Convergent Realities

Often when we have conflicting thoughts we assume only one can be correct or that somehow one is more accurate or realistic than the other. Tell me how do you prove that something isn't real when everything tells you that it is? Normally we compare to everything else we know and reject anything that contradicts that limiting us to what we can claim to have experienced.

I know that I've seen, felt, and done things that by traditionally accepted conventions would say are impossible and the highly improbable then points to that because it's so rare it couldn't be me by statistics even if I and the foundation of which they are based on. By definition one in a billion means at least one person has to do it at least once. Other times I know that my rational mind tells me that what I'm experiencing simply can't be real because it's so wildly different from what I had identified as reality. In that case though now I wonder if I'm really experiencing another reality. Keeping in line with what I know of dimensions and how they work in theory I have to accept then that at some point there is an entirely different reality that exists even if I'm not originally a part of it.

That's not to say it can't be accessed merely that it's not native to where I came from. What I find interesting though is how these realities at some points intersect even if only for the briefest periods. More interestingly is how they occur without specific or relative time as though they have their own subdimensions of time that behave in wild manners when they intersect and more importantly when they're done intersecting and go their separate ways it's as if they never intersected at all. It's a strange kind of non event in which something most certainly happened and perhaps even evidence of it happening could be recorded and yet it never does simply because by the time it's done there's no point in which it can ever be observed from any perspective.

It's a bubble in time unto itself in which it only exists for as long as it does and it's existence is independent of essentially everything else. I don't even know how to properly describe it other than to say that it is the most substantial nothing I've ever encountered. If I were to compare it to anything else I would imagine that it would be like experiencing an aurora or colors in a spectrum you've never even been capable of seeing before then as it fades away it's as if you're the only person that saw it happening and even if you weren't the only one to see it you're definitely the only one to remember it.

I for one will continue to embrace the realities I encounter as I encounter them no matter how alien they are to me if only for the sake of knowing they're there. I've seen realities in which life is in stages on an endless cycle, or where the concept of death doesn't even exist as life is basically eternal and I wonder then if what I'm seeing is exclusive to a reality fundamentally different principals or if it's possible such things exist within our own universe. Imagine meeting an alien race that had never encountered death, a foreign concept so radical they can't even comprehend it. Try to keep an open mind because if everything tells you something is real then you're the only one that can ever truly say it isn't and denying that reality to yourself may close more doors than you realize.

Is time idependent of space?

During the big crunch, does time move backwards?
From what I can tell all of time is essentially a loop however due to the nature in which I observe it I can't really tell how time behaves or functions leading up to the big crunch and subsequent bang. It appears to keep moving forward however as I've previously mentioned forward isn't necessarily the same as continuing on in the same manner and would be imperceptible to those within it making it difficult to really know.

I like to think that time is effected by space and is more or less a property of matter and thus would be effected by a substantial change in the universe however that is for a different post. The synopsis of which would essentially be that I'm almost positive that time functions differently just before and after the big bang and the big crunch irregardless of how it actually behaves in that time the time itself will be notably different from time as we know it now by behavior. I don't think we'd regress or anything of that nature like playing things in reverse but I would suggest that the big crunch and the big bang are one and the same and that anything entering the crunch is also at the same time exiting the bang like a dual sided funnel and the end and beginning of time are also the same at least as they relate to this dimension.

I also end up wondering if this is the case how do I know which point in time I'm really participating in. It's conceivable that all instances of this moment across all loops through time are in fact the same ignoring the fact that I move through and around all such moments. Going through one end to come out the other is indistinguishable from simply going back so what then is to say that it ever really begins or ends at all aside from the fact that there is a singular moment where all space is said to exist in a single point.

This brings me to the next question which is that if time is effected by space then why does the loop continue to exist? Unless time itself is also being compressed as well even if at a different rate which I can't conceive simply because as I observe it change while constant doesn't effect appearance. It's possible the timeline is also focusing back on that point and is progressively shrink into it without losing any detail which makes sense to some extent and yet again as one side of the point is expanding at some point should this happen then even the expansion would also have to become a contraction. Perhaps this infinite expansion and contraction is responsible for the literal movement of time which without it could be said nothing would ever move and rather everything exists everywhere in every state at all moments in all of time.

