It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

Timewave Zero - Countdown to Transition

page: 120
575
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 04:00 PM
Show me the evidence to debunk this:

Mathematical analysis of Timewave Zero function

From a mathematical point of view, it is a fractal function where each point is calculated as the sum of a doubly infinite series.
Let v(x) be a function equal to 0 for all x minor than B and whose value is always finite (minor than a given C).
Having defined such a function, we can define its "fractal transform" this way:

Timewave Zero function is the "fractal transform" of a saw-tooth function.
Consider this list of 384 values derived from a transformation of "King Wen Sequence":

0, 0, 0, 2, 7, 4, 3, 2, 6, 8, 13, 5, 26, 25, 24, 15, 13, 16, 14, 19, 17, 24, 20, 25, 63, 60, 56, 55, 47, 53, 36, 38, 39, 43, 39, 35, 22, 24, 22, 21, 29, 30, 27, 26, 26, 21, 23, 19, 57, 62, 61, 55, 57, 57, 35, 50, 40, 29, 28, 26, 50, 51, 52, 61, 60, 60, 42, 42, 43, 43, 42, 41, 45, 41, 46, 23, 35, 34, 21, 21, 19, 51, 40, 49, 29, 29, 31, 40, 36, 33, 29, 26, 30, 16, 18, 14, 66, 64, 64, 56, 53, 57, 49, 51, 47, 44, 46, 47, 56, 51, 53, 25, 37, 30, 31, 28, 30, 36, 35, 22, 28, 32, 27, 32, 34, 35, 52, 49, 48, 51, 51, 53, 40, 43, 42, 26, 30, 28, 55, 41, 53, 52, 51, 47, 61, 64, 65, 39, 41, 41, 22, 21, 23, 43, 41, 38, 24, 22, 24, 14, 17, 19, 52, 50, 47, 42, 40, 42, 26, 27, 27, 34, 38, 33, 44, 44, 42, 41, 40, 37, 33, 31, 26, 44, 34, 38, 46, 44, 44, 36, 37, 34, 36, 36, 36, 38, 43, 38, 27, 26, 30, 32, 37, 29, 50, 49, 48, 29, 37, 36, 10, 19, 17, 24, 20, 25, 53, 52, 50, 53, 57, 55, 34, 44, 45, 13, 9, 5, 34, 26, 32, 31, 41, 42, 31, 32, 30, 21, 19, 23, 43, 36, 31, 47, 45, 43, 47, 62, 52, 41, 36, 38, 46, 47, 40, 43, 42, 42, 36, 38, 43, 53, 52, 53, 47, 49, 48, 47, 41, 44, 15, 11, 19, 51, 40, 49, 23, 23, 25, 34, 30, 27, 7, 4, 4, 32, 22, 32, 68, 70, 66, 68, 79, 71, 43, 45, 41, 38, 40, 41, 24, 25, 23, 35, 33, 38, 43, 50, 48, 18, 17, 26, 34, 38, 33, 38, 40, 41, 34, 31, 30, 33, 33, 35, 28, 23, 22, 26, 30, 26, 75, 77, 71, 62, 63, 63, 37, 40, 41, 49, 47, 51, 32, 37, 33, 49, 47, 44, 32, 38, 28, 38, 39, 37, 22, 20, 17, 44, 50, 40, 32, 33, 33, 40, 44, 39, 32, 32, 40, 39, 34, 41, 33, 33, 32, 32, 38, 36, 22, 20, 20, 12, 13, 10

King Wen Sequence

These numbers provide the basic numerical values used in the definition of a w(i) function, defined as the i-th value of this set, using zero-based indexing:
w(0)=0, w(1)=0, w(2)=0, w(3)=2, w(4)=7 and so on.
In order to extend w(i) to values of i greater than 383, we can simply define a new function W(i)=w(i mod 384) where i mod 384 is the remainder upon division of i by 384.
Thus for example W(777)=w(777 mod 384)=v(9)=8.
Note that W() is a discrete function defined only for integers, not for all real numbers: in order to extend it for any non-negative real numbers x we can easily define a new v(x) function as the linear interpolation between the values W(int(x)) and W(int(x)+1), where int(x) is the integral part of x. Formally, v(x) is defined as:
v(x) = W(int(x)) + (x - int(x)) × (W(x+1) - W(x))
Timewave Zero function is the fractal transform of v(x) using a=64, divided per 64^3:

where x = time in days prior to 6 AM on the zero date. Thus the value of Timewave Zero on the zero date is:
t(0) = f(0) / 64^3 = 0
The day before the zero date is:
t(1) = f(1) / 64^3 = 0.0000036160151
and so on.
These values are independent of the actual zero date, for which McKenna arbitrarily chose december 21th, 2012.
Timewave Zero function in R-Environment

