In the research presented by Farsight institute, indications that we live in a timeline which branches into a nearly infinite number of streams. Earlier I presented the video by Dr. Courtney Brown and Lyn Buchanan's remote viewing team. I'm training with one of Buchanan's students in CRV right now. Since ERV which is a form of remote viewing involves astral projection and the phasing techniques are derived from Monroes work and more advanced than what is usually seen around the internet I think it's a worthwhile pursuit. The John Titor story is another indication of how time actually works and how it can be manipulated or predicted. Like Frank Kepple we don't really know who John is or where he came from. We don't know if it's a hoax. The information will be impossible to verify as the time streams constantly change. Extended Remote Vewing or Controlled remote viewing might help provide answers.
Here is the story I suggest also looking at the video from Farsight for comparison.http://www.johntitor.strategicbrains.com/
I glanced over the page, it's impressive really.
Here's a question then... what, if anything, did John "predict" actually come true?
what does it mean if it didn't? Are the unfulfilled predictions indications of variance in time streams or is it an indication of a hoax. What is the most common assumption and is that assumption correct?
Here are some for you Xanth. But the question is... we all know when we are not focused in the physical that the past present and future intertwine... so why can't we predict the future accurately. We should be able to do that as easily as remembering the past. http://www.strangerdimensions.com/2012/02/23/a-look-at-john-titors-most-popular-predictions/
I do have to concede that this story MIGHT be true... I have to keep that option alive.
Obviously, the lack of proof to the contrary isn't proof of that contrary. We know that to be true in regards to projection.
There's just too much about this story that screams hoax.
There's too much desire for this to be real... and not enough actual thought put into it.
Basically, I just don't believe reality works in the way that supports this as being a possibility.
Edit: I also meant to say that, regardless of the holes, I do think this story is absolutely fascinating, but that fascination is also what's driving it at this point.
Well according to Titor the many worlds approach seems to be proven in his time period. Although I am not a theoretical physicist I do enjoy the field as a hobby and based on Titor's paradox explanation it would make no sense for his government to send him back in time because he would simply be going back into another of the "many worlds". Therefore by going back and getting the IBM 5100 and returning he would be returning to a different year 2036 and not his original one. They would know this and not spend the money to create a time machine or at least they would not do it with the end goal of him bringing back a computer as his interacting with the past would shift him into a different version of reality and it would not be them who received the computer upon his return.
Personally I do not believe in the many worlds approach for the following reason. It has to do with the paradox of infinity. In the many worlds approach every outcome that can happen, does happen, and happens an infinite number of times. If every outcome that can happen does happen, and each happens an infinite number of times, than all outcomes should be equally as likely. We don't see that with quantum mechanics, we see very set probabilities. I simply have never read anything which has been able to convince me that if every possibility happens an infinite number of times it would be possible for there to be anything by equal probabilities for all possible outcomes, which like I previously stated is not how it is.
For myself... I like looking at THIS physical reality for clues to the nature of "reality" and "consciousness". Since everything is consciousness.
This reality works on the basis that whatever happens, happens with the usage of the least amount of energy possible using the path of least resistance. I don't think there's anything in nature which goes against this principle (and if there was, I'd love to hear it, honestly :)). The most direct way to see this in action is "electricity" and how it always takes the path of least resistance.
The concept of a multiverse where all "possibilities" are actualized is a horrible waste of time and energy and simply wouldn't exist. It's like programming a 3D video game... when rendering a 3D model on a screen, you only draw that which is going to be actually seen, everything else, for lack of a better term, exists in data form only... until the viewer turns to actually LOOK at it, then it's rendered. What doesn't get rendered are, for example, the polygons (which comprise the "thing" you're looking at) which are on the opposite side away from the observer. If you were to actually process *EVERYTHING* that was within your field of vision... you'd crash your computer very quickly.
With the path of least resistance in mind... concepts such as the above multiple timelines theory simply can't exist.
Although, as I noted above, I do have to keep an open mind though. LoL
Xanth, I think what you just said ties directly into the other post on the double slit experiment as well and how it makes sense existence would be a probability wave until it is needed to be "rendered" into actual physical matter. It appears to me, at least on this issue, you and I are coming at the same conclusion through similar logic though from completely different directions.
The point that I am trying to make is that in forecasting future events you see a lot of near misses. This happened with Tidor, Cayce, and the CRV experiments done by Farsight. If everything is consciousness as Campell indicates then forecasting the future should not be a problem. Tidor had a lot of near misses in his predictions. They didn't come true but only barely. We have 2 serious nuclear threats now that did not exist in 2001 for example.
Even if he is a hoax he may be psychic. If he was trying to warn us of problems that he saw psychically he found a good way to get some attention.
Quote from: Bluefirephoenix on April 09, 2015, 20:41:09
The point that I am trying to make is that in forecasting future events you see a lot of near misses. This happened with Tidor, Cayce, and the CRV experiments done by Farsight. If everything is consciousness as Campell indicates then forecasting the future should not be a problem. Tidor had a lot of near misses in his predictions. They didn't come true but only barely. We have 2 serious nuclear threats now that did not exist in 2001 for example.
Even if he is a hoax he may be psychic. If he was trying to warn us of problems that he saw psychically he found a good way to get some attention.
A quick example of his predictions is one *I* made in regards to Canadian Federal Politics. I predicted that Justin Trudeau was going to become the leader of the Liberals three years before it happened... even before the political analysts were talking about it as a possibility. I followed the news and saw the trends happening. For the most part, that's what we have here... an individual who follows the news and was able to follow and predict trends. He's probably a stock broker of some kind. Or if not, he should be. ;)
As for Tom Campbell... the problem with predictions in his model is "free will". Everything is a possibility.
Predicting the future is definitely 100% possible. I want to clear that up, it's just difficult because of the above.
Quote from: astralm on April 09, 2015, 20:14:46
Xanth, I think what you just said ties directly into the other post on the double slit experiment as well and how it makes sense existence would be a probability wave until it is needed to be "rendered" into actual physical matter. It appears to me, at least on this issue, you and I are coming at the same conclusion through similar logic though from completely different directions.
