Powered By Saaraan

Paradigm Check

Information and advice for those new to the Occult.

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:28 am

Paper and Line
So to the paper and line analogy, I know that it was not your intent, but it spurred me on in the thinking of reality as chaos. Essentially the flexibility of which was the originator and therefore what placed the limitations on the other, seemed to me a clear indication that neither might be true and therefore chaos could be the answer.

Other study
One thing I would like to bring to your attention is the "I and Not I" study. Now, before I go on this rant I need to say that it was explained to me, I didnt actually read the study written by Mary Harding. In fact, prior to this post I didnt know if the book. I was looking to link an article or study. So now I have to go read the book, ha.

Anyway, it was explained to me as follows. "I" is everything that you as a person identify as being a part of you, and "Not I" is everything else. Think of it as a dot inside the center of a circle. The dot is the "I" and the "Not I" is the circle, which would also represent the limitations of your perception.

Now if we take that further, since no one lives in a vacuum, imagine two of these circles with dots in the center. The two circles overlap like a venn diagram. In the overlap that is reality. Now continue this process until you reach the number of living humans and by extension you get reality as the standard upon which everyone agrees.

Now clearly the problem with this is that humans have made assumptions about external objects based on experiences, and one could imagine that the very first "intelligent" or conscious human determined that rocks are heavy, etc. If that is the case, then clearly there had to be attributes associated with things prior to us noticing them, just as you pointed out in your argument. However, if you buy into this theory beyond that point, then it can very logically account for magick as we know it. Which is of course the changing or causing of events/actions by directing will power, focus, and imagination.

As I describe this to you I realized the biggest flaw in the "I and Not I" theory is that as it was explained to me, it only accounts for human and or possibly terrestrial perception. By assuming there is an exterior precursor that assigns base attributes to objects, then it goes off with out a hitch. Of course, I am not a fan of a Grand Architect God, so I am going to dismiss that straight away,. but perhaps other entities to which we do not normally perceive.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:26 pm

Annnd, I wrote too much again. Ok!

Paper and Line
So to the paper and line analogy, I know that it was not your intent, but it spurred me on in the thinking of reality as chaos. Essentially the flexibility of which was the originator and therefore what placed the limitations on the other, seemed to me a clear indication that neither might be true and therefore chaos could be the answer.


Not sure what you mean by chaos to be honest. Usually I define it in terms of order. If order is sane, and like things usually are (constant). Then chaos is insane, like how things usually aren't (changing / psychotic).
Order then, is constant causal laws (linear time). Chaos then, is non-constant causal laws (non-linear time). Just look at how often the slope changes on a timeline.

I'd agree that an originator doesn't make sense. I was thinking of the chicken vs egg issue a bit, and it occurred to me that which came first is basically just dependent on where you look in a sequence.

... Chicken, Egg, Chicken, Egg, Chicken, Egg, Chicken, Egg ...
If you pick any pair to be a cause & effect pair, you can either have the egg first, or the chicken.

You can treat reality like a call stack that doesn't have a bottom most call. Solves the program vs data issue quite nicely. Just have an infinite number of functions which call each other, and work on each other as data.

State state; //Definition of reality + functions (global)
void Func(Func F)
{
//Do work on state, based on state
Func(F); //Gotta love infinite recursion (There is no outside program because it never returns)
}

You don't need any grand designer. Just have an infinite chain of gods (much like we are gods which still must abide by our master, the laws of the physical world).

Other study
One thing I would like to bring to your attention is the "I and Not I" study. Now, before I go on this rant I need to say that it was explained to me, I didnt actually read the study written by Mary Harding. In fact, prior to this post I didnt know if the book. I was looking to link an article or study. So now I have to go read the book, ha.


That's basically what I meant by "subjectively objective". Everyone is in their own circle, but they somehow meet and influence each other in an objective way.

Now clearly the problem with this is that humans have made assumptions about external objects based on experiences, and one could imagine that the very first "intelligent" or conscious human determined that rocks are heavy, etc. If that is the case, then clearly there had to be attributes associated with things prior to us noticing them, just as you pointed out in your argument. However, if you buy into this theory beyond that point, then it can very logically account for magick as we know it. Which is of course the changing or causing of events/actions by directing will power, focus, and imagination.


Desecrated has pointed out to me that that first "intelligence" is possibly language itself. You don't need to have a grand entity make a maze for all the mice. You just convince the mice that they're already in a maze.
It's like how dreams are uber easy to change once you're conscious, but when you're asleep, you're completely bound by whatever you perceive to be the laws. It's not that there's some super strong entity enforcing the rules, it's that you're too asleep to realize you can break them. You can't do what you don't think is possible. You're blind, but awake. Now, all that said, I still think it's likely that there's some kind of overseer. I think we just give it too much credit; it's not really as strong as we think. If it were, magick would be impossible. The matrix's security would terminate all of your daemons in an effort to lock you down.

Here's an interesting idea: a rock doesn't actually have to be aware. Not every experience is aware. Therefore, there must be a limited number of observers. Kind of makes me wonder if at least a portion of the focus power which enforces our world is caused by invisible beings. Maybe it's not one god entity. Maybe its a whole stadium full of spectators, and earth is the show. It doesn't just explain terrestrial observers. Treat earth as a virtual environment. Not all of the spectators walking the environment have to be players. They also don't have to be visible to you.

I'm pretty much perfectly in line with this theory. I think that focus literally changes the environment. It has occurred to me that the only real difference between turning my head and looking around, and summoning an army of undead skeletons, is that there's less resistance against me moving my head. It's all still just function calls. This theory works well to explain why it's necessary to imagine your spells as having already happened, rather than as desires. If you focus on the desire, you're just reinforcing the dream. "How did I get so rich!", not "I want to win the lottery".

I've been fiddling with this theory to try and make a metric for whatever that "stability force" is that is caused by observation. More time spent focusing seems to have a higher effect. More observers also seem to have a higher effect. I'd go as far as saying that the observers ARE what causes the force, so I was a bit confused as to how a single mage could collect this force through focus, seeing that they are only one observer.

Then it occurred to me that the mage actually isn't one observer. You're actually collecting observers over time, not "force". Bardon defined the components of the three planes as physical (time, space, quality), astral (space, quality), mental (quality). I think he meant that the physical plane has linear time, but that the astral and above still have non-linear time. By space, I think he meant not that there couldn't be a perception of distance, etc., but that causation was not dependent on proximity. It occurred to me that if higher planes have non-linear time, then they do not have to change in sequence based on physical time. An astral entity could be at many places at the same time, even if the astral entity experienced such interactions in sequence. So, because we know that there is no "past" or "future", only the present, if force is being increased over time, we know that observers must also be increasing over time. Astral things are free of time. Therefore, if you want to make an astral object powerful, you can observer it from multiple times. Each instant that you focus on your target, your "past" is still left behind observing the astral thing while you continue to do other things. If you focus for 5min, then you have 5min worth of different observers applying force (the metric then, is observers per sec, or something like that). This would help explain why magickal constructs have a tendency to dissipate if they go without upkeep: the force which causes them to exist is based on how many times you observed them in the past, and if everything but your construct is given more force, suddenly your construct lags behind and falls off the earth. Treat reality as an an accelerating platform. If suddenly something on the platform gets less acceleration than the platform itself, it goes bye bye.

As I describe this to you I realized the biggest flaw in the "I and Not I" theory is that as it was explained to me, it only accounts for human and or possibly terrestrial perception. By assuming there is an exterior precursor that assigns base attributes to objects, then it goes off with out a hitch. Of course, I am not a fan of a Grand Architect God, so I am going to dismiss that straight away,. but perhaps other entities to which we do not normally perceive.


I'm actually really struggling with the concept of things "having" attributes. I'm more inclined to say that it's not the objects themselves which have the attributes, but how you use them which gives them their attribute. If you expect something to hurt, it does, etc. Now, add in the many different observers thing, creating the objective world, and I'm starting to wonder if maybe things like "elementals" (gnomes, sylphs, undines, salamanders) actually exist in a somewhat literal sense. They're like observers that just sit there focused on one thing, thus giving it an attribute. So, that rock is heavy because there's ten gnomes (like daemons without physical form) that think it's heavy, and only one of you that thinks it's light. Now, there's so many problems with that, that I don't even want to think about it right now. Like why gravity is different on different planets, based on mass, etc. Really though, what is mass? Maybe smaller objects have less gravity because they are too small to be observed as much as bigger things. There's a strange level of order on this planet, that makes me think there's some level of an organized system that enforces all the rules; it seems intelligent, in a sense.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:53 am

Paper and Line
I agree order would be likened to sanity, what makes sense, causality, etc. My point was that the interchangeability such as the chicken and the egg is so easy that it almost seems absurd to assign it. I think of reality and our current understanding of dimensional space as being orderly, but perhaps its an illusion of order within a massively complex set of chaos. Perhaps as I mentioned earlier it is our sanity that is the blinder to higher truth. The psychic filter that comes up so often in conversations on magick.

I think its accurate to say that many people would believe that anyone that subscribes to magick thinking is not quite sane, and they would be right in the sense that sanity is defined as reasonable and rational behavior, which by extension has to assume reasonable and rational is defined by the status quo.

I would also point out the many magicians that work under substances that heighten abnormal thinking, psychedelics and such.

During the process of looking up a quote that I heard about the nature of chaos, I stumbled upon wolfram's definition of chaos and it kinda blew my mind.
In particular, a chaotic dynamical system is generally characterized by

1. Having a dense collection of points with periodic orbits,
2. Being sensitive to the initial condition of the system (so that initially nearby points can evolve quickly into very different states), a property sometimes known as the butterfly effect, and
3. Being topologically transitive.
However, it should be noted that despite its "random" appearance, chaos is a deterministic evolution.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Chaos.html

Observation and Time
I really like the concept of magick observation over time. That makes a lot of sense to me, and easily joins with the concept of more people more focus better results. Essentially it seems like factors of effect and absolutely coincides with the many many practical exercises of increasing focus and time.

Assuming we break down the increments into 1 second factors, where 1 second is equal to 1 unit of magickal energy/potential/etc.

Then a single observer with concentrated focus for 10 seconds equals 10 units of potential, just as you suggested and it would be a multiplier based on the number of people that are in sync.

This is where in my opinion that ritual really pays off. Getting everyone in sync and focused for any appreciable amount of time is difficult. Considering what I have accomplished on my own, coupled with this analogy, I would be interested in seeing what could be accomplished by group effort.

Add on, I would look at reality's default setting as resistance or a negative. Not sure how I would quantify this, but something along the lines of probability. Such as I will get this job I am qualified for vs I will win the lottery.

Do you have any ideas on how we might attribute probability to resistance?

I would think documented experiments with differing goals, starting with individual work, probably across some number of practitioners could give you a base level.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:42 am

Paper and Line

I really like that definition.

Observation and Time

Then a single observer with concentrated focus for 10 seconds equals 10 units of potential, just as you suggested and it would be a multiplier based on the number of people that are in sync.


What do you mean by multiplier? Like if two people concentrate for 10 seconds, they could potentially get more than 20 units of potential?
I think that if the focus is concentrated (there is focus over the entire state time period), there would be no multiplier. What you're looking at is a reduction of waste. You don't get >100% efficiency.
I think that if there were any 2 + 2 = 5 sort of scenarios, it would be because the target of focus would be getting easier to focus on over time, as it were getting more "dense". So there'd be less wasted focus.
If you took 2 people who could concentrate perfect focus on the same thing, it would probably still be 2 + 2 = 4. It's that normal people are running at a skill of 2 = 0.001 (solo), so 2 + 2 = 0.2 (group) seems a lot better.

Calling that a multiplier seems like a stretch. Seems more like a waste basket. But still. More people is more possible potential.
I don't think this just applies to people though. I would imagine that there's nothing special about a human observer at all. You could probably make tools to act as observers (like a wand or magick sword).

How about, 1 MP = the potential energy created by 1 second of concentrated (pure, single pointed) focus. Where MP stands for "Magickal Potential", but will more likely be interpreted as "Magick Points" (like an RPG).
Then I don't have to keep writing a long string of words every time I want to use the potential concept. Realistically though, most probably couldn't output 1 MP in one second, so that would be 100% efficiency. If you want to do any calculations for group work, you'd have to account for that.

I find it funny that for every lost bit of focus, you actually cancel out already spent focus, because you're building conflicting charges. If you can't keep an image steady in your mind, for example, your image has 0 MP.
If it were stable, it would be able to stay constant (would be draining MP to persist). If it's moving, then you're not quite getting enough MP to out do resistance (conflicting thoughts, reality security, ...)

Ritual definitely pays off. I think half the usefulness for tools though, is the ability to multi task. It's difficult to mentally draw a circle, then summon a sword, then visualize a temple, etc., without something to bind the ideas to. If you can't output enough focus to keep everything from distorting, you're going to have a tough time without tools.

Interestingly enough, the only time I've been able to produce instant results (direct magick such as telekinesis, etc.), was with a friend. If you plan to go the group magick route, you have to wonder though, even if you use pictures and such, are you all even seeing the EXACT same thing? What if you're all trying to visualize a fiery red spirit, but one person's red is another person's blue? You're conflicting ideas then, aren't you?
I'd think it'd be easier to stick to black and white, and rely on shape rather than color. Though it might be possible that people with the same visual systems (no color blindness) all see mostly the same thing.

Instead of thinking of it as resistance, think of it as a difference in speed. If the universe is moving at 5000 m/s and my target is moving at 300 m/s, the universe will quickly outrun my target, and it won't manifest.
Everything is constantly moving towards an end (or infinity), and nothing is ever stopped. If the universe is moving at 5000 m/s and my target is at 300 m/s, then we know that in 2 seconds, the universe will have moved 10 000 m while my target would only have moved 600 m. You could quantify resistance as whether something is approaching manifestation, or is moving away from it. In this case, the total distance to manifestation was increased by 9400 m (assuming both started at 0 m/s) over 2 seconds. So, we could say that there is a resistance of 4700 m/s. We could say that anything in front of the universe is manifest, and anything behind it is not quite there. So, the distance a construct is in front of the universe could be seen as the manifest charge (time 'till it becomes less than physical), and the distance behind the universe could be seen as the unmanifest charge (how close it is to becoming physical). Using that metric, you could calculate how long you expect a construct to remain manifest, and how long you expect a construct to take to become manifest.

Perhaps we could see the MP exerted by an observer as dependent on how fast the universe is going. If you are physically in a car, and the car is moving at 100 m/s, so are you. Likewise, if the focus is anchored to the universe, perhaps we could say it is at least as fast as the universe. You could treat the speed of the universe as a non-uniform value as well. Perhaps you could enchant a room such that it would "slow down" enough to allow for easier manifestation.

The question then, is how far do things get from the universe before they stop getting farther away? We know, for example, that the past is always getting further from the present, and that the future is always approaching the present. But does the past ever get so far from the present that it would be impossible to find? I would think that though some ideas are harder to think of, they all take more or less the same difficulty to manifest. Colors, for example, don't get harder to manifest over time. So, the universe is stationary at a height, and the objects that become unmanifest "fall off" and "hit the ground" (some hard limit distance). Perhaps it's more like circular motion. The universe is moving in a circle, and things are pulled towards unmanifestation through a centripetal motion of sorts. It's not that the universe is stationary, it's that the distance to the center (the assets) never changes (thus simulating a hard fall limit at "the center"). Though I'm not so certain I'd be able to give the circle a finite radius. I'd be more inclined to call the center "negative infinity", and the outside "positive infinity".

Anyway, I'm going to need to think about that for a while. I'll go straight back to the probability.

I don't know if it's possible to really know exactly how much resistance is there, even percentage wise, between winning the lottery, and getting a job. For all we know, you're already destined to get the lottery, and the job position gets filled by someone else. Instead of looking at which seems more absurd, I think it's necessary to instead think of how many people are vying for each outcome. If there are a total of 5000 MP exerted that pull towards other people winning the lottery, you have to exert more than 5000 MP to guarantee a win (all by yourself), even though the total resistance might be the result of a lot of different people. With the job, that would be a lot easier because not as many people would know about the job. At worst, you'd probably face about equal MP against you as you can put out.

