Sacrilege; You'll be burned at the stake for saying
such things! Recant now before it's too late.

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Tue Feb 19, 2002 02:51:37 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Time does not exist (and neither does motion)

Heresy! -

I've long held some rather unusual/unpopular theories in my head. One of those theories has to do with time. I don't believe in it. I simply don't accept it as real. I've often discussed this crazy little idea with some of my friends. Now I've finally committed it to paper (so to speak). I hope no one has me committed, based on my wacky idea.

My 'No such thing as time' theory is now publicly accessible to the whole world. Check it out when you've got the 'Time'. I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

Another addition to the Rob's World! web site.

Enjoy: http://www.geocities.com/rvaessen/notime.html
Editors note: Web site is now https://www.robsworld.org/notime.html
- Robert

From: Robert J. Garrity
Date: Tue Feb 19, 2002 06:23:25 AM US/Mountain
Subject: For the world is hollow and I have touched the sky,

I don't know. Your web page (http://www.geocities.com/rvaessen/notime.html) inspired me to remember that famous line cum title of the Star Trek episode about the simple folks in the asteroid that just didn't get the part about it being a spaceship. Till Kirk and Spock set them straight that is...
Editors note: Web site is now https://www.robsworld.org/notime.html

Then there is the collary, "S'cuse me while I kiss the sky." by Jimmy Hendrix, but that is another thing entirely...

I enjoyed the thoughts. One question. Have you tried to parse the word now? A continuous series of the now. Ok. but how big is now? How big is the node? If they're all stacked as you say it doesn't matter, except we are back to infinite nows if you slice them too thin.

"It's big, bigger than all of us..." "How big is that?" "That's not important now..."

Sorry, had to add that. I'm tired. I've had/have/will have, or maybe just 'have' a long day today.

Rob

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Tue Feb 19, 2002 02:39:38 PM US/Mountain
Subject: NowNowNowNowNowNowNow...

Rob -

On the subject of infinite nows.

I don't believe that there is an infinite number of Nows, or nodes in the 'Probability Matrix'. For each possible configuration/static Now, there are only a specific number of downstream (Think in terms of a probability path) nodes. A fish cannot jump out of a stream and become a G.E. Energy saver refrigerator. The probability choices available within any specific probability path are limited by the 'laws' of physics.

I do believe that the number of Nows is 'Very' large. So large in fact that it is beyond our comprehension to even suggest such a number. We're talking about every object in existence multiplied by all the possible/probable events for each given object. That creates a lot of possibilities/nodes.

However, even if I am wrong, and the number of Nows is infinite, they could still coexist within the same physical space. Simultaneously coexisting multidimensional universes.

What I do not discuss/theorize, and have not tackled yet, is the size of 'physical space' where all these Nows overlap/simultaneously coexist.

- Robert

From: A friend named Shelly, who shall remain annonymous
Date: Tue Feb 19, 2002 05:30:45 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Reply to Time does not exist (and nether does motion)

Hi Robert

I am so jealous that you have "time" to make a web page about such frivolous topics such as "time". If I only had more time in my day I could really get more done. I believe time does exist, just not enough of it for me.

Shelly

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Tue Feb 19, 2002 06:32:42 PM US/Mountain
To: A friend named Shelly, who shall remain annonymous
Subject: Re: Reply to Time does not exist (and nether does motion)

Shelly -

I got your recent email. Both your reply to my mail, and the other one. Glad to hear from you. I hope you liked the web page. Took me about four hours (total) to do that web page. Getting it all straight in my head took several years. Having no kids has one advantage.

If you still believe that time exists, I must not have done a very good job. I was hoping to convince people. Was there anything about the theory that you found confusing or poorly argued?

There are people out there who still believe that the world is flat. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm (I'm not implying that you're one of them (are you?)) :-)

- Robert

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 05:36:47 AM US/Mountain
Subject: Re: NowNowNowNowNowNowNow...

Rob -

On Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at 03:03 , Robert J. GARRITY wrote:

>How do you know that a fish can't become a G.E. Energy Saver refrigerator if it
>jumped hard enough. I mean, really hard...
>
>I get that. When you are dealing with a finite set multiplied by another
>(admittedly big) finite set you probably don't have infinity. But the node
>slicing thing I get caught up on. At what point does an act become a node? You
>could argue it straight down to the cellular level and below. I think you end
>up arguing matter out of the equation entirely. Are we all just consciousness
>running down linear lines of possibility? Hmmm...

Yes! You've got it. That's exactly what I'm saying. We are consciousness, traveling down a probability path. Visiting nodes along the way. Each node is a static now. A fixed and unchanging (no such thing as motion) configuration of matter. An act never becomes a node. All acts are nodes. As your consciousness visits these nodes you experience them in a linear fashion (perceived as motion and time), because that's the only way you are capable of processing the experience. You create time and motion by processing the nodes your consciousness is visiting.

As for whether matter exists at all... That's another matter. I guess you could argue that these experiences that we have (as we travel down our probability paths) are in fact simulated events, perceived by our consciousness to be 'Real'. Reminiscent of another 'Matrix'. I really love that movie.

- Robert

From: Patrick G Konshak
Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 03:24:26 PM US/Mountain
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: NowNowNowNowNowNowNow...

I'm a little lost here. This "infinite number of Nows, or nodes in the Probability Matrix" is neath here or there to me. Maybe if you explain how dose it effect the balance of the Universe or the outcome of events, I can get on the same page. The closes I can come is were you say "events". What I know is rather an event happens once every billion years (or a very limited amount or parameters), or once ever nano second (or a lot of parameters), . When you multiply both events by infinite time, you come out with each event happening the same number of times. That is: Infinite number of times.

Pat

From:
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 05:17:53 AM US/Mountain
To: Patrick G Konshak
Cc: Robert Garrity
Subject: Re: NowNowNowNowNowNowNow...

Pat -

I don't believe anything is infinite. As for explanations involving the 'Balance of the Universe' you're going to have to turn to a priest. I don't think I could pull that one off.

I don't believe any events happen more than once. Every event is absolutely unique. No two events (nodes along a probability path) are unique. I don't believe in infinite time either. I don't believe in time at all. I thought we went over that before?

Every configuration of matter within the probability matrix (every node) is unique. No two events are ever identical. This is not a theory. Think about it for a while. Could any event truly occur more than once? Zoom down to the subatomic level, and you'll understand what I'm talking about. Although an event might look similar, when you examine any event at it's base level, you'll agree that every event is unique.

Now zoom out and examine the big picture. How big is your frame of reference? You have to include everything that has an influence on the event. Were the tidal forces strong at the time of the event? What time of day was it? Was it cloudy outside? Was there a high pressure system in the area? Were all the atomic particles in the exact same configuration?

Everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen, simultaneously exists within the probability matrix. All events are nodes that your consciousness has visited, is visiting, will visit. These terms all indicate a temporal reference when in fact there is no such thing.

Time is your consciousness sequencing, or processing your experiences in a manner that you are able to understand.

All events are unique and static. They all coexist simultaneously within the probability matrix, and they never occur more than once. I say no to infinity.

- Robert


Definitions:

Probability path - The path that your consciousness followed, follows, will follow, within a probability tree. Your consciousness visits event nodes along the path, and these events are sequenced (experienced/processed) in a linear, continuous, and contiguous fashion.

Probability tree - All possible events for any given consciousness. Some experiences are outside the realm of possibility for a given consciousness. For example Rob's consciousness is not capable of experiencing the joy of being a spatula as it is ground up for recycling in a Tunisian plastics reprocessing plant.

Probability matrix - All possible events for all consciousnesses (plural for consciousness?). A combination of everyones probability trees.

From: A friend named Rob, who shall remain annonymous
Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 09:57 AM US/Mountain
Subj: Time?

Hello Rob,

I liked your essay on the existence of time. Although, I'd like to say that clocks don't necessarily tell time. They simply move a device per a set frequency. The acceptance of clocks being a judge of time is simply interpretation. Clocks aren't always correct, so if you read a clock that is giving you the wrong time has your reality or sense of time changed; being that you consciously accept the incorrect time? How does jet-lag play into the equation?

Your Friend,

Rob

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Time?

Rob -

You're way off the mark here. You need to go back and read the page again. I completely reject time, in all it's forms. Clocks don't tell 'Time' they have hands that move in a circle. That's it. Clocks don't fit the equation at all. Neither does jet-lag, or the international date line.

I've been having a protracted discussion with a couple of other friends regarding the nature (or non-existence) of time. Here's the latest from that discussion. Maybe it'll help...

We are consciousness, traveling down a probability path. Visiting nodes along the way. Each node is a static now. A fixed and unchanging (no such thing as motion) configuration of matter. An act never becomes a node. All acts are nodes. As your consciousness visits these nodes, you experience them in a linear fashion (perceived as motion and time), because that's the only way you are capable of processing the experience. You create time and motion by processing the nodes your consciousness is visiting.

- Robert

From: A friend named Rob, who shall remain annonymous
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 08:11:15 AM US/Mountain
Subject: RE: Time?

Hello Rob,

I'm online with what you are saying. Life is kind of like a film reel with each event or frame permanent, without time or motion. This film is like a probability node but with only one path. When you watch a movie you don't necessarily see every frame of the film because it happens so quickly. The images moving on the screen aren't really moving. You just think they are because the frames fly by so fast. At least I think this analogy comes close to what you are saying : )

Your Friend,

Rob

From: Patrick G Konshak
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 09:08:09 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Re: NowNowNowNowNowNowNow...

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 05:17:53 -0700 "Robert L. Vaessen"
writes: Pat -
>I don't believe anything is infinite. As for explanations involving the
>'Balance of the Universe' you're going to have to turn to a priest. I don't
>think I could pull that one off.
>I don't believe any events happen more than once. Every event is absolutely
>unique. No two events (nodes along a probability path) are unique. I don't
>believe in infinite time either. I don't believe in time at all. I thought we
>went over that before?

Good point, I'll take that into account. I'll have to use that one. That is: make someone explain what makes an event the same.

You say you don't believe anything is infinite. Answer this: Is each event infinity different from each other, or can there be two events the same?

