The 11 dimensions are hierarchical?
The 11 dimensions are hierarchical?
Dimensions, Tensors, Vectors, Fields, Scalars and Cursors
TL;DR
1D Energy( EDIT: It's as scalar ( single discrete value, though it may still be relative to some base value in the field )- (EDIT can we consider energy a dimension? It only varies in space and time. Nothing varies by offsets in energy. I think it is a single value ( scalar ) and not a dimension. It is the value at a given point in space , which is then related to a near identical representation of that space, or an adjacent space at a distinct offset in time. )
- 1D SpaceX
- 2D SpaceY
- 3D SpaceZ
- EDIT: It appears x,y,z sets ( possibly with time ) are considered "fields"
4D Scale( Energy Delta over Space, Not Size Necessarily, but tends to correlate with size )- EDIT: can we consider scale a dimension? It is really just an amplified perspective of space time. Different universes can exist at different scale, but their space and time coordinates are not distinct from our space time, they are just having single discrete offsets that are representative of a greater number of space and time offsets that we perceive. I believe other universes exist at scale, but this is not a true dimension. It is sort of a "pseudo" dimension. Maybe a 3.5D Because it derived from our dimension, rather than contains it. This is similar to virtual universes or "metaverse" type universes. They are distinct 3d spaces, distinct universes with distinct properties, but they derive from our 3d space and so are not true physical dimensions. I would also say this is true of other universe "bubbles" that may exist with different properties, assuming the barrier between such universes and ours are not infinite spaces, but finite , discrete, physical barriers. Though if they are infinite spaces then mathematically that is no deferent from saying that they are simply separate spatial dimensions and not truly "adjacent". Though I guess they may still be "adjacent" in a higher order dimension like for example time. Full infinities, but infinities that can be closer or further to our infinity, than other such infinities. Proximity may still matter. But they are not "adjacent' in the sense that they co-exist int he same 3.5D scaled up universe. To be clear, I think that this type of "adjacent" universe likely does exist, but again they would not be in a separate dimension, just physically isolated. But I do think there are also "adjacent" infinities, adjacent space times that are infinitely separate from us, but that can still be considered "adjacent" in a different sense. It's just important to note that a distinct dimension is not the same as a distinct universe, and vice versa. Said another way, just became moving along some vector of values can present you with a different perceived universe, does not mean that you are moving along a true independent "dimension". Just that you are taking in your current dimension, from a different perspective. You are moving along a tensor of offsets, but one that is derived form combining existing tensors. It does not "contain" the existing tensors at a single offset, and it does not intersect with them. it IS them or a perspective of them. Derived.
- 4D Time
or Space-Scale-Time
And then some kind of higher order set
5D Observer( "Energy Like" field of cursor ( like a scalar but defined by it's position in the field alone, rather than being the value at a position ) densities which are anchored to energies in 3d space time )- EDIT: If we say energy is not a dimension but a value, then "observer" is not a dimension either, it is a value.
- Oher dimensions here for shifting to parallel timelines or lower order time tensors ?
- 5D Observer Time or Time2
- (2nd , higher order, "Time like" tensor, over which an observer occupies a different place in the encoded lower order space times. Space and time may be identical, but the observer cursor is in a different place in space and time. Therefore all of space and time are contained at each offset in observer time. But there are discrete observers, that relate to one another across 5d offsets, but they occupy different positions in the nested space time instances at different 5d offsets. Much as energy occupies distinct space positions across distinct 4d time offsets. )
- Question: I've heard it said that the roles of space and time reverse as you reach the speed of light. Is that you the observer, or you the confined mass of energy? What does this say about the relationship between an observer cursor in 4d space time changing over 5d observer time, and an energy cursor in 3d Space changing over 4d time?
- DO Observers DRAG energy through space time? Is this how time can be mutable? Is this how changes propagate through time? If you move an observer back in time, and it starts dragging energy differently, then as long as it is dragging at the same rate of a future observer, I would expect the future observer's experience to be unchanged. Unless of course that future observer then went back in time , and saw the changes made by the other observer. But their recollection and the derived energy they bring with them to that prior time would still exist and be unchanged. T hey simply would now observe that historical time, in a state other than it was when they observed it. Then again maybe they already changed it themselves, simply by observing it the first time. I think the notion of "drag" may be important. Else when they go back in time they may see nothing but what they brought with them. Drag implies that the effect is a not absolute, it influences but does not fully force or dislocate the energy. The observer nudges the energy it encounters.. as the observer moves through time. Meaning the energy is more like line or string and they are pushing on that point in the string..( not to be confused with string theory here ). But yeah they are pushing on a point in the energy's own timeline, which maybe propagates forward and backward for that string but the string may have a tension that pulls its state back to it's future destination, UNLESS the conscious observer continues to push on that string as it moves forward in time . Eventually they will fully displace the entire string unless some neutral tension point is reached, where , at that point in time we are no longer deviating from the strings prior path. At that point, there will be no more 'corrective' tension on the string, trying to pull it back to re-align with it's future placement. Note that we are pushing a single... energy density here as a string, so the idea is that quantum particle or fluctuation, if displaced in the past, will have an inertia or pull back into the position it was in, as time propagates forward. Also though it will tug on it's future and past positions in space as well. pulling the string to reduce tension.. to account for it's new position in space at the time where it is being displaced. And once that tension is released, and the strings new course and new past are stable, the string stops resisting. It's interesting as this kind of.. could explain inertia. The resistance to acceleration that sort of seems to "settle" and once an energy state is established it becomes stable and then it's harder to put it back where it was then for it to continue its course through space over time. If you think of that energy packet not as a single point in space at a single point in time, but a string of energy points, flowing through time.. then you can see why shoving that energy packet to a new point in space, at a given point in time, would see resistance.. as the future and past portions of the string are pulling on it, and the cursor. .the observer is pushing.. and eventually the string will move not just at the point in time where the cursor is pushing it, but also in the past and future, until tension is relieved.
or Observer-Time
Observation or Consciousness Cursors ( a cursor is some kind of energy density in this higher order field , anchored to a mind confined to the energy space scale time dimensions , but that can move freely in lower order time as well as lower order space. )
And higher order time. or "Time2".
(EDIT I was listening to a speaker describe that there was indeed some kind of change propagation mechanism and higher order time or t2. I stumbled upon the recording after drafting this blog post and arriving at my initial realization that there may be some kind of higher order time 2, so it was interesting to hear that this is, kind of a thing. The speaker was discussing the Philadelphia experiment and some kind of space time wave produced artifacts being encountered every 20 years since 1943. As well as a crisis the Atlanteans encountered that we averted ( possibly with NHI assistance ) . This was in a podcast "Disclosed: UFO Files" which was re-streaming an old presentation. I can't find the original or the podcast episode ( The podcast maintainers seem to cycle their content, re-mix and mash up different presentations and then re-list them, possibly to keep evergreen content from getting suppressed by algos, anyway I couldn't find the episode ( hyper hyper parenthetical added here for good measure ) ) but if I do , I'll link it here. )
The thoughts thus far....
Time doesn't exist in the 3d universe, it is higher order. Moving along the time dimension, at a given offset you find a distinct 3d universe as a sub tensor off that higher order tensor.
Are all the dimensions above 3d space hierarchical in this way? Or are there peer dimensions to time? Dimensions that do not contain all of time, and which time does not contain, but which intersect with time?