It's not quite as simple as probability I don't think. You have to account for the competing people, as well as the physical restraints. Perhaps you could treat your chance of success like a race. Each participant has a different amount of distance though, and each moves by focusing on the finish line. Our reality is space bound. That means that you can't just move straight to where you want to be, but have to find a viable path. Treat it as a ghost and vessel thing. Imagine that if you can separate your ghost from your body, your body will always try to move in sync with the ghost. However, your body can't move through walls, even if the ghost (focus) is waiting at the finish already. So, figuring out the distance to the finish line is sort of like running an A* algorithm. If you really wanted success, you might be better off making lots of small spells that strategically move throughout the maze of life, rather than try to walk through all the walls.

So, the walls are resistance, and the crowd in the maze (competition) is resistance. To be honest, I'm not sure if it's possible to effectively measure the amount of MP it would take to go through the paths on the easiest route. I think that when you're doing magick, you're automatically applying MP to the most direct route, no matter how much resistance is there. Any intelligent path finding is up to the practitioner. I think you'd have to calculate it in seconds to manifestation, as if reality is just a hyper stable dream. This would be how long you would have to focus to erase the outside world with your new desired one.

Indeed, practice does seem like a requirement to get a baseline. But you'd have to know how much MP each practitioner was giving out; you'd need some sort of standard of quality.
You also can't even guarantee that the practitioner is giving out constant MP; it's probably fluctuating a lot. That would mess with the base line.
I think this needs more theoretical analysis before practical results would be useful to any high degree of accuracy.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:37 am

For the record, I think the paradigm is kind of broken now.

I'm not sure how to quantify the circle that represents each person's view range.
The body receives all kinds of signals all the time, but we don't necessarily notice them consciously.
If you mean consciousness itself, I still don't know how to quantify that. I could be seeing all sorts of things that I don't intelligently notice. Do I still apply force to those things?
Or is it enough to just lazily stare at something without really interpreting it, for it to gain force.

I'm also not really getting the "I and not I" thing. If the dot is you, and the dot is outside of the shared boundary, then it cannot be your physical body (which is everything you think of as yourself).
I guess it still works though, if you look at it as less of a venn diagram, and as more of a whole bunch of close together points, each with a different potential circle size.
The "I" is like a particle, and the circle is like a field. It would make sense then if the field followed the particle (center of focus).
Actually, that would help alleviate the circle boundary issue. Instead of trying to treat it as a rigid circle, treat it as a gravitational field of sorts.
The stuff closest to the center has more gravity applied to it than the stuff further away, so rather than try to bound the circle, you could just say that everything is always in focus, but the center of focus has the most gravity. Not so broken then. But still, what makes something at the center focus? Intelligence?

Then, how do you figure out what is part of the shared zone, or what isn't? Or is it a matter of there being all kinds of linear time shared zones? Perhaps different universe are like fields acting on each other.
Rather than a within and a without, just have two withouts, but you're usually closer to one than the other. But then, there's still the "I", as in the point in the center of the field. I've yet to understand what consciousness actually is. Maybe that's not possible.

Also, it's occurred to me that resistance caused by higher planes probably doesn't exist. If the physical world is linear, and the higher planes are non-linear, that means that in one of our single steps, the non-linear realm could have moved a very large amount of steps. If you assume infinite time (never ending existence), it's basically a case of infinite resistance and infinite force equalizing each other. That leaves earth to pretty much be a closed system. I think I'll define "physical" as being bound by linear time. If you think of the physical as the main thread of a program, you could think of the astral and such as being additional threads of execution. In a multi-threaded environment, you have to have everything sync up at some point. The physical realm is the "glue" that calls all the astral threads into existence, and also terminates them. If the main thread doesn't call a thread, it can't possibly be able to access that main thread's memory, so it had might as well not exist, even if it does. I think it's reasonable to assume then, that something like your "Holy Guardian Angel" can't contact you until you summon it (start its thread), so it doesn't exist in the physical sense until you do so. Same deal with your "astral body", etc.

Following this line of thought, if only physical things (or things that are powered by physical things) can affect other physical things , that means that whatever is forcing objective reality to move towards the future, also has to be bound by linear time. Still, it doesn't necessarily have to be visible. I'm imagining invisible observers (like floating spectators in a Call of Duty match) that constantly influence us towards the future. It seems like a bacteria becoming aware of the host sort of issue. The spectators are likely multiple dimensions higher than us, so we can't see them, even though they can see us (in the dimensional sense of 1D, 2D, 3D, etc.) It seems likely that those spectators would also need to be observed in order to stay constantly existent. Otherwise they would probably just blink out. That sounds like an infinite chain of spectators watching each other. I think something like a circle sounds more reasonable though. A circle still is an infinite chain after all. Kind of reminds me of quantum entanglement. Treat the particles as spectators, and they constantly watch each other (regardless of distance) to make sure neither blinks out. Changing one changes the other, because to each other, they're always right beside each other.

By the way, you'll probably be able to get better results with this paradigm if you learn how to make a synthetic observer. I imagine there's nothing human about an observer anyway. Making the observers yourself would also ensure that all observers are always in sync. If you learned how to make two synthetic observers watch each other, you could probably also create a self sustaining force (so long as you could isolate the observers to make sure that they never overpower each other, and are always in perfect equilibrium. Seems that would be rather volatile.) With synthetic observers, you never have to worry about whether each observer is actually seeing the same blue, hearing the same A#, etc., because you made them all. The real issue though, is that you basically need to learn how to split your consciousness apart in order to do it in a linear time zone. You'd probably have to make them in a non-linear time space, so that you could become each observer one at a time. I'm still thinking about how a manifestation process from non-linear to linear time actually works. Seems tricky to be able to make something elsewhere and then move it here.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Fri Jul 28, 2017 5:42 am

I love the direction this post has taken.

Observation and Time
By multiplier I just meant the formula is multiplied by the number of observers participating. But, your comment on degradation and variance of MP is perfect. I cannot focus 100% for any two instances in a row, so I cannot expect any one else to. So there is always going to be a fluctuation or quality, however is it possible that two people giving 50 percent focus equal one persons 100 percent, assuming you do not account for negative feedback (which completely makes sense to me).

So in an isolated environment, with perfect focus:
1 person x 100% focus, for one second = 1MP

Then accounting for degradation:
1 person x [0-100]% focus, for one second = [0-100]%MP

Then accounting for conflicting thought:
1 person x [0-100]% focus - [0-100]% conflict, for one second = [0-100]%MP

Multiple Observers
I have always thought that the people who participate in rituals put their minds in neutral, allowing the primary conducting to harness the energy. If a ritualism is successful the participants would be in a no-mind state, limiting their interference on the desired outcome. Mileage may vary of course.

Physical Plane
Agreed, it would be easiest to assume that the physical plane of existence is the one that is subject to linear time. I also greatly appreciate the higher lower plane idea based on perception. Higher can observe lower. I also agree that resistance would be confined probably to the plane of the observer or potentially the plane of effect.

Resistance
After posting this I had a thought on resistance being a combination of probability and believability by the wielder.
Essentially how probably is it and how much do you believe it will happen, come together to form an abstract resistance. However, I really like the concept of travel that you have introduced. I would take the analogy farther and say that we do not know the distance between the two parts.

For example you mention, was it fated to happen anyway, how many people are you competing against. Though I think this can be accounted for in probability, I dont see a way to easily quantify it. But to continue the example. Assume that the probability of obtaining the new job is low, so it can be said that there is a considerable distance between you and obtaining the goal. For the sake of an example lets say that it is 100ft away. The universe moves in this example at 10ft per second. Assuming you both start at the same point, you would have to move at a speed slightly higher than the universe in order to affect the change. Now lets say that you are moving at 10ft per second, because we arbitrarily assume that you are generating enough MP to keep up with the universe based on simple determination and will. Since the distance between the two points is high, we can assume that you start at 0ft and the universe starts at 20ft. Clearly in this case you will have to greatly increase the speed in which you are traveling to overtake the universe before the window of opportunity is passed.

The assumption of course is that through concentrated effort/magick, you can increase your speed by some amount that is significant enough to be successful. None of this is new to your scenario, however I thought of this to add to it. If you desired outcome has no fixed deadline, then the speed in which you move can be drastically reduced. So you could be traveling at 11ft per second, while the universe is at the standard 10ft per second, and at some point in the future your desired outcome will take place.

The trick of course will be accomplishing it A) within your lifetime and B) within whatever time frame is appropriate to the desired outcome.

This makes resistance infinitely more complex to determine, but seems more accurate.

Observers
I agree that we have an infinite observers problem. Its a chain of watchers straight out of a Dr Seus book. As to the artificial watcher, I have had some ideas to this effect. I have been practicing for more than a decade on my own, and I have always directly fashioned my desired outcome based on personal observation, focus, will, and visualization. Within the last year I starting working on servitors. My initial reaction was, why the hell do I need to create an artificial construct to perform a task that I can do on my own. It didnt take long to see the benefits of "automating" a process. Now, I dont buy into the "dont assign a name to your servitor" nor the "do not let your servitor gain consciousness". Seems to me that if you do not do those things then you are not really gaining anything over doing it yourself.

With that in mind, and the artificial observer theory you have devised, one could potentially create servitors to act as observers for the purposes of multiplying effectiveness. I purposely designed mine to draw energy from existence, rather than solely through me, so within the constraints of its inception, I only need to summon and task. In this potential scenario, I only need to summon, observe, and task, to achieve a multiplied outcome.

If we buy into this theory then potentially we can magnify the MP without as much fear as the variables on quality we previously assigned. If I can focus for 80% for 5 seconds every day on compelling the servitor and observing its existence, and the servitor is powered by existence and working when I am not watching, then 4 MP daily (assuming 80% effectiveness) is multiplied by the 24 hours of work the servitor performs daily.

Time Differential and Astral Work
I am not sure how you could work at a higher plane of existence, but based on our shared theory, work conducted in a plane of existence that is not bound by linear time, would allow potentially infinite effectiveness (accounting of course for personal failure on focus), since the level of effort would not be bound by the 1 second intervals we arbitrarily assigned. Perhaps this is where the effectiveness of petitioning entities comes into play.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:45 am

Love of the Direction

What is it that you like about it? If it's the change from theory to application, that was the original intent all along. I never do anything on blind faith. I have to know exactly what I'm doing.

Observation and Time

That makes more sense. Usually when I hear "multiplier", I think of hack 'n slash games where there's combos.

Multiple Observers

So by ritual, you mean with one leader, and many followers? Like a ceremony? In that case, yeah, neutral minds would be very useful.
I was thinking more along the lines of a collaborative effort, but one conductor would make that a lot simpler.

Physical Plane

For the record, I'm not using plane and dimension as interchangeable words. What I'm referring to with "physical", "astral", and "mental" planes, are the basic principles that would likely have to be created in order, if you were to create the universe from scratch. I'm not really talking about places, so much as I'm talking about different types of places. At a "physical" level, there could be any number of discrete universes, so long as the realms of the "physical" level abide by that category's rules.

It seems logical that non-linear time is a loose version of linear time, so based on the idea that lower planes have more restriction, it makes sense that non-linear time comes first. So, the mental and astral would have non-linear time. The one thing that all planes have in common is what they are made up of qualities. That trait is applied to all planes equally. Space based interactions (where proximity of objects is necessary for reactions) break down on the mental plane. So, things like entangled particles could be said to be mental constructs.

Source: Quality (read only)
Mental: Quality, non-linear time
Astral: Quality, non-linear time, spatial
Physical: Quality, linear time, spatial

The dimensions, however, like 1D, 2D, 3D, etc., are a totally different range of levels. Those are levels of complexity among qualities. You could theoretically have any complexity at any "plane".

The basis behind the three planes, is that, as above, so below, if something exists on the lower planes (has more restricted principles), it must have originated from a higher plane (less restricted principles).
So, the idea of "mental", is that because it isn't space bound, when you imagine something in your mind, this is "mental", because it doesn't have any real location.
Astral then, is the realm of illusions, where there are environments, with space, but they do not have linear time, so arbitrary causation changes a lot (with the changing timeline slope), making it mirage like and unstable.

It's like how you build a ship on nice waters instead of trying to build one in the middle of a raging ocean. You wouldn't try to build a sandcastle in a stormy ocean, because it would just break apart instantly.
Likewise, when you imagine something, there's a "mental" object, which exists in place of nice tides. As it gains strength, it "descends" to a lower plane, and struggles to survive in the slightly stronger astral tides.
Once it is astral, it descends into becoming a physical object (even stronger tides). So, a physical object would also have an astral and mental object, all sort of superimposed together. It's like starting a sandcastle on the beach, expanding it into the water, then moving it into the thick of the waves.

With dimensions like x,y,z,... I'm talking about complexity and positioning. I'm talking about levels of "density" when I speak of "planes".

Time Differential and Astral Work
I am not sure how you could work at a higher plane of existence, but based on our shared theory, work conducted in a plane of existence that is not bound by linear time, would allow potentially infinite effectiveness (accounting of course for personal failure on focus), since the level of effort would not be bound by the 1 second intervals we arbitrarily assigned. Perhaps this is where the effectiveness of petitioning entities comes into play.


I've only actually got 1/3 of my procedure down right now. A physical thing can't make a physical thing because that violates the rules. Instead, you have to build something outside of the rules, and slowly manifest it against security. The many observers over time only works on non-physical objects, because they are outside of non-linear time. From the mental level, there are many of you applying observer force over time. However, at a physical level, it's not possible for there to be many of you at the same time; the physical only sees the present. That's why you can think easily with shapes, etc., but you'll be dead before you can summon fire balls.

The order of principles is quality, space, and linear time. You can reinforce a quality using the one observer is many theory. You also use that theory for adding space, which is like programming the object so that it will be prepared to function by the spatial rules of the physical plane. I'm not quite sure what happens though, that makes the object go fully physical. In my experience, it's less of a manual transition, and more of a brute force procedure of applying as much MP to the mental object as possible until security can't keep it from manifesting. It just gets so dense that it sort of just falls down into manifestation. That seems rather inefficient though. I'd much prefer a strategic approach over brute force.

Now, I'm seeing time itself as a position of sorts. I recognize that in general relativity, space and time are mixed together to have space-time, but I'm not sure if I agree on it being a dimension like x,y,z,...
I'll have to look more into general relativity to see if I can apply the idea. It's not really a dimension in the sliding sense when it's non-linear. Instead of t,x,y,z, I'm closer to thinking x,y,z = f(t1, t2, ...) (where each t is a component of time's coordinate). t1 could mean position on a linear-time realm, while t2 could mean which realm we are talking about. Sort of like y = mx + b. Y is the x,y,z. X is t. m & b are used to change which line in particular we are looking at.

Perhaps, "plane" is the wrong word. I've been using it to mean degrees of restriction, while I've been using dimensions to mean complexity, and I've been using realm to mean which specific environment on a "plane".

Resistance

It seems to be a matter of hoarding as much MP as possible and hoping you get an effect.
I agree, it's impossible to know the distance. Though there does seem to be a floor for how far some things can get. I'm still thinking of the universe orbiting the floor idea.

Observers

It seems likely that there aren't actually an infinite number of watchers. If there were, it'd likely be impossible to do magick, because you would always be fighting against infinite force.
If there are an infinite number of observers, I'd say it works less like a dictator and more in a chain of command. Higher up watchers cannot send commands straight down to earth, but instead have to pass their orders through their ranks, one by one (the chain that binds). So it's not infinite watchers observing the earth, but an infinite number of watchers sending commands to each other, down to the earth. There's still a limited number of watchers observing us, even though the chain of command might go on forever.

