"The future ain't what it used to be."

# How will our perception of Time change?

#### RainmanTime

##### Super Moderator
Assume, for a moment or two, that we all agree that physical reality is such that both Mass and Time are 3-dimensional in structure, just like their companion dimension (Space) is also 3-dimensional in its nature. Let's call the integrated set of them: The 3x3 Matrix of Massive SpaceTime.

In this model, as I have discussed, the dimension of Time is not 1-dimensional, as our human experience seems to tell us. Our human consciousness may always live in the present, but this is only 1 dimension of a more complex 3-dimensional Time field. The 3-dimensional Time field has vector components in triples: (Past,Present,Future). This is exactly akin to how Space is a field of vector components in triples: (X, Y, Z).

Would you begin to think of Time in a different way?

Do you think that a human being is capable of moving from a 1-dimensional being based in the "present Time", to a 3-dimensional Timebeing that can fully integrate itself across Past,Present, and Future?

Aren't we already Beings that live within and across this 3-D Timefield? Is it not true that our physical lives have traced-out "shapes" within the 3-D field of Past-Present-Future?

Anyone have any thoughts on such a concept? Can anyone see how this can give a whole new understanding (&amp; positive motivation) for what "future" means to any of us?

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

To be honest, I had a somewhat different view of your 3x3 matrix. Here's my theory, based on the graph I presented to you in another thread recently.

I think our perception of the present is represented by a single point in the 3d timefield. One lifetime of a single person represents one line in the matrix. Every minor change in our lives, will cause the line to branch out. This is an infinite process. Eventually your entire life will form a tree in the matrix (Tree-o-LifeÂ® if you will
). Every branch is, in fact, a parallel universe/dimension. You start out with no parallel universes and during your life these universes/dimensions will expand exponantially.

Consequently, from a human perspective, one can only perceive one moment in time (which is indeed only one dimension). To be able to perceive multiple dimensions, you'd have to have senses that are able to see, hear and feel them all at the same time.

Can anyone see how this can give a whole new understanding (&amp; positive motivation) for what "future" means to any of us?
Personally, I don't think our future already exists. Perhaps time is only a few seconds or minutes ahead of us, but I don't think we already exist in, let's say 2036. It is however, in my opinion, possible that one of the "branches" that supposedly could have originated from an earlier event in our lives, moves "faster" in the 3d timefield. That way, another "you" could be somewhere in 2008, but only in another universe/dimension.

Roel

I think our perception of the present is represented by a single point in the 3d timefield. One lifetime of a single person represents one line in the matrix. Every minor change in our lives, will cause the line to branch out. This is an infinite process. Eventually your entire life will form a tree in the matrix (Tree-o-LifeÂ® if you will ). Every branch is, in fact, a parallel universe/dimension. You start out with no parallel universes and during your life these universes/dimensions will expand exponantially.

This is also what I believe, but let's take it a step further... let's imagine that this infinite "moving ahead process" is taking place on a grander scale. All of our individual tree-path (our "branch") make up one branch of a bigger tree, this branch i refer to as a "collectiverse" - ie, our "objective reality". Now, perhaps some collectiverses move faster than others - and could already be in 2008. As a collective conscious, we are not there - and if you were you would no longer exist in our "collectiverse" (ie, we wouldn't be able to interact with you). I believe it is the closeness in our various "trees" that allow us to interact with eachother... as we get further away from the collectiverse our tree started in, we would become less "real" to everyone else in the collectiverse - that is, as the path "I" in the here and now take splinters further away from everyone elses, i float away from that collectiverse and into another. Perhpas death is in actuallity, merely a "collectiverse jump" - and perhaps it is not the only way of doing that.

this branch i refer to as a "collectiverse"

I think I agree with you on this one. Furthermore, I think that if our universe indeed originated from a singularity, that point in the 3d timefield would be the origin of the matrix. What happened before "The Big Bang", takes place in the negative quadrants and could be compared to the roots of the tree.

Roel

BTW Ray, although I might be interpreting it wrong at times, I still think you've created a wonderful "model" for our universe. It all seems so logical. It's still mindboggling, but I think your model gives a little insight in how we can visualize the interaction between, time, space and mass.

