I can explain the apparent linearity of time or try to anyway.

Given first cause and now, we can trace a linear set of cause and effect from here to now.

What I think he means is that there's no such thing as a timeline. There is no such "time" as 20/09/2011 existing in "space". Space does not pass through time, nor does time pass through space. Rather, let's suppose it's 10/05/2056 and we have a Universe Reconfigurator 2056™. If we now use our newfangled gadget and take every single unit of energy in the universe and arrange it exactly as it has been arranged on that fateful 20/09/2011, it will suddenly be 20/09/2011 all over again! Boom went our universe reconfigurator (I'm sorry your future wife and kids didn't make it), but at least it reminds us what's important, that Now truly is all there is.

This is because in spacetime, there are two ways things can be separated - spacelike and timelike (read the wiki page on "Spacetime" for a description far better than I can muster). To expound, the sun is 8 minutes away from us at lightspeed. However, the sun exists NOW and we exist NOW. With each "tick" of time, the next wave of information packets (typically photons) hit their destination. So in one tick of time, the earth will spin around the sun a certain distance. Across that same "tick", the sun will move relative to the stars. This creates the appearance of an Earth orbiting the Sun, moving around the galaxy. Keep in mind the concept of spacelike separation - nothing "here right now" really "causes" this all to go at once. However as we go back in time, there are less events and hence less causes and effects, until we return to first cause. Which is literally pulling ALL the strings. It's like two people clap at the same time, you couldn't say one caused the other to do it. But first cause made them both do it

And I suppose, that's what AKL means by the idea that things are not proportioned over time, they simply are proportioned. A "tick" of time is the same throughout the cosmos. The "length" of a tick is fixed relative to the "length" of a "segment" of space, that's how things are proportioned.

Now, here's a conundrum. We ARE in a dream, but it's not our bodies dreaming. It's simply what we think is "first cause" which simply is "us" all the way back in "time" when it was a lot simpler, when there was no "us" because there was only ME, I am that I am, etc. Understand? We're literally bits and pieces of an etch a sketch. But the etch a sketch itself is not a dream. It's all you are. There isn't any "higher" reality to wake up to, because that would also be You.

So in a very real sense, time is linear. But in another sense, there are a metric fuckton of linear timelines that placed together produce worldlines (1+1D), worldsheets (2+1D), worldvolumes (3+1D). To transcend time is much easier than you think. All you need to know is how space and time are "shaped". Now, there is no beginning or end to "time" simply because the observer arises with the beginning and dies with the end. But You are beyond the observer, don't forget that.

Citta wrote

i'm no physicst,but can you justify your statement?
there is no such thing, i say, as a 'wave function' or a 'measurement' without a conscious observer..all things in quantum physics are concepts (which exist only in the mind) and are all based on conscious observations..how can it be demonstrated that anything 'happens', or is 'probable', without a consciousness framework..
..a wave or particle doesn't make an 'observation' or measurement, it just is (as far as our minds can tell)

guess i've strayed into philosophy here (which is where the 'conscious observer' dualist idea i sprouted forth comes from) ..

enjoyed reading this =] great to hear people thinking along the same thought stream

Regardless of the exercising of our rationale, arguably, quantum mechanics may or may not exist in an "objective" state of reality. It certainly appears to be so and I am on board with many of the theories it generates. Seems logical and who doesn't cheer for a reasonable assumption?

Even so, we humanoids would have little to no evidence of this phenomenon if it were not OBSERVED by our individual and collective earthly consciousness. Our subjective observations craft the theories through our cognition of the data we perceive and so, we begin to think about the implications of such observable data and begin to hypothesize away. I am of the conviction that very, very little of what we perceive of as quantifiable "reality" is as it appears to the subjectivity of the witness. :idea:

There does exist a consensus of sorts, amongst the contemplatives incarnated upon this planetary body, that sentient awareness moves into higher planes of mind (be it through near death experience, advanced saturation of the practice of deep meditation or the imbibing of a psychedelic/entheogenic substances), that our ideas take on a certain symmetry and the characteristics of such planes of supraconscious awareness.