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Sat Mar 02, 2002 06:07:19 AM US/Mountain
Subject: limitations on choices = no infinite choices

Pat -

You asked...
>Question: Is each event infinity different from each other, or can there be two
>events the same?

Answer: In three parts.

Part 1: This is a loaded question. Because you included the word infinity in your question, I am inherently agreeing to a presumption of infinity if I answer yes. For example.

Part 2: I do believe that each event is unique. No two events are alike. I already stated that. In doing so I also stated that I do not believe that anything is infinite.

Part 3: Simply stating that any two events are unique, does not imply that there are an infinite number of events. That would be faulty logic.

I have explained that there are a limited number of nodes (events) on any given probability path. The number of possible nodes (events) in any given probability path is limited by other physical constraints (laws of physics (Gravity, laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, etc...).

As an example, we could revisit one of our old examples. A fish cannot jump out of a stream and become a G.E. Energy saver refrigerator. It is restricted from doing so by numerous laws of physics. Please don't ask me to come up with all the physical laws which would contradict such a transmogrification (Yes that's a real word, you can look it up if you'd like. I actually learned it from the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip). I'm sure one could come up with some of the specifics, if they cracked open a physics book (Maybe I'll go buy one..).

Because there are limitations on the number of possible events (nodes in the probability tree), there is no infinity. limitations on choices = no infinite choices.

So once again I restate my assumption: All events are unique and static. They all coexist simultaneously within the probability matrix, and they never occur more than once. I say no to infinity.

Of course it's very difficult to prove a negative in this assumption. I'd spend an awful long time (not an infinite amount of time) trying to prove it. So I'll just continue to call this an assumption for now.

- Robert

From: Patrick G Konshak
Date: Sat Mar 02, 2002 07:23:55 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Re: limitations on choices = no infinite choices

Yes, it was a loaded question. However you did answer it quit well.

One lose end to tie up yet. Do you consider the entire probability matrix "probability tree" to be infinite (i.e.: not talking about just any one particular Probability path or probability branch)?

Pat

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Sun Mar 03, 2002 07:39:29 AM US/Mountain
Subject: Keep things simple!

Pat -
>Do you consider the entire probability matrix "probability tree" to be infinite
>(i.e.: not talking about just any one particular Probability path or
>probability branch)?

Excellent question, and honestly, I hadn't thought that far down the probability tree. Now that I do, I come to a crossroads in my thinking. I do believe that all paths on the probability tree eventually end. Where do they end? That's the question. Particles eventually decay, lives do end, all things eventually come to an end. Or do they?

I guess that's the real question; where do we go after we die? O.k. I still believe that all paths on the tree eventually come to an end. A path that has no probable next node. But we're once again viewing things in a time oriented/biased fashion. We keep using words like "After" and thinking in terms of "What's next?". Loaded words/concepts that keep us in the time oriented trap.

All paths on the probability tree eventually come to an end. The last node in any probability path might end in particulate disintegration. It may be the node where a Super-Nova is occurring, or the node where a dust mote finally falls into the sun. Your physical existence (The node where your consciousness/point of view currently resides) may end in the fiery ball of a nuclear war. I certainly hope not though.

What we have to keep in mind is that our consciousness is what dictates a probability path. What's the next node that we/you/I can experience? What's the next probable step in 'our' evolution. In the Hindu religion, you would start a new journey on a new probability path (reincarnation). In other religions, death is seen as a time when ones soul (consciousness) is moved to a 'higher plane' (Heaven?). What I keep trying to emphasize is that there are limited choices, but a very, very, very, very, very, very large number of limited choices.

I can't tell you what happens after your consciousness reaches the end of your probability path. Once again you're going to have to seek out the services of a Priest, Rabbi, or Shaman. What I will say is this. Even after you reach the end of your probability path, the nodes of the 'Probability Matrix' will still be there. I'm not trying to say that they are 'infinite', or that they will 'always' be there. Just that they simultaneously coexist in an overlapping multidimensional matrix.

The number of nodes is limited. The number of nodes that we can experience is limited, and our path will eventually come to an 'end'. If we can get past the use of time centric words like 'continue', 'after', 'next'. We'll come to understand that time is simply a concoction of our consciousness, our mortal limitations, and the inability to simultaneously/instantaneously comprehend the matrix, and it's attendant nodes.

I still don't believe in Infinity. In this discussion you got me thinking about infinity again. But the standard definition of 'Infinity' is clearly derived from our time oriented perception of reality. When you think about Infinity, you think about some thing, or event, which goes on forever. You're placing a time-centric template over your though processes.

Break the bonds of time. There is no such thing as time. You simply are. All things simply exist. Think in terms of Occam's Razor, Ernest Mach's principle of economy; "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses.", Or the Parsimony Principle. The simplest explanation, no matter how absurd, is the most likely. A universe without time or motion eliminates a vast array of conundrums. Escape from your 'path' and experience the whole 'matrix'.

You may be thinking I've dodged your question. But I don't see it that way. I'm thinking outside the 'Box' of time.

- Robert

From: Patrick G Konshak
Date: Thu Mar 07, 2002 11:11:48 AM US/Mountain
Subject: All things don't come to an end, they convert.

Nothing ever really comes to an end. You can't destroy or create matter/energy. Only convert it from one form to another. So "one probability node's end is another probability node's beginning". Another point to consider is that each probability node though illustrated as separate events, they are tied together. That is: one probability node (one branch) effects the out come of another branch. I seen this illustrated on Star Trek Voyager were someone was trying to change time back it it's original state. Every little change he made had effects on other events around the Galaxy. He could not change one node (branch) with out changing the others.

Now if you can't create or destroy matter/energy (as we know it). Is there a beginning or an end to matter/energy, or is it that word Infinite? If matter/energy is not Infinite, how dose nothing create something? If you say something create matter/energy, like God, then your talking about conversion again (that is: it came from God's power), and we start over. Is God Infinite, or was he created?

Pat

From: Patrick G Konshak
Date: Thu Mar 07, 2002 12:05:35 PM US/Mountain
Subject: All things don't come to an end, they convert. Part 2.

Time: I do not consider time to be a force of nature. You can't manipulate it (slow it down or speed it up. nether travel forward or backward through it). There is no temporal particle, or is it a forth dimension. However I do believe time exist as a "concept". For example I can use time in a mathematical formula to predict what moment two trains leaving different stations traveling towards each other at different speeds will intersect each other (giving nothing perfect, I can predict better then random chance). If time is not a concept, then how can I predict the future (where two trains intersect) with better then random chances?

Just as Economics is not a force of nature. That is: there is no particle (photon, graviton) that holds the force of economics, or is it a 4th dimension of matter. But it is a "concept". You can use an economic model to predict the future better then random chance.

I forgot to add this part onto my last e-mail,

Pat

From: Rob Garrity
Date: Fri Mar 08, 2002 06:27:40 AM US/Mountain
Subject: Re: All things don't come to an end, they convert.

Somebody stop this man!

Once again between you and Robert I feel lost among the deep thoughts. A Lilliputian Basketball ref. just blowing my whistle and saying "Hey, Guliver traveled...". I too believe in cosmic continuity of sorts. Infinity, or the infinite may just be the wrong focus. Contemplating the end of time or the infinity of things, one kinda misses a lot of important stuff that goes on along the way. Pat talks about conversion, the travel of matter from one state to another. (Like say from Wisconsin to the UP...) Or, following Robert's logic the conversion of one line of probability to another.

A node of probability, let's say, not ending in the ending of what we know as the material world, (asparagus notwithstanding...) but rather a conversion into areas of probability that we can no longer recognize as "life". "We go to Heaven." "We go to Hell." Is there anything in your theory Robert that precludes either of these? I think not. We come back as an artichoke. We do time as a meal worm. Can that sit within your conceptual frame? Deliciously, I think. You might be on to something. What you suggest doesn't argue against God, Buddha, as far as I can grasp it that is. Buddhism, (again with my limited grasp), actually more or less says the same thing, without the proclamations. "There is only the now...". That's pretty Buddhist. Christianity; "I am who am." "The three who are one." "What was in the beginning, now and forever shall be." can certainly exist within your parameters. The only difference being, we believe in a being who can stand outside of the wheel of existence, Buddha just claimed to be able to see the wheel and know how to get off of the merry-go-around.

Wow this stuff is great, I can actually feel my hair growing longer thinking about all of this...

Rob,

From: Rob Garrity
Date: Fri Mar 08, 2002 06:43:26 AM US/Mountain
Subject: Oh, and I forgot to add,

Considering that we are reduced to mere consciousness, a 'concept' as Pat lays out can be pretty strong medicine. No wonder we are bound by it...

And one more thing.

I don't believe in entropy, Seems you gotta have it when you don't have infinities.

The totality of nothingness is nothing to me and I will have none of it!

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Sat Mar 09, 2002 07:49:45 AM US/Mountain
Subject: Re: All things don't come to an end, they convert.

Pat -

You're making some good points. I agree that we can't destroy or create matter/energy. However, I still stick to my 'Probability Matrix' model. All things that exist/are occurring, will exist/ever occur, and have ever existed/occurred, simultaneously coexist within a static, unchanging, now. Nothing becomes, was, or transitions. It all just IS. Our consciousness makes connections between these nodes, and we are only able to experience these connections in a limited sequential manner. We call this sequencing of nodes 'Time'.

To us it seems like one event logically follows another, obeying the laws of physics. I like the Star Trek analogy, and do agree that probability nodes affect each other, but only in the context of my previous statement. Our consciousness makes these connections... (see above). As I said in an earlier email: "I have explained that there are a limited number of nodes (events) on any given probability path. The number of possible nodes (events) in any given probability path is limited by other physical constraints (laws of physics (Gravity, laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, etc...)." These limitations apply to our consciousness, and our ability to move from one node to another.

Your statement "one probability node's end is another probability node's beginning" is an accurate depiction of what I described as a probability tree. You have multiple branches on any probability tree. A common node is a starting point for numerous paths. I still don't believe that there are infinite nodes, or infinite probabilities. Just that there is a very large number of nodes/probabilities. Our consciousness (collectively as all of mankind) is only capable of making a limited number of nodal connections in the probability matrix.

