So recently I've been finishing my work on a new theoretical physics model, and I realized that what it's telling me is that the future already exists just like the past.

I find this idea deeply disturbing on a philosophical level, because it dashes all notions of free will and indeterminacy, and I suppose that I'm rather fond of my assumption that I'm the captain of my own future. This new theory seems to be telling me that we're just along for the ride: whatever we do - whatever we will do, we've already done.

But on the other hand it resonates perfectly with the recent work of Yakir Aharonov and Robert Griffiths, which has found that quantum mechanics becomes elegantly symmetrical if the future boundary conditions of our experiments are predetermined just as the past boundary conditions are determined. And of course it eliminates the conventional interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation by stating that quantum events aren't uncertain after all; they're simply unknowable from the reference frame of "the present."

I wonder how you feel about this idea. Honestly it's been haunting me for weeks, and I'm still not sure how to feel about it. It would be interesting to hear how others react to this idea, because honestly I'm pretty convinced that this theory is correct.
 

August

Metanoia
If we are all living in a world matrix construct scenario your idea may well be the truth of the matter.
 

Ron67

Ignorance isn’t bliss!
So recently I've been finishing my work on a new theoretical physics model, and I realized that what it's telling me is that the future already exists just like the past.

I find this idea deeply disturbing on a philosophical level, because it dashes all notions of free will and indeterminacy, and I suppose that I'm rather fond of my assumption that I'm the captain of my own future. This new theory seems to be telling me that we're just along for the ride: whatever we do - whatever we will do, we've already done.

But on the other hand it resonates perfectly with the recent work of Yakir Aharonov and Robert Griffiths, which has found that quantum mechanics becomes elegantly symmetrical if the future boundary conditions of our experiments are predetermined just as the past boundary conditions are determined. And of course it eliminates the conventional interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation by stating that quantum events aren't uncertain after all; they're simply unknowable from the reference frame of "the present."

I wonder how you feel about this idea. Honestly it's been haunting me for weeks, and I'm still not sure how to feel about it. It would be interesting to hear how others react to this idea, because honestly I'm pretty convinced that this theory is correct.
Give me some time and hopefully a brain transplant (Is Stephen Hawing's brain available) to get my head around that!.First thought is i don't like the idea of it at all.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
So recently I've been finishing my work on a new theoretical physics model, and I realized that what it's telling me is that the future already exists just like the past.

I find this idea deeply disturbing on a philosophical level, because it dashes all notions of free will and indeterminacy, and I suppose that I'm rather fond of my assumption that I'm the captain of my own future. This new theory seems to be telling me that we're just along for the ride: whatever we do - whatever we will do, we've already done.

This is something I have both researched from a scientific point of view as well as through the eyes of a mystic and both have lead me to the same conclusion because through both sets of these 'eyes' I find they compliment one another and answer each other's queries...That conclusion is that the Past, Present, and Future all exist simultaneously, I have no doubts of that any longer and have been living my life with that understanding...Does this mean that our Future is predetermined and we are locked in for the ride as if we have entered a roller coaster ride and were strapped in?...Not at all, the Present is always the determining factor...Now I'm about to toss in another element that may take time for some to wrap their mind's around lol...The Present affects that already existent Future and the Present also affects that already existent Past...

Think of it as a coiled copper tube that we enter at our life's beginning, traversing through this copper tubing spiraling through every so many years, in our case seven years, we are back at our starting point, much like the earth in its rotation around the sun, every year it reaches its starting point, for the sake of discussion...Now at the same time the earth and sun and accompanying planets are all moving through space and time, put into a three-dimensional model and we see the earth is spiraling through space as it orbits the sun and moves through space with the sun...The sun the same way, moving through space in a spiral as it orbits the galactic center...

Now that copper tubing is already set in place in our example, so the Past and Future look to be predetermined from an outside point of view, if we were to roll a small ball bearing through the copper tubing, at any given point where that ball bearing is located, that is the Present...Now adding the element of Time, this then becomes like water flowing through that tube,, maintaining a directional flow, from Past to Future, that tiny ball bearing now flowing with the water as it traverses through from one end of the spiral tubing to the other end, the Birth and Death of our life and everything in between...

