TriumphantGeorge Compendium (Part 12)

POST: /u/Kazymir told me to stay off this sub...

Plot twist: Nobody was human anyway, they were just "having a human experience". Although I won't hear a word said against The Intelligence. He's knows loads of interesting facts, always gets his round at the bar, a generally nice guy. It's best not to mention his "appendages" though...

I'm just on a mission here. There are actually people who newly came here and seriously think this stuff is real so I'll just answer them the truth about all this being a joke.

The idea here is that people can take it or leave it: do the experiments and see what happens, or not. There's no debate or opinion to be had. There's no worldview being pushed; except try stuff see if it works or not. If it's not for you, nothing is lost, except a bit of time, which was probably going to be spent in bed or in front of the TV anyway. Think of it as a practical /r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix or /r/Occult centred around a particularly powerful active metaphor built on the philosophical concept of Idealism.

If it's just a kind of metaphor that's nice. People can use it to have fun and relax their mind. But people in here are actually talking about literally jumping dimensions. So this isn't a metaphor anymore. They're lying so much nonsense that it literally hurts my brain. I dont understand how people can be so stupid to believe in this bullshit.

It's a metaphor to trigger a genuine effect. The "dimensions" imagery does get confusing; it would be better to say something like "state jumping" or "format shifting". But then you have to talk about the structuring of mind and conscious experience. Changes are experienced. The nature of those changes, that's something else. It is easier to do just by having a go. But note that nobody's pushing it here - "there's an interesting phenomenon, you might be able to leverage it, up to you".

They aren't real the people just think they are.

Hmm, how do you tell the difference? If something was one way but is now another way, if a prior event seems now not to have happened, is that not "actually real"?

Or do you mean like "in a real way beyond our sensory experience"?

Not sure what you mean by placebo and biases. What's the mechanism behind those?

The Placebo Effect is a scientific proven effect, that you believe to actually feel a change, even though there is none.

That is not what the placebo effect is. The placebo effect is a genuine change which occurs despite there being no mechanistic cause for it. Many good studies. This one is quite interesting. To repeat, the placebo effect means an "actual" result. That's why people are interested in studying it!

Biases is very general meant.

You are reaching for something like "confirmation bias" here, I suppose? That certainly occurs. Here though, we are talking about something a little different. Hmm. I think you have mixed some things up here: hypnosis, confirmation bias, placebo effect, sensory experience, the concept of "the real".

But it comes down to something quite simple: if you experience something, and your experience remains consistent with it afterwards and doesn't revert, in what way is that not "real"?

So like you said i mean the "in a real way beyond our sensory experience" - real.

There is no "real" beyond sensory experience. Our consistent, intersubjective sensory experience is exactly what we call real. Anything else is... imagination. Imagining that there is something else beyond what you are experiencing - a world we can never reach that is "how it really is". Now that is fantasy!

What is a headache except for the sensation of an ache in the head area? If that sensation goes away, then your headache has been solved.

This is very important generally:

• Not having an explanation for something doesn't mean it isn't a real phenomenon.
• Not understanding something does not mean it doesn't happen.

If we don't accept that, then science wouldn't get anywhere, because fresh observations usually don't have models to back them up. (In fact, the story of science has often been about resisting new discoveries because they can't yet be accounted for, but that is a different conversation.)

[EDIT: Please take this in the playful spirit in which it is intended! Upon re-reading, it might sound more aggressive than it was intended to be!]

Placebo Effect

That's what i meant that nothing changed. You NEVER got a medicine that helped, your mind just tricked you and by tricking yourself it surprisingly helped.

Perhaps this is a language issue! Something did change. Your body did change. We agree on this, right?

What you are trying to say is maybe: "expecting that something is going to happen gives the same result as doing something which is supposed to make it happen". Of course, perhaps all pills are placebo-based. Perhaps they don't really do much of anything anyway. Perhaps all medicine is "pretend" to some extent - whether because the doctor believes in it, or the patient believes in it.

Maybe we should update our sentence to say: "one person expecting that something is going to happen gives the same result as another person expecting something is going to happen"... ;-)

After all, it does seem as though the truth wears off over time [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off].

Science and The Real

Anyone who says something changed and didn't revert afterwards is simply lying. That stuff never happened. I don't believe you because it's impossible and the possibility of it being impossible is 100% and scientists can prove that.

So you are saying:

• That even if someone has an experience of something changing, they are lying?
• And that scientists can prove something is impossible?
• And that scientists have or could design and implement a study which could examine this effect?

I suggest that all these statements are dubious or incorrect.

There is a "real" beyond sensory experience. I know a lot define their sensory experience as real BUT you can't do that always. There are many sorts of real.

You are incorrect and you completely misunderstand what science is and what it can do. To repeat:

• Science makes observations using the senses.
• Science notices regularities in those observations.
• It picks out those observations which can be easily repeated by different people.
• It gathers accounts from those different people.
• It then makes up stories - conceptual frameworks, models, metaphors - which connect the different observations, using the imagination of the scientist.
• Science = senses + imagination.

And that's why it works so well. It takes the common, repeatable, simplified aspects of experience and, with imaginative stories, makes powerful tools from them.

Scientific Proof

Anyone can scientifically prove that dimensional jumping doesn't exist.
You can prove scientifically that it's impossible and definitely nonsense

Really? How... exactly?

Meanwhile, do you believe that you are conscious and that you have thoughts? Prove it. (It's a good exercise to go through.)

I suggest that what underlies your post is faith and is completely unscientific. Particularly since you are using phrases like "the mind tricked you and by tricking yourself it surprisingly helped", as if it were an explanation of some sort..

My Brain Is Lying

And the people who believe to see or feel a change that didn't revert afterwards are either lying or their brain makes them believe that it's real (with their sensory experience) even though in reality it is not.

How exactly does this work?

Are you not concerned that, right now, all the things you think are true are just "your brain tricking you and making you believe they are real"? That in fact, your experiences are just based on ideas you picked up and believed along the way, with no grounding in fact whatsoever? ;-)

Hey, will follow this up later, but we need to be clear on our definitions of the placebo effect.

The Placebo Effect

From the 2014 paper Outsmarting the Placebo Effect we have the following definition:

The placebo effect—real improvement brought on by the expectation of receiving treatment—can offer significant relief for patients.

To emphasise: The placebo effect is when actual persistent change occurs. The patient does not receive treatment but has the same outcome as if they did receive treatment. What you have described is... something else. You are describing someone "feeling better" but not really being better. The placebo effect is when people actually get better. Otherwise it wouldn't be an effect worth commenting on at all!

To emphasise again: The placebo effect is when something actually does change even though no active medicine was applied. It is not just about subjective experience. The mechanism is unknown, but a result is obtained without there being an apparent cause.

It is nothing to do with being "fooled". Unless it's the whole universe, reality itself, that is "fooled". Which would be good enough for most people, I'd say...

A1: get em george

Heheh. Well, I'm just pushing for clear-thinking all round...

The Placebo Effect - Continued - Untricking

Right, I think we're getting clearer now, and I see where we're disagreeing. Here's my broad definition:

The placebo effect is the phenomenon of someone's symptoms improving when they've only been given a dummy treatment, or even after they've just seen a doctor.
--Clinical trials and medical research, NHS UK

(Note, I don't endorse the site, just as I wouldn't endorse WebMD either, I just grabbed it because it was a good phrasing. The original article that got me exploring this was actually a New Yorker article back in 2011.)

