Something has changed, timeline?

DOn't know what... I posted it... it wouldn't show up..... then it popped up. deleted double post...

[edit on 4-8-2008 by euclid]

reply to post by Ian McLean


...I'm not here in this thread to go into a philosophical debate with you (or anyone); which is completely off topic from the initial post anyway. I started to post with the intention of presenting facts/ideas & personal experience concerning this particular phenomeon that are backed up by science. And yes, there are philosophic implications but they are tangential to the phenomenon and I'm not really concerned about it because the hypothesis I've outlined fits very well with the observations I have made over the years.... my philosophy of life and reality are beyond the "pondering" phase and have been in the "validation" phase for well over a decade.... I don't need to ponder what "reality" is because my model, some of which is laid out here, is validated at a personal level in my life everyday. Nothing mystical about it... no MMORPG administrator pulled me into a alternate program interface to show me the true nature of reality. It's just good old fashioned reading, correlating, corroborating, and paying attention to detail and a little chaos theory to keep it real.

Philosophically & scientifically speaking - The facts are simple..... I exist and so do you.... if you or I, or both of us, drop dead right now the rest of the world will continue to exist.... just like when someone else dies ... you and I continue to exist. Understand? Well maybe you don't. It's obvious you're having issues coming to terms with your, and everyone elses, existence.

Further, I don't need to prove or disprove any "-ism" to you or anyone else. I am well aware of (my) reality, both subjective and objective aspects.

Additionally you are incorrect about my objective stance in this thread. I employed scientific objectivity not philosophical objectivity.... get your definitions and understandings correct (they are different):

Objectivity (science)

"[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied."

Source

Objectivity (philosophy)

Objectivity is both an important and very difficult concept to pin down in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"

source

...wake up before it is too late! Or just stay asleep... either way I'm done arguing philosophy.

-Euclid



[edit on 4-8-2008 by euclid]

[edit on 4-8-2008 by euclid]

Originally posted by euclid
reply to post by Ian McLean

 

Geez, sorry dude but you're whacked (possibly as much as HS was)... I'm not here in this thread to go into a philosophical debate with you; which is completely off topic from the initial post anyway. The facts are simple..... I exist and so do you....

--snip--

Read the Simulation Argument. This is a good and reasonable place to re-calibrate your brain about subjective reality.

I won't get into it here, but it turns out to be much more likely that only the observer is present.

Originally posted by euclid
Philosophically & scientifically speaking - The facts are simple..... I exist and so do you.... if you or I, or both of us, drop dead right now the rest of the world will continue to exist.... just like when someone else dies ... you and I continue to exist. Understand? Well maybe you don't. It's obvious you're having issues coming to terms with your, and everyone elses, existence.

That is quite clear and simple; yes I do understand. Also, please note that just because I point out logical fallacies, or unclear mechanisms and unproven assumptions in your theories, does not indicate any personal issues or endorsement of a particular viewpoint on my part -- I'm being objective, here. In truth, my issues, if any, are with being annoyed and arguing with those whom I perceive as asserting their assumptions as unquestionable truth (we see much of that in this world, today, don't we?).

But I am looking forward to hearing more about your world-line jump theory, especially with regard to the processes that determine the 'target' of the jump -- I believe (within your theory) that it cannot be entirely random, given that the 'new' world-line is so similar to the 'previous' one (as evidenced by the testimony of those who 'remember' the previous world-line). The current-day differences resulting from those differently-remembered events have not grown in scope -- no one remembers a world in which the Cuban missile crisis caused a 'hot' nuclear war, for example. The results of the differences have remained, in testified difference, limited to particular individuals and events, no 'casade effect' of different changes has been observed. The effect has remained consistent with what could, by evidence of this world-line, be explained as isolated false memory.

So, what's the explanation for that? Is there an 'amount' of world-line change effected by the mechanism you theorize?


