Retrocausality

[pioneer]

Retrocausality or changes in the future, which can change the past can be explained as being due to the limitations within empirical assumptions. For example, a study might show that drinking coffee is not good for you (hypothetical). So when you drink coffee today the outcome is predicted to be bad in the future. Years later, a new study says, drinking coffee is now good for you. Now all that coffee you drank yesterday, that once would hurt you, magically changes all its past properties and now leads to better health effects for the future. Nothing has changed in reality, the special effect is connected to the empirical result.

 

The wording, retrocausality, is sort of misleading, since it implies we were using cause and effect in the first place. One has to look behind the smoke to see the real cause.

[bombus]

Ok, the statement is equivalent to:

 

"I have no way of proving whether or not the world disappears when I close my eyes."

 

This is true. It can be applied to anything, and "anything" includes quantum mechanics. However, it has no special significance to QM.

 

Only QM has provided scientific data that suggests that it could be a possibility. Without QM data it's pure conjecture.

[Sisyphus]

Only QM has provided scientific data that suggests that it could be a possibility. Without QM data it's pure conjecture.

 

No, it has not. QM does indeed suggest some things about reality that were previously hypothetical. However, that is not one of them.

[bombus]

No, it has not. QM does indeed suggest some things about reality that were previously hypothetical. However, that is not one of them.

 

We might be going around in circles here. I say that it is one of them according to some interpretations of QM. Can you please provide proof of your claim. I have provided proof of my claim. Here;s another:

 

http://cogprints.org/3489/

[Kyrisch]

Why do you say 'but surely the wavefunction collapse occurred much earlier' ? There is no surely about it. This is IMHO a big issue in science where investigation can be influenced more by incredulity than impartial analysis of evidence. See here:

 

http://cogprints.org/3489/

 

First of all, the electrons must have ceased acting like waves and began acting like particles sometime before and up to the moment they passed through the slit in order for the interference pattern on the screen to disappear. Since the only conscious rendering of the situation is formed after observing the electrons' imprints on the screen, and the devices inside the slits are not actually recording anything, it is clear that conscious observation is not the issue here.

 

Also, as soon as you say "This is IMHO a big issue in science," you lose. Nothing is anything in your opinion, as far as science is concerned. Science really doesn't care what you think if you don't have evidence. And a single paper is not evidence enough for the controversy you seem to point to.

[swansont]

We might be going around in circles here. I say that it is one of them according to some interpretations of QM. Can you please provide proof of your claim. I have provided proof of my claim. Here;s another:

 

http://cogprints.org/3489/

 

I thought your claim was that interaction requires consciousness.

 

This paper is a theory paper — at the end it suggests some experiments, very vague suggestions at that, on how to test it. IOW, there's no evidence of anything.

 

"Here we mainly discuss the possible quantum effects of consciousness in the framework of revised quantum dynamics" where RQD is admittedly an alternative to quantum theory. So what you have is something based on alternative interpretations that has no experimental confirmation. This hardly rises to the level of a debate.

 

The author also cites himself an awful lot, and publishes alone, which are warning signs of crackpottery. You might want to check out some of his other work, like "A Primary Quantum Model of Telepathy" Cite him at your own risk.

[bombus]

My first post merely questioned the assertion that interaction does not include observation - or to be more precise, that observation=interaction.

 

I am claiming that that has not been proven and that it is still being debated, as some QM experts do claim that interaction does indeed have to involve conscious observation. (Note:The other side of the argument is just as bereft of evidence).

 

I am not necessarily making that claim myself, but have been offering proof that the issue has not been resolved.

 

(However, I have probably been subject to a little 'mission creep' and have at times been defending the 'conscious observation is required' argument.)

 

I actually don't know what the 'truth' is - no-one does.

 

Also. re the paper on telepathy. This is what I mean by incredulity influencing scientific study. Are you suggesting that you would not even consider the possibility of telepathy?

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

This hardly rises to the level of a debate.

 

 

That's debateable:-)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

First of all, the electrons must have ceased acting like waves and began acting like particles sometime before and up to the moment they passed through the slit in order for the interference pattern on the screen to disappear. Since the only conscious rendering of the situation is formed after observing the electrons' imprints on the screen, and the devices inside the slits are not actually recording anything, it is clear that conscious observation is not the issue here.

