Professor write ups: "Why time appears to speed up with age"

[Al Today]

Had a thought driving into work today...
While scanning the radio, I came across a classic rock/pop oldies music radio station. They advertised they play the hits from the 60's, 70's, and 80's. Shoot, the eighties weren't that long ago,,, too me anyway...
Hey, young whipper snappers out there... How long ago do the eighties(80) feel to you? Just like last week??? or like WOW, that was a long time ago? Maybe, shoot, that was before I was born, man???
I dunno, I just thought to throw this out there...

edit: It's always my typing...

 

[Buddy]

And isn't the "coherent meta-pattern as you 'discern' a vortex of air drift across the treetops" just something wich makes sense inside this(time-space)because that is how we expect things to be?

From all points of reason which I am familiar with, the Universe appears to possess the property of algorithmic redundancy. Meaning, things just do not go off doing their own thing. Everything is, by default, connected to everything else and operating as patterns of motion and repeatable cycles, patterns of patterns and meta-patterns and all operating within something larger.

Even the esoteric idea of archetypes, Jungian or not, assumes meta-patterns consisting of component patterns, etc., etc. and everything part of, or reflective of, some larger whole capable of manifesting in some way on some level.

With this in mind, I think we actually should expect things to make sense when we have a correct contextual understanding of something and use a correct approach.

This particular expectation of things making sense is actually buried in everything we do.

If it were not, no one would have the right to assume that his/her self-observation over a period of time would yield any useful results, because one would not be assuming the right for anything that concerns oneself to make sense from one's own self-observing point of view!

In the context of the natural world (which is the context of the post you quote) one would not be able to justify any faith in the very sense perceptions of the human biological nervous system which are programmed or designed to do that very thing with those elements of the natural world.

With regard to the vortex of air, the issue was never 'why' it is being discerned (the implication of expectations?). The issue was the fact of it's existence, or not, based solely on evidence of patterns of motion of the bushes, trees and birds and such. The physiological response to the insight or recognition seems completely natural and appropriate and the complete perceptual cycle that begins with just looking and ends with a particular discernment seems entirely related to the need for comprehension of the surrounding environment and survival of the organism from the nervous system's point of view, and therefore 'objective' for all practical purposes.

As an attempt to address your question, this response is only to suggest that the situation and facts exist as stated, not 'why' or that any of it can't be eventually transcended through Work. :)

What if coherence is not an intrinsic property of the observable phenomena but a result of the observer expectations?

What if coherence is not a property of anything, but more simply, a state that describes how actual properties of a 'thing' relate to each other? The subject of 'fluid dynamics' will do a better job than I can of explaining coherence in a fluid system, whether atmospheric or oceanic, or anything in between.

With regard to the funnel of air, the question of 'discernment' involves "is it there, or is it not there?", not my expectations. Judging by what I noticed when I walked out of the house, the birds were taking advantage of it before I sat down on the porch and started really looking, so I reckon my expectations didn't matter. :)

 

[ana]

I'm not saying there is or isn't coherence in the universe, just that maybe it depends on the observer awareness and not on the observable phenomena per se, wich will vary depending on the former. Maybe that's the reason why we need the gently guide of the higher self.