[edit on 5-8-2008 by Ian McLean]

Originally posted by Ian McLean
reply to post by HarmonicSynchronicity

 

Originally posted by HarmonicSynchronicity
You brought up in an earlier post the issue of metrics (or distance) between time-streams. The point that you made should be brought back up and discussed in more depth, because I believe it can be used to prove that we cannot possibly be experiencing time-stream collapse. I believe your words were something to the effect of, 'how would reality know to keep alternate-time realities sensible from our subjective points of view, such that when time stream collapses occur, they would only effect our reality in subtle ways, rather than, for instance, turning us all into jellyfish?'

Well, my speculations are an attempt to resolve an apparent paradox.

The evidence in this thread, and others, is that a significant percentage of people have different memories of the sequence of past events, that do not correspond to obvious evidence that can be presented to the contrary. Examples include events in the lives of famous people (most notably, deaths), and the exact times of culture milestones (the space shuttle Challenger). Anyone up to making a summary list, from this thread?

Excellent idea. It would be fascinating to see if there is overlap between people's disparities or if it tends to be more individualistic.

I also have a few notes about this phenomena that I would like to present:

* If the disparities between memories and apparent reality tend to only revolve around society (e.g. politics, who died/didn't die, famous people, corporations, economics, etc..), then an obvious question is begged: "Perhaps these things have been consciously altered?"

* It occurs to me that the media could be experimenting with population psychology. Although seemingly absurd, it wouldn't shock me to learn that the media (perhaps in coordination with certain well known people) has made people appear to die and then brought them back to life in order to study mob psychology.

The easy explanation is false memory. But, that's a little unbelievable, too, that multiple people have the same false memories! I can understand a commonality when confusing, for example, evangelical preachers (Graham vs Faldwell), but Nelson Mandela?

Yes, I agree. Some research on how widespread this is and the commonality would go far towards providing some credibility to the claim that there is a phenomena to study, rather than just white noise on our memories.

So, the paradox to consider would be that both sets of memories are 'true' -- the ones that can be evidenced, and the 'false' ones, with their eerie similarities.

Possibilities:

(1) Media/Government is experimenting with mob psychology
(2) Time travelers are interfering with our natural progression
(3) Some phenomena is interfering with memory on a large scale and there are cultural archetypes that provide attractors around which this phenomena most readily expresses itself (e.g. death of famous people)
(4) There are some fluctuations in the causal time-stream that we inhabit (be it time-stream collapse or something else).
(5) This is all a computer simulation and for some reason, the subjective memories of the participants are having previous states of the simulation being altered (the simulation is being modified for some or all of the participants)
(6) others?

What theories could possibly explain that? I know this might annoy both of you guys, but as I see it, both you and euclid's theories are actually quite similar.

I pointed this out as well. The only real difference is that in my model there is one and only one time-stream for each participant. In the MWI model, there are infinite time-streams with infinite divergent inflation at every time quanta.

Both posit the possibility of multiple 'world-lines', in which events unfold differently. Both posit that there may not be complete separation between those world-lines at all times.

Agreed.

Euclid proposes multiple, parallel possible world-lines, in which the 'active' (or 'real') experienced world-line can jump, from one to another, via some external triggering event. When a new world-line becomes the 'real' one, all events of the past have changed, too. He theorizes that certain individuals are 'sensitive' to this effect, and that their past memories are not entirely replaced, as past objective events are; they retain 'echos' of the previously active world-line, and this explains the commonality in past memory.

Leaving far more questions than answers. But I agree with your summary.

You propose that multiple possible world-lines are simultaneously real, within the subjective realities experienced by different individuals.

Exactly.

When those individuals interact, and to the extent that they interact, a 'new' world-line, in which more 'objective' experience can be expressed, is formed, such that the previous 'realities' of those individuals conflict as little as possible, both in the new 'shared' context, and with regards to their past experiences.

It would be more accurate to say that each individual's reality graph is normalized against other individuals' reality graphs to eliminate paradoxes. No new realities or time-streams are created by this process.

