Abstract

In 1994, Maudlin proposed an objection to retrocausal approaches to quantum mechanics in general, and to the transactional interpretation in particular, involving an absorber that changes location depending on the trajectory of the particle. Maudlin considered this objection fatal. However, the TI did not die; rather, a number of responses were developed, some attempting to accommodate Maudlin's example within the existing TI, and others modifying the TI. I argue that none of these responses is fully adequate. The reason, I submit, is that there are two aspects to Maudlin's objection; the more readily soluble aspect has received all the attention, but the more problematic aspect has gone unnoticed. I consider the prospects for developing a successful retrocausal quantum theory in light of this second aspect of the objection.