What other dimensions could exist? For example, could "uncertainty" or the "zero point" of the universe, or base uncertainty be a 5th dimension? Meaning that if you can mutate the base uncertainty of a given area then you are moving along this 5th dimension. Or is uncertainty just something that varies with space and scale? Is it akin to a pressure within our local universe 'bubble'. If it is a dimension, that one can transit independent of time and space, Is that higher order than time? Or lower? Is it lower order than space? I kind of assumed space was the lowest order dimension but maybe it's not. Maybe uncertainty is lower order. Maybe though we aren't changing the base uncertainty of a region of space, rather we are moving that region of space along the 5th dimension to a universe where base uncertainty is different. In which case 5d is higher order.
I think it's important to note that the higher dimensions, those above 3 of space, are non spatial. Though I suppose they could be "space like" in that they are traversable. Generally though, I'd expect that they are merely other properties of space time that are variable along a vector. It's difficult to visually conceive of interrelated "peer" dimensions above 3 because it's impossible. I say impossible because you can only have 3 intersecting or "relational peer" dimensions where you can transit any one dimension without transiting the others. 3 is the limit mathematically and math is the language of difference and difference is the cause and nature of the universe. The universe cannot differ in a way and yet, not in any other ways along a set of peer dimensions where any more than 3 such dimensions exist in relation to one another. A completely unrelated set of dimensions can exist, such that moving across one, does not move you across the others, but then these are unrelated entirely, meaning that moving along such dimensions and then moving along the others, does not change the state sampled when subsequently moving along the others. Meaning, if I move along dimension X, and THEN along dimension Y, I expect to get different state, than if I simply moved along dimension Y. These are "related" or "intersecting" dimensions. You cannot have more than 3 such mathematically, and so, since math describes the universe, we should not be able to have more than 3 such in the universe. That doesn't mean we don't have other "space like' dimensions, only that the 3d space we navigate every day, does not have other intersecting spatial dimensions. That does not mean though, that there aren't higher order spatial dimensions. But these would be tensors where moving along such dimensions, yields an entirely different set of the entire combination of 3d space tensors, rather than simply a different x, y or z tensor. Time therefore has to be a higher order dimension. Thigh it may be possible, to have up to 2 additional dimensions at that order , that intersect with time, where moving along one of those dimensions, gives you a distinct time tensor, and moving along time, gives you a distinct tensor of that other peer dimension. Should we expect that if it's possible to have 2 peer dimensions to time, that we DO have 2 peer dimensions to time? This would mean that there we can traverse to other time lines. Of note, that there may be 2 different forms of "time line". There may be distinct time lines, causally isolated from one another, where changing state at an offset in one, does not affect the others , but then there may be temporally mutable timelines, where timelines can be mutated and the prior state in the offset of time that is modified, ceases to exist or have ever existed. The information is deleted and replaced, and this mutation then propagates through that timeline, though again, not through adjacent timelines. However, this would require a higher order timeline or "Time 2". Perhaps then the information is not deleted but rather the entire previous and subsequent timeline exist as adjacent offsets in this higher order time 2 line.
Because we can only have 3 intersecting dimensions, the other, higher order dimensions, contain all of at least one of the 3 spatial dimensions and probably all 3. I'm not sure if it makes sense to have a dimension that contains the full array of values along a x, and y vector, but none of the the z vector values. Such would be a 2d plane, a slice of a 3d space. But I'm not sure I'd call that a separate dimension, because it doesn't really have its own discrete offsets and it doesn't contain all of the x and y fields, only one strip of values for each. In other words it's a "Derived" dimension. You can describe it mathematically, but you are only redundantly describing a subsample of 2 other dimensions. We aren't adding new data at discrete offsets that isn't already covered by another dimension. So yeah I'd say that a higher order dimension must contain all of the values in all 3 of the lower order dimension underneath it.
They contain all 3 dimensions. The entire 3d visual universe is a multi dimensional array or sub partitioned 3 interval array of data, branching off one point in a higher order vector. And because this vector contains nested vectors it is a tensor.
They do not intersect with one another, rather they are hierarchical.
Time, we assume is the nearest, directly containing tensor. This means at one increment of our time, the entire space universe is encoded. At a second increment the entire space universe again, is encoded, though different.
There are lots of hints of as many as 11 dimensions.
What is the 5th? What is the nearest ancestor tensor to time? What is a dimension where, no matter how far you move in our space, and no matter how far you move in our time, you would be at the same offset along that higher order tensor. What dimension, would, moving you along it, put you on a completely different timeline? A different timeline where, each distinct offset along that dimension yields a completely different set of space universes, compared with the same offset in our time.
OR is TIME the 5th?! Is there yet another dimension fitting narrowly in between our 3d space and the dimension of time? Another dimension where, no matter how you move along that dimension, you are still in our time, but perhaps not in our space.
What properties do we mutate when we transit these dimensions? When we transit time we mutate all of space.
Is there a way to transit energy? Can we transit to a lower or higher base energy level? Does this take us to a different timeline? Or does time change this base universe energy level? I don't think time and energy could be peer dimensions. Because unlike space x vs space y, where you can traverse one without traversing the others, time and energy are linked. You can't transit energy without transiting time and vice versa.
I think the question is, transiting which produces changes in the other?
Transiting space, from a mathematical perspective, as an external observer, does not mean a change in time. However, transiting time produces a change in observed space.
Therefore space is lower order than time.
When you transit time, it does appear that you do see changes in energy of the universe, and possibly even in the zero point or "base uncertainty" level ( though of this I'm not certain ) . If that's true, then energy is lower order than time. But then energy varies by space also. To transit energy you have to transit space or time. Which would indicate that energy is even lower order than space. However there are 2 measures of energy. There is the energy delta above zero point, and there is the base energy, the base uncertainty or the zero point itself. The energy delta above zero point, that varies by space and time and so is lower order than space. But the base energy, the zero point or minimum uncertainty level, that does not vary by space, and may not even vary by our time. Which would put it at 5D.
So " base energy" I think is a property of the universe that may vary, making it a dimension and it does not appear to vary by space. It is at least, a 4D dimension if it is variable and it may be 5D as we don't yet have knowledge that I'm aware of, that this varies over time. if it does not, then time varies over it...
You may have an intersection there between base energy and time.. giving you a 2d higher order plane along which you could traverse where a given timeline, for a given zero point energy is parallel to our time. Each offset in parallel time then having again different universes, where slight differences could produce large changes.
I think this makes the most sense actually, that a hypothetical zero point dimension would intersect with time. And you get deferent spaces at the points where a given offset in zero point, and a given offset in time intersect.
I guess the question comes down to, can you get a different timeline emphasis on "LINE" without changing the zero point. Or does changing the zero point always give you a different timeline. Because if they intersect then any change in zero point gives you a new timeline ,and importantly , any new timeline must have a variation in zero point. Again key emphasis on "line there" if you are getting a whole new historical plot of events then you are on a different zero point. That would be true if they intersect. If however zero point contains time, then you can have multiple time vectors at the same zero point. That last part is probably the best for understanding. If you can have multiple timeLINEs at the same exact offset in the zero point dimension, , not just time offsets but time lines, and critically if changing the zero point always changes all timelines, then time must be a subordinate dimension, or nested dimension. However if you can't have a new history without a variation in zero point, or if changing the zero point does not necessarily change the timelines, then they are peer dimensions.
Supposedly the universe is non deterministic, which would indicate that you can walk the same starting point, with the same zero point energy of a universe, and get a completely different timeline. That is after all, I believe the nature of the uncertainty at the zero point. It is.. uncertain. There is a non zero amount of chaos in everything.
However, changing the zero point may change the degree to which the universe diverges or it may mutate the level to which the universe appears deterministic. How "repeatable" or "stable" a timeline is, or importantly all timelines, at that zero point, are.
So there may be some zero point values where time is much more stable and repeatable and most timelines look alike, and then there are zero point values where things are much more chaotic and random, and all adjacent timelines in that universe are completely different.
