from endnotes of my book Destiny Matrix 2010 up-date of the 2002 book

[1] Yakir Aharonov wrote :* 4.2 Destiny states: new solution to measurement problemUp until now we have limited ourselves to the possibility of two boundary conditions which obtain their assignment due to selections made before and after a measurement. It is feasible and even suggestive to consider an extension of QM to include both a wavefunction arriving from the past and a second “destiny” wavefunction coming from the future which are determined by two boundary conditions, rather than a measurement and selection. This proposal could solve the issue of the “collapse” of the wavefunction in a new and more natural way: every time a measurement takes place and the possible measurement outcomes decohere, then the future boundary condition simply selects one out of many possible outcomes [35, 32]. It also implies a kind of “teleology” which might prove fruitful in addressing the anthropic and fine tuning issues[77] The possibility of a final boundary condition on the universe could be probed experimentally by searching for “quantum miracles” on a cosmological scale. While a “classical miracle” is a rare event that can be explained by a very unusual initial boundary-condition, “Quantum Miracles” are those events which cannot naturally be explained through any special initial boundary-condition, only through initial-and-final boundary-conditions. By way of example, destiny-post-selection could be used to create the right dark energy or the right negative pressure …*

However, Aharonov et-al here do not invoke the hologram principle nor does he seem to be aware of how Tamara Davis’s 2004 Ph.D. from the University of New South Wales provides the connection of our observer-dependent future event horizon boundary condition of the accelerating universe to the dark energy in my formula

Dark energy in our past light cone ~ (area of our future horizon)-1

4.1 Reformulation of Dynamics: each moment a new universe

This is Tibetan Buddhism!

*“ … the description of the time evolution given by QM does not appropriately represent multi-time-correlations which are similar to Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen/Bohm entanglement (eq. 1.1) but instead of being between two particles in space, they are correlations for a single particle between two different times. Multitime-correlations, however, can be represented by using TSQM. As a consequence, the general notion of time in QM is changed from the current conceptual framework which was inherited from CM, i.e.: 1): the universe is viewed as unique, and the objects which inhabit it just change their state in time. In this view, time is “empty,” it just propagates a state forward; the operators of the theory create the time evolution; to a new conceptual framework in which: 2): each instant corresponds to a new pair of Hilbert spaces, (i.e., each instant is a new degree of freedom; in a sense, a new universe); instead of the operators creating the time evolution as in the previous approach, an entangled state (in time) “creates”the propagation: a whole new set of structures within time is able to “propagate” a quantum state forward in time …*

http://il.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.1232v1.pdf