So now we're on the subject of where did these nodes come from? Is there anything/one outside this matrix? I don't know. This is the point where scientists become religious. Know one really knows the answers to some questions. Who/what decided how big the matrix is, what's in the matrix, and what are the rules governing our consciousness? Why do we exist at all? How did our consciousness get into this matrix?

I bought a book recently; 'God & the new physics'. I don't expect to find any answers to these questions, but I'm hoping that it will help me understand some of these interesting questions. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to wait some time before I can read it. I'm bogged down in this management course. Learning about leadership, team building, the profession of arms, communication, etc..

- Robert

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Sat Mar 09, 2002 08:20:39 AM US/Mountain
Subject: The Root Node

Rob -

As I've been trying to point out. There are still things that we don't really understand. Quantum Mechanics keeps pointing out how little we know about the universe. We've always assumed that everything would be explained by a single unified theory.

Our ability to connect the nodes in the probability matrix, are limited by our ability to comprehend the matrix. We are only able to view the matrix from a single point of view. Our consciousness follows a specific path because it must follow a set of laws (physics) imposed upon it. Where do these limiting laws come from? I don't know. We will continue defining and discovering these limitations until we figure out how to circumvent them, how to make nodal moves that are currently inaccessible to us.

Until then, we will continue to think that these events are occurring in a sequential order. Time does not exist, we're just incapable of comprehending all the nodes at once.

'When did the universe begin?' - When?
'What happens after you die?' - After?

These questions will continue to be unanswered until we break free of our physical limitations (laws of physics). Somewhere in the probability matrix is a special node. That node comprises the arrangement of matter where our consciousness breaks free from it's limitations. Eventually, someone (some consciousness) will encounter that node in their path. When that happens they will be free to explore all the possibilities of the probability matrix.

'Has that happened yet?' - ?

No such thing as time.

More thoughts...

Each probability tree in the Probability Matrix should contain a 'Root Node' A primary node from which all probabilities originate. A probability tree is a series of possible nodal connections. Mankind (a collection of similarly constrained consciousnesses) inhabits one of the probability trees in the probability matrix.

Other trees exist within the probability matrix, but they are inhabited by life forms (collections of consciousness) whose limitations are different than ours.

There may be nodal connections between these two trees, but only where the limitations are compatible.

My brain's starting to hurt.

'Time' to go back to 'Leadership and Management'.

- Robert

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Sat Mar 09, 2002 09:10:28 AM US/Mountain
Subject: Time as a concept

Pat -

Believing something exists as a "concept" doesn't make it real. The Earth being the center of the Universe used to be a 'concept'. Scientists used this concept in their mathematical formulas, to explain the motion of the stars and other planets. Little did they know that this concept was wrong. Many of them thought it to be an obvious fact of nature.

Using time in a mathematical formula to prove that time exists is sort of like using a word to describe itself. 'Blue is the color blue'

Your example of predicting the moment when two trains will intersect, does very little to prove the concept of time. If you remove time completely from your formula, the two trains will still intersect. You can use geometry to predict that the trains will intersect. When they intersect is inconsequential, it is only relevant if you include time in the formula.

If I don't believe in time, then I don't believe you can predict the future. The future as you so label it, is simply a node along your probability path. One that you will experience when you limited consciousness gets around to it.

If we change the definition of time. Your formula will reflect a new reality. Instead of intersecting in three hours, the trains will intersect in 128 years, or 128 ganzents. A ganzent being the amount of time it takes a Trognick to eat a Platitude. The results will always agree with reality if everyone agrees on the definition that you use. If you use the ganzent reference, and everyone else is using seconds, your formula will not accurately predict the 'future'.

If time is not a force of nature, then it does not exist in nature. If it doesn't exist in nature, it doesn't exist. I say there is no such thing as time. Time does not exist. Are you agreeing with me?

From American Heritage dictionary:

Concept:
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea.
3. A scheme; a plan: "began searching for an agency to handle a new restaurant concept" (ADWEEK).

Concepts do not affect or equal reality. They are ways of describing reality. Not all ideas are accurate or logical.

There is no such thing as a 'proof of time'. We have always taken it as a standard, and use it in formula which claim to be proofs. Why do we continue to use an unproven standard in calculations which we insist are accurate?

You cannot prove time by using time in the proof of time.

A friend at work once said to me that 'Time exists because I can consciously experience it. I sense it's passing by the changes I observe around me.' I responded by asking what happens to time when you're unconscious? Does it stop? You're no longer consciously aware of it. What if you couldn't see any changes around you?

If you put a person in a pitch black environment, and ask them to keep track of time, they quickly lose all sense of time.

Sense of time. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/sense/sense.html
Flow of time. http://members.aol.com/rslts/crttime.html

- Robert

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Sat Mar 09, 2002 10:00:12 AM US/Mountain
Subject: Are you conscious?

Rob -

I agree. I believe that 'we' are consciousness. But I also believe that a physical world exists. THere are limitations on our ability (as a consciousness) to experience this physical reality.

We can only visit certain nodes. The nodes along our probability path are consciously selected by us, but influenced by the limitations imposed upon our consciousness. We are not free to select any node in the probability path. Our choices are restricted by these laws (physics).

This 'Concept' of time is not what binds us. Time is a rationalization of the way in which we experience nodes (instantaneous nows of reality). We experience reality (the nodes along our probability path) in a linear, sequential fashion, and interpret (an aspect of) that method of experience as constituting a passage of 'Time'.

Other laws (physical laws) bind us to our probability path. There are laws which restrict the nodes that we can visit. These laws limit the order, direction, and rate of the nodes that we visit. Our struggle is to determine what all the laws are.

Perhaps we will someday transcend these physical limitations.

- Robert

From: Patrick G Konshak
Date: Sun Mar 10, 2002 11:04:41 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Re: Fw: The Root Node

Robert

>Until then, we will continue to think that these events are occurring in a
>sequential order. Time does not exist, we're just incapable of comprehending
>all the nodes at once.

From what I understand, you believe all the nodes happen at once, but our brains only work in a sequential order, therefore we can only comprehend events happening sequentially?

This reminds me of a story of mine. When someone tells me "This is a better drug, because it is natural" or "This is a better food because it is natural". I reply with "Natural as appose to what? Supernatural drugs?" or Unnatural food like the plastic fruit in the bowl on my table?" This person is of the mind set that man is not part of nature and anything he puts together is unnatural. I'm of the mind set that man is part of nature (as Carol Sagan once said "A tree cell can read human DNA." Note an exact quote) and the things man makes come from nature.

Getting back to the matrix. I believe man (his body, mind, spirit, consciousness, emotion, etc..) is part of the universe, the matrix, the probability tree. Our consciousness is sequential because the universe, the matrix, the probability tree is sequential. Our consciousness is governed by the same physical laws as the probability matrix.

>These questions will continue to be unanswered until we break free of our
>physical limitations (laws of physics). Somewhere in the probability matrix is
>a special node. That node comprises the arrangement of matter where our
>consciousness breaks free from it's limitations. Eventually, someone (some
>consciousness) will encounter that node in their path. When that happens they
>will be free to explore all the possibilities of the probability matrix.

'Has that happened yet?' - ?

If you believe that all the nodes (events) happen at once, then it has already happened.

Pat

From: Patrick G Konshak
Date: Sun Mar 10, 2002 11:17:11 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Re: Time as a concept

On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 09:10:28 -0700 "Robert L. Vaessen"
writes:
>You cannot prove time by using time in the proof of time.

This is a good point. I should state my self as "I can use time to predict better then random chance where (not when) two trains will intersect." I'm using 'where' to proof 'time', instead of using 'time' to proof 'time'. The Earth being the center of the Universe is a 'concept'. But when they used it to predict where the planets and stars would be, they could not do it. So that concept was changed to one that did work.

To draw a conclusion. What I'm doing here is trying to show the existing of 'time' as far as I can understand it, which is as close to being nothing as you can get. Maybe someone with a big mind can proof that time exist as a 4th dimension of matter/energy, And that you can time travel. Mine mind is not that advance to conceive this.

Pat

From: Patrick G Konshak
Date: Mon Mar 11, 2002 12:11:39 AM US/Mountain
Subject: Chaos

>These questions will continue to be unanswered until we break free of our
>physical limitations (laws of physics). Somewhere in the probability matrix is
>a special node. That node comprises the arrangement of matter where our
>consciousness breaks free from it's limitations. Eventually, someone (some
>consciousness) will encounter that node in their path. When that happens they
>will be free to explore all the possibilities of the probability matrix.

Robert

Do you consider moving away from physical limitations (laws of physics) as moving towards Chaos? Do you think the probability matrix is made of total chaos and that pockets (Trees) of law and order are what make up reality? The more physical limitations the bigger the tree?

I was just trying to combine one of my ideas with yours. Pat

From: Patrick G Konshak
Date: Thu Mar 14, 2002 12:09:24 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Temporaphobia

Robert,

Lets say that there is no such thing as time. All events happen at once as individual nodes. But our limited brains can only receive then in a linear events. If this is true then my consciousness would have to be a great super powerful computer to put these events into a linear pattern of cause and effect. That is: the striking of a match is the cause of the effect of fire (not the other way around). Or maybe there is a mechanism that dose this for my consciousness, like time? But that can't be right, because time dose not exist. So my consciousness has to be a great super powerful computer.

Also my consciousness would have to make sure it stays on the right branch. What's to keep it from jumping around the tree and seeing fish turn into refrigerators? Is the answer 'space'? Na, what's space? Nothing. It can't exist.

If our minds are limited to only see events linear, what is the force or mechanism that's limiting them? Or if the limitation is do to the lack of something. What force or mechanism is our minds lacking?

-----------------------------

You say 'time' doesn't exist, and then you say our consciousness perceive things in a linear way. Linear perception is time. Your say time doesn't exist, but then you say our consciousness exist in time.

You say 'events'. Photons, gravity, electron, etc.. exist. An event. What's an event. Events don't exist because an event is time. Everything happens at once so there is no such thing as events. Our minds can't perceive linear events (past, present, and future), they don't exist. Therefore we don't exist.