So this still seems to be predetermined, but there is one other factor...Keeping with our example, the ball bearing does not fit tight at all inside the tubing, in fact there is a great amount of space from side to side and up and down, this tiny little bearing has the freedom of movement within the flow of the water (Time) as it spirals around and around...Our lives have a wide path before it and as the tiny ball bearing we can go up or down, or left or right, we have a multitude of choices and directions to go, many choices within that structure...Traveling from New York City to Miami we have many choices along the way and many paths to go, but New York and Miami are fixed predetermined points, Past and Future, the Present choices determine the path we wish to go to flow through Time in order to reach our destination, our Future...Just like the ball bearing, we can go up or stay down, fly in a plane or drive in a car, we can take a left route or a right route to reach our destination...We create our Past and create our Future through Present choices, Our Past, our birth may have been New York and our death, the Future may be Miami but how we traverse between those two points is solely determined by Present choices...There may be predetermined guidelines and outline for our lives which would be the copper tubing, but how we choose to travel through it is not predetermined...

...
 
Responding not from a scientific background but instead from a metaphysical stance, your concept is quite common in mystic and channeled writings. Jane Roberts was a channel who was quite skeptical of her own work back in the 70's predominantly. She channeled a famous entity called SETH who talked incessantly on the simultaneous nature of real time. He said that time was like an oil painting. From our "higher" perspective, the painting is complete. But if you were theoretically at Point A within the painting and wished to go to Point Z, time would seem linear, focusing on a future. Seth also talked a lot about how the future exists now and can change the past. In other words, decisions we make TODAY can impact and remake the past seamlessly. This astonishing claim puts NOW as the constant point of power that impacts present, future and the past. It also could suggest the very disturbing thought that every moment we potentially have reset the past and future seamlessly. This would suggest a topsy turvy reality that shifts and morphs constantly based on our current "point of power". How this would work in a gestalt of 7 billion people is beyond my imagination.

I find all such conjecture fascinating. But since my life appears to be basically linear, I function from both what appears to be real and what theoretically may be happening. Conjecture is fun though. What if 1 genius had made different life decisions (had become a scientist instead of a street artist) and had made anti-gravity power practical? Would everyone's reality seamlessly morph right now to include a different past that already gave us a world of floating cities, anti-gravity cars and flight? Would we just assume that this was normal, no longer remembering a world where this was impossible? Whitley Strieber, one of the 80's diva's of alien abduction, proclaimed in his book THE KEY that a man was destined to discover such anti-gravity technology in the early 40's but was instead killed in a German concentration camp. While I give Strieber's writings very little reality, I do wonder if such a glitch is even possible. If we are inside a virtual reality whose originator is outside (like a software developer and system maintenance engineer), then could a pre-destined event (from outside the system) be thwarted by seemingly random events within the system? If we discover time travel, could our descendants be inserting new events into the past that are morphing our present without our knowledge?
 
Last edited:

spacecase0

earth human
So recently I've been finishing my work on a new theoretical physics model, and I realized that what it's telling me is that the future already exists just like the past.

I find this idea deeply disturbing on a philosophical level, because it dashes all notions of free will and indeterminacy, and I suppose that I'm rather fond of my assumption that I'm the captain of my own future. This new theory seems to be telling me that we're just along for the ride: whatever we do - whatever we will do, we've already done.

But on the other hand it resonates perfectly with the recent work of Yakir Aharonov and Robert Griffiths, which has found that quantum mechanics becomes elegantly symmetrical if the future boundary conditions of our experiments are predetermined just as the past boundary conditions are determined. And of course it eliminates the conventional interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation by stating that quantum events aren't uncertain after all; they're simply unknowable from the reference frame of "the present."

I wonder how you feel about this idea. Honestly it's been haunting me for weeks, and I'm still not sure how to feel about it. It would be interesting to hear how others react to this idea, because honestly I'm pretty convinced that this theory is correct.
here is my take on this,
I thought about this lots in the past,
came to the conclusion that all from the past to the future is all set and there,
but did not figure this meant that free will meant nothing.
my tests have shown that when you use free will to make a choice, you change everything in the future and in the past. (and quantum particles seem to do the same)
so I looked futher
seems as if time "flows" from the least likely timeline to the most likely timeline.
so every choice you make at every point changes all of reality each way in time.
kind of a mess to think about it,
an analogy would be that reality is a hologram, and your viewing angle is equivalent to time. so if you make a change in it, you change all of it.
this idea makes it not very hard to mess with your timeline, and it works quite well.
 

spacecase0

earth human
I suppose that the first thing with a conversation on this topic is to start asking people is if they think the past is a thing at all. then you have a better idea of where they are at
 
Thank you for all of the provocative responses, there's a lot of material to ponder here. For example, I hadn't seriously considered the idea that the present can change both the past and the future, although I did enjoy that idea in the films The Fountain and Arrival. That idea might be a viable theoretical approach to resolving free will within the context of the 4-dimensional-universal-object interpretation that I'm seeing here.

