The Destiny of the Universe

Future can affect the past ? N0 !

Even past can not effect the future. There is no time in the universe.

UNIVERSE IS NOW.

yours amritAttachment #1: 3_Block_Universe.pdf

Good points, Lawrence -- and exactly the reason I favor a strategy of comnplex analysis on the Riemann sphere to reconcile quantum and classical behavior. The expression 1/0 -- because the Riemann sphere has only the one simple pole at infinity -- is defined to be infinity. This is the division by zero that creates a logical mess in the arithmetic domain.

Using Hawking's analogy of going "north of the North Pole," we find that extending the time trajectory beyond the singularity allows more room for time to be physically real, even in the imaginary domain, without violating quantum unitarity in the real domain.

Tomk

Dear Amrit,

You are quite right, the universe is now! Everything just happens in the very instant of the present. Past is gone and future is an just a possibility.

Meanwhile, life is a trajectory (like a motion), there is a "now", a "before now" and a "after now". So, what happens in the past, do influence both present and future.

Cheers,

I have been saying precisely this for decades now. For example my three books Destiny Matrix, Space-Time and Beyond, Super Cosmos all in print on Amazon et-al. David Kaiser of MIT Physics is writing a book in which I am prominently featured. See also Herbert Gold's 1993 book "Bohemia" Simon & Shuster where the above ideas are documented. I also have two papers on the Cornell archive on this one with Creon Levit NASA AMES also printed in IOP Proceedings of DICE 2008.

Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. (physics UC, 1969)

http://stardrive.org

Tom,

This is similar to a projective geometry. I would need to sit down with this and see if there is anything to what I see as a connection with the WDC. AS (f| and |i) are rotated to an orthogonal configuration it is uncertain how this sets one state, say |i) given the other.

Cheers LC

Dear Jack,

This does sound a lot like your ideas. Would you like to contribute a more detailed comment or observation to this blog site? Personally, I'm having difficulty imagining the future affecting the past. Do tachyons really travel backwards in time (I realize that the light cone implies this, because tachyons outrace photons) or are they an example of the local present affecting the global present by simultaneously transferring "spooky" action-at-a-distance phenomena?

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe, Ph.D. (HEP-PH physics FSU 1996)

I like your ideas Amrit, youn know it,

but for the past which can affect the future, I do not agree, because all is the result of a polarization of evolution, we were fishs, we were, cells, we were CH4 H2O NH3....WE WERE AND WE SHALL BE ..............I agree thus for the eternity is now .....but we must acept also the physicality and its dynamics.

Best Regards

Steve

I've always believed that the effect of a quantum wave function collapsing into a final state only after it has been "observed" provides an elegant "mechanism" for free will to operate without violating any laws of physics. After all, free will is something we are all aware of most directly through our own experiential knowledge. But how can operate in a brain governed by molecular biology? The indeterminacy of quantum states would appear to provide the "veil" behind which free will can nudge a person's brain state and mental processes into a desired direction. And such free willed brain states could never be observed to violate any laws of physics. Deciding to abstain from that extra bit of candy, for example, can truly be an act of free will.

This new research showing that future decisions can change preceding states would seem to give further support this viewpoint regarding free will.

If a person decisions about future actions can trickle back to start changing the intermediate states (steps) leading to the future action, we then have (a) the past decision, (2) the resolve to execute that past decision at some future moment(s), and (3) the actual acting out of that future decision working together to arrange the series of quantum states of the brain which flow into that entire series of events and "micro-decisions."

In regard to both the beginning and end states of our universe, a similar line of reasoning supports the theory that a Creator/Observer deciding to create a universe with a particular end state, or any set of intermediate states, would be able to "weave" the the laws of physics, universal constants, and "happenstance" from both directions, past to future and from the future to past.

This would be particularly true if the Creator was "outside" of time (in Eternity meaning not forever but not in time at all) where both the "past" and "future" (as seen from the universe's perspective) are equally present, equally accessible to thought and observation.

