File: IMG_0080.gif (18.7 KB)

18.7 KB GIF

>>42039862
Viewed from a higher dimension, this looks like an intricate roadmap where intersections and exits represent choice points and the roads represent the causal consequence of those choices. The entire roadmap exists at once, a simultaneous whole.

Linear time is the product of our minds moving through the map, tracing out a route which becomes our remembered past. From our perspective, the route is drawn in permanent marker – once drawn, it cannot be erased.

File: IMG_0081.gif (23.4 KB)

23.4 KB GIF

>>42039866
Not so for beings who have transcended linear time by becoming hyperdimensional. From their perspective, our pathway through the network is comparable to a winding string pinned to the map with thumb tacks.

File: IMG_0082.gif (29.5 KB)

29.5 KB GIF

>>42039869
The string represents the causal progression of events, and the tacks represent our moments of choice. Multiple interacting individuals weave a complicated web whose nodes are pinned in place by the combined strength of their freewill.

File: IMG_0083.gif (28 KB)

28 KB GIF

>>42039874
An entity outside linear time can change the past either by overriding a choice already made, or by inserting a new sequence of events where freewill was absent and thus not violable. The string network may be altered by repositioning a tack or creating a deviation in some loose section of string. Obviously the latter is easier.

Except for feelings of deja vu, we would not naturally notice a timeline edit since our memories would change as well. We can trace the string back and find it winds a continuous path, meaning all consequences of the timeline change are consistently accounted for by preceding causes when examined. As a result, we normally remember only the most recent edit as being the past that always was.

So from our perspective time is constant, singular, and permanent. From a higher perspective, time is variable in its rate of flow and selective in its configuration. Our perception of time, like the flow of time within a movie or novel, is an illusion. The string exists from beginning to end, simultaneously, but its path is open to revision. True time moves forward not with the tick of a clock but the making of a choice. That which is inevitable has already happened.

The seemingly irreversible flow of linear time has its origins in quantum phenomena. Like a movie projector displaying successive frames to create the illusion of motion, so does consciousness continuously select from a stationary spectrum of realities which frame to experience next. The nondeterministic (unpredictable) nature of choice is what creates this one-way flow of time; at our level of existence, the collapse of a wave function cannot be reversed, and it is this collapse which generates time as we know it.

>>42039878

Quantum Physics of Time Travel

Last year (2005) an interesting paper appeared that investigated the paradoxes of time travel in context of quantum physics. Usually time travel is approached from the Relativity angle, involving black holes or faster than light travel, whose requirements for application are too immense to be practical. Fortunately, it turns out that the quantum interpretation opens the door to understanding some basic fourth density (beyond linear time) principles. What follows is a summary and discussion of the paper by Daniel Greenberger and Karl Svozil titled Quantum Theory Looks at Time Travel. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506027

From the abstract:

>We introduce a quantum mechanical model of time travel which includes two figurative beam splitters in order to induce feedback to earlier times. This leads to a unique solution to the paradox where one could kill one’s grandfather in that once the future has unfolded, it cannot change the past, and so the past becomes deterministic. On the other hand, looking forwards towards the future is completely probabilistic. This resolves the classical paradox in a philosophically satisfying manner.

From the conclusion:

>According to our model, if you travel into the past quantum mechanically, you would only see those alternatives consistent with the world you left behind you. In other words, while you are aware of the past, you cannot change it. No matter how unlikely the events are that could have led to your present circumstances, once they have actually occurred, they cannot be changed. Your trip would set up resonances that are consistent with the future that has already unfolded.

>>42039887
>This also has enormous consequences on the paradoxes of free will. It shows that it is perfectly logical to assume that one has many choices and that one is free to take any one of them. Until a choice is taken, the future is not determined. However, once a choice is taken, and it leads to a particular future, it was inevitable. It could not have been otherwise. The boundary conditions that the future events happen as they already have, guarantees that they must have been prepared for in the past. So, looking backwards, the world is deterministic. >However, looking forwards, the future is probabilistic. This completely explains the classical paradox. In fact, it serves as a kind of indirect evidence that such feedback must actually take place in nature, in the sense that without it, a paradox exists, while with it, the paradox is resolved. (Of course, there is an equally likely explanation, namely that going backward in time is impossible. >This also solves the paradox by avoiding it.)

>The model also has consequences concerning the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory. The world may appear to keep splitting so far as the future is concerned. However, once a measurement is made, only those histories consistent with that measurement are possible. In other words, with time travel, other alternative worlds do not exist, as once a measurement has been made confirming the world we live in, the other worlds would be impossible to reach from the original one.

>>42039893

To more accurately rephrase what is said above, a time traveler can only interact in a causal, physical, tangible manner with pasts that inevitably evolve into the future from which the time traveler came. Alternately, we in the present can only interact in a causal manner with time travelers from the very future we are currently vectoring towards.

The rules of time travel may not be as strict as this, however, since the paper ends by pointing to an alternate solution implying that “less ’deterministic’ and fuzzier time traveling might be possible.” Based on the mathematics alone, the paper shows that feedback loops between the present and future can and probably do exist, that their existence perfectly resolves time travel paradoxes by setting conditions on how the future can interact with its past. But what exactly is “less deterministic” and “fuzzier” time travel? Well, that question leads to the rest of this article.

A deterministic process is one where a perfectly predictable chain of events follows some initial known cause. A nondeterministic event cannot be predicted at all, merely described in terms of probabilities. Clearly, freewill is absent in determinism and fully present in nondeterminism. That a time traveler interacts deterministically with people in the past implies he can violate their freewill by being the cause that evokes a definite effect upon them. But then he can only do what he ended up doing anyway.

>>42039897

A fuzzier form of time travel is where a greater range of pasts may be accessed at the expense of decreased determinism in the interaction. In other words, the time traveler will have greater freedom to visit alternate pasts if he is more respectful of freewill. This is not his choice, rather it is a restriction enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics. The more inconsistent a past with his timeline, the less “presence” the time traveler will have while visiting.

By “presence” I mean two things: physical presence and probabilistic presence. Either will enforce the preservation of freewill. To lose physical presence means to become more ethereal. To lose probabilistic presence means you will simply not be at the right place at the right time doing the right thing to have any effect.

A time traveler can therefore visit any past at all if he remains entirely invisible and nonphysical. This would be equivalent to remote viewing the past. The more tangible he desires to be, the more restricted the range of pasts he can visit. If he wants to be fully physical, he can only enter the pasts that created his present. This is not speculation, this follows directly from the mathematics shown in the paper by Greenberger.

>>42039899

Fuzzy Time Travel

Of greatest interest is the “gray” zone between deterministic and nondeterministic interaction. Such “hybrid” interactions are somewhat tangible but still respectful of freewill, mostly ethereal but periodically physical, mostly subjective and only fleetingly objective. Whatever does not outright violate freewill is allowed. Examples abound: telepathic interaction, synchronistic signs and number sightings, contact through the subjective screen of dreams, abductions made dubious through memory wiping or screen memories, visitation in the etheric state, chance meetings without proof of record, an inner voice quiet enough to be ignored, a compulsion that biases but does not force, an experience meant only for a few, etc…

Fuzzy time travel happens…all the time. Technically, it is not time travel so much as one realm interacting with another in regulated ways. But being that we still exist in the illusion of linear time, much can be gleaned from thinking in terms of past, present, future, and the feedback loops between these.

It follows that the more you vector towards a particular probable future, the more tangible and objective your interaction with that future becomes. Perhaps your upcoming choices will change your path to a different set of probable futures, but for now whatever direction you are moving towards will garner you feedback from that future. This has some interesting implications.

>>42039907

Imagine for a moment that you are a time traveler interacting very loosely with someone of the past. You would like to interact more objectively, but quantum laws preserving freewill prohibit you. How, then, can you achieve this without violating freewill? By using your limited range of interaction to solicit or entrain the person into volitionally vectoring ever closer towards your own timeline. The more this person’s probable futures become your probable pasts, the more both of you become part of the same time stream, and the more objectively you may interact.

Negative Hyperdimensional Entrainment

This technique of entrainment to achieve greater deterministic influence is a favorite tactic of self-serving hyperdimensional entities who find it profitable to enslave other souls. The more tangibly they can do so, the less freewill their targets have to resist. From our linear time perspective, these entities come from a very negative probable future and are interacting with us now in dodgy but manipulative ways to entrain us into reinforcing their timeline, either by becoming them, serving them, or not being an obstacle to them. We know these entities more commonly as the negative variety of gray, reptilian, mantis, and nordic alien factions. Not surprisingly, their method of operation is entirely consistent with the quantum mechanics of time travel. By manipulating rather than forcing their targets toward spiritual slavery, they may ensnare souls on timelines more lush than their own.

>>42039915

A fascinating but disturbing phenomenon happens to people who get too paranoid, depressed, desperate, or fearful regarding matters of darkness. Alien abductees, conspiracy researchers, paranormal investigators, newbies to Matrix research – they are all vulnerable to enhancing the object of their fears by getting too emotionally entangled. Fear vectors one toward a probable future of vulnerability, initiating a feedback loop that ensures one becomes vulnerable unless the vector switches orientation towards something more emotionally and spiritually balanced.