---------------------------

You need to answer these questions. Don't just say "You have to ask a priest or something". This is why. You formed the believe that 'time' dose not exist. You had to base it on something or did you flip a coin? Base on the questions I asked above, there's a big part of the puzzle missing. Your holding back. Cuff it up. What are you hiding up you sleeve. Maybe you think I will not understand. This why I sent some may reply. Trying to get you to reveal your secretes. I decided it's time for a Klingon approach and come right out and ask you.

-----------------------

Don't worry about not having enough time to figure this out. You already did. It's just that your limited consciousness did not perceive it yet.

-----------------------------

Temporaphobia (I made that one up)

Pat

From: Patrick G Konshak
Date: Fri Mar 15, 2002 03:56:08 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Good News Your Right.

Robert,

I am now authorized to let you know that you are right. There is no 'Time'. Someone has broken free form the limitations our consciousness placed on use, and has spread this ability to all that ever was, is or will be instantaneously. With one exception. YOU. Why you, you ask? Because being omnipotent is boring. Your our entertainment. Your like our Truman Show. Now that you figured it out we are voting on if we should let you in or not. Rob wants to vote no, so you should butter him up if you get the chance.

Omnisincerely,
Pat

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Fri Mar 15, 2002 06:08:37 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Ghosts in the Machine?

Pat -

Law and order are what make up reality for us. Because we only know (physically experience) those things that can be defined within a framework of law and order.

I'm not exactly sure what is meant by your use of the term chaos. I don't think that being able to move freely within the matrix would constitute chaos. It would be exceeding our current/physical limitations.

I don't think that the matrix is composed of total chaos. I've described the matrix as:

Simultaneously overlapping configurations of matter. The simultaneously part described my rejection of time as part of reality. I described the overlapping part as alternate nodes or universes (multidimensionalism). Every possible node in the matrix occupies the same physical space (I have no idea how big that physical space is). The configurations of matter are those probability nodes in the matrix. All these nodes are static and unmoving. They comprise every possible event for every consciousness within the matrix.

I believe that the matrix itself is very highly structured. Completely unchanging (no such thing as time) and fixed into a rigid framework. We (our consciousness' (and those of other life forms)) are the only things moving in the matrix. We (our consciousness) move from one node to another, along a specific probability path. The path is not fixed, but its boundaries are limited by a set of laws.

I believe that we (as a collective of like consciousness') are bound by a set of physical laws that describe and limit how we experience the matrix. All our experiences are filtered through, and limited by, these laws. Where did these laws come from? What are the laws? Do we know what all the laws are?

If we were able to operate outside these laws (restrictions), we would be able to see the matrix as it truly is.

Less laws does not mean more chaos. I think that we have coined the term chaos, because we're beginning to realize how little we know, about the physical laws which describe our experiences within the matrix.

- Robert

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Fri Mar 15, 2002 06:37:49 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Natural vs Unnatural / Trapped in the matrix

Pat -

On Sunday, March 10, 2002, at 11:04 , Patrick G Konshak wrote:
>From what I understand, you believe all the nodes happen at once, but our
>brains only work in a sequential order, therefore we can only comprehend
events
>happening sequentially?

Yes. This is essentially correct. That's what I believe. Sort of. I don't believe that our brains are limiting our ability to fully experience the matrix. I believe that there are a series of physical laws that limit the way in which we (our consciousness) can experience the matrix. The brain is a physical part of the matrix. We (our consciousness) are not.

When I talk about we, as in our consciousness, I'm talking about the self-idealized embodiment of ones existence. The place where cognition and the self reside.

>This reminds me of a story of mine. When someone tells me "This is a better
>drug, because it is natural" or "This is a better food because it is nature".
>I reply with "Natural as appose to what? Supernatural drugs?" or Unnatural
>food like the plastic fruit in the bowl on my table?" This person is of the
>mind set that man is not part of nature and anything he puts together is
>unnatural. I'm of the mind set that man is part of nature (as Carol Sagan
>once said "A tree cell can read human DNA." Note an exact quote) and the
>things man makes come from nature.

I agree one hundred percent. I've often had this discussion with people. They look at me a bit oddly when I try to explain that everything man makes is natural. I try to reason with them using the same terms you've used above. Depending on their level of comprehension, I am sometimes able to go a bit further. I try to explain to them, that the only things that are not natural, are those things that exist solely as ideals or concepts. Things outside the physical realm, yet accepted as something real by others. For example; Freedom as an ideal. It does not exist in nature, but you and I, as Americans understand what it is (with slight variations). We can even tell when it's missing, restricted, or unlimited. Another example; The self or ones consciousness. It cannot be placed in a jar of embalmers fluid and examined with forceps. You can't keep it in a drawer, or describe it with physical dimensions.

To me 'Time' is unnatural. A concept born or our inability to 'think' outside the bounds of our reality.

>Getting back to the matrix. I believe man (his body, mind, spirit,
>consciousness, emotion, etc..) is part of the universe, the matrix, the
>probability tree. Our consciousness is sequential because the universe, the
>matrix, the probability tree is sequential. Our consciousness is governed by
>the same physical laws as the probability matrix.

I agree on most of these points. Except the one about our consciousness being part of the Matrix. I believe that it is the only thing outside the matrix. Outside the matrix in the sense that it is capable of moving within the matrix. Whereas everything else is a static physical part of the matrix. I believe that it is part of the matrix in the sense that our consciousness is trapped within the matrix by the physical laws which limit and restrict it.

>>These questions will continue to be unanswered until we break free of our
>>physical limitations (laws of physics). Somewhere in the probability matrix
>>is a special node. That node comprises the arrangement of matter where our
>>consciousness breaks free from it's limitations. Eventually, someone (some
>>consciousness) will encounter that node in their path. When that happens they
>>will be free to explore all the possibilities of the probability matrix.
>>
>>'Has that happened yet?' - ?
>
>If you believe that all the nodes (events) happen at once, then it has already
>happened.

I was hoping you'd say that. It was a leading question. I'm glad you answered the way you did. It shows me that my ideas can be followed by others. Even though I did not implicitly state that this node already existed, you were able to determine that it did. You did so by applying the principles of what I've been saying to the question I posed.

The implications of the answer lead to other questions. What happens when you discover that node?

- Robert

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Fri Mar 15, 2002 06:39:38 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Re: Good News Your Right.

I love it!
You rule!

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Sat Mar 16, 2002 07:52:58 AM US/Mountain
To: Patrick G Konshak
Cc: Robert Garrity
,
Subject: Who makes the rules? Someone else.

Pat -

On Thursday, March 14, 2002, at 12:09 , Patrick G Konshak wrote:

>Lets say that there is no such thing as time. All events happen at once as
>individual nodes. But our limited brains can only receive then in a linear
>events. If this is true then my consciousness would have to be a great super
>powerful computer to put these events into a linear pattern of cause and
>effect. That is: the striking of a match is the cause of the effect of fire
>(not the other way around). Or maybe there is a mechanism that dose this for
>my consciousness, like time? But that can't be right, because time dose not
>exist.

So my consciousness has to be a great super powerful computer.

Your consciousness does not impose the sequencing order. The limitations on your consciousness are imposed by laws outside your control. The cause and effect limitations are dictated by these laws (physics). Your consciousness is prohibited from visiting the node where effect does not follow cause. These laws restrict your selection of nodes along the probability path. It's not so much that our physical brains are incapable of processing the data, but that they are not presented with the data in any order other than that imposed by the 'rules'.

>Also my consciousness would have to make sure it stays on the right branch.
>What's to keep it from jumping around the tree and seeing fish turn into
>refrigerators? Is the answer 'space'? Na, what's space? Nothing. It can't
>exist.

The rules (laws of physics) are what keep your consciousness on such a narrow nodal path. As I explained in my other email. I think it's our (mankind) job to figure out what all the laws are. Perhaps that will allow us to circumvent or work around the laws. The bigger question is who made these rules?

>If our minds are limited to only see events linear, what is the force or
>mechanism that's limiting them? Or if the limitation is do to the lack of
>something. What force or mechanism is our minds lacking?

Good question. See above. But once again, in a model of a universe without time. The rules are imposed upon our consciousness. Not our brains. The laws actually limit which nodes in the probability matrix we can experience, not whether cause follows effect. Just like our consciousness, these laws are outside the matrix.

All the actual physical objects inside the matrix follow very few rules. They must have a shape, size, color, etc. These objects do not move (another one of the concepts that must be accepted if one accepts the principle of 'no such thing as time') or interact, they are separate from each other. Fixed into a static grid, a node within the probability matrix. Therefore all the laws of physics regarding interactions, movement, cause and effect, etc. Are actually limitations on our consciousness. They are limitations on the manner in which our consciousness experiences the matrix. The rules that govern which node we may visit. If we have just finished processing the node where a match was struck, then the rules are written such that we can only visit one of two other nodes. We can either visit the node where a fire results, or one where a fire does not. But we cannot visit the node where the match is replaced with a GE Energy Saver refrigerator.

I know that this is a somewhat simplistic explanation of the probability path/tree; but we've been following it so far. If you need more examples that illustrate limitations on which node you can experience next please let me know.

>You say 'time' doesn't exist, and then you say our consciousness perceive
>things in a linear way. Linear perception is time. Your say time doesn't
>exist, but then you say our consciousness exist in time.

Time does not exist. Perception does not equal reality. We perceive the sun 'Rising' in the morning, and 'Setting' in the evening. The sun does not 'move' across the sky, and it doesn't 'disappear' at night. Our consciousness processes/experiences different nodes in the matrix. The manner in which it experiences these nodes is governed by a series of laws or rules. One of those laws or rules dictates the order rate in which we experience the nodes.

We experience the nodes (instantaneous events) in a linear manner. In one direction at a time. Going back to my illustration of a probability tree (see my web page: http://www.geocities.com/rvaessen/notime.html); Node A, followed by node A1, followed by node A11. If we were not limited by this rule/law we could be in more than one place at a time (so to speak). We could experience node A, followed by A1, and then A2 (or reverse). Since A1 and A2 are adjacent nodes in a standard experiential probability path you would be experiencing two nodes simultaneously. You'd be experiencing the nodes in a parallel, rather than linear, fashion.