Q: But still, what you said still implies that an atom has an objective existence. Is this
correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you please tell us what constitutes objectivity?
A: The effort on the part of the observer to leave prejudice "at the door."
Q: How does the effort on the part of the observer to leave prejudice at the door relate
to the objective existence of an atom?
A: An atom, as with absolutely everything else, cannot exist without an observer.
Q: So, in the case of the objectivity of an atom, if the human observers are not
objective, where is the observer who makes the atom objective, or does the atom not
exist if there is no observer?
A: Yes. to the latter comment.
Q: Yes to which part?
A: The latter comment.
Q: So there must be an observer. Must the observer be human?
A: The observer must be a consciousness.
Q: If you say that an atom has an objective existence, yet it only exists if it is perceived
by a consciousness, then an atom does not have an objective existence, correct?
A: No.
Q: Okay, what is the distinction? You say that objectivity is the ATTEMPT on the part
of the observer to leave prejudice at the door.
A: Without consciousness, there is neither objective or subjective!!
Q: So the crux is the attempt to leave prejudice at the door in the same manner as one
would be non-anticipatory in order to create?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, that is a VERY tricky... (A) Is consciousness objective?
A: Consciousness is objective, until it has the capacity to choose to be otherwise.
Q: What is the stimulus for the change, for the giving of the capacity to choose?
A: The introduction of prejudice.
Q: In a cosmic sense, cosmic consciousness, in the sense of The One Unified
Consciousness, what is the stimulus there for the ability to choose?
A: When the journey has reached union with The One, all such lessons have been
completed.
Q: But, that doesn't answer the question.
A: Yes, it does!

I would also be gratefull if you could simplify as possible your explanations because I'm having trouble following your thinking processes :D

 

[Buddy]

I would also be gratefull if you could simplify as possible your explanations because I'm having trouble following your thinking processes :D

You got it. :D

I will do the best I can and rely on your requests for clarification, though it would be good if your question is more precise (and I don't know if you're asking something with this post). We can see a lesson from the transcripts, themselves, that sometimes it is good for the listener to have the context around a question as well as the questioner having the context around an answer. :)

As your focus seems to be on "coherence in the Universe" at the moment, I assume the transcript above supports your idea that:

"I'm not saying there is or isn't coherence in the universe, just that maybe it depends on the observer awareness and not on the observable phenomena per se, wich will vary depending on the former."

It seems to me that, among other things, the C's make it plain that an atom is a mental construct abstracted from a less-than-complete comprehension of some observable stuff. As such, the stuff that is actually being pointed to with that word 'atom' can be seen as both objective and subjective and subject to distortion. The concept would only have any coherence in terms of what is holding the idea together at the moment.

But then, 'coherence' of 'atom-as-concept-and-what-the-speaker-means' is quite a different issue than coherence of a whirlpool in a river or an air funnel in the atmosphere, OSIT. :) The one cannot be observed while the two can be observed.

Back to the transcript, there seems to be no requirement that any observer be human or any other particular organism. It is just 'a' consciousness that is required. Since the C's do not specify if consciousness is really a property of the Universe, itself, then maybe Universe or some other aspect of Universe CAN have a point of view on an issue or itself that obsoletes man's internal idea of an "indeterminate state of reality" with respect to a certain issue and the current state of knowledge of it.

Maybe consciousness as property of the Universe is just using the nervous systems in this neck of the cosmic woods to express itself. Maybe the 'prejudice' refers to all the various ways we think of it as 'ours'. :)

Interesting, indeed.

 

[John G]

It seems to me that, among other things, the C's make it plain that an atom is a mental construct abstracted from a less-than-complete comprehension of some observable stuff.

That more or less says everything in the deepest sense (a physics/algebra protospace or an esoteric 7th density) is information. That doesn't mean the physical isn't a good way to see the underlying information (even if it turns out the only really physical part is a pattern of electron states in your brain or some bosons from somewhere effecting those states in your brain).

But then, 'coherence' of 'atom-as-concept-and-what-the-speaker-means' is quite a different issue than coherence of a whirlpool in a river or an air funnel in the atmosphere, OSIT. :) The one cannot be observed while the two can be observed.

It is really the bosons aka light that interfere with you and there are atoms that can be "seen" in an electron microscope.

Back to the transcript, there seems to be no requirement that any observer be human or any other particular organism. It is just 'a' consciousness that is required. Since the C's do not specify if consciousness is really a property of the Universe, itself, then maybe Universe or some other aspect of Universe CAN have a point of view on an issue or itself that obsoletes man's internal idea of an "indeterminate state of reality" with respect to a certain issue and the current state of knowledge of it.