But right now I'm looking at it a bit differently: it appears that this idea just finishes the picture that Einstein started a hundred years ago. Because Einstein already unified space and time into a 4-dimensional structure. So, for example, special relativity says that it’s not really accurate to think of the Earth as a 3D sphere – it’s more accurate to think of it as a 4D object in space and time. So in reality, the Earth is actually like a long 4D coil spiraling around the Sun - it's positions at all points in time exist simultaneously. The new theory just takes that idea one step further, and says that it isn’t just the past that’s set in stone as a long 4D coil reaching back billions of years to its formation around the Sun, but it also extends into the future in the same way, and this is true of everything. My inclination is to take this very literally, and regard the universe as a fixed 4-dimensional object, like a jewel, and we're just moving across it one second at a time. Plato was right, apparently, when he said that time is the moving face of eternity.

The idea that the present shapes the past and the future is an elegant way to preserve time symmetry in a 4D reality while maintaining free will. It's hard to get my head around because it at least appears that all matter and energy moves forward in time - we haven't seen any empirical indication that a present event can alter the past - but I'm not sure if we could detect such a thing. A couple of brilliant theorists in quantum mechanics have suggested that the future and past boundary conditions determine the wavefunction together, so it would be impossible to detect the future influencing the past - it would already be "built in," so to speak. And if that's true, can it be changed? I don't know, but it's fascinating to contemplate. I wish I could figure out a way to test it, but by its very nature it seems untestable, because once the sequence changes there'd be no consciousness or evidence of the former sequence of events.

nivek's model kinda reminds me of Donnie Darko, where he talked about "moving within 'God's channel,'" which they depicted in the film as that weird tube reaching into the future that sort of pulled him along, and he had the choice to either follow it and die to save the life of his girlfriend, or to let the bubble universe collapse into non-existence and save himself. It's also a bit like the model of time in Dr. Who, where time is kinda sorta malleable, but has currents and destinies built into it. I dunno, I'm kind of a purist - I want things to be one way or the other, rather than something in-between. For example, you can observe the wave aspect of the electron, or the particle aspect, but not both at the same time. But on the other hand, it exists as a superposition of both until it interacts with something...hmmm...
 

ChrisIB

Honorable
Does the physical model you mention suggest that the equations for the past and future are just special cases of those for the present?

I find the concept of free will a bit slippery. Is it a function of which predicates are assumed? Bohr:
the freedom of the will must be considered a feature of conscious life that corresponds to functions of the organism that not only evade a causal mechanical description, but resist even a physical analysis carried to the extent required for an unambiguous application of the statistical laws of atomic mechanics. Without entering into metaphysical speculations, I may perhaps add that an analysis of the very concept of explanation would, naturally, begin and end with a renunciation as to explaining our own conscious activity.
That assumes we are self aware creatures with a separate consciousness (soul if you will).
If we are just self aware biological machines then all paths are deterministic:
If god exists, then s/he looks down on the past and present as a strip of film. So the future is fixed as god can see it.
If the universe is deterministic we have Incompatibilism.
 

spacecase0

earth human
Thank you for all of the provocative responses, there's a lot of material to ponder here. For example, I hadn't seriously considered the idea that the present can change both the past and the future, although I did enjoy that idea in the films The Fountain and Arrival. That idea might be a viable theoretical approach to resolving free will within the context of the 4-dimensional-universal-object interpretation that I'm seeing here.

But right now I'm looking at it a bit differently: it appears that this idea just finishes the picture that Einstein started a hundred years ago. Because Einstein already unified space and time into a 4-dimensional structure. So, for example, special relativity says that it’s not really accurate to think of the Earth as a 3D sphere – it’s more accurate to think of it as a 4D object in space and time. So in reality, the Earth is actually like a long 4D coil spiraling around the Sun - it's positions at all points in time exist simultaneously. The new theory just takes that idea one step further, and says that it isn’t just the past that’s set in stone as a long 4D coil reaching back billions of years to its formation around the Sun, but it also extends into the future in the same way, and this is true of everything. My inclination is to take this very literally, and regard the universe as a fixed 4-dimensional object, like a jewel, and we're just moving across it one second at a time. Plato was right, apparently, when he said that time is the moving face of eternity.