The analysis of Timewave Zero function is easy with R programming language. This is the definition of W(x) function:

W

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:17 PM
reply to post by Zagari

Astrologically we had the transition from a Pluto generation to another one

Excuse while I chuckle here. Astrology claims to be a predictive science yet astrologers never predicted the existence of Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto. Sorry I digress, but astrologers keep adding in anything that real sciences find and claim it for their own. Have they added in Ceres and Sedna?

November 14 novelty went down and on November 17 Cern trapped anti-matter for first time

That's a false statement in regards to CERN. Antimatter has been trapped before. What is significant here is the duration that the antimatter was trapped.

so this shows we are able to describe the amount of novelty we are currently experiencing

Again, not true. All you are doing is examining a graph. For example, take the Nov 17 date. That is not when the event happened. That is when the paper was formally published.

Can you tell me if 1896 is a novel year or not?
Was 1905 a novel year or not?
Was 1610 a novel year or not?
Was 1880 a novel year or not?

Here are 4 years I picked. Which of these years should show great novelty?

I thought something exponential is destined to rise without limits, so higher to reach infinity...
If you can define it in another way, show me.

You don't need an exponential to find an unbounded function. Even a log function is unbounded. The problem with any closed system such as the Earth is that nothing can continue as an unbounded function for long. There are costs to any process. If novelty is a function of human actions, then humans run out of time, money, food, space, and whatever resources for a task. A process may appear to exponential for some time, but as other issues come into play the process is changed.

Novelty is measured essentialy in numbers...

Do these numbers have units? They might be simple counts so the units would be "novelty events."

In modern times, the event with the highest novelty occurred on August 6 1945...And than on October 25 2009, and than on January 17 2011, and on October 17 2011 and December 3 2011...

I am curious why the dates that have happened, which are important historical dates, are considered high novelty days. They are not tied to the development of high tech or inventions.

Its like explaining to blind people how a blind person can define color...

I've heard this claim before. It's just plain ridiculous. Are you claiming you can sense something I cannot? Are you claiming to tap into the "racial unconscious" or some other gibberish. I doubt it. You and I can sense the same things. If you cannot explain yourself. Then that is your failure, not those listening or reading.

This is because I never saw you satisfied...

Then you haven't looked. You need to look to see.

Its your job to find the evidence

Another failure. No, it is your job to support your claims.

Flying was impossible, moon landing was impossible, Elvis was supposed to drive as a job, Mickey Mouse was supposed to be a failure in the entertainment world, and Hitler was supposed to be a painter for all of his life...

Saying things that are not true, does not change the status of other failures.

All of you debunkers want to say that everything is science fiction, everything is impossible, but the evidence shows you guys that things were supposed to be science fiction and did happened...

Straw man argument. I have never said anything such as you suggest.

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:30 PM
reply to post by Zagari

Show me the evidence to debunk this

Debunk a definition? This is a definition. Lots of functions are defined in math. This is such a function.

So we take this function and compute values. That's great. The issue I have is how to verify that this function is connected to reality. McKenna claims it is. I say why. Why is this function connected to reality? You say the arbitrary 0 day is a day chosen by McKenna. Why?

So you calculated novelty for a day and got a value of 0.01500575. So on this day how does a small decimal value correspond to your previous statement that novelty is a measure of the number of events?

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:20 PM
fractals and novelty
hmmm.... reality?
(btw..)Ujjain (Hindi: उज्जैन) About this sound pronunciation (help·info) (also known as Ujain, Ujjayini, Avanti, Avantikapuri), is an ancient city of Malwa ... en.wikipedia.org...
(again..(btw..it almost sounds like halva)
its like the greenwitch of the old days
now.. they discovered (again..btw) 12 springs
youvana(or so) was the hebrew word for -- greece
youvana in sk. means young
there are 12 zodiacal signs and,
there is about 26000years cycle for the sun to go tru 'em ..starting now at the equinoxes ..now its 5degree pisces but, its counted earlier as in the old rasi aa the sign of aswins(twins) which is aries - RAM ( and again.. btw. it sounds like R>E>M time in the end?!)
then again 26 thousend are there found few years ago as well as the sound-pulses, recorded by some astronomers, coming from 26000 years (time) ago or.. coming out.. 26000..ly distance.. from the galactic centre
now..
the india looks ,when seen on a map like the zodiacal sign developed for aries - Ram
and africa too ..and s-america.. and island and australia? maybe
that looks the same as spit amunRA(mhh)tepiii or what was that pharaoms num
that one that was 2600 years ago or so a reknown Pharaohof the egyptitians - as pharaoh playing a gods role
that god who wasnt there then - just a memory
so the manifestations are lenghty in time
till they become a stone done
by nature and not just art (erde?)

confusion?