It's more a particular worldline's point of view that is required and since there apparently is consciousness in some sense even at 1st density, then all worldlines have consciousness in some sense. At 7th density there's the all worldlines are one, one worldline is all point of view where the Cs said if two things (worldlines) can perceive the same thing (all that is) then is there really any difference between them? Course the concept of worldline (in a many-worlds quantum theory) could be quite different at 7th density.

As for non-linear vs linear, I tend to just think of Ark using a 4,2 (4 spacelike,2 timelike) signature for spacetime instead of the conventional 3,1. It gives you all that cone-donut-infinity symbol geometry instead of the traditional boring old Minkowski geometry.

 

[Buddy]

[quote author=Bud]
Back to the transcript, there seems to be no requirement that any observer be human or any other particular organism. It is just 'a' consciousness that is required. Since the C's do not specify if consciousness is really a property of the Universe, itself, then maybe Universe or some other aspect of Universe CAN have a point of view on an issue or itself that obsoletes man's internal idea of an "indeterminate state of reality" with respect to a certain issue and the current state of knowledge of it.

It's more a particular worldline's point of view that is required...

Required for what? Seeing around the idea of an "indeterminate state of reality"? I'm just wanting to see if we are talking about the same thing. :)

 

[ana]

Back to the transcript, there seems to be no requirement that any observer be human or any other particular organism. It is just 'a' consciousness that is required. Since the C's do not specify if consciousness is really a property of the Universe, itself, then maybe Universe or some other aspect of Universe CAN have a point of view on an issue or itself that obsoletes man's internal idea of an "indeterminate state of reality" with respect to a certain issue and the current state of knowledge of it.

Yes they do:

A: Remember, "God" is really all existence in creation, in other words, all consciousness. This is because all existence in creation is consciousness, and vice versa.

Also, for what the Cs say free will is the most important law of consciousness in creation, and it is awareness that determines our density level and experiences (natural frequency awareness boundaries) and not other aspect of Universe controlling lower consciousness perceptions.

A: Absolutely don't let others distract you. You have suffered many attempts at distraction away from truth. Now follow some proclamations: Pause. All there is is lessons. This is one infinite school. There is no other reason for anything to exist. Even inanimate matter learns it is all an "Illusion." Each individual possesses all of creation within their minds. Now,
contemplate for a moment. Each soul is all powerful and can create or destroy all existence if know how. You and us and all others are interconnected by our mutual possession of all
there is. You may create alternative universes if you wish and dwell within. You are all a
duplicate of the universe within which you dwell. Your mind represents all that exists. It is
"fun" to see how much you can access.

Q: (L) And who put the illusion into place?
A: The Creator who is also the Created. Which is also you and us and all. As we have told you, we are you and vice versa. And so is everything else.

 

[Woodsman]

The loophole I find interesting in considering time as an illusion, is how 'time' appears to slow down when very high speeds are involved; when clocks sail along approaching the speed of light. That seems, (to my thinking), to offer some valuable clues as to the workings of the illusion.

Why when I zoom away from an observer really fast, time seems to progress normally for me, but when I return from my one-year trip, the observer on Earth is fifty years older?

I spent a few days cracking my head on that one, and came close to something, but then life sucked me into another go-round of drama.

So the following is patchy, since I didn't finish. It builds on my current understanding of how our perception of Time is a direct result of the nature of Densities 3 and 4. . . http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=17066.msg176655#msg176655.)

Anyway, this is the idea I came up with:

I'll use the old stand-by photographic slide projection carousel imagery. . .

~~~~
1. We can think of 'time' as a series of slides, each representing a moment, and we move through them one after another.

2. We can think of our path of awareness as it travels through the succession of slides as a beam of light or a laser pointer, penetrating one slide and then the next one behind it and so on. Easy. These are old concepts.

Okay. . .

3. We can think of our physical motion in space, like when we fly in a rocket ship or take a car ride, as the beam of light, in addition to traveling forward through the slice of film, as also moving left or right or up an down. Like playing a flashlight across a movie screen. The dot moves on the X, Y, plane of axis; left, right, up and down.

Got that visual? Okay. . .

4. Now. . . Say the slides are not small little see-through squares in paper frames as they are in a slide projector. Let's think of the slides as having no limits. Each slice of time contains the whole world and our solar system and beyond. So each slice of film is really, really wide and tall and our laser pointer needn't be limited in how far it can explore along the X, Y, plane.

Now try visualizing this . .

5. Our laser pointer beam starts moving from one point to another really, really fast along the X, Y, plane. It's moving so fast from position A to position B that the dot traveling across the film is moving at near the speed of light. The beam, of course, still penetrates the film as normal and travels on to the next slice, but its lateral motion is very great.

6. Now, when moving the dot like this at a low speed, there wouldn't be any noticeable effect; the 'dot' the laser makes on the film surface stays round. But at close to the speed of light, the dot elongates. It smears. And thus it is actually experiencing MORE of that one time frame by virtue of its lateral motion than a laser dot which is just passing through without any lateral motion. -Now I know that an actual laser wouldn't really do that, but the imagery is meant to be a metaphor for our Awareness traveling through time slices. We might alternatively think of the laser bream instead as a bullet traveling through the slides super-fast. With no lateral motion, it would leave a round hole, but with lateral motion, it would leave a hole which looks more like an oval or even a wide slot. The implication is that the bullet of our awareness when traveling as such, is actually experiencing more of that "time slice" than if it were only traveling straight through.

~~~~~

See?

Now I haven't run this idea through a grinder yet looking for implications and flaws, but it's what I came up with to help fit Einsteinian physics into the "Slices of Time" model we've been presented with by the C's and others.

Also. . .

It is indeed fun to ponder the answers given in the sessions. Seeing all the related transcripts together like this, stimulates a lot of thinking. I agree with anart that our perception of time is not caused by or "due to agrarian society or any sociological context". It was just one of several clearly unspecified thoughts, mainly related to how the cultural and sociological context does indeed play a part in determining how deeply embedded illusions can be on the individual and collective level, OSIT.

In consideration of the above snippets, my feeling is the C's are suggesting a way of understanding that transcends the digital, on-off, black-white thinking style, yet makes use of the feedback connections we have by being a part of the Universe. Something more modal perhaps, that only an 'analog machine' can do?

It would seem the desirable way to approach the issue if bilateral (dual emergence) is to be addressed, OSIT.

Looking at this from a perspective of modal logics, perhaps we could have a 'variable' physicality context represented by an equation such as: A ? B = C and 'select out' a 'rule' that if C is odd, then the ? is a plus sign; If C is even, then the ? is a subtraction operation.

In a self-consistent system where everything is connected to everything else, and everything is in motion relative to something else, whatever holds the value of '?' is connected to whatever holds the value of 'C' forwards (to fix the value of C) and backwards (to be fixed by C). From this perspective, the purpose and use of the connections would be to find a balancing place or actual true possibility to "explore further", not a 'halt' or 'answer'.

Whoever or whatever can do this (and intuition that correctly grasps something is non-digital from what I can tell) cannot be operating in binary mode because the effect of ? and C on each other must be felt instantly. From the perspective of being conscious of what is going on, there would be no 'period of time' in which a process of applying the change (the rule) could take place (it all happens instantly) because it is not a linear sequence that can be specified. It takes a Universe in order for this to happen due to the requirement for feedback loops.

I suppose a digital machine could learn, or be programmed, to simulate this operation, but it would likely take a long 'time' due to having to model all those atoms. The closest thing we have had to an actual hardware machine that can operate on analog inputs are the old graphics rendering machines of around 30 or so years ago, OSIT.

Approaching the issue of 'time' from the perspective of a system operating on modal logics is kind of scary, actually, because I see a shadow of that 'theoretical Bennett machine' approaching. :P

While trying to work out what you were saying, I had to look up, "Theoretical Bennett Machine". It was fun trying to bend my head around the concept of "Reversible Computing." It's pretty cool stuff!