Agreed. :)
John Titor's model makes it so that he is both correct and incorrect in his predictions. Many worlds says everything that will happen, does in some reality. Therefore any prediction that is made, as long as it is a possibly, will happen in some reality, even if it is not our own. If this theory is correct anyone can tell the future because anything you say that is a possibility will be fulfilled in one reality or another. The idea of predicting the future in a many worlds model really makes no sense. There would be no way of knowing if that future was going to play out in this reality or not.
I just thought of the brilliance of John Titor. I haven't read all the actual posts so I don't know how he presented it but if he simply was telling what happened in his future, that doesn't mean he was predicting what would happen in ours. By being covered under the many worlds argument it will never be possible to show he was a hoax. Even if what he told us about his future doesn't happen, it simply is because we are not "his" future, this in no way could lead to the assumption he was not from a different 2036. I don't know who he was or if it was hoax or real, however, putting that fail safe in against the future ever proving you were a hoax was brilliant. Certainly he was very smart whoever he was.
That's a good prediction. I think he will gain prime minister. He has historical strength of the family name like the Kennedys in the US.
Quote from: Xanth on April 09, 2015, 20:59:37
A quick example of his predictions is one *I* made in regards to Canadian Federal Politics. I predicted that Justin Trudeau was going to become the leader of the Liberals three years before it happened... even before the political analysts were talking about it as a possibility. I followed the news and saw the trends happening. For the most part, that's what we have here... an individual who follows the news and was able to follow and predict trends. He's probably a stock broker of some kind. Or if not, he should be.
But what if a stock broker uses tapping into consciousness as a way to predict trends? Perhaps without even knowing it. What if you predicted who was going to be the new liberal leader using consciousness, while thinking it was a mere logic. Can we actually distinguish between these two approaches to predict what is going to happen or are they to some extent, or perhaps absolutely, the same thing? How can we know, when it is beyond shadow of doubt that we interact with the consciousness on a regular basis even unknowingly? Just a thought. :wink:
Quote from: BranStark on April 10, 2015, 18:53:02
But what if a stock broker uses tapping into consciousness as a way to predict trends? Perhaps without even knowing it. What if you predicted who was going to be the new liberal leader using consciousness, while thinking it was a mere logic. Can we actually distinguish between these two approaches to predict what is going to happen or are they to some extent, or perhaps absolutely, the same thing? How can we know, when it is beyond shadow of doubt that we interact with the consciousness on a regular basis even unknowingly? Just a thought. :wink:
I'm glad someone said that! :)
It's more than "just a thought". What do you think people mean when they say they use their "gut feelings"?
You ARE consciousness... as such, there is no separation between "you" and "consciousness". You can't NOT tap into consciousness, because everything you are do/are IS consciousness.
You are directly connected to all that is, because all that is... is you. This is why you can, through projection, experience something you PERSONALLY have never experienced. :)
It's like me telling you, at this very second to "stop being a human being". You can't stop doing something that you are.
Make sense?
Quote from: Xanth on April 10, 2015, 21:32:29
I'm glad someone said that! :)
It's more than "just a thought". What do you think people mean when they say they use their "gut feelings"?
You ARE consciousness... as such, there is no separation between "you" and "consciousness". You can't NOT tap into consciousness, because everything you are do/are IS consciousness.
You are directly connected to all that is, because all that is... is you. This is why you can, through projection, experience something you PERSONALLY have never experienced. :)
Make sense?
Would not make sense not so long ago. It makes sense now. Fascinating when I look back at what a huge transition I went through in just very few years. I almost cannot recognise myself, literally. My thinking but also my behavior, which it direcrly translates into, are completely different. And I hope it has been changing for good. I think it is a good thing to realise this, at least for me, because it helps me to be less judgmental of people who this society judges by default, which obviously affects my feeling toward them automatically.
For instance, whenever I see the news and they present let's say a case of a murderer, I try not to judge the person because for all I know I might have been no better in a past life. And I know the person can change even in a few years, just like I did. Even though I was not a criminal or anything of that sort, I completely changed my life values and philosophy (from being a strict materialist into whoever the hell I am now :-D) and it still counts as a drastic change, I would say. But it is hard not feel hatred towards "that monster", especially when you see all the hateful reactions from people around you . The social programming we all go through is apparently strongly rooted in us. So I still need to try harder. BTW. This is one of the reasons I don't follow any mainstream media news anymore. I just find it to be a bunch of useless and/or fearmongery oriented crap, that leaves people feel desperate, helpless, angry or sad. And people with this emotional load are then easier to be manipulated with (by commercials, establishment...).
Also, I reached a point when I no longer argue with people who are closed to certain ideas (such as AP :wink:). It is a waste of time and effort. And what is more, I know from this personal experience of mine that as close-minded as they might be, they can change their minds dramatically at any point in their lives (and they probably will). So why force it now, let them take their time, whenever they are ready.
But wow. I got hugely out of topic here. Sorry, I just let the ideas flow. Anyway, to get back to what Xanth wrote, me saying just a thought was more of a bonmot. I actually meant just my opinion. :-D Good to hear I am not alone on this one. :-)
To me time travel and to be on the same timeline as you were is not possible... as soon as you exit your present to go to the past, you instantly create a reaction that puts you in another world. You can't warn of stuff because it's already different. There's to many possibilities of parallel worlds and alternate worlds, divided by multiverse... The only person that I would trust if he told me that he came from the future would be my own self. If he told me everything etc, he'd need a really good reason to come see me tho.
Why would you time travel to try and prevent something to happen, when it has already happened in your world... or prevent a future event to happen. This doesn't make sense, if you prevent it, you destroy your original world. And even then you would simply disappear in that world and not come back.
Unless you have the Time Threads and the map of the universe and parallel universe/alternate universe in your pocket, tell me... how are you gonna do this? You need to think about that...
Here's the reason, the sun moves in the universe, all those planets follows the sun. If I would have a time travel machine, It would need to calculate: -Where it was positioned in the universe say 20 years ago, where it is positioned currently in the universe, where it would be in the universe 20 years later if you wanna go in the future etc...
