Maybe on December 21, 2012 it will finally be proven that we live in a four-dimensional, fully deterministic universe. At that point, all the novelty
in the world will collapse upon nothing. 
|
reply to post by Albastion
What do you mean by "deterministic"?
(And we did live in a four-dimensional world the last time I looked.  )
|
What does "novelty" mean? If you're talking pop cultural novelty, I'd argue there's been very little since 1990.
|
Or maybe a bottomless pit will appear out of the sea, and we will finally find out what the "locusts" really are 
But sincerely for the 4 dimensional deterministic world it would have been best to be born in the 1900s, that was the consensus mind frame back
then.
Today and in 2012 we live in a multidimensional (more than 4) relativistic world, and perhaps our views will change in the future.
|
Originally posted by Donnie Darko
What does "novelty" mean? If you're talking pop cultural novelty, I'd argue there's been very little since 1990.
I have been trying to figure that out myself. If the timewave is a real property of historical events, then it might be a chart of human events that
are differant and new, ergo novel. The chart would actually be tracking the count of events that are repeating. A drop to zero would indicate
absolute chaos, I would think..
If the timewave is a measure of human conciousness, however, then perhaps is is measure the amount of focus given to specific events by humans. A
drop to zero would indicate a great focusing of the mind and perhaps a move to a collective mind...that actually is more frightening than chaos... I
can't imagine losing my identity to a thought collective.
Anyway, those are two views I am considering. I'm sure there are others.
|
As defined by Terrence McKenna, novelty is 'newness'. Things that are new. When discussing the Timewave Zero theory, keep in mind that it was
developed by a man who had a psychedelic drug-induced experience that led him to study the I-Ching where he received information which allowed him to
mathematically formulate a universal algorithm which produced the Timewave.
Let's break that down, shall we?
1. McKenna was a proponent of a topic which is now taboo on the ATS forums, so we'll stay out of that one.
2. During an 'experience', he was told by either an extraterrestrial or a God, depending on the source, that the answers to his questions could be
found and was given a general place to start looking.
3. He found the I-Ching. This is usually a form of goemancy. Throwing the bones, so to speak. Trying to explain the I-Ching would take quite a lot
of time, so we'll just say that he studied the I-Ching proper... usually referred to as the Oracle. Somehow, through this he was given information
that led him to formulate the first basis of the Timewave. Specific detail on the algorithm is harder to find than I was expecting.
There are two possibilities that are readily apparent when discussing 2012 as related to the Timewave. The first is that the world does not end. If
it did, then 2012 would spike off the charts, because, let's face it... the end of the world is a new thing, indeed.
The dips of the timewave graph do not correspond to low-points in human history, contrary to what people would like you to beleive. They DO
correspond, and this can be backed up, to our technological advancement. In theory, the Timewave measures the universe's natural production and
conservation of new things. There's only so much the Universe can do. That's where we come in. Timewave won't show our technological
advancement. It isn't natural, though it is the natural result of our evolution.
So, the first conclusion of Timewave is that when it reaches it's zero-point, everything will be new in a way that we can't understand given the
current rules that the Timewave is based on. Let's put that another way. The universe can create nothing new, so, on December 12, 2012, it flips
the last genetic switch in Mankind and we all become capable of telekinesis and telepathy. Then, magnets, steel, cardboard, styrofoam, computers,
silicon, fuel, cars, they will all be new concepts again because the RULES changed. Couldn't happen, you say? We've been studying the abberrations
of humanity for many decades, some concerning some pretty interesting abilities. So, to sum up this one, the current rules of logic that apply to the
Timewave will no longer apply.
Second, if you believe in the Timewave theory, you have to also believe in McKenna's OTHER theories associated with the timewave. Roughly three
decades after Zero Point, there will be a technological upheaval. This has it's OWN timewave based on different logic. There is a third timewave
theory that is an extrapolation of the first two, never endorsed by McKenna himself, though, logically, the theory is sound given the first two are.
That is the Community theory, roughly six decades after Timewave Zero, where the human community will undergo a dramatic change which will bond us
like we've never been before. How often do these theories come up?
As a side note, the only thing that can't happen at point Zero is that the world ends. The whole idea of novelty is that we'll reach a point on the
Timewave where novelty is infinite. McKenna described this as a 'Singularity of Novelty', that 'cannot be defined.' If the world blew up, that
could be defined pretty easily. At point Zero, IF this is correct, we won't be able to comprehend what comes next.
I know this novel-length post (that was a punny, right?) may have confused some of you. Fear not. Begin where I did. Search out Terrence McKenna,
the creator of the original Timewave. Your research will branch you out into all different manner of Geomancy, the effect of hallucenogens, the study
of the Shang and Zhou dynasties, Arabic divination, travels in the Amazon, and... I loved this ... CONFUCIUS! When you start out on your search for
answers there is no telling what you're going to roll across. This is probably the most fun I've had researching anything since I found out what a
consipiracy was!
HAVE FUN!
|
reply to post by Arrowmancer
Interesting. I had indeed read up a bit on McKenny and the TWZ, but nowhere near like you did. I understand that the point of infinite novelity was
known before the date was. He had to assign a date to it and the Mayan 13.0.0.0 made as much sense as any. That's when he noticed it matching up to
historical events.
It would make sense that it could be tied to technological achievement. Whenever we find something new, we inevitably use it to destroy stuff.
I'll have to ponder this angle, though. See in my belief the universe is sentient and has split itself up into pieces in order to better understand
itself. As we travel through life, we generally pull our ideas from the collective mind. Perhaps the TWZ is indicative of those moments when we
don't. Or perhaps it is a direct reading of the number of times we access that collective mind?
Or maybe this is all stretching things a bit. Fun to think about, though.
|
I'd like to add, before we go nuts, that the I-Ching that McKenna based the theory on is, in Chinese culture, a miniature model of the universe.
That being said, it's not a good idea to equate TWZ with Earth, but with the universe itself. I can't see how that would relate to us as Earthlings
in any way, so we'll continue to think that it applies to mankind, only.
Throughout the timewave, every time mother nature made something new or improved, the timewave drops. The bigger the creation, the more drastic the
drops. Same for our technological advancements. Think of it. For each scientific discovery we make, we base new technology on it, then there are a
thousand side-technologies that spring from it. Eventually, we'll either fully exploit that avenue of science and have to step back to the basics to
go another route (That would be when TWZ levels off then rises shortly, then drops again) It's not on teh 'OMG THIS is AMAZING' level, but it's a
helluvalot more accurate than the human-position idealism.
Sorry, I was using the median-based Timewave Graph.
To be honest, I put no stock whatsoever in Timewave. It's a novelty and fun to research, but it isn't very accurate or, at the very least, is
woefully misunderstood. The harder I try to understand it, the more confused I get. I would like to get a good hard look at this 'algorithm' that
is used in the program.
Keep in mind, that an algorithm is a series of non-infinite steps used to arrive at an answer. What was the question, then? IF you don't have that,
then you have the answer and use the algorithm to determine the question, right?
[edit on 4-10-2009 by Arrowmancer]
|
