True Facts about Time & infinite parallel worlds.

infinitethoughts

Registered Senior Member
What you think of as the movement of "time" is an "optical illusion", so to speak. Well actually a better word would be a "mind illusion".

Whats really going on is you are moving thru infinite parallel universes (I.P.U's.) by the decisions you make.

Example:
You decide not to go to work. You decide to have lunch at Lupe's, the Mother of All Taco Stands. After that you decide to take your Kawasaki Ninja 900 (this model came with a factory race engine back in the 90's) for a little road trip. After that you decide......etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. (You get the point.)

Now, here comes the important part............some people will argue that it is the movement of "time" bringing all these experiences to you. It's not. It's you deciding. You are a deciding machine. That's what you do. That is all that you can do. Is decide. 24 hours a day.

Now. If you break your cultural conditioning, you'll be able to move more and more freely in the I.P.U's. Miracles will then become more common place. Your life will never be the same.
 
What proof do you have to your reasoning?
acc.gif
 
infinitethoughts said:
What you think of as the movement of "time" is an "optical illusion", so to speak. Well actually a better word would be a "mind illusion".

Whats really going on is you are moving thru infinite parallel universes (I.P.U's.) by the decisions you make.

Example:
You decide not to go to work. You decide to have lunch at Lupe's, the Mother of All Taco Stands. After that you decide to take your Kawasaki Ninja 900 (this model came with a factory race engine back in the 90's) for a little road trip. After that you decide......etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. (You get the point.)

Now, here comes the important part............some people will argue that it is the movement of "time" bringing all these experiences to you. It's not. It's you deciding. You are a deciding machine. That's what you do. That is all that you can do. Is decide. 24 hours a day.

Now. If you break your cultural conditioning, you'll be able to move more and more freely in the I.P.U's. Miracles will then become more common place. Your life will never be the same.

My cousin had a ninja 900 back in 1984 when they first came out. I had a suzuki 550 3-cylinder....I traded him bikes one day and that was nearly the end of my decision making life right then and there.
60 mph crossing the street from a stop at a red light in first gear with five more left to go...top speed nearly 200 mph,.....what a machine!!!
 
infinitethoughts said:
What you think of as the movement of "time" is an "optical illusion", so to speak. Well actually a better word would be a "mind illusion".

Whats really going on is you are moving thru infinite parallel universes (I.P.U's.) by the decisions you make.

Example:
You decide not to go to work. You decide to have lunch at Lupe's, the Mother of All Taco Stands. After that you decide to take your Kawasaki Ninja 900 (this model came with a factory race engine back in the 90's) for a little road trip. After that you decide......etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. (You get the point.)

Now, here comes the important part............some people will argue that it is the movement of "time" bringing all these experiences to you. It's not. It's you deciding. You are a deciding machine. That's what you do. That is all that you can do. Is decide. 24 hours a day.

Now. If you break your cultural conditioning, you'll be able to move more and more freely in the I.P.U's. Miracles will then become more common place. Your life will never be the same.
Your choice of title is completely in error! You cannot present any facts whatsoever to back such a claim.

I suggest this whole thread be moved into pseudoscience immediately.
 
TheVisitor said:
My cousin had a ninja 900 back in 1984 when they first came out. I had a suzuki 550 3-cylinder....I traded him bikes one day and that was nearly the end of my decision making life right then and there.
60 mph crossing the street from a stop at a red light in first gear with five more left to go...top speed nearly 200 mph,.....what a machine!!!

You too huh?
LOL.

I had that machine for 2 weeks and then wrecked it. But not from going fast, this lady was racing down the middle lane and I happened to pull into it from the other side to turn left. Never saw her comin.
 
Light said:
Your choice of title is completely in error! You cannot present any facts whatsoever to back such a claim.

I suggest this whole thread be moved into pseudoscience immediately.

Your claim that the choice of my title is an error is your opinion. Nothin else.

Can conventional science present any facts to back the claim that time has it's own dimension?

This thread can't be moved to pseudoscience cause it's not pseudoscience.
There's plenty of renowned physicists that suggest that time (and maybe even space) are subjective. There's plenty of renowed physicists that subscribe to the theory of parallel universes.

Julian Barbour "The End of Time" is one I can think of right of the top of my head.
Hell !.....even Einstein questioned the objectivity of time.
 
infinitethoughts said:
Your claim that the choice of my title is an error is your opinion. Nothin else.

Can conventional science present any facts to back the claim that time has it's own dimension?

This thread can't be moved to pseudoscience cause it's not pseudoscience.
There's plenty of renowned physicists that suggest that time (and maybe even space) are subjective. There's plenty of renowed physicists that subscribe to the theory of parallel universes.

Julian Barbour "The End of Time" is one I can think of right of the top of my head.
Hell !.....even Einstein questioned the objectivity of time.

No, what I'm objecting to is your claim of "True Facts." That is simply NOT the case - it's speculation, conjecture, ideas, thoughts. Absolutely none of which qualifies even any part of it as fact. Do yo really not know what a fact even is? Try looking it up before you appear even more sillier than you have already.
 
You have posted in Physics and Maths, infinite thoughts. Where is the physics and maths in your post? Have they made their decision to move to a parallel Universe, leaving you here naked for all to see?
 
Light said:
No, what I'm objecting to is your claim of "True Facts." That is simply NOT the case - it's speculation, conjecture, ideas, thoughts. Absolutely none of which qualifies even any part of it as fact. Do yo really not know what a fact even is? Try looking it up before you appear even more sillier than you have already.