This also goes to the heart of a central issue in philosophy. How can rationality arise from the irrational? (That is a subset of the question, "How can something come from nothing?") Science is based on rationality, and the scientific method arose from within a religious world view that elevated rationality to being a reliable means of thinking, planning, and behaving because Christian theology, rather uniquely, claimed that God is rational and His ways are rational, and therefore the operation of the universe is rational.

Many who are afraid of these implications want to insist that the "rational" is just an fortuitous outcome of an irrational, random, accidental Big Bang that has had persisting effects...including rational beings who want to speculate about this experience.

So the question remains: Which existed first, the rational or the irrational?

For proponents of the latter answer, "the irrational", ironically they can only argue and reason about the irrational using the tools of the reason.

It is the proponents of the former answer, "the rational existed first", who are the true champions of the Enlightenment which holds to the primacy of reason. Reason existed first, even before matter and the universe as we know it, and this Reason is necessary to explain both how anything exists and how all that exists will end. Between these two hows we might also find they whys.

Dave, you touched on many issues. I too believe that free will gets an explanation in QM mostly because the whole is bigger than the parts and there are additional degrees of freedom which allow for genuine choices to be made, in particular in the way a question can be asked in an experiment which "steers" the quantum system. However, the future influencing on the past is against free will. T'Hooft has some ideas along those lines.

One key point to realize in this time symmetric formulation of QM is that the system is described by 2 state vectors, and the future one does not influence the past one. Instead, the amplification effects are a result of the interplay between the 2 states in the weak measurement case.

Davies idea of using the time symmetric formulation and the known begin and end state to understand teleology and the increase of complexity is interesting, but I am afraid it will not hold under close mathematical scrutiny. The problem is that the final state of the universe is only an asymptotic state and the time symmetric QM formalism cannot be used to predict anything. Think of the difference between convergence and uniform convergence. The existence of infinities (infinite future in this case) can very easily play nasty tricks.

About the question: "How can something come from nothing?" the answer is trivial: because it can. QM and relativity are core physics theories, and their interplay generates field theory and particle creation. Absolute nothingness is unstable as predicted by QM because it violates the Heisenberg principle.

About the question: "Which existed first, the rational or the irrational?" I'll say this is an ill posed problem because it requires the concept of time which biases the answer towards the rational. I believe in a democracy of ontologies where on is not superior to another. For example, a virtual reality in a computer game is a viable ontology. The only valid question is the question of a creator/designer. Some ontologies cannot create themselves, and this does require a creator (in the example above the computer programmer, in other examples, the watchmaker). To prove that (our) God must exist (or not) is to prove that our universe cannot self-create (or not). In the end, you end up in an God-of-the-gaps type argument.

universe has no destiny, universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, no beginning no end, eternal,

we can only discuss about mankind destiny

if we will not wake up out of our minds into consciousness we will create bed destiny.........

yours amrit

Is my "now" = to,

A: the future's past.

or is my "now" evolved from

B:the past's future?

If A, then observing moment from say 1 second to the next second, will reveal the moment being determined, pre-existence, having allready having a destiny, or pre-arranged path.

If B,then observing any moments, 1 second to the next 1 second will reveal a "stretched" or lapsed time signature?

From an observational POV my "now" has happened in both directions A B scenario's. The slight difference being time signatures are fixed for one moment, but is varied for another moment?

The experimentalists must FIRST determine which scenario they have created or not created ? which, by its very nature will have catastrophic consequence.

P.S cryptic variable intended ;)

Dear Alano, Dear Steve,

physical time is a stream of numerical order of change that runs in space.

Physical past and future exist only as a numerical order of material change.

yours amrit

STREAM OF TIME IS STREAM OF NUMERICAL ORDER OF MATERIAL CHANGE THAT RUN IN SPACE

time is not part of space, space is timeless in a sense that time is not 4th coordinate of space, space is 4D, X4 = ict where t is numerical order of material change we measure with clocksAttachment #1: Time_is_Numerical_Order_of_Material_Change.pdf

Dear Ray, dear Jack

tachions can travel in space only as physical time is a numerical order of their motion in space

yours amrit

Dear Amrit,

It's profound your ideas indeed.