I ran across this image http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs36/f/2008/243/0/3/Blasted_Drop_by_sicklizard.gif to help explain to myself what "Reversible Computing" was. (The strange name used by the person who posted this animation in public forum caused me to blink.) Anyway, when we look at the bubble bursting, we can see how a computer could compute its way forward and thus track all of the particles. (Apparently, it took a few days to do that in order to create this animation). But working backwards from spread-out matter to figure out what form the original shape was, looks computationally really hard, if not impossible due to the inherent nature of entropy and chaos which affect matter as it progresses through 'time'.

I'm not sure it's possible, or even necessary, given the nature of matter as it travels through time. The chips have already "fallen where they may" and thus we need only look back at what actually happened to see the path we took through time. Perhaps that real data could affect one of the variables in your A ? B = C formula to keep it on track?

But that's enough for now. More thoughts later. I got a brain-flash while reading through this thread about a possible answer to a question which has been on my mind. . . http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=18707.0



Cheers!

 

[Gonzo]

The slide carousel analogy reminds me of certain aboriginal beliefs regarding circular time, where time occurs in cycles.

Standing on the perimeter of the circle, we can see other points in time along the perimeter.
So, in the carousel, not only could you shoot the beam through multiple slides, which builds upon time as linear, but also shoot across the circle like the ray of an arc, to a specific slide, or point in time, without having to go through other points in time.

perhaps the limitation on use in our 3rd density is that we might be able to send our awareness back in time through our memory but our body stays put. Without the limitation, we may be able to physically follow our awareness.

I am reminded of experiments I'd prayer where people would direct prayer toward a computer generating random numbers.

Researchers noted that, at the time the prayer was occurring, the randomness would change to patterns in numeric sequence, if I'm remembering correctly.

Furthermore, if the group prayed toward previously recorded random numbers, like those stored on a hard drive, they too would be shown to have fallen into pattern.

However, if a researcher observed the previously recorded data, the prayers had no effect and the data remained random.

This tells us a few things.

Prayer can affect randomness. Perhaps this is part of the puzzle regarding manifestation from chaos.

As well, the past could be manipulated by prayer, provided it had not already been observed.

It appears that the act of observation by a single person creates reality and locks it in time.

So, it seems that random in the past remains random in the present until consciousness creates a reality.

How this applies to the future, which is an open set of potentials to a given incarnated consciousness, I can only guess.

In our 3-D, I think we can only travel the timeline of the consciousness in it's current incarnation.
Gonzo

 

[Buddy]

Back to the transcript, there seems to be no requirement that any observer be human or any other particular organism. It is just 'a' consciousness that is required. Since the C's do not specify if consciousness is really a property of the Universe, itself, then maybe Universe or some other aspect of Universe CAN have a point of view on an issue or itself that obsoletes man's internal idea of an "indeterminate state of reality" with respect to a certain issue and the current state of knowledge of it.

Yes they do:

A: Remember, "God" is really all existence in creation, in other words, all consciousness. This is because all existence in creation is consciousness, and vice versa.

Thank you for that.

It gives more weight to the idea that followed the bolded part: "then maybe Universe or some other aspect of Universe CAN have a point of view on an issue or itself that obsoletes man's internal idea of an 'indeterminate state of reality' with respect to a certain issue and the current state of knowledge of it."

So it seems our job as individuals is to gain the experience of objective consciousness (G's 'perfecting of the objective reason') by assisting each other to identify, understand and try to remove, or see around subjectivity in specific cases and in general. Can we, as humanity, do it, or are we forever 'doomed' to see opposition everywhere we look?

Contrasted with the C's comment above, we should maybe see that when someone promotes an idea based on an 'indeterminate state of reality', they have conveniently forgotten that they are talking about their internal thinking space instead of the reality itself.