That seems reasonable, and that would put the zero point dimension, if it is a traversable dimension, as a higher order dimension to time.
But that does still leave room for 2 peer dimensions with time. Dimensions along which you get different timelines, with different degrees of variance depending on what zero point you are in. And I'm not sure what these would be. Possibly distinct initial states? Distinct .... what? What would you be moving on to get different timeLINEs Again the best thing I can think of is base energy but that would indicate that for a given base energy time should be stable and deterministic, and it still only accounts for one of the two additional dimensions that may exist.
And if there is only one timeline per zero point then , again, that is no longer a lower order dimension, it's an intersection. And again, it would indicate a deterministic universe, as, in theory, every time line along that perpendicular zero point dimension would be immutable. To get a different timeline you need to go to a different zero point. That indicates determinism which I believe is wrong.
TBC..
OH and scale, scale would be higher order, at least to OUR Time. There may be a distinct timeline at a higher scale, but our clock runs at our scale. That's again the same idea though where it's a different timeline. So I guess scale would be one of those.. that is a peer to time. Moving along scale definitely gives you different timeline. Kind of like the "sophon" idea. Quantum particles, or the energies within them are themselves vast universes or multiverses.
Another name for base uncertainty may be heat or pressure. Not sure though. And I think it's synonymous with gravity as I think Casimir gravity is true gravity.
Fluids are everything.
So maybe scale and pressure.
Can we move along those dimensions? Not Likely unless we use our whole universe to communicate with adjacent universes. Not inconceivable but... yeah.
But we are energy DELTA from base energy and again base energy is the higher order dimension, higher perhaps even than time, while energy delta off that base is lower order than even space, and we are made up of that lower order stuff. So we are subordinate to space but we can move in space, as long as we interact with other energy in that space.
So can we move through time by pushing off of other time? Idk if that makes sense. I need to think about it.
Edit: a different time at a different scale would not be a peer dimension to our time. It would be higher order timeline. Out timeline is nested within as a smaller infinity within that larger infinity. So our timeline runs not parallel necessarily but right within, this higher scale timeline. It traces the same path but at a much higher sample rate.
The higher scale universe with higher scale time, contains our time. But then you could think of this higher order time as really just being the same time, with us just borrowing a subsampling of it to plot out our micro universe's time. Though the rate of change in our micro universe would be different. Our clock may tick faster or slower but it's still derived from the higher order time and so is essentially the same. If that's true then scale, and macro spatial adjacent universes (neighboring universe bubbles ), and their independent spaces and independent sub timelines are still lower order than this higher order timeline. Their timelines are independent of ours but still connected to the same higher order time. Their sample rates, or the ratio the higher order time they represent, may be different than ours though. And they contain separate space at our scale, but again their space is a subsample or sub region or lesser infinity of higher order space, as is ours, but they may not be the same ratio of higher order space and may not have the same zero point or scale or time sample rate.
Time doesn't exist in the 3d universe, it is higher order. Moving along the time dimension, at a given offset you find a distinct 3d universe as a sub tensor off that higher order tensor.
Are all the dimensions above 3d space hierarchical in this way? Or are there peer dimensions to time? Dimensions that do not contain all of time, and which time does not contain, but which intersect with time?
What other dimensions could exist? For example, could "uncertainty" or the "zero point" of the universe, or base uncertainty be a 5th dimension? Meaning that if you can mutate the base uncertainty of a given area then you are moving along this 5th dimension. Or is uncertainty just something that varies with space and scale? Is it akin to a pressure within our local universe 'bubble'. If it is a dimension, that one can transit independent of time and space, Is that higher order than time? Or lower? Is it lower order than space? I kind of assumed space was the lowest order dimension but maybe it's not. Maybe uncertainty is lower order. Maybe though we aren't changing the base uncertainty of a region of space, rather we are moving that region of space along the 5th dimension to a universe where base uncertainty is different. In which case 5d is higher order.
I think it's important to note that the higher dimensions, those above 3 of space, are non spatial. Though I suppose they could be "space like" in that they are traversable. Generally though, I'd expect that they are merely other properties of space time that are variable along a vector. It's difficult to visually conceive of interrelated "peer" dimensions above 3 because it's impossible. I say impossible because you can only have 3 intersecting or "relational peer" dimensions where you can transit any one dimension without transiting the others. 3 is the limit mathematically and math is the language of difference and difference is the cause and nature of the universe. The universe cannot differ in a way and yet, not in any other ways along a set of peer dimensions where any more than 3 such dimensions exist in relation to one another. A completely unrelated set of dimensions can exist, such that moving across one, does not move you across the others, but then these are unrelated entirely, meaning that moving along such dimensions and then moving along the others, does not change the state sampled when subsequently moving along the others. Meaning, if I move along dimension X, and THEN along dimension Y, I expect to get different state, than if I simply moved along dimension Y. These are "related" or "intersecting" dimensions. You cannot have more than 3 such mathematically, and so, since math describes the universe, we should not be able to have more than 3 such in the universe. That doesn't mean we don't have other "space like' dimensions, only that the 3d space we navigate every day, does not have other intersecting spatial dimensions. That does not mean though, that there aren't higher order spatial dimensions. But these would be tensors where moving along such dimensions, yields an entirely different set of the entire combination of 3d space tensors, rather than simply a different x, y or z tensor. Time therefore has to be a higher order dimension. Thigh it may be possible, to have up to 2 additional dimensions at that order , that intersect with time, where moving along one of those dimensions, gives you a distinct time tensor, and moving along time, gives you a distinct tensor of that other peer dimension. Should we expect that if it's possible to have 2 peer dimensions to time, that we DO have 2 peer dimensions to time? This would mean that there we can traverse to other time lines. Of note, that there may be 2 different forms of "time line". There may be distinct time lines, causally isolated from one another, where changing state at an offset in one, does not affect the others , but then there may be temporally mutable timelines, where timelines can be mutated and the prior state in the offset of time that is modified, ceases to exist or have ever existed. The information is deleted and replaced, and this mutation then propagates through that timeline, though again, not through adjacent timelines. However, this would require a higher order timeline or "Time 2". Perhaps then the information is not deleted but rather the entire previous and subsequent timeline exist as adjacent offsets in this higher order time 2 line.
Because we can only have 3 intersecting dimensions, the other, higher order dimensions, contain all of at least one of the 3 spatial dimensions and probably all 3. I'm not sure if it makes sense to have a dimension that contains the full array of values along a x, and y vector, but none of the the z vector values. Such would be a 2d plane, a slice of a 3d space. But I'm not sure I'd call that a separate dimension, because it doesn't really have its own discrete offsets and it doesn't contain all of the x and y fields, only one strip of values for each. In other words it's a "Derived" dimension. You can describe it mathematically, but you are only redundantly describing a subsample of 2 other dimensions. We aren't adding new data at discrete offsets that isn't already covered by another dimension. So yeah I'd say that a higher order dimension must contain all of the values in all 3 of the lower order dimension underneath it.
They contain all 3 dimensions. The entire 3d visual universe is a multi dimensional array or sub partitioned 3 interval array of data, branching off one point in a higher order vector. And because this vector contains nested vectors it is a tensor.
They do not intersect with one another, rather they are hierarchical.
Time, we assume is the nearest, directly containing tensor. This means at one increment of our time, the entire space universe is encoded. At a second increment the entire space universe again, is encoded, though different.
There are lots of hints of as many as 11 dimensions.
What is the 5th? What is the nearest ancestor tensor to time? What is a dimension where, no matter how far you move in our space, and no matter how far you move in our time, you would be at the same offset along that higher order tensor. What dimension, would, moving you along it, put you on a completely different timeline? A different timeline where, each distinct offset along that dimension yields a completely different set of space universes, compared with the same offset in our time.