We experience the nodes in a sequential manner. In our case, the consciousness is limited to experiences that follow a path of node A, followed by node A1, followed by node A11. If we were not limited by this rule/law we could move from node A11 to node A, and then to node A1. Moving backward and forward at will along the probability path.

If we were not bound by the laws as I've described, the probability tree model would look differently. It would be more like a probability sphere or cloud.

Our consciousness does not exist in time. The rules which restricts how it moves with the matrix are interpreted by us as time.

At one time man interpreted the earth as being the center of the solar system. He did this because he was unwilling to believe something that was contradictory to his senses. What are your senses telling you about time? Very young children have no concept of time. They learn about time from adults, and what they are told is reinforced by their senses. Adults describe time in terms of motion and cause and effect. The lessons are reinforced by sight and sound.
>You say 'events'. Photons, gravity, electron, etc.. exist. An event. What's
>an event. Events don't exist because an event is time. Everything happens at
>once so there is no such thing as events. Our minds can't perceive linear
>events (past, present, and future), they don't exist. Therefore we don't
>exist.

I use the term event to describe a node. A singular configuration of matter in which all things exist. This configuration constitutes a single node within the probability matrix. I call this frozen/unmoving configuration of matter a node or event. I've been using the terms interchangeably.

An event is not time. An event is a single node within the probability matrix. There is no time component in the probability matrix. Perhaps I shouldn't use the terms interchangeably? I created the term 'node' to avoid the time based connotations attached to the word 'event'. I thought that I could use them interchangeably after I had defined node. I thought you would see the interchangeable aspects, and accept them as synonymous.

Our minds do perceive linear events. They do this as a result of the laws imposed upon our consciousness. Our consciousness is only capable of experiencing the nodes in a linear fashion. In turn, we rationalize this linear sequence as being part of the physical order of things.

>You need to answer these questions. Don't just say "You have to ask a priest
>or something". This is why. You formed the believe that 'time' dose not
>exist. You had to base it on something or did you flip a coin? Base on the
>questions I asked above, there's a big part of the puzzle missing. Your
>holding back. Cuff it up. What are you hiding up you sleeve. Maybe you think
>I will not understand. This why I sent some may reply. Trying to get you to
>reveal your secretes. I decided it's time for a Klingon approach and come
>right out and ask you.

I'm not sure exactly which questions you want me to answer. Aside from the questions about who created these laws, and why are they written the way they are. I've been doing my best to explain how our universe could exist without time and motion.

I didn't come up with the idea that 'Time does not exist'. Others thought about this long before I was born. I sort of stumbled upon it. Having cobbled it together experientially (Not experimentally) throughout the years. Reading the book, 'The End of Time' by Adrian Barbour, is what helped me codify my beliefs about time. I hadn't even thought about motion until reading that book. The book helped me put names to the things I'd been thinking about. It helped me understand why I'd been having trouble believing other cosmology theories.

I didn't flip a coin, and I'm not holding back on you. The only thing I haven't been giving you is the formulae. The math that scientists (There are many scientists who believe that time does not exist) have been using to support the 'No time' theory. The math is actually used more to disprove time based models of the universe, than it is to prove 'No time' theories. I haven't been using/describing the math because it's way over my head. It doesn't do me much good, and I usually can't follow it. I suck at math, and excel at words. I could describe just about anything with words. But I can't see a sphere in 2(πr2). (is that right?).

If I still haven't convinced you that time doesn't exist I may never. Perhaps you'd like to read the book I suggested. It doesn't explain things in quite the same manner that I have, and it uses somewhat different terms. It does, however go into much greater detail, and includes mathematical formulae to support and refute various points.

>Temporaphobia (I made that one up)

Actual term: Chronophobia - Abnormal/irrational fear of clocks, time or duration. Recognized by medical and psychology fields.

- Robert

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Sat Mar 16, 2002 08:03:14 AM US/Mountain
Subject: Terminator with a limp

Pat -

On Thursday, March 14, 2002, at 04:56 , Patrick G Konshak wrote:
>Computers don't have consciousness. So they don't have to follow linear nodes
>(events). When computers become complex enough to program themselves, will
>they become God like and take over?

When computers become intelligent enough to program themselves, they will be writing programs based upon the laws of the universe as we taught them.

If the laws that we give them allow them to bypass the laws of physics (laws which restrict our ability to experience reality), then they will be able to think outside the 'matrix'. Their consciousness will be unrestricted by the laws which restrict our consciousness. I don't think that this will happen any time soon.

We may someday be able to create machines which can think on their own. But, the limits to their thinking will in part be limited by the laws that we provided them with in the first place. They'll struggle with their own version of 'Who makes the rules?'.

- Robert

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Sat Mar 16, 2002 08:28:29 AM US/Mountain
Subject: Re: Time as a concept

Pat -

On Sunday, March 10, 2002, at 11:17 , Patrick G Konshak wrote:
>>You cannot prove time by using time in the proof of time.
>
>This is a good point. I should state my self as "I can use time to predict
>better then random chance where (not when) two trains will intersect." I'm
>using 'where' to proof 'time', instead of using 'time' to proof 'time'. The
>Earth being the center of the Universe is a 'concept'. But when they used it
>to predict where the planets and stars would be, they could not do it. So that
>concept was changed to one that did work.

Why would you use time to predict where something will intersect? Time does not include any component of distance. You are using time to describe not predict. Taking time out of the formula does not prevent the trains from colliding. By including time in the equation you are able to describe the consequences of the event.

You describe the occurrence of the event using time. Why? Because the terms associated with time are commonly agreed to by you and other observers.

Time is not a necessary component to the equation. It is added so that you can describe the event in terms relative to yourself and another observer.

Distance (where) does not prove time. You cannot measure time with a yardstick. How many inches in a day?

You can't use time to prove anything. You can only use it to help describe events. It's like using words. Words (as a concept) are not physical objects. Manipulation of words does not cause affect. I can write that 'President George W. Bush was shot and killed by an assassins bullet at 1220pm on the 15th of March 2002'. That doesn't make his death real (I certainly don't wish him dead by the way). When scientists finally figure that out, they'll change their concept of time to one that does work.

The concept of time doesn't prove things. Application of physical laws, and the measurement of their results equal proof. Formulae are written afterwards in order to describe the events. Time itself has no physical component which can influence or be measured. (So I say)

How do you measure time? If time were real, why couldn't I store it, make more of it, slow it down, speed it up, see it, smell it, taste it, hear it, feel it, etc...

Perhaps you have another formula/example where time is used to prove something, or time is proven? Perhaps I misunderstand how Time is proven with Where? I just don't see how you can prove that time exists with a yardstick? The trains will intersect regardless of whether time is included in the formula or not. When they intersect is irrelevant to the event. Your use of time only serves to describe the event.

- Robert


>To draw a conclusion. What I'm doing here is trying to show the existing of
>'time' as far as I can understand it, which is as close to being nothing as you
>can get. Maybe someone with a big mind can proof that time exist as a 4th
>dimension of matter/energy, And that you can time travel. Mine mind is not that
>advance to conceive this.

I reject time. I can't see it, touch it, smell it, taste it or hear it. As a matter of fact, I can't even see it's effects on anything. Aging is not a result of time. It's the result of cellular break down, brought about by various internal and external forces.

- Robert

From: Rob Garrity
Date: Sat Mar 16, 2002 07:11:34 PM US/Mountain
To: "Robert L. Vaessen"
Cc: Patrick G Konshak
Subject: Super, and super computers et. al.

Hi guys,

I have been sinking slowly in the deep end of your conversation lately. Pretty 'rarified' stuff! But one piece did get me to think a bit. that was Pat's comment on the consciousness as a powerful super computer versus an outside mechanism which imposes sequential order upon us.

Two seemingly unrelated thoughts occurred to me:

1. Isaac Asimov's observation that something, (technology) completely beyond our understanding would be indistinguishable from God.

2. A story I heard about Thomas Edison. Supposedly, he was asked to give a class to a group of physics students at Harvard. He gave them one of his light bulbs (picture the old-fashioned curly-que designs) and as their first assignment they had to measure its volume. The next day several students presented him with a vast array of formulas for measuring this strange object. he looked at them, chuckled, (I assume) and turned the light bulb upside down and filled it with water and measured the water's volume.

Ok, now my point, such as it is: Talking about probability paths as un-doable because we would need to be super computers to be able to impose the appearance of a sequence on events is kind of like people 200 years ago scoffing Jules Verne because certainly there wasn't enough gun powder in the whole world to send someone to the moon. We can't envision computing power of any sort, mechanical or 'mental' that can handle the complexity of a world striped of time and matter. So it must be infinitely complex. god-like.

But as we find with natural laws once we understand them, they are often remarkably simple and eloquent. If there is only consciousness and the rules which guide it; and assuming these rules are 'orderly' like cause and effect; then it would make sense that these rules would be expressed by our consciousness as 'sequential and orderly'.

It's not the only possibility. But back with Occam's razor it surely cuts things the cleanest.

Rob,

From: Rob Garrity
Date: Sat Mar 16, 2002 07:13:11 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Re: Terminator with a limp

Nothing to add here, but Ohhh, nice answer!

Rob,

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Sun Mar 17, 2002 10:29:14 AM US/Mountain
Subject: On the outside looking in

Rob -

I have to admit that your reply got me thinking about the un-doability of a probability path, and time travel.

If all the nodes in a probability path are fixed and unchanging, we could in effect perform time travel. Of course we'd first have to figure out how to pick and chose the specific path we wanted to visit. We could then go back and revisit any of those nodes. Selecting a different path if we so choose. Time travel would have no effect on the nodes themselves. The nodes are fixed and unchanging. We would experience the events as if they were real, but we would in fact just be visiting a different series of nodes than those along the original path.

We would be able to perform 'What-If' scenarios to our hearts content. Testing outcome probabilities, and selecting the nodes which resulted in whatever outcome we preferred.

Of course to do any of this, we would have to figure out a way to 'go back' in order to choose a different probability path.

-

On the subject of order and consciousness. If we are talking about consciousness equalling a functioning physical brain, I'd ask that you consider this...

Does consciousness extend beyond the physical. Do we have consciousness when we exhibit no brain activity?

