How time is experienced

In this section we discuss how a conscious observer actually experiences traversal through a timeline.

The sensation of time is a macroscopic phenomenon, where an observer remembers the past and predicts the future.

The direction of the timelines is not proscribed by a physical law; each timeline is a smooth path along increasing complexity.

We have said that in 6 dimensions the steepest complexity gradient is the diagonal between TX, TY and TZ, shown as T in this diagram.

Can the 6d timeline* which an observer experiences diverge from that diagonal?

(*We are using an approximation of 6 dimensions as discussed previously)

Yes, it can. In at least 2 different ways:

  1. The timeline can diverge at an angle from the diagonal through motion in space
  2. There has to be a small sideways drift across the timelines.

 

1. We will discuss the first point in a separate section about special relativity, but the basics are briefly illustrated in this diagram.

 

On the left we have an stationary observer with a space and time axis. (The mixing balls are supposed to represent a complexity increase.) The arrow show’s the observer’s time direction T. On the right the observer travels in a spaceship moving a distance s after g generations. This moving system’s time direction is shown as t and it diverges from T.

2. As we move away from the origin the number of available positions grows: this means that many observers’ mindstates will be drifting away from the main timeline, and they will find themselves moving forward on parallel paths. We will call this sideways drift.

 

An observer’s perception of this sideways drift through the timelines can be demonstrated by an experiment where we settle a particle in one of a few stable grid positions as shown in this diagram.

To each observer in each timeline it appears as if the particle has settled in a random grid position, whereas of course it actually occupies each possible position in one of the parallel timelines. If the observers in each timeline don’t know where the particle is then they all share the same mindstate. To the observer the position of the particle then seems to be uncertain and distributed across all grid positions. When the observer checks for the position and the information reaches the observers then their mindstates diverge and it appears to them that the particle now has a definite position.

If the neighbouring timelines are similar enough and the observer waits a while, the sideways drift of the observer’s mindstate across the timelines can mean that when retesting, the particle appears to have moved to a neighbouring grid position.

To the observer this appears as if the particle has “tunneled” to a neighbouring grid position, although the “motion” can never be observed and the particle always appears as if it had been in that particular grid position all along.

However, if the observer continually checks the position of the particle, then he binds himself to his own timeline, sideways drift will not occur and the particle will appear to remain in the same position.

 

So far we have considered the 6-dimensional approximation with 3 time and 3 space dimensions. The same principle applies to the higher levels of the dimensional hierarchy.

At the next level we have 30 dimensions. (As discussed here.)

The 5 extra time dimensions are interchangeable with each other so their steepest complexity gradient is diagonal to all 5 of them.

We have purposely chosen a generating formula which creates progressively shallower complexity gradients as we consider higher hierarchies of dimensions. The steepest complexity gradient in the 30d case is therefore less steep than in the 6d case.

The 6d world is exactly the same as the 30d world with the assumption that at each point the 5 sets of 6d worlds are identical. This creates a situation where we can make the approximation to the 30d (or even 6d) case, but where  that loses some effects that are require the higher orders of hierarchy.

 

 

Advertisements