There is no time in any frame of reference.

rs · Feb 2, 2006

I am really struggling with this concept of time.

In the transcripts, the Cs make repeated reference to the "illusion of time" and said that it is not valid in any frame of reference. Well, sorry Cass but in my frame of reference, the illusion is quite powerful and so has a good deal of validity.

So there.

Higher dimensional realms are hard to visualize because we have two dimensional vision sensors (the "illusion" of three dimensions comes about because we have two two dimensional images, which differ slightly, and our brains make an internal mental model of what the three dimensional world must be in order that it "look like that"). However, I believe that I have learned how to visualize a hypersphere in my imagination. I start with imagining a point. In my mind, I grow the size of this point until it is a shiny ball about so big. I imagine the point expanding out uniformly until it reaches a fixed size, and then I imagine the sphere growing smaller and smaller until it is a point. The sphere oscillates back and forth. In my mind I increase the rate of this oscillation until it is all a blur and it seems like I can see all sizes of the sphere at once.

Now the point of this digression is not really to talk about how I visualize a hypersphere or even if my visualization is "correct", it is to point out that higher concepts can be understood at some level by a smaller mind if you focus enough on trying to compare the concept with that with which you are familiar, and then study the differences.

The Cs have said that "all there is is lessons". Now what is a lesson? Well it is a change of state. When you learn something, you change internally somehow. Time is divided into three zones, before you learned the thing, the instant you learned it and all of the rest of time. You cannot "unlearn" something (although clearly one can at some level "forget" where you put your car keys...) and the Cs clearly seem to be referring to the learning experience as a progression in one "direction".

Now in order for there to be a change of state, there has to be an axis upon which that state can be measured, and if the change of state is not reversible, this implies motion along that axis, specifically unidirectional motion. (I.e. monotonically changing, not necessarily uniform).

So back to this non-existence of time thing. I can handle the idea of some kind of two dimensional time, one dimension of which we experience every day, and another dimension that allows what we might think of as time travel. However, our "lesson profile" actually occurs in that second dimension of time in the sense that, to us, there is this "local" time reference, a kind of personal time that is visible to our own consciousness/soul but is not visible to others. Each individual has their own "path" through this two dimensional time and this two dimensional path, when projected onto our 4D space-time experience looks like a series of loops, just like the "shadow" of a hypersphere in 3 dimensional space is a sphere that we understand.

If hyperdimensional beings are traveling back and forth through time to cause a specific outcome, I also have a problem understanding a fundamental issue here.

Lets say that you look out the window and see an automobile accident. The occupants of the cars all die. They are all members of your family and so you decide to "fix" this, so you jump on your trusty time machine and go back to just before the accident, stand by the side of the road and wave your arms frantically, stopping the car.

Unbeknownst to you, in the scenario where there was an automobile accident, before you went back in time, a teenager with a learners permit witnessed the accident. The horrors of the result really impressed him and he vowed to never make the kind of mistake he witnessed and spent the rest of his life accident free. (Hey, its my story...)

Now when you went back in time and prevented the accident, this teenager did not see the result, it did not impress him, and the next day he went out and accidentally killed himself.

My question is where did the "lesson" go? Where did the knowledge and impact of the decision in the first case go when we messed with the time line? If it just evaporated into the ether, then this means that lessons are reversible and we really can "unlearn" something. Heck, you might even unlearn yourself right out of existence.

Now I also know that the Cs have indicated that 4th density lessons are not necessarily expressible in a 3d density existence, but this strikes me as the same thing as what my mother told me "Its just God's will, and we cannot always understand God's will so we JUST HAVE TO HAVE FAITH". In other words I refuse to accept that my feeble mind cannot at least start to grasp the point.

Now one possible comparison would be to a feedback system. Here there is a desired path, some kind of way of influence over how to follow that path and a measuring device for how far off the path you are. The feedback system makes microscopic measurements of the deviation and controls something to keep you on that path. There are many many examples of a feedback system in nature and engineering. But lessons are state changes so you cannot apply feedback to a state change. Feedback can only be effectively applied to a linear system, not a non-linear one, and it sure seems like we live in a highly non-linear system. So viewing the hyperdimensional beings as instruments in a feedback system does not seem like a viable explanation.