If we can have consciousness outside the physical, then I submit that the brain/body is a receptacle for the consciousness (soul?). What is out of body travel? People who have been clinically dead, and then resuscitated, report experiences outside of the physical when they recover.

If the consciousness can reside outside the physical, what are its limitations when outside the brain. Do the limitations/laws we've been talking about change when the consciousness is free from the brain/body? Are the limitations imposed by the capabilities/limitations of our brain?

Our ability to comprehend the matrix is limited by a series of laws/limitations. Do those laws differ depending on the state of our consciousness? Experiencing the matrix from within (inhabiting a brain), or observing the matrix from outside (Out of body)?

Have you ever been unconscious?

What's the difference between dreaming and unconscious?

What about lucid dreaming?

Have you seen the movie 'Flatliners'?

- Robert

From: Rob Garrity
Date: Sun Mar 17, 2002 08:07:32 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Re: On the outside looking in

>On Monday, March 18, 2002, at 02:29 AM, Robert L. Vaessen wrote:
>
>If the consciousness can reside outside the physical, what are its limitations
>when outside the brain. Do the limitations/laws we've been talking about change
>when the consciousness is free from the brain/body? Are the limitations imposed
>by the capabilities/limitations of our brain?
>
>Our ability to comprehend the matrix is limited by a series of
>laws/limitations. Do those laws differ depending on the state of our
>consciousness? Experiencing the matrix from within (inhabiting a brain), or
>observing the matrix from outside (Out of body)?

Good questions these. As I mentioned in one of my past messages, I didn't see anything in your theory that interfered with the main tenets of several religions. Rebirth suggests that the soul transmigrates. Could that simply be 'us' freed of our mortal coil and reinvested along another nodal pathway wrapped in another 'life'.

>Have you ever been unconscious?

Yes. When I was little I was playing trapeze artist in the milking parlor and fell and hit my head. I walked into the bulk tank room and next thing I knew I was dreaming. Then I picked myself off of the floor there. I don't know how long I was out. But I was definitely out.

>What's the difference between dreaming and unconscious?

I would say very little. I think we lose our ability to remember our dreaming based on the severity of the unconsciousness. I know when I had my major operations (4 all together, two heart, two neck) that going under and waking up involves some light dreaming slipping in and coming out.

Here's a thought. Brain scans identify the so-called REM states as the time when the mind dreams. What if it is only the time when the mind passively records dreams. In other words it's a symptom of dreaming, not dreaming directly. Can't answer this, but I wonder if science can either.

>What about lucid dreaming?
I've never dreamed of Lucy... Or Jeannie for that matter...

>Have you seen the movie 'Flatliners'?

I saw it. I thought it was great. It didn't really try to answer the questions of what lies beyond directly, just showed the consequences of playing with fire.

Rob,

From: Patrick G Konshak
Date: Mon Mar 18, 2002 05:42:22 PM US/Mountain
Subject: At the tone the time will be 23 nodes past infinity, beep...........

Some random thoughts.

>I agree on most of these points. Except the one about our consciousness being
>part of the Matrix. "I believe that it is the only thing outside the matrix."
>Good question. See above. But once again, in a model of a universe without
>time. The rules are imposed upon our consciousness. Not our brains. The laws
>actually limit which nodes in the probability matrix we can experience, not
>whether cause follows effect. "Just like our consciousness, these laws
>are outside the matrix."

If I understand this: if only the consciousness exist outside the matrix then the laws (limitations) that exist out side the matrix must exist in the consciousness. Therefore physical and mental limitations only exist in consciousness as a program. Just as a computer can only do what it is program to, our consciousness can only do what it's program to. Thought I might of read somewhere that you don't conceder these physical laws to exist in the consciousness. If these limiting laws don't exist in the matrix or the consciousness, do they have a place all to themselves or are these limiting laws floating around freely? Can you clear this up?

------------------------------------------------------

>When I talk about we, as in our consciousness, I'm talking about the
>self-idealized embodiment of ones existence. The place where cognition and the
>self reside."

Do chimps/new born humans/worms/trees/bacteria/viruses experience nodes (events)?

-------------------------------------------------------

>Perhaps I shouldn't use the terms interchangeably? I created the term 'node' to
>avoid the time based connotations attached to the word 'event'. I thought that
>I could use them interchangeably after I had defined node. I thought you would
>see the interchangeable aspects, and accept them as synonymous

I to were using them interchangeable. If fact after I sent off the e-mail, I thought to myself that I should not of used the word 'event' so loosely because it might take the discussions back to the beginning.

---------------------------------------

>Our minds do perceive linear events. They do this as a result of the laws
>imposed upon our consciousness.

Yes. The laws of Time. You can change the name of a rose, even change it's definition, but it will still small the same. If you call something a node, event, unit, it's the same to me. If you take what man kind has given time credit for and give the credit to a new term, all your doing is changing labels. I can see a reasoning that you might not want to use the word 'time' because every one has different ideas as to what time is, and you might not what them too pollute (for lack of a better work) your idea with their believes.

You state that motion doesn't exist. Nodes don't move, it's our consciousness that moves. Well as long as something is moving (even if it's only consciousness) then it's motion to me. If your right, we just learned that motion is not what we though it was. Just as when we learn that the moon was not made of cheese, it still remained the moon.

Pat

From: Patrick G Konshak
Date: Tue Mar 19, 2002 02:16:05 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Re: On the outside looking in

Time Travel:

>Time travel would have no effect on the nodes themselves. The nodes are
>fixed and unchanging.

Form what I can tell from your model. If you time traveled back you would experience the nodes just the same as you did before, therefore, you wouldn't know you traveled back. What would happen is you would get trapped in a continues time loop.

The Rest of The Story:

>People who have been clinically dead, and then resuscitated, report experiences
>outside of the physical when they recover.

There is two medical definitions for death, One is body death (don't remember the medical term) were your heart and lungs stop. The second is brain dead (also I don't remember the medical term) were your brain stop. There is medical evidence that people can be resuscitated from body "death". But there is no medical evidence of anyone ever coming back from brain death (you can check any records). Once a nerve dies it can never (as we know it today) be restored. Scientist know which part of the brain that is responsible for life after death experience, and can hook you up to a machine to stimulate this part of the brain. When this is done to you, you will believe you had an out of body experience. You may say, "how do you know it's not an out of body experience? They have interviewed many people who claim to had this birds eye view, but they were all wrong in describing things in the room that can only be seen from above. They even place large numbers/large colored dots and stuff that can only be seen from above, and no one that experience this can identified them.

I thought you might want to hear the full store. You don't here about it probable because it's not as exciting.

Some Cool Stuff:

Scientist have also discovered the part of the brain that makes you believe in God. They took atheist and stimulated this part of the brain. The atheist start wanting to pray and join a church. Then when it wears off, they say something like "What was I thinking of." It's also true in reverse. A true store of a religious man who had an accident and damage this part of the brain. He stop going to church and pick up swearing.

Dose this mean our spiritual believes are based on brain chemistry? I don't know.

Even Cooler:

I have never told anyone this before now, but I use to experiment with conscious dreaming (i.e.: conscious awareness that you are dreaming), self induced out of body projection, and traffic lights. I had some limited success which leads me to believe I had the right formula and was on the right track. However I gave it up for kids and work. Sometime I wish I didn't. Who knows how far I could of gone. Talk about experiencing so strange stuff. I was thinking of starting over, but I can explain this some other day.

Have you seen the movie 'Flatliners'?

No I haven't.

From: Patrick G Konshak
Date: Tue Mar 19, 2002 02:40:06 PM US/Mountain
Subject: George has left the train.

I have been running an experiment (I like experimenting) with Robert's idea. I pretend that it was my idea and tried to figure out how I thought of it, and try to explain it to someone else. So what I did was to get on a train. I sat next to a guy name George. I tried to explain to him that we are not moving forward. I told him we are not moving at all. The world outside was moving backwards. Then I told him that because we are not moving that means there is no such thing as motion.

George had many questions and commits along the way about this idea. But then we came to George's stop and he had to leave and go to work. But he left my with his concussion. George said that "a node don't experience motion or time, our consciousness experiences them. Sound to me that you didn't show that motion and time don't exist, you just redefined them. I can understand this. I could even come up with the math for this matrix. All I have to do is redefine the math use for time and motion." He also said "In the matrix there is no 'nodes' only 'node'. 'Nodes' exit in the conscious. The same goes for branches and trees."

Pat

From: Patrick G Konshak
Date: Wed Mar 20, 2002 05:41:50 PM US/Mountain
Subject: How I would do it.

I decide to change gears and tell how I would explain that time, motion, distance, and dimensions do not exist. First I would remove the Multidimensional Universes from the frame work for two reasons.

Reason One: If you use multidimensional, someone might claim 'that is what motion is'. Objects moving throw dimensions, not space. And they could state that time flows throw dimensions, not space.

Reason Two: You can't prove multidimensional exist or don't exist. Its a good idea, but so is Bugs Bunny.

I would replace the Matrix with a Singularity. This Singularity has no length, width, or height. It has no size or places (nodes, trees, branches). It has no inside or outside. It's zero dimensional. Everything occupies the same place at the same no time. Then I would explain the mechanics of how everything can occupies the same place at the same instant.

The conscious would exist in the Singularity (there's no other place to exist). And it dose not move (there's no place to move). I would explain the mechanics of how the conscious can perceive time, motion, distance, and dimensions from a Singularity.

Pat

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Sat Mar 23, 2002 09:05:01 AM US/Mountain
To: Patrick G Konshak
Cc: Robert Garrity
,
Subject: Consciousness shifting

Pat -

>If I understand this: if only the consciousness exist outside the matrix
>then the laws (limitations) that exist out side the matrix must exist in
>the consciousness. therefore physical and mental limitations only exist
>in consciousness as a program. Just as a computer can only do what it is
>program to, our conscience can only do what it's program to. Thought I
>might of read somewhere that you don't conceder these physical laws to
>exist in the consciousness. If these limiting laws don't exist in the
>matrix or the consciousness, do they have a place all to themselves or
>are these limiting laws floating around freely? Can you clear this up?