I am with you on the tree thing. This is what I got out of it...
There can be one ending (roots) (negative quadrants) which is the beginning of the Big Bang and that beginning has different endings (branches).

I don't know if I fully get what I am saying. Maybe Big Bang would be a point of origin in time and you could call it a singularity with the origin of the matrix (of branches).

I have more I just don't know how to say it right at this moment.

Tracy A. L. LeFebvre

Hi all,

I believe the Big Bang hasn't happened yet on our "linear" time line.

The Appropriateness of Chance is Astounding
Persephone

"There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers" by Neil Armstrong

I believe that the Big Bang has already happened, will happen, or both.

-Tracy A. L. LeFebvre

Greetings &amp; Happy Monday!

I think our perception of the present is represented by a single point in the 3d timefield. One lifetime of a single person represents one line in the matrix. Every minor change in our lives, will cause the line to branch out.
Without a doubt, comprehending each other when discussing such topics can be difficult. So it's possible that I am not fully understanding how you are interpreting the 3x3 Matrix. However, it would seem as if you are treating Time the way we always tend to think about it, namely, as something that can be separated from Mass and Space. This is quite natural, since we are sensory beings that are predisposed to a "reductionist" tendency. But I tend to think the nature of "reality" is much more complex, with regard to what we think we are perceiving. This is why I refer to the Matrix of Massive SpaceTime as an illusion. What I mean by this is that once we try to "rationalize" one part of what we perceive, by separating it out from other parts of what we perceive (e.g. distinguishing Space as somehow separate from Time, and as further separate from Mass), that this is where we come to false conclusions. This is where a "paradox" comes from. But for sake of argument, let me try to address just the 3-D timefield, and maybe what I am saying will make more sense...

The origin point (0,0,0) of the 3-D timefield represents your consciousness. This is because your consciousness is the ONLY "place" in your reality where Past, Present, and Future all come together in one "point". But since we are talking strictly about a 3-D Time field, with no evidence of either Mass or Space, then WHAT IS OUR CONSCIOUSNESS? When we try to answer this question, we always want to bring in the concepts of Mass (our bodies) and Space. This is part of the clue that we are living in an illusion...a hologram, if you will. It is my belief that the "real reality" transcends (and subsumes) the individual concepts of Mass, Space, and Time. Such a "real reality" must integrate all 3 of these illusory elements. Energy is the very measure that accomplishes this.

Consequently, from a human perspective, one can only perceive one moment in time (which is indeed only one dimension).
Ahhhh, yes. But the question is "how thinly can you slice a moment?" /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif In other words, how do we define a "moment"? And if the universe really is continuous, then doesn't it violate continuity principles to even attempt to define individual "moments"? It is exactly like the absurd, continued march toward ever smaller reductions of subatomic particles. Where/when will it ever end? The smaller and smaller we go, it seems the more and more paradoxes we uncover!

To be able to perceive multiple dimensions, you'd have to have senses that are able to see, hear and feel them all at the same time.
Exactly! But would "time" even exist, in the form we know it, if you had such senses to perceive in this manner? If you could perceive "raw energy" in its "natural" (4-D?) state, then would you not be perceiving that transcended the entire concept of linear time? If you could perceive the "energy ball" that comprises your life in the Massive SpaceTime Matrix, would you not "see" how that "energy ball" exists in something people like to call "the eternal now"? Where I am going with this is similar to what Viceroy calls a "collective conscious". I tend to believe there is a "layer" to ourselves beyond our conscious selves (which thinks in Mass, Space, and Time elements). And that this "layer" to ourselves does, indeed, possess the abilities to sense Energy directly. Some might call it our subconscious, but I call it our Soul.