OR is TIME the 5th?! Is there yet another dimension fitting narrowly in between our 3d space and the dimension of time? Another dimension where, no matter how you move along that dimension, you are still in our time, but perhaps not in our space.
What properties do we mutate when we transit these dimensions? When we transit time we mutate all of space.
Is there a way to transit energy? Can we transit to a lower or higher base energy level? Does this take us to a different timeline? Or does time change this base universe energy level? I don't think time and energy could be peer dimensions. Because unlike space x vs space y, where you can traverse one without traversing the others, time and energy are linked. You can't transit energy without transiting time and vice versa.
I think the question is, transiting which produces changes in the other?
Transiting space, from a mathematical perspective, as an external observer, does not mean a change in time. However, transiting time produces a change in observed space.
Therefore space is lower order than time.
When you transit time, it does appear that you do see changes in energy of the universe, and possibly even in the zero point or "base uncertainty" level ( though of this I'm not certain ) . If that's true, then energy is lower order than time. But then energy varies by space also. To transit energy you have to transit space or time. Which would indicate that energy is even lower order than space. However there are 2 measures of energy. There is the energy delta above zero point, and there is the base energy, the base uncertainty or the zero point itself. The energy delta above zero point, that varies by space and time and so is lower order than space. But the base energy, the zero point or minimum uncertainty level, that does not vary by space, and may not even vary by our time. Which would put it at 5D.
So " base energy" I think is a property of the universe that may vary, making it a dimension and it does not appear to vary by space. It is at least, a 4D dimension if it is variable and it may be 5D as we don't yet have knowledge that I'm aware of, that this varies over time. if it does not, then time varies over it...
You may have an intersection there between base energy and time.. giving you a 2d higher order plane along which you could traverse where a given timeline, for a given zero point energy is parallel to our time. Each offset in parallel time then having again different universes, where slight differences could produce large changes.
I think this makes the most sense actually, that a hypothetical zero point dimension would intersect with time. And you get deferent spaces at the points where a given offset in zero point, and a given offset in time intersect.
I guess the question comes down to, can you get a different timeline emphasis on "LINE" without changing the zero point. Or does changing the zero point always give you a different timeline. Because if they intersect then any change in zero point gives you a new timeline ,and importantly , any new timeline must have a variation in zero point. Again key emphasis on "line there" if you are getting a whole new historical plot of events then you are on a different zero point. That would be true if they intersect. If however zero point contains time, then you can have multiple time vectors at the same zero point. That last part is probably the best for understanding. If you can have multiple timeLINEs at the same exact offset in the zero point dimension, , not just time offsets but time lines, and critically if changing the zero point always changes all timelines, then time must be a subordinate dimension, or nested dimension. However if you can't have a new history without a variation in zero point, or if changing the zero point does not necessarily change the timelines, then they are peer dimensions.
Supposedly the universe is non deterministic, which would indicate that you can walk the same starting point, with the same zero point energy of a universe, and get a completely different timeline. That is after all, I believe the nature of the uncertainty at the zero point. It is.. uncertain. There is a non zero amount of chaos in everything.
However, changing the zero point may change the degree to which the universe diverges or it may mutate the level to which the universe appears deterministic. How "repeatable" or "stable" a timeline is, or importantly all timelines, at that zero point, are.
So there may be some zero point values where time is much more stable and repeatable and most timelines look alike, and then there are zero point values where things are much more chaotic and random, and all adjacent timelines in that universe are completely different.
That seems reasonable, and that would put the zero point dimension, if it is a traversable dimension, as a higher order dimension to time.
But that does still leave room for 2 peer dimensions with time. Dimensions along which you get different timelines, with different degrees of variance depending on what zero point you are in. And I'm not sure what these would be. Possibly distinct initial states? Distinct .... what? What would you be moving on to get different timeLINEs Again the best thing I can think of is base energy but that would indicate that for a given base energy time should be stable and deterministic, and it still only accounts for one of the two additional dimensions that may exist.
And if there is only one timeline per zero point then , again, that is no longer a lower order dimension, it's an intersection. And again, it would indicate a deterministic universe, as, in theory, every time line along that perpendicular zero point dimension would be immutable. To get a different timeline you need to go to a different zero point. That indicates determinism which I believe is wrong.
TBC..
OH and scale, scale would be higher order, at least to OUR Time. There may be a distinct timeline at a higher scale, but our clock runs at our scale. That's again the same idea though where it's a different timeline. So I guess scale would be one of those.. that is a peer to time. Moving along scale definitely gives you different timeline. Kind of like the "sophon" idea. Quantum particles, or the energies within them are themselves vast universes or multiverses.
Another name for base uncertainty may be heat or pressure. Not sure though. And I think it's synonymous with gravity as I think Casimir gravity is true gravity.
Fluids are everything.
So maybe scale and pressure.
Can we move along those dimensions? Not Likely unless we use our whole universe to communicate with adjacent universes. Not inconceivable but... yeah.
But we are energy DELTA from base energy and again base energy is the higher order dimension, higher perhaps even than time, while energy delta off that base is lower order than even space, and we are made up of that lower order stuff. So we are subordinate to space but we can move in space, as long as we interact with other energy in that space.
So can we move through time by pushing off of other time? Idk if that makes sense. I need to think about it.
Edit: a different time at a different scale would not be a peer dimension to our time. It would be higher order timeline. Out timeline is nested within as a smaller infinity within that larger infinity. So our timeline runs not parallel necessarily but right within, this higher scale timeline. It traces the same path but at a much higher sample rate.
The higher scale universe with higher scale time, contains our time. But then you could think of this higher order time as really just being the same time, with us just borrowing a subsampling of it to plot out our micro universe's time. Though the rate of change in our micro universe would be different. Our clock may tick faster or slower but it's still derived from the higher order time and so is essentially the same. If that's true then scale, and macro spatial adjacent universes (neighboring universe bubbles ), and their independent spaces and independent sub timelines are still lower order than this higher order timeline. Their timelines are independent of ours but still connected to the same higher order time. Their sample rates, or the ratio the higher order time they represent, may be different than ours though. And they contain separate space at our scale, but again their space is a subsample or sub region or lesser infinity of higher order space, as is ours, but they may not be the same ratio of higher order space and may not have the same zero point or scale or time sample rate.
These would have different start conditions though and would not be so much "parallel' as "adjacent" universes. Adjacent in a macro space, but not in our local universe space. Existing entirely outside our local universe in an entirely separate space. BUT same time, if again their time and ours both derive from macro time ( with infinite levels of "macro" space time , and also micro ).
Moving to those adjacent universes may also be the same as moving across some "start state" dimension.
The macro also contains timelines for other peer universes at our scale, that tick independent and those could be parallel or peer "dimensions", that perhaps you move to when moving out of our universe and into an adjacent one in a macro set of space dimensions. They are different tensors of space and time, separate from ours, technically though, if you walk to the edge of our universe, and exit and enter into an adjacent universe then a space vector from our universe may yet intersect with another universe's space. I'm not sure I'd call that a true separate dimension. It may be physically isolated from ours in such a way that we cannot traverse there. I guess mathematically that would make it a separate dimension or tensor as no data from that tensor can ever move into data from our spatial tensors. If you can walk our spatial tensors to infinity, or to the end of the tensor, and never reach the other bubbles then they are separate systems. Idk though I'd still say they are just isolated partitions of a larger scale dimension and could be considered to be connected mathematically even if state changes cant propagate across the boundaries.