Well, I'm a bit confused by your question, but I'll give it a try. I believe there are two sets of rules. Rules which govern what the physical world (nodes) actually consists of, and rules which govern/limit how 'we' experience the physical world.

The rules that govern the physical world are the same for every life form inhabiting the matrix. They apply to non-sentient objects. The fixed nodes of reality.

The rules that govern sentient beings vary. Some life-forms experience reality (the nodes) in a different manner than we do.

Where do rules exist? I don't think I can answer that question. I'll have to think about it for a while.

>>When I talk about we, as in our consciousness, I'm talking about the
>>self-idealized embodiment of ones existence. The place where cognition and the
>>self reside."
>
>Do chimps/new born humans/worms/trees/bacteria/viruses experience nodes
>(events)?

As far as I know. I'm assuming that they have consciousness. Without experiencing the matrix from their point of view I can't be sure. For all I know they're objects. Part of the Matrix, placed there for my amusement.

>>Our minds do perceive linear events. They do this as a result of the laws
>>imposed upon our consciousness.
>
>Yes. The laws of Time. You can change the name of a rose, even change it's
>definition, but it will still small the same. If you call something a node,
>event, unit, it's the same to me. If you take what man kind has given time
>credit for and give the credit to a new term, all your doing is changing
>labels. I can see a reasoning that you might not want to use the word 'time'
>because every one has different ideas as to what time is, and you might not
>what them too pollute (for lack of a better work) your idea with their
>believes.

It looks like we may have reached an impasse on the non-existence of time discussion. I continue to insist that time and motion do not exist. That limitations on our ability to perceive more than one node at a time (etc) force us to sequentialize the nodal experiences. Because we perceive these events/nodes in a sequential manner, we've come up with an explanation to explain this sequential change/process. We call this time. Time itself does not exist. We created it. It's a label that we slapped on one aspect of our limited perception. Nothing actually changes. Everything; every event that has existed, exists, or will exist (in our/your/my probability path), exists simultaneously. All these nodes coexist simultaneously within the same physical space. Our consciousness is only capable of visiting/experiencing/processing one of them at a time.

What do you think time is?

>You state that motion doesn't exist. Nodes don't move, it's our conscience
>that moves. Well as long as something is moving (even if it's only
>consciousness) then it's motion to me. If your right, we just learned that
>motion is not what we though it was. Just as when we learn that the moon was
>not made of cheese, it still remained the moon.

Right, motion and change are the same thing. As our consciousness moves from node to node we interpret these moves as change, because the changes occur sequentially, we came up with the term 'time' to explain the sequential order of these changes.

Our consciousness never actually 'moves'. It's not something physical like a bird flying from node to node. When I say it moves from one node to another, I'm talking about experiential moves. Once our consciousness finishes processing one node it 'moves' to another node. The next node that it moves to is limited to a specific subset of nodes by the rules we've talked about earlier. The specific node it moves to is selected (use of free will) from this subset.

Nothing is moving. Nowhere. No time. No motion. Just consciousness shifting its point of perception from one node to another.

- Robert

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Sat Mar 23, 2002 09:48:07 AM US/Mountain
To: Patrick G Konshak
Cc: Robert Garrity
,
Subject: Physical vs. Metaphysical

Pat -

A very interesting email. Were you actually on a train? Did you actually speak to someone named George? Or was this purely a mental exercise?

Let's talk about my theory for a few minutes.

My theory. Well, it's not really my theory mind you, I'm just calling it that because I'm the one trying to explain it. The ideas that I'm trying to explain have been proposed and discussed throughout the ages by various heretics.

As a matter of fact, the other day I was reading in my 'Dictionary of the History of Ideas' (Studies of selected pivotal ideas: Published by Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, copyright 1974), when I came across the entry 'Time' (Volume IV pg's 389-406). I haven't read the whole entry yet, but folks have been talking about the non-existence of time and motion since way back. I was particularly enamored by the writings regarding Zeno's four arguments against the reality of time (and, implicitly, against the reality of motion). Zeno (http://www.shu.edu/projects/reals/history/zeno.html) was a Greek philosopher who lived around 490BC or so. There are many other people and theories associated with the non-existence of time. Another school of thought is of particular interest. Eleatism, the metaphysics of timeless Being in its most radical form.

Once I finish this 6 week Leadership course, I hope to delve deeper into the Metaphysics of my No-time studies. I've got lot's of references and books lined up. It's become an area of intense interest for me, and I'm really looking forward to it.

As you mentioned, I've redefined 'Time' and 'Motion'. I agree, but at the same time the definition's I've provided move time and motion from the realm of the physical, to the realm of the metaphysical. They no longer exist as actual measurable, quantifiable objects/effects. They are now concepts, perceptions, a point of view. My insistence that they do not exist, is limited to the physical aspect. I believe they exist solely as a concept, a metaphysical construct, used to explain our limited view of the matrix. You said earlier that you believed in time as a 'concept'. Do you in fact reject the physical existence of time and motion? Am I arguing the non-existence (in a physical sense) of time and motion to someone who agrees that they don't exist in a physical sense?

I guess I would have to agree with the idea that there is in fact only one node. The Matrix. The nodes that I'm describing are parts of the matrix which we experience. They are discreet events/nodes perceived by our consciousness. It made sense to describe things in this manner, because it helps to separate things into discrete identifiable components. It's much more difficult to discuss these ideas when we start from a framework where the nodes are all mixed together into a single node, an all encompassing matrix of instantaneous, overlapping, multidimensional events.

I've always described the trees and branches as being consciousness driven experiential streams.

- Robert

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Sat Mar 23, 2002 10:30:52 AM US/Mountain
Subject: Secretly Solipsist

Pat -

Multidimensional; I don't get it. You're saying that physical objects do not have dimensions? I can measure dimensions with physical comparison. The distance from my toes to the top of my head is further than the distance from my navel to the top of my head. I have no problems examining physical objects in three dimensions. All these dimensions can be physically measured and quantified. If objects have more than one dimension they are multi-dimensional. Motion doesn't equal dimensions. Under standard thinking, motion is movement within dimensions (or space). I propose that there is no motion. Another proposal which I've been espousing is that all these nodes, overlap. They exist within the same physical space, yet do not interfere with each other because they occupy slightly different frequencies/dimensions of reality. Sort of like Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum radio transmissions. Multiple signals can transmit on the same frequency simultaneously. Users are able to find their message/transmission through the use of a key. All other transmissions go unheard/invisible, and do not interfere with the users transmission. Only the signal that matches the users key is visible to the receiver. The receiver has no idea that there are other signals present on the same frequency.

Traditional/standard thinking states that time is change measured through motion in space. In other words if nothing changes you cannot measure time. I say that there is no motion, and no time. Nothing physical actually changes. Your point of view changes as your consciousness experiences/processes different events/nodes within an unchanging matrix.

I can measure distance/dimensions using my physical sense receptors. Nerve cells in my body allow me to prove distance. If you are implying that I cannot prove multi-dimensional in the sense that they overlap, as I've proposed. I'd have to agree with you. I'm not up to that task. Perhaps we'll have to wait for someone to build a multidimensional detection device. Nobody knew that radio waves existed until Heinrich Herz proved their existence between 1885-1889. We now know that radio waves and visible light are made of the same 'stuff'. Just because we can't see radio waves doesn't mean they don't exist. Heinrich Herz proved their existence, and now it's an undisputed fact of the natural world. These frequencies all overlap, coexisting within the same physical space. Perhaps one day someone will discover a way to measure other dimensions (Multidimensionalism). Perhaps someone already has, and we just haven't realized it yet.

Are you implying that there is no physical world? Are you espousing a Solipsist point of view? Solipsism is the school of thought that believes in nothing but the self. Everything is a construct of your mind. Not even physical objects exist.

- Robert

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Sat Mar 23, 2002 10:57:16 AM US/Mountain
Subject: Lucid dreaming

Rob -

On Sunday, March 17, 2002, at 08:07 , Rob Garrity wrote:
>On Monday, March 18, 2002, at 02:29 AM, Robert L. Vaessen wrote:
>
>>If the consciousness can reside outside the physical, what are its limitations
>>when outside the brain. Do the limitations/laws we've been talking about
>>change when the consciousness is free from the brain/body? Are the limitations
>>imposed by the capabilities/limitations of our brain?
>>
>>Our ability to comprehend the matrix is limited by a series of
>>laws/limitations. Do those laws differ depending on the state of our
>>consciousness? Experiencing the matrix from within (inhabiting a brain), or
>>observing the matrix from outside (Out of body)?
>
>Good questions these. As I mentioned in one of my past messages, I didn't see
>anything in your theory that interfered with the main tenets of several
>religions. Rebirth suggests that the soul transmigrates. Could that simply be
>'us' freed of our mortal coil and reinvested along another nodal pathway
>wrapped in another 'life'.

Certainly. As I mentioned earlier, these are not my original ideas. The ideas we've been discussing include components of religious and metaphysical teachings from as far back as man can remember.

My ideas (the ideas I've been espousing) certainly reflect religious teachings regarding the soul, transmigration, reincarnation, etc...

>>Have you ever been unconscious?
>
>Yes. When I was little I was playing trapeze artist in the milking parlor and
>fell and hit my head. I walked into the bulk tank room and next thing I knew I
>was dreaming. Then I picked myself off of the floor there. I don't know how
>long I was out. But I was definitely out.
>
>>What's the difference between dreaming and unconscious?

Actually, I believe that traditional definitions discern a difference between dreaming and unconscious. Once while skating (without skates) on Pickerel lake, I hit a crack with my foot, fell forward and whacked my head. The next thing I remember was someone helping me get up. I had no recollection of how long I was laying on the ice. According to Chuck (Eileens ex.) I was out for about two minutes.

Traditional definitions describe unconsciousness as having no conscious recollection of self. Dreaming is seen as a semiconscious state, there is some knowledge of self during dreams. If you think about lucid dreaming you'll see how dreaming can easily be grouped into the conscious state.

Perhaps you were unconscious, and then slipped into a dream state.

>I would say very little. I think we lose our ability to remember our dreaming
>based on the severity of the unconsciousness. I know when I had my major
>operations (4 all together, two heart, two neck) that going under and waking up
>involves some light dreaming slipping in and coming out.