That this process isn't 100% effective causes past memories to not match-up entirely with the new context, and explains the 'memory drift'.

The process is capable of being 100% effective with memory normalization; however, the perception of change is an important feature of the system. You could say that it is an important "sense" for the participants.

Both processes involve the concepts of conflict of subjective memory, which I'm identifying as the point of 'least stress' when potentially allowing paradox via world-line change/formation. In the case of unprovable subjective memory, the possible consequence of discontinuity is minimized, to more or less extent.

I agree that you have identified the fissures correctly and with great insight.

To give example of this, say we suddenly woke up tomorrow morning, and half the population was of the distinct impression that Al Gore was president of the US, and the other that George Bush was president. And all objective evidence pointed one way or the other, without ambiguity. The consequence of that subjective memory change would be enormous! Clearly, that particular change would radically change the 'new' world-line! But, if the 'memory drift' were a little smaller, such as "oh, I thought that person died in 2001, not 1999", the changes would not be drastic, and perhaps not even noticed at all. The 'new' world-line would go rolling merrily along, with the introduced-paradox causing no significant difference between a world-line with the memory drift and one without such 'paradox' (both with the same 'objective' events).

Both theories, if they can incorporate a concept of 'significance of difference', and relate it to predicitions of exactly what world-line jumps/changes would or would not be probable, depending upon some measure of external force or necessary pressure, could, in my opinion, be valid ways of viewing this 'paradox', and predicting its behaviour.

It is possible to make predictions in the case of subjective realities merging and reforming; for instance, a neutral third party could analyze the belief systems of both and identify conflicts prior to the two parties discussing their realities where such conflicts may result in paradox.

It is not possible to make predictions regarding ambiguous collapse (or slides) regarding multiple objective (sic) time-lines. A random number generator would suffice.

Having, myself, not experienced such 'retcon' with events of the popular culture (beyond what I consider reasonably explained by inexact memory), I find this an interesting intellectual exercise in unifying possible belief-systems and epistemological theories.

Since my life has been a bit like alice in wonderland, I will just bite my tongue, here. It could be possible that all of these things are going on. In fact, I am sure they are, for different people, in some subjectively sensible way.

reply to post by Ian McLean


All the necessary information is posted already in this thread. Re-read it.

-Euclid

deleted double post

[edit on 5-8-2008 by euclid]

Originally posted by Ian McLean
In truth, my issues, if any, are with being annoyed and arguing with those whom I perceive as asserting their assumptions as unquestionable truth (we see much of that in this world, today, don't we?).

Applause...

But I am looking forward to hearing more about your world-line jump theory, especially with regard to the processes that determine the 'target' of the jump -- I believe (within your theory) that it cannot be entirely random, given that the 'new' world-line is so similar to the 'previous' one (as evidenced by the testimony of those who 'remember' the previous world-line).

I think it is possible to construct a strong argument that if what Euclid is proposing is occurring, that the phenomena must be under conscious control.

The current-day differences resulting from those differently-remembered events have not grown in scope -- no one remembers a world in which the Cuban missile crisis caused a 'hot' nuclear war, for example. The results of the differences have remained, in testified difference, limited to particular individuals and events, no 'casade effect' of different changes has been observed. The effect has remained consistent with what could, by evidence of this world-line, be explained as isolated false memory.

With time-stream collapse, there should be physical manifestations of the phenomena as well as societal effects, as you rightly pointed out. The likelihood is high that in parallel time-streams, many would have resulted in a limited (or full) nuclear exchange, reactors being blown by terrorists or other man-made or natural disasters which should, if the time-lines are collapsing, result in physical and measurable effects that contradict our recorded history.

So, what's the explanation for that? Is there an 'amount' of world-line change effected by the mechanism you theorize?

Your objectivity, critical thought and insight is admirable, Ian.

"" Something has changed, timeline?

I had the strangest feeling today. I woke up this morning. And the first thing that came to my mind was that something was different. Like there was a change in the timeline and when I awoke I felt the change. ""


I'd say a nudge was right on the money.

