7/23/2019 7:55 a.m.
Sitting outside, beautiful clear summer morning. Slight headache, though. Not sure if I can tune in.
The Club: Yes you can. [a distraction… pause] Keep going.
So not sure what to talk about, but I thought we go over variant lives, and block-universes and such. It occurred to me that the idea of a block universe stems from how we experience time.
Maybe state again what the block-universe is, and to be sure it is “the” block-universe.
Yes, so far example Einstein postulated that if you could see all time, the universe would appear as if a block, and each moment, each instance of time, would then be a slice in that block, which is then the universe “at a given moment.” However, I am not all together sure how that even works with relativity, because local time is not global time.
So then that’s one problem with it. The other notion is the variant life*, that at each choice-point a different alternate universe branches off. *[“Variant lives,” or “probable selves,” or “alternative lives”]
Right, so that could be more along Everett/De Witt’s notion of the many-world or many-mind problem. Basically, he postulates to get around the interpretation problem in quantum physics (like the double slit experiment where a photon collapses its wave here and not there), that really all possible choices are in fact taken. At least that’s how I understand it today.
The issue here is this infinite branching, so we get more and more universes “as times goes on.”
Fine, now we already worked on infinities, that once you loosen up your understanding on infinities it is all not that far out there. To review, the concept of infinity is not graspable by the human mind. Yet, there are constantly infinities around you, take for example the number 1 and 2, there are infinite fractions and real numbers between them.
As we pointed out, concepts, abstractions.
Right, yet infinitely. So once you realize that, the concept of infinity becomes more understandable.
The other thing that is an assumption in all this is that time has an arrow and always flows from the past to the future. In physics, this is defended or justified through entropy*, the only concept that must have such a flow built in.
*[The third law of thermodynamics. All other laws of physics are time-reversible. However, entropy only applies in closed systems. If the universe has infinite alternates that all interact, then entropy may not apply here, and thus the arrow of time is not necessitated physically, but only through perception. ]
But, as you noticed (but never fully wrote this down yet), time also has this sense of being pulled by the future. You wrote about how some events cast themselves backwards in time, like Heather’s star (still to write about) and others. Sometimes this is called “clairvoyance” and so on, but you see here, in that experience of being able to perceive things coming from the future, that time also can go towards the past.
In that sense, you have the past pushing and branching out, and the future pulling and collecting together.
Yet everything is this unified time/space/probability field where all tings influence each other.
So Everett/De Witt were partially right, in that there is branching, but there is also attraction of events and pulling back together.
Anyways, it is all in balance, always, the past pushing “the moment,” the future pulling it, both giving it a universal direction and momentum.
I thought that we can’t know momentum and placement in physics (Heisenberg)? *
*[In quantum physics, we cannot know both the momentum and position of a particle, only one of the two. This is not just due to the experimental setup, but it has been shown that these truly exclude each other]
Yes, in one timestream they are mutually exclusive, but here was have many timestreams, so that restriction falls away.
[starting to think about this]
… Don’t think, just write and process. What do you want to know?
Can’t think of any right now…. Still have problems with the concept of local time vs “global time,” and local universal heartbeat vs. a more global one.
Well, we had talked about Dave’s [David Bohm] notion of enfolding and how there are multiple layers of order, really infinite ones. So if you think about each layer having its own “time” or heartbeat, asynchronously, it then gets enfolded all together in the next layer, which has its time, and so on, then you get these different “times” or heartbeats.
Yes, I kind of see that. I would have to reread some earlier parts to pull that together and process it.
OK, stop thinking, it is detrimental to the process.
But sometimes it sparks new ideas.
And more often it breaks the flow. [see the other day] Ideas will come.
OK, enough as a review. Let’s stop. Until next time. [8.25 a.m. ]
Namaste — I bow to you and the Divine in you.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr