psychic powers

[Crunchy Cat]

As for some of these statements... well... what can i say, some you take too literal, and others you simply won't listen to... for instance...

''That's not true. The zeno-effect is when an unstable particle does not decay due to the presence of constant observation. If such a particle were frozen in time, it would be unmovable... which isn't the case.''

Too literal. I didn't mean actual real time. I meant within a scape of time which it should radiate energy.

I see, if you expect to prove a rather fantastic claim without using technical words with their explicit meanings then its going to be rather difficult for you to be understood. Can you imagine if the f=ma equation didn't literally refer to force in a proof?

''Many world's theory is cool. I doubt it will end up true due to the energy requirements.''

I AGREE! FLIPPIN ECH!

I noticed.

''We have also seen that you apparently think an observer has to be sentient (which is not remotely true).''

The human is a sentient being. I do not know what you mean by these loose terms.

An observer in physics is any system that can accept information from an object. The observer could be a field, a tooth, a rock, a piece of cheese, a video camera, a nose hair... etc.

''Objective is information absent of interpretation. Subjective is interpreted information.''

Virtual Crunchy, totally virtual.

http://www.geek-central.gen.nz/peeves/objective_reality.html

''Do you mean the speed of transitioning between wave and particle?''

No. Quantum information.

As in entanglement?

The rest i cannot be arsed even entertaining.

Thats one way to erect a shield from scrutiny.

 

[Reiku]

You made a claim of truth, turned it into 5 claims, and didn't prove any of them... not even close. You should feel ashamed for trying to deceive other people. You are a liar.



You gave me more claims and no evidence.

Ok... lets investigate this... and stop name calling. I might be anything but a liar.

I told you that the contending view in physics today is that the universe was observer-dependant... now... I presented two frames of information. The first frame was my own work, giving you multiple examples of the phenomological dimension of consciousness coupled with spacetime, including my overall view of it all... I then finished with four or five excerpts of well-known phsyicists throughout history also claiming the universe was observer depednant.

If this isn't proof of some sorts, then you are a dilluded person. You really are.

 

[Ripley]

Could any one particular consciousness eclipse another?

Well, firstly, excuse my lack of scientific jargon and, uh, adroitness—I respect it, yeah, but I'm of a different caliber, as you might have gathered. I don't have many friends here. Lol.

Anyway, the way I see it, and sometimes I can almost touch it that it feels so real, the universe is alive—like a receptor to stimuli, right? And not just in a mechanical sense, nor a logical sense, or a matter-of-fact sense, but in a very strangely spiritual sense.

Now, consciousness—as I experience it—has different magnitudes. There are times when I feel so in tune with the cosmos that I can almost feel myself spinning in the galaxy, and the world of man is nothing more than a clumsy tragedy, and other times I'm just a gloomy humbug crawling in a flea circus. But during those times when my consciousness is blazing with inspiration, and if that consciousness is being recognized, intercepted by the cosmos, as I feel it does because things "happen", like a beacon alive by a stormy sea, could that particular consciousness—a consciousness permeated with its own brand of being—overlap, yes, overlap another's equally powerful consciousness with its own brand of being—but a consciousness that is also in conflict with one's own? In other words, do you think that the universe plays judge? Two equally powerful beams coming at it, one is this and the other that, both are at war with each other... which reality, then, gets "sanctioned"? Both? Equally? But how can that be if both realities are in opposition with one another?

You are theorizing that consciousness creates "reality", right?

 

[Reiku]

Chewing Gum... HEYA

''Anyway, the way I see it, and sometimes I can almost touch it that it feels so real, the universe is alive—like a receptor to stimuli, right? ''

Spot on.

''And not just in a mechanical sense, nor a logical sense, or a matter-of-fact sense, but in a very strangely spiritual sense.''

''These words are good. Very good in fact. We seem to loose all spiritual aspects in this world of materialism.
as I feel it does because things "happen", like a beacon alive by a stormy sea, could that particular consciousness—a consciousness permeated with its own brand of being—overlap, yes, overlap another's equally powerful consciousness of being with its own brand of being.''

Funny you should say this. I recently proposed a similar theory in this very thread. In short, a student of the legendary Schrodinger proposed that there was only one single mind... that multiple minds where nothing but an illusion or sorts... Now... i took it one step further, suggesting that awareness, when dampened, might 'overlap' as you cleverly put it, with another persons mind. This could be seen in light of hypno states, when people claim to have entered another persons body...
Good work my lad!