I think it is The Lord speaking , trying to wake people up. So far you are doing what He wants, you are asking questions, and looking for answers. " Seek and ye shall find".

Ever had a voice wake you up?

Even been woken up by the movement of the bed only to realized you were the only one there?


[edit on 5-8-2008 by toasted]

I have to go back to previous posts to form responses to keep this thread going. I'm getting lonely here. Doesn't anyone want to continue playing in this sandbox? I still have some cool sandcastles to build.

Anyway,

Originally posted by euclid
reply to post by Ian McLean

 

...I'm not here in this thread to go into a philosophical debate with you (or anyone); which is completely off topic from the initial post anyway.

If this isn't a philosophical debate, then I need to be educated about the true nature of this thread. What else could you possibly categorize it as?

I started to post with the intention of presenting facts/ideas & personal experience concerning this particular phenomeon that are backed up by science.

Philosophy: "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy ."

Philosophy of Science: "The study of assumptions, foundations, and implications of science. The philosophy of science seeks to understand the nature and justification of scientific knowledge. It has proven difficult to provide a definitive account of the scientific method that can decisively serve to distinguish science from non-science."

Science: "Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, science uses observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyzes this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments. Knowledge in science is gained through research."

Would you like to attack this problem with science in the absence of Philosophy?

And yes, there are philosophic implications but they are tangential to the phenomenon

I believe the word you are looking for is orthogonal, not tangential. Although, I must admit, I agree with your statement as it reads (just change 'but' to 'and').

and I'm not really concerned about it because the hypothesis I've outlined fits very well with the observations I have made over the years.... my philosophy of life and reality are beyond the "pondering" phase and have been in the "validation" phase for well over a decade.... I don't need to ponder what "reality" is because my model, some of which is laid out here, is validated at a personal level in my life everyday.

I would expect nothing less. Your reality is yours, after all. The only problem occurs when you decide that your subjective reality is actually objective and should therefore apply to the other participants of this construct.

Nothing mystical about it... no MMORPG administrator pulled me into a alternate program interface to show me the true nature of reality.

A highly recommended experience.

It's just good old fashioned reading, correlating, corroborating, and paying attention to detail and a little chaos theory to keep it real.

Chaos theory to keep it real ;-)

"We can explain what we can't explain by nonlinear equations which are unexplainable!" Eureka!

Philosophically & scientifically speaking - The facts are simple..... I exist and so do you....

You shouldn't speak for others.

if you or I, or both of us, drop dead right now the rest of the world will continue to exist....

You are free to approach that problem scientifically and experiment!

just like when someone else dies ... you and I continue to exist. Understand?

How do you know that this other person was experiencing reality in the same way that you were?

Well maybe you don't. It's obvious you're having issues coming to terms with your, and everyone elses, existence.

It occurs to me that this is a fundamental problem of yours, as you seem so insistent that everyone else (if they exist at all) is experiencing exactly the same reality as you.

Further, I don't need to prove or disprove any "-ism" to you or anyone else. I am well aware of (my) reality, both subjective and objective aspects.

It is impossible for you to be aware of objective aspects of your reality, because it is impossible for your subjective reality to include objective aspects. I can prove this, with mathematics. Can you prove it's counter?

...wake up before it is too late! Or just stay asleep... either way I'm done arguing philosophy.

Then you are done arguing, because arguments cannot exist without philosophy.

Argument: "An argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises; an inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the premises. The mechanics of the logic underlying all argumentation is drawn from the Philosophy of logic."

Without argument, there is only declaration. Declaration in the absence of argument is equivalent to declaration in the absence of logic. Any declaration in the absence of logic, if not self-evident, is equivalent to nonsense. Your declarations are not self-evident. Ergo, your declarations are tautologically nonsense.

reply to post by HarmonicSynchronicity

Originally posted by HarmonicSynchronicity

The current-day differences resulting from those differently-remembered events have not grown in scope -- no one remembers a world in which the Cuban missile crisis caused a 'hot' nuclear war, for example. The results of the differences have remained, in testified difference, limited to particular individuals and events, no 'casade effect' of different changes has been observed. The effect has remained consistent with what could, by evidence of this world-line, be explained as isolated false memory.