Personally, I don't think our future already exists. Perhaps time is only a few seconds or minutes ahead of us, but I don't think we already exist in, let's say 2036.
Again, I just want to point out that this view is shaped by our "normal" perception of Time. Instead of talking about some "point" along a linear timeline (such as 2036, which is an arbitrary reference), I would tend to want to jump out of the Massive SpaceTime context and consider the great sea of Energy. I would "see" lots of little "blobs" of Energy that are forming their own timelines through interactions of Mass with Space. But at this level of context, I am "seeing" how you "are" over all times. If I want to "jump into" the Massive SpaceTime Matrix at some specific "point" in the timeline you are generating, I do so by specifying a certain configuration of Mass with Space. The relative time (with regard to other beings trapped in that part of the Massive SpaceTime Matrix) simply "falls out of the equation" as a result of my wish to see a specific configuration of Mass and Space. The implications of this view are nothing short of amazing. Such a view would correspond with many traditions of spiritual belief that "we are all One". In other words, we are all "cut from the same mold" of a universal Energy source. Through our subconscious "layer" we can return to that Energy source and "be one" with it. When we choose to experience a certain (relative) configuration of Mass and Space, we "descend" (transmogrify) from the integrated sea of Energy into the form of Mass and Space we wish to experience from. As a result, we become "fixed" in a linear timeline.

Am I making any sense??? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

However, it would seem as if you are treating Time the way we always tend to think about it, namely, as something that can be separated from Mass and Space.

No, on the contrary. Even though I've made a somewhat failed attempt at combining time, space and mass in one graph (you know, the one in the original Matrix thread), I do not see them seperately. Like you said, we try to rationalize and isolate certain things to make them understandable. That's exactly what I did. But I don't think there's another way to come to a conclusion. Let me elaborate on my perception of Massive Spacetime.

The origin point (0,0,0) of the 3-D timefield represents your consciousness.

That means, in this case, the 3d timefield is relative to a person. I have a slightly different approach. The only "place" where Past, Present and Future come together in one point is when you're born (or actually at conception). At that point you have "zero history", "zero future" (assuming the future does not yet exist) and the present equals future minus history.

In my opinion, your conciousness "travels" along with the present. You can only "experience" conciousness at the moment you "experience" it (sounds strange, but it made sense while I was typing this). Furthermore, I see conciousness as an unanswered question: "Why am I aware of the fact that I am me?". The answer is in the question, yet you cannot put a finger on it.

Ahhhh, yes. But the question is "how thinly can you slice a moment?"

We've discussed this before and it's hard to grasp, but it wouldn't surprise me if TIME actually is the smallest particle of matter. Somehow it makes sense to me and it's also a way to visualize the integration of time, space and mass. So the answer to your question would be somewhere along the lines of "one time".

but I call it our Soul

We are more than energy. We are time and mass and we occupy space.

Am I making any sense???

Hehe, just as much as I am and perhaps a little more

I think that we can only perceive time in a linear manner. For us, time IS linear. What we CAN do, is think about how time really behaves in relation to space and mass. I understand what you mean with the "the great sea of Energy", but this is just another way of describing something we can't really describe. I'd like to think of it as lava, hot milk or perhaps even cheese (and no, this is not a joke). When you melt cheese there's nothing but cheese, but the state in which the cheese is (hot or cold) defines it's form. So when you say "we are all One", this means we are all made of the same "stuff" but because of the state we're in we can be either a human being, a stone or a tree. Personally I think the "stuff" we're made of is, in its smallest form, time.

I don't think we are all illusions or holograms. We are not living a dream, so to speak. I do think that if we could watch ourselves from more than 4 dimensions, we'd find that we are more than our current senses can perceive.

It's not wrong to think time is linear, because time IS linear. As long as you realize that it's not linear when you look at it from a different perspective.

That means, in this case, the 3d timefield is relative to a person. I have a slightly different approach. The only "place" where Past, Present and Future come together in one point is when you're born (or actually at conception). At that point you have "zero history", "zero future" (assuming the future does not yet exist) and the present equals future minus history.

In my opinion, your conciousness "travels" along with the present. You can only "experience" conciousness at the moment you "experience" it (sounds strange, but it made sense while I was typing this). Furthermore, I see conciousness as an unanswered question: "Why am I aware of the fact that I am me?". The answer is in the question, yet you cannot put a finger on it.

This is what I got from what you said: The past, present, and future can come together at any time. Here's how: The present is always the present no matter where or whenever you may be. It is your present time. The future, which is possible directions, can become the present. The present is "making" history and so it really does have "zero history" (where or whenever). The past is what the present used to be and is now history. And so you are traveling along with "zero history" although the past is really history.