Either way I look at it, I have a real hard "time" with this "no time in any frame of reference" followed with "hyperdimensional beings are moving back and forth in time so they can control you in 4th density" and rationalizing this with my own perceptions. I mean if there is no time in any frame of reference, then hyperdimensional beings cannot readily move back in forth in something that does not exist in their frame of reference... If there is no time in any frame of reference, what is the definition of a lesson? If there is no time in any frame of reference, how can the illusion be SO POWERFUL?

Anyway I hope somebody has some Deep Thoughts about this because it is the greatest mental stumbling block in my grasp of esoterica.

ark · Feb 2, 2006

Okay, let's try to analyze the relevant part of the transcripts:

A: You see, we speak to all of you when we say this. It's now time for you, as individuals, to try to move away, as much as possible, not to force yourselves, of course, but to try and move away at your own pace as much as possible, from the constraints of third density.

That means we should work on learning more objective ways of looking at things, less anthropocentric.

You have all learned lessons to the level where you are more than ready to begin to prepare for fourth density. Third density involves a level of physicality and restriction and restraint and all of the things that go along with those, that you no longer need.

We will not need them at some point, but right we need them, though perhaps we should work on needing them as little as necessary. Later on C's will precise:

While you are still in this third density it is still necessary for you to conform, to a certain extent, to the ways of others who are more comfortable within the realm of third density. But, as we have stated previously, perhaps it is "time" for you to begin preparing for fourth density and not concern yourself any more than is absolutely necessary with all the where's and why's and what for's of third density reality.

Now, they continue:

So, therefore, even though we understand that at times it may feel comfortable to cling to this, there is time for you, and there is that word again, it is time for you to consider moving ahead and get ready for fourth density and not to be concerned with such things as time or how to free yourself from the illusion of time. That really is not important. That's like the third grade student delving into mathematics and stopping everything to go back and contemplate the ABC's and why it isn't CBA or BAC. There really is no point. It is what it is. They are what they are.

So, it is time to start getting rid of the illusion of time. What is an illusion? It is something that is less "real" than a "truly real" thing. Of course illusions exists. But their existence is different. Getting rid of the illusion means not negating the illusion, but understanding it as such, as an illusion, and how this illusion is hosted by less illusory media.

Q: (L) That is what I want to know, what is it?

Here Laura wants to know about the illusion of time. C's reply:

A: Why do you need to know this?

C's reply that it is not the most important thing. Yet Laura insists:

Q: (L) Because I am curious. What is time?

And C's repeat the previous statement, adding that it is an "artificial creation of illusion for the point of learning":

A: We have already told you that it is a non-existent, artificial creation of illusion for the point of learning at the level where you are at or were, and once you have left that level, you no longer need it.

This suggests that the concept of time, or better, the "flow of time" is an "artificial" creation. That means that probably it has something to do with the specific construction of our DNA and stones and trees may have a different concept of time.

Q: (T) Maybe one of the lessons is to learn not to worry about time. Once you learn that time is not real...(SV) Tell that to your boss!

Next we are told again that "time is not real", and as such it should be of a lesser concern to us than "real stuff":

A: If something is not real, is there any concern in worrying about what it is?
Q: (T) Not, for me.

And now comes the dialog between Billy and Gene, where the concept of "frame of reference" is being used:

A: Imagine a conversation between two people: Billy and Gene. Billy says to Gene, "There is no such thing as time." Gene says, "Oh, really? But I want to know what it is." Billy says, "But I just told you there is no such thing. Time does not exist. It is not real in any form, in any frame of reference, in any form of reality, any level of density. It simply does not exist." And, Gene says: "Oh, that's interesting. Now, again, what is this time?"

Time is not real in any frame of reference. Yet the illusion of time is real. These are two different level of studies: the level of studying the fundamental concepts of Reality, and the study of Illusions, which are also "real" but not fundamental. They are secondary phenomena used for a certain purpose (to enable "learning", in this case). Of course we would like to know more about this "learning" and what purpose this learning serves, and what kind of reality it can acquire, but that would take us to another topic....