Then there's still the time traveling thing that we'd still have to figure out, and figure how to not get stuck in another dimension/universe than our own. How can you be sure that you're in the right universe? How can you be sure that the people you are visiting are really in need of your help, and how can you be sure that they have not figured out the problems already?
And why would you risk everything for nothing? That's the real question. Might as well die and try to guide people with your spirit instead seems less complicated LOL.
I don't say it's not possible because I know that everything in this world can happen, but seriously... time travel to me seems like way too much problem in attempt to fix something. That and all the time altering effects that can take place, paradoxes etc...
I didn't read much of what John Titor wrote, to me, those who say traveled through time are usually labeled as someone who took way too many drugs lol.
kzal It's the jumping to conclusions that I want to look at closer. There is more to this. If it's a hoax why did he make the claims and go to so much trouble. Trolls are not usually that energetic. ... but everyone seems to only look at whether or not they think it's true without looking deeper into it.
Have a search for the time energy pump, you may find some relevant info at the J Naudin site.
Al Bielec has a lump of interesting info related to time travel. He's connected with the Philadelphia experiment.
Putting these two together looks a little more realistic than an overdose lol.
Find the non magnetic pocket watch experiment. This is very interesting.
Also Nicola Tesla built a clock that didn't suffer from where or when it was, make what you want of this. It may be on the internet.
My question is why was it made?
Its use would be a requirement in time travel as I see it.
Szaxx not only time travel but things like bilocation. Once you cross a certain threshold of development I think basically you loose the restrictions of the physical. I don't think it's common because the belief of the world's population reinforces those restrictions but I do think it's entirely possible.
Well, some people just like to "act" things out you know, sure there's some really good technology and stuff but, if someone is in his game and he's playing a character from the future he might go full house on it and invent stuff for people to believe him. I don't know, some people like to make their life hard just to have some people believe them.
I have always considered the Titor posts an exposition of creative writing brilliance within the context of the new medium of the Internet. It can hardly be challenged, neither proven nor disproven. Intriguing and genius. Wish I had thought of it.
Greetings all
The many worlds theory is Very messy. Believing that the entire Universe splits into two complete copies for every single decision made (including choices as trivial as going to McDonalds OR Burger King) makes no intuitive sense. This theory is unnecessarily complex and cumbersome.
It makes far more sense to believe that every single thought creates a separate one dimensional Time Line. And every action creates a separate two dimensional Time Plane. Each 1 D timeline and 2 D timeplane either
a) eventually reconnect back into and are absorbed by the 3 dimensional universe, Or
b) connect with other 1D timelines and 2D timeplanes.
These timelines and timeplanes can be remote viewed and can be visited during OBEs/astral projection.
Therefore John Titor need not be a time traveler from the future but could be a (government or private) remote viewer. The various events that Titor predicted could be various timelines and timeplanes that Titor either remote viewed or visited while out of body.
Several well known remote viewers have reported being able to see both into the future and the past using remote viewing. So maybe the entire John Titor mystery is another government black ops social experiment.
Regards 8-)
Grey
I do believe in the alternate timeline idea but I really don't even begin to entertain anything regarding the credibility of the John Titor story. It was obviously a hoax as none of his predictions came true.
Quote from: Greytraveller on April 16, 2015, 22:56:51
The many worlds theory is Very messy. Believing that the entire Universe splits into two complete copies for every single decision made (including choices as trivial as going to McDonalds OR Burger King) makes no intuitive sense. This theory is unnecessarily complex and cumbersome.
It's actually MUCH worse than even that...
Remember, it's not just whether a choice was made or not... any change in this reality, whether it be a molecule moved left instead of right would ALSO create an entire universe to split.
When you take that into consideration, it then becomes beyond stupid what would be required for this kind of system to exist.
Even what Xanth just said was making it seem much less messy than it is. It is not if the molecule moves right or left. Think about a single electron, that electron can be anywhere in its cloud, and actually has a low probability of being outside it's cloud. According to the many worlds there is a reality for every single location it possibly can be. This is the same for all particles. So for a single atom, at a single moment, the number of possible realities is beyond comprehension. Now add in all the possible probabilities for all of matter and all of time.
Quote from: astralm on April 09, 2015, 21:06:59
John Titor's model makes it so that he is both correct and incorrect in his predictions. Many worlds says everything that will happen, does in some reality.
I tend to agree with this. I'm not sure if literally everything that is possible occurs (like to the extent of one atom's difference between parallel universes, to infinity), but I think at the very least every individual has the ability to steer his or her own timeline/experience of reality/consciousness. Probably major group consciousness themes are explored in various ways as well, such as if a war did or did not occur, etc.
I actually don't just theorize about this, but practice employing this kind of philosophy in my life. Like any good spiritual work it involves a lot of digging through my subconscious for hidden beliefs and habits of thought, but it seems more effective than any other esoteric system of "magic" or whatever you'd like to call it, that I've tried.
PS, Greytraveller, it's nice to see you here. I remember you from years ago. I checked your profile and we're like twins! XD
Greytraveller:
1687 posts (0.376 per day)
Registered January 12, 2003
no_leaf_clover
1676 posts (0.374 per day)
Registered January 17, 2003
Seriously, what are the odds? :-o
Indeed.... there would be a trillion to the trillionth power... brought to the trillionth power again universes.
That isn't necessarily wrong...but it is terrifying even to think the world could be that vast. It is also terrifying, because most of those universes would either be empty, or hells, because for every possible "positive outcome", there are probably dozens of negative possibilities.
What is intuitive doesn't determine what is real. The last 2000 years of science proves that... but the many worlds theory is an uncomfortable one.
The worlds would grow exponentially too. For every decision made there would be a change. It would be a very dynamic system. I think it fits Campbells MBT. Everything is consciousness and that consciousness seeks to grow and expand it's experience then the multiple worlds and timelines would do that. It would decrease entropy in fact it would be the very dynamic opposite of entropy.
QuoteThe worlds would grow exponentially too. For every decision made there would be a change. It would be a very dynamic system. I think it fits Campbells MBT. Everything is consciousness and that consciousness seeks to grow and expand it's experience then the multiple worlds and timelines would do that. It would decrease entropy in fact it would be the very dynamic opposite of entropy.