Those obsessively fearful of grays will draw them in, those obsessively paranoid of government monitoring will receive it, those easily freaked out by the artificially synchronistic nature of the matrix will be swarmed by weirdness. The feedback loop induces a self-reinforcing downward spiral whereby traumatic experience creates fear and fear creates further trauma. The person is always free to choose transcendence and break out of the loop.

While negative emotional states lock one onto negative futures, lack of resistance or enthusiastic support out of naivete does the same. For instance, another way to increase the objective manifestation of negative aliens in your life is by happily supporting them, calling for them, beckoning to interact with them. While fear is completely lacking, you still reinforce their timeline and thereby increase how much force they can use against you. The interaction may even be of a “warm and fuzzy” nature but if out of ignorance you help what ends up being a hostile agenda, the timeloop grows in strength. Beyond a certain point it becomes very difficult to break out, especially since the increased objectivity of interaction affords them more thorough avenues for abduction, programming, implantation, and control.

>>42039920
This undermines your ability to resist. So these dark forces work either by entraining you emotionally into vectoring towards them or deceiving/suppressing you intellectually into supporting them.

Positive Hyperdimensional Entrainment

Enough on darkness. Let’s discuss how to apply the quantum mechanics of time travel towards positive ends. The first and most obvious application is strengthening one’s connection with positive forces, namely the Higher Self. The second application is in forcing reality to correct perturbations to well-established feedback loops via miracles, as shall be explained shortly.

What is the Higher Self? Simply the final version of you that has become fully manifest in potential. Should your conscious evolution continue indefinitely, it is inevitable that sooner or later you would reach the heights of individual spiritual perfection, a state in which your wisdom and power has grown profound and your mind has fully transcended the limits of time and space. While that is yet to occur, its inevitability means it has already happened. If your future self transcends time, then its consciousness may naturally extend “backwards” and overlap the consciousness of all its past incarnations simultaneously.

In other words, although from your linear perspective the Higher Self is a distant probable future, ultimately this future perfected self exists right now alongside you. According to the quantum principle discussed in this article, the more you vector towards becoming the Higher Self, the more objectively the Higher Self can interact with you. A weak connection means its guidance is limited to faint intuitive impressions, symbolic dreams, certain synchronicities, and so on.

>>42039927
A stronger connection would allow direct inner conversation, which is clearly more objective than vague impressions. The voice of the Higher Self is often described as a “small, still voice” meaning an inner knowing that is easily drowned out by mental distractions. A prolonged and sincere effort to think, feel, and act like the Higher Self — to live from the highest part of you, the heart of your soul — increases the feedback loop and widens your capacity to act as a channel for your future self. You are then merging with who you truly are. The prodigal son returns home.

Whatever you want to connect with, simply support it, reinforce it, try to become it. People who pray to Jesus from the standpoint of weak beggars receive no response because they are vectoring towards a future of disempowerment and victimhood, a direction opposite to what the Christ represents, and so they receive little feedback. Those who call upon the divine impulse within, recognize it, and do their best to express it receive reinforcement.

Manifesting Miracles

Another application of quantum time travel laws pertains to the creation of miracles. A miracle is a highly improbable but meaningful event that serves a recognizably positive purpose. Some miracles are intentionally inserted into the timeline as a matter of divine intervention, but they also happen as a consequence of natural law. “Leap and the net will appear” is proven through experience, but its explanation is most elegantly handled by timeline dynamics as follows:

File: IMG_0084.gif (19.4 KB)

19.4 KB GIF

>>42039932
There exists a bundle of probable pathways between the present moment and some particular future. The straightest path is the most probable and mundane, while the more deviating paths are less probable. The greater the deviation, the more fantastic or bizarre the correction necessary to ensure that future. So if you can stay locked onto a particular future, any excursions you take that might upset its fulfillment merely brings you onto a less probable path towards that same future, a path whose initial excursion is redressed by a miraculous correction.

>>42039937
How to lock upon a particular future? By resonating with it. Your soul vibrational spectrum, which is somewhat equivalent to your emotional temperament or learning style, determines what range of probable futures you resonate with most and therefore attract. The more hostile, reactive, depressive, fearful, fanciful, passive, or jaded your regular mode of being, the harsher and more painful the types of experiences attracted. The more confident, attentive, serene, exultant, warmhearted, and patient you are, the more your experiences will reinforce those qualities by being of a positive nature.

You enter into temporal feedback with futures that spawn from your current mode of being, a self-reinforcing process that keeps you within the bundle of probable paths consistent with a resonant range of futures. Once this feedback loop is established, you can then take risks that merely send you on a more exciting trajectory towards the same successful future. In other words, if through a positive state of mind you connect with a positive future, then by maintaining that inner connection your experiences will adjust accordingly to ensure everything works out.

>>42039943
The trick is in making your causal excursion as nonchalantly as possible. Worry reorients your vector towards a disappointing future. Anticipation constricts the quantum fluidity of a probable future and prevents it from manifesting synchronistically. Remaining dispassionate when taking a risk ensures that you maintain your original vector and stay within the intended bundle of probable paths. It is much like telling a scriptwriter that no matter what scene opens an act, the act must have a happy ending; then the more perilous the opening scene, the more amazingly the plot must transition to manifest a happy ending. If a month from now you will be financially fine, then spending on something that assists your growth — and thereby reinforces a positive future — guarantees that some miracle must manifest to reimburse the purchase.

Summary

In a nutshell, according to quantum physics we are caught in mutual feedback loops with all our probable futures. The greater the probability of a particular future, the stronger the feedback loop, the more tangibly beings from that future can interact with you in the present. By choosing to become more positive and aware, you establish mutual reinforcement with positive futures and thereby increase the number of miracles necessary to evolve you into those futures. The enormous implications I will leave to your imagination and experimentation.

Read more here https://montalk.net/matrix/122/timeline-dynamics

I don’t know if any of this stuff is true or not

File: 3d printed timelines.jpg (703.1 KB)

703.1 KB JPG

>>42039937
What if timelines are emergent like a 3D print and it’s more like keeping the peak in view as you search for footholds

>What IS reality?
A mad feverdream of God.
>What IS time?
A sort order across the set of "all possible things" wherein our view of it is based on entropy.
>Why does IT exist?
Because God is the loneliest thing to be.
>Why are WE the only things that notice it?
That's not the case.

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/37260088/#q37260088

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/37260088/#q37260435

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/37260088/#q37260473

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/37260088/#q37260488

>Go on
Here: https://www.quatism.com/theory.htm

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/37260088/#q37260521

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/37260088/#q37262028

God exists

I have free will

You have free will

The people I interact with face to face with on a daily basis have free will and are conscious

The “NPC” meme is false

I am conscious

Solipsism is false

>>42040049
I don’t know. I’m still trying to understand the basics

bump

File: 1766846427447377.jpg (212.3 KB)

212.3 KB JPG

>>42039862
>Time
>loop
I'm looping

>>42039862

"The Rules of Time Travel"

First mistake.

File: Sir_Frank_Dicksee_-_The_Two_Crowns_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (3.1 MB)

3.1 MB JPG

>>42039862

I INVITE ALL SEERS AND PROPHETS TO MY THREAD, SHOW ME WHAT YOU GOT.

>>42041737

Dimension n is the cardinality of a basis B of space S. B is made of linearly independent vectors that span S. This is a very simple defn from linear algebra. Linear Algebra underpins Quantum stuff. Are you familiar with it? If not you should familiarize yourself with linear algebra first. You also need to understand some probability.

>>42040533
Based 33's. I will only accept total loop. All fixed past theories are demoralization.

>>42039862
It's funny how those who violate cosmic law, morality, human nature, earth, and everything else you can imagine vie for and long for and work towards time travel...

As if the consequence doesn't scale to such an extent and even prevent fucked people who can't behave coherently in the present from 'time travel'.. ie : astral projection, etc because their souls are too heavy.. doubling down and fighting more against cosmic law, morality, human nature, earth seems like an ouroboros pattern that ultimate results in simulating time travel and consuming oneself in a fake eternal.

> Most Sci-fi
This tends to be white people and abrahamic cult followers.
Gee I wonder why such people never figure out how space-time actually works and how to be most coherent in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nut_(goddess)#
And yes, the people they stole the most from already mapped and understood it and lived in harmony with it.

Spamming all this fucking text for no good as reason. tf?
Show me how you manipulate the present to be a coherent human and soul that is self actualized and able to astral at will
> I can't but look at this wall of dream tier arrangement of frontier physics
No hylic.. stop babeling

>>42042386
well at least we learned something from the experience

>>42039862
gatekeeping psyop

No one read everything in this thread :(

Here’s another perspective from a different physicist

Do closed timelike curves suppress free will?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y4lEYdtxmV4

Transcript of YouTube video

Hi, my name is Michael Ostroff and I'm a PhD student at FAU. I am here today to talk to you about a type of info hazard, which are called prophetic hazards, which can be hypothetically created by closed timelike curves. So I believe that our universe is a sort of mathematical structure, a function to be specific.

So in this idea, spacetime is essentially a function which you can plug in various coordinates and you get an output, which is the value of spacetime at a point. And with a lot of functions, including spacetime, I believe you can analytically continue it as it abides by some sort of PDE. And if you were to go and do this into a circle, like if it were to become multivalued and didn't return to like the exact same value, then that would mean I would have a branch discontinuity.