In my opinion, working without servitors is sort of like trying to work a farm in this modern age without machinery. You just aren't going to be able to keep up with things. I think there is some good reasoning behind the whole don't give names or consciousness to servitors thing. Consciousness, to me, is a must, as an observer is necessary for exertion of force. A name is also a must, because otherwise you would have difficulty referencing your entity. However, the real meaning, I think, behind the warning, is that you shouldn't let your servitor turn into an individual. It is a tool. Tools are meant to be replaced, and giving personalized names means attachment. I think that it is important that servitors never get stronger than their creator, solo, but I think it's useful to have an army that might be collectively stronger than the magickian. If you cannot destroy your servitor at a moment's notice, something is wrong. It's important, just like when coding a program, to make one function for each task. Each servitor should have one very specific use, and that's it. You want tools, not free thinkers with tons of specialties. If you want powerful servants, don't make one single strong servant that can take you down. Instead, make one servant that creates other servants. A servitor factory would be interesting.

I'm not sure what you mean by "draw energy from existence". I can't quantify "energy". Do you mean that the servitor is strong enough that it is able to be observed by the rest of its reality, and thus is enforced by the realm's security, instead of being unmanifested by it?

Physical limitations of the magickian

If we buy into this theory then potentially we can magnify the MP without as much fear as the variables on quality we previously assigned. If I can focus for 80% for 5 seconds every day on compelling the servitor and observing its existence, and the servitor is powered by existence and working when I am not watching, then 4 MP daily (assuming 80% effectiveness) is multiplied by the 24 hours of work the servitor performs daily.


Yes, quality becomes much less of an issue when MP can be mass produced. I think the real trick is to just get the servitor up to a certain MP level where security accepts it instead of trying to destroy it. If I am trying to manifest a metal cube, security might decide to resist that, but once the cube is mostly manifest, security sees it as just another metal cube. It becomes truly physical.

Somehow I don't think it's quite that easy to gain MP through a servitor. I would think that the moment you stop thinking about the servitor, the resistance you had been overcoming is now going to wipe out the servitor. Most of the collected MP wouldn't be spent on performing tasks, but on the upkeep necessary to maintain the servitor. Going back on the "competing focus" thing, I'd imagine that for every moment you are not focusing on the servitor, you are also applying force to other things. If the universe is initially moving at 10m/s, and you set your servitor to 12m/s, you can't expect the speed of the universe to stay the same. It's quite likely that all the other observer forces that aren't being applied to your servitor, would easily accelerate the universe to say, 20m/s, over maybe 10min, which would completely undo your servitor if you forgot about it. It would seem necessary to create a lot of other generators for your main servitor. You have to bind the astral servitor to as many physical observers as possible, otherwise the tethers will break. You need to look at the weakest link here: the astral to physical binding. No matter how much weight you put into the astral servitor, if you don't attach it correctly to the physical, it's going to fly away like a tarp in a storm. Perhaps this is where things like talismans help. You don't need to manifest matter for your astral thing to embody, if you can just find some physical matter that already exists, and enchant it.

On another note, I'm not sure if it's possible to be successful in magick without the use of servitors. You definitely could be to some fair degree, but I think that the physical body itself has limitations: it can only be trained so much. If we're being honest, when you're meditating, all you're doing is training your brain. Your brain is limited by physical restraints. Treat it like your main CPU. You can overclock it if you want, but you can only overclock it so much before it'll burn out. Because time is the main constraint, what you really need to do is get more CPUs rather than overclock your one. Right now though, if your brain is running at say a clock speed of 3 Ghz, it's likely that any CPUs that you make will only run at something like 0.2 Ghz. The real key to magick isn't practice, practice, practice. That's insane. You're doing the same thing over and over again expecting things to change. It's to sit down and learn how to make faster CPUs (servitors). You don't need more velocity (spamming CPU creation), you need more acceleration (spamming CPU tech improvements).

Now, practice is definitely important. However, I think it really loses its edge past a certain point. You need to embrace multicore computing in an environment where one thing is only allowed to do so much at once. If you want to go faster than the speed of light, for interstellar shipping, just have more than one ship. Instead of one ship moving in one direction, have two ships: one leaves from the start spot, and one leaves from the end spot. Then they meet in the middle and pass off the shipment. It's twice as fast, yet you're not REALLY breaking any barriers. It's like how electrons in electricity don't actually move very quickly, but sort of just play telephone. They each move just a little bit, which causes a domino effect.

Going back on the "what am I actually training thing", I don't believe in an energy body, so I don't believe in training "energy muscles", etc. Every paradigm seems to have their own version of an astral body. I think that the idea behind an astral body is useful as a framework, but that the astral body doesn't actually exist in any definite way until you make it exist in any one way. Just like you can enchant a ring with a servitor, you can enchant your own physical body. That's what I think you're doing when you do "energy work" on your "energy body". I think you're just building a new construct that happens to be the same size as your body, and that happens to influence your physical body. In the case of energy healing, you aren't healing "energy blockages". You're healing the physical body alone, and you're also working to help account for any forces which are trying to unmanifest it (where physical just means bound to linear time). As far as I'm concerned, reality isn't any more real than a dream. I don't need a secondary "energy body". I already have a body that's unreal, and that I can modify.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:04 am

Physical Plane
Im am not sure how to view dimensions vs planes. If I had to take a stab at it I would go with dimensions in the way it is described in quantum mechanics where its a point that can be measured mathematically, though I do not really understand beyond Height, Width, Depth, Time, and possibly Probability. For planes I am not sure how I view them. I could see them equate to dimensions pretty easily. Though we would have to inverse the idea of higher lower, such as at the lowest levels there is a quantum soup of energy that is a state of constant flux, and at the highest level is plain old matter as we know it.

Servitors as Observers
If all we need for a Servitor to remain consistent is observation then simply recalling the sigil, name, or intent on a semi-regular basis would re-stabilize them. Assuming they are capable of holding a charge as well as intent, I would see the accumulated MP as being separate from their instability.

Side note, today I was thinking about this and I thought "what if we hijacked a corporate trade mark, such as Starbucks, and empowered it and channeled it into something that would be consistent with its current idea". For instance, if we take the Starbucks logo, and assume that there is an entity associated with it based on the subconscious projections of its many many customers, then it would almost seem like a minor deity. If we compelled/conjoled such an entity to energize or motivate people into performing certain tasks, it would seem to me that we would be tapping into a stable, multi-sourced servitor, existing without current direction.

Yes, quality becomes much less of an issue when MP can be mass produced. I think the real trick is to just get the servitor up to a certain MP level where security accepts it instead of trying to destroy it. If I am trying to manifest a metal cube, security might decide to resist that, but once the cube is mostly manifest, security sees it as just another metal cube. It becomes truly physical.

This suggests that as the probability of an action increases, the less resistance would be met. Essentially cresting an apex and then speeding onto the destination.

Practice
I agree, you are training your mind to act how you desire, in hopes to get greater clarity by bringing specific things into focus. Similar to closing out superfluous services to free up a limited CPU.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:55 am

Physical Plane

All components have to be unified into one whole. If there are many different realms, they must exist in the same overall system. It doesn't make sense to have discrete parts because everything ultimately has to work together. I'll fold, and say that time should be a part of the dimensions, as changing it changes the mathematical reality "point". I don't think time should have a single component though, as that is only enough for linear time.

To understand higher dimensions, I think you just figure out the logic working behind the lower dimensions, then extrapolate up. If collisions in 1D mean that the x of one thing reaches the x of another, then collisions in 2D mean that the x or y of one thing has reached the x or y of another thing. Just take the existing formulas and add components.

I don't think I'd put probability in as a dimension. It's a form of reasoning. I don't agree with the many worlds theory, where there's constant new worlds being made. I think all the universes already exist, and you just pick one. It's less like a dynamically building structure, and more like moving a laser on a disc. I think that probability in the sense of splitting universes, would just be another component of time. You have your position on a line, and you also have a component which decides what line you're on.

Here's a new idea: look at time as being a multidimensional space. Imagine that you have a cone that represents the present universe's "field of vision". All possible universes (views) already exist, and the cone is in a constant motion towards certain ones. Instead of thinking of time as a progression from here to entropy, on a fixed line, think of it as moving throughout a 3D space, but being pulled by gravity-like forces. Think of the universe in its entirety as having a velocity. The universe has an x,y,z which it is moving through, while within it, we also have an x,y,z.

It's a bacteria becoming aware of the host sort of thing. While blood in your veins might perceive one axis of travel (across what it probably couldn't perceive to be curved spaces), outside of its view, its universe (the body) is constantly moving as well, but across its own dimensions of freedom. We're like the blood, and the body is like the universe.

Though we would have to inverse the idea of higher lower, such as at the lowest levels there is a quantum soup of energy that is a state of constant flux, and at the highest level is plain old matter as we know it.


Perhaps we could see MP as being something like a gravitational force. We have a moving universe which is applying many observers to one still point (manifestation target). If the point is still, maybe it's not the point which is chasing after the universe, but the universe which is being pulled towards the point against its current velocity (resistance). I'm imagining the universe orbiting around a point. For each MP applied to the point, it's not actually the point which gains power, but a tether which is attached to the point from the universe, which in turn causes a tension force. When the universe tries to keep moving on its current course, tension on the tether causes a minuscule change in direction before it breaks or becomes very weak.

I'm relating this to my theory of the universe moving in a circular path, with the fall limit of unmanifest things being in the center. It's not that the unmanifest is "falling". It's that the universe is moving away. That's why ideas never disappear. Because its not they that have power, but the universe which is throwing grappling hooks (observers).

I like your concept of higher lower being reversed. Treat the higher planes (far away) as being what we grapple to, and treat the lower planes as what is constantly adding and removing ropes (chaos). It's not the space that the universe is in that is changing, but us that are changing the universe's position within that world. Chaos is internal, order is external. You only ever change the internal. This supports the idea that resistance is always internal to the local physical zone (we send out tethers [observers], instead of the external world applying gravity forces to the universe). I hope I didn't misinterpret what you meant.

Complete MP circuit

Physical Realm: The universe that exists within our three dimensions of physical space. Has linear time.
Time Realm (renamed form "astral" to be more self explanatory if that's cool): The universe that our physical realm exists in. This realm also has the dimensions of motion throughout time. Has non-linear time.
Magickal Potential (MP): A collection of observers over time ("Mass")
Tether: The direction towards manifestation, that is applied to MP ("Acceleration")
Magickal Force: The result of a combination of MP and a Tether (something like F=MA)
Internal Causation Rule: Forces outside of linear time cannot affect linear time. Therefore, the Physical Realm is a closed system. If a force enters it, it must first be invited from within the Physical Realm.

If you are unaware of multi-threaded access protocols for shared memory, you will likely need to in order to get what my next few paragraphs are talking about:

http://www.developerfusion.com/article/ ... ns-in-c0x/

Reality is inherently multi-threaded, and I'm trying to figure out how to explain data relativity using memory ordering. The Time Realm doesn't actually exist in any present form until we decide from our Physical Realm, that it does, and reach for it with a tether. There could be all kinds of other Physical Realms out there that we could tether to, but they wouldn't actually exist in any definite form until we reached them. Because other realms function on their own internal linear time, from our perspective, we cannot correlate our own time to their time; we have to "synchronize" with a tether. This means shared data between two different threads, which means memory ordering. If we are both at t=50, we could perceive them as being at t=10, while at the same time, they could perceive us as being at t=1. Because of the internal causation rule, they can't just send a portal over to us at any time. We have to make a portal, and then our portal will end up linking to whenever they happened to make a portal. We can only read their memory when they write it to us, and the same applies to them. Their state, from our perspective, only changes every time we read it.

A portal in the last example, isn't very different from a tether to some blob of MP. From our linear time, the MP at a target will increase every time the past writes to it, because of sequential memory ordering. If the present knows that there were 5 MP applied in the past, it is as if that past still exists in the present, because when it reads the available MP value, it has to read the latest value. Because of the internal causation rule, we know that it is not possible for the MP value in the Time Realm to be modified by some external force (any fluctuations must be caused by things within linear time). MP batteries can exist independent of space, and can be accessed from many different physical locations. That means that if you don't want your battery to ever get used by something other than you, you have to make sure that no one else can tether to it, and need to invest in something similar to wireless security.

A tether then, is an access point. Because a tether is connected to what are effectively timeless energy sources, if you were to make timeless generators to generate power for your timeless energy sources, it would be potentially possible to get infinite MP. Because of memory ordering, every time you do a read, you will either receive the same MP value, or the next one. If you could figure out how to do reads without ever accidentally performing writes (which would overwrite the construct's MP value, possibly lowering it), you could increase the MP by large steps with every read. That's just potential though. You need to have a complete circuit for it to flow.

I'm not really sure how to read data without writing. Or if that's possible. Seems that you need a level of indirection to the actual MP, and a reader device. You've got to black box it to keep it in an undefined state.

We have potential (MP). Is this also the load? Or is the load separate? Can MP be stored as "raw power" and then have its use decided later, or does the MP have to be created with a goal in mind already?
We have a conductor (the magickian). The mage uses a tether (logo, wand, symbol, etc.) to access the MP, and allow it to modify the Physical Realm.

Where's the neutral? We have "hot" (MP), and we know what we want to do with it, but in order for there to be a circuit (which seems necessary in a closed system), we need somewhere that the potential wants to go. No matter how much power you have, if there's no ground, nothing happens. If you make a lot of potential, it's likely that it'll go through a lot of resistance all by itself in order to leak to the ground. Perhaps this is why magick is often found to not do anything instantly, but requires a lot of time to make subtle changes. Maybe that's just because potential is leaking to a ground all by itself, and the circuit is broken. Maybe we're lucky we get any effect at all. If you make a ground easily accessible on the other side of the load, you'd probably get a lot more power. If the MP is on the Time Realm, I would imagine that the ground also would have to be on the Time Realm. A though structure moving to a thought structure. Otherwise you would have infinite MP moving towards a finite Physical Realm. To maintain the closed system, what comes in, must come out.

I was going to start thinking about what actually causes the tether to cause the MP to accelerate as a force, and be stable, but I had a minor thought issue: if the MP is the actual power, why would I need another power (tether) to get my MP (power) going? Then you end up with an infinite chain of power pushing power, but never actually doing anything. It makes more sense to think of the tether as a conductor, but the conductor has to go somewhere. If you have gravitational potential, it's because something is at a height, and it can fall down. Now I'm wondering what makes the MP fall. I don't think time could be thought of as the fall. I think that would be the effect of the fall. Perhaps I need to think further about what might make watchers' physical laws work.

Perhaps existence is not so much about the accumulation of MP, but a consistent expenditure of it. Things only exist when they cause change (and thus must also have limited lifespans).
Maybe half the trick is to make sure that your structure is dying when you make it, instead of trying to make it all powerful.

Servitors as Observers

Change of thought: I'm now not so sure if it would make sense to have two artifical observers reinforcing each other. That would be like tying two rocks together on a sidewalk, and driving away in your car, while expecting the rocks to somehow be attached to your vehicle.

Yes, I think the MP is separate from it's link to the universe.

I don't think it's quite as simple as just recalling the sigil. That's like checking to see if you still have a rope attached to your side of things, and not checking to see if anything is actually attached to the other end.
I think you actually have to focus on the meaning behind the sigil. The sigil is just a reminder. If you used the sigil ritually, maybe you could train your subconscious mind (whatever that is) to observe the sigil's meaning whenever you looked at it.

The starbucks deity might not be coherent enough to be useful for energy purposes. You'd probably have to organize it. Treat the logo as a place where everyone attaches kites. There might be a significant amount of mass in all the kites, but because they aren't a single rigid body, you'd have a hard time trying to move them all as one (especially with wind). Still, I like your idea. The MP is all there. It just might not flow very fast. It would probably have a lot of juice, but a very slow release. Maybe that could be useful for some purposes.