Yet I still am left with the itching feeling that in fact time is not connected to space and rather space is connected to time. Rather while they may be somewhat connected neither truly relies on the other and perception of behavior relative to either or both is merely that. Which is to say neither effects the other and they are actually independent of one another  not including their interactions. Existing both within and outside of each other time could be said to be both a container and a reference for what space is and yet could also be considered a byproduct of it like a field around a source. Perhaps considering it like a magnetic field around a magnet. If that is the case though then perhaps I should ask myself if it can be controlled in a similar fashion what could I accomplish then by focusing it or amplifying it or containing it? There's a lot to be considered and yet it's all open to interpretation so who knows if an answer could ever be found and even if one were to be found what's to say we could ever hope to understand it if it ever presented itself and we took notice which might not even happen.

What do you think?

Grasping Time

I can't show you exactly how close you are to controlling time and yet I can vaguely explain how it's so much closer than you would imagine. The future is always within our grasp even if we don't feel it there and our reach extends further than we can ever realize even if not everything within our reach is within our grasp. The first steps to realizing your control over time is realizing first that you do have control and you're already exercising it all the time as you slowly pull yourself through time. We try to explain to ourselves how we perceive time on chemical and psychological levels and rationalize away what we don't understand which is that we're shifting ourselves through time.

They say time flies when you're having a great time and yet I'm sure we've all experienced an amazing time only to have it end and seem like it was so much longer than it actually was and inverse where an amazing experience that seems short appears to have consumed the day. The reality is localized and collective time shifts. Triggering that state for some can be the first steps to controlling time. For others it's perceiving reality itself as a construct of pure imagination whose boundaries are self defined. The end result is a subtle change in the way time is being perceived on a regular basis which inevitably leads to subsequent changes in time perspectives. Eventually we all realize time is only a mere location like a city with many blocks and buildings and moving through this city of time is as easy as walking down the block.

I recently witnessed a first timer as she released herself from everything. This blissful state of empty mindedness just jogging and yet to anyone looking it was as if she was blinking out of existence and moving faster than a car on the highway. She didn't realize it at first and so I watched closely as it began to sink in. Of course I couldn't help myself though and had to play a joke or two on her in the process. I waited till she was on an elevator  headed some floors up when she thought she was alone and proceeded to pop in basically. Told her I was with the time travel police and just a grand old time at her expense. I then leveled with her and showed her a few things, all in all it was a good time.

In the end unlocking the secret of time travel is just that perfect state of mind where time simply doesn't exist and from my experiences there are as many ways to travel as there are travelers and the math of doing exists somewhere as of yet though I have not met the person that went that route and I think it's likely he doesn't want to share it, take from that what you will.

Perspective - Test Results?

I was considering an older experiment that's been repeated over the years. Originally the test was designed around authority and it's influence. The setup was that they would take the volunteers and have them ask a series of questions to what they thought was another subject but was actually an actor. Each time the "subject" answered wrong they were given instruction to press a button they were told would shock the subject and of course the actor would react. Each time they pressed the button the voltage would go up and the actor would complain of heart problems and the end result would be that people thought they'd killed the other subject. The concept was that people were willing to simply follow orders if they didn't feel directly responsible for the results.

I happened to wonder what if rather than the results reflecting on authority if rather they reflected on general apathy and people's lack of care for their fellow human. Simply put how do the results show that people simply didn't care about what they were doing? Granted some subjects refused to continue however they were in the minority and each subsequent test to my knowledge has had fewer such people. Though it may also be that people caught on and therefore those results can't be leaned on as heavily. Some variants, such as were you were the subject being asked the questions and getting shocked even when giving the right answer or almost constantly, might prove useful in getting more accurate results. Granted people are less likely to cooperate when they're in pain but that's not to say there might not be some other variant equally as effective and less painful.

I've been considering how often research results are considered from entirely different perspectives and to what extent. Not just the results themselves but how they were obtained. Looking at that example experiment above I would say there are quite a few potential views on what the study could've been used for other than authority and apathy. How often do people stop to consider each step in the process used to bring them these kinds of results.