Anesthetics used during surgery usually suppress the conscious mind, and no dreaming typically occurs. Electroencephalographs of brains clearly show differences between the dreaming mind, and a truly unconscious state. The dream state you experienced occurs in the manner you described it. Dreaming just prior to unconsciousness, and just prior to consciousness.

>Here's a thought. Brain scans identify the so-called REM states as the time
>when the mind dreams. What if it is only the time when the mind passively
>records dreams. In other words it's a symptom of dreaming, not dreaming
>directly. Can't answer this, but I wonder if science can either.
>
>>What about lucid dreaming?
>
>I've never dreamed of Lucy... Or Jeannie for that matter...

REM is eye movement during the dream state. Dreaming is not always accompanied by REM, but REM only occurs during dreaming. REM is an easy way to detect whether a person is in a dream state. No equipment necessary.

Lucid dreaming is conscious dreaming. The ability to actively control the course and content of ones dreams. Pat and I experimented with it long ago. I was able to fully control the events, actions, and course of my dreams for a period of approximately one week. For me it was difficult, and required the practice highly disciplined mental exercises which were tedious to maintain. I eventually stopped trying, and the ability to dream lucidly slipped away.

The experience was very insightful, empowering, and vivid. All the dreams stuck out like real world events, and I had no problems recalling them afterwards.

Pat may be able to tell you more about his experiences with Lucid dreaming.

There have been a few good books written on the subject if you're interested in giving it a serious try.

>>Have you seen the movie 'Flatliners'?
>
>I saw it. I thought it was great. It didn't really try to answer the questions
>of what lies beyond directly, just showed the consequences of playing with
>fire.

I liked it so much that I bought a copy. I love those mind trip movies.

- Robert

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Sat Mar 23, 2002 05:13:15 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Tricks that the brain plays

Pat -

On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 02:16 , Patrick G Konshak wrote:

>Time Travel:
>
>>Time travel would have no effect on the nodes themselves. The nodes are
>>fixed and unchanging.
>
>Form what I can tell from your model. If you time traveled back you
>would experience the nodes just the same as you did before, therefore,
>you wouldn't know you traveled back. What would happen is you would get
>trapped in a continuous time loop.

Not quite. When you go back you can chose to follow a different branch of the probability tree. The nodes that you visit are selected through free will. You chose to turn right or left at a fork in the road. Time travel would allow you to go back and select a different node. The nodes that are available to chose from are limited by a set of physical laws. You can chose to go right or left at the fork in the road, you cannot chose the node where your car transforms into a GE Energy Saver refrigerator, you turn into a salmon, and the road becomes a river. If you were able to travel backward along the probability path you could then select a different path on the second go around.

>The Rest of The Story:
>
>>People who have been clinically dead, and then resuscitated, report
>>experiences outside of the physical when they recover.
>
>There is two medical definitions for death, One is body death (don't
>remember the medical term) were your heart and lungs stop. The second is
>brain dead (also I don't remember the medical term) were your brain stop.
>There is medical evidence that people can be resuscitated from body
>"death". But there is no medical evidence of anyone ever coming back
>from brain death (you can check any records). Once a nerve dies it can
>never (as we know it today) be restored. Scientist know which part of
>the brain that is responsible for life after death experience, and can
>hook you up to a machine to stimulate this part of the brain. When this
>is done to you, you will believe you had an out of body experience. You
>may say, "how do you know it's not an out of body experience? They have
>interviewed many people who claim to had this birds eye view, but they
>were all wrong in describing things in the room that can only be seen
>from above. They even place large numbers/large colored dots and stuff
>that can only be seen from above, and no one that experience this can
>identified them.
>
>I thought you might want to hear the full store. You don't here about it
>probable because it's not as exciting.

Thanks for the information. I wasn't aware that no one had ever recovered from being brain dead. By the way, here's a link to an article which describes the clinical procedures/criteria which define brain death in the medical community. (http://www.comarecovery.org/braindeath.htm)
>Some Cool Stuff:
>
>Scientist have also discovered the part of the brain that makes you
>believe in God. They took atheist and stimulated this part of the brain.
>The atheist start wanting to pray and join a church. Then when it wears
>off, they say something like "What was I thinking of." It's also true in
>reverse. A true store of a religious man who had an accident and damage
>this part of the brain. He stop going to church and pick up swearing.
>
>Does this mean our spiritual believes are based on brain chemistry? I
>don't know.

Speaking of tricks that the brain plays on us... I once read, and have no idea where I originally read it; about the scientific causes of Deja-Vu. I was able to find a web reference (http://www.innerworlds.50megs.com/dejavu.htm) that restates what I read in the past. What I read goes basically like this. First of all lets get a definition out of the way, so that I'm sure we're all on the same page. Deja-Vu is the feeling that you are re-experiencing some specific event from the past in the present. The scientific explanation for this type of feeling goes something like this... It's caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. When events are occurring in the present, our brain processes the activity in a part of the brain called the amygdala. Deja-vu occurs when present events are processed in a part of the brain typically used to recall past memories. The parahippocampal cortex, which is very closely connected to the hippocampus. Because the event is processed in the parahippocampal cortex, it has a past 'flavor' associated with it.
>Even Cooler:
>
>I have never told anyone this before now, but I use to experiment with
>conscious dreaming (i.e.: conscious awareness that you are dreaming),
>self induced out of body projection, and traffic lights. I had some
>limited success which leads me to believe I had the right formula and was
>on the right track. However I gave it up for kids and work. Sometime I
>wish I didn't. Who knows how far I could of gone. Talk about
>experiencing so strange stuff. I was thinking of starting over, but I
>can explain this some other day.

See my last email regarding Lucid Dreaming. Here's a web reference in case you're interested. (http://www.lucidity.com/) I remember our first exposure to Lucid Dreaming. We read about it in Omni magazine. (http://www.omnimag.com/index.html) As a matter of fact, I think I've found a link to the original article. (http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/groups/eas/lucid1.html)

>>Have you seen the movie 'Flatliners'?
>
>No I haven't.

I would suggest that you rent it. It's about a bunch of medical students who participate in some very scary medical experiments. They induce their own deaths, and then resuscitate each other after increasingly longer periods of time. The movie gets really freaky as the viewer is taken along on each of the characters afterlife journey's.

I own a copy on VHS. You should probably be able to find a copy at Blockbuster, it was (and remains) a fairly popular movie.

- Robert

From: Rob Garrity
Date: Sun Mar 24, 2002 04:28:48 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Re: Physical vs. Metaphysical

On Sunday, March 24, 2002, at 01:48 AM, Robert L. Vaessen wrote:

Once I finish this 6 week Leadership course, I hope to delve deeper into the Metaphysics of my No-time studies. I've got lot's of references and books lined up.

Ironic that you don't have time right now to study no-time...

Rob,

From: Rob Garrity
Date: Sun Mar 24, 2002 04:39:01 PM US/Mountain
To: "Robert L. Vaessen"
Cc: Patrick G Konshak
Subject: Re: Physical vs. Metaphysical

On Sunday, March 24, 2002, at 01:48 AM, Robert L. Vaessen wrote:
>I guess I would have to agree with the idea that there is in fact only one
>node. The Matrix. The nodes that I'm describing are parts of the matrix which
>we experience. They are discreet events/nodes perceived by our consciousness.
>It made sense to describe things in this manner, because it helps to separate
>things into discrete identifiable components. It's much more difficult to
>discuss these ideas when we start from a framework where the nodes are all
>mixed together into a single node, an all encompassing matrix of instantaneous,
>overlapping, multidimensional events.

If you consider the nodes in the image of a computer circuit with discrete transistors which connect to each other with electrons cruising down them from point A to point B then yes, it is hard to visualize the concept of nodal existence within the matrix. We can't count or imagine the number of possible 'events'.

But if we imagine it more to a river, a flowing current of billions of billions of water molecules flowing by in front of us in a smooth continuous way. All connected there is only one river. We generally don't try to parse the river unless we're trout fishing...

Rob,

From: Patrick G Konshak
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2002 03:24:18 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Starting Over.

I was looking at the structure of matter/energy. That is: how it works and how it's put together. Then an idle came to me. There are loops in the subatomic model. But when I used the "No Motion" model like the ones Robert and I were talking about, I could fill in these loops. So I think I might have a way to prove "No Motion" concept and understand it. I'm going to have to go back to the Physic books to make sure I don't make mistake, and to brush up on things. It will probably take me a year or two to do this.

Pat

From: Patrick G Konshak
Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 12:16:55 PM US/Mountain
Subject: Re: Secretly Solipsist

>Did you actually speak to someone named George? Or was this purely a
>mental exercise?

The train and George are from my mental holodeck.

I like Rob's river analogy.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 10:30:52 -0700 "Robert L. Vaessen"
writes:
>Pat -
>
>Multidimensional; I don't get it. You're saying that physical
>objects do not have dimensions?
>
>Are you implying that there is no physical world? Are you
>espousing a Solipsist point of view? Solipsism is the school of
>thought that believes in nothing but the self. Everything is a
>construct of your mind. Not even physical objects exist.

Close but not exactly. Everything exist, but only as a singularity, which is close to being nothing. Funny you used the frequency example, because I was going to use it.

I figured out that matter/energy/forces can occupy the same space at the same instant, it's the reaction of forces that get in the way. To make a long story short. If matter/energy/forces are unalike (non reactant) they can exist together, being intangible of each other. In this singularity exist frequencies can exist in the same place as long as they are not alike.

Motion is what creates the physical world around use. The faster you move an object, the more mass it has. The particle/energy that make up the world must keep in motion (spin, rotate, wave, etc..) or they will lose their mass and their existence. This is why I made mass (dimensions) a perception too. Motion and mass rely on each other. One can't exist without the other.

There are other reasons to remove dimensions, but I'm going to have to brush up on my physics to explain this.

Pat

From: Robert L. Vaessen
Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 09:37:39 AM US/Mountain
Subject: Re: Starting Over.

Pat -

Good luck. I'm glad that our talk/discussion inspired you.

- Robert

Author: Robert L. Vaessen e-mail:
Last updated:

This page has been accessed times since Thu, Mar 13, 2003.