On Consciousness and the Bi-Directionality of Time

Confirming the findings of Reverse Speech Analysis that reverse speech consists of information going backwards in time from the future into the present; thus demonstrating (rather than proving; logic and proof being dependent upon time and thought going only in a forward direction) the existence of a non-temporal, or time-independent dimension of consciousness beyond the space-bound consciousness of the “self” and the time-bound consciousness of the ‘thinker’:

Composers hear music which they have not yet written—and which has not yet been played on any instruments since it has not yet been written—which has gone backwards in time from a time indeterminate in the future; or that music would never be written.

Painters see images, which have not yet fully emerged on the canvases they are painting, from a time indeterminate in the future; or there would be no such thing as art.

And choreographers choreograph dances which have not yet been danced; thus making dance even possible at all.

And the same can be said about sculpture, new scientific theories and new technologies; all of these examples being evidence not only of information going backwards from the future into the present; but, also, of a specifically time-independent dimension of consciousness that makes the backward movement of information from the future into the present even possible in the first place.

And, through a process of successive approximation, the correspondence between the information from the future and the information as it exists in the present eventually becomes exact; at which point the music, the painting, the dance, the sculpture, the scientific theory, or the invention achieves completion.

This, then, from an indeterminate time either years, or decades, or hundreds of years into the future:

Despite the relentlessly murderous, genocidal resistance of the demonic and perverse consciousness and civilization which currently—and for who knows how many more years or decades—infests this planet (as is clearly demonstrated by the universal censorship of the Truth by all of the media on this planet); and utterly irrespective of either years, or decades, or hundreds of years of all manner of intervening horrors; a consciousness and a civilization will eventually emerge on this planet in which it is universally known that people live more than one life; in which it is universally known that the Doctrine of “resurrection” spoken of by the prophets of the monotheistic religions is a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’; in which it is universally known that there is a non-dualistic consciousness Created ‘by and in the image of God’ beyond the dualistic, ‘fallen’ consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’.

And that consciousness and that civilization will look back upon this demonic, perverse and blood-thirsty consciousness and civilization with a mixture of horror, amazement, pity and relief…

And will look upon all of those thousands upon thousands (‘their name is legion’) who, for whatever reason, delayed, for who knows how many years or decades, the emergence of that consciousness and civilization—whether they are religious ‘authorities’, media officials, or politicians—as demonic, blood-thirsty psychopaths.

Michael Cecil

Hmm, to me your logics seems somehow backwards. No offense.

But if a composer hears the music in his head, then put it into paper, to a record, I cannot see no backward directionality of time in that

Besides it seems to me as if "time" we experience is only passing of consciously observed events. Conscious in this sense constitutes time (subjectively observed time, that is) because if we pass out, faint, we also lose our temporal sense and during this time of unconsciousness, time can appear to be moving fast or slow. But still, if you take a look on the clock after you have woken up, mechanically produced events (clock ticks) have passed by their regular phase.

There's no going back or forward (except in it's normal phase) in time except in our imagination and unconsciousness.

-v

That is quite an interesting idea you have. Welcome to reality as we know it. There are programs for thinking which are available to download. These programs will be essential for the waking up process. Once you have the programs you have to run the programs internally. These programs are like : Who am I? Where did I come from? What is my purpose here? Where am I going after this is over?.

reply to post by Michael Cecil

Confirming the findings of Reverse Speech Analysis that reverse speech consists of information going backwards in time from the future into the present

I don't suppose you have a link or two about this. Reverse speech is an interesting phenomenon, I would grant that, but it would be that much more interesting if it somehow related to messages coming from the future.

So now you're claiming that your prophecies and visions came from the future? What's the point of that?

Two points... I like your suggestion that an artist gets a vision of something and then causes reality to conform to his vision, but if you talked to a sculptor, painter or other artist, a common statement is that the work "creates itself" and frequently turns out differently than they had originally foreseen. That would be indicative of something other than "a vision of what my sculpture would be coming from the future."

