the underlying assumptions rig the debate

I am simply pointing out that QM has no such mechanism.

In the double slit experiment, a photon passes through a double slit apparatus, in which the photon must pass either through one or the other of two slits, and then registers on a detector, which can determine where the photon reaches the detector, like an image projected on a screen. If one allows many photons to individually pass through either slit A or slit B and doesn't know which slit they passed through, an interference pattern emerges on the detector. The interference pattern indicates that the light beam is in fact made up of waves. However, if one somehow observes which of the two slits each photon actually passes through, a different result will be obtained. In this case, each photon hits the detector after going through only one slit and a single concentration of hits in the middle of the detection field. This result is consistent with light behaving as individual particles, like tiny bullets. The very odd thing about this is that a different outcome results based on whether or not the photon is observed after it goes through the slit but before it hits the detector.In a quantum eraser experiment, one arranges to detect which one of the slits the photon passes through, but also construct the experiment in such a way that this information can be "erased" after the fact. It turns out that if one observes which slit the photon passes through, the "no interference" or particle behavior will result, which is what quantum mechanics predicts, but if the quantum information is "erased" regarding which slit the photon passed through, the photons revert to behaving like waves.However, Kim, et al. have shown that it is possible to delay the choice to erase the quantum information until after the photon has actually hit the target. But, again, if the information is "erased," the photons revert to behaving like waves, EVEN IF THE INFORMATION IS ERASED AFTER THE PHOTONS HAVE HIT THE DETECTOR [all caps added in lieu of italics in original article].
....
How can this be? It would seem that the "choice" to observe or erase the which-path information can change the position where the photon is recorded on the detector, even after it should have already been recorded.One explanation of this paradox would be that this is a kind of time travel. In other words, the delayed "choice" to "erase" or "observe" the which-path information of the original photon can change the outcome of an event in the past.

Leaving aside questions of non-local action for now, the fact remains that the phenomenon known as entanglement is a real feature of our world, whatever its exact nature. For some time entanglement was thought to be important only in very special circumstances, but in the last decade or so it has been shown to be much more important than was thought - it is in fact ubiquitous in quantum mechanics, the rule rather than the exception. It turns out, for instance, that entanglement seems to be necessary to explain the results of the classic Young’s Two-Slit Experiment17, which have traditionally (but erroneously) been explained in terms of Heisenberg Uncertainty.

At least three "delayed choice" experiments, which test what happens if the experimenter does not choose until the light is moving through the apparatus, have been done. Alley reported on one conducted with his student Oleg G. Jakubowicz. A group from the University of Munich and the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, West Germany -- T. Hellmuth, Arthur G. Zajonc and Herbert Walter--did the other two.....So far, all three of these experiments support the conventional quantum wisdom that whether you make the choice before or after the event occurs, the effect of the choice is the same.

The "choice" referred to in the article is the mirror popping up.

The tricky part is that the order of events is such that the photon is generated BEFORE the mirror is in place.

To demonstrate open-destination teleportation, Pan and co-workers first teleported the unknown quantum state of a single photon onto a superposition of three photons. They were then able to read out this teleported state at any one of the three photons by performing a measurement on the other two photons.

By using a filter to reduce the intensity of the photons that are going to be teleported the researchers were able to significantly reduce the number of spurious detection events. The Vienna team could be 97% certain that the state had been teleported to photon 3 without actually having to detect it. Such a high accuracy means that the teleported photons could be used in “quantum repeaters” for long distance communication. The team now hopes to combine these results with a technique known as “entanglement purification” to further develop quantum communication over long distances.

Two macroscopic objects have been 'entangled' for the first time. Eugene Polzik and colleagues at the University of Aarhus in Denmark entangled two samples of caesium atoms, each containing about 1012 atoms, for half a millisecond - a long time by quantum standards. This demonstration could form the basis of new forms of 'quantum teleportation' and quantum computers (B Julsgaard et al 2001 Nature 413 400).

Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment is a
variation on the classic (but not classical) two-slit experiment, which demonstrates the schizophrenic nature of quantum phenomena. When electrons are aimed at a barrier containing two slits, the electrons act like waves; they go through both slits at once and form what is called an interference pattern, created by the overlapping of the waves, when they strike a detector on the far side of the barrier. If the physicist closes off one slit at a time, however, the electrons pass through the open slit like simple particles and the interference pattern disappears. In the
delayed-choice experiment, the experimenter decides whether to leave both slits open or to close one off _after the electrons have already passed through the barrier_--with the same results. The electrons seem to know in advance how the physicist will choose to observe them.

Yes, similar ideas have been discussed, researched, and developed into whole bodies of work long ago, of which I played but a small part. None of it supports ANY of your fanciful claims.

No, you still aren't getting it at all; and yes the reduction of the math to English is partly to blame.

But then Chiao and his colleagues ran the same experiment with polarising filters in front of each of the two slits. Any photon going one way would become "labelled" with left-handed circular polarization, while any photon going through the other slit is labelled with right-handed circular polarization. In this version of the experiment, it is possible in principle to tell which slit any particular photon arriving at the second screen went through. Sure enough, the interference pattern vanishes -- even though nobody ever actually looks to see which photon went through which slit.Now comes the new trick -- the eraser. A third polarising filter is placed between the two slits and the second screen, to scramble up (or erase) the information about which photon went through which hole. Now, once again, it is impossible to tell which path any particular photon arriving at the second screen took through the experiment. And, sure enough, the interference pattern reappears!The strange thing is that interference depends on "single photons" going through both slits "at once", but undetected. So how does a single photon arriving at the first screen know how it ought to behave in order to match the presence or absence of the erasing filter on the other side of the slits?

There is a wave-function that evolves deterministically, based upon the constraints set up by the apparatus. Simple as that. There is no individual particle that can "know" something.

BTW, if you hadn't noticed, this thread is all about YOUR assertions

The presence of the two quarter wave plates creates the possibility for an observer to gain which-way information about photon s. When which-way information is available, the interference behavior disappears. It is not necessary to actually measure the polarization of p and figure out what slit s passed through. Once the quarter wave plates are there, the s photons are marked, so to speak.The coincidence counts were tallied at each detector location, as before, and it was found that indeed the interference pattern was gone.In case you might be suspicious of the quarter wave plates, it is worth noting that given a beam of light incident on a double slit, changing the polarization of the light has no effect whatsoever on the interference pattern. The pattern will remain the same for an x polarized beam, a y polarized beam, a left or a right circularly polarized beam.It is peculiar then, that the presence of the quarter wave plates causes the s photons to so drastically change their behavior. One can't help but ask, how do these photons know that we could know which slit they went through?Quantum ErasureIncreasing the strangeness of this scenario, the next step is to bring back the interference without doing anything to the s beam. A polarizer is placed in the p beam, oriented so that it will pass light that is a combination of x and y. It is no longer possible to determine with certainty the polarization of s before the quarter wave plates and therefore we cannot know which slit an s photon has passed through. The s photons are no longer marked. The potential to gain which-way information has been erased.The coincidence measurements were repeated with the polarizer in place. It can be seen from the data that the interference pattern is back.How does photon s know that we put the polarizer there?