But, if the MP is all public, it's possible that it's already being utilized, and it might be getting grounded as fast as it's getting generated. Maybe you could hijack it by insulating all the possible grounds, so the owners can't use it. Now I'm trying to think of a way that I can use other people as conductors for the potential. If they are already accessing the tethers (logos), they are basically acting as free magickians for the release of potential. You could automate conductance like this, in order to have automatically powered loads (as long as you can keep up the MP, and can somehow connect all the people to a ground.)

Probability

This suggests that as the probability of an action increases, the less resistance would be met. Essentially cresting an apex and then speeding onto the destination.


Yes, but I like to think of it like an object between the gravitational fields of two planets. Once the object gets closer to one of them, the other force is more easily overcome.
Statistical analysis might come in handy in for this topic.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:53 am

multi-threaded access protocols
I was reading the link you shared and I have to say that out of it I really like "Non-sequentially-consistent Memory Orderings - Relaxed Ordering"
The only requirement is that accesses to a single atomic variable from the same thread can’t be reordered: once a given thread has seen a particular value of an atomic variable, a subsequent read by that thread can’t retrieve an earlier value of the variable. Without any additional synchronization, the modification order of each variable is the only thing shared between threads that are using memory_order_relaxed.

If we assume that the object is say a rock, and the read request is observation, then the observer cannot read the object at an earlier stage than the last time it was read, and since that is shared across observers, it would account for linear time (movement towards entropy).

I will need to read more on multi-threaded processing, I didnt realize this was how it was done. I never actually thought about it, because I had read years ago that many programs dont take advantage of multi-threads due to the complexity of writing the program vs the benefit.

Planes
I like where you are going with this, but I am going to need more time to digest and process.

Complete MP Circuit
Physical Realm: The universe that exists within our three dimensions of physical space. Has linear time.

Works for me.

Time Realm (renamed form "astral" to be more self explanatory if that's cool): The universe that our physical realm exists in. This realm also has the dimensions of motion throughout time. Has non-linear time.

I would almost call this a timeless realm, astral works, non-physical, etc. Calling it by what its not is kind of sloppy, but its a working title.

Magickal Potential (MP): A collection of observers over time ("Mass")

Perfect

Tether: The direction towards manifestation, that is applied to MP ("Acceleration")

Perfect

Magickal Force: The result of a combination of MP and a Tether (something like F=MA)

Perfect

Internal Causation Rule: Forces outside of linear time cannot affect linear time. Therefore, the Physical Realm is a closed system. If a force enters it, it must first be invited from within the Physical Realm.

This is tricky and relies heavily upon personal bias/beliefs/etc. I am not sure about this. First lets start with "The Physical Realm is a closed system". Why is this the case? I can see the totality of all the planes being a closed system. I guess the fundamental question is can something exist that is non-human that is an observer. I believe we both agree this can be true. Then if it is non-human, does it have to exist on the physical plane? (Ghosts/Gods/Demons/Angels/Alien Intelligence/Higher life forms/etc) If an entity can both be a non-human observer, and exist on a plane other than the physical, then this closed system idea is no good.

Another question to ask ourselves, does reality, in the absence of observers, move forward based solely on the ramifications of the big bang and chaos theory (deterministic butterfly effect)?

OR, is reality the sum of all of the million million nudges at any given moment from all entities than can be considered an observer?

What are the minimum requirements to be an observer? Sentience?

Servitors as Observers
This one is going to depend heavily upon whether we consider Servitors to actually be independent. The major difference in my opinion of a Servitor and some other Entity, is that a Servitor is a semi-autonomous extension of yourself. I think of them as subroutines or services/daemons. In fact that is how I initiate, edit configurations, save, execute, and background them.

As for the forget and let your subconscious handle it, I have an issue on this a bit. I have a photographic memory, I literally cannot forget things that I invest my attention. So every time I call my recall the sigil for my servitor I immediately remember all of the aspects of it, confirm its identity and then background it again. So I dont know how others would handle that. At this time I have only one. It is complicated, has 4 major tasks, and 2 subtasks.

As to servitor self empowerment, as we have said in a closed system there is a standard level of MP roaming, I summoned it and focused on tapping the ambient MP. Each time that I summon the Servitor I reconfirm/rewrite the config/commands, and then execute and background.

External Entities
So for the sake of Gods, lets say they are widely (to a varying degree) known entities that are generally revered and petitioned for tasks. I see this as unintended Servitors, that get fed by attention and could be potentially channeled into action. The trick is that depending on how powerful they are, they have probably adopted mannerisms and sentience, so petitioning an entity would be rife with difficulties. However, their MP would be off the charts.

Gods
These entities (gods) wouldn't exist on the physical plane, so the linearity of time wouldn't even be a concern, and they might even have trouble understanding such a lowly creature that is asking for something.
Example: Might magician opens communication with a God, petitions for wealth. Perhaps the God, not understanding the linearity of time to which the petitioner is enslaved, kicks off a massive magick effect that isnt seen in the petitioners life time. Or perhaps they do not truly understand wealth as we know it. First it has changed many many times over the years, and second they were never human, so perhaps wealth as we know it has no meaning, and you end up with a lot of rock salt instead.

Corporate Branding
In a lot of ways I think corporate branding can start this sort of thing off, but without conscious reverence I dont see them aspiring to sentience, perhaps more like a child or animal. Harder to upset or cajole, power would be unfocused, but potentially just as much MP as a God.

Gravitation Fields
I like the transition from probability to gravitational fields in a lot of ways. Here are a few, in the theory of relativity space/time is bent/distorred due to mass. Now lets say that there are large effects that will either be the source or destination for MP, perhaps the source for pent up MP or the destination for abundant MP, to balance reality. Those type of events could warp time/space/probability. These could be tragic, or otherwise, but will generally affect a large number of observers that have committed to this event willingly or unwillingly (sub-conscious). These events would take the form of the observers expectations, but would serve as a cyclic balance for MP on any given plane.

Lets call those Mega-Events

So if an observer were to desire an action that interfered with a Mega-Event, the cost of such an act would be on par with how much it interferes. The Mega-Event has amassed a large pool of MP, to which greats this gravitational field, which would distort efforts to change or modify it.

Similar to Mega-Events, there must be lesser forms as well.

Now what if someone could determine/observer/perceive the likelihood of such an event based on the gravitational distortion. Essentially this would account for divination.

Further yet, what if one or more persons made efforts to initiate these events before they go so big that it would put reality as we know it under strain, or have a massive disruption in life as we know it.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:00 pm

Definitions

Time Realm (renamed form "astral" to be more self explanatory if that's cool): The universe that our physical realm exists in. This realm also has the dimensions of motion throughout time. Has non-linear time.

I would almost call this a timeless realm, astral works, non-physical, etc. Calling it by what its not is kind of sloppy, but its a working title.


How about we call the "Physical Ream" a "Linear Realm", because its key trait is that it functions linearly. Otherwise one has to wonder what "physical" means. I think that the dualism between mind and matter is itself an illusion. Look at the first hermetic principle: "all is mind". "Physical" implies that it is somehow more real than "Non-Physical", which would be incorrect.

I agree on the poor name choice. I was mostly referring to "Physical" as in x,y,z (physical space), and "Time" as in time dimensions. Though, I guess "time" implies linearity in the general use of the term.
"Astral" would work, but most think of the astral as less "real" than "Physical". Non-linear isn't properly descriptive either. Non-linear makes me think of changes in slope, but it doesn't imply concurrent processing.

How about this for new definitions:

Physical Realm = Linear Realm
Time Realm = Concurrent Realm

I like the term Linear, because it reminds me of a thread / line (rather than the word "sequential", which is very similar). The Concurrent Realm is like a pool of threads (Linear Realms).

Also, I made a mistake:

Physical Realm: The universe that exists within our three dimensions of physical space. Has linear time.

Works for me.


Not our three dimensions of space. All possible dimensions of space, including the ones we cannot perceive. Not x,y,z but x,y,z,a,b,c,d,e,f,...
There could be a potentially very large, or even endless number of spatial dimensions.

Closed system argument

This is tricky and relies heavily upon personal bias/beliefs/etc. I am not sure about this. First lets start with "The Physical Realm is a closed system". Why is this the case? I can see the totality of all the planes being a closed system. I guess the fundamental question is can something exist that is non-human that is an observer. I believe we both agree this can be true. Then if it is non-human, does it have to exist on the physical plane? (Ghosts/Gods/Demons/Angels/Alien Intelligence/Higher life forms/etc) If an entity can both be a non-human observer, and exist on a plane other than the physical, then this closed system idea is no good.


I actually had an argument that wasn't really biased. Maybe I failed to explain it. The basis behind the Internal Causation Rule was to see our Linear Realm like the main function of a program. In programming, for one process to access the memory of another program, data handles need to be passed. The operating system won't even let one process see the same memory addresses as another process. They are totally separated. My reasoning was that if our Linear Realm is like a main thread, then anything that can affect us must have been given access by us. We have to give data handles to other threads, or else they can't "see" us. Our thread has to explicitly call another thread into existence (by "collapsing" its state, by writing to it), and pass shared data handles in order for data transfers to occur.

I meant that our Linear Realm is a closed system in the sense that it has to explicitly support data transfers between itself and other Linear Realms. Because of the memory ordering issue, when we access another Linear Realm, it's less like we're actually accessing another solid place, and more like we're collapsing a myriad of possible Linear Realms into the one we are after. It's not like there's two rivers that meet at given points. It's like there's one river, but at certain points its water flows down alternate routes before flowing back into the main river. We aren't accessing other discrete Linear Realms so much as we're calling "Create Thread" from our own realm. There's still concurrent processing going on even if one thread controls the other threads.

Yes, something can definitely exist that is not a human observer. If you can dream, then you know that this is possible (as you don't have your body during a dream). This is 90% of the difficulty with observers. They hold data, but are basically impossible to target because they aren't data. If you want to target a specific observer, you have to know what data is in it. If we treat observers as an origin of force, this strangely reminds me of dark matter. Things that appear to be causing forces (mass), and even be bound to a certain areas of space, but don't actually have a specific position, nor a representation, so they can't be seen. An observer doesn't even have to be like a camera at a specific point. The observer could be receiving visual data from Europe, and be hearing at South America.

"Physical", to me, does not imply any level of space coherency. While we have time dimensions at the Concurrent Realm, at the Linear Realm, we could have any large number of spatial dimensions other than the usual x,y,z. "Physical" just means that interactions are occurring without memory ordering issues that come with concurrency. "Physical" means that causation is forced to function in a sequential way. In the more or less standard interpretation of "planes" where creatures can live in more or less spatially separate realms, you could treat x,y,z as the spatial coordinate system of each "plane", and then switch planes with another spatial coordinate like "p" (x,y,z,p,...) The planes are all still within the same "physical" realm because they are all functioning according to the same linear time (they all work on the same "clock"). Linear Realm dimensions can have any amount of spatial complexity (x,y,z,a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,...), and the Concurrent Realm just adds a few dimensions on top of the linear ones, so we get (x,y,z...,t1,t2), where t1 = time on linear realm, and t2 = which linear realm.

Watchers, aliens, etc., are all "physical" (in linear time). If humans are not linking to other Linear Realms and dealing with memory ordering, it is entirely possible that aliens, or any other race, potentially not even on our x,y,z, but on higher spatial dimensions, could be calling concurrent processes into existence, and be handling memory ordering problems. I make no assumptions on what invitations already exist. But it makes sense to me that invitations are in fact required.

Another question to ask ourselves, does reality, in the absence of observers, move forward based solely on the ramifications of the big bang and chaos theory (deterministic butterfly effect)?


If causation is caused by the interference of observers, then there can be no concept of causation in the sense of the big bang, etc. Realistically, without observers, there would be no gravity-like force that we know as time, and there would be no reality, because there would be no one to observe it into existence. First hermetic principle: all is mind. However, if we assume that the universe can exist without an observer, given the lack of a direction for time, I would think that all permutations of reality would exist at once, instantaneously, eternally.

OR, is reality the sum of all of the million million nudges at any given moment from all entities than can be considered an observer?


That would seem to be the case. No observers = No causation = No data

What are the minimum requirements to be an observer? Sentience?


I would define an observer as anything capable of holding data, so yes, sentience is the only requirement. Intelligence is unnecessary.

multi-threaded access protocols

Yes, relaxed memory ordering was what I was getting at in particular. It would seem that the universe's multi-threading would by default use the loosest ordering, and that any extra restrictions would be optional.
Perhaps the existence of sequential ordering within or Linear Realm is part of the reason we seem to have a fixed pace clock. Apparently sequential ordering is slower than relaxed.

If we assume that the object is say a rock, and the read request is observation, then the observer cannot read the object at an earlier stage than the last time it was read, and since that is shared across observers, it would account for linear time (movement towards entropy).


Exactly.

Servitors as Observers

This one is going to depend heavily upon whether we consider Servitors to actually be independent. The major difference in my opinion of a Servitor and some other Entity, is that a Servitor is a semi-autonomous extension of yourself. I think of them as subroutines or services/daemons. In fact that is how I initiate, edit configurations, save, execute, and background them.


It depends on if the servitor is limited to your Linear Realm or is run asynchronously on a different Linear Realm, and is then interfaced through a mutex or through the use of atomics.
Mutex (mutually exclusive object): https://stackoverflow.com/questions/345 ... is-a-mutex
Atomic vs Non-Atomic: http://preshing.com/20130618/atomic-vs- ... perations/

I'm not sure what operations in our reality, would be atomic, and which would not be. We could probably say that singular bits of data are atomic (a single color), whereas a group of things might not be atomic (a car).

So, based on your definition, a servitor is a task that operates within the Linear Realm (using some sort of task scheduling to allow for effective multi-tasking), whereas an entity is on a different Linear Realm?
I'm not sure I agree on your word choice. We should be more specific. A ghost could be on our realm, or in another Linear Realm. Either way, it's still a ghost. Perhaps we should differentiate by using keywords such as local and non-local, to be explicit about where the processing occurs.

As for the forget and let your subconscious handle it, I have an issue on this a bit. I have a photographic memory, I literally cannot forget things that I invest my attention. So every time I call my recall the sigil for my servitor I immediately remember all of the aspects of it, confirm its identity and then background it again. So I dont know how others would handle that. At this time I have only one. It is complicated, has 4 major tasks, and 2 subtasks.


Other people have to manually recall the servitor's traits, in order to properly target it. It's a lot more difficult. I have a very good memory, and it's still hard for me (not quite photographic, but if I walk through a large corn maze, I can walk through it again perfectly the next time.) For some people, they'd probably need to log changes to the servitor over time, with the use of a journal.

As to servitor self empowerment, as we have said in a closed system there is a standard level of MP roaming, I summoned it and focused on tapping the ambient MP. Each time that I summon the Servitor I reconfirm/rewrite the config/commands, and then execute and background.


Alright, so if there is a standard amount of MP roaming, we could infer that there must also be a standard amount of roaming observers (as MP and observers are basically equivalent). Using "ambient MP" would be like placing a servitor on a higher dimension than our typical x,y,z in order to put it closer to less spatially restricted (easier movement, unlike people) observers. Therefore, we can infer the existence of things like ghosts. We could probably split a Linear Realm into higher and lower sections based on how easy it is for observers to move around (which correlates to less restricted MP flow).

Concurrent Realm (t1, t2)
{
Linear Realm
{
Mental (d,e,f,...)
Astral (a,b,c,...)
Physical (x,y,z)
}
}

External Entities

So for the sake of Gods, lets say they are widely (to a varying degree) known entities that are generally revered and petitioned for tasks. I see this as unintended Servitors, that get fed by attention and could be potentially channeled into action. The trick is that depending on how powerful they are, they have probably adopted mannerisms and sentience, so petitioning an entity would be rife with difficulties. However, their MP would be off the charts.