Secondly, you are surely aware of basic time paradoxes, but your statements seem to indicate an ignorance of them. An idea cannot originate from itself -- if, in the future, there is an automated pancake maker, I cannot invent said device today on the basis of a vision from the future, because the vision is solely dependent on the idea and, thus, the idea cannot be at all dependent on the vision.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil Confirming the findings of Reverse Speech Analysis that reverse speech consists of information going backwards in time from the future into the present; thus demonstrating (rather than proving; logic and proof being dependent upon time and thought going only in a forward direction) the existence of a non-temporal, or time-independent dimension of consciousness beyond the space-bound consciousness of the “self” and the time-bound consciousness of the ‘thinker’...

Interestingly enough, this writing was subsequently published, not all that surprisingly, on the Sarfatti Physics Seminars Yahoo discussion group; but then, more or less miraculously, on the JCS (Journal of Consciousness Studies) on-line ‘discussion’ group; which has suppressed dozens of my writings on consciousness over the past few years in a desperate—but, heretofore, quite successful—attempt to preserve a collapsing paradigm. (I consider this to be similar to an on-line journal of Christian theology publishing an article explaining that the Doctrine of “resurrection” taught by Jesus is a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’.)

My experience over the past few years has been that, as a general rule, those involved in cutting-edge, ‘science fiction’ physics (considering such subjects as ‘on-beyond’ General Relativity, retro-causation, 2D space, the propulsion systems of UFOs, and Time Symmetrical Quantum Mechanics) have a much better appreciation of the implications of the discoveries of theoretical physics upon consciousness than does the “science of consciousness” community itself, which purports to such a knowledge.

The fact of the matter is that what is now going on in ‘consciousness studies’, rather than the “science of consciousness”, is similar to what occurred just after the Michelson-Morley experiment within the physics community: it was not until STR that there was any over-arching theoretical structure from within which those results and their implications could even be explained.

Thus, while the “scientists of consciousness” claim to be able to explain human consciousness completely and exclusively from within the framework of the scientific method, which is based upon the consciousness of the ‘thinker’…

They cannot explain the findings of Reverse Speech Analysis; which deals with information coming backwards from the future; information which, for that reason, is a specific threat to the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ itself.

They cannot provide any over-arching theoretical framework for the understanding of human creativity.

They cannot explain the results of the psi experiments with regards to “retro-
causation” (which, essentially, is evidence of the bi-directionality of time also considered in TSQM), or telepathy, or pre-cognition. (See, for example:

www.huffingtonpost.com... )


They simply ignore the findings of the Jungian/archetypal psychologists (with
regards to the consciousness of the “self”) as being ‘unscientific’; and, therefore,
having no validity.

They simply ignore the findings of the Eastern esoteric traditions about the
non-dualistic “observing consciousness”.

And they appear to be more or less directly and determinedly opposed to any consideration at all of information about the non-dualistic, 2-dimensional ‘flat’ space, time-independent, “observing consciousness” of the monotheistic Revelations; which, of course, is the dimension of consciousness necessary for not only the revelation of memories of previous lives; but, also, Prophecy.

Other than that, however, their understanding of human consciousness is utterly brilliant.

Michael Cecil

Interesting stuff, Michael. I see consciousness as being independant of time, as it would seem to me that time is a function of living in a three dimensional construct. Our consciousness does not appear to be limited to three dimensional thinking, making it very interesting that we have the ability to think in ways not as "thinking is done". Our rational attempts to quantify the unquantifiable are naturally done, but because of the seperation of time and consciousness, we only get occasionable glimpses the totality. We've talked before about learning to use both hemispheres of our brains equally in the attempt to combine logic and intuition into what I would call "extra-rational" thought, but doesn't this mixing of the concrete and esoteric need to be done very, very carefully? Real leaps of understanding can't occur unless both sides of our brain work independantly, yet co-operatively. The collective unconscious makes perfect sense to me, yet how do we access this information? I am reminded of advanced psychic-types who seem to say that you can't force these things, you have to let them occur naturally. It reminds me of how I've heard you should hold a golf club like you have a bird in your hands. More than athletes get "in the zone". As we reside in the third dimension, our consciousness unfolds over what we perceive as time. Physicists talk about how higher dimensions unfold like an oragami, more or less hiding inside one another. We must make haste slowly, as they say.

For more information about Time Symmetrical Quantum Mechanics, see:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

and click on the text in the last paragraph "serious discussions of retrocausation in
physics".

