Perhaps this is all a hangover from a time when this was a fringe subject. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're going to have to give more details before I can give an informed comment on the issues you see in this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

text: As an editor who has tried to update this article with some modern physics, I would agree with the assessment that the lead in particular is too negative and that that is a hangover from the old pre-quantum days. In quantum theory, retrocausality has recently gained attention as a postulate or interpretation, i.e. a theoretical construct, and not a thought experiment, but I have been wary of updating too much too quickly. Maybe it's time I had another go. A century of hard experience has taught us that in quantum theory, if it is in the equations then it is a real effect. Probably the most rational suggestion would be that, as with superluminal entanglement effects, it occurs at the quantum level but there are serious (and controversial) issues when trying to communicate macroscopic information over it. As Wikipedians, the problem we face is finding WP:RS to support any such editorial stance. Lacking that, the article is forced back onto the long-established and very negative stance of the parapsychology sceptics. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the request for details, it's difficult to explain my reaction, but I think Steelpillow captures the general sense of how I felt about the article (which I just looked at as I wanted to comment about retrocausality in a paper I'm writing and was hoping to get a clear summary, which I did not find) pretty well, so I'll just leave it at that. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now recast the article to bring the modern scientific usage of the term a bit more to the fore. I have plenty to say about other aspects, especially precognition, but how much time have you got? Maybe an off-wiki conversation would be more appropriate? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Or, check out my essay on Retrocausality: Backwards in Time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty busy at the moment, but maybe in a few days' time.  But I wonder how much the wikiguardians will let you keep in about precognition? --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article on precognition. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Proves my point!  Is it worth taking up time ineffectively battling the guerillas? --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem to help that a lot of the material can be presented as a narrative of historical significance, so we don't need to get steamed up about its scientific credentials. As long as we can just cite say Brian Inglis and Antony Flew, we don't have to worry about which of 'em was right. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Which of us are you whingeing at? In what way is that supposed to help improve Wikipedia? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no smoke without fire!  In a paper published in IL NUOVO CIMENTO VoL. 51 B, N. 2, 267–279, Costa de Beauregard writes "the Einstein correlation does indeed entail an entirely new causality concept". And incidentally I don't see Brightsun's comment as a wish to fill the article with OR. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Beauregard is currently referenced in the section on Quantum physics, No. [25] at the time of writing. However that cites Vol. 42B so may be a different paper. I'd suggest you put any additions in that section. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have time to do that kind of thing myself at present.  In fact retrocausality is quite a hot topic at the moment, e.g. papers by Huw Price and Roderick Sutherland, and you may find things to quote there. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in article 

message: First i want to proclaim that i don't have any agenda to support pseudoscience here, but someone did give an example to this and i want to ask about the differences between them, pretty much he did give an example for retrocausality but it clicked like it's a precognition, the example is this: say we gathered 10 different people (different in age, culture and education) who don't know each other in different rooms without them seeing each other in a sunny summer day, and we asked them to write a random word, and they all write lightning, they go home and then they get strike by lightning but survive with heavy injuries.
And then the guy who wrote this proclaimed that it's a retrocausality where they got hit by lightning and because they survived the knowledge returned to their past selves and that's how they wrote it. though the idea of knowledge of events transferring through time is what we usually call precognition or prophecies (like predicting death of someone or a sudden reappearance of someone without previous hints).
So i'm curious if:
1-is this an accurate example to retrocausality or did the guy messes it up?
2-In the case of the example here, will we call this retrocausality or precognition?
3-What are the differences between the two?
4-Does the idea of knowledge transferring through time fit into retrocausality or no?
And sorry for any mistakes, this is my first Talk: and english isn't my native language.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gep10000 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, they are not a general discussion forum. You might do better looking for a suitable Stack Exchange site. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues raised are in principle relevant to the subject, and so could help to improve the encyclopedia.--Brian Josephson (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without reference to a reliable source they aren't. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course!  But a specific reference is not needed in the preliminary review of an important issue in a talk page.--Brian Josephson (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences with Precognition