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:22 PM

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:23 PM

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:31 PM

/imgres?imgurl=
www....

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 12:34 AM

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Gab1159

That is why I am asking about the units. That is why I am asking basic questions about the data and its representation, because I've smelled a stinker for a long time.

If you want to know more go back to the start of the thread and read Evasius' posts detailing how the wave was created.

The simple answer to your question though, as I understand it, is that the "units" or values are arbitrary and only important in relevance to each other. The "quantity" is "(he inverse probability of change" or "inverse probability that new things will happen/be created" which with our current understanding of the universe and scientific beliefs can't be measured. The difference between each point is a function based on the I-ching and observed rates of change in nature.

Its possible that in the future, if we understood it better, you could actually assign more meaningful values to the Y axis (Like "Total % of novel events to date" or something?) but again with our current understanding of time/space/everything the values are more or less arbitrary.

The absolute values of the graph are mostly irrelevent, what matters is the slope, which is why people are talking about it. The slope is representative of, as I said above, the likelihood of novelty appearing. Which is also why you can't use this to predict events but rather themes in periods of time. In periods where novelty is most likely the graph slopes downwards and in times when the status-quo is likely to be maintained the graph slopes upwards. The asymptotes are sometimes punctuated with large, significant real-world events.

Sections of the graph being the same as others IS relevant because the wave is fractal in nature - i.e. That the entire wave is repeated again in increasingly shorter timespans. Again, my understanding here is that the absolute values don't repeat themselves but the relative change between each "data point" does.

Lastly, for those saying "Oh you can just pick any event and say that's what the graph was talking about". Well, no. If the graph is sloping downwards, then you are looking for all sorts of events/discoveries/personal experiences THAT HAVE NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. That's what novelty means - its NEW. As in hasn't happened before, or hasn't been seen to this extent before in the entire history of our planet.

So no, a plane crashing or volcano erupting probably isn't a good explanation. Proving the existance of new dimensions? Yes. Creating new structures in the universe? Yes. Consciousness reaching a new level? Yes. All of those could register as a downward slope but its more of a collective thing than singular events we are looking for.

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 12:47 AM

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Zagari

Of course you do realize that nothing can continue to rise indefinitely at an exponential rate.

No, which is why "novelty", the "units" of the graph, slowly reaches infinity or "zero-point", which McKenna believed was some sort of singularity and he believed it occurs in 2012.

That's just a hopeful guess on your part. Can you demonstrate whether or not this is true. For example, can you measure novelty at several points in time and compare them to the plot to see if the plot is correct?

No, because you can't measure novelty at the current point in time. Which is why you in particular will not get anything from this idea and should probably move along. You can't MEASURE it, but you can FEEL it. Novelty theory is an idea and as an idea I think you'll have a hard time debunking it. The basic idea is that things get more complex and the rate at which they get more complex is constantly increasing. Try to debunk that idea first and then move on to timewave

How can you measure novelty and verify that the plot is correct?

You can't measure novelty. There is no "Novel-o-meter" that measures how new the world is compared to yesterday. At least not yet
However, you can look all around you and see that SOMETHING is happening - the world is changing and its happening all the time. Its happening at alarming rates and its just getting faster and faster. Is this all just a coincidence or is there something more going on? That's what Timewave is all about.

We are trying to verify if the plot is correct by following along and noticing what unfolds in the world at large and in our personal lives. From what I have seen the wave has held true so far. I think its silly to try and prove or disprove it because a certain event happened at a certain time, but rather using it as a general guide. If you get hung up on the absolute values on the Y-axis, which it sounds like you are, then you are missing the point. As I have said, those values are more or less arbitrary, but that doesn't make the equation a hoax.

