Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

"John Wheeler Saw the Tear in Reality"


Recommended Posts

Posted

https://www.quantamagazine.org/john-wheeler-saw-the-tear-in-reality-20240925/

“I have got myself out on deep waters, in wanting to make something of ‘present choice influencing past action,’” Wheeler wrote in his journal."

** Most of this is over my head, but the above quote and surrounding text intrigued me.

Base on his theories... Is it possible that our current repentance can literally change the past?

Posted (edited)

I think so! 

I think there will come a point where everything has been healed, and I think we will be full-on participants in that process rather than passive beneficiaries.  Repentance is one way that we can change some aspects of the past in the present, right here and right now, and I would expect "eternal progression" to include an increase in our capacity to change the past in the present.

From the article (not quoting Wheeler, but presumably paraphrasing Wheeler):  "The past is not really the past."  Is there a correct perspective from which the past is actually in the present? 

If the most correct perspective sees "all things, past present and future, continually manifest", who knows what we could do from that vantage point!

*  *  *  *

Another fascinating idea of John Archibald Wheeler is the "One Electron Theory".  It goes something like this:  There is actually only one electron in the universe, moving along something like ten to the eightieth power different timelines.  And no, this theory hasn't been proven.  Here's a link to a short introductory Wikipedia article; use Google to find longer articles and multiple YouTube videos:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

So extrapolating from the theory that there is actually only one electron which is moving through the universe on 10^80 different timelines, could there actually be only ONE of US, moving through existence on however many different timelines? 

Imo this is an interesting lens to view various teachings through:  "Love your neighbor as yourself."  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."   "We without them cannot be saved, neither can they without us be saved."  "Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow turn thou not away."  "Love your enemies."  "Forgive seventy times seven."  For years "turn the other cheek" seemed to me like a betrayal of oneself, and the only perspective from which it makes sense to me is if my assailant is actually me on a different timeline, having a really bad day.  If so, then I'm okay with cutting "my other self" some slack.  "Let every man esteem his brother as himself." 

There are places this line of thinking can take you that I am not willing to describe in an internet post.  They have to do with who and/or what we really are. 

Edited by manol
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/john-wheeler-saw-the-tear-in-reality-20240925/

“I have got myself out on deep waters, in wanting to make something of ‘present choice influencing past action,’” Wheeler wrote in his journal."

** Most of this is over my head, but the above quote and surrounding text intrigued me.

Base on his theories... Is it possible that our current repentance can literally change the past?

No, at least not based on this. This is quantum theory. We don’t change the past. We create the past through observation. The cat in the box. Once we open the box the past is fixed.

Edit: One danger in this example is that it assumes the observer is a person. Consciousness in the observer doesn’t collapse a wave function. An observer in this scenario is (this is a vast oversimplification) anything that interacts with a particle and collapses a wave function.

Edited by The Nehor
Posted
4 hours ago, manol said:

I think so! 

I think there will come a point where everything has been healed, and I think we will be full-on participants in that process rather than passive beneficiaries.  Repentance is one way that we can change some aspects of the past in the present, right here and right now, and I would expect "eternal progression" to include an increase in our capacity to change the past in the present.

From the article (not quoting Wheeler, but presumably paraphrasing Wheeler):  "The past is not really the past."  Is there a correct perspective from which the past is actually in the present? 

If the most correct perspective sees "all things, past present and future, continually manifest", who knows what we could do from that vantage point!

*  *  *  *

Another fascinating idea of John Archibald Wheeler is the "One Electron Theory".  It goes something like this:  There is actually only one electron in the universe, moving along something like ten to the eightieth power different timelines.  And no, this theory hasn't been proven.  Here's a link to a short introductory Wikipedia article; use Google to find longer articles and multiple YouTube videos:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

So extrapolating from the theory that there is actually only one electron which is moving through the universe on 10^80 different timelines, could there actually be only ONE of US, moving through existence on however many different timelines? 

Imo this is an interesting lens to view various teachings through:  "Love your neighbor as yourself."  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."   "We without them cannot be saved, neither can they without us be saved."  "Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow turn thou not away."  "Love your enemies."  "Forgive seventy times seven."  For years "turn the other cheek" seemed to me like a betrayal of oneself, and the only perspective from which it makes sense to me is if my assailant is actually me on a different timeline, having a really bad day.  If so, then I'm okay with cutting "my other self" some slack.  "Let every man esteem his brother as himself." 

There are places this line of thinking can take you that I am not willing to describe in an internet post.  They have to do with who and/or what we really are. 

