Who makes the rules? Someone else.

[Robert L. Vaessen]

Pat -

On Thursday, March 14, 2002, at 12:09 , Patrick G Konshak wrote:

> Robert,
>
> Lets say that there is no such thing as time. All events 
> happen at once as individual nodes. But our limited brains can 
> only receive then in a linear events. If this is true then my 
> conscience would have to be a great super powerful computer to 
> put these events into a linear pattern of cause and effect. 
> That is: the striking of a match is the cause of the effect of 
> fire (not the other way around). Or maybe there is a mechanism 
> that dose this for my conscience, like time? But that can't be 
> right, because time dose not exist. So my conscience has to be 
> a great super powerful computer.
Your consciousness (conscience is sense of right and wrong) does 
not impose the sequencing order. The limitations on your 
consciousness are imposed by laws outside your control. The 
cause and effect limitations are dictated by these laws 
(physics). Your consciousness is prohibited from visiting the 
node where effect does not follow cause. These laws restrict 
your selection of nodes along the probability path. It's not so 
much that our physical brains are incapable of processing the 
data, but that they are not presented with the data in any order 
other than that imposed by the 'rules'.

> Also my conscience would have to make sure it stays on the 
> right branch. What's to keep it from jumping around the tree 
> and seeing fish turn into refrigerators? Is the answer 
> 'space'? Na, what's space? Nothing. It can't exist.
The rules (laws of physics) are what keep your consciousness on 
such a narrow nodal path. As I explained in my other email. I 
think it's our (mankind) job to figure out what all the laws 
are. Perhaps that will allow us to circumvent or work around the 
laws. The bigger question is who made these rules?

> If our minds are limited to only see events linear, what is the 
> force or mechanism that's limiting them? Or if the limitation 
> is do to the lack of something. What force or mechanism is our 
> minds lacking?
Good question. See above. But once again, in a model of a 
universe without time. The rules are imposed upon our 
consciousness. Not our brains. The laws actually limit which 
nodes in the probability matrix we can experience, not whether 
cause follows effect. Just like our consciousness, these laws 
are outside the matrix.

All the actual physical objects inside the matrix follow very 
few rules. They must have a shape, size, color, etc. These 
objects do not move (another one of the concepts that must be 
accepted if one accepts the principle of 'no such thing as 
time') or interact, they are separate from each other. Fixed 
into a static grid, a node within the probability matrix. 
Therefore all the laws of physics regarding interactions, 
movement, cause and effect, etc. Are actually limitations on our 
consciousness. They are limitations on the manner in which our 
consciousness experiences the matrix. The rules that govern 
which node we may visit. If we have just finished processing the 
node where a match was struck, then the rules are written such 
that we can only visit one of two other nodes. We can either 
visit the node where a fire results, or one where a fire does 
not. But we cannot visit the node where the match is replaced 
with a GE Energy Saver refrigerator.

I know that this is a somewhat simplistic explanation of the 
probability path/tree; but we've been following it so far. If 
you need more examples that illustrate limitations on which node 
you can experience next please let me know.

> You say 'time' doesn't exist, and then you say our conscience 
> perceive things in a linear way. Linear perception is time. 
> Your say time doesn't exist, but then you say our conscience 
> exist in time.
Time does not exist. Perception does not equal reality. We 
perceive the sun 'Rising' in the morning, and 'Setting' in the 
evening. The sun does not 'move' across the sky, and it doesn't 
'disappear' at night. Our consciousness processes/experiences 
different nodes in the matrix. The manner in which it 
experiences these nodes is governed by a series of laws or 
rules. One of those laws or rules dictates the order rate in 
which we experience the nodes.

We experience the nodes (instantaneous events) in a linear 
manner. In one direction at a time. Going back to my 
illustration of a probability tree (see my web page: 
https://www.robsworld.org/notime.html); Node A, followed 
by node A1, followed by node A11. If we were not limited by this 
rule/law we could be in more than one place at a time (so to 
speak). We could experience node A, followed by A1, and then A2 
(or reverse). Since A1 and A2 are adjacent nodes in a standard 
experiential probability path you would be experiencing two 
nodes simultaneously. You'd be experiencing the nodes in a 
parallel, rather than linear, fashion.