A good function is single-valued, which means if you plug a like coordinate into it, you only get like one output for the value of spacetime. And if you were to have a system, which, or if you, if you had a function, which was single-valued everywhere, then that would mean it would have like no branch discontinuities and it would be entire meromorphic. And I believe that our like reality is like such a system.


I believe that our mathematical reality has none of these problematic branch cuts or like branch discontinuities. And therefore that the past evolution of spacetime and therefore the analytic continuation of spacetime should be past independent. This means that if you were to essentially go into a circle, you would return to your starting point.

>>42042757
So if this were to be the case, then if you were to travel backwards in time, you would be incapable of changing like the timeline and doing anything, which didn't already happen in the first place. This doesn't rule out time travel. This only rules out self-inconsistent time travel, like the grandfather paradox, but bootstrap paradoxes are still allowed if you're preventing any, like, if time travel must be self-consistent, bootstrap paradoxes are still allowed.

So this leads to a thought experiment that I came up with. So imagine you have a room and in this room there is a television screen and a camera. When someone walks in this camera, it's connected to the television screen such that whatever the camera sees is then displayed to the TV.

A weird thing about this thought experiment is that the signal from the camera is not going to the TV in the present, it's actually sending it into the past. So if someone were to be, if someone were inside the room, they would be able to see what would be going on in the room one minute in the future. They would gain knowledge of the room's future essentially.

So if someone were to walk into the room and they saw themselves doing something in the future, they would not have any capacity to do anything other than what they're seeing themselves do. Let's do a little bit of a thought experiment right now involving time travel. Let's say we have this room and in this room is a television and a camera.

This camera is filming what is going on inside the room and it's sending that feed, that information over to the television. However, it's not sending it to the television at that same moment. It's sending it backwards in time by one minute and as a result, anyone who is inside of this room is able to see what is going on inside this room one minute into the future.

>>42042766
So let's say there's a door here and someone is told that there is this room with this closed time curve in it. So information from the future is coming into the past. So this person walks in and they have the mindset that if they see themselves doing something on the screen, then they'll do it within reason.

And this person, they walk into the room, they look up at the screen, and they see themselves listening to music on their phone and dancing. And so they think, you know, that seems harmless enough. I'm actually just going to go do that.

And so then they listen to music on their phone and they start dancing and they are all fine and happy and everything's perfectly fine. And then that person ends up leaving the room. And let's say another person is then going to go and enter this room.

And this person has a very different mindset. They think that they're going to go and do the opposite of what they see themselves doing on the screen and create a time paradox, essentially. It's essentially like they're hoping to create like a grandfather paradox.

So when they walk into the room, they look at the screen, and then they see themselves doing something which they can't control. They see themselves like flailing on the ground, having some sort of seizure, essentially. And when they see this on the screen, it triggers a cascade of neuronal activity in their brain, which then initiates that seizure.

>>42042770
And the reason that this happened, instead of something a lot more harmless like with the other person, was because the closed time curve in this room, it's sort of suppressing their ability to do things which are inconsistent with what's going on on the television, essentially. And because this person, like, because they went into this with the mindset that they were going to do the opposite of what they saw on the TV, essentially this suppressed their free will such that, like so much, to such a degree that they did not have the free will to actually decide any of their future actions. And so that's why they essentially start having a seizure on the floor.

>>42042774
So this is essentially what I refer to as a prophetic hazard, and it's a sort of info hazard that a closed time-like curve in a self-consistent universe, like time travel-wise, should create. Now, if you were to instead have painted over the television before that individual came in, then when they, like, walked in and looked at the television, it would just be black. They wouldn't really be able to gain any information about their, like, future actions from that, like, black television, essentially.

But information from the future, it's still, like, traveling into the television screen. It's still being, like, emitted from the LEDs. It's then just, like, hitting the black paint and getting converted into infrared radiation.

And this infrared radiation, which does contain information about this person's future actions, it's still hitting them. But because they can't see infrared radiation, they are not able to discern any information about their future actions, and their ability to do something which, like, would create, like, a grandfather paradox, or at least, like, attempt to do so, is greatly diminished. Such that they just look at the screen, which looks completely, like, black to them, and they just are able to walk out of the room completely unharmed.

>>42042778
So closed timelike curves in and of themselves, like, they should not inherently create a, like, they shouldn't create prophetic hazards. But under the right conditions, if you're able to get coherent information about the future from them, like, specifically about your future actions, then you are, your free will to do anything other than those, like, actions is suppressed. Now, it's possible you could have someone who walks into the room, and they aren't really told about what's going on on the television.

But they, so let's say they're told that the images which are being displayed on the television is essentially just, like, some deepfake being, like, automatically generated by some sort of AI. This person then walks into the room with no, like, ideas to, like, go and do what they see on the TV, or do the opposite of what they see on the TV. And so when they go in, they'll just, like, they don't really have the ability to do the opposite of what they see on the TV, but they'll probably, like, not try to resist doing what they see.

Okay, so you can imagine, like, two different scenarios to start. One where they're, like, there's, like, a prophet, and they go and tell the truth, but, like, the person they're telling it, like, it to, like, about the future, they aren't really listening. They don't, like, think the prophet's legit, and so they basically just ignore them, go about their life regardless of whatever the prophet says.
And there's another scenario when the prophet is not legit, and they're basically lying, and the person doesn't really put any weight on what the prophet says. So in both cases, like, there is, like, no effect on that person's life, essentially, like, depending on whatever, like, this, like, prophet says.

>>42042784
But if that person does believe what that prophet says, then if you are in a prophetically hazardous space-time, it would be best to ignore, to just, like, assume that any information you're receiving, which is allegedly, like, about your future, is not accurate, and to not, like, act on it.

Because by being willing to act on it, you will alter the, like, subset of possible future realities in a way which, like, prophetic hazards could emerge and start to harm you. However, if you, like, don't act on any, like, knowledge you might be receiving from the space-time, or from the future, then it's essentially like you've taken, like, black paint and painted over that television, and you, like, there's a closed timelike curve, and you are getting information about your future, but it's not in a way which is actually going to be prophetically hazardous. So this room, the one with this closed timelike curve, it's a prophetically hazardous space-time because of these, like, free will suppressing, like, prophetic hazards.

So if you were in a prophetically hazardous space-time, I would suggest you don't really believe anything you are told about your own future. You just assume that it's false, and if you were to do that, and you, like, disregard that, like, future knowledge which could be prophetically hazardous, then what you're essentially doing is taking a bucket of black paint, and you're painting over that television screen. So the closed timelike curves are still there, but you're essentially nullifying the, like, prophetic hazards.

>>42042791
If you do take the information from the your future seriously, then that will alter the subset of possible futures which you could find yourself in, potentially for the worse, because the dynamics of prophetically hazardous space-times are likely very different from the dynamics of, like, non-prophetically hazardous space-times. So it's best to, like, try to, it's best to try to avoid prophetic hazards if you can, and, like, minimize their effects. So if you were ever to come across any prophets, just don't listen to them, or don't believe them.

So this, weirdly enough, this might actually have applications regarding fundamental physics. Weirdly enough, this stuff about prophetic hazards, it might actually be relevant to quantum physics to some extent, because I was, like, thinking about the, like, Pauli's exclusion principle and, like, Kerr black holes, and I realized that there was, like, an interesting connection, specifically Kerr-Neumann black holes. So I realized that there's a potential application or relevancy of these prophetic hazards when it comes to quantum mechanics, specifically regarding the Pauli exclusion principle and Kerr-Neumann black holes.

So if you know about, like, Kerr-Neumann black holes, they essentially have this ring singularity at the center of them which is threaded by an electromagnetic field. So if you were looking at a negatively charged Kerr-Neumann black hole, it would essentially be like this, and the electric field lines would be pointing inside of the, like, ring singularity. And what this is over here, the circular region, this is actually this, a wormhole which leads to another Kerr-Neumann black hole, and that the Kerr-Neumann black hole that it leads to, if you were to, like, go through this wormhole, you would see it being a Kerr-Neumann black hole of equal and opposite charge.

>>42042795
Okay, so this, these black hole electrons, they're essentially Kerr-Neumann black holes with the same, like, mass and charge and angular momentum as electrons have. And these, like, black hole electrons, they're actually, they have naked singularity. So this, like, ringularity and this, like, wormhole region, they're actually exposed

So they're not behind, like, they're not shielded by any event horizons. And if the electrons are these, like, such, like, soliton, like, gravitational solitons like this, they probably aren't going to look exactly like this, but it's a close enough analog for this discussion. So I'm thinking that the Pauli's exclusion principle works as follows.

If you, let's say you have an electron, and it's entangled with another electron in an ER equals EPR way, which means that there's a, like, this wormhole is, okay, this electron is connected to that other electron via these, like, wormholes and, like, entanglement works via wormholes. Basically, because when you go through this, like, wormhole, this, like, ringularity, and you come out of the other, like, black holes, wormhole, and you notice it has an opposite charge, you know that there's this thing called, like, charge, like, parity symmetry, or charge time parity symmetry, CPT. And if you were to take an electron and you were to flip it in its, like, time orientation, it would, its charge would flip as well.