That being said, there seems to exist a thin film or membrane of ego which can witness the dissolution of itself. A few translucent shards of self remain intact to record observation of the transcendence. This is both, the intense beauty and the sheer terror of activating a psychedelic trip within our own organic bodies.

It's all in our minds... but we feel through our hearts. There is more to our existence than reason. Love and compassion are such sensations and while they are certainly human characteristics, they appear to be mirrored from the heart of the universal being. Love is expansive and very mystical.

I would add that there seems to be few forces in this universe/multiverse which have the capacity to transform our subjectivity as much a LOVE can. Love??? Why, what does love have to do with the awakening of the universe, as self awareness, through the extensions of it's own creation? Everything!!! From a certain angle, God is love. Existence is an expression of love... universal love. Perhaps this is the hidden force which initiates quantum fluctuations? Seems highly illogical.

From cross-referencing the mystical revelations of many folks throughout human history, it's clear that we do recall significant perceptions of such powerful eclipsings of the individual with the Oneness. That AHA moment, so to speak, where we remember ALWAYS being made up of the insubstantial essence of Unified Field of Being.

Does this imply that the universe is becoming self-aware though our immersions? I suspect not exactly... but I wouldn't deny the possibility either, since if we CAN access higher planes of consciousness, are we not hardwired to access them from before we even were birthed? Exactly my supposition. We do exist before individualized manifestation and we exist post manifestation. The remembrance.

Hypothetically speaking, just how do we exist before and after this human form? Maybe we are awareness as indivisible being? We may return to our mutual origins by merging within the totality from whence we came? One must experience this within themselves to know such things but it is not uncommon amongst psychonauts, those crossing through near death experiences and those drawn towards the Divine.

Still, we cannot realistically believe that the subjective impressions we have that the universe and the individuated observations of our personal experiences (as the human ego) are one and the same energy force. Or can we? I have come to believe we can and we must, eventually. Everything is interconnected by the highest law of this universe, that being the indivisibility of Spirit.

To see this and to directly know the truth of such a transcendental level of unified being, is the challenge of our species. And yes, in my own naive way, I fearlessly state that I have been awakened to the immanence and Omnipotence of this living presence of cosmic intelligence. Granted, it's a subjective impression. Can it be that such a force is aware of me being conscious of it? I personally don't feel this is so... but perhaps the cosmic energy field does experience awareness of itself, as each of us experiences this Omniself as our own true nature?

Embracethevoid, I think you explain the nonlinear aspect of time well.

Basically space is measured in time, the dichotomy between space and time is an artifact of the senses.
Time is a constant singularity, this is why we use light speed for fission calculations it is the closest stable value to instant constant. This is why we measure time and space, which are not distinct, with lightyears. Linear aspects of time are like measurements, sort of like measuring a wave in the ocean by saying where it stops, where it starts and the direction it propagates in and then saying that the wave exists separate from the ocean.

hyperspacefool, I can't say that I think McKenna was a coherent theorist. I did like True Hallucinations though. I also do not believe in infinite dimensions, just four and they are based on progressive manifestation aspect.


It is true that entities like wave and particle do not exist without an observer, that does not mean that what they measure fails to exist without observation, only that the measurements and definitions are subjective to observation.

McKenna never claimed to be a scientist, and his theories were often designed to provoke thought more than to actually explain the Universe. Most of what he wrote or said at his lectures was quite engaging and fun IMO, but I never said I subscribed to his Timewave Zero idea... just that it was a non-linear veiw of space-time and it had an end.

As for infinite dimensions, 9 dimensions, or merely 4... it is all speculation anyway. Belief in something you can not prove and can not verify (especially if your experience hasn't even shown it to you) is the definition of superstition. I said I can IMAGINE any number of dimensions. After all, how many dimensions does an illusion or a dreamworld have?