Would you agree with this? The reason I'm pushing for this is that it's not just "feeling better". Does that make sense? In other words, if there is a mechanism it is not simply, say, pain suppression. That's why I push back against the idea that you are being "fooled by your brain". Which is no explanation at all.

If I were to offer an account of the placebo effect (the alleviation of symptoms by a non-active process) I would say it's to do with a "release" of some sort - an "allowing". I wouldn't say the brain is being tricked, so much as it is being un-tricked. Which is where a link comes in...

I'll try and dig this out, but there was a good study of back pain a while back. People would go to the doctor, complaining of pain, and they'd get scanned and there would be misshapen discs and so on. Operations would follow. However... people with the exact same apparent issues had no pain, no restriction. The deformations weren't actual causal to the pain; they were only being picked up because attention had been drawn to them.

In the same way, I suspect that many "issues" are non-issues in fact. That the "causes" detected are often unrelated to the experience of the patient, and only being discovered because of the investigation that results from the complain. In other words, "placebo" is a matter of there not being much of an illness in the first place. This is different to "healing" which is a whole other thing (it may be a matter of degree, however).

...just like I did on the whole dimensional jump-thing.

We've likely lost focus here, so let's bring it back around: how does this related to dimensional jumping, in your view?

The Placebo Effect - Continued - Double Tricking!

Let's perhaps summarise the placebo effect as you have discussed it so far (because we really want to focus this on dimensional jumping). I think I didn't properly communicate my idea on "untricking" so we'll put that aside. Let's also put aside the negative placebo effect, to help us stay focused.

Taking into account your whole comment, you are saying:

• The placebo effect is when your brain "tricks you" into feeling better, when there is no apparent physical change. In this case we have (say) been experiencing pain, and after the placebo treatment that pain is no longer experienced. (I am putting aside that symptoms more generally are often alleviated, not just pain and the like. However, that's not important for our discussion.)
• Dimensional jumping is when someone imagines that the world has changed, but in fact it has not. If they think there is a visual change, they are crazy or fuzzy-headed. (I am putting aside the possibility that people are lying about their accounts.)

In both cases you are saying that the only possible thing that can happen is that we might "feel a bit different". Anything beyond that, and we are "tricked and wrong", no matter what our experiences are. That...

No matter what seems to happen, we are tricked and wrong, or not clear-thinking enough, or mentally ill, or lying.

Is that really your position? You have offered no mechanisms for "biases" and "placebo", so really the only explanations you are offering are illness or lying.

It seems to me that you are starting from the position that all that can happen with regards to 'placebo' or to 'jumping' is that the brain can trick you into a feeling, or that you are wrong somehow. You are screaming "it can't be true! no matter what!". This is hardly an research-based approach...

If I could guarantee you an experience, an experience that was undeniably more than just "feeling" or "biases", an experience that was so obviously about the big world changing rather than just little you, the world coming at you with changes from the outside - would you take it?

Do you like owls?

Sorry man. I'm done talking to an uneducated guy who doesn't understand the basic knowledge that is taught at school and believes in Scientology and supernatual stuff that doesn't exist.

I read your other post. Not sure why you are talking about Scientology and the supernatural! Okay, quick summary response (I'm not talking about the subreddit topic here, this was all about science, perception and consciousness). Your problem is that your education in science, philosophy and metaphysics probably is stuck at high-school level. That's not a problem of course, but it does leave you in the position where you "do not know what you do not know". Most of the problems with our discussion was because you haven't really thought about these things properly and in depth. Things that seem "obvious" to you are actually not so when you look deeper into the details. In physics we have tackled lots of things (although we still don't have a good description of quantum mechanics other than "it's maths and it works"), but when it comes to explaining the mind we are basically right at the start. We are not as far along as reading popular science articles would have you believe. I'll leave you with one final thought to ponder: Do you genuinely feel, right now, that your experience is made up of neurons? If you don't, that means there is a gap we need to find an explanation for. (There are actually many gaps like this in our explanations.)

Oh, here's a nice article from Nature [dead link] that you might find an interesting read. It might help make my "imagination + imagination" concept a little clearer for you.

EDIT: You might want to adjust your tone a little in future, to a more respectful one. Sometimes when we think we are not understood or say that someone else is ignorant, it is actually our own lack of understanding and our own ignorance that is own show. This can later turn out to be an embarrassment for the commenter - especially on a public forum like this.

POST: I'm so confused.

If you make a change, not everything changes. One analogy is like changing a TV channel, but it's maybe more like watching a different version of the same story. Most of it is the same, some changes.

POST: [deleted by user]

You are changing aspects of your experience through intention; you are not deleting yourself!

POST: Do you keep all previous knowledge when you jump?

I you lost all of your knowledge, you'd not know about it. If you made a dramatic "jump" and had no memory of it or what came before, it would just be everyday life for you...

Generally thought, the idea is to make changes and retain the memory of the act and of the prior state.

==So you could technically lose your knowledge? But in the example I used, e.g. worse test scores, which people say has actually happened, loss of knowledge wouldn't be a problem?

Well, it really depends on the details so it's hard to tell. You end up with worse test scores - are the tests now different to that you remember (knowledge is the same), or are the tests are the same ( knowledge is correspondingly not available), or tests are the same but still can recall knowledge. All are possible really, right? You want to deliberately specify I suppose.

It's a neat thought experiment to think that we may lose our previous knowledge. We could be jumping all of the time but forgetting and we'd never know. Maybe we do jump all of the time and the key to dimensional jumping isn't to actually jump, but to take your memories with you.

We could be respawning a new world-pattern from scratch every morning, and we'd never know. Enjoy today, /u/Aeropro, because it's the only day you will have ever existed! ;-)

POST: I have a few questions

[POST]

Hello I have been a lurker of reddit for some time now and have finally decided to make an account. I will get straight to the point. I have been a sufferer of chronic halitosis for awhile now and it has affected my social life and who I've become. I want to know if it is possible for me to jump to a dimension where I don't suffer from halitosis. I have done everything possible to try and cure myself. I brush and Floss 3 days have tried countless of bad breath cure products, oil pulling and none that has worked. I don't remember the last time I have been genuinely happy.. I have ran out of ideas and feel like this could by my solution. Can I jump to a dimension where I don't suffer from this? If so how do I picture or say to myself what I want when I'm doing the mirror technique?

[END OF POST]

Hi, sorry to hear, that sounds a real pain. Stuff like that can really wear you down, I really sympathise. :-(

The answer is, yes, you can use these techniques for that sort of thing. You might want to begin by checking out a couple of things though. One problem is that if you are (understandably) focused on this and fighting it in certain ways, they can imply it and persist it. You can end up imagining the situation you are in, ever more deeply. In other words, you generally have to be careful to intend-imagine being in a good situation rather than not being in a bad situation.

Fancy doing a little experiment? Lie down on the floor, get quiet, and see if you can summon the what it would feel like to be a person with 'confident breath'? I don't mean any physical sensation of your body, but rather the "what would it feel like if this had been all sorted".

See what happens with that as a starting point.

Hello. Thanks for your kind words.. yes it is mentally painful I have psychologically scarred myself because of this.. Every time something rubs their nose or make a disgusted face.. I know they are doing that cos of me. There is nothing more in life that I want but to cure myself of this.. I have a job that I like and a wonderful family. It has affected me so much that I have thought about committing suicide. But I have long past that obstacle and learnt there is more to life. I've tried that experiment last night but I struggled to imagine what it would be like to have confident breath.. I kept getting images of me talking and people just rubbing their nose basically just negative thoughts. And what's even worse is there is this girl who likes me and I like her but I can't even take her out on a date because of my breath.. I don't know what to do.. do you have any tips?