Example:
One second ago was the present. One second ahead will soon be the present. The present is always where you are.

I am trying to make sense. I don't know if I am.

Good luck.

Tracy A. L. LeFebvre

Hi Roel:

That means, in this case, the 3d timefield is relative to a person. I have a slightly different approach. The only "place" where Past, Present and Future come together in one point is when you're born (or actually at conception). At that point you have "zero history", "zero future" (assuming the future does not yet exist) and the present equals future minus history.
Ah, OK, at least I "see" how you are approaching it. What it seems like you have done is to affix the (0,0,0) point of time to some "special" moment, as if it was more pertinent than any other moment. I can see why you would do this, and why you would affix it to the point of one's conception. But this is where I would invoke Einstein, who told us that there is no "preferred" frame of reference...that they all are relative. All that matters is that you choose a reference and make all your measurements consistent with that reference.

I would apply this same rule to the 3D timefield. So, while you have chosen a specific point in the confluence of Mass/Space (conception) to affix the (0,0,0) origin of the timefield, I would say that ALL such (arbitrary) selections are equivalent. This is why I generalize the issue, and simply say the relative origin of my 3-d timefield is my point of consciousness, no matter what state of Mass/Space it may involve. Of course, this is still a true statement, since my point of consciousness is still the only point (for me) that Past/Present/Future all come together in one "point". But...now what does this "mean" to how I would interpret the negative quadrants of Past, Present, Future? This is quite simple:

1) Negative Past - This corresponds to a specific "mixing" of Mass/Space that I did not, personally, perceive. Therefore, they are not part of my "memory".
2) Positive Past - Obviously, this corresponds to "mixings" of Mass/Space that I *did* personally perceive.
3) Negative Present - A mixture of Mass/Space that I am not, currently, perceiving.
4) Positive Present - What I am now perceiving in the Mass/Space around me (rememeber: both Mass and Space are, for all intents and purposes, infinite around me...thus, the positive present is a VERY big "place"). /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
5) Negative Future - A mixture of Mass/Space that I will not come to perceive in this form of consciousness.
6) Positive Future - A mixture of Mass/Space that I will come to perceive in this form of consciousness.

If you study, and think about, this "version" of the timefield, you will see that is has a lot of possibilities for explaining some capabilities of human consciousness. First of all, have we ever wondered where "imagination" comes from? By that, I mean, what is the foundation for being able to "dream-up" something, such as an entire fictional sci-fi story? The "negative" quandrants of the timefield permit this to happen...even though I may not have experienced a specific configuration of Mass/Space, that does not mean I cannot posit its existence and "place" it in my 3-D timefield. Something else this timefield permits is "memory modification", which we all have been susceptible to. Perhaps you are talking with a friend about a time you two went skiing together, and you seem POSITIVE that your friend was wearing their blue skisuit...it is as if you can almost "see" that event in your mind.... and yet, your friend produces a photo that shows he was wearing the green skisuit. One way of explaining this would be that my mind is recalling the vast majority of the "positive past" (it recalls us going skiing), but a "recall error" occurs with respect to one element of the past, and it retrieves the blue skisuit from your "negative past" as if it were part of your "positive past". Anyway....FWIW, this is the way I envision the 3-D timefield.

In my opinion, your conciousness "travels" along with the present. You can only "experience" conciousness at the moment you "experience" it (sounds strange, but it made sense while I was typing this).
It does sound a bit strange, but I do understand what you are getting at! :D Only problem is, I don't buy this limitation...the reason is because it does not address other states of mind where we are clearly not experiencing consciousness at the moment we are experiencing it. I am primarily referring to dreaming. We know from sleep studies, that the same areas of the brain used for vision are being stimulated during dreaming....so this would explain why we "see" dreams as if they are movies. But where do they come from? Obviously, our consciousness is "working" because the dream seems real...and yet, also obviously, it does not represent realtime (present) sensory inputs from our eyes!

Furthermore, I see conciousness as an unanswered question: "Why am I aware of the fact that I am me?". The answer is in the question, yet you cannot put a finger on it.