With time-stream collapse, there should be physical manifestations of the phenomena as well as societal effects, as you rightly pointed out. The likelihood is high that in parallel time-streams, many would have resulted in a limited (or full) nuclear exchange, reactors being blown by terrorists or other man-made or natural disasters which should, if the time-lines are collapsing, result in physical and measurable effects that contradict our recorded history.

This is an interesting point. I don't think what either of us have said is entirely logically consistent; I'm still trying to work out the details.

You said there should be 'physical and measurable effects', but that doesn't follow -- if, indeed, past events have changed, then not just isolated past events would have changed, but consequential events, too. So, (following the 'nuclear exchange' example), any residual radiation, mutation, etc., would also be 'undone', and physical bodies, etc., would reflect the radiation exposure of this new time-line, not the previous one in which those events happened.

However, since we're assuming that subjective awareness is not entirely (or perhaps even mostly) altered, then effects resulting from such possible-past catastrophes would remain. For example, a nuclear holocaust would, at the very least, result in great trauma for any survivors; if the time-line changed, and that 'didn't happen' (retconned), the subjective effect and personality change of that trauma would (by our assumption) remain, somewhat.

There were earlier posts on this thread about someone noticing sudden radically personality changes in people they had known for years. However, there was no reported change in objectively-relateable memories. No one said "yes, I'm acting a little differently; yesterday I was living in a Mad-Max nuclear wasteland, savagely fighting to survive, now I'm here -- pass the ketchup, please". Instead, it was described as if that person's subjective reactions to the past events of the time-line (changed or not), were 'rewritten' to result in a new personality, without conflict to past events.

How can that be? I can see why you introduced the concept of 'NPCs' into your theory. The motivation behind the theories put forth here seems, to me, to be: "can these things be explained with a consistent theory, while still postulating accuracy and inviolability of memory?". So, I'm having trouble putting that example into terms of your theoretical explanation, without either violating that postulate, or introducing one of the actors being an 'NPC'. Could you explain what the subjective experiences would be like, of such an example, from the point of view of each participant, assuming they're both 'real people'?

Originally posted by Ian McLean
reply to post by HarmonicSynchronicity

 

Originally posted by HarmonicSynchronicity
With time-stream collapse, there should be physical manifestations of the phenomena as well as societal effects, as you rightly pointed out. The likelihood is high that in parallel time-streams, many would have resulted in a limited (or full) nuclear exchange, reactors being blown by terrorists or other man-made or natural disasters which should, if the time-lines are collapsing, result in physical and measurable effects that contradict our recorded history.

This is an interesting point. I don't think what either of us have said is entirely logically consistent; I'm still trying to work out the details.

You said there should be 'physical and measurable effects', but that doesn't follow -- if, indeed, past events have changed, then not just isolated past events would have changed, but consequential events, too. So, (following the 'nuclear exchange' example), any residual radiation, mutation, etc., would also be 'undone', and physical bodies, etc., would reflect the radiation exposure of this new time-line, not the previous one in which those events happened.

This depends on the model. I took Euclid's model to represent multiple time-lines collapsing into one, but there were certainly other times that the conversation seemed to indicate a proposed model like the "sliders" television show where subjective participants slide into a congruent time-stream while remembering the old one. Obviously, in the sliders model, you are correct; there would be no trace of the previous time-stream, other than memory. But in the case where the time-space planar anomaly associated with the spinning central black hole in the milky way is causing multiple simultaneous time-streams to collapse into one (or fewer) time-streams, the physical evidence of the various time-streams should manifest.