Q: (L) Point taken. (T) Do you wear a watch? (L) No. (SV) I have to because of my schedule. (T) But, you wear the watch because other people believe in time? (SV) Yes. (T) And that is out of courtesy for their belief, not your belief.

We are in a society, we are networking there, and we learn our lessons while in the level of physicality that is more rigid than other levels, with reality that is more fluid than our present reality. We are here for a reason, to achieve something that otherwise could not be achieved. Gurdjieff is telling us something very similar in Belzebub.

A: That is precisely correct. While you are still in this third density it is still necessary for you to conform, to a certain extent, to the ways of others who are more comfortable within the realm of third density. But, as we have stated previously, perhaps it is "time" for you to begin preparing for fourth density and not concern yourself any more than is absolutely necessary with all the where's and why's and what for's of third density reality. This truly is behind you, now, and we know that because we can see from all levels six through one and back again in full cycle.

One should also make a distinction between the concept of "imagining" and that of "understanding". While we have certainly problems with "imagining" additional dimensions, we do not have so many problems with "understanding them", as we can well understand them through mathematics. That does not mean that understanding is easy, but it is not very difficult, as every graduate student of mathematics learns how to calculate in any number of dimensions, including infinite numbers.

Or so I think.

And the closing, last but not least, comment: whatever C's "say", we should consider it as "plausible" but it is necessary to distinguish the "plausible" from the "proven". It is our duty, our job, our lesson, to find out what is true and what is "just an inspiration for finding the truth". It is similar as when we read a good SF. Science fiction does not necessarily mean that all is fiction, or that all is science. It is rather a fiction that is inspired by science, and it may lead us, if we are open-minded, critical, and work diligently, to science inspired by fiction.

ark

rs · Feb 2, 2006

Thanks for your considered reply, Ark.

'One should also make a distinction between the concept of "imagining" and that of "understanding".'

I agree completely and tried to express that in my hypersphere example by explaining that I am only trying to express that it should be possible to begin to come to some kind of understanding. The understanding may be limited but it should be there. It is one thing to add a new term to an equation and state that it is another dimension and be able to "do the math". It is another to be able to more intuitively grasp the point. As an example, the curved space simulation web pointer you provided in the other thread does nothing to explain the mathematics of curved spaces, but does provide one with the ability to at least begin to grasp what a curved space *means*.

'And the closing, last but not least, comment: whatever C's "say", we should consider it as "plausible" but it is necessary to distinguish the "plausible" from the "proven".'

Again, I agree completely. I do not take the C's transcripts as "gospel" but instead look in them for a self consistent explanation that illuminates the known facts or observations (like I look at all of the rest of the stuff on your web site). Now I allow that the possibility exists that the transcripts themselves are corrupted because of the mechanism of communication. (I.e. I allow that the channel may be "noisy"). This does not negate the information, but clearly adds to the need to apply much further testing and research. My readings (which I do not claim to be exhaustive by any means) keep bumping into the same "time is an illusion" concept, so I am not taking just the C's word on this, I am trying to understand what this means, not only to what comes next but to what is happening to me today, right now.

I would appreciate your thoughts as to the second half of my post regarding "where did the lesson go". [The second half begins: 'If hyperdimensional beings are traveling back and forth through time to cause a specific outcome, I also have a problem understanding a fundamental issue here.'] In my post, there really are two separate questions, although the common thread is "time".

Thanks

RuSTO · Feb 23, 2006

I am really struggling with this concept of time.

I can relate to this as a 'space-time continuum' indicates that there is always time,
viz Eternity. Just coming to me now is that 'time as illusion', would be a 'time-lapse'.
Here time would be 'Relative'. By keeping it simple the dilemna is clarified.

Heck, you might even unlearn yourself right out of existence.