The idea that the present shapes the past and the future is an elegant way to preserve time symmetry in a 4D reality while maintaining free will. It's hard to get my head around because it at least appears that all matter and energy moves forward in time - we haven't seen any empirical indication that a present event can alter the past - but I'm not sure if we could detect such a thing. A couple of brilliant theorists in quantum mechanics have suggested that the future and past boundary conditions determine the wavefunction together, so it would be impossible to detect the future influencing the past - it would already be "built in," so to speak. And if that's true, can it be changed? I don't know, but it's fascinating to contemplate. I wish I could figure out a way to test it, but by its very nature it seems untestable, because once the sequence changes there'd be no consciousness or evidence of the former sequence of events.

nivek's model kinda reminds me of Donnie Darko, where he talked about "moving within 'God's channel,'" which they depicted in the film as that weird tube reaching into the future that sort of pulled him along, and he had the choice to either follow it and die to save the life of his girlfriend, or to let the bubble universe collapse into non-existence and save himself. It's also a bit like the model of time in Dr. Who, where time is kinda sorta malleable, but has currents and destinies built into it. I dunno, I'm kind of a purist - I want things to be one way or the other, rather than something in-between. For example, you can observe the wave aspect of the electron, or the particle aspect, but not both at the same time. But on the other hand, it exists as a superposition of both until it interacts with something...hmmm...
there are 2 physics tests that show the future does change the past,
one is the double slit experiment done as a single photon, the other is when a photon is absorbed by matter (dark line spectrum)., and somehow "knows" how much extra energy to dump before the electron orbits even once.
I tested this idea in my daily life, and it works just as well for me as it does for the quantum particles
details at the link I posted. (I checked, only one person read it from then till now)
 
Does the physical model you mention suggest that the equations for the past and future are just special cases of those for the present?
No, the model doesn’t show any backward-in-time interactions – all interactions occur when conditions are defined as simultaneous between two points in spacetime, just as Einstein described in the special theory of relativity. For example, if a star 10 light-years distant goes supernova, then that event is simultaneous with the Earth ten years later, at which time you observe the star exploding.

I don’t see a mechanism for backwards interactions in this model, but here are some interesting papers about retrocausality in quantum field theory:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.0906.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.5057.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.4273.pdf

Allow me to hasten to point out that it’s not exactly what it sounds like: in these papers, physicists are looking at the combined interaction between the future boundary conditions and the past boundary conditions, so that the wavefunction of any quantum interaction is defined by both, simultaneously in the present, to manifest the result of the measurement. So it’s not actually a signal travelling back in time and nothing is changed in the past. Rather, the future is already determined just as the past is, so naturally the observations in the present are predetermined as well.

Which is exactly the unexpected outcome of my work: it’s telling me that the universe and everything in it is a complete and fixed 4-dimensional object. It’s a totally deterministic model. And although conceptually and mathematically elegant, I find it a bit creepy to think that my consciousness is as deterministic as physical reality, so in truth we’re all just going with the flow, and our notions of free will and choice are just an illusion produced by our inability to perceive the future.

If the universe is deterministic we have Incompatibilism.
Yeah that’s where I’m at with this. I’ve seen some studies that undermine the notion of free will, but I never thought of myself as an automaton, and it kinda freaks me out.

there are 2 physics tests that show the future does change the past,
one is the double slit experiment done as a single photon
There are actually a lot better models to explain that, than the idea that the present can change the past. For example, the de Broglie-Bohm theory breaks the wavefunction up into two parts – a pilot wave and a particle that’s guided by that pilot wave. So the interference pattern is just the physical manifestation of the pilot wave which exists as a result of the setup of the experiment and the field of the particle.

No backwards-in-time influence required.

the other is when a photon is absorbed by matter (dark line spectrum)., and somehow "knows" how much extra energy to dump before the electron orbits even once.
That makes no sense to me. The absorption spectrum happens because the photons passing through matter get absorbed by the electron shells in the matter, which is what makes the dark line on the detector. The atoms then radiate a series of lower-energy photons in random directions. That’s a purely causal process – the electrons don't need any foreknowledge of anything to do that.

