3D Time = Mandela Effect Solved?

[UltraBudgie]

We can be 100% confident that everything has a verifiable history from the moment it came into existence and that those things leave evidence behind.

so to be contrary here, and perhaps give the appearance of having lost touch with your "actual reality", i often think that this statement is false. that "reality", as reflected by the past, is malleable. everything is real as it occurs and is observed, yet may be replaced retrocausally by counterfeit to the extent that observation remains subjective and possible replacement consistent. "true history" is a moving bubble in the higher dimensional timeline, not a cone of certainty extending from the present into the past. and the boundaries of this bubble are individuated to the limitations of the observer, thus the cascading nature of the mandela effect. existence, after all, is a constant process of unveiling of the "true" nature of things, at its core intrinsically ineffable and necessarily hermetic. there is nothing new under the sun.

[MichSwampbuck]

so to be contrary here, and perhaps give the appearance of having lost touch with your "actual reality", i often think that this statement is false. that "reality", as reflected by the past, is malleable. everything is real as it occurs and is observed, yet may be replaced retrocausally by counterfeit to the extent that observation remains subjective and possible replacement consistent. "true history" is a moving bubble in the higher dimensional timeline, not a cone of certainty extending from the present into the past. and the boundaries of this bubble are individuated to the limitations of the observer, thus the cascading nature of the mandela effect. existence, after all, is a constant process of unveiling of the "true" nature of things, at its core intrinsically ineffable and necessarily hermetic. there is nothing new under the sun.

This part of your statement . . .

". . . the boundaries of this bubble are individuated to the limitations of the observer", therefore the observer is reality?

Naw, if true, then reality isn't dependent on anything other than what is imagined by the observer. If that were true I could say, "I am therefore reality exists!" Boy, I did a great job until it came around to all this talk about real-reality.

The future may be malleable like you describe, but I doubt that based on personal experience.

ETA: Also, look at the statement of mine that you quoted . . .

"We can be 100% confident that everything has a verifiable history from the moment it came into existence and that those things leave evidence behind."

I never address when that moment was or how reality came into existence at that moment, nor did I define what kind of evidence was to be found.

[UltraBudgie]

This part of your statement . . .

". . . the boundaries of this bubble are individuated to the limitations of the observer", therefore the observer is reality?

Naw, if that were true, then reality isn't dependent on anything other than what is imagined by the observer. If that were true I could say, "I am therefore reality exists!" Boy, I did a great job until it came around to all this talk about real-reality.

The future may be malleable like you describe, but I doubt that based on personal experience.

the boundaries, not the contents, is what i meant. as in, of course there can be consensus in reality. however the limits of that consensus are not fixed, but move as a fuzzy-edged bubble through what is perceived as time. the 'fuzziness' as it were being a product of individual variation in world-views, collapsing due to necessity of objective consensus consistency. for example, we may never know the 'reality' that ancient egyptians lived in, we can only project from the set of now-possible communicable projections of the observable remnant. in a real sense, this projection 'paints' reality. and certainly, as individuals, we likely all have quirks of our world-view, ways reality works for us that are if not unique, certainly not majoritarian. my personal observation is that, also, this collapse is not merely a stochastic decay, but rather appears to have more living and active qualia.

as to the malleability of the future -- which i have not mentioned or described -- that brings in a whole sheaf of necessary definitions and complications of description, which i don't think are necessary to a model of past and present dynamic, such as the titration of free-will in finite actionable sensorium. anyway i'm using big words i see so i'm just going to draw the line here rather than get more fractal with descriptive complexity haha...

[MichSwampbuck]

Damn, that was a load to digest!

You still haven't convinced me that a "real" objective reality does or doesn't exist and that our distorted perception and abstract thought processes are anywhere but in our contorted minds.

Our comparatively large brains will never be big enough to comprehend this true reality that we strive for, so I'm going with my commonplace subjective experience as what I got to work with. It works pretty well until I cop an attitude or have had one too many, or both.

ETA: I have to sign off and deal with the reality of my barley I have harvested. I need to remove the chaff and get it ready for this season's brew. The hops harvest is coming up soon, so I need to malt the barley as well.

[Sirius]

@Sirius "What are you on about?"

I'm on about the fact you so confidently claimed we're ascending into the 4th dimension, didn't admit your mistake (which is forgivable,) but instead pulled a 'Here let me help educate you' card out of your ass.

Bad form (and this isn't the first example.)

But I'm just going to agree to disagree with you at this point and disengage amicably.

Where did I say this " claimed we're ascending into the 4th dimension, " everything exits now I have said this before also. I don't know why you are hounding me ?

"but instead pulled a 'Here let me help educate you' card out of your ass."
yes because I supported the topic and said so before and you say I don't step up when I made threads ands dozens of posts about it. why must i repeat myself to you. You do nothing but show disrespect towards me


@IdeomotorPrisoner I don't care if that stuff is write or wrong. I breathe and I live now and I already said what I chose. And yes I agree with "But, to a physics person i can imagine we probably both sound ignorant." and this  "The divine doesn't need to be forced into M Theory."


something fishy is going on here

[Maxmars]

With respect,

Discussions often sway, in and out of focus...

Recall the topic is set... who expressed what, and your reflection of it...
by definition (here, anyway)
cannot be "on topic."


A word, please...


Resist the urge to converse about each other...  Resist the urge to revisit a disagreement in the context of characterizing the other person...

Civility has a yield.... incivility just wastes space.