This is something that has given me pause before. If the universal mind was seeking to cover all possibilities, this would indeed be a method for doing that. But consider the negative implications again- most of those worlds would be terrible!
George Noory phrased this concern well to me on Coast-to-Coast, a few years back. He reminds that in a good number of them, you might personally be a serial murderer, and in a handful, worse still. And these possibilities would be forced to exist.
Quote from: Stillwater on April 24, 2015, 11:32:34
This is something that has given me pause before. If the universal mind was seeking to cover all possibilities, this would indeed be a method for doing that. But consider the negative implications again- most of those worlds would be terrible!
George Noory phrased this concern well to me on Coast-to-Coast, a few years back. He reminds that in a good number of them, you might personally be a serial murderer, and in a handful, worse still. And these possibilities would be forced to exist.
Exactly. In a Consciousness system where the "consciousness" is trying to grow/evolve by making Love-based choices... then having ALL choices actually play out goes completely contrary to that particular goal as there is no sum of grow ever. It would essentially be a zero-sum system. The point is that you make a choice and you then have to live with the consequences of that choice in order to evolve as a spiritual being.
Quote from: Xanth on April 24, 2015, 13:20:11
Exactly. In a Consciousness system where the "consciousness" is trying to grow/evolve by making Love-based choices... then having ALL choices actually play out goes completely contrary to that particular goal as there is no sum of grow ever. It would essentially be a zero-sum system.
And I'm personally convinced that this is essentially what the totality of existence is: a zero sum system.
I'm all for contributing to the well-being of the whole, but there is no question for me that this is still an obviously dualistic role that I'm performing. If evil didn't exist, we would have no concept of what "good" even means. Same for any form of dualism. You can say someone is a tall person, but that would be totally meaningless if there weren't someone shorter by comparison. You have to have both for either of them to make sense. That's just how it works.
For the universe to contain pairs of opposites like this, it obviously gives no real preference between one or the other. It's by the inherent nature of duality that by creating one side of the coin, you have immediately and automatically created the other side by contrast. So this seems like a pretty zero-sum situation to me.
Then people ask "what is the meaning of life?", but meaning is not something the universe provides people with. Meaning is something people create for themselves. So we are free to experience things as we will.
John made a lot of predictions. And I believe the multiple worlds theory to be very true and accurate. There is a lot of information on John that you will no longer come across. Be aware that a lot of the information you will find now has actually been altered. I remember looking into thhis years ago, and looking at the information that is left on the internet about the man, has been edited and is not a perfectly accurate representation of everything posted in 2000 and 2001. Take everything you read about the man with a grain of salt. The closest you will ever get to the truth is if you had a chance to talk to John in 2000 and 2001, and if you happen to have contact with his close associate, Pamela. I have not seen her online recently.
Quote from: Stillwater on April 24, 2015, 05:35:48
That isn't necessarily wrong...but it is terrifying even to think the world could be that vast. It is also terrifying, because most of those universes would either be empty, or hells, because for every possible "positive outcome", there are probably dozens of negative possibilities.
My question would be, who would it be terrifying for? The idea could be terrifying for you but those realities themselves could only be terrifying to you if you experienced them, and as humans I don't know if we can experience them all at once. Just one at a time it seems. And some people do experience terrifying realities, and some don't. The totality of existence, whether it's called God or the source or whatever, probably experiences consciousness in a radically different way than human beings do. And why not? We're just a small piece of the puzzle.
I had an intense spiritual experience once where I realized that the source must contain not only infinite joy, but also infinite sadness, infinite anger, etc. If it didn't, then how could these feelings exist? I couldn't dwell on it for very long because it made
me feel that incredible depression.
Everything is part of the totality. So it is a very sobering thought, but the most incredibly depressed feeling you can possibly imagine is also part of the sum total of reality, and that's just how things are, just the same as joy or whatever else you can experience. It's just there and it's something consciousness has to deal with, whether in the form of individual incarnations or whatever the case may be.
QuoteMy question would be, who would it be terrifying for? The idea could be terrifying for you but those realities themselves could only be terrifying to you if you experienced them, and as humans I don't know if we can experience them all at once. Just one at a time it seems. And some people do experience terrifying realities, and some don't. The totality of existence, whether it's called God or the source or whatever, probably experiences consciousness in a radically different way than human beings do. And why not? We're just a small piece of the puzzle.
It is terrifying to me because the suffering of other beings matters to me immensely. And to me the many-worlds hypothesis doesn't seem to suggest a zero-sum world, so much as a staggeringly negative one.
Consider when you are driving a car, for instance, down a city street. Most of the possible actions you have available to you to take will produce a very negative outcome. You could swerve off right, could swerve off left, could ride your car on the sidewalk, etc. Only a very narrow set of choices will see you producing what really amounts to a modestly neutral goal- getting your vehicle from A to B without catastrophe. There are far more ways you could have caused disasters on that trip. When you drive a car, I don't think the sum of possibilities is zero, but starkly negative. There isn't really a set of fantastic positive wonder events that may also happen that outweigh the 95% plus of possible outcomes that are terrible.
The car example also isn't unique. What saves our world from being so terrible is that negative choices are given weight in our minds, such that we are much less likely to choose them. But if every possibility plays out somewhere, the probability safety is no longer there.
In our lives we are threading a needle. We are hand-selecting what we perceive to be the best possible outcomes for ourselves, and hopefully others. I don't think humans know completely what is best, but I think we likely choose well more than poorly, at least on the individual level.
Hello no leaf clover
You wrote
QuotePS, Greytraveller, it's nice to see you here. I remember you from years ago. I checked your profile and we're like twins! XD
Yes, indeed ! :-o BTW you will probably pass me in posts soon. I do not post here much, except in exceptional threads such as this one.
Stillwater you wrote,
QuoteAnd to me the many-worlds hypothesis doesn't seem to suggest a zero-sum world, so much as a staggeringly negative one.
