There’s a glass coffee mug on the table to my right. I bought it from the Dollar General. I think. As in, my brain currently possesses the necessary connections that allow me to ‘remember’ that I bought this mug at the Dollar General, but honestly, I’m only about 95% certain that’s true and I can’t tell you with confidence that the store in question is actually called the Dollar General, which highlights the infallibility of human experience.
So did I buy it from the Dollar General? I don’t have a receipt. There might be security video from the encounter, but it’s a dollar store and this was months ago, so that seems unlikely. Anyone who was at the store at the time of my purchase will have no memory of my presence.
I have no idea what I was wearing. I don’t know what the weather was like. I don’t remember anything else about that particular day, and the only real information I have about the glass in front of me is that I have it. The only ‘evidence’ of its origin is a single bit of data in my head that swears I got it at the Dollar General sometime a few months ago. So did I buy it from the Dollar General? Is there a single, provable history for the origin of this particular glass?
What about the glass? It’s glass. Which was sand. We can prove that the glass was sand by testing the chemical composition of the glass, we might even be able to determine how old the glass is and where the sand used to make the glass came from, but could we ever possibly know anything about the histories of the individual grains of sand used to create the glass?
No. We could not. There is no single, provable history for the materials used to create the glass. At some point during our look through the history of the glass, the picture becomes fuzzy. The data becomes unreachable and thus, irrelevant. Nothing in the future will ever need to know anything about the history of the glass. No quark or molecule or person actually cares about where the sand came from.
As far as the universe is concerned, the glass doesn’t need to have a single history.
The reality of any history appears to be dependent on the existence of evidence for it in the present.
—
Stephen Hawking argued that quantum mechanics prohibits a single consistent history.
“The top-down approach we have described leads to a profoundly different view of cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. Top down cosmology is a framework in which one essentially traces the histories backwards, from a spacelike surface at the present time. The noboundary histories of the universe thus depend on what is being observed, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has a unique, observer independent history.”1
—
If consistent histories are localized, dependent on the evidence in support of those histories, then the ability to record and transfer that evidence would increase the scope of the locality.
Imagine a local consistent history as a bubble. If you teach the people inside the bubble to speak (and check their histories against one another), the bubble grows. If you give them the internet, the bubble becomes massive, relative to when consistent histories were dependent on two people standing in front of each other and witnessing the same event and then remembering it the same until such time that their subjective memory of the event changes.
—
- Hawking, S. W.; Hertog, Thomas (2006-06-23). “Populating the landscape: A top-down approach”. Physical Review D. 73 (12): 123527.
"conduit" 
Yes, I basically agree with You and think the same. I would say past and future are symmetrical, there exist every possible future and every possible past for everything.
LikeLiked by 1 person