It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Something has changed, timeline?

page: 37
161
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by euclid
reply to post by HarmonicSynchronicity
 


It's patently apparent that you are a writer and have seen the Matrix one too many times, are writing a screen-play and using these forums as a research tool to bounce ideas off of people to complete your creative process.

I'm sorry to say that your "theory" is illogical and is completely off-topic.... a veritable non sequitur providing no insight whatsoever to the problem of "time-line" changes as was originally posted.... a typical fanicful new-age diversion that ultimately leads to pointless questions, prolific answers of no consequence and no real/actionable solution/resolution.

-Euclid


Nope. You have called it wrong. I am using the movie industry as a convenient toolchest for a rich metaphorical grammar, but I can see that is putting you off. I don't need to do that; we can shift to different language.

I have provided you with a full superposition of your many time-streams conjecture that also accounts for phenomena that your conjecture does not and you call it a non-sequitur that is illogical and completely off-topic?

You will have to do better than that. There is a higher logic at work here. Present your criticism.

Of course, if you prefer to stay in your frame of reference and ignore this, that is your right.




posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarmonicSynchronicity
I imagine that if two players with radically different subjective realities were too close to each other for too long, there would have to be a sort of collapsing of their individual subjective realities which would appear, for all practical purposes, the same as the quantum time stream collapse that has been discussed elsewhere on this thread. That is an interesting conclusion.

Yes, that's well stated -- I didn't realize that the same conclusion could be reached subjectively. The avoidance of paradox as subjective becomes objective, via 'retroactive continuity'.

That's where I find the 'parallel worldline' model insufficient -- its vague concept of 'adjacency'. The dimensionality of the space in which that adjacency is measured in, would seem to increase with the number of 'distinguishing events', undermining any determination of the most 'efficient' (ie, least conflicting) path of paradox resolution.

Consider the following 'branching worldline' tree (pardon my ASCII art):


A
/ \ |
B C |t
/ / \ v
D E F

We could represent the various possible worldlines as traversals of this tree:


Worldline 1: A -> B -> D
Worldline 2: A -> C -> E
Worldline 3: A -> C -> F

And we could perhaps speculate that the same 'event', eg, the destruction of the Space Shuttle Colombia, could happen in multiple worldlines, via a different means:


A
/ \ |
B C |t
/ / \ v
E E F

Worldline 1: A -> B -> D
Worldline 2: A -> C -> E
Worldline 2: A -> C -> E

But that wouldn't be accurate or very rigorous -- what's to say what the 'same event' is? As you mention, the only measure would be subjective->objective paradox resolution. Event paths could be considered equivalent if and only if they allow establishment of a non-objectively-conflicting consistancy:


A
/ \
B C |
/ / \ |t
E E' F v
\ / / \
G

Worldline 1: A -> B -> E -> G
Worldline 2: A -> C -> E'-> G

Where the path A-> B -> E is a worldline in which the shuttle blew up in '82 or so, and A -> C -> E' is a series of events that led to the shuttle blowing up in '86. They both can lead to G, which is the state we're in now -- no shuttle Colombia anymore, different memories, but no objective disprovability of worldline 2.

So the difference between this analysis and euclid's is: while we both agree that the Everett-Wheeler branching tree model is inadequate, I believe that graph theory is still relevant -- we simply need to expand the model to a more general directed acyclic graph, rather than abandoning it completely.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Timelines...I remember when I was a small child around the age of 5 I lived in this small community in Goshen CT called woodridge lake. My cousin and I would explore the woods in the back of the house often, before houses where constructed in the back, we came across this small brook / river and there was this house that had a water wheel. Looking back I have always wondered why we saw a water wheel and a old style house this was the late 80's early 90's and in that area no such thing existed well according to this timeline / reality.

before that during a lighting storm a ball of energy / light came through the window quiet effortlessly and crashed into the ceiling lamp causing the light bulb to explode with a brilliant blue flash in the room.

Any thoughts?



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Before I respond to this quite interesting post, I want to drop a link to a philosophy topic that may help people form a frame of reference with which to think about this subject. Many of you may already be familiar with the simulation argument. If you are not, I highly recommend taking a couple of hours and familiarizing yourself with it. This may help a great deal in, as I said, shifting your frame of reference while thinking about these things.


Originally posted by Ian McLean

Originally posted by HarmonicSynchronicity
I imagine that if two players with radically different subjective realities were too close to each other for too long, there would have to be a sort of collapsing of their individual subjective realities which would appear, for all practical purposes, the same as the quantum time stream collapse that has been discussed elsewhere on this thread. That is an interesting conclusion.

Yes, that's well stated -- I didn't realize that the same conclusion could be reached subjectively. The avoidance of paradox as subjective becomes objective, via 'retroactive continuity'.