Another Very good argument against the Many Worlds Theory - the concept that entire 3 dimensional alternate universes are created all the time. Instead of myriads of negative alternate universes that are always manifested by driving a car along a city street there are myriads of latent negative 1 dimensional timelines and 2 dimensional time planes. These myriads of negative timelines and time planes would most likely never manifest in this (or any other) universe. Occasionally bad events Do occur - in this example a traffic accident. But mostly these timelines are only latent 'what-ifs" . These alternate 1 dimensional "what-if timelines will be remembered as 'close calls' by a driver. Or these timelines can be viewed by dreamers, remote viewers and OBEers.
Regards 8-)
Grey
Quote from: Stillwater on April 25, 2015, 11:12:50
It is terrifying to me because the suffering of other beings matters to me immensely. And to me the many-worlds hypothesis doesn't seem to suggest a zero-sum world, so much as a staggeringly negative one.
I would say that presents a good reflection of your own beliefs about reality. Out of infinite possibilities why should the sum total of them all be so much more negative than positive or neutral? Does that say something about the way that you are interpreting reality as a whole, that it is more bad than good? I know Buddhism puts heavy emphasis on suffering as the basic human condition and trying to escape that, but other traditions like Taoism or even Zen Buddhism don't take things that far. It's almost like a glass half empty/glass half full situation here, where you can look at this idea and see a reflection of yourself in a certain way.
QuoteConsider when you are driving a car, for instance, down a city street. Most of the possible actions you have available to you to take will produce a very negative outcome. You could swerve off right, could swerve off left, could ride your car on the sidewalk, etc. Only a very narrow set of choices will see you producing what really amounts to a modestly neutral goal- getting your vehicle from A to B without catastrophe.
Did you stop to consider the number of good things that could happen in such depth? Even if you run over something and have a serious tire/wheel problem develop, maybe you'll get more insurance money to repair it than it actually costs, and come out a few hundred dollars on top. Maybe you'll turn your radio to a different station, to a talk radio show, and hear some mind-blowing idea that causes important changes in your life. Maybe you'll see someone that needs help on the side of the road, stop and help and change someone else's life.
Anyway, who picks what's positive and negative? That's a whole subject unto itself. Here's an old Taoist story I like:
QuoteMaybe
There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied.
The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the old man.
The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "May be," answered the farmer.
The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "May be," said the farmer.
http://truecenterpublishing.com/zenstory/maybe.html
Quote from: Greytraveller on April 26, 2015, 21:22:53
Hello no leaf clover
You wrote
Yes, indeed ! :-o BTW you will probably pass me in posts soon. I do not post here much, except in exceptional threads such as this one.
My post rate is about the same as yours, you know. Those extra posts you have on me is because you signed up a few days before I did, though it was over 10 years ago. :-D
QuoteOut of infinite possibilities why should the sum total of them all be so much more negative than positive or neutral?
On the whole, the world would be staggeringly neutral, as likely greater than 99.9999% of worlds would not be able to sustain living creatures, at least how we know them physically. The staggeringly negative aspect would be the inhabited worlds. With the Buddhist reference, it must be noted that Siddhartha felt
this particular world was defined by suffering. Most of the possible worlds inhabited by life would likely be far more negative than this one, under the multiple worlds hypothesis.
Some Judeochristian theologians define their concept of hell as merely randomness. The thought there is that an environment in which healthy beings can flourish in peace is hard to construct, and that it doesn't take malice, but merely dis-interest (random chance) for beings to suffer greatly. This view is reflected in the fact that the word "chaos" most closely means "mere randomness".
Quote
Even if you run over something and have a serious tire/wheel problem develop, maybe you'll get more insurance money to repair it than it actually costs, and come out a few hundred dollars on top.
Hehe... you may have never filed an insurance claim :wink:
QuoteAnyway, who picks what's positive and negative? That's a whole subject unto itself.
Yeah, there is quite a lot of interpretation in that area. Going by the Buddhist worldview we have been running with in this discussion though, the careless taking of life is seen as strongly negative in all forms of Buddhism I am aware of. The eightfold path is strongly concerned with avoiding all forms of harm, and being mindful of mental states. We have to remember that the multiple worlds hypothesis is taking every possible outcome, regardless of how likely a person is to take them in a normal setting. Consider again, what would happen if you took a random action every time you were given a choice, over a 2 minute period of driving the car... most of the possible outcomes would end up with multiple people dead, or at the very least, a crashed or inoperative vehicle. I understand that both positive and negative things can happen while you are driving, but the human world (cars included) functions by the assumption that people will choose very specific alternatives when given the choice, and that humans are thus very predictable. Despite the fact that nearly 100% of the possible outcomes in driving a car are catastrophic, humans can be counted on to know how to continually choose the right ones most of the time.
Put a different way, say for instance you came to two open doors, and one of them led to a hallway, and the other a bottomless pit. Humans can be counted on to choose the hallway greater than 99% of the time. But given the multiple worlds theory, the outcomes would be chosen at equal rates, because probabilities like that are ignored, and every outcome is explored.
QuoteThere is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied.
The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the old man.
The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "May be," answered the farmer.
The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "May be," said the farmer.
Yeah, that is from the Zhuangzi... I think my favorite Zhungzi passages are the ones about the twisted tree down by the "nothing at all" village, and the gourd raft. What a "mind full of underbrush" we all have, hehe.
Quote from: no_leaf_clover on April 28, 2015, 00:36:37
Anyway, who picks what's positive and negative? That's a whole subject unto itself. Here's an old Taoist story I like:
http://truecenterpublishing.com/zenstory/maybe.html
I love that story.
Just accept that whatever life throws at you... is simply that... "something life throws at you".
Just accept life, as is. :)
Quote from: Stillwater on April 28, 2015, 13:40:47
Yeah, there is quite a lot of interpretation in that area. Going by the Buddhist worldview we have been running with in this discussion though, the careless taking of life is seen as strongly negative in all forms of Buddhism I am aware of.
I don't condone any taking of life either, but if I had to pick some popular worldview to summarize my own thoughts on morality or good/evil it would be Taoism, and/or the baby it made with Buddhism, Zen Buddhism.
But I also don't necessarily believe that everyone would have to fall into the bottomless pit, in your example, for all things to be explored. I think more than a kind of impersonal, purely rational/scientific kind of "exploration of all possibilities," we might have something more like each "oversoul" gets to decide what it explores in each of its physical incarnations, and some things simply may not be useful for these oversouls to explore to get what they want.