From an ontological perspective the 'Lesson IS Unlearning'. If we consider existence
as the 'Mother' it is, like 'space-time', a Continuum. Thus You may be able to unlearn yourself into existence or to put it another way you may be able to unlearn until you were capable of perceiving existence for what it is.

ark · Feb 25, 2006

rs said:
If hyperdimensional beings are traveling back and forth through time to cause a specific outcome, I also have a problem understanding a fundamental issue here.

Lets say that you look out the window and see an automobile accident. The occupants of the cars all die. They are all members of your family and so you decide to "fix" this, so you jump on your trusty time machine and go back to just before the accident, stand by the side of the road and wave your arms frantically, stopping the car.

Unbeknownst to you, in the scenario where there was an automobile accident, before you went back in time, a teenager with a learners permit witnessed the accident. The horrors of the result really impressed him and he vowed to never make the kind of mistake he witnessed and spent the rest of his life accident free. (Hey, its my story...)

Now when you went back in time and prevented the accident, this teenager did not see the result, it did not impress him, and the next day he went out and accidentally killed himself.

My question is where did the "lesson" go? Where did the knowledge and impact of the decision in the first case go when we messed with the time line? If it just evaporated into the ether, then this means that lessons are reversible and we really can "unlearn" something. Heck, you might even unlearn yourself right out of existence.

Here is how I see it: First of all "time travel" has its own laws, its own restrictions on what is possible and what is not. Certain actions may be pssible, other may be not. The main constraint being: logical contradictions are to be avoided. It seems that is impossible to avoid logical contradictions in a world governed by deterministic laws. But when we enter the fuzzy world clumsily described today by the term "quantum", in which probabilities play a significant role, then it is possible to affect the past without entering into logical contradictions - provided one is careful. To be more specific: there are different kinds of "lessons". Some "lessons" can be easily qualified as "illusions". Human beings may have memories of events that never happened, they can also have their memories "erased". Some are more easily erased than other. If a given "lesson" concerns only one individual, it is easier to tweak with, than if it is a memory of several people or a memory of the whole race. The devil is in the details.

It may be worthwhile to inspect the web page of Jerzy Kocik (whom I know personally): TIME MACHINES AND PHYSICS - state of the art, in particular the first paragraph:

Autonomy principle
"It is possible to create in our immediate environment any configuration of matter that the laws of physics permit locally, without reference to what the rest of the universe may be doing" (Deutch). (this is really "free will" principle). Most of time machines violate AP. Deutch considers Everetts multi-universe interpretation of quantum mechanics as a remedy.

I do not consider the Everetts interpretation as the remedy, as it has its own problems, but I agree with Deutch on many points in this repsect.

ark

rs · Feb 28, 2006

I read the web link. However when I got to this:

Time bomb paradox
A (thought) experiment of throwing a time bomb into a time machine with its detonating mechanism set so that it will destroy its entering copy. It is to show that removing free-will (see Billiard experiment) does not reduce the Grandpa paradox.

I fail to grasp how this reads on "free will". Sure the bomb did not decide to set its timer and jump into the TM but, someone did. It seems to me that free will does not mean that each particle has its own will but that whatever it is that consciousness is has free will and expresses it on particles.

Some entity that expresses free will set the timer and tossed the bomb into the machine, so there was free will involved... This seems to be the exact same thing as the "billiard ball crisis" so I don't get the point as to why it is being suggested that it is somehow different.

I do not consider the Everetts interpretation as the remedy, as it has its own problems

What are the problems you see?

Back to the original issue, if hyperdimensional beings are moving back and forth in "time" and this gets expressed in a multi-universe, then why don't they simply move into the universe that they "like"? Running the argument backwards, the simple fact that it is necessary to move back and forth in "time" to accomplish some goal would imply to me that the multiverse interpretation is not correct and that there really is something approaching an "objective reality".

ark · Mar 1, 2006

rs said:
I do not consider the Everetts interpretation as the remedy, as it has its own problems

Click to expand...

What are the problems you see?.