That sounds so frustrating. I'm pleased you've realised it in context though (that's it's a nasty pin in an otherwise comfortable cushion). First, I'm going to give you some practical advice: Get yourself some Neem toothpaste and mouthwash. It's magical stuff for keeping the mouth happy more generally, I've found, clearing up little flare-ups. Definitely worth a spin for you. Okay, stage two of the experiment. You've got the idea now: we're going to work towards you being able to generate the feeling of what it will be like when you're sorted... This time, you're going to do the same thing, but deliberately imagine situations where people smile and respond as they will when this is all fixed. The important thing here is that you imagine the situations as if looking through your own eyes, being there, having the experience. If the downer images you get are pretty much the same all the time, I want you to change those images into version where people are smiling, chatting, and you are responding, smiling chatting and relaxed. Again, we're looking for how it will feel when things are great. Okay?

Bonus paragraphs...

• Bonus 1: When you've done that, you are going to be more specific. You are going to imagine, as if it were happening, a situation with that nice girl which meant that this had already been sorted. Totally immerse yourself in and enjoy that imagining. Right?
• Bonus 2: There's something extra to be careful about here. When we have something we are unhappy or worried about, it's a fact that the world tends to confirm our fears. Not just confirmation bias, it tends to give us a little more than that. So I want you to be careful of looking out for signs that people are responding to your breath. Just decide to give up on that, and be okay with how you are now, for now - because it will change soon.
• Bonus 3: Maybe once you've got "the feel", you should ask the girl out anyway? And you're gonna recall the "vibe" you've developed doing the exercise. Try some neem, load up on mints if you need a crutch, then "fuck it!" and enjoy some fun. You'll regret it later if you don't. And if its doesn't work out... oh well, next time!

I have a gut feeling that this [impacted wisdom teeth] is the culprit.

Trust that feeling. There's "something" about wisdom teeth. I had massive problems with my wisdom teeth (your whole body responds to them being there, not just your mouth). I had a very powerful "intuition" about them ("get them removed now, TG!") before they ever caused a problem...

So I think you're definitely on the right track (booking to get them removed and assigning responsibility to them).

POST: New here, with questions.

The "dimensions" are metaphorical. It's a way of saying you can shift your experience from this configuration to that configuration. You are deciding to make a change, detaching from your current experience and allowing it to shift. The whole "decisions create alternative universes" thing is a bit overblown. A better way to say it is that all possible experiences are available, but your "next-moment" is normally limited by your current situation and expectations. "Jumping" is a way of loosening those limitations, so you can jump to a farther position on the Infinite Grid of All Possible Moments. All patterns of experience are there already, it's a case of traveling to them.

(Fundamentally, the universe has no "dimensions" - that's a structure our mind imposes. It's more like an "infinite gloop" of dimensionless facts, perhaps.)

See links in sidebar for techniques and metaphors.

POST: If you think dimensional jumping isn't real...

[POST]

Go prove it then. Go prove that what this sub reddit is based on isn't true. Try jumping. Just know that the whole mirror technique is just one technique. There are other techniques. Don't forgot to be very observant. Do more research. Be a bit more open-minded.
Oh and sorry if this doesn't belong here.
Edit: Such great discussions. Well I haven't done DM yet because I am... Not quite ready. Maybe when trouble arises I will try it.

[END OF POST]

Fine words of encouragement! The challenge has been set! :-)

I was kind of worried that this wasn't suppose to be here. I do hope people notice this.

You've captured the right attitude totally. The sidebar got updated a couple of days ago with basically the same thing:

NOTE
There is no established theory of "jumping" or its mechanism, although there are numerous ways of viewing its nature.
It is for readers to decide for themselves through personal investigation and introspection whether jumping is appropriate for them or not.
An open mind combined with healthy caution is the correct mindset for all approaches targeted at the subjective experience.
Never believe something without personal evidence; never dismiss something without personal evidence.

If people aren't interested or don't care, that's totally fine. And nobody should believe something just because someone else says so (even if they like the idea). But this is a "personal experience" kinda thing so it can't be dismissed only because it sounds quirky.

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

In this case, the assertion being made is: "if a person does this thing, then the person will have this experience". Nobody can supply proof of that to the person, he must examine the matter for himself.

A3: All scientists must have a hypothesis and begin their experiments before the burden of proof can be established. That's what we're doing here; experimenting. That's fine if you don't want to try something before it's proven, but you won't be the kind of person who discovers anything new or interesting, unless its by accident.

I understand that. I read the title/first sentence, "If you think dimensional jumping isn't real...go prove that what this sub reddit is based on isn't true", as basically the same thing as someone saying that I can't prove that they don't have an invisible pet unicorn. The burden of proof lies in the person making the extraordinary claim (and I would classify jumping dimensions as extraordinary). If someone comes up with proof that dimensional jumping is real, then I will stop viewing this subreddit as simply a cool place to come to read neat stories.

A3: Being from the other side of the fence, I got a different meaning from those same words.
AFAIK there can be no proof for this phenomenon, by definition, outside your own experience. Knowing this, I read his statement not as an attempt to have you prove a negative (impossible, I know) and then present it to us all. I took it more as a challenge to suspend your disbelief and try it for yourself because at this point its all we can do.

Like /u/Aeropro, I read it the other way also. That this subreddit is based on a subjective experience, so you have to seek out the subjective experience in order to prove to yourself that there is no basis for the subreddit. It's fine to leave it open or to just not care, of course, but denying there is an effect just because we have no explanatory framework for it is meaningless. The notion of "dimensional jumping" is the driver for and a way to explain changes. Like any other "cause and effect" type story, it's a way of joining two experiences together to make it easier to "understand" (read: to repeat and leverage an apparent connection). Since we can't get behind the scenes, as it were, of this sort of phenomenon, you can't experience a mechanism behind the effect. (We never can, really, even in science, but at least there we are in the realm of shared observations, and so we can share a narrative fiction to go along with them.) So we make up one, subject to revision.

A1: I agree that the burden of proof is on those who claim it is real. But I also think it is a purely subjective experience. No one can experience your jump except for you, and you can't prove you have had that experience with anyone else. I have no interest in proving DM is real to anyone. I don't care if someone else believes or not. It doesn't affect me. If you are curious, then explore it. If you are not, then go away.

Q: I agree that the burden of proof is on those who claim it is real.
No, it is not. You can not prove a negative assertion. While I will attempt to say this with as much civility as possible, I have also noticed that pseudoskeptics regard their social acceptance of anyone who disagrees with them, as some sort of prize to be won, when it is not. Your acceptance of me is not required, and neither, for that matter, is your approval of my state of mental health. You are entirely welcome to consider me as being completely insane if you wish to do so; because compared with pseudoskepticism and scientism, I quite seriously consider insanity to be genuinely preferable.

I think the commenter was generally in favour though: as it's a subjective experience you can only prove it to yourself. You are very right about social acceptance though. I think it's part of a more general problem: that subjective experience is dismissed in general. Which is ironic, since that's all we have really, and "objective" experiences are merely subjective experiences which are simple enough to communicate by language (the are words for it), and regular enough that enough people will have experienced them in order to understand the content of what is being said.