I think this also relates to our personal journeys in life. If we are able to accept something 100% and are at peace with it, then that something will tend not to trouble us anymore. We've explored what we needed to and there's no use in taking it any further.
Kind of seems like America is headed towards a civil war right now actually.
10 years off isn't bad, I guess. ;)
naa Xanth I think it will blow over. 2016 elections might be actually interesting though.
Quote from: Bluefirephoenix on April 30, 2015, 20:37:22
naa Xanth I think it will blow over. 2016 elections might be actually interesting though.
Aren't you glad you're Canadian now? I mean, the worse we do is apologize profusely for stuff like bumping into someone else.
"Oh I'm sorry eh! Didn't see you there eh!" :)
Thats a good point it would be impossible. The question is then, if the universe exists only on one timeline, why is hard to predict the future accurately using psychic means. The present and past can be described in detail accurately. Even a beginner in RV like me, I've had 5 targets so far and missed one. I only had a number for those targets. In that time I've had 2 precogative impressions that panned out the rest did not. It's almost an inverse relationship. The question that's important is how and why does the universe work in such a way that describing the future accurately in a blind target is inaccurate; and describing the past and present on a blind target is highly accurate. Time should not make any difference since everything stems from one source and accessing that source is the reason why we have the ability to describe things we have no sensory input on.
To me, why you can't predict the future with any certainty is related to the concept that this is a probabilistic reality.
While the past has been set, and the present (now) is being set... the choices made in the present effect the probability of other options happening.
This is also what supports the concept of "Intent" being used to modify the future probability of an action taking place.
Predicting that action and modifying the probability of that action happening are two separate things.
That theory does not explain how the predictions can be improved in accuracy using future outbounder ( name of the method) someone does the reading blind ( doesn't know what they're reading) then the person who is picking the target picks a target and the date after the reading is done and sealed. For the experiments this was done double blind, that is a third person was present to assign numbers to the target. The moderator then randomly chose the number not knowing what the number represented or what the reader had given. This is more accurate, not perfect but closer to the 60-80% mark of ideal reading. Ingo Swan I think it was him or someone else used this to win pick 3 several times in a row. :-). Lyn Buchanan talks about it on Utube I think.
Anyway the change in randomness should not occur according to that theory. It has to be re evaluated. It's probably something minor that would explain it. I think Campbells presentation and the theories he likes are sound. ( he uses several theories as a combination for the big TOE)
QuoteI think Campbells presentation and the theories he likes are sound.
That is hard to know. The most literal meaning of "Sound" would mean the theories he likes are true.
"Sound" literally means that the formal logic argument structure is accepted, and the premises are known to be true. This means the conclusions are forced to be true (the theory must be true to be sound).
But yeah, I know what you mean here. When he tries an idea on, it is generally more than half-baked, and he provides reasons.
I'm not saying the theory is a bad one. The discovery of this method was after My big TOE was written. Publishing can lag a year or more behind the writing of a book. So it's not Campbells fault for not knowing something that had not yet been discovered. But since then, this method has been experimented with successfully in the remote viewing community and it applies to any form of psychic inquiry, ERV is one of the branch techniques so it includes astral projection.
It creates an issue with the theory of how timelines work. 2 points equals a line. We have not experimented with it using three or more points as yet. I"m not sure how that would work out, perhaps serial outbounders or something like that. Campbells idea still works to a degree but I don't think it accounts for the huge jump in accuracy adequately. So I think it's missing a component.
Quote from: Bluefirephoenix on April 09, 2015, 17:21:54
what does it mean if it didn't? Are the unfulfilled predictions indications of variance in time streams or is it an indication of a hoax. What is the most common assumption and is that assumption correct?
Exactly. There could be a pink surfboard up in a tree next to where I live right now. Who's to tell? Anything can be true. Thing is that Titor's predictions did not come true. That they could be true in some parallel universe that eventually might exist is completely irrelevant. Could be that Titor is wrong about this supposed parallel universe, and in fact, Elvis is instead alive and well therein wearing Hawaii shorts. Who's to tell? Even if parallel universes exist, his predictions therefore lack
explanatory power, as we say in the history department.
The kind of predictions that Titor made, the collapse of civilization, the US breaking up into competing and warring factions etc, were a staple of early 00's American dystopia fantasy. Still are, in fact. There was simply nothing unique about them that couldn't have been dreamt up by anybody's nobody since the 80's. And they turned out to be unfounded. Ergo, the simplest explanation: the guy made it up himself.
Quote from: Xanth on April 17, 2015, 13:26:05
It's actually MUCH worse than even that...
Remember, it's not just whether a choice was made or not... any change in this reality, whether it be a molecule moved left instead of right would ALSO create an entire universe to split.
When you take that into consideration, it then becomes beyond stupid what would be required for this kind of system to exist.
And when you take into consideration that the single reason behind the many worlds theory in the first place was to find an explanation to the collapse of the wave function that was consistent with both the received wisdom on quantum mechanics and maintaining a strictly materialist world view, i.e. leaving out any 'spiritual forces' causing collapse, then the intellectual meltdown becomes complete. In other words,
anything, no matter how far-fetched or complex, to defend materialism and deny the possibility of an afterlife.
One of the biggest advocates of the many worlds theory is my fellow countryman, Max Tegmark. I'm sorry, but I regard this person as a very smart, mathematically brilliant, highly intelligent
idiot.
Quote from: Blue Glitter Neon on May 04, 2015, 09:23:40
And when you take into consideration that the single reason behind the many worlds theory in the first place was to find an explanation to the collapse of the wave function that was consistent with both the received wisdom on quantum mechanics and maintaining a strictly materialist world view, i.e. leaving out any 'spiritual forces' causing collapse, then the intellectual meltdown becomes complete. In other words, anything, no matter how far-fetched or complex, to defend materialism and deny the possibility of an afterlife.
As I read the above paragraph by you, the following statement rang into my head: "Yet it collapses into only ONE absolute"
QuoteOne of the biggest advocates of the many worlds theory is my fellow countryman, Max Tegmark. I'm sorry, but I regard this person as a very smart, mathematically brilliant, highly intelligent idiot.