If we are discussing the "sliders" model, then I have some very serious questions about why our "subjective" perceptions slip between the time-streams; what is the mechanism by which our subjective consciousness can take that jump while everything else continues normally. This would be very suspicious in the extreme and leads to theological questions of the first order.

If we are discussing the "collapsing time-streams" model, where multiple time-streams are collapsing into fewer time-streams as a result of a gravity-time-space anomaly / singularity, then we should be seeing some truly out-of-this-world stuff going on and there should be physical evidence.

However, since we're assuming that subjective awareness is not entirely (or perhaps even mostly) altered, then effects resulting from such possible-past catastrophes would remain. For example, a nuclear holocaust would, at the very least, result in great trauma for any survivors; if the time-line changed, and that 'didn't happen' (retconned), the subjective effect and personality change of that trauma would (by our assumption) remain, somewhat.

An interesting set of questions about the nature of time and consciousness arise from this. I would need to think about this for a bit.

There were earlier posts on this thread about someone noticing sudden radically personality changes in people they had known for years.

Yes, I remember that.

However, there was no reported change in objectively-relateable memories. No one said "yes, I'm acting a little differently; yesterday I was living in a Mad-Max nuclear wasteland, savagely fighting to survive, now I'm here -- pass the ketchup, please".

Instead, it was described as if that person's subjective reactions to the past events of the time-line (changed or not), were 'rewritten' to result in a new personality, without conflict to past events.

Was it the personality re-written or the memories of the observer of the change? If the memories were of a free-spirited, loving and generous person but the reality was a paranoid, angry, hot-headed and nervous person, and we assume that this is some manifestation of a "retcon", then perhaps the memories of the person being free-spirited, loving and generous are the false memories.

How can that be? I can see why you introduced the concept of 'NPCs' into your theory.

I introduced NPCs because it is my understanding/view/belief that objective suffering is not allowed to occur here. Our own subjective suffering, in my view, is/was completely within our own power and has to do with the purpose of our 'adventure' here.

The motivation behind the theories put forth here seems, to me, to be: "can these things be explained with a consistent theory, while still postulating accuracy and inviolability of memory?". So, I'm having trouble putting that example into terms of your theoretical explanation, without either violating that postulate, or introducing one of the actors being an 'NPC'. Could you explain what the subjective experiences would be like, of such an example, from the point of view of each participant, assuming they're both 'real people'?

This will take me some effort, but I would be happy to do this. I will get to it when I log in next. The simplest way to think about it is that nothing "common" can diverge too radically because there are always touchpoints which are forced to resolve and normalize between participants. One person could not experience a "hot" cuban missle crisis while another doesn't, because both are linked to 'communal constructs' which are always normalizing. The divergent experiences can only occur in very personal, individualistic and solitary activities, experiences and so forth. The moment attempts are made to make such things 'communal', these divergent experiences are forced to normalize between participants leading to sometimes rather extreme 'crisis of reality' for both participants.

This puts a rather new meaning to the term 'faith'.

I will go into this in more detail soon.

reply to post by HarmonicSynchronicity


When I was younger I had this theory that humans were some kind of super advanced entities with ultimate knowledge that had no need for work and had eliminated all pain and discomfort from their existence. But this would be so horribly boring that they put themselves into this world just to experience a world in ignorance and by comparison pleasure and joy could be felt.

My one question is, if your saying we really have control over everything we experience and you really believe it. Where do you go from there?

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by HarmonicSynchronicity

 

When I was younger I had this theory that humans were some kind of super advanced entities with ultimate knowledge that had no need for work and had eliminated all pain and discomfort from their existence. But this would be so horribly boring that they put themselves into this world just to experience a world in ignorance and by comparison pleasure and joy could be felt.

This is a good first approximation.

My one question is, if your saying we really have control over everything we experience and you really believe it. Where do you go from there?

Dumber and funner...

