reply to post by StevesResearch
I think you are assuming that this is all meant to be interpreted solely as factual when that was simply never the case. As I said before, this is
"Novelty Theory". Theory being the key term here.
It's pretty hard to portray "timewave zero" as "convincing" when this is just a theory. But that doesn't mean that it isn't factual. Alot of
what McKenna talked about and how he looked at math in general is now being confirmed in alot of ways by modern science. Everything in nature follows
precise mathematic equations no matter how random they might seem. What most scientists have assumed for a long time now is that mathematics can be
applied to accurately portray anything in the universe. Why wouldn't these same kinds of mathematic applications be used to explain time? It has
never really been attempted, as far as I know, other than McKenna attempting to in his "Novelty Theory".
The software, the timewave, everything is basically a projection of McKenna's theories and ideas. He is the one you should really be listening to.
I think Evasius already posted up alot of McKenna's interviews and stuff in the other timewave zero thread. And they can easily be found with a
quick youtube search.
Personally, I don't buy all of it. I don't think there is any way we could ever know he's right until zero-date comes to a head. There is no way
for simple beings like ourselves to fully understand or comprehend the universe that surrounds us. And there are many people that say McKenna's date
projection was off slightly because his math was slightly flawed. But, still, I belive McKenna was on the right track with his abstract way of
viewing time as a flowing torrent of "everything" rather than just a moving torrent of human experience. That part of it makes complete sense.
This idea of the dimension of time being able to be understood in such a mathematical way is also something that makes complete sense. Random events,
no matter how random, all adhere to precise mathematic functions and equations regardless of whether or not we know what math is involved. Therefore,
the most accurate way of using simple mathematics to understand time is by looking at it from the lens of Novelty as time progresses (as portrayed in
the software) rather than the much more conventional view of time as "Past, Present, Future" as it is mostly assumed to operate.
Time is much more bizarre than most people really understand. Every elementary particle in the universe wouldn't be able to exist without it. Yet
it permeates the known universe as the veil of time/space as one entity.. Not time and space being separate. Therefore, time is inherent even in the
molecules that make up our body and our computer keyboards.
Yet we know nothing about it.
The average 30-40 year old probably looks at time how a 5-10 year old would. That sais something about what we really understand about the universe.
In my view, that gives some credence to how McKenna viewed time. it is complicated, yet simple.
Another thing to consider is whether or not Novelty actually represents some kind of "higher intelligence" that is linked to every molecule in the
universe and, thus, can monitor time as a function of the universe down to minute particles and subatomic particles everywhere they exist. This
higher intelligence could monitor events as they flow into the past and "project" the present reality we all experience based on this flowing
torrent of information and projections of what the future should look like based on those events and interactions.
This is alot like the movie "The Matrix", at least in the sense that in the movie, computer AI projects reality as we experience it in the form of a
"higher intelligence" constantly projecting information with relation to time. Our real universe might not be so different. It may not really
exist in the form of a computer program.. But since everything seems to have precise mathematical functions and explanations.. it tells you something
about how the very fabric of the universe works. When I say "fabric of the universe" I'm referring to everything within it. Einstein was fan of
using "fabric" as a way to explain gravity and its relation to time/space. But it doesn't really accurately portray how the universe works. It
isn't a 2-dimensional concept.
-ChriS
[edit on 2-7-2009 by BlasteR]
) 