Don't be sorry. Call it as you see it. That's all you can do. :)
Quote from: Xanth on May 04, 2015, 13:07:51
"Yet it collapses into only ONE absolute"
Yes, from many possibilities that not only physical exist but even give concrete, physical evidence of their existence (the wave-form distribution of electrons before observation)...
...down to a single pin-prick of an electron impact while being observed.
The
collapse of the electron's possible locations into a single absolute location happens
only when it is observed. This was a truly revolutionary experiment and it'll be expounded upon for many years to come I think.
And even if the "many worlds" theory was developed to try to get around "spiritual" forces, it's not that simple to get away from. The fact that simple observation causes such a profound change in manifestation is unavoidable in this experiment. Scientists like Bill Tiller at Stanford are already developing physics models to take consciousness itself into account.
Max Tegmark is a brilliant, mathematician. There in lies the problem. Math is not real, it is not tangible, there is no physical thing as math that exists or ever has. But we treat it like it is an objective fact, and almost every scientist believes the universe at it's core is math. Math is the greatest human invention ever. It is the best model we have ever come up with for how the universe works, period. Every single science and economy and way of life is based off it. However it is still a model for how the universe works and therefore is limited. Just like you can only go so far (barely at all) into chemistry using the model of electron clouds. Electrons don't have clouds, it is just a model that allows you to predict how they operate under certain conditions. Under other conditions we need a different model. Math has always been our best model and been without limitations. I believe quantum mechanics and the resulting creation of computers allowed us to process enough information where we are now at the end of the line for the usefulness of math. As far as these theoretical physics and hardcore applications of it go. I believe we are going to start seeing not greater understanding of how things work but nonsense, multiple worlds theory being one of them.
I do think if we did not have computers we would never reach the end of what math is capable of. Math probably is capable of handling any input the human mind can come up with. It took crazy amounts of data processing from crazy fast computers for us to start and see it begin to stretch and bend.
But who knows maybe I'm completely wrong, either way it is going to be interesting to watch. I'll get more excited about watching a physics documentary than the superbowl any time.
EDIT: I will add on that theoretically IF (and doesn't appear this is likely) but IF there was a single unit of something that made up the universe AND that single unit of whatever was uniform (all exactly equal and unchanging), THEN you could say math based on whole positive numbers is real and objective. However even this extremely unlikely scenario still only allows positive real whole numbers (integers) to be real. Anything extrapolated from a fraction (not reducible to a whole number), or a negative number, or an imaginary number would still not be "real". You will never ever be able to take 3 of anything, subtract 5, add 4 and end up with 2. You can never make it past the first step.
I've said recently that the simple fact that you can use math to model *ANYTHING* in this reality is proof that this reality is virtual.
If you know the math, you can model everything.
Quote from: Xanth on May 07, 2015, 21:12:31
I've said recently that the simple fact that you can use math to model *ANYTHING* in this reality is proof that this reality is virtual.
If you know the math, you can model everything.
Could not disagree more:) If math could model everything, math itself would not be a model, it would be reality. However concepts we use in math are not reality. I gave the example of negative. We assign negatives, we created the concept of something being negative. There is no such thing as negative in reality without our definition. Same with fractions. If you cut an apple in half do you really have half an apple? No it just is what it is. We see what it is as a half of something because we decided that. We just don't see things that way because math is the way everything is related, beginning from the second you are born.
QuoteI've said recently that the simple fact that you can use math to model *ANYTHING* in this reality is proof that this reality is virtual.
If you know the math, you can model everything.
Hard to know... maybe this is true, maybe it isn't.
There might be some intangibles in our experience here that don't fit into mathematical modeling... the best candidates for these being "first person experiences", like "I feel too hot", or "I am elated". Now of course I know there are physically modelable processes surrounding these feelings, like temperature, and dopamine levels, etc, but I think your understanding is nuanced enough in this area to know what I mean when I say those are merely the periphoral "functionalist" explanations, that don't address the experential component. The mathematical model can tell us when a human might feel uncomfortably warm, but they don't have a prayer at explaining why the experience that human mind has is like it is.
I agree with you that this reality seems like a construct built from within another reality... but our minds are also part of this reality too, and they possess all of these slippery unquantified qualities...
Quote from: Stillwater on May 07, 2015, 23:14:46
Hard to know... maybe this is true, maybe it isn't.
There might be some intangibles in our experience here that don't fit into mathematical modeling... the best candidates for these being "first person experiences", like "I feel too hot", or "I am elated". Now of course I know there are physically modelable processes surrounding these feelings, like temperature, and dopamine levels, etc, but I think your understanding is nuanced enough in this area to know what I mean when I say those are merely the periphoral "functionalist" explanations, that don't address the experential component. The mathematical model can tell us when a human might feel uncomfortably warm, but they don't have a prayer at explaining why the experience that human mind has is like it is.
I agree with you that this reality seems like a construct built from within another reality... but our minds are also part of this reality too, and they possess all of these slippery unquantified qualities...
I like what you are saying. In the end the most objective thing we have is yes/no statements. Either something is or it isn't. Math is a model for dealing with this. Either you are feeling hot or you aren't. Either light is vibrating at certain wave length or it isn't. If the light is vibrating either your eyes are translating that light or they arent. Everything either simply is or it isn't. How many yes/no statements do you need for all of PMR. Well you could easily do it by every atom (who knows how many) or just as easily with one. Is PMR this or is it something else. But that doesn't matter because once we try looking at that way we are just using our model (math) to understand the yes/no statements. I am quite open to the idea that the is/is not statement itself might be an objective truth. Of course you would have to filter it though since we never actually directly interact with PMR (we being our PMR minds, not the NPMR us), only our interpretation of it through our senses.
Greetings all
This is a very interesting thread and I'm inclined to agree with most of the arguments presented by all of you..
Bluefirephoenix, you wrote
QuoteThats a good point it would be impossible. The question is then, if the universe exists only on one timeline, why is hard to predict the future accurately using psychic means.
