Originally Posted by
CEP2plet
It's not just my assumption. It is just an assumption for now in this particular model. But, in any way you look at it, the astral world exists, in some form or another. Eventually, you and I are going to assume something. We are going to think about the astral world in a particular way. So, with such little information to go by, why make hasty assumptions that are too specific for their own good? Why not play it safe and be as general as possible, for now. That way, whatever the astral world could possibly be, we'll be ready with open minds to learn, and a general approach, at first, seems limiting, but is one that allows for the expansion of possibilities, not the limitation.
But assuming they are dependent immediately removes the possibility that they aren’t dependent in any way. For instance it is possible they are totally independent realities but that Consciousness is able to pass between them.
Originally Posted by
CEP2plet
Quote:
C doesn't have to be a virtual world in our minds for it to be a subset of A
True. Then, that would mean C is a virtual world of a virtual world? What do you think?
I think it’s entirely possible that B, A & C are ALL virtual worlds within Virtual worlds. I think it is possible there is a hierarchy of world or Cosmoi (as I like to call them) all the way up to the ALL or the Source. I can even think of a mechanism that would separate them – dimensions. The math says the dimensions are there.
If the physicists are right with their concepts of a Holographic Universe, there is one aspect they have forgotten – a holo is a representation of a real thing – it is a bit difficult to describe one that isn’t. So if our Universe is a hologram, of what is it a holo?
Originally Posted by
CEP2plet
Quote:
Also, even given what you propose, it's B --> A OR A --> C, not both.
Oh, right, about that. B -> A -> C is a model to account for both possibilities; either B or C. So, for example, if the astral world is a world that includes A, then the astral world is B. If the astral world is a subset of A, then the astral world is C. So, either/or, it doesn't matter. You can write it as B -> A or A -> C.
The reason I write it as B -> A -> C is because, that way, I sort of have the beginning of a model of sets of worlds. In the limited scope of deciding whether the astral world includes, or is included in, A is all this model shows. That's all, really.
I was making the point that the way you write it is actually confusing. You’re implying Astral World --> Real World --> Astral World.
Originally Posted by
CEP2plet
Quote:
Actually it does change it - choose one & you lose the other.
No, it doesn't change it. It just means the astral world isn't B, but B will still be there.
Why would B still be there? If you choose the model A C, where is the place for B?
Originally Posted by
CEP2plet
Quote:
I'm not sure why you've added this stuff in. It doesn't seem to have much to do with what you're suggesting & certainly if Astral worlds are a creation of human minds it seems a step away from all this stuff, not similar to it all.
Well, it actually is similar to all those other things I listed. The Internet will be known in the history books of tomorrow as the predecessor to whatever virtual reality we create in the future (if we get that far before destroying one another). The Internet, as it is right now, is incomprehensively huge. It would be the life-long task of someone with photographic memory to keep track of everything that has been, is now, and will be on the Internet. Sure, it's mainly a text-based environment right now, but if you think about it being synthesized with the MMORPG 3-D environments, then you're talking about approaching a virtual world imminently. Plus, for any media conglomerate that is reading this right now, it would be a massive investment to first invent the interface/format to link MMOs and browsing the Internet together, and second to get deals made with companies that own mainframes and large server networks, and those who own and run the MMOs. But the profits would be dependent on how well it's all designed and implemented. If all goes smoothly, profits will be like nothing this world has ever seen.
Oh, and about the large governmental bureaucracies. Yeah, there's so much that goes on in our governments that not even the people that supposedly get elected even know everything about it. It's sort of like the legal system's "Internet". You see, I don't think the astral world is a virtual world to this one. It doesn't resemble an incomprehensively large government, computer network, or anything like that. It's something else completely.
I agree with most of this but it still seems out of place in your original post.
Originally Posted by
CEP2plet
Quote:
If the worlds simply run on different time slices they can easily all be on the same system, running in parallel, unconnected but available if only you change the 'tick' you're running on.
Acutally, no. This is an entirely different topic altogether (infinitesimally small spacetime sequences). Not just different "time slices", but also different locations in space as well. You can't talk about time without mentioning space. Time travel, like space travel, has its limits. For instance, if you want to manipulate time, or some time in history from our reference point in time, the present, then it will be a monumental task because the farther back in time you go, the harder it will be to actually arrive at the time in our history that you want to be at. Why? Because of the reality of multiple histories as well as multiple futures. And the further "forwards" or "backwards" you go, the harder it is in telling where exactly it is you are going! It's a mind-flip, I know, but think about it. The only place to manipulate time with a good possibility in getting where and when you want to be is in short distances and very short time sections. Sort of like a simultaneous split in direction of going forward in time for a minute before merging those timelines back together again. Time is about as complicated as imagining mapping out every choice you make and drawing out a Sierpinski gasket for each moment in time, both forwards and backwards, and then stringing them together in such a way as to be able to create a two-dimensional MIDI sequencer connecting together each and every point in such a way as to allow for the navigation in time travel. Ridiculous for thinking about at this moment because of the incomprehensibility of the phenomena. That's why it's harder to tell where/when you're going the longer you time travel. You can't "time travel" without "space travel", by the way.