[COMMENT]

A1: I think it's part of a more general problem: that subjective experience is dismissed in general.
A big part of the problem with pseudoskeptics, is that when they say they require proof, they usually aren't even explicit in their own minds about the type of proof they want. What they really want is physical proof that has been mechanically derived, because they don't believe in anything other than physical reality, and they have also been taught by psychiatry to believe that empiricism that is not mechanically mediated is inherently untrustworthy. This again, is a logical travesty however, since as you yourself point out, ultimately our direct physical senses are all we have, even when a machine gives us a readout about something. If a pseudoskeptic claims that something does not or can not exist, then the burden of proof is with them, for the reason that disproving a negative assertion is not possible; which in turn automatically means that their argument is invalid. If they say they require proof, then they need to be able to explicitly specify the type of proof they need. Again, I am still under no obligation to provide them with any. My only responsibility to them is entirely dependent on whether or not I want their acceptance, and in most cases I do not. Logic is only empowering in the hands of those who actually know how to use it. The thinking of pseudoskeptics is neither logical nor empowering; it is merely a mental cage for them to sit within, and keep repeating to themselves that nothing exists. Their interpretation of science is almost exclusively about negative assertions, you will notice; what supposedly does not exist, or what can not be done. The entire reason why a negative assertion is not provable, is because the subject of such an assertion itself does not exist. In the context of logic gates, a NOT gate or inverter is defined by the absence of current. This is medieval logic, and it is provably sound. I am a magician, not a scientist. I remain convinced that the Enlightenment was actually the direct opposite. I have been taught how to think by the likes of Paracelsus and Agrippa, and by my experience with both computer programming and magick. Paracelsus was rejected by mainstream thinkers in his own time, just as I am in mine. I like to think that he and I have a fair amount in common. The scoffers of his day accused him of unspeakable arrogance; but even if it was, it was not unfounded. When he referred to his critics as fools, he was able to demonstrate that they were. I am also an empiricist before I am a rationalist. That means that if I attempt to perform a given dimensional jumping experiment, and my own results are consistent with the honest testimony of others, then I assume that the phenomenon in question exists; and I do so even if I do not initially understand the principles at work which generated the experiences. That is to be worked out over the course of repeated experiments. Magick is first and foremost exploratory in nature, and in fact specifically assumes and allows for initial ignorance and lack of understanding. I will leave it to the scientists to carry the ball and chain of complete certainty. It is far too heavy and restrictive for my tastes. "You are not yet blessed, if the multitude does not laugh at you." - Seneca de Moribus.

[END OF COMMENT]

An excellent assessment. I too am "an empiricist before I am a rationalist". Subjective experience is primary, connective fictions (explanatory frameworks) are secondary, but useful and perhaps in some sense causal. The main-push physicists of the early-mid 20th century were not at all like most physicists and scientists today (who are effectively "engineers with beliefs"). They knew exactly the nature of what they were doing (modelling observed regularities, not uncovering truth). Some still do - e.g. George Ellis here [https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/cross-check/physicist-george-ellis-knocks-physicists-for-knocking-philosophy-falsification-free-will/] and here [https://www.nature.com/articles/516321a] and there are many others. As their points are more subtle, and less attractive to funding and to the popular "gee whiz!" media, they tend to get less coverage unfortunately.

Related, I was reading an article [https://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/the-anti-sheldrake-phenomenon] the other day, about the aggressive responses to Rupert Sheldrake's (morphic resonance) work, particularly by super-skeptic Michael Shermer. It's worth a read. (Sheldrake's morphic field ideas are very close to physicist David Bohm's implicate/explicate order, but because Sheldrake is inevitably closer to "everyday life" as a biologist, he got a kick-in.)

It then so happens that there is a moderated dialogue taking place [https://thebestschools.org/sheldrake-shermer-materialism-science-replies/] over these few months between Shermer and Sheldrake. Interesting to read reader's comments as much as it is to read the main participants contributions.

"It only works if you believe"

It's actually not about belief - or only in the sense that, you have to fully commit to it while you are doing it, because deliberate or implied intention is a requirement. The sidebar already describes the appropriate mindset.

You have cleverly chosen a phenomenon which can't be duplicated, recorded, or proven in any way.

The point isn't to prove anything to a third party, of course. And you're right: if the world-pattern moves self-consistently, there can be no trace of the previous state except in memory. How convenient! But in both senses!

The technique, being about shifting your own experience going forwards, is indeed subjective - and what else is there, after all? Conscious experience is entirely subjective: try proving that you are conscious or have thoughts, other than to yourself...

The assertion being made is:

"If a person does this thing, then the person will have this experience".
"Nobody can supply proof of that to the person, he must examine the matter for himself."

But nobody cares if you do it or not. However if you don't, you can't reasonably make a comment on whether an effect occurs, nor comment on the nature of that effect.

you should include a disclaimer in the sidebar stating that dimensional jumping is purely a thought exercise and in no way affects the 'shifting nature of reality'.

The problem is - it does do something that shifts your experience of reality, if you try it. What the nature of that change is, is up for debate. There is no mechanism, other than the experiencing.

Essentially, detaching from your senses and using a metaphor to conceptualise a change with intention results in a change in subsequent perception. But not just in the "values" of your perception; it apparently affects the "facts" also. Which is why it's an interesting area to explore, and potentially useful too.

EDIT:

Preface

I'll preface this with, nobody is telling anyone what to think here. Your response seems to be based on that idea, and the idea that other people can't be trusted to bring their own judgement to bear on things. You should always be the authority of you.

Historically, those who promote a position (politically, scientifically, historically) have always turned out to be partially incorrect at least.

Acceptance should always be provisional, in matters you have not or cannot personally verify, and all explanations should be treated as useful, not "true", since even the most apparently robust worldviews shift regularly as additional observations are incorporated - usually after a lot of in-fighting rather than an organised transition.

Response

False. By having this discussion right now I have proven my sapient self.

To yourself.

Everytime I drop the weight and observe it, it will be the same, and everytime you drop it, it will be the same and if we compare notes our numbers will match. This is not a subjective experience.

Of course it's a subjective experience. That isn't to say we can't have subjective experiences that, through communication, we subsequently agree are identical in the key respects. Of course we do!

That experiences are subjective doesn't rule out intersubjective agreement. In fact, this is exactly what science is: identifying the subset of experiences for which there is intersubjective agreement, and producing descriptions in language which can be agreed upon. However, it is probably the case that, beyond very common regularities, most experiences cannot be agreed upon in this way.

Again, your claim boils down to "You can't prove that it isn't real unless you do it. And if someone does it and experiences no change your answers will always be...

No, those won't be the answers. As I said, nobody is saying anything other than: I've done this and had this experience, try it out for fun. If someone doesn't get a result, then it didn't work as far as they are concerned. Case closed.

In that regard I can say I did it and before, everyone on earth had three eyes and now they only have two. You can't prove my claim wrong, and I can never prove it right.

Who's claiming anything or proving anything other than to themselves?

Now, if there are many accounts of an effect, then that may encourage others to give it a go - but until they do so, they shouldn't believe anything. Nor disbelieve it really, just leave it open, but that's entirely up to them. Fine to say "that doesn't make sense to me, what rubbish!" if they like, particularly since intersubjective agreement is inherently a problem with this phenomenon.

You are stating a belief as fact. Because what you claim is, by it's design' impossible to prove, you cannot state it as fact.

Nobody is promoting a general position, they are reporting their experience - describing the process; describing the subsequent experience. Actually, I usually say "apparently results in". The thing is though, there is no difference between saying "apparently results in a change in perception" and "actually results in a change in a perception". How does one distinguish between an "apparent experience" and an "actual experience"?

The reason "facts" is in quotes, is to avoid asserting a change in some external world beyond perception, about which nothing can ever be said.

Is a less harmful statement (but still deluded).