That's where I find the 'parallel worldline' model insufficient -- its vague concept of 'adjacency'. The dimensionality of the space in which that adjacency is measured in, would seem to increase with the number of 'distinguishing events', undermining any determination of the most 'efficient' (ie, least conflicting) path of paradox resolution.

Yes, it is completely intractable. The branch factor inflation is irreconcilable.



Consider the following 'branching worldline' tree (pardon my ASCII art):

And we could perhaps speculate that the same 'event', eg, the destruction of the Space Shuttle Colombia, could happen in multiple worldlines, via a different means:



But that wouldn't be accurate or very rigorous -- what's to say what the 'same event' is? As you mention, the only measure would be subjective->objective paradox resolution. Event paths could be considered equivalent if and only if they allow establishment of a non-objectively-conflicting consistancy:

Just a quick note, I think what you mean by objective in the above is a shared subjective between at least two distinct parties. Even so, it would only need to reconciled insofar as the interaction between those parties would have to be sensible within each party's subjective frame of reference; there would still be no requirement for an objective reality or even a fully consistent subjective reality between those parties, only where contradictions and paradoxes in the subjective reality of those two parties form would paradox resolution be required (your 'retroactive continuity'); the two subjective realities would need to collapse around the contention points, such that the remainder of each subjective reality remains sensible.




A
/ \
B C |
/ / \ |t
E E' F v
\ / / \
G

Worldline 1: A -> B -> E -> G
Worldline 2: A -> C -> E'-> G

Where the path A-> B -> E is a worldline in which the shuttle blew up in '82 or so, and A -> C -> E' is a series of events that led to the shuttle blowing up in '86. They both can lead to G, which is the state we're in now -- no shuttle Colombia anymore, different memories, but no objective disprovability of worldline 2.

So the difference between this analysis and euclid's is: while we both agree that the Everett-Wheeler branching tree model is inadequate, I believe that graph theory is still relevant -- we simply need to expand the model to a more general directed acyclic graph, rather than abandoning it completely.

Yes, however, the subjective temporal event graph would have a high degree of granularity and all that would be required is to collapse subgraphs such that each individual maintains full transitive closure - the events in each respective event graph sensibly and causally link together.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


I wanted to take a minute and summarize something that you and I seem to have a shared understanding of, but that may be eluding other people on this thread.

What we are discussing is multiple simultaneous realities weaving together and interacting within the same reality substrate, each one being a product of a unique awareness. Your subjective reality is your own and could include very different physical properties of the universe, history, future, personalities of well known people, etc..., from mine. Each individual acts a bit like a filament, projecting through the filter of their predispositions, spiritual alignments, experience, knowledge, prejudices and conscious thought a subjective view of reality onto a shared substrate. When different individuals, with different subjective realities, are lighting the same portion of reality, then a more objective reality is forced into existence through paradox resolution between the two reality models.

Imagine, if you will, a reality without bounds, where individuals can and do create universes with their own imagination, without any limits to their creative acts. If it helps, imagine that you can create a computer simulation as detailed and magnificent as you wish; you have infinite compute cycles. And at any time, you can participate in your simulation, or sit back like god and watch it or whatever. It's yours.

Now imagine that a civilization full of such beings exists and they have been playing these games for eternity. They are bored playing with themselves; but as gods, they also don't desire to suffer under the domain of others. How can this paradox be solved? How can such entities play with each other without releasing their creative sovereignty, yet not able to overty exert the same on others?

Enter harmonic synchronicity; each entity is allowed to express their creative force, starting with some agreed upon theme and restricted to perceptions that are not holistic, because multiple subjective creations could not be reconciled in any case but for restricted subjective perceptions. Where any two entities meet within the game, their realities must undergo paradox resolution according to agreed upon procedure. Through the interaction of millions of such entities, each with it's own subjective reality (it's creation), a somewhat objective reality is formed. It is not truly objective, because the sheer genius of the creative force behind each individual guarantees many simultaneous solution paths, but it does provide a dynamic stability that weaves the subjective creations of all involved entities into one great story.

I apologize if this is difficult to understand. Writing about this in English is like attempting to write the works of Shakespeare with the flagella on a Eukaryote.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   
How's this for a possible world-line collapse.... I know it isn't.... but it's weird.

www.nypost.com...

-Euclid



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by euclid
 

Euclid, the many subjective realities model is testable. Is the many time-stream model testable?



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I have been feeling this way off and on since January 2007. My boyfriend also noticed something has changed right around the same time the person who started this thread did. He's not into stuff like this so maybe something has changed.

My opinion is that either it's a signal or frequency used to keep us in fear. If we are afraid we won't try to make a difference and fight back.

But if it's a change in the timeline how can we know for sure and is there anything we can do to not let our feelings distract us.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by euclid
How's this for a possible world-line collapse.... I know it isn't.... but it's weird.

www.nypost.com...