And if you were to flip it in its spatial orientation by mirroring it in space, it would, its charge would also change as well. So because you're coming out of what appears to be a positron to you, but it's actually electron, you know that you're either being flipped in the direction of time, or you're being flipped in the direction of space. And if you're being flipped in the direction of space, then causally speaking, everything's, like, perfectly fine.

>>42042801
But you're kind of, like, made out of, like, antimatter now. That part might not be so fine, but, like, causally speaking, everything's okay. It's essentially a non-orientable wormhole.

However, if you're getting flipped in time instead, then what would happen is, like, this sort of system regarding these two electrons, this is what I would refer to as a U-turn metric, because you can essentially go forwards in time, go through the wormhole, and then come out having done a U-turn through time, and then, like, start traveling into the past. And when this happens, it starts creating a bunch of these closed time, like, curves. Because you're, like, able to, like, change your, like, orientation in time, you're able to travel into your own past.

And so you, in theory, could, like, essentially go through another U-turn metric down here, like, in the past, and start going forwards in time again, and come back to your original starting point. And so there are, like, definitely closed time, like, curves present. And my thought is that maybe reality might try to prevent, like, such a thing from occurring.

And it would be able to do this by making these, like, black hole, making these black hole electrons, when they're in this configuration, repel each other, or either, like, not get close enough that this entanglement happens in the first place. So if they were to repel each other, then both of these electrons would start to accelerate farther and farther away from each other. And that would keep closed time, like, curves from getting created, essentially.

>>42042802
The idea is, essentially, if the universe wants to prevent the creation of prophetic hazards, then it would essentially be exerting these, like, anti-prophetic forces on electrons, such that they do not get entangled in a way which creates said prophetic hazards. And I'm wondering if, like, two electrons sharing the same quantum state would inherently create, like, have them become entangled in such a way which creates, like, those prophetic hazards. And maybe if they're, like, not in the same quantum state, if it would then just switch the, like, spatial orientation and not create any closed time, like, curves.

So essentially, like, to recap this video so far, if you have a self, like, consistent, if you have self-consistent time travel, then you get this type of info hazard known as prophetic hazards, which, like, are created by closed time, like, curves under certain conditions. And the universe might want to prevent the, like, creation of these prophetic hazards or, like, closed time, like, curves, which could potentially be created when two electrons in the same state become entangled. And it does this, like, it prevents this creation using what I've been referring to as, like, anti-prophetic forces because they prevent the formation of prophetic hazards.

>>42039862
>.jpg
I wonder what the dots represent…

>>42042810
Is there an issue with using gif?

>>42042810
>Choice points
I think the original creator of .jpg just gave up…

File: IMG_0086.jpg (20.4 KB)

20.4 KB JPG

>>42039862

>>42042817
No there’s an issue with the creator of the image… all those lines should connect into one circle… bunch of space cadets out here… rookie

humans are causal beings
no, they cannot physically traverse the acausal realm

File: IMG_0087.jpg (29.1 KB)

29.1 KB JPG

>>42039866

>>42042832
What if nothing exists? Idealism?

File: IMG_0088.jpg (35.5 KB)

35.5 KB JPG

>>42039869

File: IMG_0089.jpg (46.9 KB)

46.9 KB JPG

>>42039874

File: IMG_0090.jpg (47.5 KB)

47.5 KB JPG

>>42039878

>>42042841
Take your hand and slap yourself in the face. Did you feel it? On a phenomenological level you exist, your experience is real, independent of the ontologically nature of the box. Idealism is metaphysical and epistemological cope

File: IMG_0091.jpg (37.9 KB)

37.9 KB JPG

>>42039937

File: D579A311-59F7-4AEC-9F99-74EC48B6C88E.png (350 KB)

350 KB PNG

>>42042836
>>42042850
>>42042855
>>42042859
Hint hint
It’s not flat

>>42042860
The slap doesn’t disprove Idealism. The slap actually illustrates the threads point. Idealism doesn't say the pain isn't real it says the hand, the face and the pain are all manifestations of consciousness.

How are you supposed to have a large amount of libertarian free will if your environment, body and brain are made up of stuff that seems to be deterministic? The only thing that might be non deterministic is quantum but the brain is too warm and wet.

>>42042865
Our perception of time is just one string and all choices exist simultaneously.

https://www.quatism.com/theory.htm

Déjà vu is the phenomena of having relived the same events, and is relatively common. While the precise mechanisms of this effect have been illusive, it can be readily explained in the context of morphological resonance as outlined within this document. Déjà vu is within the context of this theory essentially a temporal bleed-through effect wherein enough similarity exists between two seemingly independent moments for an individual that the consciousness of that individual as defined at the scope of their soul feeds "backwards" through time to impart memory of an event prior to the occurrence of the event.

Morphological resonance is an effect which occurs when a distinct state of morphology exists with close alignment to another state of morphology - either at the physical or meta layers surrounding one or more souls. Morphological resonance can in turn act on both the level of an individual and across multiple individuals to impart knowledge and ability relating to physical feats as well as intellectual ones. This effect is often seen directly in competitive sporting events wherein a long-standing world record will be broken and the next year virtually every athlete will be able to break the same barrier, and within fundamental research wherein large numbers of great discoveries and inventions in science and engineering were done in parallel with entirely independent groups overlapping in their research efforts leading to contested ownership of finished ideas and designs.

https://boards.4chan.org/sci/thread/16917545#bottom" target="_blank">https://boards.4chan.org/sci/thread/16917545#bottom

>>42042904
Also for people who say

>but we discovered black holes before anyone thought of them

God thought of them first or maybe your future self did

>>42042904
consciousness is merely a dull way of humans to experience the delta of the dimension of time, yes it has phenomenological merit, from a causal perspective. Idealism remains cope
and no, quantum entanglement, no matter if its just wave collapses or sci-fi multiverse bullshit is only non-deterministic from the phenomenological perspective, on the ontological level as from the acausal its in the static box. retrocausality is part of the causal. Just because humans cant physically do it doesn't make it suddenly acausal

>>42042924
Your eyes are recording…

>>42042963
Do you not believe in God? Do you not believe in libertarian free will? I think there’s good evidence for God like fine tuning, Anthropic argument, psycho physical harmony, moral knowledge, etc and if God exists then libertarian free will must exist. You can not solve the problem of evil if determinism is true. Compatibilism does not cut it. And it seems like determinism is true based on the scientific data. Theism pretty much requires libertarianism to get around the problem of evil, if we can be free while being determined, why not make us always determined to do what’s right?

I think the mwi was proven correct
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/quantum-paradox-points-shaky-foundations-reality

It’s the only paradox free method of merging the closed timelike curves allowed by the general theory of relativity with the effects of quantum mechanics without resorting to fudge factors or hacks

Montalk already accepts a block universe. The box isn't a single predetermined movie it’s a stationary spectrum of all possible realities

Consciousness is the projector continuously selecting which frame to experience next. The mind is what traces the route through the map. If the box were acausal those retro casual feedback loops between the present and probable futures wouldn't be able to manifest as the synchronicities or miracles that keep our specific timeline consistent. We aren't just passengers our choices are the thumb tacks that pin the string to the map.

>>42042995
Evidence of God https://benthams.substack.com/p/arguments-for-god-tier-list

More on needing libertarian free will to get around the problem of evil https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/40561605/#q40561605

https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2025-07-31-1819/

Studies keep showing how ‘facts’ seem observer dependent or relational which are issues mwi handles cleanly with no extra ad hoc rules

Mwi is also the most likely interpretation for Anthropic reasons

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze0lIjYqsng

https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-best-argument-for-god?utm_source=publication-search

https://benthams.substack.com/p/a-new-extremely-strong-argument-for?utm_source=publication-search

The SIA, for those who have been living under a rock, says your existence gives you evidence for there being more people. More precisely, your existence confirms by a factor of X theories on which there are X times as many people that you might presently be. Even more precisely…

To give an example, suppose that a coin gets flipped. If it comes up heads, one person gets created. If it comes up tails, ten people get created. SIA says that if you get created from this process, you should think at ten to one odds that the coin came up tails. Because for all you know you might be any of the ten people created by the tails coin flip, your existence favors tails over heads by a factor of ten. Tails results in the creation of ten times as many people that you might presently be, so you should think it’s ten times as likely it resulted in the creation of you !

>>42039862
https://metallicman.com/laoban4site/world-line-creation-and-stability-considerations

>>42042995
>Good/bad as eternal universal collective causal essence
ahahahahahahahahaha
your "god" is merely acausal energy among many, and no I don't believe in your "god" nor am I a nexion for your "god"

>>42043198
Mathematical facts exist
Moral facts exist

https://benthams.substack.com/p/why-i-believe-in-objective-morality

https://benthams.substack.com/p/reasons-and-moral-anti-realism

It’s capital G God

>>42043116
based

>>42043226
>>42043116
>All those people that surround you are NOT individuals.

>They look that way. They act that way. >They seem that way. Because this is OUR own custom-made reality.

>They are “quantum shadows”; a version of that person that acts and behaves within your reality as necessary to help you grow.