You speak as though the definition of Time is set in stone. IF Einstein is right, then Time & Space are linked, but Einstein’s theories have holes in them large enough to drive a Qunatuim Pickup through. Not only do Quantum & relativity theories not mesh on gravity, it turns out evidence suggesting Relativity might be wrong was suppressed almost from the start – the Michelson-Morley experiments actually DID show the existence of an ether but were loudly proclaimed to have failed. If there is an Ether, Relativity is wrong, or at best, limited even more than classic Newtonian ideas.
Add to this the fact that the math of Relativity has, from day one, had failure points built into it. People think that at the speed of light, weird things happen but actually the only thing we know is that, at the speed of light, the math breaks down! It is obvious there must be a better explanation – Light travels at the speed of light without any of the weird stuff happening to it.
In Quantum theories, Time & Space are not linked as they are in Relativity.
The question of manipulating Time is a furphy & has nothing to say on this subject. First you have to define what Time is before you can start using the paradoxes or possibilities to accept or deny other theories. Who knows if there would be multiple histories? Only the guy who KNOWS what Time is.
And actually, at the moment, the only place to manipulate Time that would make sense in any of the theories, is from outside it. Until we find out just what Time is, it doesn’t make sense to decide other things based on what you think might or might not be feasible under this or that theories. the definition may simply collapse all your possibilities into a nice neat package that lets Time Travel be a possibility.
Originally Posted by
CEP2plet
Quote:
Also, if the Astral world is neither B nor C, but is AA, there is no need at all for B so it can be discarded entirely.
That would be unwise, because AA and A would merely be two worlds included in another world. Kind of like this world, A. Right now, at this very moment, there could be another intelligent lifeform in A that has already constructed and has been running a virtual world, CC, for millennia, and we have yet to know about it. Well, in that case, that would make two, parallel virtual worlds that would exist as subsets to A (assuming we got that far to make our virtual world happen). So, again, no, the framework doesn't change.
I think maybe you’re substituting your Venn diagrams for reality here. You’re saying No to something, based on suppostions in an idea about things. Using a ‘might be’ to decide something as a fact isn’t wise – such things tend to turn & bite you later.
Originally Posted by
CEP2plet
Quote:
I don't quite see why there would be format or compatibility problems.
If two worlds intersected, then there would be a problem if you wanted go from the world you're in, to the world that intersects your world. You would be limited to the sections of the world that intersected. The other parts of the world that don't intersect, you would only be able to experience one side or the other. A set is defined by the elements that make up a set, so that means that a world being a set of "axioms" that generate altogether the phenomena that plays out in that world, we would be restricted only to the places that intersect. I'm not talking about worlds as spatial or geometrical, or even temporally here. This approach is wholly counter-intuitive; it's hard to imagine. It's incredibly complicated. But B would still be there, for "format compatibility" so your "A-interfaces" can effectively transport from one to another. It's kind of like browsing the Internet and being stuck with a browser that can't read HTML, or doesn't use the hyper-text transfer protocol. Good luck with that.
Why would there be a problem? There might be, but you’re saying it as a fact & the way you say it removes the other possibilities. It is a possibility only that there may be hinderances that might make moving from one to the other difficult, but your hypothesized incompatibility is just that, an Hypothesis. Why would there be a problem? There easily might be one but you’re stating it like it is a given.
It seems to me that for us to be having the difficulty we are with Consciousness, that maybe it isn’t a part of this Universe – so it may not be a part of any specific universe & so may not have any compatibility problems at all..
Originally Posted by
CEP2plet
And, no, consciousness is distinctly different from the A-interfaces that they are using. It's a question of how are you going to get to AA with an A-interface? You need to translate your A-interface into an AA-interface. If you don't, you can't connect, or you'll only be able to experience the fragments of that world that are compatible with the A-interface. That's where B comes in. So, again, the framework doesn't change; we just added more to it.
Unless, as above, Consciousness isn’t subject at all to the rules you are proposing.
What if Consiousness actually creates all the Cosmoi? What if all these worlds/universes are simply figments of Consciousness at different levels – all the rules, all the limits, the interfaces etc become meaningless. Your diagrams still work except the outer ring, the one containing all the others, will have the label Consciousness.
Never doubt there is Truth, just doubt that you have it!
Bookmarks