That is fine, I will try to explain in a different way.
Suppose for a moment that physical matter exists not merely here and now in the present moment but that it also exists somewhat in the past and somewhat in the future. We are standing in the middle section of a ship and the bow of the ship is in the future and the stern in in the past. From our perspective, we seem to be standing in one place but our ship is actually already somewhat forward of where our physical bodies are within the context of the ship.
Now suppose that we can probe to find the configuration of the bow of our ship (suppose it is night time) by emitting particles with inverse mass which travel forward and return like a boomerang.
Suppose, furthermore, that these particles, inverse mass neutrinos (not just any kind of neutrino,) regain their mass when they strike physical objects (in this case, proteins making up memory engrams) and consequently turn around and boomerang back toward other proteins which accumulate electrons. Let us suppose that electrons are composed of a large number (1.51 million) neutrinos, which confer charge to electrons.
Let us suppose that there is also some slim probability that an astrocyte will ask the right question, perchance and therefore arrives at a correct answer more quickly than average. Let us suppose that so long as this chance exists, particles which probe possible futures will consistently return accurate results to computations yet to be completed regardless of when they are completed. In one timeline or scenario, it might take a day to get the right answer. In another, a week. In another, a month. In all scenarios, the correct answer is the same because the scientific method ensures that our answers are the same in all possible futures. Therefore, the neutrino signal concerning matters of science (and logical thought, to a lesser extent) are always the same even if the baseball scores and the lottery numbers are always different. Although the signals are weak, signal content is the same with regard to scientific matters regardless of scenario. The cumulative signal is unified and sufficiently strong to be detected.
The inversions of the neutrinos' masses are made possible by the close proximity of electrons flowing in opposing directions with offset spin orientations. This occurs in the spaces where convolutions meet. If the astrocytes did not have a probabilistic firing pattern, this evolution of convolutions would have conferred no survival benefit. If close, opposing passes of electrons from different directions did not generate such an effect, there would be no benefit to having convolutions in the first place. This is where neurobiology and temporal mechanics/particle physics meet and it's very exciting.