I’m not so sure this is true

File: IMG_0218.jpg (202.3 KB)

202.3 KB JPG

Montalk is much less solipsistic than Metallicman

Montalk explicitly states “The interaction between several individuals through life weaves a web whose nodes are held in place by the combined strength of their freewill." In Montalk’s view, reality is a shared map. Every person you meet is a real conscious agent pinning down their own "thumbtacks" of choice. You are all weaving the same tapestry together.

Metallicman’s theory leans much closer to "Subjective Solipsism." He states “World-lines are created by each individual soul as an educational environmental construct... The soul creates a given reality. It places a consciousness within that reality." He literally calls your reality a "bubble" that you are the captain of. To him most other worldlines are "empty”. While he acknowledges "nearby souls” he views them as "shadow sentiences" bleeding into your bubble rather than full cocreators of a single shared world

Montalk has a better explanation for why "bad things happen to good people" (it's the interference of others' freewill)

According to Montalk

The people you interact with are 100% conscious souls with free will

They are "participants" in the timeline

When you talk to your friend or a cashier, you are interacting with a sovereign spirit who is making their own quantum choices

According to Metallicman

They are "Shadow Sentiences”

Metallicman suggests that the version of your friend in your bubble is a "reflection" or a "shadow" of their actual soul which is busy being the "captain" of their own bubble somewhere else

He argues that you can only see the version of people that matches your "divergence”

In his view, if you change your thoughts, the "people" in your world might literally change or be replaced by different "shadows" because you've shifted to a different version of the world. This is a much more "NPC" view of humanity

File: feafw4.jpg (367.9 KB)

367.9 KB JPG

>>42043226
Mathematics is formalization of observed repeated patterns in the causal realm, that still suffer from causal limitations, Gödels incompleteness; its all axiomatic systems from an anthropomorphic point of view that cannot be complete and consistent at the same time.
And Morals, as ethics in that matter, as far away from eternal acausal facts as it gets. In the causal merely epistemic spatial and temporary limited rippling waves effected by retro-causality across human consciousness, which as stated beforehand is a dull attempt of a limited processing power flesh computer with leaky memory, to deal with the fourth dimension, only able to perceive the delta of that dimension in relation to the the three dimensions of the spatial.

Your "god" is merely acausal energy, an archetype that is part of the acausal, sure, and if you want to be a nexion for that, go ahead, it doesn't change that the realm of the dark gods has many acausal archetypes and energy.
And stop shilling your blog

File: IMG_0093.jpg (89 KB)

89 KB JPG

>>42043350

>>42043356
the visualization of the mandelbrot set is not the "proof" you shills are trying to sell it as. Its a circular axiomatic result of the formula.
Your path dependencies of manipulating boomer minds that existed in a vertical epistemic environment where top down hegemonic knowledge and meaning building was baked in, made your kind the worst shills imaginable for a flat epistemic environment. Your methodology is hopeless outdated

File: IMG_0094.jpg (789.5 KB)

789.5 KB JPG

>>42043350
Kurt gödel himself was a mathematical platonist. He believed the incompleteness theorems proved that mathematical truth exists independently of our ability to prove it.

In the 2020 philpapers survey about 70 percent of respondents (these are experts) lean toward some form of mathematical platonism. They believe that even if every "flesh computer" in the universe was wiped out 2+2 would still be 4. Most experts reject that math is just a "anthropomorphic" pattern and most experts believe it’s the structural code of reality.
Most philosophers are also moral realists.

If you are going to disagree with the scholarly consensus which is moral realism and mathematical platonism that is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence which you have not provided.

>>42043408
>consensus
>trust the experts, ehmmm trust the mass ehm,
>BELIEVE MY SHIT
Your path dependencies of manipulating boomer minds that existed in a vertical epistemic environment where top down hegemonic knowledge and meaning building was baked in, made your kind the worst shills imaginable for a flat epistemic environment. Your methodology is hopeless outdated

>>42043420
Calling the mandelbrot set a circular axiomatic result is like calling the pacific ocean a circular result of hydrogen and oxygen. The formula is just the map but the infinite and non repeating complexity of the set is a territory we !!!discovered!!! not one that we invented. It exists as an objective mathematical fact regardless of whether a flesh computer is there to render it

Godel was a hardcore platonist because his incompleteness theorems proved that mathematical truth is a larger category than provability within any man made system.

File: IMG_0095.jpg (250.1 KB)

250.1 KB JPG

>>42043447
>>42043384
>>42043420
>>42043356

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OVM3RyDI3yA

The Problem of Universals & The Dilemma of Their Denial! From Jay Dyer

>>42043447
is "we" in the room with you now? As said believe and act as a conduit for whatever you want, but your methodology to sell it in the current Aeon is not going to work out. You can screech consensus, weeeeeeeeeeeee, unity, oneness and other artificial top down attempts of selling your beliefs from a authoritarian high chair and try to gather followers as much as you like, though the results are not going to be the same as in the 20th century. You flash your jersey, you show your flag and outside your bubble you gonna get rejected as shill

>>42039862
Would you like my uninformed perspective on the matter?

>>42043466
Almost everything or everything in this YouTube video (transcript below ) is compatible with everything in this thread (idealism, Mandelbrot Set , most or all of the stuff in that Montalk article, quatism.com/theory.htm ) except your view >>42043384 and probably your metallicman >>42043116
>>42043257 view

The notion of particulars and of the general. So, if we think of something general like cat-ness, right, the idea of a cat, then when we look at a cat that we see on the map, that is the particular, that's the instantiation of the common, the universal. For Plato, what's more real is not the physical instantiated cat in front of you.

What's more real is the universal cat, right? Now, why do we speak of a universal cat or a universal idea? Well, Plato reasoned just pretty simply that obviously what makes a cat a cat is not that it has four legs, hair, two eyes, because a cat could lose any of those properties, right? And it still is a cat, right? You know, Tabby Cat, Garfield's out there running around, he gets drunk, he gets coked up, and he falls underneath Tony Soprano's Range Rover. He gets his leg run over. He owes Tony Soprano money.

He doesn't pay up. Garfield gets his eye poked out, right? He's still a cat. He doesn't lose cat-ness because Tony Soprano took his eye and his leg.

Because of his fiendish habits. Thus, Plato argued, the essence of cat, the idea of cat, the form of cat cannot be identified with any of the traits nor merely just adding the traits up. There's something else, some higher order there that is that thing.

>>42043546
Sure

>>42043594
Time works backwards.

>>42043600
And also forwards? Or just backwards?
Why do you think this?

>>42043594
Now remember, what's an essence? The essence is that which a thing must have to be that thing and no other thing. Now, with that in mind, we can come to the notion of what universals are. So universals immediately relate to the problem of the one and the many.

Plato has a whole dialogue. If you've listened to the lectures as we did throughout Plato's dialogues, you will know that, well, one and many comes up often. But I think it's in Fayeto.

Fayeto seems to be occupied. Yes. And I will give you some sources for all you know-it-alls out there.

So you can go find the sources for the one and the many and the universals in. I had it and then I just lost my page. Where'd it go? Just read the Fayeto, first of all, but here it is.

Universals and participation comes up in Fayeto 99, 100, 101. And then throughout the Fayeto, you'll get discussions about one and many. Particularity, universality are the forms of things.

Obviously, this shouldn't be controversial, but there's always somebody who wants to harass. So Faser goes on to say, when we look at things like roundness, redness, triangularity, etc. These are properties or features that cannot be identified with any single object.

And obviously, they have to have some reality, because if we deny that they have some reality, then we're going to run into a whole host of epistemic metaphysical problems. So abstract objects then cannot be identified or reducible to matter or the instantiations of matter. If you remember the debate with Stefan, I mean, I was just making this simple argument when I was pointing out that 7 coconuts is not the same thing as 7, obviously.

Other arguments that philosophers invoke would be things like 2 plus 2 equals 4. Obviously, the proposition, the truth value of 2 plus 2 equals 4 is not identifiable to 2 rocks and 2 rocks. I mean, it's just pretty obvious that those two things are distinct. It doesn't take a whole lot of thinking power to realize that.

>>42043613
But philosophers will also resort to things like possible worlds, right? So if you've been in the Discord, if you've heard a lot of the argumentation that Father Deacon Dr. Ananias has given on possible worlds and how philosophers utilize possible worlds to demonstrate which things are logically impossible, then you'll know that those are examples of things that refute materialism, because materialism can't really explain how, if everything is reducible to matter, there can be arguments that are sound and valid from logic that show the impossibility of the possible worlds being reducible to matter. And there's actually a paragraph where Faser covers that. But the first one in many argument is that universals like triangularity, redness are not reducible to any of the particulars because anytime we talk about these things, it makes no sense to reduce the predicates that we're using to the instantiations.

There must be some notion of triangularity that's not just identifiable with the secondary characteristics or features of the object in front of us. And he goes on to point out that when we look at geometry, you've heard me make this argument from Roger Penrose, comes up in the Mind of God book by Paul Davies. These mathematical principles are not invented, they're discovered.

Nobody invented or made up Mandelbrot sets, they were discovered. And the mathematicians who are honest that spend their lives on these topics will tell you that. They often speak this way, that they are discovering truths in the mental scape, they're not making them up.

So this idiotic, atheistic, materialistic, reductionist argument that we just make up numbers, we just make up Pythagorean theorem, it's made up, right, as if it would work consistently over time and across cultures. If they were just made up, it's ludicrous. So Fazer covers that and shows that those are examples of principles that are universal.