 

Also, as soon as you say "This is IMHO a big issue in science," you lose. Nothing is anything in your opinion, as far as science is concerned. Science really doesn't care what you think if you don't have evidence. And a single paper is not evidence enough for the controversy you seem to point to.

 

Oh, well I've lost then. Obviously.

Edited June 21, 2009 by bombus
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

My first post merely questioned the assertion that interaction does not include observation - or to be more precise, that observation=interaction.

 

That was never asserted. What was explained was that any interaction counted as an observation. But the tone of the subsequent argument was that consciousness was required for any observation ("No consciousness means no observation"), and that this topic was an active debate among the physics community. It isn't, and it's not.

 

I am claiming that that has not been proven and that it is still being debated, as some QM experts do claim that interaction does indeed have to involve conscious observation. (Note:The other side of the argument is just as bereft of evidence).

 

I am not necessarily making that claim myself, but have been offering proof that the issue has not been resolved.

 

(However, I have probably been subject to a little 'mission creep' and have at times been defending the 'conscious observation is required' argument.)

 

I actually don't know what the 'truth' is - no-one does.

 

Also. re the paper on telepathy. This is what I mean by incredulity influencing scientific study. Are you suggesting that you would not even consider the possibility of telepathy?

 

No, what I question is someone purportedly establishing the QM behind a phenomenon that has never been confirmed experimentally, the author's claims notwithstanding (I'll have to check out his references to see if he's just misrepresenting them. Somehow I doubt that a Nature paper confirms telepathy). As with my note about "revised quantum dynamics" — building one hypothesis upon another hypothesis is truly shaky ground. This author repeatedly references himself as if one conjecture is true, and more likely than not is just building a house of cards.

[bombus]

That was never asserted. What was explained was that any interaction counted as an observation.

 

It was stated, and not all scientists agree on this!

 

But the tone of the subsequent argument was that consciousness was required for any observation ("No consciousness means no observation"), and that this topic was an active debate among the physics community. It isn't, and it's not.

 

It would seem that it is among some - as my posts have suggested. Can you please direct me to a source that shows all physicists agree that interaction is the same as observation.

 

No, what I question is someone purportedly establishing the QM behind a phenomenon that has never been confirmed experimentally, the author's claims notwithstanding (I'll have to check out his references to see if he's just misrepresenting them. Somehow I doubt that a Nature paper confirms telepathy). As with my note about "revised quantum dynamics" — building one hypothesis upon another hypothesis is truly shaky ground. This author repeatedly references himself as if one conjecture is true, and more likely than not is just building a house of cards.

 

I'd suggest that both hypothesis can exist without each other, but perhaps one can support another. Anyway, I don't wish to discuss telepathy here.

[swansont]

It would seem that it is among some - as my posts have suggested. Can you please direct me to a source that shows all physicists agree that interaction is the same as observation.

 

"All physicists agree" is not a reasonable standard. Don't shift the burden of proof.

 

That some physicists discuss the role of consciousness is not the same as saying it is a significant, contested and debated topic within the physics community. A few papers (self-referencing at that) appearing in obscure journals doesn't fit the bill.

 

I's also like to note that

My first post merely questioned the assertion that interaction does not include observation - or to be more precise, that observation=interaction.

contains contradictory statements. The two cannot be equal if one does not include the other. The former was never asserted.

[Kyrisch]

...the electrons must have ceased acting like waves and began acting like particles sometime before or up to the moment they passed through the slit in order for the interference pattern on the screen to disappear. [scientists assume that the wavefunction collapse was effected by the detectors inside the slits.] Since the only conscious rendering of the situation is formed after observing the electrons' imprints on the screen, and the devices inside the slits are not actually recording anything, it is clear that conscious observation is not the issue here.

 

--You never responded to this.

[swansont]

I'd suggest that both hypothesis can exist without each other, but perhaps one can support another. Anyway, I don't wish to discuss telepathy here.

 

Neither do I, but that's not the point. The point is the author has embraced fringe concepts, and does not represent the mainstream view of physics.

[Ndi]

I would venture that it is you that is ignoring the evidence. You can explain away the evidence if you want, and choose to BELIEVE that its all an error, a hoax, or whatever. You can BELIEVE what you like.