We experience the nodes in a sequential manner. In our case, the 
consciousness is limited to experiences that follow a path of 
node A, followed by node A1, followed by node A11. If we were 
not limited by this rule/law we could move from node A11 to node 
A, and then to node A1. Moving backward and forward at will 
along the probability path.

If we were not bound by the laws as I've described, the 
probability tree model would look differently. It would be more 
like a probability sphere or cloud.

Our consciousness does not exist in time. The rules which 
restricts how it moves with the matrix are interpreted by us as 
time.

At one time man interpreted the earth as being the center of the 
solar system. He did this because he was unwilling to believe 
something that was contradictory to his senses. What are your 
senses telling you about time? Very young children have no 
concept of time. They learn about time from adults, and what 
they are told is reinforced by their senses. Adults describe 
time in terms of motion and cause and effect. The lessons are 
reinforced by sight and sound.

> You say 'events'. Photons, gravity, electron, etc.. exist. An 
> event. What's an event. Events don't exist because an event 
> is time. Everything happens at once so there is no such thing 
> as events. Our minds can't perceive linear events (past, 
> present, and future), they don't exist. There for we don't 
> exist.
I use the term event to describe a node. A singular 
configuration of matter in which all things exist. This 
configuration constitutes a single node within the probability 
matrix. I call this frozen/unmoving configuration of matter a 
node or event. I've been using the terms interchangeably.

An event is not time. An event is a single node within the 
probability matrix. There is no time component in the 
probability matrix. Perhaps I shouldn't use the terms 
interchangeably? I created the term 'node' to avoid the time 
based connotations attached to the word 'event'. I thought that 
I could use them interchangeably after I had defined node. I 
thought you would see the interchangeable aspects, and accept 
them as synonymous.

Our minds do perceive linear events. They do this as a result of 
the laws imposed upon our consciousness. Our consciousness is 
only capable of experiencing the nodes in a linear fashion. In 
turn, we rationalize this linear sequence as being part of the 
physical order of things.

> You need to answer these questions. Don't just say "You have 
> to ask a priest or something". This is why. You formed the 
> believe that 'time' dose not exist. You had to base it on 
> something or did you flip a coin? Base on the questions I 
> asked above, there's a big part of the puzzle missing. Your 
> holding back. Cuff it up. What are you hiding up you sleeve. 
> Maybe you think I will not understand. This why I sent some 
> may reply. Trying to get you to reveal your secretes.I 
> decided it's time for a Klingon approach and come right out 
> and ask you.
I'm not sure exactly which questions you want me to answer. 
Aside from the questions about who created these laws, and why 
are they written the way they are. I've been doing my best to 
explain how our universe could exist without time and motion.

I didn't come up with the idea that 'Time does not exist'. 
Others thought about this long before I was born. I sort of 
stumbled upon it. Having cobbled it together experientially (Not 
experimentally) throughout the years. Reading the book, 'The End 
of Time' by Adrian Barbour, is what helped me codify my beliefs 
about time. I hadn't even thought about motion until reading 
that book. The book helped me put names to the things I'd been 
thinking about. It helped me understand why I'd been having 
trouble believing other cosmology theories.

I didn't flip a coin, and I'm not holding back on you. The only 
thing I haven't been giving you is the formulae. The math that 
scientists (There are many scientists who believe that time does 
not exist) have been using to support the 'No time' theory. The 
math is actually used more to disprove time based models of the 
universe, than it is to prove 'No time' theories. I haven't been 
using/describing the math because it's way over my head. It 
doesn't do me much good, and I usually can't follow it. I suck 
at math, and excel at words. I could describe just about 
anything with words. But I can't see a sphere in 2(Πr2). (is 
that right?).

If I still haven't convinced you that time doesn't exist I may 
never. Perhaps you'd like to read the book I suggested. It 
doesn't explain things in quite the same manner that I have, and 
it uses somewhat different terms. It does, however go into much 
greater detail, and includes mathematical formulae to support 
and refute various points.

> Temporaphobia (I made that one up)
Actual term: Chronophobia - Abnormal/irrational fear of clocks, 
time or duration. Recognized by medical and psychology fields.


- Robert