Side note: the god might only be powerful in relation to those that are observing it. It could be like a train man thing. If you've ever seen the Matrix Revolutions, Neo loses his god-like power after he ends up on a fringe of the matrix (his power is based on where he is.) The god might have a lot of MP in relation to us, because like an object with gravitational potential, it is "high above" us (and has a lot of distance to fall). To itself, it might be pathetically weak, because there is no "voltage difference" between itself and itself. In order to power a load (turn MP into force), it might be necessary for there to be some sort of mathematical "distance" between the MP and the source of it.

Perhaps intelligence, as developed by natural selection in our observable world, also happens at a faster rate on less spatially restricted dimensions of our Linear Realm. The force output by each observation of an entity, could be seen like throwing neurons at a brain. It stimulates the order into chaos, which results in faster development. It would be very interesting to think of there being species of things on higher dimensions. There could be food chains. That could be relevant in making sure that your servitor is not absorbed/eaten by whatever predators might exist. I'm not sure why I'm thinking of higher dimensions as being so different from this one.

As for sentience, maybe that occurs when an MP blob gets enough attractive force that it can force an "ambient observer" to see through its "eyes". If observers are making the MP through observation, it would be plausible that some of them could forget themselves and get trapped / assimilated by the MP blob's configuration. Kind of like falling asleep. Who says we're even the same observer every time we sleep and wake up? What if the body just attracts a random one, and you can't tell the difference?

Gods
These entities (gods) wouldn't exist on the physical plane, so the linearity of time wouldn't even be a concern, and they might even have trouble understanding such a lowly creature that is asking for something.
Example: Might magician opens communication with a God, petitions for wealth. Perhaps the God, not understanding the linearity of time to which the petitioner is enslaved, kicks off a massive magick effect that isnt seen in the petitioners life time. Or perhaps they do not truly understand wealth as we know it. First it has changed many many times over the years, and second they were never human, so perhaps wealth as we know it has no meaning, and you end up with a lot of rock salt instead.


I would say that any gods would definitely be able to understand linear time. Time, in my opinion, is always perceived linearly. Though both you and the god are perceiving linear time, you might both be in separate Linear Realms, so anything you try to send to it might come across as gibberish because of memory ordering. Without a protocol such as the acquire/release memory ordering, the god might receive a message at your t=10, then, during their processing time, your time may have advanced to t=99999. The address to respond to (the time) must be sent with the message, or else the god would be unable to return anything back to the sender. If we assume linearity of time in daily life, and only put spatial addresses on our letters, perhaps it is necessary to put spatial as well as a time addresses on inter Linear Realm communication. That would be similar to an acquire/release memory ordering. The difficulty is that our time address is constantly changing. It's very difficult to mail something to someone if they are constantly moving.

Data will definitely have different meanings in different Linear Realms. I agree with the rock salt thing. Even if they were human, it is known that culture, value, etc., changes over time. This just gave me an interesting idea. What if it were possible to contact a magickian from ancient China (or some place that used to use rice as money). Because of the past ambiguity principle, it would be reasonable to think of this past as a completely separate Linear Realm. Even if you both were human, perhaps this person sends you rice instead of gold? Because you weren't specific enough about what you wanted.

Corporate Branding
In a lot of ways I think corporate branding can start this sort of thing off, but without conscious reverence I dont see them aspiring to sentience, perhaps more like a child or animal. Harder to upset or cajole, power would be unfocused, but potentially just as much MP as a God.


Agreed.

Gravitation Fields

F=(GMm)/(r^2)
The gravitational force between two large objects will be greater than the gravitational force between two smaller objects (at the same distances).

Maybe you could put the Mega-Events in pairs. We know that our current world must have an absurd amount of MP to be as stable as it is, so we could call the universe itself a Mega-Event.
Then, whatever has the next highest MP will be the other Mega-Event: entropy. We could see time as the progression from one Mega-Event to another. It's speed would then be equivalent to the gravitational force of the universe and entropy, minus resistance caused by Micro-Events (that's what I'll call the minor events, in order to follow your naming scheme).

The analogy of gravity to explain magick works much better than electricity. It means that a ground is unnecessary. But still, going back to electricity, if you had a Mega-Event which was inline with your intentions, you could use it as a ground to give your minimal MP more force (because the gravity formula looks at both the Micro-Event and the Mega-Event in question). Along these lines, with a stretch, you could see electricity as a special case of gravity.

These events would take the form of the observers expectations, but would serve as a cyclic balance for MP on any given plane.


I don't think expectations have anything to do with force exerted by an observer. It has to do with what they're watching. Maybe if they are expectant in an "absorbed in fear" sort of way it would do something.
Cyclic balance. Gravity is basically a circuit that works in a straight line. The force is dependent on both masses. They are both each other's subjective "hot" (and neutral). That's interesting.

So if an observer were to desire an action that interfered with a Mega-Event, the cost of such an act would be on par with how much it interferes. The Mega-Event has amassed a large pool of MP, to which greats this gravitational field, which would distort efforts to change or modify it.


Agreed.

Now what if someone could determine/observer/perceive the likelihood of such an event based on the gravitational distortion. Essentially this would account for divination.


Agreed. This theory makes divination quite simple actually. You just make a Micro-Event, lock onto it, then watch it progress towards the biggest Mega Event. Of course, there's a margin of error in this, because the Micro-Event wouldn't move in a straight line the whole time, as there is more than one attractive force.

Further yet, what if one or more persons made efforts to initiate these events before they go so big that it would put reality as we know it under strain, or have a massive disruption in life as we know it.


I think we can assume that all Mega-Events should start off as Micro-Events and then accumulate MP over time. The trick to a disruptive new Mega-Event would be to make it in such a way that the biggest Mega-Event could not absorb it. You'd have to be accelerating it against interfering gravity as you were building it. Which would be slightly difficult because the attractive force between it and entropy would be increasing as you increased the MP on your own competing Mega-Event. You'd need some kind of insulator such as is done with electricity, to block the gravitational force between your Mega-Event and entropy, otherwise you'd never be able to make your Mega-Event overpower entropy (only slightly bend it before being absorbed). I'm not sure how to solve that problem right now.

Deductive Targetting

This is an experimental method. It's conjecture. Try to find flaws and improve if you can.

There's an inherent difficulty in targeting observers, because they do not have spatial locations, but are instead composed of data themselves. They are formless, even though they can cause force.
Because they cause force, it is imperative that they can be targeted in order them to be practically used. It is imperative that a magickian can locate them without pre knowledge of them, especially for banishing purposes, and also especially for re-identifying observers that have been programmed to work on background tasks.

Use of both MP attraction as well as memory ordering is necessary to identify an observer (especially if it is on a non-local Linear Realm).

You can use probability to deduce an observer based on minimal known knowledge. Because your observation causes a build up of MP, if you know roughly what data an observer contains, and lightly hold said data in your observation, your focus will be attracted to the target observer (and vice versa). You can use this to "scan" for observers, by imagining what data they would have, if you were them. Keep in mind that space is not a factor here, only data similarity. There could be many rooms that look alike, but if you want to find the observer in one of those look alike rooms, you'll have to know what the surrounding rooms (not alike) are like, in order to narrow down a search.

Because of relaxed memory ordering, bits of data identified on an observer need not fit with other bits of data on the observer. If an observer's data was based on a rule such as y = x + 2, if you read x to be 5, y would not have to be 7. You have to continuously read data over time until you get the "most recent" values. However, once the target observer has been targeted a bit, the observer with the known variables, would gravitate towards you (as you are at least partially focusing on it, which causes MP, which causes attraction.) Effectively, you initially lock on using some kind of mutually known value (could be a call sigil, etc.) that at least one of you will always keep in observation. Once you have that lock on, you begin to "collapse" all the other variables associated with the observer through gravitation. So, with low attraction, if y = x + 2, and x = 5, y does not have to equal 7, but with high attraction, y has to equal 7. If a sigil is not enough to deduce a unique observer, along with other information that should be known about the observer's programming, it might be necessary to perform continuous reads on incoherent data in order to build up attraction and cause a "collapse".

Keep note that by using this deductive targeting method, you actually become the observer as attraction increases. This is the same kind of technique as a point shift (which is used in astral projection).
This may or may not be wanted. It is likely ideal to deductively target the observer in mind, up until a certain maximum "proximity" (level of sameness) is reached, then to apply MP to the observer by imagining them being different to how they are (for editing) Without a proper lock on though, it is likely that applying MP will simply cause the creation of a new entity, which could cause clutter in reality's "namespace".

Amplification Ritual

Instead of making servitors to do things, I'm fiddling with the idea of literally splitting consciousness into various perspectives in order to amplify MP.
Rather than evoke a non-local entity (outside of the current Linear Realm), I try to use concurrency to point shift myself to multiple places at once.
It's a bit incomplete, but you might find the concept interesting.

1. Pick a direction to be "front". This is arbitrary, but necessary, as consistency must be maintained across all selves in order to ensure that they are all in the same place. (Places with identical data ARE identical.) I based this ritual on the LBRP, so I'm going to use East as my front.

2. Draw a circle around yourself laterally, and at the height of your abdomen. You need to be able to see the circle almost as if it's there. The more you can visualize it solidly, the better (more MP). Also draw a circle longitudinally that cuts through the floor. The idea is to outline a sphere around yourself. You should be inside of a wire frame sphere.

3. Draw a desired pentagram (used an earth banishing one) at the East, then South, then West, then North (clockwise), on the circle's longitudinal circumference. Then draw a hexagram on the top and bottom poles of the sphere. The hexagrams should be the same orientation if you're looking from above or below. Make sure that all of the pentagrams and hexagrams are drawn in a neutral color (grey), are observable, but not distracting.

4. Inside of each pentagram, imagine a colored orb which represents the eye of an observer. At east, make the orb green. At south, make the orb red. At west, make the orb blue. At north, make the orb yellow. Inside of each hexagram, there will also be an orb. At the top hexagram, put a white orb, and at the bottom hexagram, but a black orb (sun shining on darkness, to help with memory). The colors and directions are taken from the elements to act as a memory aid.

5. Now, you have to point shift into each of the orbs to give them MP. While point shifting, imagine that your head is at the orb, and that you are facing towards the sphere's center. The idea is to focus multiple observers on the center of the sphere, so that the sphere can act as an amplified work area. When you point shift to each orb, you have to observe through it as if the work to be amplified has already been done. If you plan to make a ball of static or something, make sure that the observer sees the static ball before you make it once you return to being the magickian. The idea is that the observers add "gravitational" force towards the magickian's objective. Do not turn at all during this part. Face east the whole time, so that the observers are all agreeing on what the interior the sphere looks like. If you turn each time you point shift, you'll add interference. By doing it this way, it also solidifies that each eye is at a different position, because there is more data different between each eye (the white sees the head, black sees the feet, green sees the face, etc.) Make sure that each eye also sees the pentagrams, hexagrams, other eyes, and circle lines, but be sure that the magickian is allowed to obstruct certain things from vision with their body. The point of the colored eyes it to make it easier to keep track of view orientation through color coding directions. Make sure each eye also sees the room outside of the sphere.

6. Now that you have finished point shifting, perform the magickal act. Personally, I just did a modification of the Qaballistic Cross. I imagined light moving through my heart in lines, for invigoration, on each cardinal direction. Up/Down, Left/Right, Forwards/Backwards.

7.Reabsorb all of the eyes. Deductively target each of them, and visualize the room being already banished for each one. The eyes should not see the circle, pentagrams, each other, etc. (No color help this time). Hold each observer for a certain amount of time to gather MP towards clearing the room. Then, from each eye, slowly move the perspective back to your normal one. It feels a lot like waking up from a dream. It's also extremely disorienting, and to me, seems to make my body move towards a state similar to psychosis. The brain doesn't seem to know what to do with the information of being elsewhere, so it starts messing up the internal model of things.

8. From your normal perspective, stop seeing the circle, pentagrams, etc.

Could be a placebo, but I noticed a rather quick drop of the pentagrams. It had a "candle blown out" feel. I also noticed a bit of a static like feeling throughout the ritual.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:32 am

Sentience / External Entities
Rereading your comments on the External Entities, specifically natural selection in less spatially restricted dimensions, I have two thoughts that I wanted to share.
1) I see the creation of a servitor/deity/whatever like making sand castles. With the ocean nearby and weather and such they need constant attention to retain their form and purpose. The artificial order enforced on the target wants to let go and return to a more “natural” state.

2) Absolutely there could be a level of sentience that recognizes that in order to persist it must eat/absorb lesser energized bodies such as a servitor or magickal working. I would think that as every possible thing that exists in our plane of existence requires a source of energy, so would things that exist beyond/below/above. I can think of a few examples of this:

a. Waning entities with sentience wish to prolong their existence in the absence of sustain worship/observation.

b. Simple entities no longer tied to a purpose, merging with other dispossessed energy forms due to a gravitational pull

Both of these examples would coincide with the need to perpetually empower magickal works.

Mega Events
I was thinking that a Mega Event aside from the beginning and end of the universe, which should probably be an even higher category, would have their own gravitational fields just as you described.

Now, if I were working towards a desired outcome, generically a Minor Event, and it coincided/aligned with a Major Event, rather than absorption and nullification I would think it would be more like complimentary absorption, where it accelerates the desired purpose. If it were at cross purpose then I would think absorption and nullification.

Deductive Targeting
I am working this through my head and I have a few questions/comments.

What is the use case for targeting an observer?

What do you want to accomplish once you have them targeted?

You mention banishing, but I always considered that to be an area cleanse kind of situation, where you didn’t care what was hanging around, you just want it gone. I wonder if repetitive use of banishing and cleansing would affect the localized area. I also wonder if you could stabilize the area for minimum MP accumulation disruption.

Also, becoming the observer as attraction increases, this seems like an invocation where you and the entity briefly become as one. I can think of some good use cases for this, but also on the longer term I could see the subjugation of your personality to the goals of a greater being. It is interesting that you mention a point of almost perfect coincidence where maximum work could be done without loss of personality.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:52 am

Sentience / External Entities

Agreed.

Mega Events

Now, if I were working towards a desired outcome, generically a Minor Event, and it coincided/aligned with a Major Event, rather than absorption and nullification I would think it would be more like complimentary absorption, where it accelerates the desired purpose. If it were at cross purpose then I would think absorption and nullification.


I agree. I'm modelling the interactions like a 2D solar system. The Mega Event is the sun. The universe is pluto. The course of time is the line between the sun and pluto. Any object farther than pluto from the sun, will have the effect of maybe slightly slowing down pluto, but would have a minimal directional change on pluto. Any event between pluto and the sun, would have the effect of changing pluto's course very slightly, but would still be absorbed. History goes on how it was supposed to, but a slight course change is allowed to exist before it is corrected.

Are these the terms then?
Mega Event: Largest force (entropy / sun)
Major Event: Force which changes course greatly
Minor Event: Force which changes course slightly
Micro Event: Most slave mass (universe / pluto)

Deductive targeting / Scanning

What is the use case for targeting an observer?

What do you want to accomplish once you have them targeted?


So, let's say you want to see what another observer is seeing. You can't target the person's observer based on the person's body, shape, etc., because that's not the observer.
However, based on your own understanding of the human perspective, you can infer what the person might be perceiving, and try to point shift into this inference.
Once you have a lock, you could then let go of your control of your observer, and let it synchronize with the other person's observer, in order to experience what it's like to be them.
With luck, you might be able to read their thoughts, plant thoughts, etc. If you apply this technique to something like a pencil, plant, etc., you might be able to learn information about said objects.

Because force is related is directly related to observers, you could also try moving your perspective around your room in order to see what might be watching. If anything is watching, you'll probably get a lock on.
It lets you check for data accesses without knowing where the access is coming from. For example, say I'm spying on your room from South Africa, and you're in the USA, you wouldn't have to know that I'm in South Africa in order to figure out I'm observing your room. You just check for the access itself. In this way, if there are observers lurking around a space, you could synchronize with them, and forcibly avert their view to say, a black screen, in order to banish their influence. Of course, you would need to have more MP than the invader, in order to gravitate their attention towards yours (or catch them off guard.)