-Euclid


Hehe.. I heard about this on the radio but hadn't seen a picture yet.. thanks! Weird indeed!!



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   
i also have this weird change feeling like my de ja vu's which i can generally see through and predict what will happen in the next few seconds but now i know what will happen but the opposite happens something weird is happening this has NEVER happened to me



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
right around the same time as the OP stated odd that seems to be where something happened check for things that happened in the world it could really be anything and we could be living in a butterfly effect which may or may not be good but check we need a date or timeframe



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I haven't been feeling anything, I kinda feel left out now, oh well..



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Yes, ironically something has changed in the course the world was on. I have no idea if it is good or bad or for whom but there was a shift or detour or some kind of left or right turn made over the past few weeks; I felt it and was not particularly happy about it as I was getting use to the idea that a lot of death and destruction was coming and in that process a lot of the trash would be flushed or maybe that is the shift, that the difficult moves neccessary have been made and the world is now smoothly on the tracks to the doom and disaster so many of us have felt and anticipated. I will know more when and if the Olympics are impacted in China whether John Titor's predictions and awareness have changed what was suppose to happen..maybe.

What I can say for sure is something let go..something shifted..something changed in the tone and vibration of the planet. Maybe awareness of potential events changes consciouse thought and if enough people think in a certain direction, it alters the future. The fires, the debt, the bank failures..much has not changed but the feeling has changed..the tone.

Gee, maybe 3 billion of you will be around after all ;/ My gold and silver is still worth more than I paid for it and me and mine are in better shape for having prepared for the worst and sort of hoping for the best.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Listen to a popular show called Coastocoastam here in the states.The host George Noory was in his studio in St.Louis Missouri where he sometimes broadcast from.He said that the clock on the wall and the clock on his computer were off and they had never been before.
I listen to the show on the internet while surfing the web. I looked up at the clock above my desk and the computer clock and they too were off by the same amount of time! It freaked me out, to say the least.I decided that it was time to hit the sheets so I went to bed.
When I got up in the morning I went over to my computer to check the days news.I was reading the news and glanced at my clock on the computer to see what time it was and then got up to take the clock off the wall to set it,remembering that it was slow.It was the exact time as my computer again!
Something is definitely happening and were all just Bozos on the bus.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarmonicSynchronicity
reply to post by euclid
 

Euclid, the many subjective realities model is testable. Is the many time-stream model testable?


Mr/Ms/It Hormonic,

Firstly, read this in it's entireity.

Secondly, it is called the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) and I did not make it up. It was developed by world renown quantum physicists. They have developed physical experiments to test it. It is a well known branch of not only theoretical physics but also of practical quantuam mechanical experimental applications. It is also being applied to everyday practical applications (D-wave Systems - the developer of the furst quantum computing system available for public consumption). The LHC is the result of those efforts; it is designed to investigate not only the MWI, string-theory, super-string-theory, higgs boson, but also many other aspects of quantum mechanics. Indeed the MWI is testable; it has already been tested in our past, in the future at the LHC. We in this present-time, the future's past, are seeing its effects as world-line collapses.

The physicist who formulated the MWI theory was Hugh Everett. My ony moldification is that the branching (i.e. creation of "new" worlds for every action - is not necessary for the reason described in prevous posts). It's also called the Relative State formulation; it is also known as the Many Worlds Hypothesis..... and many other names. But the name doesn't matter.... the experiments are what matter.

And yes it is testable and many facets of the theory have been tested and were positive. Here is a brief excerpt from one of the more recent validations:



In a September 2007 conference[9] David Wallace reports on a proof by Deutsch and himself of the Born Rule starting from Everettian assumptions[10] and this has been reported in the press as support for parallel universes.


Source
David Deutsch

Parallel universe proof boosts time travel

A 'New Dimension' at the LHC


Get your terminology/philosophy/history/science straight.

Your "theory" has no foundation in science or reality; you claim it was given to you by some MMORPG administrator who awakened you and showed you what "it/reality" was all about..... whatever........ I don't have time for games (unless they are XBOX360) or puerile belief systems based on games and movies.

Fourthly, your "subjective realities model" is "testable"?????.... you jest!

The definition of the word subjective, as I noted before, is a construct of the human "psyche"!!!!!

You are beginning slip down a philosphical sink-hole of your own creation (you cannot bulls*** me, though you may fool some of the more gullible in this thread).... get straight or I will NOT be able to converse with you any longer; and I may have to retract my pleasentries of you as "at least being intelligent"...... This is all very elementary and you are having trouble with the difinitions of WORDS and the history/application/understading of science and philosophy!

Something that is "subjective" cannot nor could ever be "tested" in any way!!!!