 

Yes, well, the key difference here is that my ... belief as you put it is a falsifiable theory whereas yours is not. My theory that the equipment/application of experiment was faulty is verifiable, and at some point in the future it WILL be proven right or wrong. This is the difference between tackling a problem and explaining it away. Our theories are nor equivalent.

 

Do you really think the issues you mention have not been considered by the experimenters? They are not cranks you know!

 

The experimenters? Probably not, I doubt people pushing the borders of science are crackpots, but we are not talking about them, now are we? We discuss several interpretations of the observed experiments.

 

If Newton decided that gravity is mass multiplied by gravitational acceleration, conducts an experiment and makes a (reasonable for classical thinking) theory, then good for him, up in the hall of fame he goes.

 

We should NEVER confuse his experiment with an outside person (the crackpot) who sees gravity as not the apple falling down attracted by earth, but pushed by the tree. Or that claims that if Newton weren't there, the apple would have never fallen, or that apples don't fall unless there's a human there to see it.

 

I scream appeal to authority.

 

--

 

On a lighter note, maybe I missed it but I don't remember anyone arguing towards the following:

 

In the first experiment, without the observer, the particles form a wave pattern. Is this experiment not observed, even if indirectly? Are the physicists now aware of the particles' behavior and is their consciousness not there in the mix?

 

Sure they don't check EACH particle, but hey, human glory is human glory, I mean, the tree might not fall in the woods if nobody sees it, but we SEE IT in the first experiment - just not directly, but by the effect. When the tree falls, it makes a sound because we hear the air waves it produces. We see it because the light it reflects. These are indirect observations, we don't put a bell under the tree to directly measure the tree.

 

A particle behaving like a wave is a particle observed (that's why we know it's there), it's not the observance that changed, it's the measuring mode. I blame the measuring mode.

[bombus]

"All physicists agree" is not a reasonable standard. Don't shift the burden of proof.

 

That some physicists discuss the role of consciousness is not the same as saying it is a significant, contested and debated topic within the physics community. A few papers (self-referencing at that) appearing in obscure journals doesn't fit the bill.

 

I see. So I ask a question and then have to justify the asking of a question by providing proof that my question is valid, while no proof needs to be provided to back up the proposal that there is no debate on the matter. You are not on the scientific high ground here. You have provided no proof so far.

 

Also, only a proportion of physicists actually work on QM anyway, so there are not going to be that many debating the issue. And when emminent physicists like Roger Penrose are n the debate I hardly think it's fair to say that the debate is about a 'A few papers (self-referencing at that) appearing in obscure journals'

 

It's a debate that is still occurring and I have shown this to be true. Shall we carry on discussing retrocausality. I do not consider there is much left to discuss here.

 

I's also like to note that contains contradictory statements. The two cannot be equal if one does not include the other. The former was never asserted.[/

 

I think you are splitting hairs based on semantics here.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

--You never responded to this.

 

I did but maybe not directly. Your proposal is one interpretation, and there are others. If it was as simple as you put it why would it ever have caused such a fuss? I don't think the evidence backs up that proposal, but I shall investigate it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yes, well, the key difference here is that my ... belief as you put it is a falsifiable theory whereas yours is not. My theory that the equipment/application of experiment was faulty is verifiable, and at some point in the future it WILL be proven right or wrong. This is the difference between tackling a problem and explaining it away. Our theories are nor equivalent.

 

Some of the interpretations of QM may well not be falsifiable, but some of the data cannot be explained by current science. Some interpretations of QM do provide a possible solution. However, if the proposals are not falsifiable directly, there may be experiments that could be devised that might imply them to be true. The giaia theory is a difficult one to falsify, but the Daisy World hypothetical model swayed a lot of doubters as it's hard to argue with.

 

The experimenters? Probably not, I doubt people pushing the borders of science are crackpots, but we are not talking about them, now are we? We discuss several interpretations of the observed experiments.

 

I think we may well be talking about people who are pushing the borders of science. Who do you mean?

 

If Newton decided that gravity is mass multiplied by gravitational acceleration, conducts an experiment and makes a (reasonable for classical thinking) theory, then good for him, up in the hall of fame he goes.

 

We should NEVER confuse his experiment with an outside person (the crackpot) who sees gravity as not the apple falling down attracted by earth, but pushed by the tree. Or that claims that if Newton weren't there, the apple would have never fallen, or that apples don't fall unless there's a human there to see it.