If you are playing a game of "what shape am I projecting at X location", and the possible shapes were restricted (box, pyramid, sphere), you could target each shape, one at a time, in order to see which one gets a lock.

In summary, it's the basis of reading and writing data. I would think of this as one of the most basic skills. It's basically impossible to tell what forces are at play in a location, unless you scan for them.

You mention banishing, but I always considered that to be an area cleanse kind of situation, where you didn’t care what was hanging around, you just want it gone. I wonder if repetitive use of banishing and cleansing would affect the localized area. I also wonder if you could stabilize the area for minimum MP accumulation disruption.


You could use deductive targeting to only banish specific forces. I think an area cleanse would be something else. You could, for example, raise your area's MP so that it becomes too strong to be altered. The difference with deductive targeting is that instead of adding extra metal plating, you just kill the threat (less effort investment, but more targeted defense.)

Also, becoming the observer as attraction increases, this seems like an invocation where you and the entity briefly become as one. I can think of some good use cases for this, but also on the longer term I could see the subjugation of your personality to the goals of a greater being. It is interesting that you mention a point of almost perfect coincidence where maximum work could be done without loss of personality.


Yeah, it's basically an invocation. Except you're not trying to bring in an entity, but check to see which ones already do exist in the local area (or a known realm.) I'd recommend that you make sure you have more MP than the target, or else they might be taking control of you if they take notice (they gravitate towards you, rather than you gravitate towards them, so you have the more stable ground.) Let's call that position of maximum work, and minimum loss of self: equilibrium.

Side note: it could be useful to teach this method of targeting to servitors, and inform them of equilibrium, so they could effectively prey on weak MP blobs without ever risking starting a fight they can't win. That could be your automatic energy source. I'll have to think more about how to actually teach MP systems things.

Side note: has it occurred to you, that because dreams are not in our waking world, their time doesn't actually have to coincide with the wake? Have you also noticed that certain actions during dreams, will cause you to wake up? If you think of a dream as a rift, or stream of MP, when you're dreaming, your observer needs to be pretty close to the stream in order to stay attracted to it. Perhaps you could see your physical body as a constant MP attractive force. If your dreaming observer gets too far out of sync with the dream, it "lets go" because the physical body's MP is able to overcome the dream stream of MP. If you've ever played Assassin's Creed, this idea reminds me of the Animus. You have to try and stay in sync with the changing reality, or else it kicks you out.

MP Compression

This is an experimental method. It's conjecture. Try to find flaws and improve if you can.

If you can only generate a certain amount of MP in a limited time, it becomes impossible to break certain gravitational thresholds in order to make change. Let's say that you need 5 MP to manifest a metal cube, and that you can only ever maintain 1 MP at any given moment, of influence on the physical realm (anything more than this is instantly lowered, so 1 MP is your "equilibrium" value, even after banishing.) If you need 5 MP, you need to figure out how to split yourself into 5 entities at once (assuming you don't have servitors). I've got a theoretical solution:

Since you need 5 MP, you need at least 5 entities, for at least 1 second.
You'll need to be able to deductively target your work space's future, from the past. In order to do this, set up a clock. Pick any time to be the "compressed range" (where all your splits will be.) Let's pick 5:00 PM.
Now, let's plan so that there will be 5 MP throughout an entire minute at 5:00 PM. From 5:00 PM to 5:01 PM will be a compressed range at 5 MP.
Now, before 5:00 PM happens, you need to start filling it with observers. Because the range is 1 minute, each split has to last at least 1 minute of planning time (unless you can figure out a hack that lets you spend less time planning. Maybe you could visualize the clock in fast forward.)

At 4:55 PM, observe the future at 5:00 PM to 5:01 PM.
At 4:56 PM, observe the future at 5:00 PM to 5:01 PM.
At 4:57 PM, observe the future at 5:00 PM to 5:01 PM.
At 4:58 PM, observe the future at 5:00 PM to 5:01 PM.
At 4:59 PM, observe the future at 5:00 PM to 5:01 PM.
Because time is a spatial dimension just like the normal x,y,z it's as simple as a change in focus, in order to access the future.

When 5:00 PM comes around, you'll have 5 of you begin applying MP forces to whatever your target is, and you'll be able to manifest the metal cube. Though, the cube will likely demanifest the moment 5:01 PM comes around (unless other watchers in the area begin to start observing it.) If you were able to deductively target the 5:00 PM zone during the preparatory period, you should be able to deductively target your splits in order to verify for success (once the compressed period comes up.)

Observer Problem

There's still the problem of multiple definitions of the observable world, when there are multiple observers at once. We're working with concurrency on a multiple different discrete worlds level, but I think concurrency occurs at the level of a single observer. Each observer is on a separate time line. It's basically impossible to "collapse" observers into an objective world, because observers can't actually see each other, but instead see the bodies that other observers have attached to. Even with the deductive targeting of an observer, the perceived observer is still within the bounds of one observer (it's like the two TVs with different movies, in one TV thing.) I think I still have to assume that there is only ever actually one observer, and that it simply bends itself throughout time, A LOT.

Otherwise, if we're all in the same objective world, I have to ask, "Why am I perceiving being me, rather than someone else?" I have to assume that in my world, I have gravitational forces locking me to my body, and that in your world, you have gravitational forces locking you to your body. You could argue that its possible that there are two separate observers, and that because they are simply a certain distance away, their gravitational forces don't affect each other, each is bound to their own individual force, but I'm not sure the concept of distance even really applies at the level of observer interactions. Ultimately, "distance", at this level, just means data similarity.

It has occurred to me, that the cause of objectivity might be because of the same observer locking itself to multiple different representations at the same time (but sequentially.) Essentially, if I am locked to my body, and you are perceiving my body, then you are haphazardly connected to my observer, simply because you happen to be able to infer what I am seeing. You can "name" me, because it's possible for you to deductively target me. The data similarity between us makes us "close in distance" (even though we are in separate worlds.) So, objectivity is simply the result of the same observer making a whole ton of connections between different bits of data within a "close in distance" (data similarity) range. Things that have the same data, are the same. You can see MY body, because I happen to be seeing mostly the same thing as you.

That doesn't really explain gravity though, or an origin of time. Origin is inevitably arbitrary, because causation is arbitrary, which means that it should be possible to turn gravity on and off (same for time). Anything imaginable should be possible to manifest. Though it's practical to assume a gravitational force, for now, in the future, I think it would be prudent to analyze "why", or at least "how", so that we could theorize about how to override that "most basic" rule.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:53 am

Deductive Scanning
I see where you are going with this now. You bring up a good point about finesse. Its funny because computing power is so cheap, its easy to get into a mind set of brute forcing everything. My initial thoughts were like setting a firewall around my work space with a scorched earth style cleansing. But you have to assume you can generate more MP than that which you are opposing. Or suppose that something were to get through the firewall through otherwise legitimate access.

Now this has me thinking about Intrusion Detection / Prevention methods.

Also, your idea of diverting the attention to another source. Suppose you were being targeted by an powerful observer, to directly confront the assault would be much more difficult than diverting it.

My initial thoughts on doing something like this to my work space is that its a shared resource during the day. I would think that setting up a work space in a room where the windows were blocked, and access was limited would really be a necessary starting point. Otherwise attempts to alert on observation would be prone to misfires and false detection.

I also wonder if your deductive scanning method could be used by accident. For example, I have been working on meditation and focus for the last 3 months or so, and one night while I was doing what I do every night I couldnt shake this thought of watching myself from a position in the room. I would push it aside, but my thoughts kept drifting back to this observation. Keep in mind that my eye sight is physically blocked during my meditation practices, and yet I could see myself exactly. I didnt really think much of it at the time, but I didnt cleanse my area, of course now I am wondering if I was latching onto the observation of another while emptying my mind. Whether or not that is the case doesnt really matter, but it seems a plausible explanation.

MP Compression
Im still working my thoughts on this. Not the possibility of it, but the practicality first. Also, consider that if there is a place where linear time doesnt exist and we are going to make use of that, could you project backwards?

Consider a situation where you were the only observer of something that happened in the past, but could only be measured in the future. Isnt the idea of working magick to have a favorable outcome on this future test, just a situation where you are adjusting/modifying a past action?

Observer Problem
I dont know if its a problem. I always thought of people as being small fractions of a greater whole. Just as you dip your fingers into a bowl of water, the fingers in the water are separate entities, but they all belong to the hand. If people are the fingers, and the fingers have a limitation on observation perhaps based on our physical/dimensional make up, then you and I would observe ourselves as separate, unable to conceive of our connection in a higher or lower existence.

My earlier thoughts on this, before our conversations, I always thought of people as being disconnected from the whole until death or enlightenment. But, perhaps we are connected and death or enlightenment allow us to observer/perceive that connection.

Another Side Note
At some point we are going to have to go back through all this rambling to codify it, set aside definitions, and provide some kind of summary, if we want to use what we have discovered. :P
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:46 am

Deductive Scanning

If you just raise your area's MP by a lot, I think it's useless to try to do magick after that kind of scorched earth banishing. You're making it extremely hard to modify, in general, by raising the MP, so any sort of magickal effect you want to create will have to be a lot stronger than normal. You're actually better off trying to lower your area's MP as much as possible in order to make it more susceptible to changes. The best environment, in my opinion, for performing magick, is an extremely low MP area that has a few servitors keeping ambient forces out.

My initial thoughts on doing something like this to my work space is that its a shared resource during the day. I would think that setting up a work space in a room where the windows were blocked, and access was limited would really be a necessary starting point. Otherwise attempts to alert on observation would be prone to misfires and false detection.


Blocking windows is a great idea. It means that there are less perspectives to observe the room from, so it cuts down on the amount of places you have to scan.

Multiple mirrors placed around the area would probably make it harder to lock onto your location. A mirror means that you basically have to be in the room already, in order to properly resolve the location. It's kind of hard to lock on to an object that doesn't have a static surface, without knowing all about the room's surrounding objects, in order to calculate the mirror's surface for each angle of view. And it's very hard to locate a specific room if some elements are undefined until you get all of the others. There's a catch twenty two. You're trying to locate a room with a mirror, but you can't resolve the mirror until you have the room. The easiest way I can think of to target a room with a mirror (that I don't already know about), is to locate the room outside of it, then move in.

I also wonder if your deductive scanning method could be used by accident.


Definitely. You do it all the time. Look in any direction. Now turn your head slightly. You've just used the data about one perspective, to move to a similar perspective.
The only real difference, is that with a manual target, you have to fight against the MP force that naturally wants you to see through your human perspective.
It's definitely possible that another observer was there.

MP Compression

Im still working my thoughts on this. Not the possibility of it, but the practicality first. Also, consider that if there is a place where linear time doesnt exist and we are going to make use of that, could you project backwards?


I'm inclined to think that it doesn't make sense to think of the past in any reasonable sense, because if time is a point, then moving the point "forwards" or "backwards" is still a future thing, and the direction is irrelevant. Whether the change over time is positive or negative, it's still a change over time. It's kind of like asking if you can change the past by driving a car backwards. If you travel to the past, I don't think you're actually going to the "past", but are moving to a future that looks like the past.

Getting over my biases though, I think there might be some validity in a literal "past". If we treat each state of the universe as a completely different gravitational setup, rather than the universe as being an object pulled by a single gravitational force over time, we can infer that the universe would have to have been pulled by a different object, for each instant of time. So, instead of having one universe pulled by one object, we have one universe being pulled by a chain of objects, where each new future has a slightly higher gravitational force. It's like how instead of moving electricity by moving an electron, the electrons move like dominos, and stay roughly in the same places. You can treat the universe as a hot potato that is being passed from object to object. On this line of thinking, we could actually think of linear time as a stream of gravitational forces, so that linear time actually has some sort of defined shape.

Targeting the past would be a lot harder than targeting a future object, but you could probably use the knowledge that the past has just a slightly lower MP than the future, to make things easier. With this in mind, if you were able to modify the second largest gravitational force (past), it would likely have a large effect on the universe's end trajectory, such that the universe might be driven to attract to a slightly different future object.

Past = MP Force "behind" universe, that is just barely weaker than the Future.
Future = MP Force in "front" of universe, that is just barely stronger than the Past.

Consider a situation where you were the only observer of something that happened in the past, but could only be measured in the future


That's impossible. You can't be the only observer of some past event, because in order to measure it in the future, your future observer has to put itself in the past to read it (meaning at least 2 observers.)
Unless of course, you are talking about a ripple effect, where you might do something at t = 0, then read at t = 10, from t = 5000. Regardless, the future has to dip into the past at some point.

Isnt the idea of working magick to have a favorable outcome on this future test, just a situation where you are adjusting/modifying a past action?


You're not actually changing a specific past. You're changing which past (of many) you want. The measurement itself, determines which "past" is accessed.
Let's say you're trying to get a scoop of earth material. This is your measurement. Why would you try to turn a pit of sand, into a pool of water, when you can just change where you're scooping?

The advantage of compressing on a "future" location, is that some large force is likely to move you into the compressed location, so that you'll actually be able to use your investment.
Trying to compress in the past is like trying to store gold for easy access later, by dumping it into the ocean.
The future is just a predictable vector. If you could predict a reversal of time at any point, it would be perfectly reasonable to compress on the "past".

Observer Problem

I dont know if its a problem. I always thought of people as being small fractions of a greater whole.


Is that whole constant though? What if there's a whole bunch of "wholes", and they like to swap fingers every once in a while. The whole is then changing, subjective to the finger. In the same way, while you can guarantee that there is in fact a linear realm, you can't guarantee that you're always on the same one. How else could you explain how some people encounter dimensional shifts? Where they might wake up, remember a different husband, but be next to a new one, and have absolutely no evidence of their past realm.

My earlier thoughts on this, before our conversations, I always thought of people as being disconnected from the whole until death or enlightenment. But, perhaps we are connected and death or enlightenment allow us to observer/perceive that connection.


I think you were partially correct before our conversations. I see the human body as a gravitational force on the observer. When the human body is dead, the observer is free to be dispersed / expanded. I've currently adopted the perspective that we are always aware of everything all the time, but that our intelligence is not capable of noticing everything, so it ignores most things. I can't place a boundary on what is in my view. However, I can place a very hard boundary on what data I am capable of actually noticing (intelligence.) With this view, even in a solipsist's mind, the unseen apple does in fact make a sound when dropped; it's just that the solipsist didn't notice.

It's not really a problem, it's just that the paradigm is incomplete without thinking about this. I originally devised this line of thinking with one main rule: anything is possible. I treat causation as arbitrary, and then I figure out how to break it. If anything is possible, then it must be possible for the single observer, to become the all encompassing observer. There cannot be separateness. If the single observer can become the uber observer, then I can treat the uber observer as an evolution of the single one. So, they are the same, but at different levels of development. With this view, it is unnecessary to worry about which whole the single observer is a part of, because each whole is part of the evolution towards the most whole of the wholes. However, it must be understood that the mechanisms of the uber observer, are ultimately derived from those of the single observer. So, if you really want to understand mechanisms at a high level, you have to start low.

Another Side Note

Sooner would be better than later. When everything is summed, it's much easier to see where parts do not fit, and where there are holes missing. It makes refactoring a lot easier.
It would also help us synchronize our views, as I bet we have slightly different interpretations of the same concepts.

Should the summary include logical proofs? Or should it simply be a list of axioms? If the intention is to create a shareable summary, that could prove difficult. A non persuasive summary would be less so.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Sat Aug 05, 2017 2:50 am

Im going to approach it like this.

1) Attempt to wrangle what we have written into some kind of body of facts.
2) Define words that we have invented or redefined
3) Pull together references
4) Attempt to take the body of facts and keep it a logical narrative
5) Add sections where opinions can be made clear
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Sat Aug 05, 2017 4:06 am

Here is my first attempt, working backwards from the most recent posts.
Attachments
Everything.docx
(15.19 KiB) Downloaded 4 times
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:25 am

I've highlighted the suppositions in purple so that they stand out.
I've also changed the categories a bit. There's now "Ideology", "Entities", "Reality", "Forces", "Practical Techniques", and "Topics for Further Development".

