Is time predetermined?

[Matt]

In chapter 10, they show Michel his past lives. They start with his first, which is him working in a coal mine in Germany approx 19th century. Earlier in the book, Michel in a man on the coast of Chile as Mu is destroyed.

Is physical time therefor irrelevant, and eternally in the "present" where our astral bodies are free to transverse throughout it when choosing their lives? If this is so, then that means that while we are living in this time, 2007, our next life we may travel back 2000 years to live in the time of Christ. How are we able to all be living in this time, yet, at the same time, not be? How could I be living here, right now, and in another life living in China right now at the same time?

This would mean that all of physical time is pre-determined. Do we truly have the freedom of choice, then? If it's pre-determined - then what if we pre-viewed our lives while still living, just as Christ who previewed his life on Earth before changing bodies, and what if he decided to change his fate? Would any future bodies who decided to live in our world, would they live in a world without Christianity? And any past bodies, before Christ decided to change his fate(since his life was predicted that he wouldn't), live in a world with Christianity? It would seem then, that the only true time that exists, is within the Astral realm.

Digging deep into TP boggles my mind.

[Essene]

I'm sorry but does it say anywhere that Michel's first life was as a coal miner. They could of just picked one of his lives at random when going back and did not necessarily go to his first life.

[Matt]

I'm sorry but does it say anywhere that Michel's first life was as a coal miner. They could of just picked one of his lives at random when going back and did not necessarily go to his first life.

I recall somewhere in his lectures or the book saying this.. not sure where. Also, in his lectures, Michel stated that he normally would have been reincarnated on a 7th category planet - I doubt he went from a 1st category planet to a 7th category planet in 200 or less years.

[Rezo]

interesting idea, Matt..

Ill have to 'chew' on that one.

Are you saying you heard an idea along the lines that 'reincarnation time' could be nonlinear [for us on earth], in that one of the 9 other astral bodies to my HS is currently possibly hundreds or thousands of years in earth's past, but for HS its happening at the same time as 'our' present?

As far as having no free will, [fair or not?] that is of course complicated. I think it seems fair. Perhaps because of the hierarchical aspect of consciousness it is not the type of freewill we may like, as HS/guides are sort of like teachers, so maybe theres judgements, rewards, punishments, and we also judge ourselves. Hard to know unless youve actually been fortunate enough to speak with one and be able to train yourself remember the conversation after [like remembering a dream?].

I am wondering if perhaps they co/reviewed his lives slowly backwards in time, starting with his most recent life, then earlier and earlier, Ill have to take another look.

and related concept, is a soukou always one, or does one become one at some point?

[shezmear]

Right on matty I asked tom the same thing, it does not add up, the only point of question is was that Germany in the 1900s or some early time?

It does deserver an answer, it`s like the old higher self sends 1/9th of it self into the human body, it’s actually 1/18th, if it sends one ninth of it self and it does it nine times there would be no higher self left, think of it like a pie, I asked tom about this and he said, the universe is all about information….???*&@#^%*&#@^???


Ya, good….nice…

[Matt]

if it sends one ninth of it self and it does it nine times there would be no higher self left, think of it like a pie

This is really interesting, but you have to think how something could come from nothing in the first place.

One of the biggest problems of physics is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that we can only predict the probability of an electron being at a certain place at a specific time, or it's momentum – you cannot predict both at the same time... which gives rise to the Wave-Particle Duality where an electron can act as either a wave, or a particle in specific situations.

Let us visualize an electron as both a wave and a particle at the same time. Alright let's make this easier. Think of a sound wave, and bend it around into a circle; now visualize that 2D circle as a 3D sphere. What you have is a vibrational point in space:



Now let's imagine the beginning of time. Everything natural has a beginning and an end, correct? If you have your doubts, imagine an infinitely long bookcase with an infinite amount of books shelved on it. You take out all the red books, how many green ones do you have left? What are you are essentially doing is dividing infinity by two. Therefor, you cannot have an infinite amount of numbers contained within a finite mathematical set. On the other hand, you can potentially add an infinite amount of numbers to a finite set.

