-
DanaThomas posted an update 8 years, 1 month ago
Clif discusses Kozyrev’s experiments with time (from minute 24):
https://youtu.be/xE0MoTvCopE
The Giza Forum (Legacy)
Closed Archive of The Old Forum
DanaThomas posted an update 8 years, 1 month ago
Clif discusses Kozyrev’s experiments with time (from minute 24):
https://youtu.be/xE0MoTvCopE
Very interesting, but I am not sure I totally understood the part about time.
Does he mean that retrocausality is only possible if an action is reversible, and not otherwise?
Bear in mind that retrocausality means, for example, that the past can be changed by the future , or to be more precise, an action in the future can cause changes in the present (at least within certain time limits of each other). ALSO — Philippe Guillemant, a French government research scientist, has a lot to say on the nature of time, but I am afraid you need to understand French to follow him 😉 Any francophones around here?
On a personal note, I believe or fancy that I was able to change the past (a couple of years ago). In other words, something I expected did not come through (I have the dated letter) … being greatly disappointed I withdrew into my shell and started watching — and believing (or being convince) — Phillipe Guilleman’t description of the nature of time (pictured as a road, with forks — every fork you take already exists,) and of the experimental evidence for retrocausality. I spent a week at least just reading and listening to the guy. Then I called the office where the letter had been sent (refusing my request) to inquire as to why it was refused. The answer I got was that it was not refused (but the letter proved otherwise). I had no complaints, but seeing something change in the past just after I spent a week (or two) intensely focused on understanding retrocausality, and listening to examples from Guillemant from his own experience.
Perhaps your concentration affected the consciousness of the persons involved in the circumstances related to the writing of the letter, a record of the past. The later positive response did not change the negative conditions existing in a certain moment of the past, it is just a new set of circumstances. Use this method with caution 🙂
The conversation referred to Kozyrev’s concept of time and consciousness; according to the astrophysicist there are irreversible causes for given effects, so that although our present actions can determine the future no future condition can act in reverse. Of course this idea involves more specific definition of all the terms used, otherwise it would be easy to fall into Hollywood “time travel” misconceptions in which the “past” is a conveniently simplified narrative about incredibly complex sets of circumstances/causes and effects. One would obviously exclude things like “retroactive” bureaucratic measures to make a tax payable for last year that was not payable at the time; this does not change the past but only the “narrative” about the past, creating new obligations in the present.
Thanks for the Guillemant reference.
The whole discussion on time is stuck in linguistic traps, and one has to define time and space as well (and it seems they are artifacts of something else, even according to physicists – information/consciousness).
One idea is that the present is not an instant. In other words, you can imagine experiential moments of time as spikes on a linear time axis lasting only for an infinitesimal amount of time (e.g. Planck time) or you can imagine them as fat bell curves centered around the present moment, but extending into both past and present, that is one interpretation I have heard. Here is a popular video on RETROCAUSALITY (or whatever you might like to call it):
Yes, I’ve heard of this experiment.
Sponsored by @m@zon lol