But your modified statement is incorrect, because you are responding to a position nobody is taking. In context, the statement I made isn't a "position" or a statement of fact, it's a report of an experience. If I were to make a change to clarify things for you, it would be to preface it with "People have found that..."

We might compare this with, say, lucid dreaming. If I say that I have the experience of being conscious in my dreams, it makes no sense to make me add "I think that" or "I believe that" I have the experience. That would be like me telling you are you are not conscious, you simply think that or believe that you are conscious!

...

A2: because compared with pseudoskepticism and scientism, I quite seriously consider insanity to be genuinely preferable
lol

POST: Is there any non-anecdotal evidence for jumping success?

Well, it's important to realise that no consciousnesses are exchanged and there's aren't parallel universes in the sense of spatially-extended places. You aren't really swapping places with anyone. (Aside: MWI in physics is a pretty crappy philosophical interpretation of a mathematical theory and is not very well regarded, even though it gets a lot of coverage in "popular science".)

These descriptions are "active metaphors" - ways of conceiving of dramatic changes in your experience, and subsequently triggering them. They offer a way of changing your "world-pattern" by loosening your hold on it, and intending a shift.

You might view this as triggering shifts similar to the spontaneous experiences reported in /r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix. As with those stories, often the only evidence is the memory of those involved. Why?

Inherently, there can't be any "objective" evidence - at best, only intersubjective agreement by a few participants. If the state of the whole world changes, there is no residual evidence of how it was before. The world-pattern remains inherently self-consistent. In fact, that may be the only rule.

If there's a bit of physics to support this, it's Wheeler's "Delayed Choice Experiment" - from which you would conclude that only observations are important, and the story we describe of what happens between observations is an imaginary "explanatory fiction". (See my comment here [https://old.reddit.com/r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix/comments/37ylzn/theory_scientists_able_to_make_the_present/crqvcad/] to a post about that experiment.)

Wheeler himself was of the view that the "universe" was basically dimensionless information which accumulated and become more defined with each observation. In other words: each observation defines a "fact" which constrains what might be seen in subsequent observations.

Relevance to "Dimensional Jumping"? Well, "jumping" is a way to reset the accumulated observations to a certain level. Some of the key points:

• There is no world behind the scenes, beyond our experiences.
• All explanatory schemes are fictional.
• The pattern of your mind = the pattern of your world.
• "Dimensional Jumping" is a way to shift that world-pattern.
• The "one rule" means that after a shift all subsequent observations will be self-consistent. In other words, you will never encounter evidence of the previous world-state other than your own memories. (And you cannot guarantee those, necessarily.)

TL;DR: It's inherently an anecdotal phenomenon although it can be an apparent multi-person experience.

POST: Intended to attempt dimensional jumping and wound discovering something completely different called Mirror Tratak

At the bottom of the Darkroom Vision post there's a link to a "stranger in the mirror" article. There are loads of comments under that which are pretty interesting.

Random comment:

I never tried this with a mirror, but the effect is all to familiar. Me and my girlfriend 20 years ago would stare into each others eyes for long moments. Ah, the good old times.
On several occasions, starting at the exact same moment for the both of us, this illusion started. A rapid series of faces of young and old people would start.
While it felt uneasy and erie to me, it scared the hell out of my girlfriend, who is a believer of afterlives and reincarnation. She believed those were the faces of people we once were. To me, the strangest fact was that this effect would start and stop at the exact same moment for the both of us, and that it has never happened that she or me saw the faces while the other did not.
Also, after it happened a few times, we began to recognize the faces and their order, but this felt so bad that we looked away for a second as soon as it happened. It isn’t a pleasant feeling, so we started to avoid it.
I do not think my room was as dark as suggested above. I seem to recall this happened in the daytime too.
-- Dave, Posted September 18, 2010 at 7:47 pm, The strange-face-in-the-mirror illusion

POST: Would this be too big of a jump...

[POST]

Hi, I'm haven't "jumped" (that I was consciously aware of) before.. I've been learning meditation and reading self-help books, I am at a point where I am quite present the majority of times, I understand my existence and so finding this sub and it's contents was no surprise to me--nothing I wasn't aware of. I've been focusing on the Law of Attraction & reality shaping/creating etc, envisioning how I'd feel if I already had everything i dream of & feeling it. I have some form of IBS or Candida... Whatever, basically I currently have a messed up stomach/bowel system in which I have pretty much all the negative effects you could think of. I've spent years wrestling with medicine, diets, homeopathy, even started making my own fermented foods. I can't find anything to fix the issue, it's affected every aspect of this "life", I act as if its not there & adopt a positive mindset, but it is still always there in the background. Wondering if it'd be wise to attempt "jumping" to an experience in which I have found the correct treatment methods and skipped all the bullshit. Like, I actually found a medicine combination that cured me & I could go about life without this controlling me. Do you think this is too big a jump? Should I start small? Or should I continue practicing to manifest a reality in-which this no longer exists in my experience.. This is quite long as full of rambling about things you couldn't care less about, but I feel as if I'm close to an answer and a fix to my problem, I am yet to find the path. Cheers....

[END OF POST]

You might check whether you are directly interacting with your experience or whether you are thinking-about things, when you are working on this. Are you picturing a future situation "in your head", or are you overlaying that situation over your 3d-sensory experience right now, as if it were actually happening?

This is the difference between fantasising about something vs creating an "observation". What you want to do is create an observation which implies that the situation your desire is a fact. You might also experiment with placing your attention in your stomach/bowel area (again, not thinking this, but actually mentally sitting with that region in space) and just feel out what's actually there; sit with it. See if there's any information - "stuck thoughts" or "incomplete movements" (no pun intended!) there.

More aggressively, you could include that area in your attention and directly will a better feeling in its place. Basically, directly overwrite that area of your experience. The trick to this is to "go looking for" the desired feeling, in that location - as if it were already there, and simply needed discovered.

I thought I was doing this.. Treating it as if it was actually happening in reality. But as I said, the problem remains, lurking in the background. Maybe I'm just not doing it right :/

Try "asking" it what the problem is? Just sit quietly, rest your attention there and wait - and "let it speak".

My other thought more generally: Are you taking time out to detach and relax when doing this? Summoning things via imagination should be effortless. You can't force it, because you need it to naturally become part of your "world-pattern".

Maybe I'm just so used to this reality that it'll be a long process unlearning? If you get what I'm saying.

I do. These things are like "habits-of-the-world" really. Sometimes it's difficult to break them, because they are so intertwined with other parts of our world that they keep getting re-triggered. You have to let go and stay let-go.

That's why "technology" can be useful:

Rather than saying "I have the power to heal myself" - which can be hard to commit to if you don't really believe you are your experience - you instead "outsource" it to another part of the world. You say "this object or action has the power to heal me" and then let that play out. So don't be afraid to use other routes. And just because diet and drugs aren't "real" doesn't mean they don't and can't have an effect. They are established aspects of your dream, as it were. It can be easier to flow with them rather than de-pattern the whole of your reality. However, the intention you attach to these 'magical objects' is important.

Remember, habits are a good thing: Without habits, you'd have to manually create and maintain everything constantly. Objects would fade in and out, nothing would be stable. A bit like when you start lucid dreaming (if you've done that) and you're not very good at maintaining concentration.

Example: There is no reason why you can't survive being hit by a truck. However, "solidity" is a very strong habit of your world, and the experience of "being hit by a truck" tends to be followed by the experience of "being mangled pretty bad". On the upside though, you don't have to constantly focus on not falling through the ground due to being mildly distracted and forgetting to enforce "solidity".