Michael Cecil

reply to post by Michael Cecil

the existence of a non-temporal, or time-independent dimension of consciousness beyond the space-bound consciousness of the “self” and the time-bound consciousness of the ‘thinker’:

I completely believe this and dont have too much to add except to say this is very good evidence to me that we are not just a collection of brain cells that goes out like a candle when we die.

reply to post by Michael Cecil

Confirming the findings of Reverse Speech Analysis that reverse speech consists of information going backwards in time from the future into the present; thus demonstrating (rather than proving; logic and proof being dependent upon time and thought going only in a forward direction) the existence of a non-temporal, or time-independent dimension of consciousness beyond the space-bound consciousness of the “self” and the time-bound consciousness of the ‘thinker’:

Demonstration is a part of a logical argument. When something is demonstrated, it is able to be shown within phenomenal experience by a conscious being. We do not demonstrate without intent. We might be walking down the road, and it would be quite strange if another person saw you, and were to think "That person is demonstrating walking". Even the act of that thought is an intention to make a point of what it is to walk to the self.

If consciousness is fragmented between time-bound and time-independent 'states', then how does this switch occur? I am aware of your examples of meditative consciousness. Irregardless of how one approached time-independent consciousness as you call it, it is still inherently dependent upon time-based consciousness. We need the concept of time to transcend it. Otherwise, being 'outside' or 'independent' of time is not possible, nor applicable to any consciousness which is in that state, even if it 'skips' or has never experienced 'time' as we (human beings) know it. How does time-independent consciousness interact or connect with time-based consciousness? There is no relationship drawn here, simply 'demonstrations', which are in fact simply speculation on weak experiments.

Perhaps it is more feasible to say that time is cyclical, and tends to repeat in patterns. This would avoid a messy metaphysical system which you have created. It raises far too many problems with itself. I essentially think you have taken the qualia of experience and attached it to the concept of time. They are not intrinsically linked, only in the sense that one must experience in order to mark it with the concept of time. Time is relative, yes, but human beings define time as a way of measuring experience. Thought can only 'go forward' if we have time. If there is no need to measure experience however, then thoughts no longer 'go forward', or in any direction. They are simply there. Time cannot exist without human calculation. That is to say, if one were to be in a coma for years, and come out of it, and no one was there to tell him/her what year it was, and there was no means of figuring time, then it would be useless. Experience would/could be measured in different terms (sun rises, sun goes down).

I do not believe time is bi-directional, but rather that thoughts are symbolic, and as such they define themselves in 'spaces' of meaning. Once defined, they create a 'space' of meaning. This separates and distinguishes them from other symbols which hold or over lap in their spaces of meaning. The size and range of the symbol is important, because if it is too large, and broad, then it is useless and too ambiguous (i.e. the word "God"). If it is too narrow, it misses too much (i.e. academic language). Imagine a map. If it is to full scale, it would be just as difficult to navigate as would the landscape itself. Too small, and its so precise that its context is meaningless. The same applies to symbols, and to time. We beak it into digestible markers of symbolic experience. As these symbols transform over time, the conscious beings that make them and transform them causes their spaces and meanings to over-lap. This overlapping feature can be antagonistic, contradictory, harmonious or symmetrical. Hence, time is a symbolic measure which is suited to our qualia of experience. It is not 'objective' and does not exist 'out there'. Theory of relativity proves this, as time is bent with space, meaning that the space we inhabit changes the markers of experience that are relative to that particular space. Moving at the speed of light? A second is no longer useful, and nanoseconds seem more reasonable to use as a marker of experience (seeing how, theoretically, one would be traveling to the 'future', however slight).