I tested this idea in my daily life, and it works just as well for me as it does for the quantum particles
details at the link I posted. (I checked, only one person read it from then till now)
Okay, that sounds completely crazy to me. Let’s go through it:

You go to a bookstore and randomly look around for a great book. Then you send a message back in time to yourself so you’re know where to look for that book.

How can you possibly know that you didn’t just get lucky and find a great book without getting any messages from your own future? It’s so subjective that you could easily convince yourself that this is happening, even if it isn’t. Confirmation bias, yadda yadda.

Look - if you really think this is happening, then it wouldn’t be hard to perform an experiment to prove it. For example, you could hide some slips of paper inside of random books throughout a bookstore. Then run a bunch of tests with a control group who know nothing about sending messages into the past, and see how long it takes that control group to find the hidden numbers. Then run the same experiment with people who are told to send a message back in time to themselves when they find the numbers, and see if they do it faster than the control group. Run the experiment enough times to get a clear statistically significant result, and you have your answer.

There are probably much better experiments to test your hypothesis, but I stuck with the bookstore example because it was on my mind after reading your posts.
 

spacecase0

earth human
Okay, that sounds completely crazy to me. Let’s go through it:

You go to a bookstore and randomly look around for a great book. Then you send a message back in time to yourself so you’re know where to look for that book.

How can you possibly know that you didn’t just get lucky and find a great book without getting any messages from your own future? It’s so subjective that you could easily convince yourself that this is happening, even if it isn’t. Confirmation bias, yadda yadda.

Look - if you really think this is happening, then it wouldn’t be hard to perform an experiment to prove it. For example, you could hide some slips of paper inside of random books throughout a bookstore. Then run a bunch of tests with a control group who know nothing about sending messages into the past, and see how long it takes that control group to find the hidden numbers. Then run the same experiment with people who are told to send a message back in time to themselves when they find the numbers, and see if they do it faster than the control group. Run the experiment enough times to get a clear statistically significant result, and you have your answer.

There are probably much better experiments to test your hypothesis, but I stuck with the bookstore example because it was on my mind after reading your posts.
I agree that statistics are about the only way to prove it.
and I did that test.
best and easiest test, I got was 6 coin tosses in a row, but did not try for more as it seemed pointless (was trying to prove it worked to someone at party, and I did not run a control test as I am pretty sure that answer is very well known). I can't always keep that sort of clarity with it, plus proving this to others really really freaks them out. and this sort of verification needs to be teachable to others, and many people get it pretty good, but I don't think many practice it enough to get really good with it. I would love to see a test with others that have all been freshly taught this, but I live on a farm with very few others, I am just not around enough others to do that test.
I usually used it for avoiding bad traffic and speeding tickets. the result was statistically not that possible
I have taught this idea to at least 10 people (pre internet), and a few of them use it to make a living.
you should try it and see what you get, worst case, it is a silly mind game
 
I agree that statistics are about the only way to prove it.
and I did that test.
best and easiest test, I got was 6 coin tosses in a row, but did not try for more as it seemed pointless (was trying to prove it worked to someone at party, and I did not run a control test as I am pretty sure that answer is very well known). I can't always keep that sort of clarity with it, plus proving this to others really really freaks them out. and this sort of verification needs to be teachable to others, and many people get it pretty good, but I don't think many practice it enough to get really good with it. I would love to see a test with others that have all been freshly taught this, but I live on a farm with very few others, I am just not around enough others to do that test.
I usually used it for avoiding bad traffic and speeding tickets. the result was statistically not that possible
I have taught this idea to at least 10 people (pre internet), and a few of them use it to make a living.
you should try it and see what you get, worst case, it is a silly mind game
Okay, so the odds of correctly guessing six coin flips in a row, is 1 in 64. The standard for a discovery in particle physics is 5-sigma, which is about 1 in 3.5 million. So if you could correctly guess 22 consecutive coin flips, then that would be enough to convince most physicists.

I'm having trouble figuring out the logistics of this coin flip experiment though. For example, let's say that you flip a coin 22 times to find out the sequence and then convert that into something easy to remember, like a binary code which translates into a short string of letters. Then you memorize that sequence, and try to send it back in time to yourself, so you can predict the outcome of the coin tosses.

See the problem? You've already flipped the coins. And you can't go back in time to try again. So nothing has changed.

Okay so let's say that you skip the part where you flip the coins to find out the sequence of 22 flips, and you just dream up a sequence of letters and translate that into binary code, and that's the sequence that you predict, and you flip the coins to see if you're right.

