The hypothesis of Duplication theory (referred to as DT hereafter), was initiated almost inadvertently when researching material for a time transference novel in the BM’s wonderful old circular reading room in the late 1970s. I was staggered when I discovered that virtually nothing was known about the mechanism behind memory. From some observations made previously, cobbled together with some further conclusions drawn from research in the BM, I managed to come up with a possible outline scheme for memory, or at least the transfer of information through time. The various observations and assumptions were as follows.

The mind in trance state is capable of astonishing feats of perfect recall and other abilities absent when fully conscious. The standard hypnotist’s instruction is for the subject to empty her mind and relax. I made the assumption that in deep trance the mind is void of all structure until instructed otherwise. From this it seems reasonable to assume that since the neurons and synapses in the brain never cease firing, then the activity in that part of the conscious brain controlling mind and memory must be firing randomly with no structure or form.
From a separate set of observations I had earlier concluded that it would be impossible for a system of particles to ever to attain a perfect state of randomicity (Randomness being a clumsy sounding word) so that it was effectively a singularity state not too dissimilar to perfect zero where close approaches are possible but never achieved in full. A fair amount had been written on the subject of the power and the physics of the void by F. Capra and others which I found diverting. I had separately also concluded that whenever a new singularity state was animadverted and identified as such, the rules of nature as we knew them would have to be modified. Some obvious examples of this are light speed, absolute zero, infinity, quantum dimensions of time and space, dark matter, quantum entanglement and instantaneous transfer of information.

I also noted that subatomic particles or fermions cannot be compressed to occupy the same location at one time. In other words perfect penetrability of matter was another singularity state but when close approaches were made towards that state then curious side effects might be registered. For example in the simplest case of hydrogen nuclei, when close as close approaches are made to two protons occupying the same space, the resulting combination will eventually fuse I (simplifying the actual process) into a single proton of helium, of less mass in combination. The small percentage of lost mass would be converted into radiation energy dissipated out at light speed: a very new and singular side effect not known to be possible until Einstein’s General theory in 1918 and not experienced until later very convincingly.

It occurred to me that in the same way that it was impossible for two particles to occupy the same space at the same time, so it might be impossible by a rationale of equivalence for two separate structures to be absolutely identical. To further this argument, I also adapted my own rationale for the Uncertainty principle as follows: if a particle was in motion which it must be above absolute zero, then it would be impossible ever to be sure of its precise location. By the time the light from the particle had reached the observer, the latter could not be sure where the original had moved to: in short, impossible to locate precisely. Thus it would be impossible for two separate structures to be perfect duplicates of each other for the same reasons of uncertainty.

I combined these various observations together thus. As very close approaches were made to precise duplication of structure, in effect another singularity state, might there not be some manifestation of curious side effects using the argument of equivalence again? It seemed possible to me: likely indeed. In the case of near perfect fusion it is the singular conversion of matter into energy radiated out at the singular velocity of light. In the case of near perfect structure duplication, apparently another singularity, perhaps there might be an equivalent potential for the composite mass of the particles to be converted into energy?

As far as we know this does not happen, but the potential to do so will augment with increasing degrees of precise similarity. It then occurred to me that instead of this created energy being radiated out at one moment in time (light speed) as in fusion, it might instead be transferred from the earlier structure in time to the later near identical structure, and it might not make much difference if the time gap was enormous, or possibly simultaneous if two separate structures at a distance were considered. This is the same as stating that there can never be two identical objects or structures in the universe at the same or any other time. This is the embodiment of the No Cloning theorem of Wooters Zurek and Dieks (1982) which states that it is impossible to create an identical copy of an arbitrary unknown quantum state (a theorem that by chance I learned about in 2016 to my great delight).

If this scenario is extrapolated further then the later structure in time would have an increasing potential to transfer a minuscule part of its mass to energy through this argument of equivalence, but this never occurs simply because the earlier structure will have moved on, its particles inevitably being in constant motion. It is posited that this increased potential to convert a tiny part of the mass of the later structure, which will be in motion in any event, will instead be registered as an inclination to duplicate the motion of the earlier structure. This would seem to be justified by the Aharanov-Bohm effect. Also, the minimum total energy principle that would serve to justify such an action is that “It dictates that (at low temperatures) a structure or body shall deform or displace to a position that (locally) minimizes the total potential energy, with the lost potential energy being converted into kinetic energy (specifically heat).” Wikipedia.

Thus it seems not impossible that such a system of resonance through time might be possible. This would present an explanation for perfect recall or eidetic memory which certainly exists, as is demonstrated especially by subjects under trance when they are regressed to live through sequences of their earlier lives. In order to transform such an effect into every day working memory, it would seem not impossible to envisage such a sequence being telescoped into very short sequences, the one jumping to the next so that a recollection of five minutes former experience would be condensed into half a second or so. I also have to assume that there is a physical store of very complex memory instigatory molecules, also known as engrams and probably similar to DNA, which after much repetition and use might become part of that individual’s DNA. This would seem reinforce the conclusions of epigenetics which are currently synthesizing the theories of Mendel and Darwin.

As to how a structure of firing neurons and synapses is converted into memory, thought or indeed a visual scene inside one’s head, I use the following assumptions. The billions of electrochemical currents flowing between neurons in the brain will inevitably cause electromagnetic induction waves which if highly ordered would produce interferences patterns and probably act in much the same way that holographic images are produced. Neuro scientist Karl Pribram did much research on this and I exchanged correspondence with him in the middle eighties, and was much impressed. How such holograms might be viewed and by what process, the problem of Mr X as Eddington succinctly described it in his excellent book, ‘The Nature of the physical World’ is still a major problem, although DT does provide an answer in principle via its resonance theory, which then can be developed into an almost embarrassingly simple explanation in outline for the operation and intuition. Since this is a brief synopsis, the reader would either have to refer to my website www.mindandmemory.net or the 25 pages of a paper produced in 2015 summarising Duplication Theory. (NB The website was drafted in 2007 before I had learned about quantum entanglement, and now urgently needs to be updated when I find the time to do so.)