I find this idea rather sad. A lonely existence. 

Posted
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, at least not based on this. This is quantum theory. We don’t change the past. We create the past through observation. The cat in the box. Once we open the box the past is fixed.

The amusing thing about this is that Schroedinger wasn't attempting to support quantum superposition, but trying to show its problems. And then suffered the fate of his cat thought experiment becoming part of the foundation of quantum mechanics.

My favorite quantum mechanics joke: "Schroedinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't."

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Edit: One danger in this example is that it assumes the observer is a person. Consciousness in the observer doesn’t collapse a wave function. An observer in this scenario is (this is a vast oversimplification) anything that interacts with a particle and collapses a wave function.

The required observer actually cannot be a person. We are not quantum enough. :) 

I once saw the double-slit experiment performed in real life using actual equipment. It was amazing.

One of my favorite wave function collapse videos:

 

 

Posted
6 hours ago, Calm said:

I find this idea rather sad. A lonely existence. 

You might try this two-minute thought experiment:  With eyes closed (if that makes it easier), let the thought of someone come into your mind.  Neither deliberately select the person nor deliberately exclude anyone.  It doesn't matter whether you like them or dislike them or just saw them for the first time.  Whoever pops into your mind is perfect.  In your mind say to this person, "You and I are one."  Then let your attention turn to the next person who comes into your mind, and do the same thing.  "You and I are one."  After a couple of minutes, stop and check in with your feelings.  Do you now feel more alone, or less alone? 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, manol said:

You might try this two-minute thought experiment:  With eyes closed (if that makes it easier), let the thought of someone come into your mind.  Neither deliberately select the person nor deliberately exclude anyone.  It doesn't matter whether you like them or dislike them or just saw them for the first time.  Whoever pops into your mind is perfect.  In your mind say to this person, "You and I are one."  Then let your attention turn to the next person who comes into your mind, and do the same thing.  "You and I are one."  After a couple of minutes, stop and check in with your feelings.  Do you now feel more alone, or less alone? 

When I love a lonely person in this exercise, I simultaneously feel love and their loneliness, and depending on their response, other emotions, both empathetically and spontaneously, mutual and individual. For example, friendship (or rejection), unity (or discord), oneness (or alienation) and so on. I think the meditative experience reflects our palpable experience, though there is much more time spent and raw material available in the latter.

I think the two-minute thought experiment is a very useful grounding exercise, but by definition is not a permanent state of being. It can serve to train our attitudes such as the pure love of Christ and other positive attributes, and proceed from there to incorporate them into all we do.

Edited by CV75
Posted
15 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Is it possible that our current repentance can literally change the past?

Closest I can come to this line of thought, is when we run the double-slit experiment on starlight that left it's star billions of years ago.   When those photons departed and began travelling through space, they were all behaving like photons behave, except for an infinitesimally small number of them that behaved like particles instead of a wave function.  The particles never understood why they were different until a few billion years later, when they fell onto earth just in time to be watched as they went through one slit or the other, by some monkeys that hadn't even started evolving at the time the light started its journey.   In other words, nah, I don't really think we can change the past with repentance. 

Although it is very tempting.  To blame my current problems on people in the future, not repenting enough?  It's a nice new avenue for folks who are bored with blaming our failures on other people in the past or present. 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, manol said:

You might try this two-minute thought experiment:  With eyes closed (if that makes it easier), let the thought of someone come into your mind.  Neither deliberately select the person nor deliberately exclude anyone.  It doesn't matter whether you like them or dislike them or just saw them for the first time.  Whoever pops into your mind is perfect.  In your mind say to this person, "You and I are one."  Then let your attention turn to the next person who comes into your mind, and do the same thing.  "You and I are one."  After a couple of minutes, stop and check in with your feelings.  Do you now feel more alone, or less alone? 

I have baggage with the phrase of “you and I are one”.  Someone in my life used it in a way that I began to feel suffocated, as if I was just their accessory.  It felt manipulative though not intended that way. It was more they went there rather than taking the time to listen, but it signaled to them they had done the work to connect with me when they hadn’t. So not going to work for me.

Edited by Calm
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/john-wheeler-saw-the-tear-in-reality-20240925/

“I have got myself out on deep waters, in wanting to make something of ‘present choice influencing past action,’” Wheeler wrote in his journal."

** Most of this is over my head, but the above quote and surrounding text intrigued me.

Base on his theories... Is it possible that our current repentance can literally change the past?

If it can, then the former past is as much forgotten as the future (both former and coming) is unforeseen.

