In recent years the quantum foundations community has seen increasing interest in the possibility of using retrocausality as a route to rejecting the conclusions of Bell’s theorem and restoring locality to quantum physics. On the other hand, it has also been argued that accepting nonlocality leads to a form of retrocausality. In this article we seek to elucidate the relationship between retrocausality and locality. We begin by providing a brief schema of the various ways in which violations of Bell’s inequalities (...) might lead us to consider some form of retrocausality. We then consider some possible motivations for using retrocausality to rescue locality, arguing that none of these motivations is sufficient to show that local retrocausal theories should always be preferred to nonlocal retrocausal theories, and therefore there is no clear reason to focus research efforts entirely on seeking local retrocausal models. Next, we examine several different conceptions of retrocausality, concluding that ‘all-at-once’ retrocausality is more coherent than the alternative dynamical picture. We then argue that since the ‘all-at-once’ approach requires probabilities to be assigned to entire histories, locality is not playing any crucial role within this picture. Thus we conclude that using retrocausality as a way to rescue locality may not be the right route to retrocausality. Finally, we demonstrate that accepting the existence of nonlocality and insisting on the nonexistence of preferred reference frames leads naturally to the acceptance of a form of retrocausality, albeit one which is not mediated by physical systems travelling backwards in time. We argue that this is the more natural way to motivate retrocausal models of quantum mechanics. (shrink)

In recent work, Adlam (2022b), Chen & Goldstein (2022), and Meacham (2023) have defended accounts of laws that take laws to be primitive global constraints. A major advantage of these accounts is that they’re able to accommodate the many different kinds of laws that appear in physical theories. In this paper I’ll present these three accounts, highlight their distinguishing features, and note some key differences that might lead one to favor one of these accounts over the others. I’ll conclude by (...) briefly discussing a version of a “constraint” account that I think is especially attractive. (shrink)

When modelling spacetime and classical physical fields, one typically assumes smoothness (infinite differentiability). But this assumption and its philosophical implications have not been sufficiently scrutinized. For example, we can appeal to analytic functions instead, which are also often used by physicists. Doing so leads to very different philosophical interpretations of a theory. For instance, our world would be ‘hyperdeterministic’ with analytic functions, in the sense that every field configuration is uniquely determined by its restriction to an arbitrarily small region. Relatedly, (...) the hole argument of general relativity does not get off the ground. We argue that such an appeal to analytic functions is technically feasible and, conceptually, not obviously objectionable. The moral is to warn against rushing to draw philosophical conclusions from physical theories, given their drastic sensitivity to mathematical formalisms. (shrink)

There are two metaphysical pictures of spacetime: The evolutionary picture and the all-at-once picture. According to the evolutionary picture, spacetime is nothing but the evolution of space over time. In contrast, the all-at-once picture considers spacetime as ‘a global, four-dimensional boundary value problem’ that can be solved only in an all-at-once manner, i.e. as a whole which is fundamentally four-dimensional and non-decomposable into spatial and temporal parts. The two most-known formulations of general theory of relativity, i.e. the Hamiltonian (or the (...) canonical) and the Lagrangian (or the standard) formulations, enjoy the evolutionary and all-at-once pictures of spacetime respectively. Here, we have argued that (1) the all-at-once picture is more aligned with the philosophy of relativity theory, i.e. uniting space and time into spacetime, (2) the evolutionary picture is not as general as the all-at-once, since only in special cases, such as globally hyperbolic spacetimes, is it possible to deal with spacetime as the evolution of a spatial slice over time, and (3) the all-at-once picture paves the way to better understanding _four-dimensional_ physical entities, like event horizons, which cannot be explained within an evolutionary picture without raising a paradox. Therefore, the evolutionary picture is neither the _fundamentally-true_ nor the _naturally-chosen_ picture of spacetime. Rather, we choose the evolutionary picture for practical and computational reasons. While the all-at-once picture seems a more appropriate description of the quantum and cosmological reality, the evolutionary picture can be applied occasionally and locally, or quasi-locally, and is not the proper metaphysical picture of spacetime at the fundamental level of reality. (shrink)

Quantum mechanics predicts non-local correlations in spatially extended entangled quantum systems, and these correlations are empirically very well confirmed. This raises philosophical questions of how nature could be that way, prompting the study of purported completions of quantum mechanics by hidden variables. Bell-type theorems connect assumptions about hidden variables with empirical predictions for the outcome of quantum correlation experiments. From among these assumptions, the Setting Independence assumption has received the least formal attention. Its violation is, however, central in the recent (...) discussion about super-deterministic models for quantum correlation experiments. In this paper, we focus on the non-local modal correlations in the GHZ experiment. We model the introduction of hidden variables in the form of instruction sets via structure extensions in the framework of Branching Space-Times. This framework allows us to show in formal detail how the introduction of non-contextual instruction sets results in a specific violation of Setting Independence; a similar result is derived for contextual instruction sets. Our discussion provides additional reasons for foregoing the introduction of local hidden variables, and for accepting non-local quantum correlations as a resource provided by nature. (shrink)