 

That's an inaccurate analogy. Data is being produced that cannot be explained by current 'mainstream' physics, but could be explained using some interpretations of QM.

 

 

On a lighter note, maybe I missed it but I don't remember anyone arguing towards the following:

 

In the first experiment, without the observer, the particles form a wave pattern. Is this experiment not observed, even if indirectly? Are the physicists now aware of the particles' behavior and is their consciousness not there in the mix?

 

It is, but some doubt that consciousness actually influences the experiment.

 

Sure they don't check EACH particle,

 

Actually they have done.

 

I blame the measuring mode

 

As far as I understand, the measuring mode being the key issue does not correlate with all the evidence. I will look further into it.

Edited June 22, 2009 by bombus
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

I see. So I ask a question and then have to justify the asking of a question by providing proof that my question is valid,

 

No, you're perfectly free to ask any question you want. This is a problem with answers.

 

while no proof needs to be provided to back up the proposal that there is no debate on the matter.

 

Prove to me there's no serious debate about the existence of leprachuans.

 

And when emminent physicists like Roger Penrose are n the debate I hardly think it's fair to say that the debate is about a 'A few papers (self-referencing at that) appearing in obscure journals'

 

Penrose is a whole other can of worms, but we don't have to get into that, because AFAIK not even he is claiming what you are. If it turns out I'm wrong about that, we can get into who, exactly, takes him seriously, and what has or has not been falsified.

 

It's a debate that is still occurring and I have shown this to be true.

 

"A debate" is meaningless. The only thing you need to do to prove there is a debate is to hold a contrary position yourself. This thread is proof of "a debate."

 

I do not consider there is much left to discuss here.

 

Quite.

 

I think you are splitting hairs based on semantics here.

 

Now you're just being deliberately ironic.

[swansont]

I see. So I ask a question and then have to justify the asking of a question by providing proof that my question is valid, while no proof needs to be provided to back up the proposal that there is no debate on the matter. You are not on the scientific high ground here. You have provided no proof so far.

 

I may not be on the high ground, but neither am I shifting the goalposts nor posting strawmen. I never said there was no debate on the matter. What I said was

In physics circles, I'm not aware of there being any debate.

 

There certainly is some debate outside of physics, but I don't care about that so much. It's not particularly rigorous, from what I can see, and much of it seems to be located within the new-age crowd, who are just tacking the term "quantum" onto their schlock in an attempt to legitimize it. It's not science, so it can't be scientific debate. If it was science, all you'd have to do is devise an experiment for it — then you might have a debate.

 

Within physics, I don't consider a few scattered papers in low-level journals to be debate, especially as nobody seems to be engaging these few authors. The response seems to be a collective yawn.

 

I am giving you the benefit of my experience as a physicist. Take it for what you will. As for proof, I will state once again: not my burden. I can't prove a negative anyway, so it's disingenuous to ask me to do so.

[bombus]

I may not be on the high ground, but neither am I shifting the goalposts nor posting strawmen. I never said there was no debate on the matter. What I said was

 

I have not deliberately posted strawmen here. I never deliberately post strawmen.

 

 

There certainly is some debate outside of physics, but I don't care about that so much. It's not particularly rigorous, from what I can see, and much of it seems to be located within the new-age crowd, who are just tacking the term "quantum" onto their schlock in an attempt to legitimize it. It's not science, so it can't be scientific debate. If it was science, all you'd have to do is devise an experiment for it — then you might have a debate.

 

Much of what you have said sounds like opinion to me, and again, passing it all off as new age rubbish. I'm sure a lot of it is, but a lot of it isn't.

 

Within physics, I don't consider a few scattered papers in low-level journals to be debate, especially as nobody seems to be engaging these few authors. The response seems to be a collective yawn.

 

Opinion

 

I am giving you the benefit of my experience as a physicist. Take it for what you will. As for proof, I will state once again: not my burden. I can't prove a negative anyway, so it's disingenuous to ask me to do so

 

OK proving a negative is difficult - I was expecting a link to a paper solving all the issues. However, I have posted enough to show that it is being debated by respected, serious physicists working in respected institutions, and there is plenty more out there.