Given the previous information, we can conclude that eventually back in time, there was an absolute nothing. You can only have one nothing, because if you had two nothings you would have two distinct "things." So how could something exist within nothing? Take the following equation for instance:

1+(-1)=0

1 and -1 (something) can coexist to produce a net result of 0 (nothing). Notice how everything in our universe has a polar opposite: Positive and negative electricity, magnetism, electrons and protons, up and down quarks(remember the vibration point in space earlier?).

If my theory(or philosophy, if you're picky) is correct, or even partially correct, this means the universe works fundamentally on the number zero. This means that it is completely logical that the Higher Self would give every part of itself so that it equaled a total of zero pieces left.

Are you saying you heard an idea along the lines that 'reincarnation time' could be nonlinear [for us on earth], in that one of the 9 other astral bodies to my HS is currently possibly hundreds or thousands of years in earth's past, but for HS its happening at the same time as 'our' present?

Yep. Amazingly complex to think about, isn't it? Like they said in TP, the evolution of our astral bodies and the higher self is absurdly complex, perhaps beyond any of our minds could comprehend in our short 100 year life-span.

[shezmear]

Ya, interesting, great math….. to put another spin on it again, Michel corrects him self in other talks 1/18th as a pose to 1/9th…..I think some times things are just as they appear...if the don’t add up... they don’t add up...

To break it down further, and talk in TP/Tom terminology… your mind is able to function thanks to your electrons, which due to the amount you have allows you to process and store large amounts of information, namely thoughts experience and sensation, if I take all of them away you will have no mind, simply because they are the things that allow you to think (process info), and to be more specific your mind will be were I have taken them ,remember these a tangible objects, not random events in space/time, but real devices…measurable even on this backward pre-civilized planet….

Also the nothing that existed at the start of time was not a “nothing of consciousness”, the creator existed in the nothing, but was not the nothing.

The whole possibility of something creating it self out of nothing I will give it some more thought, although I have thought about it a lot, Tom seems to think that the creator created it self, I still am not really too sure about all of that.....maybe we just struggle with the concept that some thing has always excited and everything originated from it, including time, space and everything in between....

Just an ending point please don’t think I know what I’m talking about I’m just putting together the info from TP, I could be totally talking out my but….this stuff is so utterly hard to substantiate…it’s all head stuff….

[bomohwkl]

Vibration of electrons around a nucleus forms what scientists called, standing waves which are self-reproducible. The simplest standing wave of an electron occurs at a hygrogen atom. More complex vibration of electrons can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital.

Given the previous information, we can conclude that eventually back in time, there was an absolute nothing. You can only have one nothing, because if you had two nothings you would have two distinct "things." So how could something exist within nothing? Take the following equation for instance:

1+(-1)=0

1 and -1 (something) can coexist to produce a net result of 0 (nothing). Notice how everything in our universe has a polar opposite: Positive and negative electricity, magnetism, electrons and protons, up and down quarks(remember the vibration point in space earlier?).

If the universe creates everything on exact opposite, then how come there are so little anti-matters in the universe?
The universe might be created from nothing (means equal proportion of opposite polarity; where in physics, it is called symmetry). However, the universe current is not nothing as a result of symmetry breaking.
More about symmetry breakingcanbe found on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneou ... y_breaking
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec18.html

sorry for the hard-core physics.........

[Matt]

If the universe creates everything on exact opposite, then how come there are so little anti-matters in the universe?
The universe might be created from nothing (means equal proportion of opposite polarity; where in physics, it is called symmetry). However, the universe current is not nothing as a result of symmetry breaking.