Does the new and improved past incite a new and stronger need for repentance? Can repentance ultimately create a past where there is no need to repent? Is this what Jesus accomplished, and if so when?

Distilling this and the plan of salvation to their most essential basics, what would be the difference?

Does not repenting change the past?

Edited by CV75
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Is this what Jesus accomplished, and if so when?

It would make sense how someone can be sinless where so many others can’t.  Their past is rewritten without sin once they reach a point they no longer sin.

I am envisioning it like some sci fi shows where there is a wave or ripple effect that spreads the new reality through space and time when someone goes back in time and causes a change.  So looking on the galaxy from a distance, seeing these little bubbles of light pop into being that then ripple out into space, overlapping each other anytime someone reaches a sinless state.  Here and there pops and then suddenly a cascade of a massive amount at around the same time due to Final Judgment.

(Please do not conclude anything about my actual beliefs on repentance or the sinlessness of God by this description as it does not take into account most details)

Edited by Calm
Posted
34 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have baggage with the phrase of “you and I are one”.  Someone in my life used it in a way that I began to feel suffocated, as if I was just their accessory.  It felt manipulative though not intended that way. It was more they went there rather than taking the time to listen, but it signaled to them they had done the work to connect with me when they hadn’t. So not going to work for me.

Thank you for explaining. I can see how that phrase would have strong negative connotations if someone had used it for manipulation and to avoid accountability and real connection.  I'm sorry that happened to you. 

 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Calm said:

It would make sense how someone can be sinless where so many others can’t.  Their past is rewritten without sin once they reach a point they no longer sin.

I am envisioning it like some sci fi shows where there is a wave or ripple effect that spreads the new reality through space and time when someone goes back in time and causes a change.  So looking on the galaxy from a distance, seeing these little bubbles of light pop into being that then ripple out into space, overlapping each other anytime someone reaches a sinless state.  Here and there pops and then suddenly a cascade of a massive amount at around the same time due to Final Judgment.

(Please do not conclude anything about my actual beliefs on repentance or the sinlessness of God by this description as it does not take into account most details)

When might Jesus have repented to reframe a prior past estate into a sinless period of existence?

  • The post mortal spirit world upon His full acceptance of the terms of exaltation?
  • This mortal world during His mortal probation?
  • An immortal world such as Eden?
  • The pre-mortal world?
  • Any of the above?

Does repentance within an estate reset that estate? For example, if I repent tomorrow, am I reborn as an infant into the mortal estate but a renewed path of choices, maybe even born in the covenant that time around? Or, if a follower of Lucifer in the war in heaven repented and joined Michael, did they re-enter the pre-mortal estate with a new disposition, forgetting the prior experience? Are post-repentance prior estates repeated in real time?

What is the need for a savior and his infinite and eternal atonement when repeated cycles can yield the same exalted result?

Did Jesus sin and repent unto perfection, or did he experienced sin and repentance vicariously, just as we experience sinlessness and perfection by grace?

I don’t mean to give anyone a headache!

ETA if I remember that I repented yesterday, does that mean I didn't really repent, since my past did not change?

Edited by CV75
Posted
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think the two-minute thought experiment is a very useful grounding exercise, but by definition is not a permanent state of being.

Imo it is possible to shift our "default setting" but it takes sustained effort, including taking responsibility for one's thoughts in the present moment.  And even if it's not permanent, at any given moment connection with the Divine can still be just a thought (or two) away.

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

It can serve to train our attitudes such as the pure love of Christ and other positive attributes, and proceed from there to incorporate them into all we do.

Yup! 

Posted
8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The required observer actually cannot be a person. We are not quantum enough. :) 

I once saw the double-slit experiment performed in real life using actual equipment. It was amazing.

This is my favorite take on the double-slit experiment as explained by the transhumanist football Lucy Van Pelt:

 

Posted
7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is my favorite take on the double-slit experiment as explained by the transhumanist football Lucy Van Pelt:

 

Very funny! I couldn't help feeling a bit of the spirit of Spaceghost Coast to Coast. :D 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

When might Jesus have repented to reframe a prior past estate into a sinless period of existence?

Never, since he is sinless now and the reset ripple effect, it never happened in our reality.  Very big 😃 

Edited by Calm
Posted
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

What is the need for a savior and his infinite and eternal atonement when repeated cycles can yield the same exalted result?

Same as always because repeated cycles won’t yield the same result, because for the vaaaassssssttttt majority of humanity, they would never achieve it on their own.  Only with God’s help are they made sinless and then he somehow rewrites reality so he no longer remembers those sins he purified us of….because they don’t exist and never have, so how could he remember them?

