See here:

http://telicthoughts.com/empty-space-time-logical-being-real-being-or-really-really-nothing/

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=109939 ]]>

What has time to do with causation? The priority of a cause is not priority in time, but priority is its causal operation. In Aristotle, IIRC, cause and effect are simultaneous.

*It seems that the existence of the universe may be a necessary function of cosmological geometry, *

Either that or it seems to be turtles all the way down. “Seems” is not of course “proved.” How can there be a cosmological geometry without a cosmos to have a geometry? And exactly what sort of existence does this geometry have?

]]>Here is the question: What causes S_x to take on the specific value in experiments IV, V, and VI?

]]>If at T0: Sz=+½ then Sz will be +½ at T0+a (a=infinity with no other interference)

If at T0: Sz=+½ then Sx will be ±½ at T1. Sx is indeterminate before T1.

However:

If at T0: Sz=+½ and at T1 Sx=-½ (after measurement) then Sx will be -½ at T1+a (a=infinity with no other interference) and Sz will be ±½ at T2. Sz is indeterminate before T2.

Better now? Does this describe the problem more accurately?

]]>VII is wrong. If you prepare an electron spin in a state with S_z = +1/2 and leave it undisturbed (its wave function stays unchanged), all subsequent measurements of S_z will yield +1/2. If instead you measure S_x then the outcome is either -1/2 or +1/2. Following *that* measurement, the electron spin is in the state with S_x = +1/2 (say) and any subsequent measurement of S_x will invariably produce the same result, S_x = +1/2.

However, now that S_x is well defined, S_z is undeterminate. Its measurement will show either +1/2 or -1/2 (with equal probabilities). Once you have measured S_z, it will again be well defined and then S_x will be entirely random.

]]>