What Makes a world go alternate?

Transient001

Transient001

Quantum Scribe
Friends of EarthTR125.0121

I have been thinking and what exactly makes a world divide into an alternate version?

Oh yes I know many would say that it would be by introducing a Paradox into its time-line.

However what I refer to is, what if it is a matter of awareness?

What if I travel to the past, pick up a plant in a deserted forest and come back to my time. Nobody would have seen me, the amount of plant taken is negligeble and I spent there enough time as not to have to make any quantum adjustment to my signature.

In effect that world should be an alternate version of its previous self. However, who would know, what would be the differences?

PLease feel free to comment.

Until later becomes now.
 
Your point actually relates to a problem I see with 'alternate' or 'multiple' universes.

If returning with the plant means you arrive in an alternate, but minutely different, universe, then the version of you that existed in this universe will still have gone back in time to carry out your exeriment of picking up a plant. Would he return to another alternate universe? Creating a sort of domino effect where an infinite number of universes is created in a single moment?

I have a problem with infinity. It's a nice thought, but we simply don't have evidence of true infinity. pi continues on forever but it is still a set number.

The universe is quite big, but we have no evidence that it's infinite.

Back to the plant - when the second traveller of the alternate universe goes back, would he meet the first traveller? Or would he again exist in a further alternate universe?

James
 
Hi James,

I have a problem with infinity. It's a nice thought, but we simply don't have evidence of true infinity. pi continues on forever but it is still a set number.
Click to expand...
A circle is infinite. Or to be more exotic, a Mobius strip is infinite.

Now before you call me on this, let me explain: The question of infinite/finite, like so many other dualistic things in our universe, always reduces back to the concept of perception and your relative point of view. To a being walking on the Mobius strip, he may not come to the realization that it is infinite but repeating. To a being off of (outside the context of) the strip, it is obvious that the strip is finite in spatial terms. Yet this person can still see the tendency towards the infinite in the structure of the strip itself.

Therefore, I maintain that from our current perception and "internal" context of our universe, it is acceptable to say it is infinite. However, at the same time, but in a different context, our universe can be finite. It is all a matter of context.

RainmanTime
 
The möbius strip. My favorite diagram.

The idea of a two dimensional object existing in a 3d universe intrigues the hell out of me.

Don't have much time to comment, but I know exactly what you're saying!

James
 
Re: Quantum states

Friend Iqbalgomar

Actually your explanation makes sense. Our Universe or rather multiverse, is a composition of all the possible vcariants, yet you introduce a point in your post that makes me think. If all the possible variations in the quantum states of the universe are already present at the Prime Temporal Point, which is an universal model made up of Five Construct that yields sixteenth dimensions, then what happens whenever introduces a paradox.
1. The paradox was always intended to occur and the univetrsal model contemplated its occurrence and it already provided a variant universe for it.
2. The paradox is created anew and the universe simply exchanges energy patterns so that it create another version of itself.

Until later becomes now.
 
What if I travel to the past, pick up a plant in a deserted forest and come back to my time. Nobody would have seen me, the amount of plant taken is negligeble and I spent there enough time as not to have to make any quantum adjustment to my signature.

In effect that world should be an alternate version of its previous self. However, who would know, what would be the differences?
Click to expand...

If in the future it wasn't a deserted forest and later got developed in a rural area or suburban area or what have you. That plant could have been the one that saved or destroyed (fell on a car) lives. If it didn't get developed, it would effect some of the animals insects or bugs. That plant could have been some extra material for a manufacturing plant. By taking the plant there are some consequences. Good or bad? who knows? The time traveller will know and see the changes.

But then again, maybe nothing will have happened and you were suppose to take the plant or else something else would have never happened. (Kind of a paradox there.)

That is my point of view on that situation.

Guy D.
 
Re: Prime Temporal Point

Friend Iqbalgomar

In a nut shell the Prime Temporal Point (PTP) is an universal super structure that contains the quantum states of all of the realities and variations. In its essence is a sixteenth dimensional super structure contained by five constructs of reality.

Until later becomes now.
 
I think it is free choice that determines the wordline that is travelled on. Our choices shape the world. More correctly our actions (the actualisation of our choices) determine the path we take to the future. Which future we get depends on our actions now.

You want a John Titor future, take up arms against the government. You want to avoid the John Titor future, vote and get out there and start or join demonstrations. Let your government know you won't accept a police state. Something like 30% of Americans vote. No wonder the world goes to hell when the strongest economy in the world doesn't believe that voting is a citizen's responsibility just as much as it is a right.

In other words, many Americans are failing to use their power of choice. This is also a choice, and it will have consequences. I am not picking on Americans, because I know Australians would have the same poor voter turn out if voting wasn't compulsory here.

Rome went to the dogs when Roman suffrogecy was devalued. Romans voted for the senator who could throw the biggest circus, so elections became about money and the right to entertainment above stable government. Romans had in their hands the means to forestall the collapse of their civilisation by choosing Senators who were more interested in the safety of rome than the power of political position. They failed to do so.

But sorry to get political! I just think it is a good example of choice determining a worldline.
 
I am not picking on Americans, because I know Australians would have the same poor voter turn out if voting wasn't compulsory here.
Click to expand...
This is one of many things that I have always admired about the Australian model. In essence: If you wish to live in a free society, and avail yourself of the benefits thereof, you are required to vote. This ensures a TRUE representative democracy.

I think one of the major barriers to this in America is the "lock" that Dems/Repubs have on the political process. They feed on each other so as to close-out other parties. I find it odd that a country whose political structure is based on tripartate balance does not follow the same mathematical model for political parties. While I would never vote for Ralph Nader, the action of closing him out of debates during the 2000 election was decidedly UN-democratic!

RainmanTime
 
The constitution and American idealism has been thrown away in favour of so called national security. This is a scary prelude to what John Titor claimed to be at the crux of the 2nd American civil war. "People will choose security over freedom" or something to that effect. In all cases (Nazi Germany for example) this type of security always gives way to social or economic collapse, or worse outright war.
 
The process of the US becoming involved in world affairs started with bombing of Pearl Harbour. Before that the US had an isolationist policy, although it had taken a beating (the policy, not the US!) with the deployment of US troops in WW1 and lend lease. Was the political process bipartite before that? Or is it something that has evolved since WWII? Excuse my lack of knowledge.

I wonder what the wordline looks like where the Japs sensibly decided not to attack Pearl Habour?
 
Back
Top