>>42043620
So he lists things like numbers, universal concepts, universal propositions, laws of logic, possible worlds. These are all examples of things that are utilized, they're obviously not reducible to physical matter. Other concepts that are useful in mathematics like zero and infinity, any of the pi, any of these things, are obviously not identical to any specific thing under a microscope or any collection of molecules.

He goes on to also point out the argument you've heard me make many times, this is from the Philosophy of Science. Husserl makes this argument, science assumes the laws of logic and universals. If you heard the debate with Infidel Pharaoh that I had about a year ago, that was the summation of that whole debate.

The whole debate was whether science is utilizing principles and laws for its argumentation and scientific process that are not immediately under the purview of empirical investigation. Duh, obviously it does. So then he goes on to mention the argument from the nature of possible worlds.

This is the argument that Father Deacon Ananias makes, similar to it, that you can conceive of a possible world that is not reducible to matter. The laws of logic still hold, therefore, how could you conceive of these things if all this argumentation is reducible to matter. So it's just a simple way to disprove the reducibility of logic in the realm of possible worlds to matter.

Then he goes on to talk about, Faser does, about indirect argumentation. So then he goes on to say that this is the types of argument that you hear us make often as presuppositionalists, where we talk about the self-detonating nature, you could say, to quote Stefan here. The impossibility of the contrary in the sense that when you deny universals, you put yourself in a host of problems.

>>42043633
One of those would be the immediate claim against what's called realism. So if we're affirming an ontological reality or status, metaphysical status to universals in some way, then we would be called a realist. Not everybody has the same notion of realism.

If you listen to last night's lecture, we talked about John Wycliffe, who was a ultra-realist. He had basically a platonic type of view. So not everybody has the same notion of realism, but just at the level of the debate here, we're just talking about whether we believe that universal concepts and universals have a real existence, or whether they are reducible to matter, or whether they, as he lists a different position, have only a conceptual reality.

And we're going to see the problem with that as well as it falls into solipsism, becomes useless. But he argues that if you can think of a possible world where it's at least possible for the universals to exist, then it shows that universals are not dependent on a human mind for their existence. And so the mere possibility of them shows that they are not reducible to matter.

So those are a lot of different types of arguments against realism. Then he moves on to point out that if we think of general names like redness, red, etc., if you were to deny those and be a nominalist, nominalists are those who deny the reality of universal predicates or universals, then it's kind of difficult to explain what are we predicating that's in common. And the most common response from the nominalists is that, well, what we're predicating is that they just have a similarity between them.

Well, that begs the question, what is it that resembles the other thing? What is it that is the similarity? That's the very question that we're asked. You can't just say, well, they're similar because that's assuming that there's a universal category that's not instantiated there. That's the point of what we're trying to argue here.

>>42043638
And even Bertrand Russell, himself an atheist, noted the difficulty of this regress that the resemblance argument that the nominalist often appeals to is itself a universal. Resemblance is a universal concept. And it would have to be the case for this argument to work, but then it's self-refuting.

If a stop sign resembles a fire truck, since there are two different objects, then the thing that we call red has to be something more than just the instantiate because the objects are obviously different. So just to say that they share, quote, resemblance is to assume that resemblance is a real state of affairs that occurs across time and space, right? Because there's countless numbers of red objects in the world and you're saying that the resemblance itself is consistent and adheres over time. It's invariant, right? Because redness doesn't turn into the opposite of itself in terms of the resemblance itself.

And the nominalist just has to say that, well, we just don't know. Well, then the nominalist can resort to another level of moving the argument to say that, okay, well, I can avoid this dilemma by saying that we only call all of these examples resemblances merely because they resemble each other. They don't have an actual higher-level existence.

But this problem just moves a step to a higher level because Fazer notes, the various cases of resemblance resemble other various cases of resemblance. So now you just said, what is the resemblance of resemblance, you see? So this higher order moving up the problem is also itself relying on a universal concept. And so this, Bertrand Russell notes, would lead to an infinite regress.

>>42043647
The next argument you've heard me make many times, which is the linguistic argument, language predication assumes universal truth predicates. The tree is green. What else is green? The social justice hair is green.

The ice pop is green. So all three of those things are green. They're different things.

And when we have a sentence that's meaningful for communication, if we're actually communicating in a sentence, then greenness has to be something that is really meaningful and not reducible to the breath that's coming out of my mouth, not reducible to the gray matter in my head, not reducible to the molecules in the social justice greasy hair or in the corn syrup popsicle or in the tree leaves. So what are we predicating here? If it's something that's not real, it doesn't exist. Greenness is not real.

Yeah, you see, we begin to have these ridiculous problems that now we utilize and communicate with all these things that are not real. But remember, most of the time, these are atheists who don't believe in made up things. But now all language itself is just made up and therefore meaningless.

When I utter the word red, Socrates utters the word red, there are obviously particular distinct instances and utterances of the same word. Yet this word exists over and over in our utterances and in the concepts in our mind, and yet they're different minds. So therefore there's something beyond the instantiations that allows for the conveying meaning.

>>42043594
the "higher order" requires belief, which pretty much puts the entire platonic ideal of true forms, essences and eternality same as modern interpretations like OOO into the realm of fairy tales from the human perspective; you must believe, you cannot proof

>>42043655
Thus, words and language assume metaphysical realities. If you've been in the discord the last week, I probably made this point, this argument, at least 10 times with different people, different atheists bringing this up, and they don't get it. Some do.

In general, it is a notoriously very difficult position to defend. Dominalism leads ultimately to the possibility of knowledge. That's not Phaser saying that, that's me saying that.

It's completely destructive to the possibility of language meaning knowledge, metaphysics, etc. And ultimately, when you move to the position that it's all just dependent upon a human mind, which we don't even have any... I mean, to say that it depends on a human mind assumes a universal concept of mind that all minds possess. You can't even know that on this stupid position.

It's a total collapse. It's totally stupid. It's really low IQ, low brain stuff.

But every atheist pretty much believes this. I mean, unless you're some weird variant of a platonic atheist, they believe this nonsense. They can't even make sentences.

That's my chief argument against the atheists. If you listen, you can't make a sentence. You'll say, but yeah, I just did.

>>42043662
go back

>>42043662
Right, so that proves that your worldview is not true. That's a tag right there. The argument from the objectivity of concepts and knowledge, any objective true statement, any claim, any concept itself such as triangularity or redness, assume that the mind has the same idea, right? For us to meaningfully communicate about any object, anything, any proposition, any sentence, we can't reduce the meaning to the gray matter because I have different gray matter, right? So how do we have... If we reduce concepts to brain states, my brain states are not your brain states.

Therefore, communication would be impossible if there was not something else higher than all of the physicalist instantiations. Phaser goes on to make linguistic types of precondition arguments that you've heard me make a hundred times. Consider also the many things that must be the case just for communication to be possible.

This is the preconditions transcendental argument about the possibility of communication. There's communication and then there's a higher level of argument about what must be the case for communication to even be possible. Two different levels of argumentation.

And he quotes Frege's essay, Thought. So Frege has an essay, Thought, where he talks about the presuppositions of what must be the case for language to even be possible. Yes, exactly.

>>42043605
You perceive events from the perspective of them going forward in time. (ex. This thing in the past resembles something in the future) but actually it's the opposite.

A being ""outside"" of time perceives events backwards. It's difficult to explain.

Let's say, for example, you want to eat cake. If you bake a cake, in the past, you'll have cake to eat in the future.

That's how time works. But, it's difficult to explain. It's sort of like saying, "I need to be fit to go on my date a week from now," so you start lifting and working out... a week from then, you are fit and healthy for your date.

But, a being ""outside"" of time perceives it backwards. Events that will happen need steps taken in the past to assure it fits a future mold. You just see it "a to b" instead of "b to a".

I hope this explanation makes sense. I apologize for not being able to explain it very well. Given that this is a board on the paranormal, supernatural events have happened in my life that have informed this theory of mine.

>>42043699
not backwards. simultaneously.

>>42043656
words like proof, belief and essence only work if universals are real otherwise your whole sentence is just brain noise with no stable meaning which is self refuting

“you cant proof” is just dodging because every view has assumptions at least this one makes language, math and consciousness actually work instead of collapsing

Explain how your sentence even means the same thing across different brains and moments without using the thing you’re denying

>>42043714
What makes you think that? I'd like to hear! Always good to get a different perspective.

>>42043723
it means nothing — its language that only works in so far that you and I in the limited causal temporary and spatial slice have an understanding of the idiosyncratic general rules of "English", where there is no general universal meaning for the sentence, just an approximation of meaning dependent on you as the reader putting it into your solipsistic context.

And if you weren't a mono linguistic nigger, you wouldn't even ask your stupid question. Fucking retards mistaking a temporary lingua franca as having universal meaning

>>42043740
From an outside perspective, the acausal, the causal is like comic strip; its written, such an "outside entity" can observe the images in whatever order it likes, maybe even scribble shit in it or rip pages out; the characters represented in the images, in the boxes are not able to see the next image, hardly able to "remember" the last image

>>42043714
>>42043699
you see cake baked (forward) but outside time it’s the future cake needing the past baking steps to fit the mold.