''You are theorizing that consciousness creates "reality", right?''

Right. Everyones reality is a profound reality inextricably linked to unknown higher dimensional sources... Its a beautiful idea really.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Ok... lets investigate this... and stop name calling. I might be anything but a liar.

Ok, lets take it from the top.

I told you that the contending view in physics today is that the universe was observer-dependant... now... I presented two frames of information. The first frame was my own work, giving you multiple examples of the phenomological dimension of consciousness coupled with spacetime, including my overall view of it all... I then finished with four or five excerpts of well-known phsyicists throughout history also claiming the universe was observer depednant.

If this isn't proof of some sorts, then you are a dilluded person. You really are.

Ok, this is wrong from the get-go. Lets take a look at what really happened:

1) You claimed that:

In physics, we are told that reality is built up on conscious expereince, and that without consciousness, there is no reality...

2) When asked for a proof of this objective claim you:

* Claimed we are in an observer-dependent universe; which in the context of your initial claim would seem to mean that reality will cease to exist if there are no sentient life forms looking (Claim #1)

* Asserted something unclear about distance, speed, and observers for which a clarification request was ignored.

* Asserted that the wave function can collapse in the presence of an observer (correct).

* Claimed that relativity demands that reality will cease to exist if there are no sentient life forms looking (Claim #2)

* Asserted that waves are said to not even exist (false - Watching a Bose-Einstein condensate should make that obvious enough)

* Asserted that photon waves have no exact form or state (close enough).

* Asserted that a wave is a paradox (false - there are no laws of reality broken), Implied that an electrical field is not an observer (false - any system that can accept information from an object is an observer), and asserted that the measurement problem precludes all waves from being observed (false - http://www.nature.com/nature/journa...l;jsessionid=74C91B2F7A1D0C60E7FF711691980280).

* Asserted a contemptuous position of the observer because of decoherence and ignored the request for clarifying 'why'.

* Asserted that the copenhagen model postulates that quantum information must travel at superluminal speeds (I'll buy that).

* Claimed our universe is constantly splitting and flying apart from newly created universes (Claim #3).

* Asserted that the many-worlds theory is kind of trendy (correct), that it results in multiple paradoxes, and ignored the reqeust for clarifying what those paradoxes are.

* Claimed that we must create reality (Claim #4).

* Claimed that reality must depend on consciousness (Claim #5)

* Asserted 2 subjective viewpoints (doesn't help with the objective claim) and 1 objective viewpoint which was incorrect (because quantum observers do not have to be sentient).

* Asserted incorrect definitions of objective and subjective.

* Asserted the zeno-effect with the incorrect technical wording.

* Implied (finally) that a non-sentient object (a recorder) can bring acound wave collapse.


Any other assertions were not important or related enough to go into. Tabulating the important results we have:

A) 5 new claims
B) 3 ignored requests for clarification.
C) 6 correct / close-to-correct assertions / implications.
D) 6 incorrect or partially incorrect assertions / implications.

The only evidence I see is an unproven claim. If you want to revoke the claim and repackage it as a speculation or even a hypothesis then I have no issues with that; however, to issue a claim of truth is only going to keep you into the liars chair unless you come up with some hard evidence.

 

[Reiku]

Again,you ignore all the details involving my work... I won't even add anymore to this pointless arguement. It is a waste of my time, and everybodies elses...

 

[Reiku]

Crunchy...

I don't have a problem with you not accepting facts, but rather that you called me a liar, on no grounds whatsoever. I won't waste my time with people who reject a quantum physical interpretation... physics is the daddy of them all mate... the daddy!

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy...

I don't have a problem with you not accepting facts, but rather that you called me a liar, on no grounds whatsoever.

The grounds are re-listed very clearly in post #145. If you choose to ignore this, thats your problem.

I won't waste my time with people who reject a quantum physical interpretation... physics is the daddy of them all mate... the daddy!

I am rejecting your claim of truth and you have not even come close to proving it. The only evidence present is your motivation to deceive others; hence, you are a LIAR.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Again,you ignore all the details involving my work...

They must not have been important or valuable.

I won't even add anymore to this pointless arguement. It is a waste of my time, and everybodies elses...

Maybe next time, you'll avoid trying to pass of your delusions as truth.

 

[Reiku]

Ok... I am a liar... whatever!