We are more than energy. We are time and mass and we occupy space.
I beg to differ...simply because these 3 "pieces" of reality (Mass, Time, Space) are actually what comprise the basic units of Energy! E=mc^2, when boiled down to its fundamental units is: E = [mass]*[space]^2/[time]^2. Hence, we ARE energy...no more...no less. And what of the "squared"? I have talked about this before as well: The "Squared" of this equation is a reminder that light propagates as spherical "bubbles". So the "squared" actually represents the surface of the "light bubble". We live (experience the "present") ONLY on the surface of that light bubble. In fact, this is what provides us the "illusion" of time! We think because the light bubble that describes an event to us has passed us by, that the event is "in the past".... however, in reality, we know that those light waves are still propagating into the universe. Hence, while old TV programs broadcast during the 60s are in our "past", those same radio waves are in the "present" for some species somewhere that is just now receiving those waves.

I think that we can only perceive time in a linear manner. For us, time IS linear.
I would agree only inasmuch as this is what our senses tell us. But just like I can imagine a sci-fi story without ever experiencing it, I also believe it is possible to stretch our minds to conceive of Time in its "natural" 3-D state. I'm not saying it is easy, just that it can be done! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I understand what you mean with the "the great sea of Energy", but this is just another way of describing something we can't really describe.
No offense, but I think this is a bit of a cop-out. Actually, trying to stretch the mind to think in terms of a "great sea of Energy" is the real challenge! It is similar to looking at a tesseract (hypercube) and telling yourself "I know that is not what it looks like in 4-D, it is just a 3-d shadow of what it looks like in 4-D". But from this shadow, you can infer the most important aspect of 4-D...curvature. Instead of focusing on the "cube within a cube", which is the shadow, you begin to focus on the parabolic surfaces that serve as the boundaries.

It's not wrong to think time is linear, because time IS linear.
I agree, it is not "wrong"....but it is incomplete. As always, I have some great discussions with you, Roel. My only point here is that I think "advancing beyond" our current state of human existence is going to require making the leap from thinking about time as linear (incomplete) to a more integrated concept of Energy wherein Time can be expressed in all 3 of its "natural" dimensions.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

Hello Tracy,

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gifYes, it is probably like the Big Bang is an event beyond our conception of time, and therefore, saying it happened "when" is kind of like knowing what time it is in a black hole?

Maybe?

The Appropriateness of Chance is Astounding
Persephone

"There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers" by Neil Armstrong

Re: How will our perception of, perfect takes

I saw two perfect takes on current songs, which were remarkably without flaw, in modern music.

I had never seen Daryl Hall and John Oats play, however I had seen them perform on a past tape of Saturday Night Live.

This was the tune, It's in her kiss.
I was astounded, as usually rock and roll groups, don't not play verbatim, on accuracy of recording, for a live performance, on the very first take.

Hall and Oats did just this, on this vintage tape of SNL, that I had never seen.

This perfoamce was virtually without flaw.

The second performance was by the group, The Maroon Five, which again had performed on Saturday Night Live and again, they performed flawlessly, as if this were a studio take.

I have seen groups perform, but always having a little flaw somewhere in their performance or variance.

However these two groups, split apart in time, performed very flawlessly, without any variance in their music.

I was astounded, as there might have been some synchronicity to why these two groups had played so very good?

The Maroon Five reminded me of the Roxy Music scene, in New York and on the eastcoast, that was so big in the years before.

They also are one of the very best new groups, which seem to be taking their cues from the key rock and roll years, of the late 1960s in their writing and composing abilities.

Perfect takes live are an exceedingly rare phenomenon, when they sound and are performed as if these takes are meant for a studio take.

There is an odd synchronicity to these two performances, that I am mentioning here for some reason

Re: How will our perception of, perfect takes

Dear Creedo,

Hi there /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif, in regard to your post about the two rock groups on Saturday Night Live:

I used to own a record store and we would often have musicians/bands come in and play in the store. A lot of them were local bands doing record releases, but we also had famous touring bands play. Some of these people are really professional and tight in their performances.

Especially if they are playing the same hit song over and over again.

