Anyone here think retrocausality is a far better explanation

>>9068554
The issue is moot. Entanglement acts locally. Measurement outcomes are matched by superposed observers as they exchange information: *both A an B subsist as
superpositions of observers that saw heads or tails. It is only when they
exchange information that they agree, i.e that the states of observer A and
B collapse respectively with respect to observer B and observer A into states
where the coin measurement has yielded the same outcome."

>>9068554
I think the effort to "shush out" retrocausality is disingenuous to science, and is an unconscious effort on behalf of human egocentrism.

The number cases where retrocausality matches the explanations without any conflict are significant. With an especially notable case of the delayed choice quantum eraser.
To those who are jumping at the chance to say that I'm a brainlet as this place loves to do, let me preempt you by appealing to your (no-doubt) need for consistency and aesthetic patterns;
If the universe can described as consistently lazy, that is- it has a tendency to achieve the lowest energy state- then how disruptive would it really be if the universe kept up its lazy appearance by defining the "cause" only when it had to for the "effect", at least on a very tiny scale, and thereby keeping to the lowest energy state required- such as may be the case in delayed choice quantum eraser.

All particles are ultimately composed of photons. The only reason we perceive time is because of the phenomenon of mass. Photons don't experience time, nor does "distance" exist for them. It follows, then, that the universe can be modeled from the "perspective" of the photon as a single point, with the cohabiting photons in that point undergoing all interactions with each other instantaneously, which we would see as the past, present, and future of the universe.

Thus, the universe is a static object that occupies neither time nor space, just not from our point of view.

>>9068783
>then how disruptive would it really be if the universe kept up its lazy appearance by defining the "cause" only when it had to for the "effect", at least on a very tiny scale, and thereby keeping to the lowest energy state required
That's a very interesting consideration.