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:15 AM

You can't measure novelty. There is no "Novel-o-meter" that measures how new the world is compared to yesterday. At least not yet However, you can look all around you and see that SOMETHING is happening - the world is changing and its happening all the time.

it seems to me that the unity of soul materialised in this space of the matter as a timely pro-gheest-e-ran which seems to supply all and one was 'thought to be' for the unity of all evolvings
thats ..from the lower cast of a dream to the upper it works in a 'silly'way out
now.. what else can be used as the reference matter of unity for mind-body-soul AND ghousts of all kinds and realms to connect the empires left and right up and down and be the center of all
....till the time that is good too comes
edit on 22-11-2010 by nii900 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 08:54 AM
reply to post by Cecilofs

This isn't a fractal function. This is a repeating function. This is no different than sin(1/x). That is not a fractal function either.

If a quantity is q(t) = probability of change
then you are saying that this curve r(t) = 1/q(t)

So if change were always happening then the curve would be q(t) = 1 and r(t) = 1
The curve is a straight line with change always happening. The slope is 0.

So novelty occurs when the slope is not 0. Novelty is really when the probability of change is changing. It doesn't mean that anything happened. It means that the chance of something changing is changing.

Lastly, for those saying "Oh you can just pick any event and say that's what the graph was talking about". Well, no. If the graph is sloping downwards, then you are looking for all sorts of events/discoveries/personal experiences THAT HAVE NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. That's what novelty means - its NEW. As in hasn't happened before, or hasn't been seen to this extent before in the entire history of our planet.

Here you say that the slope < 0 implies novelty.

Let's see here, slope < 0 implies that r(t+c) < r(t) for some c
In other words, the slope is downward if the graph is downward.
r(t) = 1/q(t)
r(t+c) = 1/q(t+c)

q(t) = 1/r(t)
q(t+c) = 1/r(t+c)

r(t) > r(r+c) implies q(t) < q(t+c)

This tells us that novelty occurring on a down slope mean that the chance of change occurring is increasing.

Excellent explanation as was the earlier post by Zagari.

My concern has been that this graph appears to be rather arbitrary and not connected to reality. I don't seen how this graph can be tested for correctness. There appears to be a tacit assumption that this is true, without anyone being able to say that it works.

I tossed out 4 years: 1610, 1880, 1896, 1905. Do these have low or high novelties?

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 09:27 AM

No, which is why "novelty", the "units" of the graph, slowly reaches infinity or "zero-point", which McKenna believed was some sort of singularity and he believed it occurs in 2012.

Just because a system cannot continue indefinitely on an exponential rate does not mean that the system cannot have novelty. A system could oscillate. That would make novelty occur indefinitely.

Actually, I find the definition using an inverse probability a little weird. Division by a random variable is a problem. I think this was done to produce the shape of the curve at t=0.

No, because you can't measure novelty at the current point in time. Which is why you in particular will not get anything from this idea and should probably move along. You can't MEASURE it, but you can FEEL it.

I don't buy this claim that you can FEEL it and not MEASURE it. That's simply a cop out.

Actually, novelty is easy to debunk. It is a defined function. It has a definition as shown here. It is not connected to reality and is admitted as being such.

The basic idea is that things get more complex and the rate at which they get more complex is constantly increasing.

I'm sorry, but the definitions so far for time wave do not substantiate this claim that things get more complex over time. The definitions only state change over time. Change does not suggest changes in complexity.

Try to debunk that idea first and then move on to timewave

That's a straw man argument.

Its happening at alarming rates and its just getting faster and faster. Is this all just a coincidence or is there something more going on?

I hardly find that change is alarming. I don't think you'd find many people to agree to that. Maybe you can rally up a few Luddites. Is it a coincidence? What does that mean? Change has been been happening as long as there has been an Earth. Ever read that horrible book Future Shock by Tofler. This notion that change is happening too fast was claimed before there was an internet and cell phones and digital TV and satellite receivers and lots of other things.

If you get hung up on the absolute values on the Y-axis, which it sounds like you are, then you are missing the point. As I have said, those values are more or less arbitrary, but that doesn't make the equation a hoax.

It's a misrepresentation to say I am hooked up on the values of the y-0axis other than to know what the units are.

What makes the equation a hoax is that it is not connected to reality. You can do all of the shoehorning you want and that does not show that TWZ is connected to reality.

Consider this. You claim that it measures novelty. Can you identify events that are novel? Can you do this by some means even if it means FEELING that it is novel? If so can you take 2 or more of the years I listed and see if there are novel events there.

Years: 1610, 1880, 1896, 1905

I picked 4 years. Are any of them novel times?

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 10:37 AM
Actually every year that brings major inventions that re-shape society, new kind of societal behaviors ( hippies ) and with a major amount of " themes ", " topics " never faced before by humanity are considered novel.