When you say overlay the situation, do you mean sort of role play as if you are already what you want? Am I wrong in thinking that dimension jumping is a lot like manifestation?

Yep, I'd suggest that manifestation and jumping are both just ways of saying: "Changing this sensory experience to a sensory experience that I want". It's just that the metaphors are different. When I say overlay, I don't quite mean role play (depending on what you mean by it).

Conceive of it as literally replacing the sensory experience you are having now, by superimposing one that would mean you were in the situation you want while intending that this happen. Without the intention, it's just messing around with role play. With commitment and intention and full imagination, it's basically changing the patterning of your world. The experience you are having now is imagination, solidified. Imagery with momentum, you might say. Detaching and intending is a way of moving from this experiential imagery to that experiential imagery.

By role play I mean I act as if I have that life already. I make my decisions based off what the version of me in that life would do. This sounds a bit silly, but I even have a scrapbook of it. I collect photos of my ideal from magazines and paste them as of they were moments in my life. Then I browse these clippings from time to time. It helps "set" my mind and intentions.

Act "as if it were already true". I've never done it quite like that, but that's a great approach for getting more immersed in it - visions boards and scrapbooks. I've played with certain acting techniques to help with "embodied imagination".

POST: Dead celebrity?

"Daydreaming" is detaching and is basically the first step of this stuff. (The other part is deliberately directing it; knowingly intending a particular change.)

I think whenever we "let go", a little bit of realignment of your world takes place. It just loosens the influence of previous observations and allows things to settle a little in correspondence with how your are feeling and thinking at that time. This has a "pulling" effect on the whole "world-pattern" though, so apparently-distanct facts can drift a little, go a little fuzzy; you end up re-establishing them on your next encounter. (See recent related comment here on that. [Following post on this compedium...])

POST: Got a little question

[POST]

I'm planning to jump soon but when i read how this works. This question is related to the Schröders Cat:
The cat has 2 states: Dead and alive. Only as Long as we don't open the box/see it or saw her living
So and now when i jump but i think of something that i want to Change, i'm thinking about. So it can't actually Change because i saw that thing and know how it is and im thinking about it. Am I wrong or got i misguided?

[END OF POST]

Well, "Dimensional Jumping" is about updating the current facts of your world, by detaching enough from your experience so they can shift to a greater or lesser extent. It is the approach designed to make the change you describe. You can certainly use it to decide the state of the cat before opening the box. But more interestingly, you can potentially use it to change the state of the cat after it has been observed.

In more detail:

Everyday Life Mode

You might say that your world or "world-pattern" is the sum of all the "facts" you have observed. Every observation further narrows the set of subsequent observations which are possible. The world-pattern can adopt any form, but because it is a continuous pattern there is one rule that normally applies:

• The only rule is that the world-pattern is always self-consistent.

In other words, the world always "makes sense". We might call this process Observation Accumulation and we might call the rule The Law of Coherence.

The proper interpretation of Schrödinger's Cat is that it has no state unless it is observed. Nothing ever "happens" unless it is seen to have happened, by observing it or by observing something which implies it. But once an observation is made, that observation adds another fact to your world-pattern, and from that point on all subsequent observations will be consistent with that new fact.

Normally we just let the world-pattern unfold and evolve spontaneously, without manipulation. Each observation follows from the last, without us directing it, and we only intend actions which are consistent with what we observe. In "Everyday Life Mode", our observations appear to us, arising naturally from the current state of the world-pattern as it evolves and unfolds.

Dimensional Jumping Mode

In contrast, "Dimensional Jumping" is the process by which we deliberately add additional observations (assert new facts) into the world-pattern, using our intention and imagination - observations which do not necessarily follow from our present experience, and can even be contrary to and overwrite existing facts. We disrupt the part of the world-pattern and shift it to a new state. When we do so, The Law of Coherence means that the world-pattern will shift as one interconnected shape, so the new state will "make sense". This inevitably means that other facts are pulled out of place as a result of our change.

• If the world-pattern is shifted, all subsequent observations will be consistent with the new state.

Metaphorically speaking, if the cat had been observed to be dead and we "re-observe it" to be alive, then from that point onwards all observations, all subsequent experiences, will be based on the cat always having been alive. This may include the experience of retrieving a memory about the cat.

Note that immediately following a change, there might be a transitional period where the world-pattern is settling out, and inconsistencies or confusion may linger. The extent of this will depend on how detached you are, whether you are holding onto and resisting the movement of some aspects of the world.

TL;DR: It's all about creating new observations (sensory experiences) which imply that your desired situation is a fact - generating an experience which means to you that something is true.

POST: [META] I'd like to suggest that not all jumps are preferable, and that to the extent you believe in this phenomenon you should be respectful of its power and prayerful in its application.

This. It says right there in the Tesseract Working that this is akin to suicide. The fly by night way some approach the idea of Jumping betrayed their immaturity towards responsible magick

It shifts your world including your experience of "you", so it's good to be cautious. It's an effective suicide in that the "you" that you are experiencing will shift more discontinuously than is usual. Having said that, most people are unwittingly do a version of this quite frequently - but they are just oblivious to it because their world is remaining self-consistent. The problem with the mirror method and the tesseract approach is that they present a ritual which is by default "undirected". Since most people don't understand what "intention" is (even if they imagine something, they'll often not will it to give it context) even directing it is a little haphazard. That's why I think Neville Goddard style approaches or pattern-triggering are problem better, because you are more conscious of an "act" taking place, and you already have a direction in mind. A problem with all magickal dabbling is that people tend to not believe it, or believe that belief is necessary, and so mess around - and then get actual results whether they realise the connection or not.

Fortunately, basic mirror-staring is unlikely to cause problems; it's most likely simply to accelerate the path you are already hurtling along.

POST: About dimension jumping..

[POST]

So...a long time back, I lost a couple of friends. No, their not dead. We just had a big fight.
I was wondering...
Is there a way to jump into a dimension where I didn't ever get in a fight with them?

[END OF POST]

A1: It would be easier to jump to where you have all forgiven each other. Whereas it is possible to jump to where the fight never happened, it would require identifying and letting go of a larger, indeed much larger, set of beliefs.

Q: What do you mean by 'set of beilfes? And I would prefer to the fight never happened..but what about...jumping to one where I never met a certain person? If I didn't meet that person...the fight wouldn't have happened..

A1: This explanation might diverge from the consensus here, but I have evidence to make a strong case for it. Reality is inside out. What you see is what you project. What you project is formed from what is within. In order to change what you see out there you must change what is within. You are contemplating a big jump. To go to where you never met someone you would have to let go of everything that you're holding onto about that person. You'd let go of every emotion and every belief about that person. Furthermore, you'd likely have to let go of beliefs that you hold about your friends' opinions about that person. Unless you can identify one core belief that unravels all of the other thoughtforms... Maybe there is a core belief that led you to that meeting that would unravel it all. However, the connections of that core to all of the other related beliefs could disentangle other connections, which is where you run into unintended consequences that you don't want. It would be so much easier to find that place of forgiveness.

You make a good point. The problem with massive changes is that, because your "world-pattern" (by which I mean the set of all current facts) is a single continuous thing, tugging on one part of it inevitably leads to shifts elsewhere - shifts that may make no logical sense and are hard to anticipate.

A metaphor - Imagine you have a large expanse of material, formed into a hilly landscape with a different shaped object on top of each hill. The shape of the object is the current state of that region of the landscape (the current "fact"), and the hill represents the history of that that object.