 

We'll have to agree to differ I think.

[swansont]

 

I have not deliberately posted strawmen here. I never deliberately post strawmen.

 

Did I use the word "deliberate?"

 

[sigh]

[Ndi]

Some of the interpretations of QM may well not be falsifiable, but some of the data cannot be explained by current science.

 

My analogy is valid. In the year 1012, some experiments were outside of what current physics could explain. So a possible interpretation would be "God did it". While fine at the time, we have now learned that "God did it" is unfalsifiable, meaning you can throw anything to God and nobody can tell you it's false. (since then, people redefine God's intervention to fit this).

 

You seem to give interpretations and models some power. They have NONE. NONE. I see a tree and my interpretation is it was beamed by Scotty. It's mine, I believe in it and I may or may not be a crackpot (*). If I find more people to believe this load then what I have is religion not truth.

 

*) This one of the straw men you throw along with the other fallacies. What you do here is make an unjustified parallel between being wrong and being a crackpot. I can be sane AND wrong. E.g. I ask if you took my lighter and you reply "I'm not a thief! You think I'm a thief?". You might have taken it by mistake, that means that you are not a thief AND you have my lighter.

 

Also, I screamed it once and I'll scream it again. Appeal to authority. Just because X believes something _has_zero_bearing_on_reality_ or truth. The summed up opinion of all the humanity equals zero. Unless there's proof, a theory, falsifiable text, it means nothing. If Michael Jordan thinks I can win against O'Neill in 1-on-1 does NOT make it so.

 

You forget that 90% of the 7 billion believe they were put here by deity? (or did at some point). Did that make a difference? If Einstein said he believed in the flying spaghetti monster, would that make it real? And don't fall in the trap of "more" true. Making it believable doesn't make it more true.

 

Some interpretations of QM do provide a possible solution.

 

See, there's the problem. You confer this interpretation thing power. It has none. Someone sees some light in the window. Their interpretation is "OMG it's a ghost". The complete sum of all interpretations precisely null.

 

However, if the proposals are not falsifiable directly, there may be experiments that could be devised that might imply them to be true.

 

You seem to round off corners of concepts. If a sentence is unfalsifiable then it's unfalsifiable. If someone comes up with something that determines/falsifies it then we were wrong in calling it unfalsifiable.

 

_Unbreakable_ means unbreakable. Actually unbreakable. Don't confuse it with "hard to break" "I can't break it" or "nobody has ever broken one". The former are theoretical concepts, they have sharp corners.

 

Implying something is true means nothing. Tomorrow someone proves if untrue and all your implications are zero. Tomorrow someone proves if true and all your implications are still zero, because it's trube sinceproven, not implied.

 

I think we may well be talking about people who are pushing the borders of science. Who do you mean?

 

I mean that the person in a white coat that did the experiment never said that the world blinks when you close your eyes or that the particle knows it's being watched. If he/she did, s/he should have the license removed.

 

I think that someone twisted "it works as if the particle knew" oversimplification for the masses and turned into "there is a bond between our consciousnesses".

 

That's an inaccurate analogy. Data is being produced that cannot be explained by current 'mainstream' physics, but could be explained using some interpretations of QM.

 

Sigh.

 

Interpretations explain nothing. Interpretations are imaginary tales based on the facts. We have them because it helps us conceive the future experiments.

 

I see a tree. My interpretation is it's Gods' hands who planted it. Thus I make an interpretation model in which a huge hand plants it. This is falsifiable. How? I wait and see. Later, a new tree grows with zero huge hands. Into the bin it goes. Total value if the interpretation? Zero.

 

The only thing it helped me with is hint at an experiment that will ruin it. I do it. I ruin it. The more I try and don't ruin it, the closer it's assumed to be to the truth.

 

You see, if it's unfalsifiable I can't do an experiment. It's an axe with no blade.

[bombus]

String theory is currently unfalsifiable.

 

I'm bored of this conversation. It's going round in circles.

 

Lets just wait and see shall we?

 

I'm outta here.

 

Thanks for the chat.

Edited June 24, 2009 by bombus

[bombus]

My analogy is valid. In the year 1012, some experiments were outside of what current physics could explain. So a possible interpretation would be "God did it". While fine at the time, we have now learned that "God did it" is unfalsifiable, meaning you can throw anything to God and nobody can tell you it's false. (since then, people redefine God's intervention to fit this).