 

[Reiku]

So must the 100 years of Copenhagen, and an observer-dependant reality... its all lies i tell you!

 

[Ripley]

Okay, Reiku—you spoke of consciousness giving meaning to the universe, or creating a layer of reality to it... what about the subconscious mind? How might the subconscious, or even the unconscious, figure in on all this? Personally I find my subconscious to be rather uncanny at times and wickedly on cue—and often times, far and above anything I can muster as the person I know myself to be consciously.

 

[Reiku]

Okay, Reiku—you spoke of consciousness giving meaning to the universe, or creating a layer of reality to it... what about the subconscious mind? How might the subconscious, or even the unconscious, figure in on all this? Personally I find my subconscious to be rather uncanny at times and wickedly on cue—and often times, far and above anything I can muster as the person I know myself to be consciously.

These are good questions, and i have developed ways to talk about this strange area of the psyche.
First of all, we need to know exactly what type of subconscious types there are.... I can think of some... there might be more:
1. Sleep State
2. Hypno State
3. Conscious subconsciousness

So here are my hypothetical conclusions.
1. During sleep, we loose all contact with consciousness/awareness... unless of course it is a lucid dream, which somehow self overlaps the imaginal dimension. It was during this time, the mind can literally, 'unwind.' I don't mean a stress-reliever here, but rather the mind needs to replay events that are superfluous to its networks.
This is why, in dreams, they occur [usually] in familiar territory. Its just that they sometime can get a bit wierd. And of course, there will be many times we have had dreams, butcannot remember them. In fact, we dream every night!
But from a quantum physical point of view, some strange postulations can be arisen here...

Dr. Ludvic Bass, the student of the legendary Schrodinger postulated that there was only one mind ever present! He said that there was plenty of reason for us to believe that quantum physics was right, and just like every peice of matter was in fact a manifestation of trapped light, he saw that conscousness was just one great sea. The thought of independance was an illusion according to him.
If this is true, then i can say that this hypothetical illusion would be thus created through the impervious influences of consciousness... so logic would suggest that a more ''less'' aware mind might achieve a psychic phenom.
What better time is the mind less-aware than when you are asleep? I once had a dream that came true, a day after i had the actual dream. The measure of closeness/impact indicated a strong foundation for something phenomenal. Has any one here had a dream that has came true?

I think this is because we are less aware, and some how some quantum rules are unravelled. Dream states would also be a good time to hypothesize that if there is only one mind present, then perhaps there is the chance of two minds merging?
What is the mind anyway? What is this stuff i see? The space i move through, and time i sense?

I call the mind a hyperdimension.
For all those string enthusiasts, you can make your theories now a 12-dimensional theory, or if your going for bosonic theory, then 27... dig that.
The mind is a superdimension, inextricably linked into space and time. I ask the reader to seriously consider this.
Right now we are struggling to unify physics, and Hawkings just recently announced that he was considering an Anthropic answer for the universe at large, including the observer. If we are going to apply this area, then we might even want to 'up' the dimensions, since the worlds we percieve are not projected in spacetime... but in some strange hyperdimension... a holographic sea.

2. Hypno states are strange things eh? I remember hearing about someone who went into a past life during regression, and this totally tied into the theory of Ludvic Bass' single-minded sea.
You see, in relativity, the past exists now... So does the future... but in a different vector frame. Now, if this is true, then the present is real for this frame, but is paradoxically situated in more places than one at any given time!
If this is true, and everyones mind is a product of a unified sea, then maybe, just maybe the subjects mind, whilst unaware, is merging into unfification with another soul, who is history to us, but to the past, is still happening.

3. And then there is everyday subconsciousness.
I would say it is the mechanism that drives the ego. It also prejects the ''me'' factor. My mindless ponderings have a real effect ''out'' there. By my thought alone, i can create things... This is true. Observation isn't the only way the observer can create reality. The observer can think the thing, and creates it. A collapse is created. Alls the well that ends well.
Also, another way we affect reality and the enture cosmos, is by naming a thing. This thought was created by Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, and he is right from a quantum physical truth.
He himself feels that the Bible resembles such strange goings on, when God is naming His reality. So we can observe, think or name to collapse the wave function. The observer-dependancy theory is really highlighted when looking at it like this.

We walk about all day, and our subconscious is like a tiny wave function, peaking in certain area's... The peakings will determine thoughts that i will have, totally unaware that it was influenced by some subconscious force.
It is these little idiosyncrasy's that make us wonder about the subconscious. It might hold a lot of secrets. On the other hand, it may hold nothing at all.