What I am trying to say is there are a lot of "perfect takes" if they practice enough and are feeling good about playing music.

Perhaps these two performances that you saw, stood out to you in a special way and signified something? Or reminded you of something? Or brought sense memories of good times back to you?speak? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

The Appropriateness of Chance is Astounding
Persephone

"There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers" by Neil Armstrong

Hey Persephone,

I think time may be different in a black hole than it is where we are. Time can be measured by events and if we know of none, where are we? But time is measured by events or the state of consciousness or by numbers calculating how long it takes the earth to revolve around the sun.

This is what I think.

Tracy A. L. LeFebvre

Perspep said&gt;What I am trying to say is there are a lot of "perfect takes" if they practice enough and are feeling good about playing music.

Creed answers;Perspep' was not long ago yesterdays; however something noted in fabric of time.

These were takes that were done in a certain way.

Hi Tracy,

I'm trying to give my own view on RainmanTime's Massive SpaceTime theory. What I write here are merely interpretations of RainmanTime's theory. My posts may contain inaccurate information. You did interpret my post as I meant it, but I think you're making just as much sense as I am. Since I'm not sure if I'm making sense half of the time, you'd be better off studying RainmanTime's posts /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Greetings,
Roel

Hey Roel,

I will study RainmanTime's posts more closely than I have yours from now on. Thanks for the advice.

Good day,
Tracy A. L. LeFebvre

Ah, OK, at least I "see" how you are approaching it. What it seems like you have done is to affix the (0,0,0) point of time to some "special" moment,

Yes, but I did that because you were doing the same... or so I thought. That's why I said "in this case". However, I think we share the same view when you say that there is no "preferred" frame of reference.

The example I provided was, in a way, a matrix within the matrix.

This is why I generalize the issue, and simply say the relative origin of my 3-d timefield is my point of consciousness, no matter what state of Mass/Space it may involve.

I understand, but isn't your "point of consiousness" just as specific as the point I chose? Making your own "point of consiousness" the origin of a 3d timefield seems like the opposite of generalizing the issue. Again, I understand what you mean and it makes perfect sense IF your conciousness is indeed the only point where Past, Present and Future come together. Personally I don't think that's true (and I will elaborate on that further on). I do agree on your definition of the negative and positive quadrants.

If you study, and think about, this "version" of the timefield, you will see that is has a lot of possibilities for explaining some capabilities of human consciousness.

In my opinion dreaming and imagining are the exact opposite of conciousness. In these cases the mind tricks you into thinking you were concious when in fact you were not. You could call it alternate conciousness or outer conciousness. So having said the above, I still believe that conciousness "travels" along with the present. Experiencing conciousness in the future or past is merely a virtual and/or fake conciousness.

I also maintain that "the beginning" of anything (be it a human being, a tree, an animal, a stone, a cell, a molecule or even an atom) is the origin of the 3d timefield, because this is the point where past, present and future are zero.

I'm starting to feel like a "wayward son" now

I'm not so sure it is an "unanswered" question...although the answer may not be understood.

Well that's what I tried to express when I said: "The answer is in the question, yet you cannot put a finger on it." There's an answer to any question, but some answers seem impossible to grasp. Descartes springs to mind... I think, therefore I am.

We are more than energy. We are time and mass and we occupy space.

Hehe. That's just typically me, contradicting Einstein in a heartbeat on a beautiful springnight. When you put it that way, you can dismiss what I said (I still like my "cheese" theory though) /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I guess it's my natural aversion to words that are mistakenly written with a capital

Words like Energy tend to look "spiritual" and you already know how spiritual I am.

I also believe it is possible to stretch our minds to conceive of Time in its "natural" 3-D state. I'm not saying it is easy, just that it can be done!

I agree.

No offense, but I think this is a bit of a cop-out.

None taken, but you have to agree that it's hard to explain. I think I understand the concept of your "great sea of Energy". My comparison to melted cheese was perhaps a bit strange, but it was not far from what I think "the great sea of Energy" really is. Please read it again and tell me what you think.