We can see the disconnect in the writing. In the case above, the idea: an 'indeterminate state of reality', even when it is expressed by implication, really seems to mean a particular state of perception, or knowledge, or collection of information from a particular point of view and not some kind of 'universal truth' or 'description of objective reality' as it relates to a particular issue, and is not necessarily opposed to another, OSIT.

Of course, individually, or collectively, in order to grow our understanding any further than where it is at a given time, there has to be a common, objective ground that everything can be ultimately tied back to, otherwise there is the risk of being pulled into the whirlpool of circular thinking that eventually sucks down to "my factoid is better than your factoid". :P

To me, Universal Truths are much deeper, elegant and satisfyingly thirst-quenching than the mere leaving off of some context around an idea as it that were sufficient to explain reality. (Thank you, Universe )

We already know from the C's and from the study of psychology that hubris and pathological certainty are intertwined, but that doesn't mean that positive statements about reality cannot be made. I suppose we just need to understand that our internal representations of reality are only ever a partial picture of the total reality (until 7D is reached) and the inductive mode which looks at the whole should constantly run a sanity check on the deductive work to make sure everything fits into a consistent whole, OSIT.

A: Absolutely don't let others distract you. You have suffered many attempts at distraction away from truth. Now follow some proclamations: Pause. All there is is lessons. This is one infinite school. There is no other reason for anything to exist. Even inanimate matter learns it is all an "Illusion." Each individual possesses all of creation within their minds. Now,
contemplate for a moment. Each soul is all powerful and can create or destroy all existence if know how. You and us and all others are interconnected by our mutual possession of all
there is. You may create alternative universes if you wish and dwell within. You are all a
duplicate of the universe within which you dwell. Your mind represents all that exists. It is
"fun" to see how much you can access.

Q: (L) And who put the illusion into place?
A: The Creator who is also the Created. Which is also you and us and all. As we have told you, we are you and vice versa. And so is everything else.

I think the semantic construct in that transcript above, is extremely fascinating. Over and above the superficial meanings from the words themselves, there seems to be the promise of great power and information accessibility to anyone who can manage to rid themselves of 'themselves'. :P (the false personality).

Well, obviously I'm still learning and have quite a ways to go, but I'm glad to have this discussion as part of my path. :)

 

[davey72]

Didn't the c's say that time is never constant? Perhaps we speed it up ourselves as we shape our reality? As we get more accustomed to our environment?
Just a thought.

 

[ana]

Well, obviously I'm still learning and have quite a ways to go, but I'm glad to have this discussion as part of my path. :)

Aren't we all? I'm glad too :), networking always give me new insights and understandings, indeed learning can be fun!

 

[Woodsman]

Q: (L) Of what are atoms composed?
A: Thoughts.
Q: (L) Whose thoughts?
A: Yours.
Q: (L) Everything?
A: Everything.
Q: (L) If I perceive something, and everything I perceive is composed of my thoughts, and V_ is perceiving, is everything her thoughts?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What is the difference between her thoughts and my thoughts?
A: Thoughts are what binds you. You see, it is merely a program that you perceive a difference.

This quote struck me; I'd been trying to work out the 'clock mechanism' of time, as in, "Why does time move at the speed it does? How is it determined? How does everybody agree on the speed?"

Well, if the difference between us all is purely subjective, that individuality is an illusion specific to 3D, then it's not a matter of individual minds moving through time each at an agreed upon certain speed, but rather we are all part of one large mind moving through time. This might imply that we're all being pulled along, as it were, by a larger collective motion, like water molecules in a river, and it's really not up to the individual (for the most part).

Which leads me to think of the whole thing from another, less cumbersome angle than that of slides and laser beams. . .

Okay, so considering the Einstein time problem again, where when I travel close to the speed of light, one year will pass in my time, but fifty years have passed on Earth when I get home. . .