"It is true that entities like wave and particle do not exist without an observer, that does not mean that what they measure fails to exist without observation, only that the measurements and definitions are subjective to observation. "

It is true? No one has proven this. There is no way to test this theory, it is not even something that the scientific method can be applied to. I would say that the current models of Quantum Mechanics suggest or predict this to be the case... maybe.

Funny thing about theoretical physics and the guys who tout it, no matter how off or wrong they are proven to be they still act like they understand what is going on. Latest news is that the Higgs Boson probably doesn't exist. http://www.newsdaily.com...ies/tre77l5ks-us-higgs/ & http://www.newsdaily.com...ies/tre78445c-us-higgs/ This is despite the fact that under what is known as the Standard Model of physics, the boson, which was named after British physicist Peter Higgs, is posited as having been the agent that gave mass and energy to matter just after the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. No matter, they are already saying that its absence will point the way to a New Physics. Only theoretical scientists can spend billions of dollars looking for something (risking the lives of millions in the process without their consent mind you) and then in failure, try to paint it as a success.

They don't know. The guys making millions to do these experiments don't know the answers. How can you say you know what is "true?" What you said about dimensions is more rational. You choose to believe. This argues to the dirty little secret of theoretical science... it is closer to religion than it is to engineering.

Re entities
That they do not exist without an observer, but their relative phenomena exist is easily proven.
One merely changes the unit of measurement, for example measure velocity instead of position, Those measurement parameters are mutually exclusive and yet pertain to the same phenom.

I don't actually subscribe to modern theoretical physics, I form my own belief system by employing elimination and deduction. The dimensional aspects are a good example, four dimensions is quite plausible and stable in a mathematic sense, you see for me it is like taking two apples from four, you get two... This isn't something that happens with consistency in dreams, but I do not see dreams as a world or a space, just as a sensory experience.

I am agnostic in terms of theoretical physics, I believe that we can only symbolize and thus only approximate, thus not actually understand anything, ever, just develop functional and pragmatic methodology. I do believe in methods, be they those of science, religion, fantasy etc.

As for how many dimensions an illusion has, none. This is because it is illusion. Dimension is tangible, one can employ the theories of dimension even in fission and fusion, however dream does not do this. I believe however that we being vain creatures will ever perceive things like dream in the light of our perceived self importance and the vanity that all we perceive must be genuine in some manner. In a way our psychology is epitomized by the story of the naked emperor, no matter what we claim the emperor is clothed in, be it religious garb or a nice white lab coat, he is still naked, but we cannot accept that we cannot comprehend, only act.

^

Many people believe that this material world is an illusion. In fact, it is a central tenet of the beliefs of something like 1/3rd of the world's religious people. The Hindus and Buddhists both say this world is nothing but Maya. (As do the Jains, the Aborigines say it is dreamtime... and so on)

In addition, there are many scientific theories that posit this world to be something illusory as well. The Holographic Universe Theory springs to mind. How can anyone say for sure that we don't live in a Simulacrum?

I mentioned a few times already that there is no proof for reality being real. Meanwhile there IS a proof for dreams being dreams. You don't have to address this I suppose, but your insistance that dreams are a sensory experience based in the material Universe is just speculation.

Have you never had a dream that was so real that you were completely fooled into thinking you were awake? Most people have... every night actually.

I maintain that nothing can be known without some form of observation by a conscious being. Illusions can have dimensions. All four typical dimesnions exist in my dreams. Do you dream in 2D? I would guess not...

Anyway, the Emporer might well be naked, but the question is whether he is dreaming he is naked at work and will wake up at some point to find that he is still in bed.

The illusion of the perception of existence is well known even to science, awareness as we have it is very narrow and limited. However the concept of Maya is not one of the world being as a dream

You say there is proof dreams are dreams but not that reality is real. If there is no reality as real, then what does your proof of dreams being dreams rest upon? If dreams are dreams there must be an underlying reality, thus if you prove one you prove the other.

My dreams have no dimensionality, I can fly, pass through objects etc, thus none of the dimensions exist in them. There is no displacement of mass, for example.

