[deleted]
Dear Ken Wharton,
"Price adds, "Should we assume that particles in physics know about the past but not the future?..."
Of course not, because particles do not know anything. The style of question is as clever as in case of "is the universe a computer?"
Is it a foundational question? Time will tell future generations whether or not back-causation is more than a silly hope to explain possibly not correctly designed or misinterpreted experiments. I see back-causation not a new idea but related to old futile belief. Ritz and Einstein agreed to disagree. If my interpretation of my Fig. 5 is correct then both were possibly misled.
I cannot expect any mercy, not from those who simply trust in the correctness of current mainstream mathematics and physics and also not from those like you who are putting even the direction of causality in question in order to remedy some problems that seem to have no solution as long as some tenets are taboo.
Huw Price reiterated what I consider imprecise and misleading: "Classical physics is symmetrical." I agree with George Ellis: Differential equations are not the primary models of reality.
You are right; we may agree on a lot. However I do not expect you having a serious argument against 1364.
Congratulation to you personally without my approval of back-causation
Eckard