Aharonov–Bohm effect
[...]
Global action vs. local forces
Similarly, the Aharonov–Bohm effect illustrates that the Lagrangian approach to dynamics, based on energies, is not just a computational aid to the Newtonian approach, based on forces. Thus the Aharonov–Bohm effect validates the view that forces are an incomplete way to formulate physics, and potential energies must be used instead. In fact Richard Feynman complained that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of electromagnetic fields, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the electromagnetic potential instead, as this would be more fundamental.[14] In Feynman's path-integral view of dynamics, the potential field directly changes the phase of an electron wave function, and it is these changes in phase that lead to measurable quantities.
Potential over fields and forces. Potential and probability move closer; differences, similarities, are they identical even? They have a non-local aspect without spooky action at a distance which is a win-win.
Absolute (causal) simultaneity is a problem, if not simply a hoax. Probably people just want it to be true because it appeals to romantic urges, the need to not feel alone in big empty space; if they scratch their armpits, somewhere else in the universe somebody else would experience the effect instantaneously. Who wouldn’t like action at a distance if it is spooky sex! There is a fetish for everybody. What instantaneous and simultaneous mean in a relativistic universe boggles the mind, however.
Particles of particle pairs that move in opposite directions, one with up-spin the other with down-spin… are like lefthand+righthand pairs of hand gloves. If you observe one of them being lefthand, you instantaneously know the other one must be righthand. One could call it instantaneous knowledge, but not physical action; that psychotic quantum voodoo can easily be dismissed.
So what can non-local potential/probability mean? To me this can best intuitively be summarized as: from every local point of view, the future is non-local. Past and future meet in the present. Important to note however, that both the past and the future are abstractions derived from a stream of changing events we call the present. More importantly, this is what the
brain seems to be doing: construct a living present from what was and what might be, generated in boolean fashion.
For some reason, hardcore physicists and philosophers of science forget their own brain, the experiential interface that constructs space, time, causal relations, probabilities and so on, when they talk about the nature of physical reality. To find “a theory of everything” (a better theory of some of reality) would at least require a serious exploration of this experiential interface, and
what it interfaces with. I figure the experiential interface functions like a complex semi-permeable membrane; consciousness is then literally "skin deep".
And yes, the future is everywhere all at once, but I can only be your past.