The core of the paradigm seems to be about observers, so I figure it's important to give entities, their environments, how they evolve, etc., a special section. That's like our "basic building blocks of the universe" section. It tells us what primitives we are working with.

The section on reality, I've tried to focus on what things exist at a single moment of existence. My idea is that by separating "state" and forces from one another, we can treat "reality" as our working model, and "forces" as the tools we can use to modify the model. Separate the sculpture from the chisels.

I've moved practical techniques into its own section because I feel that having techniques mixed in with theory is kind of messy. It makes a better reference anyway if it's all grouped together.

The further development section can be treated as a queue of topics to address. Rather than put questions in the concrete theory section, it might be easier on organization to put all conjecture in its own part. I've left suppositions in their applicable sections in order to allow for the contesting of established ideas. Just highlight something in purple any time we become uncertain of its validity.

As for the ideology section, I decided that in order to have a full fledged paradigm, we should address ethics, etc. Besides that, I might be interested in the idea of religion creation / coven making. A level of direction would also help keep things on track.

It's a lot bigger now, so hopefully I haven't been too verbose. You missed quite a few things from the very beginning of this thread (my list of assertions on the first post), so I've added what I think was still valid up to this point. It'll probably take a bit of use before the framework is updated fully, and I may have added some experimental stuff that hasn't yet been discussed on here, so give it a once over for errors. I'm sure I've forgotten some things too.
Attachments
Everything2.docx
(13.99 KiB) Downloaded 4 times
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:16 am

Yeah, I only went over the second page of our posts before I called it a night. Ha. Ill look over what you put together and get back to you. I was trying to reduce paragraphs into bullet-ed sentences so we can determine the merit of the skeleton, before we throw all the meat on.

Thanks for saving me the time of re-categorizing, after reading and condensing my brain turned to mush.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:21 am

I've developed a few more concepts.

There's still a few basic things that are, unfortunately, missing. Such as how observers influence each other, whether forces can exist that are not observers, why my observer is locked to my body (the binding of an observer), a logical explanation for space, a logical reason for why observers might exert force, etc.

Observation is Existence

Anything that is not observed at some point within temporal space, does not exist. This is because reality is defined in terms of qualities, which can only be described in the context of an observer. If there are no observers, there are no descriptions, no data, and no existence.

Objective Magick vs Subjective Reality Switch

Regardless of whether a reality switch occurs, a magickal feat will occur within an objective environment. This means that magickal effects must be possible within objective environments. Even with a reality switch, the inhabitants of the new environment would be faced with an impossible event. So, regardless of whether a switch occurs or not, an objective environment’s rules are bent. Because of this, a switch seems unnecessary.

Causation Separation Model

The world is a state, and causation is enacted by entities outside of it. Because causation is arbitrary, it cannot be the objects within an environment that contain intrinsic causal natures. Rather, it must be arbitrary entities that cause effects on the object’s behalves. The process does not have power. Rather, it is an external intelligence that gives the process power.

Causation is Ritualistic

Because a state has no power, but is given power, normal scientific procedures are merely powered rituals. When oxygen, fuel, and ignition, are put together, that is a ritual, and an entity then decides that said ritual results in fire. There is no reason writing “ignite” on a piece of paper, should not cause a candle to light. It is simply that the “ignite” ritual is unpowered.

Under certain circumstances, it would be reasonable to think that writing “ignite” on a piece of paper before any candle is lit with a lighter, could create a link between the ritual and the effect of ignition, thus empowering the ritual over time. Eventually, it might be possible for the candle to be lit by simply writing on paper, and for the lighter to be skipped entirely.

Temporal Space

Think of this space as being like channels on a TV. Except the channels don’t just go up and down. The channels can have many different ranges. Instead of just x, there may be y, z, and so on. Your TV remote would have a directional pad to change channels.

Classical Space

This is the space that you think of intuitively. This is width, height, depth, and so on. Within temporal space, each “channel” has a classical space. Synonymous with a “realm”. A classical space is a single state of data. As states have velocity built into them, a classical space can be said to have causation built in.

Some definitions:

Local: Residing on the same classical space.
Non-Local: On a different classical space.
Temporal Velocity: a classical space’s rate of change towards some other state.

Necessity of a Natural State

A “natural” state is the state a classical space returns to over local time. This is arbitrary, and can be in flux. The “natural” state is equivalent to the classical space’s temporal velocity.

Classical Address

Data which is relevant to locating a position in classical space. This usually takes the form of an unchanging piece of data, or an “instant” of data. When following a classical address, you are tracking a relatively unchanging destination, so it is not necessary to be able to predict if the destination could change.

Temporal Address

Data which is relevant to locating a position in temporal space. This usually takes the form of a changing piece of data, or a “range” of data. When following a temporal address, you are tracking a changing destination, so it is necessary to be able to predict how the destination will change. Temporal addresses are used for locating things outside of the local realm.

Because time is indefinite on a non-local realm, it is important to know what time your target is located in. As the same classical address could exist multiple times over a very long period of time, it is necessary to look at the states surrounding the target classical address, in order to ensure that the correct time is selected. Instead of looking for “blue house”, you need to look for, “the blue house that was made by John Doe, who was the son of Blah.”

A classical address is like searching a book by a single word, whereas a temporal address is like searching a book by an entire sentence. Using a classical address is only useful if you already know what paragraph to look in.

If, at the very least, you know what classical space the target is in, you can locate them across time much more easily than if you did not. Technically, in an infinite universe where instances are pretty much guaranteed to repeat and be non-unique, it should be impossible to locate a specific instance. However, if you know what rules existed when that instance was created, you can locate it, because you know what context existed around your target.

It is important to note that though a temporal address might resemble a physical address once it is completed, it is not the outcome which is important, but the path to the outcome. If a 2D shape is used as a temporal address, the order that every line is drawn in is important. The difference is like that of drawing an earth banishing pentagram versus drawing an invoking earth pentagram. The symbol is the same, but the draw order is not.

Increasing need for temporal address complexity

When a temporal address is used, it should not be reused, because then there would be a level of ambiguity whenever an entity tries to target the address. Without the use of numbers, there is a need for an increasing complexity of temporal addresses.

This is only true for deliberately made addresses, such as a sigil. If you want to make an address without giving up any information about the environment outside of your ritual space, you might run into issues.

Temporal Accuracy

Using an address for anything except its magickal purpose reduces its temporal uniqueness. This means that if an entity is supposed to continuously feed power to a certain address, and the address is ambiguous, the entity has to split its power between all the different addresses.

For example, if you use a wand as part of a temporal address, using said wand for anything but magick could reduce its temporal uniqueness, and render it effectively useless.

Ambiguous temporal addresses

It might actually be beneficial in some cases to have an ambiguous temporal address. Though an entity’s power would be split because of ambiguity, the benefits might outweigh the costs. For example, if you want to make a specific ritual for spawning a fire ball, you’ll need to attune the ritual to some sort of power source, such as a servitor. If you told the servitor to spawn a fire ball every time the ritual was done, the servitor would have to split its power across all the different times that the ritual was performed. However, the ritual would work regardless of where you are, what time, etc. You could probably compensate for spent energy by just recharging the servitor.

Constancy of Motion

If temporal space is on the same continuum as classical space, then anything moving through temporal space must also be in motion, in a similar way to motion in classical space. Because local time never stops, we must assume that anything that continues to exist over time, must be moving through temporal space. We can apply a temporal velocity to objects, just like we can apply classical velocities to things.

With this constancy of motion in mind, it is impossible to have “raw” energy, because anything with a state, must also have a velocity, even if it is towards its own state.

This would also enforce a level of conservation of energy. Rather than have energy be “depleted”, simply realize that its state has changed such that its constant motion / force is no longer useful. If a car stops, we can realize that it hasn’t lost energy in a total sense, but instead, its force has been redirected from movement to being stationary. A change in energy then, is less like an expenditure, and more like a change in angle.

Problem with Internal Causation Rule

If a non-local classical space can accurately reference the local classical space, it should technically be possible for the non-local realm to influence the local realm. The internal causation rule more so means that if a force from a non-local realm enters the local realm, an address must have been available for the transference of said force. That’s all. An invitation for non-local force, is equivalent to making the local realm available, whether intentional or not. Poor security is equivalent to an invitation.

However, based on the seeming relative consistency of our local realm, it seems valid to assume that the local realm’s security is effective enough. Therefore, the Internal Causation Rule, should rather be thought of as an Internal Causation Guideline.

Security Measures: Predictability and Unpredictability

If a temporal address is necessary for non-local realms to influence the local realm, then a level of unpredictability means that on a whole, our temporal addresses would be harder to predict, and therefore be harder to lock on to.

However, if an unpredictable address is already known by a non-local realm, it would be extra easy for them to lock on to the local realm, because of the address’s uniqueness.

A secure realm would have a balance between unpredictable and predictable temporal addresses so that address leaks are not totally fatal, but on a whole, the realm is not easy to target.

On a side note, it could prove beneficial to create pseudo realms around an actual realm, so that anything trying to lock on to the actual realm, has a high change of accidentally targeting a countermeasure realm. This would be like launching a flare at a missile.

Security Measures: Memory Boundaries

An entity is forever unable to target any realm that they cannot describe. If you make a large realm that has both blue and red, then make a smaller realm inside of this large realm, that only has blue, the smaller realm would be a slave to the larger realm. The larger realm could influence the smaller realm, but the smaller realm wouldn’t be even able to see the larger realm. The restriction of access to qualities and concepts can be seen as as a potential security measure.

Observer Problem: Potential Solution

Rather than try to decide if there can or cannot be multiple observers, simply recognize that under certain circumstances either can be true. Different circumstances means different environment types for observers:

Directly Objective (“true” multiple observers) (single definition with many views)

In this type of objectivity, it is well supported for multiple observers to exist at once, because there is no redefinition for each observer. In order for an observer to enter a directly objective environment, it has to deductively target it, which means that when it enters the realm, it will already be in sync with it, thus no redefinition. It is literally impossible to enter without abiding by the existing definition.

Indirectly Objective (Host + Separate Clients)

The host maintains the actual environment, and other clients interact with the environment by methods supplied by the host. The actual environment is effectively encapsulated. The host would likely take the form of an observer which observes the entirety of the environment at once, in a god-like perspective.

The clients are not actually in the server, but instead experience objectivity indirectly. This level of encapsulation doubles as a security measure for the host. If the clients cannot know information about the actual server, they cannot deductively target it, and thus cannot modify it. Magick can be seen as either an alteration of the actual server, or as a reconnect by the client to a more “nice” server.

This level of security could help explain why magickal effects are not always visible to other clients connected to the same server. The magick is occurring on the client side, rather than server side, so it makes sense that no one else can see it. This differentiation could actually prove to be very useful. If the server has security measures, the client side could be used as a staging area for the development of hack tools.

Perhaps the server can still be partially accessed by the client, as it can be expected that there must be similarities between the client and the server, even if just barely. If the server draws the world in green, and the client draws the world in purple, the client might still be able to access the server just based on the shapes of things, rather than colors.

Subjective (single observer)

A realm which has a single observer. This, I assume, would have the characteristics of a sandbox. There would be no resistance whatsoever, but the observer might have trouble maintaining control if they are weak minded. This would be similar to a dream, in the materialist sense.

Further Observer Problem:

Assuming a directly objective realm, are all the observers really in the same realm? Or is every different perspective of a realm a different one? We need to look into how space itself is organized. Currently, I am biased to think that directly objective realms must exist without redefinitions, and must have “true” multiple observers, or else a build up of force would be seemingly impossible.

Intelligence without hardware requirements

Intelligence does not have to be programmed to be interpreted by some other hardware. By combining state with temporal velocity, an intelligence is quite capable of working as both hardware as well as software. It runs itself.

Natural return from order to chaos

This is likely biased, but it's still food for thought.

Assuming there is in fact a Chain That Binds sort of communication between watchers, the watcher hierarchy must inevitably turn into a pyramid. The highest observers enforce the lower ones, and also become the weakest, as they have less observers enforcing themselves. A system weak point seems necessary.

Ambient MP

MP us synonymous with a collection of observers. Because of the state combined with force principle, you cannot have “raw” MP floating around. Ambient MP would be equivalent to weak willed observers, though each observer would necessarily always have a target before it is diverted to a new task.

Variety of Watcher Scope

Watchers need no exist only at the highest all seeing level. They may also exist at a country level, city level, or even room level. Based on this, if we assume a higher level of watchers in an urban area, as more security would logically be required in order to balance out an increase of human observers, it might make sense for magick to function more easily in a rural area. We could learn a lot by estimating relative watcher concentrations at varying places.

Singly Linked and Doubly Linked force chains

A singly linked chain of watchers is unnecessary. An observer is capable of holding any amount of data, so it would make sense that a watcher could both apply force to a target, and also reinforce its superior by observing it as well. The concepts involved with varying types of linked lists could be useful.

Targeting and Influencing Dilemma

In order to influence a realm, you must be able to lock on to it. In order to influence a local realm, the current working method is to target a desirable non-local realm in order to “attract it”. However, when you try to influence the local realm, you are simultaneously losing your lock on it. If you try to cause an effect too quickly you lose your lock, and your influence is no longer working on the local realm.

I’ll call the act of failure in this way: “desynchronization”. In order to apply an effect, you need to “synchronize” with the local realm, then simultaneously “synchronize” with a non-local realm, without “desynchronizing” from the local realm.

Perhaps an easy solution to this problem would be to expand one’s observer in such a way that they can simultaneously focus on both the local realm as well as the non-local realm.

Scientific tests on magick are inaccurate

The mental states of experimenters are not generally taken into account when a scientist tries to perform an occult experiment. Quite literally, the experiment that an occultist does, and the one a scientist does, are totally different. Because of this, it makes sense that scientists would never be able to repeat the results of an occultist.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:03 am

Observation is Existence
Agreed

Objective Magick vs Subjective Reality Switch
I cannot find fault in this logic. I would say two things, one if the end state is the same and the type has no appreciable effect, then it doesn't matter, and two with Occam's razor, the switch does indeed seem unnecessary.

Causation Separation Model
Something along the lines of consciousness exists on the non-linear time realm, and happens to bind to the physical, and therefore all causation is rooted in the non-physical realm?

Something I just read in Liber Null is Peter Carroll's ideas on reality. The Kia being the primordial great source (stolen from AoS's initial work on Chaos Magick), the Aether being the realm of probabilistic semi-matter, and the physical realm. This concept could easily fit into our current logic, where in an observer is rooted in the Aether, and the Aether is the realm of non-linear time. It is an observer that causes elements of the Aether to manifest into the physical.

Causation is Ritualistic
If we take the perspective of the first conscious observer, proto-humans or whatever, as determining the nature and effect of physical elements, by your logic we have to assume that they caused the initial attributes that we currently define as reality. The oxygen, fuel, and ignition, example would have to be assumed by a creature that couldnt fathom it. This would lead us logically to assume that the attributes of objects do exist externally to observers, unless we propose that the first observer isnt human.

We cant determine the source by logic, so I think we have to assume that for some reason certain attributes, such as the fuel example, are more likely to occur than the word ignite written on paper. Now, I am not saying that these are immutable laws, but certainly some kind of constraint. I would think that the circumstances required for them to be equal would essentially require us to exist in another reality, or this reality and a different temporal point.

Temporal Space
Why do we need temporal space? Or by temporal space are you referring to the realm of non-linear time?

Classical Space
Are you saying that there can be multiple classical spaces? Multiple physical realms that are different and accessible through the non-linear realm? I thought you disliked the idea of the many worlds theory?
OR
Are you saying that each moment of classical space exists independently like a frame in a film, and by passing them through time we observe movement towards entropy?