• If you change the shape of the object (from pain to forgiveness) that is just an additional change in the ongoing development of the region. The region will evolve a little and will affect other parts of the landscape, but it will be a harmonious shift.
• If instead you work to change the hill (the history) then you are also tugging on the rest of the landscape - thereby changing the histories and positions of other objects discontinuously, in complex ways that cannot be predicted.

POST: [Theory] The Mirror Method Is Just Another Metaphor for the Dimension Jumping Metaphor; A More Direct Approach to Shifting Reality

[POST]

The mirror method puts the reality shifting process outside oneself. Bring the process back to the Source within yourself, and it makes the transition easier and with less chance of unintended consequences. Back in late May I decided to try the mirror method. Over a few days I jumped a few times with pretty good results, though I had very little somatic feedback to signal that I had jumped. My intentions weren't for external changes. My intentions were for internal changes. My intention for one of the first jumps was to know that I could shift reality. I intended to be a master jumper. In the days following, I started to see a lot of synchronicity. At first it was surprising to see my thoughts reflected in reality. It was so accurate that I ruled out the possibility of confirmation bias. I chronicled some of the events at /r/Glitch_In_The_Matrix. However, the results were better with spontaneous thought than with intentional thought. I wanted to know why, so I took the red pill and went down the rabbit hole. My search revealed many metaphors and ways of saying the exact same thing, that reality is inside out. My mission was to find the most direct approach to change what is within in order to change what is projected without. After looking at the many different layers that I found in the Library of Babbling On, I was repeatedly drawn to the Ho'oponono prison story. It reveals a very direct approach to shifting reality, cutting out all of the nonsense and mumbo jumbo that is heaped onto the process of what is very simple.

• Take responsibility for everything that you experience.
• Identify the experience that you want to change, and find it within yourself.
• Let go of the experience by/thereby letting go of that within you that projected the experience outward.

"I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you. I love you." - Ho'oponopono Prayer.

The incantation effects the following:

• Apologizing recognizes responsibility.
• Asking for forgiveness lets it go.
• Gratitude accepts the change.
• Love for oneself (since the reflection is from within) sets the right tone to accept that change.

Last night, I thought of a friend's pain, and I took the aforementioned action. It took very little time, compared to the mirror method. The somatic feedback, like a cool breeze within my chest, was immediate and very strong. This morning when I woke up, I felt a hot tingling over my entire scalp. I feel the change. We'll see what the Universe shows me next. It could also be done with one's own reflection in a mirror. Be the change that you want to see, whether you jump with a mirror or without one.

Edit: typo

[END OF POST]

Agreed. It's all "active metaphors", as it's phrased in the sidebar. They are all different ways of indirect creation and amendment in what amounts to an imagined world. Remember that even with the mirror method, you are dealing with something that is within you; the so-called "mirror" is inside your experience. Real mirrors are actually just very stable ideas of mirrors. So in the mirror method you are declaring that "mirrors" have the property of allowing jumps - and so they do. Equally, you could declare that visualising a desire in detail "inserts it into the universe" and so it will come to pass. And so it does. Or perhaps there is a bad situation, and you bring forth a thought about it. Implicitly in doing so, you are recognising that this thought is the situation. By updating the "bad feeling" into a "good feeling" you are literally changing that situation. (This is the Ho'oponono approach.)

In all cases, the implicit truth is that everything in experience is basically objects made from imagination. To imagine-that you are doing something is to actually be doing that something - subject to the other things you have imagined to date. You can have a lot of fun experimenting with this. Random example: take two glasses, one filled with water, one empty. Declare that the empty glass is you and that the other glass is the world. The water is an experience you desire. Now, pour the water from the world-glass into the you-glass knowing that you are pouring your desire from the world into your personal experience. To "reprint" something from before:

"However you imagine that it works, That's how it works." -- The rule of metaphor

*Q: I like how you think. Yes, you are correct that the mirror is inside my experience.
I tried the mirror method several times, and I kept a private journal. I had a few difficulties with the method:

• very little somatic feedback -- these sessions averaged about 40 minutes long;
• difficulty with visualizing -- though I seem to imagine my world quite well;
• difficulty accessing emotion.
  The Ho'oponopono approach as I used it required no visualization but provided instant access to emotion and provided nearly instant somatic feedback that it had been accomplished.
  Of course, the access to emotion was attached to my repentance for my responsibility for projecting a hardship for my friend, so it was more emotional than intending to jump with a mirror to improve my ability to jump. However, I could have accomplished the same by taking responsibility for my friend's not having the power to resolve her loneliness because I had accepted that I was powerless to shift my own reality.
  Instead of saying this method is easier, let's simply offer it as another technique and list the pros and cons. For someone who has strong visualization skills and easy emotional access the mirror method might be more suitable. Someone like me with strong empathetic triggering of emotion and lesser visualization skills this method would be more suitable.*

Yeah, the word "visualization" is a bit of a problem I guess, because it implies an actual visual. Maybe the word "shadow-sensory imagery" is better. Anyway, the main point is that doesn't have to be visual, just summoning a sensory aspect of any sort is sufficient. Even just the feeling-idea of something. What it's important is that the experience you summon is viewed as actually being the thing your are trying to access and change.

So if I think of my (say) friend in trouble. That thought is that situation, and having accessed that thought I may allow it deepen and become clearer, and then adjust it accordingly.

The "full responsibility" part is really just a recognition that you are experiencing your own "private view" and that everything in your apparent world is you. Things are not your fault but they are literally aspects of you. So if you want them to change you must do so yourself, either indirectly via second cause ("causing" an email to your sister which apologies for the trouble you caused at the wedding) or directly via first cause (accessing the "sister relationship" directly in your mind and modifying it). Both are actually first cause, of course, because that's all there is.

[On the complexity and detail of the mirror method]. Is it not a bit too complicated for what you might do with two glasses and some water?

You might do it with two glasses of water, but how many everyday people are going to take it seriously and actually declare that the glasses and water literally are that situation?

The pomp and ceremony of the mirror method ritual and its opacity to logic are beneficial for getting people to anticipate that something valid is going on. Mirrors do have that "other dimension" vibe and setting things up to be a bit scary and detached from normal experience really helps commitment - the implicit declaration that this ritual corresponds to dramatic change. The other methods listed (subjective imagination, tesseract magick, re-patterning) are more direct but people do like to feel they are performing an action before they will commit to change. The main problem is that we can't actually experience willing or intending, we can only experience the result. So folk tend to want to "do" something that they can call "the act", even though that is a result too.

Of course, fault is a loaded word, and I don't recall using the word.

No, you didn't use the word "fault". It was me using it preemptively (for those who might read) because it's often the first thing people think of when it comes to the notion of being responsible for the world - rather than getting the "it's all you" interpretation.

EDIT: I forgot to add: thanks for the thoughtful post, it was a well-written read!

It all boils down to building and accepting a model that allows a space for your intentions to work. Different strokes for different folks. You are welcome. Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. I always enjoy reading your thoughts.

Yes. And the models you make are made from the same stuff as the experiences you are having. Really, a model is just another experience, another observation which you've "decided" means this. It really is all about ascribing meaning to things.

Responsibility=Response Ability

Cute!

I agree. I think that is where religions went wrong, when people started treating abstract and symbolic ideals too literally, and the ideas behind symbols went dead. The same with the mirror - it doesn't matter what kind of candle you use :-P you can invent your own ritual entirely, it is the spirit of the whole thing that counts.