That’s retrocausality plus crystalline universe view the timeless block already has all conformations and consciousness traces the route but the pull is from the future morphology making the past steps inevitable

>>42043780
yeah, piss back off to your discord and stay there with your shill group

>>42043780
>That’s retrocausality plus crystalline universe view the timeless block already has all conformations and consciousness traces the route but the pull is from the future morphology making the past steps inevitable
Idk.
>>42043802
I'm not on Discord.

>>42043755
If meaning is only a solipsistic approximation in a temporary english slice with no universals then your reply conveys nothing stable for my different brain to even read. Why post it?

You just used universals like meaning, language, rules and understanding to deny they exist which is textbook self refutation

Bilingual translation doesn’t save you as it proves concepts transcend local conventions

Every word you type assumes what you deny.

>>42043777
That's a neat take on it. Thank you for explaining. Also nice trips!

Time doesn't exist, in any meaningful sense. It's a hallucination. McTaggart conclusively demonstrated the unreality of time, and he was anticipated by Kant. In physics, with a few exceptions, most interactions are t-symmetrical, and it's my suspicion that along a large enough time frame everything is t-symmetrical, which would mean antecausation and retrocausation occur together, or are indistinguishable from one another. The genuine exceptions to t-symmetry are extremely weird and I can't account for them, but they're the exception and not the rule.

Abstract objects are causally inert necessary entities. Examples include the number 7, the impossibility of married bachelors, the law of identity, the badness of suffering, and so on. None of these can be otherwise. And they can’t cause anything either. If a person proposed that the number seven caused the rise of the Mongols or them to eat a sandwich, one would suspect them of either supreme linguistic confusion or a profound category error.

Abstracts objects are sometimes thought to pose a problem for theism. They are apart from God, yet theism generally seems to accept that God is the source of all things outside himself. However, the number seven, it would seem, cannot have a source. Thus, if the number 7 exists, God cannot.

I have never—even when I was an atheist—found this argument very moving. There are a few ways one might go in response. One might be a nominalist, and deny that the number 7, the law of identity, and the objective badness of suffering really exist. They might suppose some of these are grounded in God and others don’t exist. I do not find it plausible that God might ground abstract objects, but if one does think this is a satisfying account of abstract objects, then abstract objects give them no reason to abandon their view. On their view, there are no such things.

A better way to go, in my view, is to say that God doesn’t create the abstract objects. They simply exist. This is what the atheist who believes in abstract objects believes. It is unclear why the theist cannot believe the same.

Of course, this would mean that God isn’t the creator of all things apart from himself. But this isn’t a problem. When theists say God creates all things, they mean all created things trace their origin in God. If the number 7 cannot be created, even in principle, it is no mark against God that he didn’t create it. https://benthams.substack.com/p/why-i-think-the-problem-of-evil-is

>>42043806
its pretty obvious what this thread is
your bunch got bored in your shitcord because you are a bunch of midwits and boring motherfuckers that suck their own dicks 24/7 and you are on a excursion. You are not welcome

>>42043831
false

I have not used discord in years

Time behaves in a helix structure that simultaneously operates as both folded and unfolded space-time.

>>42043831
No offense, but I asked if anyone wanted my opinion and that anon said yes. There's zero reason to assume I'm just barging in here, and telling everyone what to think. I even offered to hear a different POV. I don't think my post warranted this kind of response, at all. You're just blindly assuming I'm some asshole for zero reason, just because my opinion is "time works backwards" which isn't an offensive opinion, at all.

Divine foreknowledge

God knows all things. This means, one assumes, that he knows what we will do in advance. If you are planning on leaving an angry comment, God knows that in advance. But if God knows before you do anything that you are going to do it, this seems to pose some challenge for the notion that you are free to do it or not.

For you to be free to refrain from performing an action, it must be that you can refrain from performing that action. But suppose that God knows that I will take some action A. Well, because God knows I’ll do A, even before I do it, I must do A. It isn’t as if I might do anything else for I cannot do something that will make God’s belief false. Thus, it would seem, I am not free to refrain from doing A.

This is, like the other points raised, a rather interesting challenge, but not specifically a problem for the theist. The same problems arise for any view that affirms free will.

Suppose I will perform some action A. Presumably in the year 3000 BCE, it was true that I would later A. But then, by precisely the same logic, I cannot do anything but A. Me not doing A is not consistent with the settled fact, that was true millions of years in the past, that I would do A. Thus, I am not free. The argument, therefore, is not specific to theism. It applies to any view on which there are settled facts about what people will do in the future. Merely locating those facts in some being’s mind does nothing to change the core dilemma.

There are a few ways out of the dilemma. The first is to suppose that we are not free in a libertarian sense. Instead, God determines what we do. This view is called theological determinism. I think it is wrong, but it’s certainly a coherent option. However, I will not place too much stress on this option if this puzzle makes one into a Calvinist, then it has done its job in rendering theism vastly less plausible than it would have otherwise been.

>>42043848
he probably assumes I’m multiple people which I’ll just take as a compliment

>>42043851
The second view is called open theism. Open theism says that facts about the future aren’t fixed. There isn’t a fact of the matter concerning what I will do tomorrow. What I do tomorrow isn’t settled yet when tomorrow rolls around, I will decide. On this view, God cannot know the future because what I will do in the future isn’t yet settled. There aren’t facts about it. God knows all facts, but he cannot know non-facts.

A third view: God is outside of time. Thus, he doesn’t know what we will do before we do it, because God does not stand in any temporal relation to us. He is neither before nor after but instead timeless.

A fourth view which happens to be mine God knowing what we’ll do in advance doesn’t preclude us from being free to refrain from doing that thing. This view is a bit hard to get your head around but the core idea is this: though God knows that I will A, it isn’t as if I have to do A. I could do something else. It’s just that if I were to do something else then God would know I’d do that thing. Put another way: because my action explains God’s knowledge, rather than the other way around, I am free to do as I wish, but whatever I choose to do will be known by God.

This is also the solution to the earlier paradox. It isn’t as if I’m stuck doing A because in 3000 BCE it was true that I would later do A. One who thought that would have an inverted mental model of the causal order. Rather, it was true then that I would do A later because later I would freely choose to do A. Something that depends on your action cannot make that action unfree.

See Linda Zagzebski’s excellent paper on this solution https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20006192.pdf

File: Clock_Tower_-_Palace_of_Westminster,_London_-_September_2006.jpg (31.8 KB)

31.8 KB JPG

>>42043848
He's just a shill for big clock.

File: IMG_0096.jpg (128.6 KB)

128.6 KB JPG

>>42043858
time deniers have lobbyists too

>>42043848
who are you social signaling toward? Your shitcord friends. Go back you mundane opfer

File: IMG_0146.jpg (33.6 KB)

33.6 KB JPG

>>42043863
lol

>>42043868
>mundane shill image macro from 10 years ago number 0146
there is no salvation for you numb nuts. be bored in your bubble

>>42043863
Ok, then. Have a good day, anon.

You hoe ass nigga

File: 1743713926247297.webm (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB WEBM

Tell me something deep, neat, spiritual and mystical about Hinduism.

>>42043891
ask yourself the following you retarded opfer? Why do you have to leave your discord for excursions to shit up a dead image board? Yes, obviously because your group is fucking mundane, boring and a bunch of normal faggots, else you wouldnt have to leave your shitcord

Get it out of your system, I guess.
Technically, the group of people you want to harass are likely here, reading your posts. Even if I'm taking the brunt of your hatred, you might as well vent your anger while you're here.

>>42043935
that makes you even more of a retard than the normal faggots practically doing "team building" exercises like a bunch of office drones because they actually hate each others guts

>>42043951
That's right. Get it out. Vent your frustration at your monitor, at an empty, uncaring board.

>>42043971
Nigger, you need to kill yourself. You retarded normal faggots still mistake an anonymous imageboard with a corner bar. There is nobody to social signal to. If it was for me I dont give a shit if you die in this exact second. Your normal faggot speech means nothing

>>42040075
>The people I interact with face to face with on a daily basis have free will and are conscious
Then they need to start exerting their will on the condition that they do not infringe on the rights of others. I'm fucking tired of people being cattle damn it.

>>42042386
>This tends to be white people and abrahamic cult followers.
Cognitive dissonance and worldview schisms aren't limited to whitey and brown desert religions though. Any intelligent entity that has the potential to become cognitively dissonant is going to have similar problems.

>>42039862
you are a dumb nigger and know nothing about the nature of our reality. space does not exist. ejecting mass does not make you move through space. actio et reactio is not what you think it is.

bump

File: 1770050797544614 (1).jpg (148.2 KB)

148.2 KB JPG

>>42039862
Time

>>42040031
yes.
it is basically what i concluded myselfes.
time is just a vector which can be changed any time...
i see that the author of the article basically mastered time travel.

>>42045622
How do I profit from this unironically?

>>42045678
you apply it.
this is basically the roadmap.
but as another anon pointed out:
all knowledge is worth nothing if you lack wisdom.
wisdom is my favourite kind of dom-play.
first: get a rigtheous attitude of mind. one which aligns youwith the laws of the universe. then all else will follow naturally.
this is how you profit. otherwise you just fuck yourslef up by use of strengthened power.
ask for becoming a better human being; a divine, a god. time changes. and so will you.

