the underlying assumptions rig the debate

Your assertion is that the past can be changed form one fixed state to another.

Changing from a superposition of states to a fixed state is not that and does not support that.

It has already been pointed out multiple times by multiple people how you are misinterpreting the English descriptions to reach false conclusions.

In the delayed-choice and other experiments, does the ability to know which path a photon took coorealate to whether it travels on one path as a particle or on all possible paths as a wave?Does this collapsing to one path occur even when the means to determine what path the photon took occurs in a delayed fashion after the photon has already taken it's path?Just answer those 2 questions please, and substantiate your answers with references to actual experiments or quotes from someone analyzing those experiments.

Changing from a superposition of states to a collapsed state is not the same as changing from a collapsed state to another collapsed state.

In the two-slit experiments, the physicist's choice of apparatus forces the photon to choose between going through both slits like a wave or just one slit, like a particle. But what would happen,Wheeler asked, if the researcher could somehow wait until after the light bad passed the two slits before deciding how to observe it?Five years after Wheeler outlined what he called the delayed-choice experiment, it was carried out independently by groups at the University of Maryland and the University of Munich. They aimed a laser beam not at a plate with two slits but at a beam splitter, a mirror coated with just enough silver to reflect half of the photons impinging on it and let the other half pass through. After diverging at the beam splitter the two beams were guided back together by mirrors and fed into a detector.
This initial setup provided no way for the investigators to test whether any individual photon had gone right or left at the beam splitter. Consequently, each photon went both ways splitting into two wavelets that ended up interfering with each other at the detector.Then the workers installed a customized crystal called a Pockels Cell in the middle of one route. When an electric current was applied to the Pockels Cell, it diffracted photons to an auxiliary detector. Otherwise, photons passed through the cell unhindered. A random signal generator made it possible to turn the cell on or off after the photon had already passed the beam splitter but before it reached the detector as Wheeler had specified.
When the Pockels-cell detector was switched on, the photon would behave like a particle and travel one route or the other, triggering either the auxiliary detector or the primary detector, buy not both at once. If the Pockels-cell detector was off ,an interference pattern would appear in the detector at the end of both paths, indicating that the photon bad travelled both routes.To underscore the weirdness of this effect, Wheeler points out that astronomers could perform a delayed-choice experiment on light from quasars, extremely bright, mysterious objects found near the edges of the universe. In place of a beam splitter and mirrors the experiment requires a gravitational lens, a galaxy or other massive object that splits the light from a quasar and refocuses it in the direction of a distant observer, creating two or more images of the quasar.Psychic Photons
The astronomers choice of how to observe photons from the quasar here in the present apparently determines whether each photon took both paths or just one path around the gravitational lens-billions of years ago. As they approached the galactic beam splitter the photons must have had something like a premonition telling them how to behave in order to satisfy a choice to be made by unborn beings on a still nonexistent planet.
The fallacy giving rise to such speculations,Wheeler explains, is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomer observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the quasar or only one way. Actually Wheeler says quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured.

Now comes the odd part. The signal photons and the idler photons, once emitted by the down-converters, never again cross paths; they proceed to their respective detectors independently of each other. Nevertheless, simply by blocking the path of one set of idler photons, the researchers destroy the interference pattern of the signal photons. What has changed?
The answer is that the observer's potential knowledge has changed. He can now determine which route the signal photons took to their detector by comparing their arrival times with those of the remaining, unblocked idlers. The original photon can no longer go both ways at the beam splitter, like a wave, but must either bounce off or pass through like a particle.The comparison of arrival times need not actually be performed to destroy the interference pattern. The mere "threat" of obtaining information about which way the photon travelled, Mandel explains, forces it to travel only one route. "The quantum state reflects not only what we know about the system but what is in principle knowable," Mandel says.

Wave/particle duality is a vague and incomplete layman description of the possible properties of a wave-function.

The Copenhagen interpretation suggests that observation constructs reality. Bohr wrote of 'fundamental limitations' within atomic physics, in the 'objective existence of phenomena independent of their means of observation.' The reality envisaged by Bohr was not an objective, but a phenomenal one. It did not exist in the absence of observation. Bohr did not actually deny the existence of an objective reality 'out there'; but he thought it meaningless to ask any questions about what this reality was. In Bohr's philosophy, the facts of measurement and observation must suffice. There is no point in asking what lies beyond the observation.Einstein could not agree with Bohr. In 1954, a year before his death, he maintained: 'Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects. Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made.'What, at root, was the difference between Bohr and Einstein? Bohr's view has been well summarized by the Princeton physicist John Wheeler: 'no elementary phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon'. Wheeler illustrated what he meant by recounting a dinner party he once attended which degenerated into a game of twenty questions. The aim of the game was to identify an object, selected by the other guests, through a series of 20 'yes' or 'no' answers to questions posed. Wheeler's fellow diners obviously knew him well enough not to think of anything at all, and instead decided simply to give answers consistent with those previously given. At the end of his series of questions, Wheeler believed that they had chosen 'cloud'.Wheeler argues that 'in the game, no word is a word until that word is promoted to reality by the choice of questions asked and answers given'. This is the central point for Wheeler; but he also acknowledges the part played by the other guests. If they had responded differently, he would not have come up with 'cloud'. He believes his role in the game was the same as the role of the experimenter with electrons. Such an observer, Wheeler maintains, has a 'substantial influence on what will happen to the electron by the choice of experiments he will do on it, "questions he will put to nature".' But the experimenter also knows that 'there is a certain unpredictability about what any given one of his measurements will disclose, about what "answers nature will give".'Wheeler believes that it is only within the confines of a particular experimental situation that reality, phenomenal reality, can be specified. Moreover, he takes this belief to its logical conclusion: 'There is a sense in which what the observer will do in the future defines what happens in the past - even in a past so remote that life did not exist, and shows even more, that observership is a prerequisite for any meaningful version of reality.' What Wheeler means is that the observer literally creates the universe by his observations.....Indeed, Heisenberg generalized this rejection of causality from the quantum domain to the whole world of science: 'Because all experiments are subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics definitely shows the invalidity of the causal laws.'

'Because all experiments are subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics definitely shows the invalidity of the causal laws.'

I repeat, name the scientist and provide the quote where they say that they believe the past is changed by the present.

Wheeler believes that it is only within the confines of a particular experimental situation that reality, phenomenal reality, can be specified. Moreover, he takes this belief to its logical conclusion: 'There is a sense in which what the observer will do in the future defines what happens in the past - even in a past so remote that life did not exist, and shows even more, that observership is a prerequisite for any meaningful version of reality.'

Indeed, Heisenberg generalized this rejection of causality from the quantum domain to the whole world of science: 'Because all experiments are subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics definitely shows the invalidity of the causal laws.'

Why would I refuse to acknowledge the obvious?