Yet more retrocausation and superdeterminism discussion

Gee, I would not have guessed that it is now over a year since I had a fairly lengthy post about the confusing issue of the difference between the ideas of "retrocausation" and "superdeterminism" as explanations for (or solutions to) the quantum measurement problem.   

But there is an article up at the Conversation which tries to explain the distinction between the two:

Quantum mechanics:  how the future might influence the past

I have to say, though, that the explanation doesn't make a lot of intuitive sense to me.   (Ha!, you might laugh - I'm expecting intuitive sense from quantum mechanics?)   I have the strongest feeling that Sabine Hossenfelder is going to have a problem with these paragraphs:

Superdeterminism agrees with retrocausality that measurement choices and the underlying properties of the particles are somehow correlated.

But superdeterminism treats it like the correlation between the weather and the barometer needle. It assumes there’s some mysterious third thing – a “superdeterminer” – that controls and correlates both our choices and the particles, the way atmospheric pressure controls both the weather and the barometer.

So superdeterminism denies that measurement choices are things we are free to wiggle at will, they are predetermined. Free wiggles would break the correlation, just as in the barometer case. Critics object that superdeterminism thus undercuts core assumptions necessary to undertake scientific experiments. They also say that it means denying free will, because something is controlling both the measurement choices and particles.

These objections don’t apply to retrocausality. Retrocausalists do scientific causal discovery in the usual free, wiggly way. We say it is folk who dismiss retrocausality who are forgetting the scientific method, if they refuse to follow the evidence where it leads.

I await her commentary...