If we can transition to these, such as by going out to a macro space time, and then back into a peer space time that is back at our same scale, or similar scale, but adjacent and probably with different zero point or pressure or heat, and certainly with a distinct timeline, then that may seem like going to a deferent dimension but it would not truly be so. THOUGH the initial transition in our scale.. which you could think of not necessarily as an actual increase in size, but rather an increase in the amount of our native space we can cover in a given unit of our perceived time... that would be motion along a separate dimension.
The question is, how do we change our energy level so that we move and perceive at this macro space time? To be clear, I don't think we actually "get bigger". Rather we simply move and perceive at this higher order scale. We are tiny sub atomic particles but now aware of the macro universe.. and able to move through it with intent throughout that larger macroverse.
Another question then is, are there other parallel universes, but that remain within our micro spatial "bubble"?, with the same start conditions as ours, same pressure or zero point, and occupying the exact same micro space... but with different time? That would make the universe truly non deterministic and maybe is a requirement for non determinism. And importantly these types of alternate universes, truly would be what we'd consider separate "dimensions" as they would truly be infinite tensors that do not intersect with ours in any way ( though we may be able to transit some other dimension, TO them ). This more pure form of extra "dimension" is in contrast with the peer and neighboring "bubbles" that are partitioned from ours, but technically, when considering the macro space time, are merely continuations of our 4d space time , but with some kind of barrier.
The distinction comes down to, infinity. Can we move through our space infinitely and never intersect with these adjacent bubbles? Is there some sort of weird infinite barrier that we can walk in any x,y,z direction we want to infinity and never run into another universe unless we first move up in scale and then back down? Or do we eventually run into a more real and physical barrier, where, if we could hypothetically penetrate that and continue moving, we'd eventually run into an adjacent bubble? Because if it's the latter then the other bubbles , I would argue , are not different dimensions. They may be causally isolated partitions of our space time, and so may be considered to be different universes, but they are not different infinites.
Consciousness can slow or speed it's motion through time, but it cannot evaluate space and time in reverse? OR it can revaluate space time in reverse, but not in a way that changes its present.
Meaning if I walk back ward 2 seconds in time, and flip over my own desk in front of my past self, and then walk forward through time to where I left, my desk will still be standing. I experienced a reversal of time, saw things play in reverse for 2 seconds, then i lived out the time in the past alongside my past self, and we both experience me flipping the desk, then I move forward in time, seeing everything play FASTER relative to me, back to the time where I left, or the time where I left, plus the time I was in the past.. either way I suppose, and the state of my time is unchanged. Because my changes propagate forward at the rate at which time moves forward for me normally. I moved FASTER than that time to get back to my time so I'm ahead of that propagation and now moving at the same speed.
Matter, in my past is now moving differently than the matter n my time did.. and the space in the interim time is being overwritten with new state with each tick of the clock, unfolding differently than they did prior but again those state changes are not propagating forward instantly. They move forward at the same rate at which I had observed them, and the same rate at which I am moving forward now.
It's like tailing a log file in a Linux terminal. And then you open the log file in a separate terminal and change one of the lines that has already streamed to standard out. Your standard out terminal is unaffected. But if you were to tail the file again, starting from the head, and stream back over those lines, you'd see a deferent log file, and it would affect the placement and offset of the characters that follow the insertion.
Space Time Scale or maybe
Space Scale Time
Again scale is more about the amount of variation in energy and space and less about actual size. Though things at larger size scale wise will have greater deltas in energy and space. But you can have those same energy variances, while still being very small in terms of total space occupied and total energy occupying the space.
"Deja Vu is a glitch in the matrix. It happens when they change something".
The macro also contains timelines for other peer universes at our scale, that tick independent and those could be parallel or peer "dimensions", that perhaps you move to when moving out of our universe and into an adjacent one in a macro set of space dimensions. They are different tensors of space and time, separate from ours, technically though, if you walk to the edge of our universe, and exit and enter into an adjacent universe then a space vector from our universe may yet intersect with another universe's space. I'm not sure I'd call that a true separate dimension. It may be physically isolated from ours in such a way that we cannot traverse there. I guess mathematically that would make it a separate dimension or tensor as no data from that tensor can ever move into data from our spatial tensors. If you can walk our spatial tensors to infinity, or to the end of the tensor, and never reach the other bubbles then they are separate systems. Idk though I'd still say they are just isolated partitions of a larger scale dimension and could be considered to be connected mathematically even if state changes cant propagate across the boundaries.
If we can transition to these, such as by going out to a macro space time, and then back into a peer space time that is back at our same scale, or similar scale, but adjacent and probably with different zero point or pressure or heat, and certainly with a distinct timeline, then that may seem like going to a deferent dimension but it would not truly be so. THOUGH the initial transition in our scale.. which you could think of not necessarily as an actual increase in size, but rather an increase in the amount of our native space we can cover in a given unit of our perceived time... that would be motion along a separate dimension.
The question is, how do we change our energy level so that we move and perceive at this macro space time? To be clear, I don't think we actually "get bigger". Rather we simply move and perceive at this higher order scale. We are tiny sub atomic particles but now aware of the macro universe.. and able to move through it with intent throughout that larger macroverse.
Another question then is, are there other parallel universes, but that remain within our micro spatial "bubble"?, with the same start conditions as ours, same pressure or zero point, and occupying the exact same micro space... but with different time? That would make the universe truly non deterministic and maybe is a requirement for non determinism. And importantly these types of alternate universes, truly would be what we'd consider separate "dimensions" as they would truly be infinite tensors that do not intersect with ours in any way ( though we may be able to transit some other dimension, TO them ). This more pure form of extra "dimension" is in contrast with the peer and neighboring "bubbles" that are partitioned from ours, but technically, when considering the macro space time, are merely continuations of our 4d space time , but with some kind of barrier.
The distinction comes down to, infinity. Can we move through our space infinitely and never intersect with these adjacent bubbles? Is there some sort of weird infinite barrier that we can walk in any x,y,z direction we want to infinity and never run into another universe unless we first move up in scale and then back down? Or do we eventually run into a more real and physical barrier, where, if we could hypothetically penetrate that and continue moving, we'd eventually run into an adjacent bubble? Because if it's the latter then the other bubbles , I would argue , are not different dimensions. They may be causally isolated partitions of our space time, and so may be considered to be different universes, but they are not different infinites.
Okay but when then of TRUE separate dimensions? Where these are defined as space times where their space time is infinite, but yet never intersects with ours, and perhaps where we can possibly enter said space times WITHOUT moving in our space time, and without moving in our scale. True jumps to completely deferent mathematical tensors. Do these exist? It seems like they must, else it seems like our universe would be deterministic.
The question then is, if parallel universes exist, and it seems they must, else we would have to have a deterministic universe, then how do we move across these parallel universes? What dimensions are we moving through when we do so?
To understand how we may move to a different parallel universe, it may be important to first understand how we move about at all, within our own 3d spatial universe.
We are energy in the 3D space that can mutate our state across time. But we are subordinate to that 3d space. We can move within it by pushing off other energies also within that 3d space.
How would we move ourselves, translocate ourselves in time or across time lines.(4th and 5th dimensions respectively ?, maybe also the 6th if you consider timelines that vary along one axis and then also a 2nd ) .
If we must push ourselves off other energies, where those energies are confined to space, in order to move through space.
How do we move through time? If we are confined to space as energy and space is confined to time as space, and energy pushes off of energy to move through space , then does it stand to reason that space pushes off of space to move through time?
Also of note this "relative energy" .. energy relative to our universe's zero point, is lower order than space. Moving through space changes the energy in that space. Unless of course you also move it through time and the energy happens to move to where you transitioned your space sample. But on average motion through space at any given instant of time without moving forward in time will produce variation in energy. But energy can vary translocating space.
