John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

Re: John Titor. Why it didn\'t come true.. yet.

The act of a tree falling only falls if someone or something (ex. video camera, taper recorder, etc.) senses it. Otherwise, there is no proof that the current state of existence of a previously fallen tree transferred its states from standing to falling in anything other than an instantaneous change of state. In other words, the tree was standing in one instant and was lying down in the very next instant with no intermediate states.

In order for the above statement to be logical, you must understand that the physical world is wholly made up of material based energy (matter, atoms, neutrons, electrons, quarks, lepons, bisons, etc.). While on the otherhand, our reality is based in perception, or thought-based energies. These two subsets of dimensional existence interact through what is commonly referred to as "time or timeline". The two subsets are symbiotic in nature and without the perception of the tree falling, in motion, through time, then it does not fall. The tree simply exists in two different states one moment to teh next. Part of the reason why while all infinite possibilities exist, only ones interconnected with perception actually happen. in otherwords, there is only one time line and one universe until the first time travel happens to split off one parallel universe.

In regards to the possibility of Titor. What is the difference between dieing and realizing that your entire world and existence as you know it is gone forever? Imagine your best friend, girlfriend, wife, kids all do not exist or not know who you are. Your memories becoming faint with time, as there is nothing anymore to reinforce them. Think about foe a moment in your own life..
 
Re: John Titor. Why it didn\'t come true.. yet.

Paladius,

The act of a tree falling only falls if someone or something (ex. video camera, taper recorder, etc.) senses it. Otherwise, there is no proof that the current state of existence of a previously fallen tree transferred its states from standing to falling in anything other than an instantaneous change of state. In other words, the tree was standing in one instant and was lying down in the very next instant with no intermediate states.

In order for the above statement to be logical, you must understand that the physical world is wholly made up of material based energy (matter, atoms, neutrons, electrons, quarks, lepons, bisons, etc.). While on the otherhand, our reality is based in perception, or thought-based energies. These two subsets of dimensional existence interact through what is commonly referred to as "time or timeline". The two subsets are symbiotic in nature and without the perception of the tree falling, in motion, through time, then it does not fall. The tree simply exists in two different states one moment to teh next.
Click to expand...

I'll give you one thing...your language is elegant. So elegant that it may take some people in and allow them to believe you. But I am afraid you've made an error.

Our perception is, first of all, not a "dimensional existence". Moreover, our perception is not a wholly separate and disjoined subset of reality as compared to the energetic subset of the tree. In fact, if you drew a Venn diagram of the totality of reality, the energetic subset, and the perceptive subset, you would see that the perceptive subset is wholly contained within the energetic subset. This is a fact because:

1) Our body and brain, upon which our perception executes as a system function, is based on energetics.
2) The perception is merely a model representation of the larger energetic subset of the universe around it.

This representative model has a big problem: It is necessarily discontinuous. Necessarily so because a single mind cannot perceive all of the energetics in the universe around it to be able to make a continuous model. Hence, if the mind and its sensory apparatus was not present in the space-time manifold where/when the tree actually did fall, it cannot represent that in its model and this then creates the discontinuity.

On the other hand, we know for a fact that the energetic nature of reality is continuous on the macroscopic scale (such as a tree falling in the woods). It is only on the quantum scale, as Darby has often pointed out, that events appear discontinuous. The odds of all the atoms of the tree experiencing simultaneous discontinuous quantum events which resulted in the tree going from standing to lying down in a quantum-femtosecond....are so high as to be infinite. Beyond this, for all we know the quantum discontinuity which quantum theory describes (it is still a theory) could just be another case of our sensory apparati being limited in such a way that they report a discontinuity that is not really there.

But nice try... did I match your elegant wording?
You'll probably say no. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RMT
 
Re: John Titor. Why it didn\'t come true.. yet.

So when did Schrodinger's cat die?


And how did a cat become a tree?

Ahh-- the human mind is a wonderful tool.
 
Re: John Titor. Why it didn\'t come true.. yet.

So when did Schrodinger's cat die?


And how did a cat become a tree?

Ahh-- the human mind is a wonderful tool.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And if I am reading between your lines correctly, you are hinting that Schrodinger's cat is a Gedankenexperiment... a thought experiment. Schroedinger concocted this Gedankenexperiment as a means to help people understand what he was proposing about reality at the quantum level. I do not believe he, nor any serious scientist since his time, has taken the tale of Schroedinger's cat (pun intended) as being a factual, macroscopic example of the collapse of the wave function.

RMT
 
Re: John Titor. Why it didn\'t come true.. yet.

Yet in scale and scope, of a time-line. we can assume that the tree is fallen, while it is still standing, it is a measure of potential, to fall.

We can precipitate a circumstance, that will cause the falling of the tree/or cat, yet the Larger the scale of measurement, over time, we have a reference, that we still know the tree WILL FALL.

That is why I enjoyed, your meta-data, conversation so much, Ray.


Again, we do not have to measure gravity to know its there.

Or the fact the cat is already dead.

Once again, stated so clearly, It is a matter of perception, thank you Carlos.



But that would imply, that Carlos was watching-after he tried to kill the cat-- LOL



Sheer silliness. What possessed, Bohm to rewind the cat,when the cat would die again?


nobody cared about the poor tree.:)
 
Back
Top