I'm also curious how often the same results are used for different purposes. While results can be interpreted in different ways, sometimes quite drastically, how often are they significantly different from purpose. Consider that almost everything you see and touch has more than one purpose and as such test results also reveal a lot more than what you see up front and are often open to interpretation.

Intelligent Design?

I've been considering and rewriting this particular post for a few months now. My problem is the approach. Given that I've had such difficulty I'll try to be straight forward and see how everything turns out. Simply put my query is that if we were in fact made then what is to be gained from the existence of humanity? Not in the form of a metaphorical or existential quandary  rather a very literal what is the end goal purpose of the human race. Assuming we were designed I would imagine it was with a purpose even if that purpose was to satisfy some curiosity. I can not conceive a scenario in which any sort of omnipotent or omniscient deity would be responsible in particular considering any flaw in a creation reflects a flaw in the creator therefore if it was a deity they could not be considered either. Even if the flaws were intentional to some unknown purpose.

I see the potential for where we could have been created and yet I see no evidence of that being the case or to be more precise being that if that is the case then there was no follow through once the experiment started. In opposition I see the potential for how we were born of chaos which I see plenty of support for and yet that too is incomplete. One particular point of interest is that if we were of chaos and therefore have no implicit purpose how then among the chaos have we established dominance and mastery essentially removing ourselves from the chaos while remaining within it?

For those of you that would dare to bring religion directly into this discussion let me just shut you down right now. If we were created as glorious representatives of some all powerful being and that's all then that all powerful should be damn ashamed of itself. Not only is that level of egotistical vanity so far off the charts but they clearly failed or if they succeeded then we need only look at the failure itself that is humanity as a representative of how horrific such a being is. Humanity is clearly not something worthy of praise and if there is such a vain being then it too is unworthy of praise.

Moving forward this is not the meaning of life or your individual purpose of existence. It is up to you to make your own purpose in this life and your pursuit of your own purpose is what will define you. This is a question of what the human race as a whole is meant for if it was created on purpose by something capable of such creation rather than by chance. 

If we were created the only conceivable ends to our purpose  is our end itself to which I find ample evidence to suggest that if we were created it was to study the nature of death itself. Not only are we to study it but also to provide example for others to study, others being not only ourselves but our creators if that is the case. In this potential scenario of intelligent design I understand how every facet of our existence is created to perpetuate an experiment revealing the details of life and death on a scientific level so they might be understood by others.

The question then if that should be the case is what would happen to humanity when the experiment ends? What if it has already ended? If death is now understood completely and entirely by the creator/s then what are the results and how should the experiment end?

Approaching the concept of humanity as if I were using it as an experiment using deductive reasoning I can only conclude that death is the most likely purpose of the experiment and on that note as a scientist I have yet to discover a proper dissolution of the experiment given that I am not as objective to the concept as I should be. I can only imagine that our end would come suddenly if at all perhaps the experiment was designed so that we will destroy ourselves as a final test or proof of theories or that we will be allowed to continue without interference to establish secondary attributes of death such as addictiveness or contagiousness either of death directly or power over death. Though it may be far beyond that and it may also be simply that the experiment is nowhere near completed yet which only leads me to question what the next round of tests will be like...

Problems with normal life after time travel

Something for you to consider today is the post time travel life style you'll have. It may come to a point like it did with me that you simply want to stop traveling and settle down. Ignoring the potential for you to be violently ripped away from your timeline there's the problem of what time travel may have done to you and your mind. Sometimes nearby timelines bleed through and you'll instinctively know it and yet there's nobody to talk about it with and even if there were they wouldn't fully understand it like you do. Sometimes these little discrepancies you wouldn't notice before are so glaringly obvious you can't ignore them but you also can't do anything about them. For example previously when a timeline would bleed over you would be just as effected as those around you and thus your memories would also be adjusted to reflect any such changes and back and so everything would always appear normal even if it wasn't. Now that you're no longer effected by these changes you'll notice when your friend is suddenly acting differently but treats it as normal behavior.