Our relative energy could be thought of as another, lower order dimension. One that we can mutate because we are operating at that dimension. But that would actually be SUB 3d, not above 3d. A lot of writings indicate that you'd have to be a higher order, higher than 3d dimension to move within 3d, but I think that's not necessarily true. You have to simply be able to interact with other tensor coordinates at your same dimensionality of existence.
Importantly though, I think you need free will to change your own internal state and the state of what's adjacent to you in a given dimension. Free will requires a time vector and it requires that time vector to be chaotic or unstable and non deterministic. Else , you can still move through space but you aren't really controlling it. You just have the illusion that you do. A neural networks state is rendering events and spitting out actions but it's not actually moving independently of the timeline. It's actions are foreordained. I'm not sure that matters really, it is the algorithm even if the algorithm is defined by the universe rather than by itself. But indications we have are that things are non deterministic.
Anyhow, to move in 3d you don't need to be looking down on 3d from a 4d or 5d, you just need to be able to interact with , or react off of, other 3d "slots" or offsets.
It seems then that to move around in 4d, we just need to be able give the 4d slots adjacent to us, a good old shove.
Take time, or give it. Take time from an adjacent slot, or give it to an adjacent slot along the time dimension.
In space we can bring energy in, to pull ourselves toward the energy we are taking, or expel energy to push ourselves away from the energy we are pushing away.
Energy is below space. In time then, the slots are filled by space. So it's not one energy in one space, acting on another energy in an adjacent space. It's one space, in one time, acting on an adjacent space in an adjacent time.
If we can manipulate space with energy, condense it or expand it, then we should be able to nudge space into adjacent space. If we can have space perturb adjacent space then we should be able to pull or push ourselves through time.
So we push energy to move energy. But , with enough energy we can interact with space. So indirectly via energy, we can manipulate space to push space to move space. If we can move space we can move space through time.
And, if we get to the point where we can increase or decrease time in an area, then we can possibly use that to pull and push ourselves through whatever dimension sits above time. Assuming time isn't actually the highest order dimension.
I think btw that we should technically be able to move ourselves through scale, by pushing and pulling on space. Though again this isn't necessarily with the goal of making our selves BIGGER. Rather the goal is simply to change the amount oof space we can move for a given exertion of our energy and the amount of time we perceive when doing so. And maybe that really is just a matter of creating much higher order energy deltas, as we would find at a macro scale universe. The differences in energy in the macro verse are many orders of magnitude higher than the average energy delta within our micro scale universe. BUT if we can create an energy delta that is on the scale of what we' d find over larger macro spaces in the macro verse, then we can move like matter operating at that scale, even though we aren't necessarily that big.
By manipulating space we can then in theory propel our selves through EITHER time, or scale. Or both, as these are the higher order dimensions of space. And if we can transit scale and time then we can probably jump to adjacent ( not parallel ) "bubble" universes. Though I'm not sure there is much benefit there. More useful probably, at least near term is to move to parallel timelines. Same bubble, same start criteria, same scale, same pressure , but different events. Though I'm not sure these exist. Adjacent bubble universes seem so intuitive and logical that it's almost as though it would be weird for them not to exists. But parallel timelines seem less intuitive.
To understand how we may move to a different parallel universe, it may be important to first understand how we move about at all, within our own 3d spatial universe.
We are energy in the 3D space that can mutate our state across time. But we are subordinate to that 3d space. We can move within it by pushing off other energies also within that 3d space.
How would we move ourselves, translocate ourselves in time or across time lines.(4th and 5th dimensions respectively ?, maybe also the 6th if you consider timelines that vary along one axis and then also a 2nd ) .
If we must push ourselves off other energies, where those energies are confined to space, in order to move through space.
How do we move through time? If we are confined to space as energy and space is confined to time as space, and energy pushes off of energy to move through space , then does it stand to reason that space pushes off of space to move through time?
Also of note this "relative energy" .. energy relative to our universe's zero point, is lower order than space. Moving through space changes the energy in that space. Unless of course you also move it through time and the energy happens to move to where you transitioned your space sample. But on average motion through space at any given instant of time without moving forward in time will produce variation in energy. But energy can vary translocating space.
Our relative energy could be thought of as another, lower order dimension. One that we can mutate because we are operating at that dimension. But that would actually be SUB 3d, not above 3d. A lot of writings indicate that you'd have to be a higher order, higher than 3d dimension to move within 3d, but I think that's not necessarily true. You have to simply be able to interact with other tensor coordinates at your same dimensionality of existence.
Importantly though, I think you need free will to change your own internal state and the state of what's adjacent to you in a given dimension. Free will requires a time vector and it requires that time vector to be chaotic or unstable and non deterministic. Else , you can still move through space but you aren't really controlling it. You just have the illusion that you do. A neural networks state is rendering events and spitting out actions but it's not actually moving independently of the timeline. It's actions are foreordained. I'm not sure that matters really, it is the algorithm even if the algorithm is defined by the universe rather than by itself. But indications we have are that things are non deterministic.
Anyhow, to move in 3d you don't need to be looking down on 3d from a 4d or 5d, you just need to be able to interact with , or react off of, other 3d "slots" or offsets.
It seems then that to move around in 4d, we just need to be able give the 4d slots adjacent to us, a good old shove.
Take time, or give it. Take time from an adjacent slot, or give it to an adjacent slot along the time dimension.
In space we can bring energy in, to pull ourselves toward the energy we are taking, or expel energy to push ourselves away from the energy we are pushing away.
Energy is below space. In time then, the slots are filled by space. So it's not one energy in one space, acting on another energy in an adjacent space. It's one space, in one time, acting on an adjacent space in an adjacent time.
If we can manipulate space with energy, condense it or expand it, then we should be able to nudge space into adjacent space. If we can have space perturb adjacent space then we should be able to pull or push ourselves through time.
So we push energy to move energy. But , with enough energy we can interact with space. So indirectly via energy, we can manipulate space to push space to move space. If we can move space we can move space through time.
And, if we get to the point where we can increase or decrease time in an area, then we can possibly use that to pull and push ourselves through whatever dimension sits above time. Assuming time isn't actually the highest order dimension.
I think btw that we should technically be able to move ourselves through scale, by pushing and pulling on space. Though again this isn't necessarily with the goal of making our selves BIGGER. Rather the goal is simply to change the amount oof space we can move for a given exertion of our energy and the amount of time we perceive when doing so. And maybe that really is just a matter of creating much higher order energy deltas, as we would find at a macro scale universe. The differences in energy in the macro verse are many orders of magnitude higher than the average energy delta within our micro scale universe. BUT if we can create an energy delta that is on the scale of what we' d find over larger macro spaces in the macro verse, then we can move like matter operating at that scale, even though we aren't necessarily that big.
By manipulating space we can then in theory propel our selves through EITHER time, or scale. Or both, as these are the higher order dimensions of space. And if we can transit scale and time then we can probably jump to adjacent ( not parallel ) "bubble" universes. Though I'm not sure there is much benefit there. More useful probably, at least near term is to move to parallel timelines. Same bubble, same start criteria, same scale, same pressure , but different events. Though I'm not sure these exist. Adjacent bubble universes seem so intuitive and logical that it's almost as though it would be weird for them not to exists. But parallel timelines seem less intuitive.
It seems like, to go one direction in space you have to throw energy in the other direction. Is this true of time? To move space backwards in time you have to throw space forward ( in time )?
The key seems to be, to compress or expand space, by first compressing or expanding energy. That gives you time travel, and scale travel. Though to what degree I don't know.