It does not explain creation of particle tracks. How are these tracks created? By which mechanism? Everett's interpretation has no answer. For me this is fundamental. Any theory that is not able to model the reality that we perceive is in trouble> Any theory that is not able to model the process of acquisition of data that we use to construct theories, is a bad theory.

ark

Omega · Jan 18, 2011

Hello Gents,

I found that post while precisly researching on the illusion of time and realised my interrogations where very similar to the creator of the thread. Ark's answer is well articulated. However, it might be due to my own limitation of knowledge, but I still find it hard to grasp that time, in our 3rd density environnement, is a simple illusion.

If we just look at nature and the 4 different seasons, no matter if humans divided it in 4. There is a moment on Earth when its warmer and colder, and a life and death cycle (plants and animals) is regulated by those seasons. They just happen. Its also like aging or like RS said, gaining knowledge. How can it happen if there is no time passing by ? I am not now the same as before I read this original post. If there had been zero time passing, I would not have budged or learned ? I can grasp the fact that time doesn't exist in other densities as other beings are probably not subject to it. But in our 3rd density, I see it as very present. We invented units to measure it to build our societies on it, but still...it seems to pass.

As for the time travel, I think in Laura's work we can find explanations. There was a part in the wave series (volume 1 ?) talking about multiple realities and universe. I the car accident example given by RS, I think even if someone would go back in time to prevent the accident, the original situation would still exist in another reality, the person changing the past having simply created another parallele branch of that reality and thus all realities continue onword with their journey. Thus, one continues with the persone having learned the lesson, in the other, the lesson is not learned.

What do you think ? Makes sense ?

Buddy · Jan 18, 2011

Omega said:
I still find it hard to grasp that time, in our 3rd density environnement, is a simple illusion.

If we just look at nature and the 4 different seasons, no matter if humans divided it in 4. There is a moment on Earth when its warmer and colder, and a life and death cycle (plants and animals) is regulated by those seasons. They just happen. Its also like aging or like RS said, gaining knowledge. How can it happen if there is no time passing by ? I am not now the same as before I read this original post. If there had been zero time passing, I would not have budged or learned ? I can grasp the fact that time doesn't exist in other densities as other beings are probably not subject to it. But in our 3rd density, I see it as very present. We invented units to measure it to build our societies on it, but still...it seems to pass.

Concerning this illusion of 'time', I would say we were given a 'double whammy' because there is 'cyclic time' and a sense of 'linear time' overlaid on that. If you could succeed in seeing through the linear time illusion, you still have the cyclic time sense that you recognized. A common denominator would be 'sequence' of our perceptions, I suspect, and our assumption that 'things' happen in a single direction, or unchanging sequence.

Cyclic time is useful for self-remembering and not nearly so limiting as linear time, OSIT. Anyone who learns to self-remember will probably confirm this because seeing and remembering the logical/natural chains of percepts you've experienced and continue to experience in some kind of order first, can then be automatically put into a context within all the cycles you have experienced and continue to experience in their relationships to each other. This is the way that your awareness can become structured enough to experience all of yourself, and the Universe around you, simultaneously, and how you can improve your ability to remember almost everything you've ever learned. At least in this lifetime. Compared to an eternity, that shouldn't be too hard to accomplish, OSIT. :)

Omega said:
As for the time travel, I think in Laura's work we can find explanations. There was a part in the wave series (volume 1 ?) talking about multiple realities and universe. I the car accident example given by RS, I think even if someone would go back in time to prevent the accident, the original situation would still exist in another reality, the person changing the past having simply created another parallele branch of that reality and thus all realities continue onword with their journey. Thus, one continues with the persone having learned the lesson, in the other, the lesson is not learned.

What do you think ? Makes sense ?

To me, it remains theory. My mind has not yet bridged the gap to see enough evidence to accept that it's actually possible. I'm also having to deal with a previous rejection of the 'multi-verse' theory for a simple enough reason: a single light bulb generates a multitude of quantum events every second. Now multiply that by each light bulb that's burning now, let alone any other ongoing quantum events, and then imagine a different universe splitting off for each 'event'. Seems excessive to me.

