Malcolm the Bear (malcolmthebear) wrote in furry_thinkers,
Malcolm the Bear
malcolmthebear
furry_thinkers

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Retrocausality

Someone in a forum I frequent posted this nifty article involving recent scientific work testing the notion of retrocausality: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL

The article is a year and a half old, but still provokes interesting questions. I thought this line was particularly unique: "While it would mean we cannot change the past, it also implies that we cannot change the future."

In other words, if retrocausality is proven to be true, this could also potentially prove the concept of destiny...or at least a semblence of it. However, if conscious minds retrocaused the shaping of the universe to be sufficient for life, as the article propose plausible should retrocausality be proven true, that begs some other questions as well: Why wouldn't conscious minds shape the universe to provide us with more advanced life for ourselves, or life that does not require cessation? Also, this would suggest that all the information of the universe's total existence along the span of all time was already preset--all of our lives were already set in stone, so what greater force set up such a complex weaving of detailed intricacies?
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 3 comments