I like your spirituality.We are indeed all linked.

I see the physical Universe with a kind of begining.

Thus I imagine like an ultim aim also eisting in the future.

I see this physical balance between cosmological spheres as a beautiful harmony between physical creations and their lifes and intelligences and consciousness.

At this point of Unification in the future, the time will be not necessary because the system shall be fusioned and thus the eternality between mass can arrive with this universal love.It's simply explained but I see like that.

You imagine the future, WE WERE WE ARE WE SHALL BE.....

Thus Indeed I agree about your conclusion, indeed you understand the aim of the physical Universe.

Regards

Steve

What happened to this forum? It started with a nice article outlining a coherent theory of the causal influence of future events on the present, complete with experimental program -- followed by discussion of the known physics and scientific framework -- then dropped off into a neverland of philosophy and speculation.

The subject converges with other forums on this site, however, and I for one would be happy to engage, or re-engage, with the physics.

If anyone is interested in reviving the forum, I'm up for it.

Tom

A coherent theory like the l"ubth" system of falses extrapolations about the graviy.

Don't copy my theory please,

you want speak about all.

Let's go now.Let's peculate a little in total transparence and please.as English is my third language thus don't explain that in an other thread for your credibility.

Th you say so many stupidities, so many irony about our foundamentals, what is this irony, have you a specific job for this stupidity or is it a kind of vanity or perhaps it's all your works but you can't return in the good sense.

Your model TH ? your theory like the theories of some of your friends(I rest polite,I don't say the names) are a pure joke of business and that's all.

A kind of frustrated oif the system by lack of recognition.

If you prefer to be recognised by only the weakest part of the sciences community, it's your choice.

It's a pure joke of Ex and the team for the prizes...all is said GAME OVER.AHAHAH HUMOR FROM BELGIUM.....

Steve

Hi,

I'm really a lay-person but very curious about a related article Back From the Future from Discover Magazine article and I chanced upon this discussion, which seemed interesting.

I was wondering if anybody could comment on this excerpt:-

"

The free will issue is something that Tollaksen has been tackling mathematically with Popescu. The framework does not actually suggest that people could time-travel to the past, but it does allow a concrete test of whether it is possible to rewrite history. The Rochester experiments seem to demonstrate that actions carried out in the future--in the final, postselection step--ripple back in time to influence and amplify the results measured in the earlier, intermediate step. Does this mean that when the intermediate step is carried out, the future is set and the experimenter has no choice but to perform the later, postselection measurement? It seems not. Even in instances where the final step is abandoned, Tollaksen has found, the intermediate weak measurement remains amplified, though now with no future cause to explain its magnitude at all.

I put it to Tollaksen straight: This finding seems to make a mockery of everything we have discussed so far.

Tollaksen is smiling; this is clearly an argument he has been through many times. The result of that single experiment may be the same, he explains, but remember, the power of weak measurements lies in their repetition. No single measurement can ever be taken alone to convey any meaning about the state of reality. Their inherent error is too large. "Your pointer will still read an amplified result, but now you cannot interpret it as having been caused by anything other than noise or a blip in the apparatus," he says.

In other words, you can see the effects of the future on the past only after carrying out millions of repeat experiments and tallying up the results to produce a meaningful pattern. Focus on any single one of them and try to cheat it, and you are left with a very strange-looking result--an amplification with no cause--but its meaning vanishes. You simply have to put it down to a random error in your apparatus. You win back your free will in the sense that if you actually attempt to defy the future, you will find that it can never force you to carry out postselection experiments against your wishes. The math, Tollaksen says, backs him on this interpretation: The error range in single intermediate weak measurements that are not followed up by the required post足selection will always be just enough to dismiss the bizarre result as a mistake."

Dear TH Ray

The URL to your paper does not work.

It's more than a convention. There is real physics here. See Roger Penrose's discussion of Ben Libet's "presponse" for example in The Emperor's New Mind and Dick Bierman's more recent replication experiments at the University in Amsterdam.