Anti-matter is not necessarily the opposite of matter - it's just that when they collide they produce nothing. For instance, if you add together (1+2-1) and (1-4+1) you will end up with 0, but the equations are not polar opposites at the most basic level, they only equate to polar opposites. Therefor, for my theory to even be partially correct, the universe would have to be made up of equal amounts of up and down quarks, and electrons(the most basic particles that do not seem to divide); this is so that the total equation for the universe would equal 0.

The whole possibility of something creating it self out of nothing I will give it some more thought, although I have thought about it a lot, Tom seems to think that the creator created it self, I still am not really too sure about all of that.....maybe we just struggle with the concept that some thing has always excited and everything originated from it, including time, space and everything in between....

The idea that the GI that Tom talks about creating itself out of nothing is about as illogical as God existing for eternity. Maybe if he supported his philosophy more with other ideas it would have more credit, but as it stands he doesn't really give his readers much direction in that area.

I still have the same hole in my theory - how does the nothing become disturbed in the first place? Was the absolute nothing every possible equation equaling 0 all at the same time, constantly morphing? What would be required for intelligence to develop out of randomness, however, is a cause and effect relationship - for one equation to affect another, like two atoms transferring electrons. This cause and effect relationship is essentially a computation, flipping a bit from 0 to 1 in a hard-drive - a computer program, if you will. This would be essentially the simplest form of a start to intelligence and memory.

[ronald]

I think 'disturbed' may not be the best term since disturbance could be linked to chaos.

It may be a thinking error to say that nothing becomes disturbed. There is nothing so there can never be anything disturbed, thus there must be a process at work, indicating towards a state of infinite awareness, but without intellect. So I can imagine that any intellect can only grow out of nothing, following a process that the spirit did not create but discovered by itself.

1. Nothing is a state of infinite awareness.
2. Infinite awareness has a property of continues thought.
3. Continues thought has a sensation of moving.
4. Moving affects cause.
5. Cause creates reason.
6. Reason makes purpose.
7. Purpose grows will.
8. Will becomes wisdom.
9. Wisdom imagines love.

An now we are here, talking about it. Perhaps becoming disturbed?

Ps. If you write 'THE nothing' it becomes an object, which sounds strange to me.
But if you write 'nothing' it describes a state.

[bomohwkl]

Anti-matter is not necessarily the opposite of matter - it's just that when they collide they produce nothing. For instance, if you add together (1+2-1) and (1-4+1) you will end up with 0, but the equations are not polar opposites at the most basic level, they only equate to polar opposites. Therefor, for my theory to even be partially correct, the universe would have to be made up of equal amounts of up and down quarks, and electrons(the most basic particles that do not seem to divide); this is so that the total equation for the universe would equal 0.

It is well known that when anti-matter and matter collide, they produce energetic photons. It is the law of conservation of energy.
It is suffice to say that when something is partially correct, it also means not correct. There are certain situation which cannot be applied and hence cannot be applied the the scale of universe.
Also note that partially correct doesn't mean a good approximation. For example Newton's law of mechanics are a good approximation for matter travelling significantly slower than speed of light. It is correct because the condition of its appplication of law has been stated.

Hence your statement, "Therefor, for my theory to even be partially correct, the universe would have to be made up of equal amounts of up and down quarks, and electrons(the most basic particles that do not seem to divide); this is so that the total equation for the universe would equal 0"

completely lacks of intellecutual vigor. Sorry for being so sharp because I have done 9 years of intensive scientific trainning. Some statements just annoy me ( for reasons you will know if u have gone through rigious scientific trainning.)


SI defines the second as 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation which corresponds to the transition between two electron spin energy levels of the ground state of the 133Cs atom.

It is important to note that the defination of time when we discussed here.
The speed of photon is c. While Thao and Micheal were in the parallel universe, they could see with their eyes. This implied that photons are moving. However, our earthly defination of time is dependent on motions.
The time that Thao referring to in parallel universe must be independent on motions. at least. However when time ceases to exist, people would not age, would not feel pain and body doesn't decompose.People can move and think. Sounds like time the Thao is referring might be more biological in nature.
This also implies that thought and motion can exist independent of time.......