Natural State
Agreed, good definition
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:18 am

Causation Separation Model

Something along the lines of consciousness exists on the non-linear time realm, and happens to bind to the physical, and therefore all causation is rooted in the non-physical realm?


The logic is that since causation is arbitrary, physical objects are basically just data flags. It doesn't make sense for a physical object to have an intrinsic "meaning" (effect), because if causation is non absolute, one representation (what we perceive to be a physical object), can mean many different things depending on the context (laws of the specific environment in question).

Think of an effect like a velocity. Does every red cube of the same size have to be moving right at 5 km/h? Though everything must have a temporal velocity, that does not mean that objects decide their own direction. If an object's effect is like a velocity, you can't expect it to always stay the same unless there is something else working to ensure it stays on course. There are storms, buildings, etc. The effect that an object holds, is the one most encouraged by the environment.

Something I just read in Liber Null is Peter Carroll's ideas on reality. The Kia being the primordial great source (stolen from AoS's initial work on Chaos Magick), the Aether being the realm of probabilistic semi-matter, and the physical realm. This concept could easily fit into our current logic, where in an observer is rooted in the Aether, and the Aether is the realm of non-linear time. It is an observer that causes elements of the Aether to manifest into the physical.


That sounds a lot like the concept I'm already working with, just different lingo. Just have Aether = Temporal Space. I could be wrong though. I haven't read AoS, and it's been awhile since I read Liber Null.

Causation Is Ritualistic

If we take the perspective of the first conscious observer, proto-humans or whatever, as determining the nature and effect of physical elements, by your logic we have to assume that they caused the initial attributes that we currently define as reality. The oxygen, fuel, and ignition, example would have to be assumed by a creature that couldnt fathom it. This would lead us logically to assume that the attributes of objects do exist externally to observers, unless we propose that the first observer isnt human.


Unless we assume that observers from different times can interact with each other. I think that the attributes do exist independent of some observers (humans), but only because the attributes are constantly being enforced by some other sect of observers ("god", ghosts, whatever). It's like a client versus server thing. The server is still maintained by some entity, even if it is external from the client.

We cant determine the source by logic


Imagine your point in time is a point on a very curvy graph. Now imagine that you can only ever see the past as a line tangent to your point on the curve. Have fun trying to follow that curve by following tangent lines. Still, there's got to be a better way. There's always a procedure. There must be some form of logic.

We cant determine the source by logic, so I think we have to assume that for some reason certain attributes, such as the fuel example, are more likely to occur than the word ignite written on paper. Now, I am not saying that these are immutable laws, but certainly some kind of constraint. I would think that the circumstances required for them to be equal would essentially require us to exist in another reality, or this reality and a different temporal point.


Agreed. The idea of this header was less about practicality, and more about pointing out that scientific procedure is no less nonsensical than me waving a panda doll around in order to do titration. One is just more attuned to power than the other. It's important to bring attention to the things we take for granted as absolute, else we cannot think to change them.

Temporal Space

Temporal Space
Why do we need temporal space? Or by temporal space are you referring to the realm of non-linear time?


I'm referring to a space containing spaces, or a time of times (one instant that contains all possible lesser times within it). Imagine that from the eyes of the most expansive awareness, you can see every state at once, as one eternal moment.

Yes, it's non-linear, but I don't think calling it non-linear gives it justice in just how curvy it is. It is a single image. It isn't flowing. I'm seeing it as a 3D grid. It's a space. Not the sequence of a single non-linear path. Non-linear time occurs on the grid whenever god decides to look at a sequence of things on the big painting.

I see temporal space as a matrix of impossibly entangled lines of observers. The observers don't really move in lines, so much as they jump from random space to random space. The idea that there is a line, is purely subjective. Look at a massive scene, now focus at one thing. Close your eyes, move your head slightly, and focus on whatever is in front of you now. You didn't move in a line on the painting. You looked at one point, then jumped to another. Now, assume that the reason you looked at the second point, was because of data in the first point. Imagine that all the points at disconnected spots, each point to another. It's a linked list, but I think it would be incorrect to call it a line.

Temporal = relating to time
Space = a range of things
Temporal Space = a range of times

Classical Space

Are you saying that there can be multiple classical spaces? Multiple physical realms that are different and accessible through the non-linear realm? I thought you disliked the idea of the many worlds theory?


That is correct.

I do dislike the many worlds theory. Or at least the way most people think of it. It's mostly just how they explain it as branches, and use probability. As I understand it, different realities are "created" at every branch of a decision. In my opinion, the worlds already exist, and chance has nothing to do with it. The idea of branching seems incorrect. And probability is just a reasoning method. Determinism is still a thing.

The idea that there are literal worlds, each with their own clocks, is rather tough. I'd sooner think of the other worlds as being tunnels created by restrictions in causation, than being living places. They can be experienced, but don't have to be. They are data sequences.

Are you saying that each moment of classical space exists independently like a frame in a film, and by passing them through time we observe movement towards entropy?


That is correct. The universe is like a ball with a velocity. The positions already exist, and now the ball just has to pass through them. That doesn't mean we can't say that the path has some sort of structure though.

The issue is that though each classical space exists independently like a frame in a film, each frame is configured to point to another frame. Causation is a part of the classical space, and it can be different for each space. This means that though the frames are all independent, they can force an observer to follow a specific path of frames. Don't think of time as a line. Think of it as a series of vectors which fire into each other.

Reasoning for a Most Complete Paradigm

The most correct paradigm is the one that can allow for any possible reality to exist within it. If causation is arbitrary, then anything must be possible, therefore absolutes are automatically invalid.
Rather than try to decide which of two conflicting ideas is correct for any specific context, build a paradigm that can explain both, using a higher level of terminology.
Ex: If you are arguing over whether A or B theory of time is correct, move your paradigm up a level, and explain under which conditions either would be correct.

If the question is: A or B, the answer is "correct" (assuming the answer relates to the most fundamental paradigm, and not a specific sub context)
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby Vap0rWar3 » Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:55 pm

Classical Space
The situation you are describing appears to me as if all possible combinations of actions exist at all times. This would seem like a waste of energy, and I think it would be more likely that the existence and stability of probable physical space would be the most stable and the farther you travel from that the less meaningful/substantive physical space would be.

It would be like the branching theory except that paths not taken collapse back into the natural state as the observers move farther and farther away temporally.

Probably the biggest difference between the two ideas is if we consider classical space to be observed AND either
1) All observers are spread across all possible actions/options of classical space
OR
2) All observers are contiguous/centrally positioned and classical space is what they are observing, with classical space at the edges of their observation disintegrating/returning to a semi-matter state.

Reasoning for a Most Complete Paradigm
Agreed, but we also want to avoid unnecessary complexity. I didnt see the reasoning behind the requirement of a higher temporal plane at the time.
User avatar
Vap0rWar3
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:55 am

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:16 pm

Classical Space

The situation you are describing appears to me as if all possible combinations of actions exist at all times.


Not quite. All combinations of things must each exist at some time, not all times. It's less about dynamic existence (has flowing time), and more about static linking (exists ready for time).

If we give observers the ability to move in non-linear time, I would assume that its necessary for observers at different times to be able to influence each other. If two discrete times can access each other, it makes sense to me that the discrete times must exist within the same overall system, hence temporal space. Relative to the observer, only some things will exist, but relative to another observer, other things could exist.

If your world has A, and another world has B, if A suddenly links to B, it is haphazardly linking to B as well, because B and the other world come as a package. It's an accidental invitation. By giving each Classical Realm their own "space" in Temporal Space, we can allow each one to perform their own functions, link things together, etc, on their own timelines. Then when realms link, there can be a randomness factor. They can invite more than they can think to invite, by accident. If this could not occur, then it would be impossible for a realm to expand its memory boundaries. If realm B contains realm A, realm A has only blue, and realm B has blue and red, then realm A can only ever discover the color red by targeting the blue components of realm B, and hoping that they accidentally happen across red.

Even if things don't technically exist all at the same time, there are "packets" of associated data, that exist at all times, waiting to be introduced to existence.

This would seem like a waste of energy, and I think it would be more likely that the existence and stability of probable physical space would be the most stable and the farther you travel from that the less meaningful/substantive physical space would be.


Energy expenditure is based on perceived change. If the observer isn't in the realm in question, then no change occurs, and no energy is spent. There is no energy expenditure beyond the observer's locality. Nothing is happening outside of the local realm until the observer links to a specific non-local realm, out of all its possible states.

If you have a complex machine that has no driving force applied to it, the interconnected gears still exist in their groupings, despite the lack of a force. Treat temporal space as a massive library of complex machines, and the observer as the engine which chooses to drive specific ones (within Classical Space). No energy is expended until the observer puts things into gear.

It would be like the branching theory except that paths not taken collapse back into the natural state as the observers move farther and farther away temporally.


Exactly. Except I don't think that the separate branches exist, so they don't need to collapse. It's not so much a matter of taking one discrete path or another. There are no prebuilt roads that Classical Space follows.

Imagine you have path A, path B, force A, and force B. Force A pushes the observer down path A, and force B pushes the observer down path B. Now let's say that Force A is just slightly stronger than Force B (50 units > 49 units). We could say that the observer moves down path A, because there's only two paths, but that would ignore force B completely. That's like pretending that Force B doesn't exist. And you can't do that, because if something exists, it has to have an effect. You can't just leave variables unaccounted for.

So, generate the taken path by adding all the forces together:
Observer's Path = [weight] * Path A + [weight] * Path B

All forces are internal to the local realm, so "paths" can't exist in a rigid form outside of it. The local realm creates the path as it moves. Or, it links to some other forces, which adjust the path. Either way, it's all internal. I would agree that "paths" are dissolved by the natural state, so long as we agree that "path" = "force towards a state" = "unfollowed vector". There was a potential for a "branch", but it never happened.

1) All observers are spread across all possible actions/options of classical space


That seems very wrong. This would imply that if I had two paths, and took one, I split to take the other path as well. That doesn't make sense. How did the one observer turn into two?
If you switched "classical space" with "temporal space", that would be correct.

All observers are contiguous/centrally positioned and classical space is what they are observing, with classical space at the edges of their observation disintegrating/returning to a semi-matter state.


Agreed. The least reinforced elements will inevitably be overtaken by the most reinforced elements. Hence, unmaintained regions (the edges) of classical space would be constantly in flux.

Reasoning for a Most Complete Paradigm

Agreed, but we also want to avoid unnecessary complexity. I didnt see the reasoning behind the requirement of a higher temporal plane at the time.


Yes, we should simplify things as much as possible. This wasn't a dig at your disagreement. I had planned to add it for a while.

Observation is Existence

Better explanation:

Observation = read / write. You can only know something exists if you have measured it, or you have placed it yourself.
It would be illogical to assume the existence of something that is both undetected as well as unplaced.

Forces as IO Operations

Received force:

A read of data.

Dealt force:

A write of data. A write of data is equivalent to a read by another observer. An intermediary medium for data transfer is unnecessary. As well, there is no such thing as an explicit "write".
In order to perform a write, you simply hold data, and other observers can read it from you. Changing what data you are observing is equivalent to writing new data, as the observer itself is the memory register.

Side note: is there a speed of observation which is artificially enforced somehow? Perhaps through the use of atomics and mutexes?

A read is a write

By carrying a unique idea, that is very easy to unambiguously address by other observers, you are effectively carrying a torch in a dark cave full of powerful monsters. It's impossible for forces to not notice the data. Using an idea as bait, it should be possible to trick beings into executing your will, by making them "chase you".

Hidden Reads

Using a server and client relationship to explain existence, it would make sense that the character you play as on the server, would have automated functionality as well as controlled functionality. This means that though you have a controller (observer), something else maintains your body's programming, and something else can execute your body's programming, without your being aware.

As the server to client interface is likely limited for security reasons, it's likely that your body is performing reads and writes on data, without your being aware. The body then, is your "subconscious", and the interface between your body and the observer, acts as a data censor. You don't know everything about your body, because your observer isn't your body. If you're having difficulty with magick, it could be because automated parts of your body are performing actions that conflict with the parts of your body that you actually have control over. It could prove fruitful to learn to program what are normally automated components.

Observer Independence

A state must always be resolved relative to a singular reference point. An observer doesn't have a physical location, so it doesn't make sense for them to exist as things within an objective location. They are memory registers. A classical space is a state, and observers hold states. So give each observer a classical space.

Rather than have one place which is filled with observers, have one place which is accessed by observers. Server + Clients. The clients collaborate to decide what the state of the server is. If the clients have mostly synchronized data, the majority of the writes to the server will be in consensus. Any mild differences between observers, could explain "unstable stuff at the edges of space" within the mostly objective server.

Classical Space is infinite

You can't walk from classical space to temporal space. When you access a non-local realm from the local realm, the non-local realm becomes local. It is assimilated into the classical space before you can access it. In this way, you can think of classical space as an infinitely self generating environment. When you try to walk into an unloaded "chunk" (think minecraft), it is generated as you move. Classical space never ends, because it just keeps branching out.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

Re: Paradigm Check

Postby blindwake » Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:59 pm

Realm Ownership

When Neo entered the Train Man's realm, he lost all his supernatural abilities. The train man was god in his own realm. Neo could only be god in the matrix. My realm, my rules. Your realm, your rules.

In order to enter another person's "realm", you have to deductively target it, and you have to read it. Therefore, to enter another person's realm, is to accept their rules, and give up power. To read something is to accept a write committed by another, and receive a force. Why else do you read, if not to do something with the data? In this way, data is a command to its reader.

When something reads my data, in doing so, it accepts my rules, and gives me power over it. In this way, I imagine that entities could be controlled. As long as your realm is configured to protect you, or make you impervious to damage, it would be impossible for an entity to both find you, as well as inflict damage. By finding you, they would be accepting your protection's power as well.

Owner = the person that does not read
Non-Owner = the person that does read

It would seem impossible to stop reads all together. Just avoid data traps, and all should be good. If the local realm is configured to be stable, and hard to change magickally, reading the local realm into its stable form would be an effective form of banishment.

This concept is rather difficult when it comes to something like healing. If a person comes to you with a gaping wound, and you accept that the person is wounded, you've almost accepted the rules that say you need medical equipment. Rather than accept a futile rule set, it might be more effective to lay a "healing trap". Rather than read the wound into a death sentence, write that the wound doesn't exist, and allow for the wounded person to read the "no wound" data (superimposed on them), as if they are accidentally stumbling across a trap. You don't force it on them. You just put it so close to them that they pretty much have to accept the influence.

Side note: I've been reading a book called "The Physics of Miracles" by Richard Bartlett, and I'm finding that a lot of the concepts coincide with this paradigm, if not in a bit more of a watered down and more ambiguous way. If you find a free copy somewhere, you might find it interesting.

Traps

On the topic of traps, it has occurred to me that we need to spend some time thinking about banishing methods, and general security. If you were to perform the wrong action, with enough MP, it really wouldn't be that hard for an entity to hijack it and kill you in a quite physical way. It wouldn't even be that hard.

For example, one day during the night, I decided I'd try to manifest a person I know into showing up at my house. If the actual person had been sleeping at the time, reality would have no easy path to move that person over to my house. If I wanted an instant result, I would basically be completely overriding reality, and I would be effectively summoning a secondary person. Given any lack of ambiguity in the summon, pretty much anything could read the summon, and with its lack of rules, they could reinterpret it into anything they want. I'm basically giving out a free invitation to random entities at that point, and that could prove fatal outside of neophyte level affairs.

This would be a self trap. I'm creating an ambiguous invitation, which allows pretty much anything to attack me through it (if I'm unlucky). They gain access to my realm, without me imposing a rule set on them.

Side note: something as simple as turning on a light could act as a banishing method. If you can't see in the dark, then the space is ambiguous, and could flux. If it's bright, you're constantly reading it into its stable state, and flux is very unlikely.
I can't wake up. Can't kill the ideology.
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:58 pm
Location: I'm Dreaming

PreviousNext

Return to Beginners Info

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Bridge by mehdiplugins.com