PDA

View Full Version : changing reality



solomon levi
01-09-2011, 04:51 AM
http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/science/changing-reality.html

Albion
01-10-2011, 02:18 AM
I concede that it’s possible I don’t have the acumen to fairly judge this on a scientific basis but, logically speaking, it didn’t feel or sound right.

It would seem to me that a so-called probability field does not imply a multiplicity of actualizations.

The speaker then turned around and said that, from the perspective of these other probable entities, we would be probabilities [or something along those lines].

To me, he is conflating/misrepresenting the nature of probability and actuality.

He starts off with a premise that is purely theoretical, itself based on a questionable foundation, and then proceeds to say what should logically follow from that premise [again and again]. It's a house of cards.

Multiple, [finite] simultaneous [staggered in "time"] incarnations is a concept I can accept. The notion of infinite actual spinoffs of an incarnation seems like someone is letting their imagination run wild.

There are limits built into nature on, in my opinion, all [numerically limited] levels. Just because we, or someone who went mad like Cantor, can imagine infinity as a numerical extension doesn’t mean that is the actual nature of originary infinity as it plays out. Games with numbers.

Fractality and recursion may be theoretically endlessly extendable, but that doesn’t mean they are ever actually so. A computor-generated fractal begins with a division/hypothesis which one can ever-progressively explore over time by increasing/generating further resolution - but there is no actual infinity of depth there. Similarly, you can set up opposing mirrors to employ recursion but the images don't actually progress infinitely due to the limits of the molecular structure of the mirrors themselves, planc length, whatever.

I have nothing against infinity, I just believe there are many possible theoretical mathematical/numerical infinities that are of a purely speculative nature.

http://vukajlija.com/attached_images/0012/7167/infinite-recursion.jpg

________________________________________________

"How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?" was a scholastic exercise/thought experiment - not an actual ongoing religious debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F
________________________________________________

Turtles All the Way Down?

http://www.interferencetheory.com/Blog/files/8c34f6a525f42088498a825ac62c20f4-60.html
________________________________________________

Book: The Power of Limits:

http://www.amazon.com/Power-Limits-Proportional-Harmonies-Architecture/dp/1590302591/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294662033&sr=1-1
________________________________________________

III
01-12-2011, 06:10 AM
I would like to put some number of cents worth into this. I would be inclined to say that while each dimension added into the mix each adds an "infinite" number of variations, the number of variations with perceptible differences is much smaller along each axis. The farther one goes in any direction, the larger the steps have to become to make any noticeable difference, very logarithmic Imagine an infinite C or D scale on a slide-rule. In addition they appear to approach a limit. It's as if delta change = limit as X approaches infinity of (X)/(X+1) or something of the sort. No specific numbers should be inferred from this, just my own impression of the nature of change from world variation to world variation.

solomon levi
06-22-2012, 02:06 AM
I was looking for a thread and decide to refresh my memory on this one.
I still very much relate to it. For me, it is not theoretical.
I can, to some degree, extend my awareness down these alternate lines, both past and future.
My blog is based on that, on my experience of that.

Some comments I have on watching it this time:

1. Again, I like to "poke" people about the impossibility of achieving enlightenment or oneness or christ consciousness
when one identifies oneself as just one line - past to future - which is what we intend when we imagine we can achieve
enlightenment by making right choices and avoiding wrong ones. Enlightenment is not one single path - it is the bigger
picture of many paths and dimensions which this video points to. It is changing your reference/identity.

2. It is easy to imagine the present and multiple available choices and multiple futures from that, but don't forget to see
the multiple pasts that have led to this present - that is a bigger ocean of potential. Of course future is infinite... I'm saying
include the infinite past as well. Look at all those who came before you to make you possible.
In line with that, I would like to point out a paradox. We generally imagine, and even science has verified, that we have our
genetic origin in an "adam and eve" - two people, which branch into the 6 billion or whatever we have today. But if we look
from present, I had two parents that birthed me, they each had two parents (4), and they each (8), etc... The number gets larger
and larger; not reducing to two people. What's up with that? I come from 6 billion people, not two!

3. We can apply the adam and eve origin to the void/source origin, as another video on 12 dimensions showed - something like
the 7th or 8th dimension was multiple/infinite voids...

4. The main significance of all this, in my mind, is how you identify/refer/determine yourself. Are you a single line which began
with the birth of this body and ends with its death, or are you the genes that go back indefinitely; are you the hydrogen atoms and
the carbon produced in some star somewhere sometime ago.... When we look at the infinite ocean of potentials and actuals, where
do we place the "now", the "me"? And why? And can we place it elsewhere? Can the point of now encompass a whole plane/dimension
of another energy? (Yes, it does) Can your reference point become the fifth (6, 7, 8...) dimension? (Yes, it can.)

Of course, it is nothing to realise this on a mental level:

Castaneda, "The Fire from Within":
"The first truth about awareness is that the world out there is not really as we think it is. We think it is a world of objects and it's not.
You say you agree with me because everything could be reduced to being a field of energy. But you are merely intuiting a truth. To reason it out is not to verify it. I am not interested in your agreement or disagreement, but in your attempt to comprehend what is involved in this truth. You cannot witness fields of energy; not as an average man, that is. Now, if you were able to see them, you would be a seer, in which case you would be explaining the truths about awareness.
Conclusions arrived at through reasoning have very little or no influence in altering the course of our lives. Hence, the countless examples of people who have the clearest convictions and yet act diametrically against them time and time again; and have as the only explanation for their behavior the idea that to err is human."

"The Eagle's emanations are as real for seers as gravity and time are for you, and just as abstract and incomprehensible. They are as corroboratable as gravity and time and the discipline of the new seers is dedicated to doing just that. The Eagle's emanations are an immutable thing-in-itself, which engulfs everything that exists, the knowable and the unknowable. There is no way to describe in words what they really are. A seer must witness them."

solomon levi
06-22-2012, 02:18 AM
There appears to be a difference between potential and actual.
There is. But do you know what/why that difference is?
Have you seen it?
It's really flimsy, yet appears to make all the difference in the world.
Consider multiple personalities. They are the actual practice of this theory!
And all of us can do that. There is a narrow veil that separates the 7 (or whatever number)
personalities in these people. They can bring each to actuality, but not simultaneously.

To me, every religion practices or preaches this in some form.
Consider Jung and integration, only apply it to the larger picture of the video.
Integrating personalities or integrating conscious and unconscious, etc are
fractal stages of the same thing.

In other words, I can't relate to calling this theoretical and unproven.
I see it everywhere. I can't imagine it being otherwise.
There is no spirituality without this. If there is, what kind of spirituality is it?