[Matt]

It is well known that when anti-matter and matter collide, they produce energetic photons. It is the law of conservation of energy.
It is suffice to say that when something is partially correct, it also means not correct. There are certain situation which cannot be applied and hence cannot be applied the the scale of universe.
Also note that partially correct doesn't mean a good approximation. For example Newton's law of mechanics are a good approximation for matter travelling significantly slower than speed of light. It is correct because the condition of its appplication of law has been stated.

Hence your statement, "Therefor, for my theory to even be partially correct, the universe would have to be made up of equal amounts of up and down quarks, and electrons(the most basic particles that do not seem to divide); this is so that the total equation for the universe would equal 0"

completely lacks of intellecutual vigor. Sorry for being so sharp because I have done 9 years of intensive scientific trainning. Some statements just annoy me ( for reasons you will know if u have gone through rigious scientific trainning.)

Sorry that I don't have all of my science completely nailed down Look, if you're going to debunk my theory or shoot me down, attack the logicality of my theory, not myself or my wording. Anyone with philosophy degree would be just as annoyed at you because of your logical fallacies toward useful discussion.

You're right, a theory as a whole cannot be partially correct. However, when you take it apart, detail by detail, some statements may be actually truthful. This is what I mean by partially correct.

It is well known that when anti-matter and matter collide, they produce energetic photons.

I don't think that is a big hole in my theory because that means I'm just interpreting the mechanics wrong, which I can easily modify to fit observed phenomenon.

I think 'disturbed' may not be the best term since disturbance could be linked to chaos.

It may be a thinking error to say that nothing becomes disturbed. There is nothing so there can never be anything disturbed, thus there must be a process at work, indicating towards a state of infinite awareness, but without intellect. So I can imagine that any intellect can only grow out of nothing, following a process that the spirit did not create but discovered by itself.

1. Nothing is a state of infinite awareness.
2. Infinite awareness has a property of continues thought.
3. Continues thought has a sensation of moving.
4. Moving affects cause.
5. Cause creates reason.
6. Reason makes purpose.
7. Purpose grows will.
8. Will becomes wisdom.
9. Wisdom imagines love.

An now we are here, talking about it. Perhaps becoming disturbed?

Ps. If you write 'THE nothing' it becomes an object, which sounds strange to me.
But if you write 'nothing' it describes a state.

When I say disturbed, I do mean randomness and chaos. These disturbances would be a fluctuation of nothing, equating to nothing.

I don't quite understand how nothing is a state of infinite awareness. When we create a state of 'nothing' in our mind, ie. an absence of thoughts, it is quite different from an absolute nothing in which nothing exists at all. Senses, or some form of communication(cause and effect, flipping of bits I talked about in an earlier post) is needed for awareness. When we do not think, our sub-conscious processes of our senses take over and are focused upon in the conscious mind - nothingness as a state of awareness is an illusion of the mind itself.

[ronald]

interesting.. my illusion <nothing as a state of awareness> is gone.
thank you!!!.

an absolute nothing in which nothing exists at all.

..if nothing cannot exist in nothing, would there then never have been absolute nothing?

It seems to me now that the concept of nothing in this case does not help me further.

[shezmear]

ya, a tough one....

[Matt]

interesting.. my illusion <nothing as a state of awareness> is gone.
thank you!!!.

an absolute nothing in which nothing exists at all.

..if nothing cannot exist in nothing, would there then never have been absolute nothing?

It seems to me now that the concept of nothing in this case does not help me further.

Like I said I don't quite know the answer myself, I haven't thoroughly thought out the subject or have all the facts so don't take what I say as truth. So if you're serious I don't think I should have broken any real illusion - I'm sure you've done a lot more thinking on the subject than me. I was just giving my two cents on the matter.