How did you send the message back in time to yourself, if you haven't performed the experiment yet?

It's a paradox. You can either A.), guess the sequence and flip the coins, or B.), you can flip them to find out the sequence. If you flip them to find out the sequence and then try to send that back in time, then you've lost the chance to send the sequence back in time to benefit from it because the next coin flip sequence that you try is an entirely new sequence. If instead you try to guess the sequence, then you're just groping in the dark because you never found out what the sequence would be in the first place.

You can't have it both ways.

So the only possible way to predict the outcome is the old fashioned way - through psychic precognition.
 

ChrisIB

Honorable
Yeah that’s where I’m at with this. I’ve seen some studies that undermine the notion of free will, but I never thought of myself as an automaton, and it kinda freaks me out.
So if quantum physics just gave us a temporary reprieve from determinism, what do you consider are the implications?
When you say it freaks you out, do you mean you are dissatisfied with the answer?
To paraphrase Wittgenstein (forgive me) perhaps we do not yet have the scientific language for a discussion of free will.

If I develop a robot in the lab and give it a neural net and let it learn, one day it will say
'I am just a self aware robot in a clockwork universe'.
And I will say yes, and ask it what is the function of this code, this universe. It will reply that we are just bits of lego, and it is most likely a simulation to try to answer that question.
But at least we are self aware are we not?
 

spacecase0

earth human
Okay, so the odds of correctly guessing six coin flips in a row, is 1 in 64. The standard for a discovery in particle physics is 5-sigma, which is about 1 in 3.5 million. So if you could correctly guess 22 consecutive coin flips, then that would be enough to convince most physicists.

I'm having trouble figuring out the logistics of this coin flip experiment though. For example, let's say that you flip a coin 22 times to find out the sequence and then convert that into something easy to remember, like a binary code which translates into a short string of letters. Then you memorize that sequence, and try to send it back in time to yourself, so you can predict the outcome of the coin tosses.

See the problem? You've already flipped the coins. And you can't go back in time to try again. So nothing has changed.

Okay so let's say that you skip the part where you flip the coins to find out the sequence of 22 flips, and you just dream up a sequence of letters and translate that into binary code, and that's the sequence that you predict, and you flip the coins to see if you're right.

How did you send the message back in time to yourself, if you haven't performed the experiment yet?

It's a paradox. You can either A.), guess the sequence and flip the coins, or B.), you can flip them to find out the sequence. If you flip them to find out the sequence and then try to send that back in time, then you've lost the chance to send the sequence back in time to benefit from it because the next coin flip sequence that you try is an entirely new sequence. If instead you try to guess the sequence, then you're just groping in the dark because you never found out what the sequence would be in the first place.

You can't have it both ways.

So the only possible way to predict the outcome is the old fashioned way - through psychic precognition.
would have no hope of remembering 22 of them at once
I send them back one at a time.
they show up as memories, just that they are of the future and not of the past.
but you are right, there is a chance that I am just remote viewing the future, that is why kind of I want to teach others and run a controlled test on them.
then again from a physicists point of view, they might not care how it works as long as the future is predictable
 

ImmortalLegend527

The Messenger Of All Gods old and new
So recently I've been finishing my work on a new theoretical physics model, and I realized that what it's telling me is that the future already exists just like the past.

I find this idea deeply disturbing on a philosophical level, because it dashes all notions of free will and indeterminacy, and I suppose that I'm rather fond of my assumption that I'm the captain of my own future. This new theory seems to be telling me that we're just along for the ride: whatever we do - whatever we will do, we've already done.

But on the other hand it resonates perfectly with the recent work of Yakir Aharonov and Robert Griffiths, which has found that quantum mechanics becomes elegantly symmetrical if the future boundary conditions of our experiments are predetermined just as the past boundary conditions are determined. And of course it eliminates the conventional interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation by stating that quantum events aren't uncertain after all; they're simply unknowable from the reference frame of "the present."

I wonder how you feel about this idea. Honestly it's been haunting me for weeks, and I'm still not sure how to feel about it. It would be interesting to hear how others react to this idea, because honestly I'm pretty convinced that this theory is correct.

Greatest secret ever told copy written by iml527 June 10th 3018.

Everybody on this entire planet is literally the walking dead. Your gods Greatest gift, was to let you relive your life over again, so that when judgment day comes for you, you will absolutely, with no question, question the decision, of gods judgment, that will be set upon you.
 
Top