It is not the question, nor is it the answer.

I assume most of you made it through highschool and therefore like every highschooler are aware of hamlet and a semi-famous paraphrased quote of "to be or not to be". Back in that day it was a somewhat important question as to whether or not life was worth even living. That's not really the case though as it's not a matter of should you live but first establishing if you can even live or if you're even alive to begin with. Rather than go that route though I would say the more important question is what are the implications of you, your life, and even more importantly the implications of your continued existence. If hamlet had focused more on why he was there in that moment and what his purpose in life was  it most likely would not have saved him any of the tragedy that would soon befall him though it may have given him enough insight to make some change that would ultimately be his salvation. Quite possibly the saddest ending of it all was the fact there was to great revelation, no real lesson learned from the ordeal it was an ending for it's own sake.

Consider not whether or not you should live but rather what living implies and it's consequences both good and bad, everyone dies not everyone truly lives.

If we change are we really still the same?

 Not to be confused with the quote "the more things change the more they stay the same." I mean that as time goes on we do in fact change. Where as the quote suggests change becomes harder over time and thus happens less often, or by some interpretation can also mean that change is irrelevant in the face of time, it could be said that we never really change at heart. Recent studies even show how from a young age people don't really change so much, that the core of our character is always the same. Then there's the fact we all accept that we get older and yet even so we still identify someone as though they haven't changed, that it's somehow still them. To a degree that's certainly true even if nothing about them is the same as before.

Consider however that after 7 years every cell in your body has been replaced. Consider the potential for complete and total organ transfers across the board, even entirely different bodies. What if you didn't have a body anymore and your mind existed in something more mechanical like a robot for example. Though you may technically be a cyborg at that point... Either way if truly nothing about you is the same anymore, can it really be said that's it's still you? Even if you identify yourself as who you believe you are, is it really the truth?

Consider this line from the movie "john dies at the end"
you use an axe to kill a man and the handle breaks, you replace the handle, you then use it to dismember the body chipping the axe head and breaking it, you then replace the head of the axe, later the man you killed and dismembered comes back as a zombie and sees you wielding the axe and says "that is the axe you used to kill and dismember me" is he right?

By sequence you have replaced all the parts. Is there some essence that still remains? Is it the sequence part that has somehow preserved the symbol of the original? How can you truly claim to be the same if you have changed which by very definition means you are no longer the same? We are all versions of ourselves constantly changing and yet somehow we identify to a single concept of identity, what is it that we truly call ourselves if it's not who we are? Or perhaps we're all chasing what was in the hopes that not all is lost as we find ourselves misplaced in our own world, in our own mind, in our own life.

Getting Lost + Convergence

As it would turn out I was in a very similar timeline for weeks and I'm only just now realizing this. Thankfully the other version of myself kept up the other blog on my behalf and now I'm back apparently he didn't keep a blog for this. Interestingly enough I'm finding that all forms of me across all timelines don't exist at the same time or in the same manner and as more and more find their abilities a convergence happens in which I gain their knowledge. Which means I pretty much feel at home wherever I am. I'm assuming now of course that this is my original timeline or close enough.

No I will not go back and re-write all of those blogs or copy paste to a drive and post here. I did that once already it was a headache and nobody believed me anyway because by the time I proved it they remembered it as though it had always been there and thus nothing had been missing to begin with. Oh the delights of time travel.

So what's new is the question? my answer is technically nothing, but you're about to hear some very interesting news about the wiiU that will more than likely upset or piss you off even if you liked the wiiU, if you already hated it then now you will be more justified in your hatred.

An interesting question for some of you, how would you know if you'd jumped timelines into a timeline exactly like yours except one minor difference that doesn't directly effect you? How do you know you haven't done so already at least once if not dozens of times?

I finally figured out what had been bothering me for so long, the light switches in the basement of my house flip in the other direction here, so they were reversed where I was. That was basically the only difference between here and there that I could find. Why didn't I stay? because those switches were pissing me off! When you do something enough times long enough and suddenly it stops working like it used to then it tends to upset you. Consider how you know though that you're in your right timeline or not and how you plan on living knowing that maybe you're not where you belong....

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.