So time is not bi-directional, but instead the symbolic spaces we create are over-lapped and interpreted. As time is a marker of experience, experiences are repeated in patterns. These patterns are preserved through institutions, rituals, habits, etc, and tend to create their own unique symbolism. These are created through interaction of beings who have experiences of phenomena. The symbols are alive as much as human beings interact with them. For instance, the rise in technological advancement is due to the amount of human energy focused upon them. Computers, as a symbolic extension of the rational mind, allows us to perform rational functions beyond the speed of the human brain. They however, have also allowed for greater creative expression, information sharing, as well as spiritual growth in form of discussion. It is evident that humans use this symbolic extension as a tool, it is a means to a particular end. As computers become more symbolically/ spacious, their usage is more difficult. This is the same with time. As these spaces become greater in meaning, their usage is more difficult to navigate and imagine (What is the use of a billion years of time relative to a human life span?). We see this with the concept of time as well. Time is an old, ancient concept, and it's meaning is so incredibly vast to humanity. It's usage is universal, but minimal. It seems to always tick in the background as a marker, but it is only a marker of experiences. Once we experience "time-independent" consciousness, this is simply the awareness of the lack of experience, of attachment to the phenomenal world. This is the point of Zen meditation, as many of you know. This explains why when people stop thinking, they stop experiencing time (Either in death or in 'altered states of consciousness'). Phenomena can be experienced outside of time, if one is not attached to the experience. Essentially, without spaces to define our phenomenal experiences, there are no borders to define meanings, and hence no reason to mark experiences, as the experiences are unable to exist without symbolic meanings to infer from. Time cannot stand without the foundation of symbolic experiences.

I paraphrase, but Dogen once stated in a haiku that one could see the entirety of the cosmos within a dew drop.

I think that succinctly describes my distinction of what time is, the importance of the symbolic, phenomena and experience.

First of all, for those who still read books, and who are interested in additional evidence demonstrating the existence of a non-spatial, time-independent dimension of consciousness beyond the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’—evidence which, by the way, also demonstrates the dumber-than-a-box-of-rocks, arrogant ignorance of the “scientists of consciousness” [the poster child for which is…oh, never mind]—I would suggest:

The Power of Premonitions by Larry Dossey, M.D., Extraordinary Knowing by Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer, Ph.D., and Soul Survivor by Bruce and Andrea Leininger.

Secondly, I find it interesting that Aharonov has been attempting, for some four decades, to demonstrate to the physics community the reality of retro-causation, or the bi-directionality of time (I suggest you read the 3 page article entitled "Back from the Future" in the April, 2010 issue of Discover magazine, the link for which is corrupted when I try to include it here); which loosely parallels the three decades that I have spent attempting to demonstrate to the Jewish and Christian religious ‘authorities’ that the Doctrine of “resurrection” is a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’; the question, of course, being whether it will require another four decades for retro-causality to be accepted as real by the “scientists of consciousness”…

Or, on the other hand, whether the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious ‘authorities’ will succeed in annihilating human civilization before then.

Michael Cecil

reply to post by ApolloDionysis

You're new around here.

I suggest that you read the thread "Reality" Is Founded on Thought and Consciousness, Not Matter:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and actually read something about both Reverse Speech Analysis and Time Symmetrical Quantum Mechanics (the link for which is in a previous note) before embarrassing yourself any further.

Michael Cecil

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
reply to post by ApolloDionysis

You're new around here.

I suggest that you read the thread "Reality" Is Founded on Thought and Consciousness, Not Matter:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and actually read something about both Reverse Speech Analysis and Time Symmetrical Quantum Mechanics (the link for which is in a previous note) before embarrassing yourself any further.

Michael Cecil

Firstly, I am not embarrassed to post my own ideas. Secondly, I did read the articles before I posted.

I read the 'reality' thread, and it corresponds with what my post says about the importance of the symbolic:

Why it works this way, is because there is no matter, only organized thought and consciousness that creates a non-verbal language of thought-forms and symbols that we have come to call Physical Reality.

This is my point, that reality is composed of these symbolic interpretations of phenomena. We can only experience such phenomena 'outside' of time if we do not become attached to the symbolic inferences (thoughts) we make about our experiences. When one becomes attached (much in the same manner of the observational effect of QM), it distorts the view of the world. Being becomes an 'experience' (etymology: observation as the source of knowledge; actual observation; an event which has affected on). When 'observation' becomes the source of knowledge for a conscious being, then that being must interpret phenomena through 'observation'. To observe is not passive, but an active mental state, it is done with intent.

Let us go to "time-symmetric quantum mechanics". If we take that 'reality' is only composed of consciousness and awareness then, how does one refer to positive science as a source of proof of the bidirectional nature of time? If everything we see is simply composed of our awareness, and consciousness, then our reality is composed of only its awareness of itself. Phenomena (material matter), if it does not make up reality, and is just an illusion, then why refer to modern physics (a hard, positive science) which fundamentally assumes matter is reality? This is the biggest gap I have seen in your logic. Please explain, if I do not understand correctly.