What happens if you can go backwards in time? Are your changes in space ephemeral? Affecting only the time slot mutated, or do they persist and is the future from that point re-evaluated? Does your change propagate forward through time, overwriting the time tensor? Are people in that forward time aware of this change? I would expect them not to be.
The question here is about consciousness. Consciousness seems to occupy one state in time. And carry with it all the information it sampled while transiting time and space. I don't think that mutating time, would affect consciousness that has already transited that point in time. But it may affect some other consciousness that will transit that point in time at some future in some OTHER time dimension. That gets pretty.... problematic though. Because then you have infinitely recursive time. The alternative though is that consciousness spans time, and so changing time will change the consciousness of anything still connected with that timeline. If consciousness emerges from space and time then changing either, should alter consciousness. But not in a way that consciousness would remember. It would simply have different memories. Like a database restored from an old copy and then played forward with different subsequent events. The old state is simply gone. This always makes me thing of Déjà vu but I don't think there would be any lingering state to trigger such phenomenon. Unless the consciousness was somewhat detached from space time at the time of mutation.
It's hard to think of consciousness spanning all of space and time though. Because we definitely perceive one instant of time. Something is propagating forward through time, the way that energy propagates through space. It stands to reason that since you can go behind some object in space, and send a pulse of energy after it, that you can do the same in time. But importantly, if that pulse you make, is moving at the same speed as the object in front of it, it will never affect the consciousness it pursues.
If you can have it move through time more quickly then you could send a message to the future. We can actually do this I think just by increasing our velocity relative to the universe. We slow downtime for us, moving us into the future at a higher rate per moment perceived.. and we can then slow down and take a message to the future.
And we can go faster.. perceive more time than the universe around us.. live out our entire lives in the blink of an eye from the perspective of a normal human life span. This would possibly cause messages from the past to be able to catch up to us more quickly.. we'd encounter more pulses from the past in our life time, than a normal human would. Anything moving faster through time than humans would be moving even faster through time relative to us and we'd encounter a lot more of it.
It actually seems pretty intuitive that we can slow and speed time. We an move forward through time and take a message to the future. We still occupy time while doing so though. We just do so in a different way. Perhaps "at a different scale" where scale is less about size, and more about the energy deltas we are comprised of or living within.
We can shoot forward in time and take a message forward to a listener in the future.
But to be clear, in that case we are moving forward in time. Meaning if we went back in time, then to actually change the past of someone in the future we have to then MOVE forward in time, to catch up to them.. But in that case we are changing them in their present. Even if we changed every event along their past as we moved through that timeline until we caught up with them, none of those changes would move forward faster than they are moving. WE may be moving forward faster, but the events we changed would not. So they would still remember their original history. Only when we catch up to their consciousness, can we affect their experience.
So the question is, who are we affecting when we move into the past? We are changing the future for a past space. But we aren't actually changing the space states that follow that past space, in any kind of way that would affect a future consciousness. I think that is the most logical.... way to conceive of this. Which basically means that, your changes do propagate forward but only when that space you've mutated is re-evaluated by consciousness. And it then only affects that consciousness.
So the question is, who are we affecting when we move into the past? We are changing the future for a past space. But we aren't actually changing the space states that follow that past space, in any kind of way that would affect a future consciousness. I think that is the most logical.... way to conceive of this. Which basically means that, your changes do propagate forward but only when that space you've mutated is re-evaluated by consciousness. And it then only affects that consciousness.
Consciousnesses then... are like particles moving about in space, but they move about in time. OR they emerge from space, as just an emergent property of a neural network by playing time forward.
That last option seems more logical. Though again, it feels deterministic. It doesn't necessarily have to be though. As long as playing time forward is not always going to produce the same subsequent state for a given input state.
What does it mean then to "play time forward?" And if time is traversable, and the space at any point in time mutable, with some evaluator propagating those changes forward, what do we call a given "iteration" of time? how frequently is time iterated over?
As long as we can't change the speed at which something iterates over time, then we don't have to worry about our time being overwritten by changes to time in our past. Time will be played forward, iterated over, or evaluated and will play out differently for our past self, but the iteration of time we experienced will remain our memory of how time played out and we are largely unaffected.
As long as we can't change the speed at which something iterates over time, then we don't have to worry about our time being overwritten by changes to time in our past. Time will be played forward, iterated over, or evaluated and will play out differently for our past self, but the iteration of time we experienced will remain our memory of how time played out and we are largely unaffected.
Though, it may be wise to look out for our past timeline if we consider it a positive one, but this becomes more akin to looking out for another civilization than it is looking out for ones self. Of course it may be ideal to pull information or people back from the past forward.. so to go back in time, do some work and then accelerate that information forward through time until it catches up with our present. Though again to actually move into our timeline, from the past, it may be necessary to be overwriting our own history, which may not be possible if there is nothing that is going to play events forward, to us faster than we experienced those events. This information would be catapulted forward into ITS future but that future is never realized until after we have transited it and so we never experience it. We're still just helping past versions of ourselves. And not really helping or hurting ourselves directly.
Then again, if we can separate ourselves from this "time evaluator" and move backward in time, then we should be able to separate ourselves from it and move forward in time, stealing information from the past for use in the present.
This seems like it would create problems though. Where population sizes at the end of the universe would continue to increase and jump back in time for more time, until the universe was so saturated with life and matter from the future that it collapsed.
Maybe that's why we can't go back in time. We may be able to shove matter back in time. But we can't shove our CONSCIOUSNESS back in time. ( where our consciousness is the time evaluator.. ) . And importantly, even if we tossed matter back in time, we could never see the effect of doing so, because we've already experienced the time where that matter now exists and so, while it may be funny, to just know that back in the past, some past version of ourselves is like "Wtf? ", it won't actually benefit us and so there isn't really any incentive to do it, and so it doesn't really happen at any kind of scale that breaks the universe. It just creates regions of time with a bit more matter, and some with a bit less. Even if all energy and matter hopped backward in time, and we doubled the energy of the universe for one instant in time relative to it's prior instant, that probably wouldn't be catastrophic, and the energy may actually force that matter to be shoved forward or backward in time to find equilibrium. Meaning maybe we can shoot matter back in time, but not at any great scale, the more we push in the harder it may push back, to the point where it would take more energy in the current time than is available, to push any more energy backward.. and importantly we can't get any benefit out of it, so it's "allowed" but useless and naturally prevents any kind of disastrous catastrophic type of event.
Maybe that's why we can't go back in time. We may be able to shove matter back in time. But we can't shove our CONSCIOUSNESS back in time. ( where our consciousness is the time evaluator.. ) . And importantly, even if we tossed matter back in time, we could never see the effect of doing so, because we've already experienced the time where that matter now exists and so, while it may be funny, to just know that back in the past, some past version of ourselves is like "Wtf? ", it won't actually benefit us and so there isn't really any incentive to do it, and so it doesn't really happen at any kind of scale that breaks the universe. It just creates regions of time with a bit more matter, and some with a bit less. Even if all energy and matter hopped backward in time, and we doubled the energy of the universe for one instant in time relative to it's prior instant, that probably wouldn't be catastrophic, and the energy may actually force that matter to be shoved forward or backward in time to find equilibrium. Meaning maybe we can shoot matter back in time, but not at any great scale, the more we push in the harder it may push back, to the point where it would take more energy in the current time than is available, to push any more energy backward.. and importantly we can't get any benefit out of it, so it's "allowed" but useless and naturally prevents any kind of disastrous catastrophic type of event.
Anyway the key here is that perhaps MATTER can go back in time, but not consciousness. Because consciousness is defined by, and emerges from, a forward propagation of something through time.
Consciousness can slow or speed it's motion through time, but it cannot evaluate space and time in reverse? OR it can revaluate space time in reverse, but not in a way that changes its present.