Subjectivity refers to a subject's perspective, particularly feelings, beliefs, and desires. It is often used casually to refer to unjustified personal opinions, in contrast to knowledge and justified belief. In philosophy, the term is often contrasted with objectivity

Source



1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).

source

Objectivity, which I have applied to the issue at hand in this thread:




"[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785).

source

I applied historiographical analysis of various religions and historical accounts of past global cataclysms (some of which are noted in my previous posts):


The word historiography can also refer to a body of historical work. As the tools of historical investigation have changed over time and space, the term itself bears multiple meanings and is not readily associated with a single all-encompassing definition.

source

If you have anything that actually-factually makes sense and can be used iin this investigation then please post your contribution, if not then please refrain from subjecting me & (I can't speak for everyone but I'm sure there are) others to your dross new age proclivities.

-Euclid


[edit on 28-7-2008 by euclid]

[edit on 28-7-2008 by euclid]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
reply to post by euclid
 


....It's the "WHY" that throws me for a loop. Why in the world or worlds or multiverses would there be more than one reality that we COULD experience at a time? We ARE geared physically, mentally, et al to experience one reality, one life line, one life time and occupy our space in one time frame. What could possibly be the point of random shifting?



you are absolutely correct and answered your own question. The last question: What could possibly be the point of random shifting? - There is no point.... it is an effect caused by a number of contributing factors that are astrophysical and quantum mechanical in nature and are causing a disruption/breakdown of quantum realities, what Everett called world-lines and what others call time-lines or parallel universes. Nothing more and nothing less.... no need for angels, demons or other nonsense. It's a natural process that is slightly out of sync. It correspondes to a specific experiment or series of experiments at the LHC. In essence the LHC is amplifying a natural phenomena; that is also being disturbed by our approach to the galactic-plane.

Simple and like an earthquake.... we would still be experiencing to a lesser degree without the LHC.... it wouldn't be as bad as it gets sometimes.

-Euclid

[edit on 28-7-2008 by euclid]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


Ian, your graphs are just something that I left out of my drawing because it would have made it more difficult to understand. Just overlay your branching graphs on the wave-function (wave form). What you have there isn't the branching of realities. It is the "movement" of the consciousness (i.e. an individual concsious awareness) from one world-line to another. I explained just what you have graphed but I didn't integrate it into the wave-form diagram I made.

The "adjacency" is a metaphore by the way..... it ALL coexists in the same space just a different time, its all nothing more than quantum states and information patterns. Rememer at the quantum level of existence there is no time and there is no space; everything is happening at once.

-Euclid

[edit on 28-7-2008 by euclid]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by HarmonicSynchronicity
 


I'm concentrating.... imagining..... a multiverse without bounds..... I'm wishing you into the cornfield...... or at least another world-line where I don't exist (I wouldn't want to subject my other selves to you).



-Euclid


[edit on 28-7-2008 by euclid]

[edit on 28-7-2008 by euclid]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by euclid
Ian, your graphs are just something that I left out of my drawing because it would have made it more difficult to understand. Just overlay your branching graphs on the wave-function (wave form). What you have there isn't the branching of realities. It is the "movement" of the consciousness (i.e. an individual concsious awareness) from one world-line to another. I explained just what you have graphed but I didn't integrate it into the wave-form diagram I made.

I read this and it didn't make sense to me. So, I thought about it a bit, overnight, then re-read it again, and it still doesn't make sense. Can you describe the 'waveform' a little more? I understand your description of linearity within an individual world-line, but what I don't get is how you're relating one world-line to another. What makes them different, or similar?

I'm trying to see how your hypothesis can explain the experiences people have posted on this thread -- shifting into subtly different world-lines, where people act differently, or past events unfolded differently, but with no objectively-provable differences (eg, no one has shown winning lottery numbers from a drawing that hasn't happened yet in this world-line).

From your theory, what's to make a 'world-line jump' into such a similar-but-different situation more likely than, say, jumping to a world-line where we're all jellyfish?


The "adjacency" is a metaphore by the way..... it ALL coexists in the same space just a different time, its all nothing more than quantum states and information patterns. Rememer at the quantum level of existence there is no time and there is no space; everything is happening at once.

Whoa. I didn't expect you to be so caviler in casting aside the concepts of causality and differentiation of events (via space-time location), as useful in formulating expressible hypotheses. However I agree with you that the distinction between a 'jumping consciousness', moving between world-lines, and a 'dynamic multi-verse' of (potentially infinite) superposed world-lines is a subjective one, at best.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArtemisFowl
i also have this weird change feeling like my de ja vu's which i can generally see through and predict what will happen in the next few seconds but now i know what will happen but the opposite happens something weird is happening this has NEVER happened to me

ArtemisFowl, there's actually a name for that: jamais vu.

Here's an article from Pravda (which, we all know, means 'truth'):

Deja vu, jamais vu and false memory play dirty tricks on human beings




top topics



 
161
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join