Let's say we really ARE all water molecules in a river. For the sake of elegance, let's say that Escher designed the river, and that it goes in a big circle, or even a spiral. It's not linear anymore. So. . .

~~~~~
1. We are all water molecules flowing down stream. Upstream is the Past, and downstream is the Future.
2. Jim, the time-traveling Water Molecule, gets into a little underwater rocket ship and travels downstream.
3. Jim travels for one day, his time, and then stops his rocket. The energy spent by the rocket allowed him to move faster downstream than the other water molecules around him, and so he winds up somewhere in their future.
4. In the future, all of Jim's friends are fifty days older while he has only aged one day.
~~~~~

Simple enough, except that this example mixes up linear motion with time travel, but, and here's the big brain-flash I had, maybe that's exactly what's going on.

Moving from one point to another in our 3D world takes 'time'. The beginning point and the ending point are a length of 'time' away from one another. Perhaps at close to the speed of light, our linear motion is actually noticeably out-pacing the speed at which the river of time flows. It doesn't matter what direction we pick, because all directions move forward in time, but the speed at which we cross space, any speed, directly adds to the speed at which we are already moving through 'time'.

Hm!

That suddenly makes Einsteinian theory seem really clear. Can it be that simple? That "time" is a vector and any motion at all adds to the speed at which we travel along that vector? (Can you tell that I'm piecing this together as I type?).

I'll have to let that one sink in for a bit.

Cheers!

 

[Buddy]

But working backwards from spread-out matter to figure out what form the original shape was, looks computationally really hard, if not impossible due to the inherent nature of entropy and chaos which affect matter as it progresses through 'time'.

I don't know that working backwards would have to be any harder, computationally speaking, except maybe for a computer that isn't designed for that kind of operation. When the frame of reference changes to "computing", we would probably look at "entropy and chaos" differently as well. Perhaps what is "entropy and chaos" in one direction is just evidence of randomized data, or "noise" that would make perfect sense in the other direction?

In the model, nothing must ever be lost because when the direction reverses, everything must return where it originally was else any missing 'data' could seriously crash the system, or at least cause a glitch or something that might completely throw out the operation during that particular cycle of work.

At any rate, from what I remember of the model, as 'computation' is done and there is a "carry" of sorts, the 'extra' unneeded data is temporarily stored elsewhere - perhaps encoded as a crop circle in a wheat field on a planet in the Orion system? :P



~Added Later~

Very interesting. May I offer a comment or question or two?

1. We are all water molecules flowing down stream. Upstream is the Past, and downstream is the Future.
2. Jim, the time-traveling Water Molecule, gets into a little underwater rocket ship and travels downstream.
3. Jim travels for one day, his time, and then stops his rocket. The energy spent by the rocket allowed him to move faster downstream than the other water molecules around him, and so he winds up somewhere in their future.
4. In the future, all of Jim's friends are fifty days older while he has only aged one day.

You lost me on number 4. In that example, Jim is 50 days ahead of his friends, yet his friends are 50 days older?

I'm probably missing some of your background thoughts here. :)

Moving from one point to another in our 3D world takes 'time'. The beginning point and the ending point are a length of 'time' away from one another. Perhaps at close to the speed of light, our linear motion is actually noticeably out-pacing the speed at which the river of time flows. It doesn't matter what direction we pick, because all directions move forward in time, but the speed at which we cross space, any speed, directly adds to the speed at which we are already moving through 'time'.

If we increase our speed close to that of light, and time slows down and the amount of 'space' being crossed seems to speed up, doesn't that mean the entire system is shrinking? Perhaps at the point where the speed of light has been approached, the passage of time is barely even noticeable because the entire system is the relative size of something ready for another 'big bang'?

 

[nwigal]

So it seems our job as individuals is to gain the experience of objective consciousness (G's 'perfecting of the objective reason') by assisting each other to identify, understand and try to remove, or see around subjectivity in specific cases and in general. Can we, as humanity, do it, or are we forever 'doomed' to see opposition everywhere we look?

I don't think you see around subjectivity, you begin to dance or pulse with it. There is a place you could end up where you give the objective and subjective each their due, managing these inner and outer reflections as the situation requires.