I would just like to add that I respect your ideas, and I have considered them. I am not out to disprove you but to gather a deeper understanding of your argument.

If your theory is correct, and the future effects the present, then am I not pre-determined to make this argument? There is no need for ad hominem.

Earlier in your first post you wrote

a consciousness and a civilization will eventually emerge on this planet in which it is universally known that people live more than one life; in which it is universally known that the Doctrine of “resurrection” spoken of by the prophets of the monotheistic religions is a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’; in which it is universally known that there is a non-dualistic consciousness Created ‘by and in the image of God’ beyond the dualistic, ‘fallen’ consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’.

And that consciousness and that civilization will look back upon this demonic, perverse and blood-thirsty consciousness and civilization with a mixture of horror, amazement, pity and relief…

If the future is changing the present at this moment, and once humanity realizes your theory is 'true', then this period wouldn't be demonic, or perverse. It would simply be a necessary learning period for humanity, would it not?

Also, the problem with this theory is that if it is always true that the future is affecting the present and determining it, then that is irreducible, as that future is always beyond the present. Namely, the future infinitely determines the present, and no one can still know what will happen right now. There might be instances of "pre-cognition" as you call it, or deja vu, but this type of personal knowledge and experience is unable to be utilized in any meaningful way here, that is, if the future is always pre-determined.

I just think this stuff is silly, and for no good reason. People have all sorts of beliefs out there. Here's mine for whatever it's worth:

The human mind is incredibly complex. It contains tens of billions of cells. We create neural networks based on experiences. Our mind is constantly seeking integration termpro-spacially. It constantly tracks our bodies position relatively compared to surrounding objects. It constantly thinks up what if's relative to prior experiences and understandings gained about human and objective nature.

I think premonitions are just intuition. It's like a finely tuned algorithm that develops and is continuously unfolding. We tap into our subconscious to varying degrees based on a multitude of factors. Sometimes the experience "crystallizes" or comes into sync with the algorithm we've developed, and the "aha" moments happen where we gain a new insight or briefly seem to garner a glance at future happenings. It's just a probability, not a reality. It's just the genius of our minds is all.

No hocus hopus necessary.

reply to post by ApolloDionysis

Briefly, you are mixing dimensions of consciousness.

You are applying the rules of the consciousness of the 'thinker' to the dimension of consciousness I refer to as the "observing consciousness".

In terms of the thought experiment about the train, you are on the moving train, 'thinking' that you are in the train station and that you can actually determine what the observer in the train station is observing.

You can't.

But, then, you call that presumed observation a "theory".

It is not a theory.

It is an observation that does not occur within the dimension of consciousness of either the "self" or the 'thinker'.

Just as the term "observation" had to be re-defined in moving from classical physics, through the thought experiment at the foundation of STR, through quantum mechanics; so, too, it must again be re-defined in terms of the "observing consciousness".

That is, the "observing consciousness" is the knowledge that it observes; resulting in the fundamental resolution of the duality.

This cannot be comprehended by especially the consciousness of the 'thinker' which originates in duality; and, for that reason, is required to project that duality on everything that it observes.

By the way, I have no idea at all what a "qualia" is--nor do I care--except as a word used by "scientists of consciousness" to obfuscate the fact that they don't have a clue as to what any other consciousness is beyond the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

Michael Cecil

reply to post by unityemissions

The 'mind' and the 'subconscious' are already "hocus pocus".

They are no different than either the "ether" of classical physics, or phlogiston, for that matter.

Besides being a violation of Occam's Razor, there is no evidence that they even exist.

You are the one who is practicing "hocus pocus".

Michael Cecil

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
reply to post by unityemissions

The 'mind' and the 'subconscious' are already "hocus pocus".

No, they're not.

They are no different than either the "ether" of classical physics, or phlogiston, for that matter.

Besides being a violation of Occam's Razor, there is no evidence that they even exist.

You are the one who is practicing "hocus pocus".

Michael Cecil

No, I'm not. There is no violation of Occam's Razor in the understandings of the mind which I talk about.

Just because we have yet to figure out all the workings of the mind, and how these came to be, doesn't mean we have to go thinking in terms that obviously make no rational sense whatsoever.