Meaning if I walk back ward 2 seconds in time, and flip over my own desk in front of my past self, and then walk forward through time to where I left, my desk will still be standing. I experienced a reversal of time, saw things play in reverse for 2 seconds, then i lived out the time in the past alongside my past self, and we both experience me flipping the desk, then I move forward in time, seeing everything play FASTER relative to me, back to the time where I left, or the time where I left, plus the time I was in the past.. either way I suppose, and the state of my time is unchanged. Because my changes propagate forward at the rate at which time moves forward for me normally. I moved FASTER than that time to get back to my time so I'm ahead of that propagation and now moving at the same speed.
Matter, in my past is now moving differently than the matter n my time did.. and the space in the interim time is being overwritten with new state with each tick of the clock, unfolding differently than they did prior but again those state changes are not propagating forward instantly. They move forward at the same rate at which I had observed them, and the same rate at which I am moving forward now.
It's like tailing a log file in a Linux terminal. And then you open the log file in a separate terminal and change one of the lines that has already streamed to standard out. Your standard out terminal is unaffected. But if you were to tail the file again, starting from the head, and stream back over those lines, you'd see a deferent log file, and it would affect the placement and offset of the characters that follow the insertion.
A better analog is this. There are NOT two data arrays. You don't have a "Forked" timeline. The array is being mutated "in place". BUT it's not being mutated instantly. Each tick of the cpu renders the array read function that is you, in your time, and then mutates your forward time slot based on that value. And then in that same tick, a past read function reads a past time slot, and then mutates it's future time slot based on that prior slot. But that past timeslot it is mutating is one you have already read. So how many readers are there? Well it seems logical that there would be one at every single point in time. With each "point" being some kind of minimum quanta or "Planck time" type unit as it is with space. Some kind of minimum interval. At each minimum interval of time, or "pixel" of time, you have a different read/write marker. The marker reads a block, evaluated and writes the next adjacent block in time. But not before that next adjacent block has already been read by the very next adjacent most observer, and ITS subsequent block's pending write has been computed.
We could think of these different "read offsets" as different timelines but importantly, ephemeral timelines. they are a single immutable reading of the timeline. By immutable I mean anything that has been read is as it was read, even if the slots it has read have been mutated since they were read.
Note that this kind of requires an independent, higher order timeline. This is not the same as the higher scale timeline, because it is truly a separate timeline. One in which some sort of lower order timeline evaluating reader is moved, or moves itself, through time. It's a timeline not across which energy moves through space, but through which observation moves though time.
This would probably be the true 5D. I think "base energy" is more likely to be some kind of peer tensor to the 4D Time dimension rather than higher order.
Note that this kind of requires an independent, higher order timeline. This is not the same as the higher scale timeline, because it is truly a separate timeline. One in which some sort of lower order timeline evaluating reader is moved, or moves itself, through time. It's a timeline not across which energy moves through space, but through which observation moves though time.
This would probably be the true 5D. I think "base energy" is more likely to be some kind of peer tensor to the 4D Time dimension rather than higher order.
This true 5D dimension is time of time. Or perhaps more accurately "Observer Time". It's a clock over which observes move through time. An infinite line of observers, move over an infinite timeline. Each offset from one another by some kind of planck time unit, along the timeline, and they move over time in "observer time". This COULD be what some refer to as a sort of "consciousness field". Where you have variable consciousness levels throughout space, and then across time, and then these consciousnesses move through time at a rate of change defined in a higher order, "observer time. And really observative may just be the consciousness.. moving through time.. flowing thorough it.. a vast field flowing through time, but yet also anchored, in it's observation to a given point in space, and flowing through space as it flows through time.
Well no you have to have some kind of higher order time to mark the flow of consciousness through time. So consciousness can be a field, like the energy field of space, but it moves , and importantly it moves THORUGH time as energy moves through space over time. But what marks the distinct intervals of this higher order observer field as it moves thorough time? Over what tensor does it's motions and state changes play out? IF it's in the mathematical model of the universe then there must be a higher order vector over which it's state deltas play out.
This higher order vector has to be another "Time like" vector or tensor. And so this is "observer time. Or consciousness time.
So we have space time
And we have consciousness time as a higher order pairing of dimensions.
This higher order vector has to be another "Time like" vector or tensor. And so this is "observer time. Or consciousness time.
So we have space time
And we have consciousness time as a higher order pairing of dimensions.
And technically i'd put scale as another sort of dimension that goes with space time.
So we'd call it something like
Space Time Scale or maybe
Space Scale Time
Again scale is more about the amount of variation in energy and space and less about actual size. Though things at larger size scale wise will have greater deltas in energy and space. But you can have those same energy variances, while still being very small in terms of total space occupied and total energy occupying the space.
The key is the delta in energy over a given unit of space, not the total energy or total space occupied.
That is "Scale".
So you have Space Scale Time
And then above that, you have Observer Time or "Consciousness Time" IMPORTANTLY Though this "Time' component is NOT the same as Space Scale Time. It is a DISTINCT tensor.. but it is "time LIKE' Maybe we give it a different number indicating it is higher order like
Consciousness Time2 or something.
And you may have some scale in observer time as well where the rate of observation varies, or the amount of space observed varies..etc I'm not sure.
We, are identified then, in theory as a given accumulation in the consciousness time field. And we are anchored, to a given accumulation of energy in the space scale time field.
This does not necessarily mean that our mind exists in consciousness time. To be clear, our entire mind state may exist as the lower order energy in space scale time. Rather, our "consciousness" is simply our "cursor" in time. And if time is mutable, and reverse traversable, and non deterministic, then our experience is truly unique to that cursor. So the cursor is our id, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's where our thoughts are. The cursor has to move forward (Maybe forward motion is not actually.. critical, but motion in general ) for us to think, but that doesn't mean that the curosr is doing the thinking....
I think maybe some people may have it wrong when they say t hat this higher order component is really us.. that we are removed from space time. that may be, but it's also entirely possible that the cursor is meaningless without the lower order neural network it is attached to. It simply plays time forward for the observer, or possibly for all observers. I THINK for each observer independently, it is.. a distinct energy packet that moves in the space scale time field, via coupling to some energy within that field and so in theory it can move that energy backwards... and then resume play. The question is, if it does this, will the observer actually be able to retain their memory of the future? Or have they simply been reverse played... forced to re-play time they've already lived.. with one important concern being that time is mutable.. and the space slots they moved through on their prior experience, may now have changed.
What happens if another cursor exists at this prior time? Are there now two consciousnesses anchored to the same space scale time energy confinement?
What happens if another cursor exists at this prior time? Are there now two consciousnesses anchored to the same space scale time energy confinement?
Not sure.
My guess is, that these cursors move like any other energy packet does in 3rd space. Meaning, if we shove a cursor backward in time, it will displace other cursors.. moving those cursors backward in time as well.. like a wave... until there is some sort of gap in the higher order time2 timeline for the cursor array to absorb the energy. Which means maybe cursors don't actually occupy the entire timeline continuously. There may be different cursors at different spots in your past... moving forward thorough space as you did but at variable offsets. And if you move back , to space where no consciousness cursor is currently observing then there is no real conflict.
Perhaps Deja Vu then is what happens when there is a conflict. When some future or past consciousness cursor bumps into you, and for a brief moment, two consciousnesses are observing the same space and time.. possibly leaking state over from past or present.
Perhaps Deja Vu then is what happens when there is a conflict. When some future or past consciousness cursor bumps into you, and for a brief moment, two consciousnesses are observing the same space and time.. possibly leaking state over from past or present.
"Deja Vu is a glitch in the matrix. It happens when they change something".
Comments
Post a Comment