You mentioned that a dream model answers more questions than a material model and that it places consciousness before matter.
What are those questions?

Some Vedic scriptures describe Maya as Vishnu's dream. Plenty of spiritual traditions have this teaching somewhere in their esoteric lore.

You can prove that you are dreaming by becoming Lucid. There is nothing about dreaming that requires there to be any underlying reality. I don't know why you are stuck in that concept. It could all be a dream... and you can not prove otherwise.

The dreams you remember might be of this dimensionless sort, perhaps these are the only kind you have. Billions of people have the experience of dreams that are nearly identical to waking life, though... perhaps with some odd juxtapositions thrown in. People go to work, go to school... drive around in cars. You name it. Your experiences in this are not indicative of dreaming as a whole. And even if they were, that is not an argument against a dream model of reality.

If consciousness antecedes matter or if there actually is no matter but merely dreamstuff fooling us into belief in matter... it allows us to answer questions about 1st cause, the nature of reality, the mechanics of creation, and even the concept that this thread is supposed to be about... Universal Awareness.

Vedic scriptures also say that Vishnu is not a persona or distinct from the other Trimurti aspects, they say one of his forms is as the child on the lotus on the waters, at the end and beginning of time, that he is then without characteristic.

The Mahabharata has content that teaches that the Trimurti are not actual entities but that they are portrayed as entities as a teaching method.

The jewel upon the lotus, the god and the waters, this is a common theme to most religions on this planet. In a manner it is totality itself, the sustainer of existence seen as origin.

There are some Norse legends that we are all figments of the imagination of a dreaming entity, that one day he will awaken and we will be no more.


I disagree that there dream does not imply reality exists, for example the distinction between dream and reality is clear. There are consistencies to both that render a subjective argument worthless, if there was no reality then the line between dream and reality would not exist, there would be no differences. You could fly and pass through things while awake, there would be no thermodynamic laws and lucidity in dreams would not allow us to alter them.

I've had the illusion of dimension in dreams, but I can alter that at will and whim, however this does not happen when awake.
The experience of dimension in dreams is meaningless unless there are constant and consistent properties of objects and events in dreams, dimension is measurable and testable. What do you weigh in your dreams?

You seem to be arguing to my point actually. Vishnu doesn't have to be a person. The idea is that many cultures have a concept of the Universe which is dream based and not material based.

This is not debatable really. It is well documented. Read up on aboriginal dreamtime if you have time. Fascinating stuff.

You can continue to disagree with me. I have no interest in changing your mind. For me, knowing that I am dreaming does not predicate that there is a waking state whatsoever. There is simply KNOWING that you are dreaming... and NOT KNOWING that you are dreaming.

If by now, you haven't come up with a test to validate reality, I can assume you don't have one.

The fact that it is possible to validate a dream but not our conception of "material reality" means something. It might be abhorent to your current worldview. It might irritate you to no end. But everything you know... everything you think you know... everything you have spent so much time learning about your material world... could be a dream.

reality is self validating
you could not even refer to a dream if not for it
the distinction is key

what are your thoughts on the study of the sleeper and REM?
i can watch a person sleep and dream, and they have gone nowhere

a semantic argument is an interesting thing, you can say that if no test can prove reality, then you cannot dismiss it as unreal, but then you refer to reality itself to say this then that is self subject and thus negates itself, but to pretend that it does not then consider that the antithesis of what your are saying is that if you cannot come up with a test that proves reality is a dream, then you cannot prove it is unreal

thus everything might not be a dream at all

what is the benefit of claiming it might be a dream?
what method does this allow?
does it do anything other than allow for a topic to discuss?

can you prove that dreams exist?

I have been reading about aboriginal dream time, their dreaming is totally distinct from dream when you sleep and i can't find a claim that says that they believe existence is a dream, they refer to a dream as distinct from existence that is like a spirit world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ming_%28spirituality%29

it is said that no english word actually captures what is meant by what we are calling 'the dreaming'

it does not appear that it is an aboriginal belief that existence is a dream, dreamtime or the dreaming is said to exist as a timeless time before and after all. it is not about reality being an illusion or dream whatsoever

thanks for suggesting i read up on it, it is fascinating stuff.