Experiences like this one, here in this world, represent a chance to re-connect with emotions and experiences that are lost outside of this construct; fear (sense of danger), suffering, loss, loneliness, challenges, adventures (success in the face of danger), etc... Many of these feelings are not, themselves, very good feelings. But without feeling them, the importance of their inverses weakens to the point of boredom and apathy. Earth is about passion, romance, mystery, danger, adventure and the true meaning of love, faith, compassion and ecstasy. Light cannot exist without the darkness (or the perception of darkness). The reason that subjectivity is so important in this 'construct' is that it must, by virtue of the benign nature of our true identities, be compassionate. How do you create a sense of danger without actually causing true suffering? This is the riddle that I have been discussing in my posts on this thread.

reply to post by Ian McLean


once again go a couple pages back and read some of Elucid's previous posts he explains why we don't shift to a reality where cars grow on trees.

Originally posted by Aron1138
reply to post by Ian McLean

 

once again go a couple pages back and read some of Elucid's previous posts he explains why we don't shift to a reality where cars grow on trees.

Why don't you make it clear to us, not why cars don't grow on trees, because that is pretty obvious. Why don't you make it clear to us why there is no radioactive fallout from a hot cuban-missile crisis in a parallel timestream, or from a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant?

reply to post by HarmonicSynchronicity


Sir, I believe you could sell lots of books, the New Agers seem to gobble up that stuff that seems to flow out of you like lava out of a volcano.

I have been following this thread with interest and would like to see a civilized conversation continue. There are some entertaining mental exercises by some very bright people but for those of us average Joes who just want answers to the very odd happenings in our daily life, the intellectual gymnastics are not very helpful. They're answers that don't really explain anything.

I understand that practical helps can not come about without a fundamental understanding of the problem but there needs to be (imho) a clear cut purpose to the "brain-storming". Those of us who are humbled by the mental giants trying to solve the mysteries of the universe are somewhat excluded from the process. There are STRANGE things happening to real people (who are not on medication or in padded cells) and our input is also needed.

I am essentially a very practical person so that the esoteric baffles and escapes my limited understanding in that area. Is there a way to deal with these strange phenomenon, yes or no?

Time-lines, smimelines. Isn't this all just theory and nothing is really proven at all? I find it more believable that our memories are being altered. Actual science exists for that possibility.

last I knew elucid was still working on it (I continue to remain as vague as he was because.. well use your imagination) . So I have no clue but I have the feeling that this is something beyond and more powerful than we can possibly imagine. As for "the symptoms" they fade in an out but today they were quite strong. I haven't seen any more cars disappear though.

Fine, last night I was lying on my bed with my eyes closed and I felt the back portion of my skull (no pain) being removed, and then I saw a a light shine through. (that wasn't the most accurate description but it's the best I can do.) I opened my eyes moved around etc. and then when I went back to sleep I heard a pulsing in my ear. (just the blood pumping through) I turned the pulsing into an extraordinary rhythm followed by vocals and orchestra.I was amazed I could create multiple rhythms at the same time with my mind. This went on for hours and every time I "messed up" it didn't matter because it all flowed until I fell asleep.

Then things got weird I jolted awake and sat up for no apparent reason. Then I lie back down and immediately do the same thing. Frankly I didn't know what the F**K was going on so I turned on the light. Then I lie down and jolt awake and sit up. Then I did it again, again, and again. I don't even remember what I was thinking about at the time. All I can remember was my head hitting the pillow then jolting up constantly. (was I scared? I don't even remember that!) I assure you I am completely serious (I'm 17 I don't do drugs, I didn't take any sleeping pills, I didn't stay up watching tv, and I wasn't on ATS last night.)

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Aron1138]

Laugh at this if you like.

Based on many "things have changed" memory phenomena; I propose that in 1992-1993 of another timestream, aliens did arrive openly. And while not initially overtly hostile, their arrival triggered an escalating series of responses and counter-responses leading to homo sapiens becoming almost completely extinct.

Someone posted his daughter's dream which was nearly a match based on content, of the beginning of it. But then that thread completely disappeared.