(thought experiment here, not actual belief)

Posted
20 hours ago, Calm said:

Never, since he is sinless now and the reset ripple effect, it never happened in our reality.  Very big 😃 

Correct on answer #1

20 hours ago, Calm said:

Same as always because repeated cycles won’t yield the same result, because for the vaaaassssssttttt majority of humanity, they would never achieve it on their own.  Only with God’s help are they made sinless and then he somehow rewrites reality so he no longer remembers those sins he purified us of….because they don’t exist and never have, so how could he remember them?

(thought experiment here, not actual belief)

Correct on answer #2

--oops it's a thought experiment not a pop quiz! -- :D 

Posted (edited)
On 9/26/2024 at 4:38 PM, Calm said:

with God’s help are they made sinless and then he somehow rewrites reality so he no longer remembers those sins he purified us of….because they don’t exist and never have, so how could he remember them?

Yes!!  I expect that "mak[ing] all things new" is something we will participate in, and that it will not only heal but actually transform ("make new") the past. 

The teaching that "God will remember our sins no more" (which shows up in Jeremiah, in Hebrews, and in the D&C) imo implies something vastly beyond our limited concept of forgiveness.  It implies something wonderful, even if we don't yet know what that something is.  I think there is more "good news" (<- "gospel") yet to come forth.   

On another topic, one reason why I completely misunderstood your relationship with the concept of oneness is because (far as I can tell) you do not seem to draw exclusionary boundaries based on whether someone is "in your group" or "not in your group".  You've even been known to upvote the posts of people you do not agree with. But now I see that, obviously, the way you easily and naturally treat others is not correlated with a belief in some form of oneness. 

Edited by manol
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, manol said:

On another topic, one reason why I completely misunderstood your relationship with the concept of oneness is because (far as I can tell) you do not seem to draw exclusionary boundaries based on whether someone is "in your group" or "not in your group".  You've even been known to upvote the posts of people you do not agree with. But now I see that, obviously, the way you easily and naturally treat others is not correlated with a belief in some form of oneness. 

You are correct I do not think of oneness when I upvote as I base that more on if they say something I wanted to say and now I don’t have to and this could even be things I don’t agree with but think needed to be said, I find it interesting whether I agree or not, I appreciate the effort to contribute something substantive to a conversation, I see something was likely difficult to say and I want to express appreciation for taking the risk, or I just want to say hi on occasion, and a few other things.  :) 
 

However, now I am wondering what you saw and see as my concept, in part because it surprises me that your previous interpretation was based in part on how I repped and I am trying and failing to fit that together. :unknw: (we need a thoughtful/‘I am thinking about this’ emoji as this one doesn’t convey the idea well enough as it feels more clueless to me).

PS:  I do run out of reps quite often, so just because something is not repped does not mean I don’t feel one of the things above or several of them in fact.  Sometimes the really interesting stuff gets skipped because I am too focused on thinking about it too.

Edited by Calm
Posted
On 10/1/2024 at 1:54 PM, Calm said:

 

I am wondering what you saw and see as my concept, in part because it surprises me that your previous interpretation was based in part on how I repped

My perception is that you are a fearlessly deep-diving and totally faithful member who does not see herself as more special than those outside of her “group”. Your behavior appears to me to be fundamentally “inclusive” rather than “exclusive”. How you dish out rep votes just happens to be one peripheral way what I interpret as “inclusiveness” shows up; primarily your inclusiveness shows up in the content of your posts. When you do disagree you tend to ask genuine questions, and imo seeking clarification and understanding is symptomatic of one who sees others as equals. 

My lense is probably distorted because I perceive a dichotomy between emphasizing/justifying/manifesting separation on the one hand, and emphasizing/justifying/manifesting commonality or connectedness or union on the other.  My lense shows this dichotomy to me in many different outward forms, and I sometimes notice instances where people seem to be "drawing a bigger, more inclusive circle".

How would you describe "your concept"? 

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, manol said:

How would you describe "your concept"? 

It’s pretty practical.  Everybody’s family once I have a decent (in terms of civility) exchange with them. If they are malicious or have that vibe, I keep my distance.  The only circle I intentionally draw with me in it and others out is when I see someone taking advantage of others consistently without regard to the extra work or harm it can cause them.  I tend to be quite protective.  I have a blood family member that is in that group at this point and that does a number on my head, lol.

Edited by Calm

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...