File: IMG_0014.jpg (51.1 KB)

51.1 KB JPG

>>42045711
This seems a bit vague. I think I’m already a better then average person morally

>>42045922
So believe I will be rich? Or a “future” me already is?

>>42045935
ask people who are rich on how to become rich.
i am hesitant to share secret knowledge publicly.

>>42045976
Should I drop a throwaway email?

File: Man in a Female Box moving thru TIME =Serpentine thru time =to BEND.jpg (74.9 KB)

74.9 KB JPG

Man in a Female Box moving thru TIME = Serpentine thru time
Read the Bible
Save your life.
Locked In: How to Escape Your Prison (BY JONATHAN KLECK)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf5jXxf4gqw

>>42044379
>actio et reactio is not what you think it is.
Then inform us. Let me learn so that i'm not a dumb nigger anymore. Prove to me you earned that high horse you're on.

>>42047155
>>42044379
I think he’s a flat earther or outer space denier https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WcqKUhU0WDc

>>42046674
>WE ARE STUCK IN THE FEMININE AND NEED TO GET TO THE MASCULINE
Male and female
Positive and negative
Yin and Yang
Good and Evil

Unfortunately for you gender has nothing to do with time management. This was a time travel thread and your suffering has only just begun. Have a great day anon!

>>42043862
This thread should talk about calendars.

>>42039862
Negative.

The two types of known functional time travel are not rooted in quantum physics.

This post is wrong.
I appreciate that you're trying to work the problem, but quantum mechanics is a purposeful time waster for time travel supposition.

Macro frame resubstantiation = The only type of time travel that is possible within 3D space-time, that requires almost no quantum mechanic knowledge, AT ALL.

Dilation exploits and MWI derivatives = The only other obvious time travel method that can have tangible results in 3D space-time.

Everything else is nerds circle jerking over hitting local energy max thresholds and celebrating when they overflow data into the past. You're not making macro changes via any lab grown time travel mechanics.

Source: Been there done that.

>>42043116
>>42043257
You will appear to be making a pencil levitate but they will just see you as a schizophrenic and you will be hospitalized

>Consider what you're fighting here: the temporal pressure of the entire multiverse. The same thing pushing you forward into the future your entire life - and an overwhelming number of worldlines where if you know on that level and you're all alone. The natural result is dropping into a secondary worldline wherein you were a solo wizard - right up to the point where you show someone and the pressure driving their reality pushes you into full blown schizophrenia to stop it from working again. This is the main point I was trying to get across with the pencil example and with the warnings about not sharing and about how possibilities change in each moment: we coexist in a shared reality and everyone gets 1 vote. If EVERYONE knows they can levitate a piece of paper then it will work for everyone, and it will be as mundane to everyone as blowing a piece of paper across a desk. If only you and maybe a handful of others know it, then sure, you can levitate a paper all you want in private, and the knowledge will rip your mind apart because it desyncs with the perceptions of everyone else.

>It's the same sort of thing: it's literally the physical morphology of the brain which directs your consciousness across worldlines - ALL possibilities exist, there is a certain amount of play in what can be accepted from a moment - this is why things like being a solo wizard levitating shit on a table can drive you actually insane: because that chain of thoughts - of showing people and laughing maniacally as you make a fucking pencil float a foot off a table is going to mesh with the rest of reality MUCH more frequently where you're literally just a crazy person seeing shit (probably shortly before being institutionalized) than it is in that 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% chance of worldlines in which you exist wherein it happened.

>>42048027
>>42043257
>>42043116
>>42042932
As you can likely see by this point in reading this document, morphological resonance plays an enormous role in the manifestation and perceptions of physical reality at both the individual and societal levels. Combined with the temporal pressure and multiversal magnetism outlined in the Temporal Mechanics section of this document, there is a significant benefit in sharing methods to craft reality. To put this in perspective: say you were to master these abilities, to become some kind of super-hero, the term itself should be an indication of the extraordinary danger you would be placing yourself in: if you are alone in that the multiversal magnetism of all the worldlines wherein you're just a crazy person seeing things will radically overwhelm the minuscule number of realities wherein the physical laws of reality conspire to allow you to make an object float around room or shoot fireballs out of your hands - to the point where the moment you show another emergent consciousness not occupying that same reality and having internalized it the multiversal magnetism will pull you rapidly toward the much more abundant quantity of worldlines wherein you are insane and hallucinating. This isn't even touching on the radical shrinkage which would occur to your soul should you actualize your ideal scenario of being alone with such abilities or the long-term psychological damage which would result for what remains of it. This isn't to say these abilities are entirely unsafe to practice: the key is to get them into the global consciousness, expand the number of worldline connections which map to the that shared reality, and then find yourself there. If you want to really drive this effect forward, focus on pruning the worldline connections which don't map to the desired set of realities by laying escape trajectories all along their time streams - you can always find your way back by making your thoughts more primitive if so desired

>>42048005
But the author accepts the mwi

Also no one knows where the quantum to macro heisenberg cutoff actually lies

Can I jump timelines or travel back in time?

>>42048090
don’t do it, you’ll forever be unable to ever have contact again with your friends and family again. You’ll only be able to ever communicate with clones of them

1) use a pair of cascading RF linear accelerators (you could feasibly build this in your basement) aimed at one another with a strong magnetic trap directly between them with a shell of plasma around it as an EM reflector
2) carefully tune them such that a black hole is formed between them with enough charge to be confined in the magnetic trap
3) feed them for awhile such that mass is no less than that necessary for the black hole plus hawking radiation to fully saturate the space between the black hole and plasma reflector within the magnetic trap
4) repeat
5) use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr%E2%80%93Newman_metric to calculate how to use the overlapping ergoregions from two such black holes to safely traverse time by feeding and venting them to alter mass and spin of each black hole
6) add sensors that can detect collisions before they occur to avoid piloting yourself into a mountain or some such
7) be a psychopath, because you have to genuinely not give a shit about anyone or anything, you'll never see the people you care about again because there's no getting back to where you came from, it's a physical impossibility; you can get to similar worldlines with similar people, even those a similar version of you left, but they won't be the same

maybe an afterlife exists idk

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/26837978/#q26838440

>>42048069
The cutoff is irrelevant to the content in that post.

MWI isn't really a requirement.

File: 1764780226688474.png (305 KB)

305 KB PNG

Assuming we can order timelines like in the picture, this would imply some mathematical order that someone would exploit. For instance, any path must be defined as one-directional. Thus, we could apply some mathematical theorems.

As long as we see no evidence for any of this, we can ignore it.

>>42048185
>>42048164
If the cutoff is irrelevant then macro reality is fundamentally quantum. You can’t dismiss that while invoking mathematical order to justify your exploits because that order is the quantum landscape

>>42039862
we have somehow shifted timelines recently. you will notice this first in the small things. language. have you noticed that everybody pronounces women like woman lately? Also everyone says "mind you" all the time now. people said this in the past but it is being said more than normal. once you listen for these things you won't be able to unhear them.

And BTW WW3 just started...

>>42048412
This >>42042932 >>42040031 explains Mandela effect

CEO, founder and multimillionaire noticed Mandela effect

https://necs.com/blog/blog-article.php?id=48&referrer=grok.com

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XUPxDLMCUKM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fqt8Cfd-1jc

Also

Mandela Effect Report- 25K responses- Ruling out memory as the cause

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oe65g0K8ePc

Study done by phd on Mandela effect. A large percentage of medical doctors don’t know the universal blood type

Mandela Effect
While the Déjà vu and Intuition sections of this document detail the individualistic effects of this theory, the Mandela effect is largely an externally-derived effect from the context of an individual. This is more of an artifact of the meta-morphology surrounding an individual than the individual themselves. While morphological similarity connects moments, this linking is done from the perspective of every particle in the multiverse with a nearly inverse square drop-off as defined in the Infinite Universe section of this document. This fluidity of connection between moments shared by surrounding matter ensure that there is no hard and fixed "past" for a given moment as defined in the Temporal Mechanics section of this document, and in turn the things which aren't critical to the overall morphology of the brain of an individual (essentially the things they don't "care" about) are malleable. Reality changes constantly around us, but if no connection is made to the inner state of an individual it becomes nonce. The Mandela effect occurs at the boundary of the things closely coupled to our perspective of reality and those things which are entirely nonce and subject to collision as a result.

Reality isn't real, it's the interface consciousnesses use to interact and communicate with one another. You only go where you can exist because nothing else exists, reality can "reshape" itself constantly because it's not real, it's just what is consistent with the observations of all parties involved.

.

Reality isn't real, it's the interface consciousnesses use to interact and communicate with one another. You only go where you can exist because nothing else exists, reality can "reshape" itself constantly because it's not real, it's just what is consistent with the observations of all parties involved.

File: Alfons_Mucha_-_The_Moon,_1902.jpg (624.4 KB)

624.4 KB JPG

>>42042441
I did and I found it interesting. Thank you for posting something organic and compelling. I'm going to sit on it and read a few more times. I'll respond if thread survives.

>>42050169
Thank you for your feedback. I’ll probably continue to bump it once in a while

I’m not 100% sure it’s true I think idealism could be false but I think it might be true