First off do me a big favor would you? No need to dive into attack mode there. I'm sure we can have a discussion aimed at pushing the boundaries, without resorting to figuring out if I am more silly or less silly.

Facts are fuzzy at the quantum level. The quantum level has no respect for facts. If facts are fuzzy at the quantum level, what does that say about this level. (And remember this level is an extention of the quantum level.)

This is the problem we run into. Because of this, seems to me that we're running into an "optical illusion" or better said "mind illusion".

With the ever increasing tests and experiments at the quantum level, physicists are really scratching their heads on what this existence is.

Now the theory I have, makes the most sense. (I actually did a play on words with the True facts thing in the title cause of the massive instabilities at the quantum level.)
 
Demonstrate that it is a theory. You have not presented any evidence to even merit calling it a hypothesis. It is mere speculation. Perhaps if you had introduced it as that it would have been easier to discuss, but misusing 'facts' and 'theory' is decidedly unscientific, generates hostility from the purists and completely diverts the thread away from the discussion you were seeking.
 
How many times has this thread's opinion about the nonexistence been stated? One trillion? Two?

Do we make decisions while running out of time, or IN TIME?

Making a decision inescapably implies a sequence of events. One moment, no decision. Next moment, decision made. A sequence of events can only take place IN TIME.
 
Ophiolite said:
You have posted in Physics and Maths, infinite thoughts. Where is the physics and maths in your post? Have they made their decision to move to a parallel Universe, leaving you here naked for all to see?

I already answered this above.
There's plenty of renowned physicists that suggest that time (and maybe even space) are subjective. There's plenty of renowed physicists that subscribe to the theory of parallel universes.

Julian Barbour "The End of Time" is one I can think of right of the top of my head.
Hell !.....even Einstein questioned the objectivity of time.

Heres' the heading for Physics and Math. Physics & Math
frontier physics, theory
.

This is my theory.

Now anybody want to discuss ? That's why I posted the damn thing. :bugeye:
 
CANGAS said:
How many times has this thread's opinion about the nonexistence been stated? One trillion? Two?

Do we make decisions while running out of time, or IN TIME?

Making a decision inescapably implies a sequence of events. One moment, no decision. Next moment, decision made. A sequence of events can only take place IN TIME.

You misread what I posted.
Reread what I posted.
 
Infinitethoughts,
I've read 'The End Of Time', although it was a long time ago (subjectively, that is :) ).
My understanding of it was that the illusion of time arose from the 'stacking' of a series of mutually consistent states. I don't remember the author advocating parallel universes based on human decision. I thought it was suggested that all moments of time can be said to exist simultaneously (I'm not sure what simultaneous really means in this context), not that there are many possible configurations for each individual slice of time.

Wow, I've just read through my post and it seems like so much gobbledegook. I hope you get my gist.
 
infinitethoughts said:
This is my theory.

Now anybody want to discuss ? That's why I posted the damn thing. :bugeye:
infinite thoughts, read my lips. It is not a theory. A theory is a hypothesis that has been validated many times in a number of ways and is thought by many researchers working in that field to be as close or closer to the 'truth' than other competing theories. It can often be expressed in mathematical terms: this is certainly true of any theory pertaining to physics and maths.
You have a simple speculation. I have to ask myself do I wish to waste time discussing a simple speculation with someone who confuses it with a theory? At this point the answer is probably no. Demonstrate you understand why calling it a theory is quite wrong on a science board and I'll play ball. i.e. I'll discuss your speculation.
 
Here's more to clairy on my theory:

I propose that the every day experience that we label and percieve as moving thru "time" is incorrect. What in actuallity is happening, is a moving thru a "space".

The "space" of the many realities of a mulit-verse. This is not percieved due to the cultural blinders that we are born into.

To clarify- A future event is located somewhere in the multiverse, because of the fact of existing in a multiverse.

The term universe is archaic and useless.
 
Laika said:
Infinitethoughts,
I've read 'The End Of Time', although it was a long time ago (subjectively, that is :) ).
My understanding of it was that the illusion of time arose from the 'stacking' of a series of mutually consistent states. I don't remember the author advocating parallel universes based on human decision. I thought it was suggested that all moments of time can be said to exist simultaneously (I'm not sure what simultaneous really means in this context), not that there are many possible configurations for each individual slice of time.

Wow, I've just read through my post and it seems like so much gobbledegook. I hope you get my gist.

YES ! Someone's gonna discuss.

Actually I was not intending that I got this from Barbour. I brought him up to show that some physicist do not believe in time.

Parallel universes based on human decision is my own "speculate".

That adds more to my theory...if all moments of time exist simultaneously then this adds "space" to the equation. Where are all these moments in time?
That brings in the word multi-verses into the equaton.

Using the word "uni-verse" no longer can cover this idea.
 
infinitethoughts said:
Here's more to clairy on my theory:

I propose that the every day experience that we label and percieve as moving thru "time" is incorrect. What in actuallity is happening, is a moving thru a "space".

The "space" of the many realities of a mulit-verse. This is not percieved due to the cultural blinders that we are born into.

To clarify- A future event is located somewhere in the multiverse, because of the fact of existing in a multiverse.

The term universe is archaic and useless.
Well, you're just confusing yourself - and it appears that you still don't understand what a theory is. All you're presenting is an idea -not a theory.

Your confusion that I'm talking about is that time AND space are so tightly bound to each other that they cannot be treated as separate things like you're trying to do.

If you will try to understand all that and back up and simply say that you have some speculation (an idea) that you'd like discussed, you'd probably get what you want PLUS a much more favorable reaction form the scientifically minded people here. :)
 
Back
Top