Not true. Reality might be your personal delusion. My point is that it might not be "real" at all.

If your real reality was of the substance of dream, you could certainly refer to dreams without any reality.

This is not so hard to grasp. Even popular films like Inception can wrap their heads around the dream within a dream within a dream concept. Just imagine that when you think you are awake at this moment, and in your comfortable conception of material reality... that it is not real at all, but a dream you are having.

You can do it.



I enjoy studying dreaming and REM states, brainwaves and the whole kit and kaboodle. But that doesn't prove anything. It could still be a dream that you watch someone else sleeping. How can you say for sure that the study of sleep and other people en toto are not just figments of your imagination? You can't. You could be a character in someone else's dream.

The way you stick to your points and don't even address the obviousness of mine, it wouldn't surprise me if you were just a character in my dream. Dream characters can be impossible to reason with at times.





I have already answered all these questions. I can prove it when I am dreaming... reliably and undeniably.

There are a lot of benefits in considering the possibility that this might be a dream. Not the least of which is it sets up a reality check mechanism which makes it easier to recognize a dream at a later point in time. If it turns out to be true, then pondering this idea is the only important thing we can do here.

Maybe you should go back and read what I have already written to you about these things before asking me questions I have already answered. Also it could remind you that I have asked you questions that you haven't answered yet. I don't mind repeating myself per se... but I grow bored of going round in circles when it seems clear you will not consider anything remotely outside your current materialist view.

Anyway, Aborigine beliefs ARE fascinating, no? They consider both waking and dreaming to be part of a larger field called dreamtime. It is a kind of spirit world. Still, they believe that everything comes out of the dreaming and not that dreams are some material neurological firing of synapses. The universe is dreamed into being. This sentence appears in many shamanic traditions.

I don't say that this is FOR SURE the case, but I think it is a distinct possibility and if true, it is an immensely important piece of information. Especially so if there is no waking life, at all. Each Dreamworld might have its own apparent laws of nature. Physics could change from moment to moment and you wouldn't even know because dreams constantly rewrite your memory and convince you that any anomolies you see are perfectly logical.

Not only can't you disprove a dream theory of reality, but you can't even imagine a test that could disprove it. I am amazed that you can cling to your surety in the face of that.

Re: quantum physics and the observer

..what is a 'measurement'? how is measurement possible except as a conscious act?
a measurement is a 'decision' , an awareness, if you like, of 'actuality'.."this is what is real.."
a collapsing of probability into reality..

without a perceiver, nothing is real..only possible..
..can a wave/particle (if such things exist) make a decision? i believe it is our (conscious) experimental observation that collapses the possibilities..makes it 'real'..

i concur with Hyperspace Fool


..i just add that there is just one being, infinitely observing possible subdivisions within the infinite set...


if a tree falls down in the forest and no one (no conscious observer) is there to hear it, it does not make a sound..sound is a perceptual phenomena..there may well be waves of air particles made of subatomic entities, but no one's ever there to measure and prove that..

....


..and for the real mystics, like RisingSpirit

i feel 'Love' may be the singular and only unquantifiable, or unquantified, force or thing in existence..existence is larger (or greater than/more complete) than the universe, an aspect (or even outcome) of it..

the 'UnQuantified' permeates, binds and surrounds all things..it holds the universe together..everywhere at all times, and in all aspects of orientation..

..may the force be with you

all of you...

.

Infinite I wrote:


..the more i read this, the more i also become confused..

i think i'll reduce my philosophy to: "just one dreamer, the dream is endless..."
(my ultimate understanding of the australian indigenous DreaMTime_)

...

"just one dreamer, the dream is endless..."

Same thing!

I believe existence is as simple as this; all things exist with in eternity and we are just a part of the all things that exist. Eternity Is a paradox which came from itself.