I consider 1905 one of the most novel years, because of the Russian revolution, Einstein and the birth of Disney.
The years of the invention of phone, bike, radio are considered very novel.

I still don't understand why do you need the answer to this, if certain years are novel or not.

Habit years are the ones in which the struggles for change fail to become concrete, the ones in which the themes of war are present. They could be called transitional years between the huge changes...

I know that the Russian revolution didn't make a change, actually, though...
But big changes were given birth from 1905. They became concrete in the following years.

I could say, the year of the first flight is very novel, you know the years in which humanity discovers that we can do things considered impossible.

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 11:32 AM
reply to post by Zagari

I still don't understand why do you need the answer to this, if certain years are novel or not.

I am simply running a test. It rather simple I think.

You listed 1905 as a novel year and even gave reasons. Just wondering about the other years.

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:39 PM
/akhenaten
edit on 22-11-2010 by nii900 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:17 PM

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Zagari

I still don't understand why do you need the answer to this, if certain years are novel or not.

I am simply running a test. It rather simple I think.

You listed 1905 as a novel year and even gave reasons. Just wondering about the other years.

You are not running a test. You are trying to trap Zagari into an argument that you think you've already won, and I'm getting a bit annoyed at your lack of willingness to go do some research on Timewave theory and stop trying to pick apart semantics.

Have you read this entire thread, all 120 pages? I have.

Have you watched ALL of Terrence McKenna's recordings that are available freely? I have.

Have you take the time to look at this beyond mathematics? I have.

Do you have any background or understanding in ontology? Probably not.

Do you have any background with morphogenesis? Numerology? Astrology? Eschatology? If you don't have a background in these areas, you have no idea what you are talking about on this thread and your argument is devoid of substance because again, you are picking at one specific point, which is the math.

You coming on to this thread after 120 pages of other people's efforts, spouting "hoax" and claiming you have all of the answers is ridiculous. You sit here and claim that the Timewave has no basis in reality.... really? And you can prove your argument how? Again, you don't have the background in the combined subject areas to argue how the theory has substance or not, you are just simply looking at the math.

If you would have taken the time to understand what Timewave is, you would understand that it has roots in philosophy, numerology, astrology, eschatology, morphogenesis, AND yes, math. Tell me, when was the last time philosophy was measured by a number? When was the last time you could measure how people feel about the world today with a mathematical function? (besides polls)

While I'm on my rant, let me ask you this.... what is reality to you? You're saying this has no basis in reality (subjective), but clearly, a LOT of other people feel differently. Well, last I checked with the leading scholars and philosophers of our time (mind you, you aren't one of them), they all pretty much consider "reality" based on the individual's perception of the world around them, inclusive of their own ideas and inspirations. Your perception here is different, so why can't you accept that and move on? So far, I've seen you pick at syntax and semantics, but you are forgetting that there are two sides to this discussion - the science/math and the theory. It's called TIMEWAVE THEORY for a reason, not TIMEWAVE FACT. It's also called THEORETICAL PHYSICS, not FACT PHYSICS. The math stands up until an experiment proves otherwise. I'm willing to bet that you are supportive of much of the standard theoretical physics taught because all of the math looks good. Have you also considered that most experiments to prove the majority of theories FAIL because of UNSEEN considerations that people did not have the foresight to know in advance? This is what leads to the theories that are further evaluated and reformed as our understanding of "reality" around us changes.

This is what this thread and discussion is for. The math may or may not be correct, but it is still theory and deserves the opportunity to be proven or not. We are all looking for ways to prove or disprove the theory, myself included. However, without having an understanding of the mechanics involved behind the math such as the other areas I've already mentioned, you have no right coming on here and bashing other people for their efforts in trying to better understand it or saying that it's fraudulent.

I often enjoy your threads and find your arguments in the 2012 threads compelling usually. This is one of the times that I'm not impressed. Let me also remind you that a hoax is something that is deliberately created to look like something true with the intentions of being fraudulent. This is absolutely not the case with Timewave theory, so please be mindful of how you throw that word around as I've also seen you use it on several other threads. If you still choose to argue your math point, please take it up on another thread. I, and many others, would like this thread to continue to focus on trying to understand the theory and not insulting "hoax" claims over something you have failed to fully understand. Just my 2 cents.

~Namaste

edit on 22-11-2010 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: typo

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 03:27 PM
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

My God, great, very great answer dude! I admire you now !