Having said that, I realize that Laura has added the factor of a conscious mind interacting with reality and I very well understand how that would work...only in a slightly different way. Not as the 'mind' doing the interacting so much as a 'doing' of the being who is using the mind.

Sort of like the difference between the observer's mere looking causing a collapse of quantum probabilities and the actual 'doing' of a particle interaction on the same level of physicality of the probability wave. But like I said, this could be a mis-representation since I've already stated I don't completely understand it yet. :)

So, as for myself, I'm still workin' on it! :)

Hope this is not too confusing!

1984 · Jan 18, 2011

Omega said:
Hello Gents,

Shouldn't this be "Ladies and Gents"? ;)

dant · Jan 18, 2011

Perhaps with self-remembering, linear time
can be broken when Deja Vu appears, giving
one a glimpse of cyclic time, but one soon forgets,
and falls right back into grips of "linear time"?

Palinurus · Jan 19, 2011

If I may - I would like to try to tackle this vast problem field from a different perspective and starting point.

Remember, it's the soul that counts - and frequency resonance vibration (FRV, see: http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=339&lsel=F , especially the concluding remark) seems to be one of its main characteristics. As far as our understanding is concerned, frequency, vibration and resonance are measured using certain timerelated referenceframes - hence time is a given in some sort of basic way. It's only the precise nature of this 'time'-aspect that is bothering most of us and anybody else who tries to wrap his/her mind around the concept.

Now, for the sake of the argument, consider our current 3D (third density) existence as a totally or just fairly adequate expression of the FRV of our soul. It seems a given, that for individual souls this might be slightly different than for members of a soulpool (OP's) or for participants in a groupsoul. So, if the learning process can affect your FRV (and vice versa) this would mean that different people can experience different types of 'times', or spacetime/timespace combinations, simultaneously whilst all are 'being and doing' within the restrictions of a 3D environment. They are growing and developing differently because of their learning experiences - eventually some of them might even 'graduate' to a totally different environment alltogether...

It seems to me that soulpool, groupsoul and individuated soul are terms which do suggest a certain progression in growth and development. It may take many incarnations to complete the whole way, step by step, phase by phase and stage by stage. Doesn't matter, since souls of any kind or form are the 'timeless' parts of our core being - all the rest is paraphernalia (osit). You don't have a soul - you are one. That's the main thing, for me at least...

In this rudimentary way I tried to grasp some of the dynamics of the timerelated aspects of our existence in the extended or expanded Now (the Present in a wider sense) all the while remembering that the present is history in the making of a different future - allways changing...

FWIW.

Omega · Jan 20, 2011

1984 said:
Omega said:

Hello Gents,

Click to expand...

Shouldn't this be "Ladies and Gents"? ;)

I stand corrected ! ;D

stardust · Jun 22, 2014

Last year, I've watched this interesting videos about Time by Brian Green. For someone like me who is not very good in physic stuff, it helps really to have these illustrations. I can't say of course if all theories showed in these videos are valid but hope it could help.

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9AiPuIsqck ( Prof. Brian Greene: Past Present & Future Exist Now)

For french equivalent :
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJAsr2ZEbfM ( La Magie du Cosmos et du Temps)

Delizco · Aug 3, 2014

rs said:
Now the point of this digression is not really to talk about how I visualize a hypersphere or even if my visualization is "correct", it is to point out that higher concepts can be understood at some level by a smaller mind if you focus enough on trying to compare the concept with that with which you are familiar, and then study the differences.

Yes, I believe this is the exact reason why the C's tell us to meditate on certain things, certain concepts. It truly works when you put in the effort to try and grasp an idea, or at least give you a starting point.
And thank you for the post, enjoyed hearing your point of view ;)

Danielle

There is no time in any frame of reference.

rs

Dagobah Resident

ark

Administrator

rs

Dagobah Resident

RuSTO

Guest

ark

Administrator

rs

Dagobah Resident

ark

Administrator

Omega

Padawan Learner

Buddy

The Living Force

1984

The Living Force

dant

The Living Force

Palinurus

The Living Force

Omega

Padawan Learner

stardust

Jedi Master

Delizco

The Force is Strong With This One