Reiku :m:

 

[Tnerb]

Of course the things you mention chewinggum are relevant to everybody.

That's all for now.

 

[Ripley]

1. Sleep State
2. Hypno State
3. Conscious subconsciousness

there might be more:

An especially difficult task, I'd think, because of an ambiguous area of the psyche that is highly confined by the nature of extremely confidential experiences. And anyone whose experiences are atypical would also find it difficult to distinguish between a flux of unique features. Or, to turn the atypical on its head, encountering features that are too conspicuously atypical.

1. During sleep, we loose all contact with consciousness/awareness... unless of course it is a lucid dream, which somehow self overlaps the imaginal dimension.

Dr. Ludvic Bass, the student of the legendary Schrodinger postulated that there was only one mind ever present!

Somewhat on the aside, I had a similar idea, but not of an eternal cosmic mind, if that's what Bass meant—not that I'm refuting his idea. I envisioned a sort of essence of mankind, like a nebula astir; a confused jumble of gaseous threads intertwined—a collective form composing an entity; I (sometimes) see and think of mankind as an entity.

I find the idea of a single mind prevailing throughout the universe too accommodating, too accessible, too lazy. For some odd reason I feel the whole contraption is more convoluted and elaborate, like lace.

he saw that consciousness was just one great sea.

From our vantage point, perhaps. I would understand it better as brooks and streams feeding into rivers and lakes, and then possibly, after long passageways, those would feed into one of the grander seas—but not yet the high sea.

The thought of independance was an illusion according to him.
If this is true, then i can say that this hypothetical illusion would be thus created through the impervious influences of consciousness...

I think it depends on what type of independence is being referred to. Since independence is not fully matured nor quite understood, then much of it is superficial and mistaken. Sometimes I feel quite independent but at other times I most definitely am not—yet, when I'm not, I still seem able to identify a certain wholeness, a self-possessiveness, a self-reliancy. Independence is a feat, and perhaps a tool. But I don't think it's a privilege. However, I think I know what you mean—the illusion of independence, as in pinballs set loose in a virtual pinball machine.

I would also see an illusion of independence only so far as it might be supposed that it remains intact or unaffected beyond a certain point. For most people, anything beyond the front door zaps self-possessiveness. There's also the thought that any unhindered escalation into the deepness of a cosmic wholeness would also entail an automatic metamorphosis, itself in accordance with the magnitude of a larger body.

I once had a dream that came true, a day after i had the actual dream. The measure of closeness/impact indicated a strong foundation for something phenomenal. Has any one here had a dream that has came true?

Three types, maybe four.

I think this is because we are less aware, and some how some quantum rules are unravelled.

Quantum rules and such is not my forte. Unfortunately. I'm more of an abstract bohemian.

Dream states would also be a good time to hypothesize that if there is only one mind present, then perhaps there is the chance of two minds merging?

Oh I see what you meant—merging in the sea.

What is the mind anyway? What is this stuff i see? The space i move through, and time i sense?

A focal point? Your focal point?

The mind is a superdimension, inextricably linked into space and time. I ask the reader to seriously consider this.

Oddly enough, I never really think of dimensions but of levels.

since the worlds we percieve are not projected in spacetime... but in some strange hyperdimension... a holographic sea.

You know, that makes sense. But the sheer detail involved would be staggering to the imagination—unless included are cause and effect.

2. Hypno states are strange things eh? I remember hearing about someone who went into a past life during regression [...] then maybe, just maybe the subjects mind, whilst unaware, is merging into unification with another soul

And could the influence of one's geist from the future affect an instance of the past? Siamese time-zones. Could such a thing be permitted?

By my thought alone, i can create things... This is true. Observation isn't the only way the observer can create reality. The observer can think the thing, and creates it. A collapse is created.

But wouldn't certain necessary principles have to be adhered to to establish such miraculous imaginings? Otherwise, like fireworks, they would all dissolve in a blaze of color. This is where I think one's caliber of independent thought might leave its footprint: in cement, or in mud—dependent on where one's consciousness is "located".

Also, another way we affect reality and the entire cosmos, is by naming a thing. This thought was created by Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, and he is right from a quantum physical truth.

I read somewhere that certain American Natives connect name-giving to souls, or something like that—a relationship would ensue; a connection. And then one would discover... companionship? communication? will?