 

You seem to give interpretations and models some power. They have NONE. NONE. I see a tree and my interpretation is it was beamed by Scotty. It's mine, I believe in it and I may or may not be a crackpot (*). If I find more people to believe this load then what I have is religion not truth.

 

*) This one of the straw men you throw along with the other fallacies. What you do here is make an unjustified parallel between being wrong and being a crackpot. I can be sane AND wrong. E.g. I ask if you took my lighter and you reply "I'm not a thief! You think I'm a thief?". You might have taken it by mistake, that means that you are not a thief AND you have my lighter.

 

Also, I screamed it once and I'll scream it again. Appeal to authority. Just because X believes something _has_zero_bearing_on_reality_ or truth. The summed up opinion of all the humanity equals zero. Unless there's proof, a theory, falsifiable text, it means nothing. If Michael Jordan thinks I can win against O'Neill in 1-on-1 does NOT make it so.

 

You forget that 90% of the 7 billion believe they were put here by deity? (or did at some point). Did that make a difference? If Einstein said he believed in the flying spaghetti monster, would that make it real? And don't fall in the trap of "more" true. Making it believable doesn't make it more true.

 

 

 

See, there's the problem. You confer this interpretation thing power. It has none. Someone sees some light in the window. Their interpretation is "OMG it's a ghost". The complete sum of all interpretations precisely null.

 

 

 

You seem to round off corners of concepts. If a sentence is unfalsifiable then it's unfalsifiable. If someone comes up with something that determines/falsifies it then we were wrong in calling it unfalsifiable.

 

_Unbreakable_ means unbreakable. Actually unbreakable. Don't confuse it with "hard to break" "I can't break it" or "nobody has ever broken one". The former are theoretical concepts, they have sharp corners.

 

Implying something is true means nothing. Tomorrow someone proves if untrue and all your implications are zero. Tomorrow someone proves if true and all your implications are still zero, because it's trube sinceproven, not implied.

 

 

 

I mean that the person in a white coat that did the experiment never said that the world blinks when you close your eyes or that the particle knows it's being watched. If he/she did, s/he should have the license removed.

 

I think that someone twisted "it works as if the particle knew" oversimplification for the masses and turned into "there is a bond between our consciousnesses".

 

 

 

Sigh.

 

Interpretations explain nothing. Interpretations are imaginary tales based on the facts. We have them because it helps us conceive the future experiments.

 

I see a tree. My interpretation is it's Gods' hands who planted it. Thus I make an interpretation model in which a huge hand plants it. This is falsifiable. How? I wait and see. Later, a new tree grows with zero huge hands. Into the bin it goes. Total value if the interpretation? Zero.

 

The only thing it helped me with is hint at an experiment that will ruin it. I do it. I ruin it. The more I try and don't ruin it, the closer it's assumed to be to the truth.

 

You see, if it's unfalsifiable I can't do an experiment. It's an axe with no blade.

 

I suggest you look up the work of David Bohm, John Bell, Bernard d'Espagnat, and John Wheeler.

[iNow]

Which specific articles? Those folks have published A LOT. How about you narrow it down a bit, eh?

[emcelhannon]

I confess, I skimmed most of this thread to see if my question has already been answered.

After the particle has been measured, does it keep the spin detected or go right back to having "no spin?"

Is the particle not interacting with other particles and "wave colapsers" before and after the detection?

Is the detection very different than every other interaction with a photons throughout?

[swansont]

I confess, I skimmed most of this thread to see if my question has already been answered.

After the particle has been measured, does it keep the spin detected or go right back to having "no spin?"

Is the particle not interacting with other particles and "wave colapsers" before and after the detection?

Is the detection very different than every other interaction with a photons throughout?

 

If you measure the spin, you "collapse" it into a spin eigenstate — it's going to be in that state until it interacts again. Whether the particle is interacting before or after depends on the specific experiment and what the experimenters are trying to show. Detection can be different than the other interactions; detection is typically destructive for a photon, but not so for interactions that collapse the wave function.

[froarty]

Simple question that I hope is pertinent - from a time perspective would conservation of energy resist matter traveling in reverse from the past into the future in order to allow this retrocausality to initiate?