Roderick Sutherland waxes nostalgic about Olivier Costa de Beauregard encouraging the Retrocausal research model of reality

 https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1502/1502.02058.pdf

 The procedure followed here instead is to remove the statistical element of quantum theory by introducing final boundary conditions as well as initial.

Roderick Sutherland confirms that probabilities can be ELIMINATED from quantum mechanics by using Retrocausality (and his continuation of Olivier Costa de Beauregard's work)

 When I read "Time: A physical magnitude" - Costa de Beauregard mentions his discussions with Roderick Sutherland. So it was very exciting to hear, in response to my livestream question, Sutherland comment for a few minutes about Olivier Costa de Beauregard!!

 

 https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1911/1911.07663.pdf

 My whole thesis for NON-UNITARY post-quantum theory is buttressed by your missing eq (77).

 https://www.academia.edu/15561947/The_Mystery_of_The_Missing_Action_Reaction_Equation

Non-unitary meaning noncommutative.

Roderick Sutherland:

 I did meet him in person, back in 1987 when I was at the Institute of Poincare. He'd already retired but he made a special train trip down from where he lived in the country, to come and see me, which was nice of him. So we had a good chat about it. He's an excellent fellow and a real gentlemen and he's very careful to acknowledge everyone and the work I'd been doing in this area....

The only thing different about Costa de Beauregard that intrigued me was that he suggested the zig-zag method of solving Bell's Theorem, much the same as other people; but then he said, "But I fully agree with the Copenhagen Interpretation and I don't support realism." And this surprised me because I still can't quite understand why he felt the need to give an explanation of Bell's Theorem at all if he wasn't aiming for a realistic model underneath.

But um certainly that was what came...what I could still remember... that came out of me, that's what discussion I had with him. The same thing is reflected in several letters of exchange between him and I. He was, he was very enthusiastic that anyone would take the retrocausal idea full on, because he after all was the one who first thought of it, right back in the early 1950s. And um, so he was keen to see that people where wanting to go down that path. So he was quite encouraging, because I was quite then, of course. So he was giving plenty of encouragement.

But I was having still the exchange of letters with him even after that density model you mentioned which was published in 1998. Umm. He asked for a copy and was enthusiastic about it. And so, it was letters being exchanged even then.

Ah so he disagrees with Costa de Beauregard's emphasis on the paranormal.