We walk about all day, and our subconscious is like a tiny wave function, peaking in certain area's... The peakings will determine thoughts that i will have, totally unaware that it was influenced by some subconscious force.
It is these little idiosyncrasy's that make us wonder about the subconscious. It might hold a lot of secrets. On the other hand, it may hold nothing at all.

Like a condensed form, an amoeba, with magnetic properties—and a propensity for certain metals?

 

[Ripley]

Of course the things you mention chewinggum are relevant to everybody.

That's all for now.

Oh. Thanx Existabrent.

 

[Reiku]

An especially difficult task, I'd think, because of an ambiguous area of the psyche that is highly confined by the nature of extremely confidential experiences. And anyone whose experiences are atypical would also find it difficult to distinguish between a flux of unique features. Or, to turn the atypical on its head, encountering features that are too conspicuously atypical.



Somewhat on the aside, I had a similar idea, but not of an eternal cosmic mind, if that's what Bass meant—not that I'm refuting his idea. I envisioned a sort of essence of mankind, like a nebula astir; a confused jumble of gaseous threads intertwined—a collective form composing an entity; I (sometimes) see and think of mankind as an entity.

I find the idea of a single mind prevailing throughout the universe too accommodating, too accessible, too lazy. For some odd reason I feel the whole contraption is more convoluted and elaborate, like lace.

From our vantage point, perhaps. I would understand it better as brooks and streams feeding into rivers and lakes, and then possibly, after long passageways, those would feed into one of the grander seas—but not yet the high sea.

I think it depends on what type of independence is being referred to. Since independence is not fully matured nor quite understood, then much of it is superficial and mistaken. Sometimes I feel quite independent but at other times I most definitely am not—yet, when I'm not, I still seem able to identify a certain wholeness, a self-possessiveness, a self-reliancy. Independence is a feat, and perhaps a tool. But I don't think it's a privilege. However, I think I know what you mean—the illusion of independence, as in pinballs set loose in a virtual pinball machine.

I would also see an illusion of independence only so far as it might be supposed that it remains intact or unaffected beyond a certain point. For most people, anything beyond the front door zaps self-possessiveness. There's also the thought that any unhindered escalation into the deepness of a cosmic wholeness would also entail an automatic metamorphosis, itself in accordance with the magnitude of a larger body.

Three types, maybe four.

Quantum rules and such is not my forte. Unfortunately. I'm more of an abstract bohemian.

Oh I see what you meant—merging in the sea.

A focal point? Your focal point?

Oddly enough, I never really think of dimensions but of levels.

You know, that makes sense. But the sheer detail involved would be staggering to the imagination—unless included are cause and effect.

And could the influence of one's geist from the future affect an instance of the past? Siamese time-zones. Could such a thing be permitted?

But wouldn't certain necessary principles have to be adhered to to establish such miraculous imaginings? Otherwise, like fireworks, they would all dissolve in a blaze of color. This is where I think one's caliber of independent thought might leave its footprint: in cement, or in mud—dependent on where one's consciousness is "located".

I read somewhere that certain American Natives connect name-giving to souls, or something like that—a relationship would ensue; a connection. And then one would discover... companionship? communication? will?

Like a condensed form, an amoeba, with magnetic properties—and a propensity for certain metals?

Finally, the diplomacy has been restored on this thread. Hopefully it will attract like people. Good answers as well Chewing Gum. I won't answer all your responses, as not all of them posit a question.

A focal point? Your focal point?

I would certainly like to think so. But there is a real problem. This focal point, [the space i move through, and the time i sense], as i have explained, are not really projected in real time or real space. Somehow, mind is a hyperdimension, inextricably linked into the vectors of spacetime. Where are the feelings of space i move through and time i sense then?

I would also see an illusion of independence only so far as it might be supposed that it remains intact or unaffected beyond a certain point. For most people, anything beyond the front door zaps self-possessiveness. There's also the thought that any unhindered escalation into the deepness of a cosmic wholeness would also entail an automatic metamorphosis, itself in accordance with the magnitude of a larger body.

I like this. Your thinking big.

I would also see an illusion of independence only so far as it might be supposed that it remains intact or unaffected beyond a certain point. For most people, anything beyond the front door zaps self-possessiveness. There's also the thought that any unhindered escalation into the deepness of a cosmic wholeness would also entail an automatic metamorphosis, itself in accordance with the magnitude of a larger body.

