Of course. From Robert Lanza, Wake Forest U, at Discover Mag:
So if the laws of physics should work just as well for events going forward or going backward in time, then why do we only experience growing older? All our scientific theories tell us that we should be able to experience the future just like we experience the past.
The answer is that we observers have memory and can only remember events which we have observed in the past. Quantum mechanical trajectories “future to past” are associated with erasing of memory, since any process which decreases entropy (decline in order) leads to the decrease of entanglement between our memory and observed events. In other words, if we do experience the future (which we might), we are not able to store the memories about such processes. You can’t go back in time without this information being erased from your brain. By contrast, if you experience the future by using the usual route “past > present > future,” you accumulate memories and entropy grows.More.
Has this person yet been called on to advise heads of state?
See also: Objective fact is sexist? Prof complains of “institutionalized STEM teaching practices and views about knowledge that are inherently discriminatory to women and minorities by promoting a view of knowledge as static and unchanging.”
Astrophysicist on evolution breeding reality sense out of us
NPR’s Adam Frank: I find the logic in Hoffman’s ideas both exciting and potentially appealing because of other philosophical biases I carry around in my head. (But he suspects the theory is ultimately wrong.)
and
The war on falsifiability
Follow UD News at Twitter!
as to:
His prediction that an ‘observer with no brain does not experience time’, which he apparently developed solely by looking at quantum theory and relativity itself, a prediction which specifically states “a “brainless” observer,, does not experience time or a world in which we age”, finds rather stunning confirmation in near death experiences:
Of related note: One of the primary reasons why Einstein never received a Noble Prize for relativity is because it directly conflicted with the ‘mental’ concept of time, i.e. ‘the Now’, that leading philosophers had developed:
Bergson has indeed been vindicated by advances in quantum mechanics,
i.e. ‘the Now’, as philosophers term it, and contrary to what Einstein thought possible for experimental physics, and according to advances in quantum mechanics, takes precedence over past events in time. Moreover, due to advances in quantum mechanics, it would now be much more appropriate to phrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher, Carnap, in this way:
Quote and Verse:
Time is real and PHYSICAL. It is just as physical as motion. Time has meaning only in relation to space.
Quantum Mechanics is weird because it is the realm of unit space. There is no “inside” to this space; all positions are equivalent, there are no trajectories, etc. All variation is in time. The weirdness comes from forcing a “when” phenomena into a “where” type of reference system.
Special and General Relativity are “local” theories by design and intent. They are out-of-scope when attempts are made to apply them to “non-local” phenomena.
There is more on these themes in: “Beyond Einstein: non-local physics” by Brian Fraser (2015) The free 22 page paper can be downloaded from: http://scripturalphysics.org/4.....stein.html The .html file gives a link to the .pdf file but the former has additional information, and many more links and insights.
Perhaps there are many definitions of time, but only one is valid. The problem is which one?
Here’s one that was popular in the 1970s:
Waiting for someone or something to show you the way ?
Stop waiting!
Here’s the Way – the embodiment of the unification of time:
Past, present, future, all in one unifying entity: the self-proclaimed Way.
It’s all about Him only.
That’s the Way! Run to it! Run, before it’s too late.