I've gone over similar things with other members of ATS who were very passionate about there views. They ended up blowing a fuse because I proved their "logic" was entirely faulty. This is just belief, or as it was known long ago... really wishing something were so. Doesn't make it correct dude.

Originally posted by unityemissions.Just because we have yet to figure out all the workings of the mind, and how these came to be, doesn't mean we have to go thinking in terms that obviously make no rational sense whatsoever.

Let me paraphrase what you are saying so I can understand it better:

"Just because we have yet to figure out all the workings of phlogiston, and how these came to be, doesn't mean that we have to go 'ethering' in terms that obviously make no rational sense."

Makes just as much sense to me as what you wrote. (And, by the way, 'thinking' is also a violation of Occam's Razor. There is only thought. There is really no need for either a 'thinker' or a verb "to think". That is an unnecessary complexification of reality.)

They ended up blowing a fuse because I proved their "logic" was entirely faulty.

Don't have any logic whatsoever. Observation is not logical. That is a category of the consciousness of the 'thinker'. You are applying a category of thought to a dimension that does not operate by the rules of the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

Neither is art, or music, or dance, or poetry, or the beauty of a woman in any way logical.

This is just belief, or as it was known long ago... really wishing something were so. Doesn't make it correct dude.

You are on the moving train. You are not now and have never been in the train station. You don't have a clue as to what I am observing in the train station. You 'think' it has something to do with logical deduction or the thoughts of a 'thinker'.

I used to be on the train. I know the way you observe things:

As if there is no other frame of reference at all in terms of consciousness.

You are even unaware that the train is moving at all; you 'think' it is standing still.

Michael Cecil

reply to post by Michael Cecil

In terms of the thought experiment about the train, you are on the moving train, 'thinking' that you are in the train station and that you can actually determine what the observer in the train station is observing.

You can't.

But, then, you call that presumed observation a "theory".

I never used an example with a train in it. I did talk about relativity and moving at the speed of light however, I will assume this is what you are referring to. It is theory, as nothing can be proven a hundred percent, there is always a possibility of either right or wrong, or even something entirely different.

You are applying the rules of the consciousness of the 'thinker' to the dimension of consciousness I refer to as the "observing consciousness".

So the overcoming of dualistic nature renders this observing consciousness exempt from dualistic logic then. I will refer back to my previous statement that this observational knowledge is only accessible from dualistic logic, other wise, how would you know, or be able to understand this idea? Before you understood or came across this idea you thought in this way, and those who have come up with this idea have only done so by using dualistic logic. It is not 'outside' of the thinker in this way, as this is the only way for human being to access this dimension of consciousness.

That is, the "observing consciousness" is the knowledge that it observes; resulting in the fundamental resolution of the duality.

So what you are saying is that there is a unified consciousness that exists beyond 'self' and bodily-grounded consciousness. It exists as the "knowledge that it observes", but how does this occur? Are you saying that pure awareness is a way of accessing this consciousness, for example Zazen? Becoming the knowledge that is observed? These are just clarifying questions.

If I understand correctly, then time is not bi-directional, this is simply dualistic logic which you refute. Instead it exists all at once within this observational consciousness. Are you saying that invention, creativity and the like is somehow inspired by this observational consciousness? A moment of satori, if you will, allows for all sources of creativity and inspiration?

Also, qualia is the 'subjective' experience of phenomena. It is ineffable, but the most familiar characteristic of a 'thinking' being. I do not think it is meant to obfuscate, simply a term to describe bodily-grounded conscious beings quality of experiences. i.e. the qualia of red wine is different for every being, as it arouses a plenum of symbolic inferences. Perhaps red wine reminds you of memories, of emotions, or the scent reminds you of a specific place, or time, or feel, mood or tone.

I particularly like the Buddist concept of being "centered", as well as the concept of just "being". I think the Principle of Uncertainty applies to more than defining either the speed or location of a particular particle in Physics. For example, if we focus on one aspect of any idea system, don't the parts not focused upon become fuzzy by definition? Doesn't probability depend on the exact location of our focus? If we are awash in the river of the collective unconscious, don't apparently contractidictory probabilities flow all around us? By considering any individual probability, aren't we dismissing others which might be equally valid from another perspective? I'm not sure the observer and the observed are totally independant of one another. Maybe there isn't one central point...maybe they're all relative, dependant upon each other.