I want to add to this, not only independance, but ego as well entraps self in matter and energy. These, remedial corporeal shells we call bodies.

Oddly enough, I never really think of dimensions but of levels.

That's ok. In fact, all dimensions mean are area's of freedom. Levels are also dimensions of freedom.

You know, that makes sense. But the sheer detail involved would be staggering to the imagination—unless included are cause and effect.

Even if we where to understand the sheer complexities of the imaginal realm, we would still resort to our antiquated imaginary concepts.

But wouldn't certain necessary principles have to be adhered to to establish such miraculous imaginings? Otherwise, like fireworks, they would all dissolve in a blaze of color. This is where I think one's caliber of independent thought might leave its footprint: in cement, or in mud—dependent on where one's consciousness is "located".

Yes. In fact, we have had to resort to using totally unimaginable theories. One of these comes from Cramers Transactional Interpretation. In his theory, whenever an observation is made, two time waves are involved in the transaction. An Echo Wave, moving in from the future (a wave that always moves back in time), and a forward time wave, called an Offer Wave, moving in from the past. The original wave has a complex conjugate, and when the meet in the present, a thing is created when the two waves square... whether that be a thought or a material thing being created...Its not unusual to create something from squaring two answers. F=MA, force equals mass time acceleration is a perfect example.

Like a condensed form, an amoeba, with magnetic properties—and a propensity for certain metals?[/QUOTE]

Yeh... If i get what you mean.

Reiku :m:

 

[Ripley]

Hopefully it will attract like people.

Until the topic is reestablished, perhaps—psychic powers.

A focal point? Your focal point?

I would certainly like to think so. But there is a real problem. This focal point, [the space i move through, and the time i sense], as i have explained, are not really projected in real time or real space. Somehow, mind is a hyperdimension, inextricably linked into the vectors of spacetime.

You also stressed the significance of the observer. So then, there's the individual's presence, observing. Where then is this area from where we observe? Wouldn't that be the focal point—the coordinates, as it were, of our existence? And if I follow your hypothesis correctly, the focal point—the whereabouts of one's being—also seems to serve as a doorway leading into everywhere else. The focal point then would serve as an anchor point, as an indicator, as a blip on a radar, even.

Where are the feelings of space i move through and time i sense then?

Where are they? As manifested consciousness, recorded consciousness, archived consciousness?

I want to add to this, not only independance, but ego as well entraps self in matter and energy. These, remedial corporeal shells we call bodies.

The body acting as a sort of vehicle, I always thought; the mind as a sort of cockpit. But a vehicle passing through what? To where? And why?

Oddly enough, I never really think of dimensions but of levels.

That's ok. In fact, all dimensions mean are area's of freedom. Levels are also dimensions of freedom.

I had a dream once about ascending an elevator, and watching the different floors go by—but each floor was related to the last, with variations. Then I realized I was in Photoshop's Layer Palette—I was ascending the palette's layers, not the floors! I exited into a layer where everything was greenish.

 

[Reiku]

Until the topic is reestablished, perhaps—psychic powers.

You also stressed the significance of the observer. So then, there's the individual's presence, observing. Where then is this area from where we observe? Wouldn't that be the focal point—the coordinates, as it were, of our existence? And if I follow your hypothesis correctly, the focal point—the whereabouts of one's being—also seems to serve as a doorway leading into everywhere else. The focal point then would serve as an anchor point, as an indicator, as a blip on a radar, even.

Where are they? As manifested consciousness, recorded consciousness, archived consciousness?

The body acting as a sort of vehicle, I always thought; the mind as a sort of cockpit. But a vehicle passing through what? To where? And why?

I had a dream once about ascending an elevator, and watching the different floors go by—but each floor was related to the last, with variations. Then I realized I was in Photoshop's Layer Palette—I was ascending the palette's layers, not the floors! I exited into a layer where everything was greenish.

> Then we need to be specific. What should we be talking about.

> This arena is the imaginary dimension of spacetime... A second time dimension. This might seem too extraordinary, but i sware, it might as well be.

> Yes, consciousness is a feild, and like any field, physical or potential, it contains memory. This means everything is predetermined.

> You know, in relativity theory, we are not actually moving anywhere. There is equations describing that nothing is moving, but yet, paradoxically nothing is standing still! This means we are flies stuck in amber, with our [histories] layed out befoe us... The future is just a time we cannot remember.

 

[Yorda]

what's the difference between psychics and physics?