The other major point which I have not included in these three pages in any detail, is a description of how, once I had produced a modus operandi of sorts for memory (and a few other phenomena into which biochemist Rupert Sheldrake delves, our separate hypotheses being strikingly similar albeit derived from very different directions) was as follows. If the notion of structure, form and order was little more than the repetition and duplication of similar intervals in space, or harmonics thereof, perhaps if one considered one other continuum as fundamental as similar intervals in space, that of time, what might result? This occurred to me quite some months after I had sorted out a few possible applications of what I started to call Duplication Theory. If billions of intervals in time, identical to near singular perfection could possibly be produced, then perhaps there would an unexpected result in the same way that seems to happen when close approaches are made to a newly ascertained singularity state. This seemed at least consistent with my rationale thus far, and I started to think how to produce equal intervals in time at near quantum levels preferably.

It took me not too long to see an immediate example. The repetition of equal intervals of time (similar events) in very precise detail is exemplified by billions of identical electrons passing back and forth very regularly in a conductor driven by an alternating current. However, there was a difference here, since there was already a very familiar effect, which would not have been believed more than 150 years ago, that of electromagnetic radiation to convey action across space. I set about developing an alternative to the concept of the photon, which has been fraught with problems ever since the technique of renormalisation was first criticised by many eminent physicists. I show how the Absorber Theory of Wheeler and Feynman is similar to the way in which action and/or action is transferred across space by DT. I also hypothesise that if the universe was expanding but closed and finite (an implication of the Absorber theory) then is must be a non-local action at a distance effect, which was one of the intentions of the authors of the Absorber theory

In late 2016, after I had attempted to absorb Anton Zeilinger’s book ‘The Dance of the photons’ on how quantum entanglement transfers photons instantaneously across space, I was encouraged by his explanation that this depends on both the transmitting and the receiving systems have to be operating in as near a perfectly random system as possible, which was strikingly similar to the assumption I make for the operation of DT in memory and under trance. If information travels or is correlated instantly over space (faster than light) then our understanding of the passage time has to be revised. This is described in a paper of five pages on www.academia.edu, together with a 20 page synopsis on Duplication Theory. There is a third from 2010, which might seem to have little to do with mind and memory, but which results from an implication of the latter: ‘Mach’s Principle, Gravitation and inertia.’ The latter is radical and I never expected much serious interest although one Nobel laureate physicist to whom I wrote after hearing him lecture at Oxford, replied encouragingly enough. However, cosmology is beyond my preferred ambit.
14/05/17 but with minor amendments added October 2021
Nick Greaves

Copy extracts from letters written to the author on early drafts of Duplication Theory:
“Thank you for your letter of January 31st and the essay. I found it immensely stimulating and particularly liked your resonance hypothesis. But I am of course no physicist and not qualified to judge. I have a hunch though that David Bohm might react positively, if you send him a copy.” Arthur Koestler 20/02/1979

With regard to the basic duplication theory, I think what you are saying is so, but that a more sophisticated form of it might be in Leibniz’s monadology or Gabor’s holograms………..I do think you have written a most interesting piece and found your writing style to be superb. There are many quotations that you have gathered together that would be most useful to me in my teaching. In short you have done an excellent piece of scholarship, and with some revision and bringing it up to date, it might well be worth publishing.” Professor Karl Pribram, neuroscientist, of Stanford 23/07/79

“Your manuscript is fascinating and enormous in scope. While I have not read is in its entirely, perhaps I have understood enough of it to make the following comments. You are aware, I am sure of its discursive character and its lack of mathematical precision, which will make it difficult to have it published. Nevertheless, the range it covers recommends that it be presented to public view……….” Professor Henry Margenau of Yale, physics department 18/03/1983

“Many thanks for your letter and your writings on Duplication Theory. In essence, it is indeed similar tithe theory IO am putting forward, and you explore many of the same areas. It seems we must have been writing at much the same time (1978-1979 when I was drafting my book in India). So, ex hypothesi, we may well have had some influence on each other ……….. I too am fascinated by inertia and suggest (0n page 119 note 4) an idea similar to the one in the main text of your theory. This seems different from your later speculation along Machean lines which I find less convincing…….” Dr. Rupert Sheldrake 18/03/83

I have followed Nick Greaves’ work with interest for a number of years and thought I understood it. However, as I read this enjoyable book I gained new insights. It’s an amazing achievement for a non-scientist to bite off such a large chunk of science, and then clothe it in a story that conveys it without pain, rather with joy. I congratulate the author on a very successful achievement, one that has not been attempted (or accomplished) before………………. I am a physicist, and there are elements of the book I could quibble with. However, I am also a reader of science fiction, and I know that fiction anticipates reality in surprising ways. Therefore, I recommend any scientifically-minded reader to keep an open mind: it’s not necessary to agree with every detail to be impressed with and inspired by Greaves’ overall vision. I have read books by physicists attempting to treat such big subjects, and I can assert that Greaves outperforms them all in the scope and plausibility of his ideas. I highly recommend “Mind out of Time,” not only as an enjoyable read, but as a thought-provoking vision of mankind’s future. Dr. Arthur Chester, President (retired) HRL Laboratories LLC, Malibu: Amazon Review