Then there's all of your memories to consider. In all the time traveling you may have done you're bound to remember all kinds of things. The problem with this is discrepancies in timelines where it might not seem like much but it can be really annoying when you're so sure of something and are completely wrong due to timeline changes. In a personal example I was watching a movie with a friend I'd already seen in a different timeline and there was an entire scene I remembered so vividly that simply wasn't in this version and it was driving me insane because of how similar the versions were and yet how this entire scene simply wasn't there anymore. I also then can't discuss this non existent scene with anyone without looking as insane as it would sound.

It's also difficult sometimes to restrain yourself from proving  yourself to everyone by simply telling them the future and saying what you know they're going to say before they do. The complete predictability of everything around you can become annoying for a while then simply monotonous and boring frustratingly so even. Then there's some of the more powerful and annoying timewaves you'll feel hit you from time to time. Sometimes they can nearly knock you off your feet and give you massive headaches. They're often accompanied by fragmented visions of the event that created them which can leave you disoriented for minutes to hours at a time. Then there's times where you simply have to stop yourself as you realize the consequences of whatever you're about to do or say and have to consider whether or not you should continue given that you now know precisely what will come of it.

In the end there's no real stopping this ability you've developed and it's probably just in your best interest to keep yourself busy exploring new timelines as just continuing from where you are under the monotonous conditions is just as insanely annoying as becoming unstuck in time.

On one final side note, you may want to invest in some mouth wash. I neglected to mention the annoying taste in your mouth you might often get after time traveling and sometimes among other things, either way your oral hygiene is something you'll want to keep on top of.

Engaging Students

It's a long held and simple truth that it's difficult if not impossible to teach something effectively to someone that just isn't interested or engaged in the learning process. The future of education relies on finding new ways to engage students into wanting to learn on their own. I will say I've spent probably 3 or 4x as much time on places like wikipedia or searching the internet than I did in highschool all spent learning what I'm interested in. Imagine then how much a student would learn if you could make it so they want to learn it to the point they're doing homework over summer because they want to not because they have to.

Right now we waste absurd amounts of time with repetition making sure students have memorized answers rather than teaching them methods and critical thinking skills. We should focus more on teaching them how to answer questions than having them remember the answers. Facts like this are only made worse when you consider the large gap in quality of education from school to school. In some schools they're teaching 3rd graders the same algebra I did in college and in some colleges they're teaching the same english I learned in highschool.  Then there's how long it takes for changing facts to trickle down the education system particularly in science and biology.

The real problem though is finding ways to help the students connect with the subject material in ways that make them want to know more. One of the more simplistic concepts of this was when I was in an advanced class towards the end of elementary and my teachers gave the class checkbooks and the better you did in class the more fake money you earned to bid on real items in an auction they'd hold each week. The items weren't worth much but when you're young they're just cool and there's that feeling of power and sense of reward. While it's not the best tactic you can't really argue with the results as I had a perfect grade that whole year and put extra effort to make sure I understood everything as did most of the rest of the class. At the end of the year there was even a somewhat larger auction for things like a bicycle and the whole experience taught us a lot in addition to what we then wanted to learn in class. While a reward system is effective it doesn't stick once the reward disappears and thus I would have to still suggest an alternative.

It's not for me to say what the best alternative is however I will say that there are people out there doing research and many of them have great ideas worth giving a proper try even if on a small scale. It's clear the current system is in need of an upgrade and it's important to all of us to help that happen as quickly as possible. Even if it's just something simple like another idea I was reading where they extend the day by a couple extra hours and in return the students get friday off which ended up with a reduced cost to the school and higher grades on average by giving each class some extra time with the students. Other ideas I've reviewed that seemed interesting included keeping the same teacher all day, the teachers swapping rooms rather than the students so the same class is always together, teaching only one subject per day for the whole day so your class schedule works out daily rather than hourly, and various other ideas all of which seem like they could have some equally great results. I particularly like the idea of students staying together with the same teacher so that way there's real bonds formed and students help each other and the teachers know just how to help the students. It's not like you need a specialized teacher for a subject prior to college given the simplistic nature of the materials given that it's considered general knowledge that most people know by the time they leave highschool. Though perhaps that would change and we would start teaching more advanced material then requiring specialized teachers in which case I would still suggest keeping a class together for the same reasons even if the teachers move around.

What ideas have you read about that you would like to see given a chance?