I completely agree on all of your points and I also can say that I can answer yes, I did to everything you asked him about.
I have all those kinds of backgrounds and I read this entire thread post for post at least 20 times !

Today I had a hell of a day, and I really was in need to read such a good rant.
No offence, Stereologist, I started to enjoy our discussion, anyway.

But you have to understand that I agree that extreme open-mind people can be wrong, but most of the time a person with too much logic and --- almost zero --- ( this is what appears to be ) immagination and capacity of considering other things --- different --- from dogmas, well, that too is too much and is something that needs to be thought about.

edit on 22-11-2010 by Zagari because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 06:18 PM
Great. This hellish day just become a real inferno...We are again like August...
Novelty in my family now is very high...Sometimes I hate money...
I don't have a good relation with money at all...
Now I may face apocalypse...Again...

My father is very paranoid and we have fights, but today I told him the truth and he still doesn't believes me...

Wow, so much tension because of mere money...I'm sorry, I'm not materialist...

Also, I just wanted to say that I was keeping secret the situation since the beginning of May...

This is why Timewave Zero fascinates me, its because I live in a world of complete habit and I want to get free...
I'm attending a university in a city I hate, I'm failing university for the second time...

edit on 22-11-2010 by Zagari because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:14 AM

Originally posted by stereologist
Actually, novelty is easy to debunk. It is a defined function. It has a definition as shown here. It is not connected to reality and is admitted as being such.

I didn't say it isn't connected to reality, I said that the absolute values for Y on the graph are arbitrary, because we don't have a way to measure novelty at the present moment in time.

Ever read that horrible book Future Shock by Tofler. This notion that change is happening too fast was claimed before there was an internet and cell phones and digital TV and satellite receivers and lots of other things.

Maybe he was onto something

It's a misrepresentation to say I am hooked up on the values of the y-0axis other than to know what the units are.

What makes the equation a hoax is that it is not connected to reality. You can do all of the shoehorning you want and that does not show that TWZ is connected to reality.

Please go and read Evasius' posts at the beginning of the thread - they explain this WAY better than I ever could.

It is connected to reality - it is based on observations of the I-ching, an Ancient Chinese school of thought. As far as I understand it, that system was based in maths as well as observations of the natural world. McKenna's novelty theory was based on his observations of reality (both sober and under the influence).

I am not saying TWZ is 100% correct - as any human I have a healthy level of skepticism. Really we'll never know for sure until we can look at this time in hindsight.

Consider this. You claim that it measures novelty. Can you identify events that are novel? Can you do this by some means even if it means FEELING that it is novel? If so can you take 2 or more of the years I listed and see if there are novel events there.

Years: 1610, 1880, 1896, 1905

I picked 4 years. Are any of them novel times?

I will look those years up when I have the software in front of me. Not that it will prove anything to you, but I will see. I can say with 100% certainty that novel things happened in those years. Wether or not the periods were especially novel or not is another question.

I will identify an event that is novel - about a month ago now, just as the TWZ graph was dipping into novelty, a person I knew committed suicide. This is a new thing for me as I had never known anyone who took their life before. That process has all been very new for me and its triggered more personal reflection and growth. It seems like I've entered into a new growth phase as a result. This is why I said you can't measure novelty, because you can't measure personal experience. But that was a very novel period of time for me and I think it was also reflected in the world and in the Time wave.

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:48 AM
reply to post by Cecilofs

For me is the same, during a Timewave dip this April, one of my classmates died in a car accident at 20.
Most of the people I knew were dumbfounded and so I started getting emotional for this absolutely novel experience for me.
Than I discovered he and his girlfriend decided to get together right on the Timewave free-fall of October 2008.

On June 25 2009, a novel experience for me was doing the High School final exams...
On July 22 2009, I decided to bring the computer with me on a holiday for first time, a disaster...

On October 26 2009, I discovered a person I dreamt about was real, for first time...As a result I almost got my computer wet with the water I was drinking...
And I was just getting to know better a person that was very pivotal for my life in this 2010.

On February 14 2010, I got a new friend and I decided to change my look, something I was not used to. Than I decided to show my new look to the city...

On April 10 2010, the novel experience was forgetting the keys of my bike in front of a mall...I and my friends had to use some tools to get out of there...Result, people were thinking we were thiefs...
As a result I decided not to get near that mall alone, anymore...

On August 11 2010, I've seen my first meteor in the night sky, a green meteor...And I had my first all nighter party on the beach...

I didn't noticed much novelty after November 14 until yesterday...I failed another exam and the fights in my family. .

new topics

top topics

575