The 'timeline' of this Past universe is manifest. The Past time of our world has occurred, is basically 'set in stone' and cannot be changed. (Note that there Are alternate 1 dimensional timelines of the past but none of these can or will in any way alter the past.) However, future timelines are latent. Meaning there are many different future possibilities. However some futures are more likely to occur than others. The 'art' of remote viewing is still in its infancy. Someday, probably quite soon, somebody will find a way to discern the difference between rv'ing a very likely 1 dimensional future timeline between rv'ing a very unlikely 1 dimensional future timeline. At that point remote viewers WILL be able to foresee the future with a high degree of accuracy.
Xanth, you wrote
QuoteTo me, why you can't predict the future with any certainty is related to the concept that this is a probabilistic reality.
While the past has been set, and the present (now) is being set... the choices made in the present effect the probability of other options happening.
This is also what supports the concept of "Intent" being used to modify the future probability of an action taking place.
Predicting that action and modifying the probability of that action happening are two separate things.
Very astute of you to notice that importance of 'intent', both in thought and action, on shaping the future. Most people will take it for granted that only the physically 'living' are capable of intent. However, I conjecture that the 'intent' of non-physical discarnate beings is actually Much more important on shaping the future. It could well be that the paranormal, the occult, religion, 'acts of gods, the eternal mysteries and similar unexplained phenomena are really the result of discarnate entities' attempts to shape the future to their will.
Regards 8-)
Grey
Xanth, you wrote
QuoteI've said recently that the simple fact that you can use math to model *ANYTHING* in this reality is proof that this reality is virtual.
If you know the math, you can model everything.
True indeed. Mathematical models of higher dimensions have been around for some time. However, these models have never been meant to represent 'real' higher dimensional, non-physical locations.
So it would be a fascinating undertaking to mathematically model an ethereal Belief System Territory, a dream plane or an exotic astral locale.
BTW if anybody knows of such an attempt to mathematically model and describe a nonphysical location then please provide a link.
Thanx
Grey
I had problems with that last post so will have to continue here.
The "future outbounder" method mentioned by Bluefirephoenix could be the precursor to a method of accurately remote viewing the future.
Using my theory (that 'alternate universes' are 1 dimensional timelines and 2 dimensional time planes) then John Titor is Not a time traveller. Rather, Titor is a gifted and well trained remote viewer. Titor probably conducted dozens, maybe hundreds, of remote viewing sessions attempting to view future timelines. He probably saw many crazy events during his rv sessions. He also probably saw many recurring themes. He probably DID rv a future civil war in the United States. This was probably a very rare event. More likely he regularly rv'ed civil unrest, demonstrations, riots and looting. And this is exactly what has taken place (particularly in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore) over the past few months.
So Titor's 'prediction of civil war is either
a) a warning by a private citizen that social forces could potentially tear America apart. And I am actually old enough to remember the riots caused by Martin Luther King's assassination in 1968 so this is a very real possibility.
Or b) this could have been some sort of social experiment conducted by a clandestine US intelligence agency.
Regards 8-)
Grey
It's a matter of finding the best tool for isolating the events you want to look at. ARV is used for numbers and such. It's a matter of finding a structure that works and building on it. But if we were in a single time line, looking at the future should be easier than it is. The thing is the same thing happens regardless of psychic method used. So Astral projection/phasing, associative symbolic methods, scrying and visionary, all have the same problem. I hit an accurate precognition about once every 2 weeks or so.. it's not impossible to do with the outbounder just more difficult. The outbounder method could also be used for phasing and astral projection if the person doing the projection is familiar with doing blind targets and has a decent accuracy with practice targets.
an example of the type of tools they use is here. It's a potentially useful example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObeI82f5OmI
Bluefirephoenix
Remote viewing the future accurately would probably require a mathematical model to provide a set of time/space coordinates. Such a model has yet to be devised. (Unless the CIA and/or another intel agency has already done this :-o.)
Another possibility is to have several remote viewers look ahead to the same future time and same specific location. If All the rv'ers see the same events happening then those events are most likely going to happen. If some rv'ers see one series of events occurring and other rv'ers see another series of events happening then the future is very much in doubt.
Regards 8-)
Grey
To see what's in the future you keep an open mind and look within yourself for that feel of being correct in the overall ambience.
You can start with a country that you know nothing about. Feel it as a name of many people, associate this feeling of many with the name. (Deja vu editing). Be convinced the people are in this country. Pick some item of interest that may make the news. Think of the people in this country and the chosen item. Mix them in your mind then search for some change in the ambience as you play out some kind of role for the chosen item.
Imagine the event occurring and feel the ambience. If no change is perceived, alter the particulars of the role and feel again. After a while you may find something repeating or standing out. Work out as many permutations as you can around this signature. More prominent feelings will stand out giving a more refined event.
Desire more knowledge of the thought after the meditation is over. You'll know when to quit quite clearly.
The above is very basic, I always use one week into the future as a timeline to base the experience upon.
Some NP experiences have followed this. The detail is out of this world. It would be nice to find someone else experiencing the NP side of this.
The details returned are mostly composed out of the thoughts of others. What they see as real is what you experience. If a disaster occurs, most often you'll get a flash of it one week before it occurs.
Those with no previous experience seem to do well at the beginning with this. Although its very general in nature, some details are exact.
Anyone going to try this timeline message service?
That would be interesting...
Hey why not play with this. eh. Okay Szaxx I want you too look through this target site. I can't do the phase 4 and 5 yet but I can do 1-3 Don't pick anything likely to be tramautic or upsetting.. it's very important for me to be able to trust you on this. It needs to be similar to the targets Random numbers I have never tried and I'm not able to do them with regular RV yet. I'll do the session then I'll email it to Xanth who can hold it. You won't know what the session contains when I give the okay you pick the target. Make it reasonable like a few hours or days ahead. So we can compare
1. once you okay it I'll do the session
2. I send session to Xanth
3. I give you the okay
4 you pick the target in the near future hours to days ahead.
5 Let us know the date but not the target til after
6. show the target for feedback.
pick targets similar to these. A picture or two would be great Look through these targets when you decide. You are the outbounder so you need to be present at the target taking pictures or at least having a picture available of the target site. ( It's important to assess the accuracy of the RV session)
Anyone else who wants to try to do this can too. I'll put up a new thread for this.