I agree, it is not "wrong"....but it is incomplete. As always, I have some great discussions with you, Roel. My only point here is that I think "advancing beyond" our current state of human existence is going to require making the leap from thinking about time as linear (incomplete) to a more integrated concept of Energy wherein Time can be expressed in all 3 of its "natural" dimensions.

And once again... I agree /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Roel

I understand, but isn't your "point of consiousness" just as specific as the point I chose? Making your own "point of consiousness" the origin of a 3d timefield seems like the opposite of generalizing the issue.
Well, there is a slight difference. You affixed yours at a very specific amalgamation of Mass and Space, which correlates with a point in linear Time that could be viewed differently from a different vantage point (one other than your own). By selecting my "point of consciousness", my origin is independent of a specific amalgamation of Mass and Space (my body is always exchanging Mass and has the ability to move thru Space), and as such no one but myself can determine where in Time it exists.

As with all of these things, it is difficult to understand, so I will use analogy as I am want to do so often! Think of it just like one selects a relative coordinate axis origin in the dimension of Space. For the purposes of measurement, it is most convenient (and much less confusing) to select an origin that is attached to the frame of reference we exist within. We measure distances over the earth with respect to a coordinate system attached to the earth, not to the moon. When we measure accelerations on an airplane (second derivative of position), we do so in a coordinate axis attached to the airplane because the "G's" we feel on an airplane would only make sense when measured in the airplane's body axis system. So I choose my "point of consciousness" as the most pertinent 3D timefield reference because it is "attached" to me... and again, since Einstein showed us that Time is relative to the observer, this would seem to make the most sense to me (not one to want to trash so many years of such a brilliant man's science!)

In my opinion dreaming and imagining are the exact opposite of conciousness. In these cases the mind tricks you into thinking you were concious when in fact you were not. You could call it alternate conciousness or outer conciousness.
Ahhhhh....now you are taking us in a VERY interesting direction, and I didn't even plan this! I would agree that there are various "levels" of consciousness. And I bet you know what is coming: Since it is obvious that our physical body is constructed in the architecture of the Tree Of Life, there is no reason not to believe that our "inner system" of our non-physical "unbody" is not also constructed in the same 3x3 matrix form. And so, I theorize that the lowest triangle on the TOL corresponds to what we know as our typically conscious mind...the part that understands (and deals in) Matter, Motion, and Tense. This theory continues by aligning the middle triangle on the TOL with our subconscious mind (I call it Soul), which can only distinguish Self from Not-Self. I believe that the Soul is what "projects" stimuli into the conscious mind during REM sleep (when the body shuts-down the pathways from conscious mind to the physical body). To round out this theory, I align the top triangle on the TOL with the unconscious, or what some might even call the COLLECTIVE unconscious. For sake of giving it a name that denotes something beyond normal consciousness (as I did with the Soul) I call this our Spirit. At this level, we do not even distinguish between Self/Not-Self. All we know is "the will to create" (divide One into Many) and "the will to integrate" (integrating Many into One).

I still like my "cheese" theory though
I absolutely love ANYTHING having to do with cheese! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif On the milder side I just love those havarti and edam cheeses you Dutch folks produce... but there is no cheese more "orgasmic" than a good, moldy Roquefort Bleu!!! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif

Words like Energy tend to look "spiritual" and you already know how spiritual I am.
I understand. And I also know how spiritual you think you are (as in not), even if you might not be aware that you do have a spirit. But you'll be glad to know I am not a bible-thumper, and not only do I NOT think you are going to hell because you don't believe it (we really create hell ourselves), but I get the feeling you might get a real kick out of "discovering" your spirit...possibly....someday. But that's just me...I see something "deeper" in everyone....even Creedo! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

My comparison to melted cheese was perhaps a bit strange, but it was not far from what I think "the great sea of Energy" really is. Please read it again and tell me what you think.
Yeah, I do think that is a good analogy for the "sea of Energy". And it also fits nicely with what Einstein told us about rest-mass being equivalent to energy which has simply "cooled" to speeds below the speed of light.

Now, would you please pass the gouda? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RainmanTime

Replies
4
Views
140
Replies
4
Views
550
Replies
2
Views
384
Replies
4
Views
430
Replies
12
Views
705