English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Wood and Spekkens (2015) argue that any causal model explaining the EPRBcorrelations and satisfying no-signalling must also violate the assumption thatthe model faithfully reproduces the statistical dependences andindependences---a so-called "fine-tuning" of the causal parameters; thisincludes, in particular, retrocausal explanations of the EPRB correlations. Iconsider this analysis with a view to enumerating the possible responses anadvocate of retrocausal explanations might propose. I focus on the response ofN\"{a}ger (2015), who argues that the central ideas of causal explanations canbe saved if one accepts the possibility of a stable fine-tuning of the causalparameters. I argue that, in light of this view, a violation of faithfulnessdoes not necessarily rule out retrocausal explanations of the EPRBcorrelations, although it certainly constrains such explanations. I conclude byconsidering some possible consequences of this type of response for retrocausalexplanations.

Quantum causal models, faithfulness and retrocausality