First, imagine a large boulder at the top of a hill. The boulder begins rolling downhill. Now freeze the action with the boulder midway along its descent. Call this the boulder's present. At this point in time, Sheehan says the boulder is being influenced both by its past (when it was atop the hill) and by its future (when it will come to rest at the bottom of the hill). The boulder's current position midway down the hill cannot happen without the effect of both the past and the future.
“The present is always a negotiation between the past and the future,” said Sheehan.
Or think about this: You're invited to a Saturday wedding. On Friday, you go to the barber for a haircut. As you sit in the chair, the future is influencing the present. The wedding hasn't happened. It may not happen at all. And yet its possibility changes what will be the past.
Now, within the cause-effect paradigm, isn't it past knowledge affecting the future? The acquisition of knowledge, even about future events, is the past influencing the present. It is, in itself, a past event. Knowledge doesn't float about a-temporally.
The boulder example is forces acting on something as well. I'm not sure you can say the potential "energy" of the wedding is really influencing the haircut. But, how do you quantify the effects of knowledge which isn't a measurable force as far as we know. It's not remotely similr to speak of a boulder rolling as equivalent to getting your haircut. You can't measure influences in the latter.
Non falsifiable reasoning. Jerks!
I think this article is kinda dumb...