Although those electronic candles are a poor choice, simply for elegence of design. They are the Comic Sans of the illumination world and the God Of Dimensional Jumping will surely look upon their use poorly! ;-)

POST: To answer a few very common newbie questions. The name "dimensional jumping" doesn't really describe it well.

Calling it "dimensional jumping" confuses a lot of people. It makes them think that they are jumping to an alternate dimension. It is just you making an alteration in your perception of how you perceive your reality.

Although I'd add: using words like "reality" is problematic also, though. What does it mean to "perceive your reality" and change that? Those terms are quite loaded. The problem with the term "dimensional jumping" isn't necessarily with the words, it's the assumptions that are brought to the words. Assumptions about what "you" are and what "the world" is, in the first place.

So although the name can be a source of misunderstanding (because it has associations with science-fiction type imagery), the process of unpacking that misunderstanding can be very useful - because it reveals that there is perhaps a much wider misunderstanding underlying that one.

You aren't going anywhere.

But then, in what sense are you really ever anywhere anyway? And so on. Ultimately, it might turn out that the distinction being made between literally changing dimensions and metaphorically changing dimensions is not a meaningful one - that they are, in their essential natures, identical

This is a really good point too. I really enjoy trying to wrap my head around it. I was wrong. Thanks for disagreeing with me. I enjoy being in the wrong in this type of scenario. Honestly right now i'm probably typing a really stupid reply to you. I have just come down from vyvanse, and i'm all jumbled. I think that i'm going to delete my post. Or maybe i should keep it up, so others can see your comment. Yeah i'll just leave it up.

No, definitely don't delete the post. It's a good starting point for a discussion. It's not that you are "in the wrong", it's that there are multiple ways to consider things, some of which may be more or less useful for one's purpose. Our eventual aim should (perhaps) be to be able to take the "meta" position: that is, to consider different interpretations as relatively true while being held, but recognise that from a fundamental position those are just "as if" positions. (Of course, this is a conclusion we would arrive at via personal investigation; it is not something to 'believe in".)

This is where the literal vs metaphorical argument comes in. If you are having experiences "as if" something is true - that is, consistent with a particular metaphor - then it is, surely, indistinguishable from being literally true. We are then left to ponder what is the "nature of experiencing" itself.

I've a question that could be slightly off topic. Let's say you use "Dimensional Jumping" In order to "manifest" a girlfriend/boyfriend that is just perfect for you. Is that person a sentient being? or is that person merely an appearance arising within your awareness?

That's exactly on topic, I think. So, the place I'd probably start is, to pause and work out if and in what exact sense you are a "sentient being". (And also perhaps ponder why you used the word "merely" in your description.)

Wow, for some reason, I knew this is exactly what you would say. This reminds me of a dream I had. I was having this "serious" conversation with one of my dream characters, when I suddenly realized that he wasn't "real." Realizing this made me a bit fearful and even angry, and I lashed out saying "you're not even real!." He disappeared and I woke up. But, the funny thing is that, since I was dreaming, from the perspective of the waking-state "reality," I was not "real" either, yet I was accusing the dream character of being unreal. If I were to guess, when we manifest perfect mates, I'd say they're just as "real" as we are. But then other questions come up. Such as, does this person has an actual history, in the same way we have a history? Your thoughts probably differ here. But, let's say the "soul" concept is true, and that we've had many lifetimes. By manifesting a perfect mate, does that person also has a history stretching back countless of lifetimes? Interesting questions.

Ah, good example. So, that leads to the idea that you could "wake up" out of this current experience, and then you'd have to recontextualise this life. However, it's worth considering that you don't wake up out of anything, as such - there is no hierarchy, and hierarchies are just one way of thinking about the experience. Rather, your actual experience remains at the same level, it merely changes discontinuously.

As regards your "actual history" - in what way do you have such a thing? Your actual experience is, to occasionally have thoughts about an apparent history - in the ongoing now. If you recall a "past life", it could be the experience of "remembering something", it needn't have "really happened", and so on. Your state could change at any moment, into a state where you had a particular set of multiple lives, and then change again in an instant to apparently having had another particular set. You get the idea. "Souls" and "histories", too, are ways of thinking about experiences, perhaps.

However, we can short-circuit all of that, I would say. We might contemplate, if we are going with the "soul" idea: is the soul inside a world, or is the experience of an apparent world arising within the soul. (Here, I'm going to define "soul" as something like that-which-is-aware.) Without resolving that, it's very hard to talk about "other people", because we've not yet addressed in what sense we are "a person".

Could this be another way of saying, that, all "realities" are equally real, or unreal?

Or - that all moments of experience are of the same nature, and it's only the narratives we apply to them that organise them in terms of a hierarchy, and so on. We experience this moment then this moment then this moment (is one way to describe it); it's only our stories that label one moment as "real" and another as "dream".

We do evolve into higher and higher states of consciousness?

Well, I'd be inclined to say that all patterns and states are pre-existing, and we simply adopt them. In the same way as we might associatively flip through our memories, so we might flip through "moments". The story of "higher states" is similar to the story of "progress" in society. Really, things change, with notions of progress or improvement being a parallel narrative, I think. If all moments are available always, then any moment can be brought into experience at any "time" (because "awareness" is "before" time), which means there is no necessary development - although "associative traversal" of moments might tend towards an experience of apparent continuous evolution of some sort.

as a conscious entity...

Are you a "conscious entity", though? It might seem pedantic, but it's important to be clear about the nature of this experience. If what you are is, for example, an "awareness" whose only inherent property is being-aware, and which "takes on the shape of" experiential states, resulting in experiences "as if" the dominant fact-patterns that constitute those states are true - then "being a conscious entity" is a formatting of your experience, not what you are. What you are in that case is not an object, hence not an entity, at all. There is not actually "one" of you - because what you are is "before" division and multiplicity - and therefore there cannot be more than one "awareness" either, not fundamentally. There is just... "awareness". Which cannot evolve, really. However, it can certainly "take on the shape of" the experience of apparently evolving. But equally it could just adopt, on a whim, the state of being at any point of such an apparent evolution!

And, actually, for several years, this fear of solipsism has bothered "me."

That's a key point, actually: people often push back against anything that has a hint of solipsism about it, because they don't like the idea that there's "only me" or everything is in "my" mind. However, we are not talking about "my" mind at all, because "awareness" isn't a container or a thing. This is where we get into problems due to language, though. The very fact of using a word suggests an object, meaning we are "already wrong" (the "awareness" that can be spoken of is not the true awareness, to paraphrase). Language and conceptual thinking are already "too late", because they are experiences which are dependent upon the formatting of experience into objects, which are then related in mental space. It is not possible to think about, or have an experience of, that which experiences are "made from". That would be like trying to build a sandcastle which is the shape of both "sand" and "the beach". The sandcastle is both sand and the beach, but it cannot capture those things in form. All of which suggests that, say, seeking "enlightenment" in experiences is pointless - because all "enlightenment experiences" are simply more experiences. You always are your nature; it is not something you can find or think about. However, you can infer this by noting the content of your experience directly, and how the only thing than never changes is the fact of being-aware - that is, a permanent contentless truth.

This is, oddly, a very freeing concept. And this is coming from someone who is very interested in "enlightenment." It's ironic, but this has been a very enlightening conversation!

Ironic indeed! And I think "ironic" is probably a good way to describe experience in general - as good as any, anyway. There's definitely something "mischievous" about the whole thing!

"Mischievous" ---It's comforting to think the entirety of "existence" is some sort of a joke. Thank you for such an awesome conversation! :)

Our own joke at our own expense, at that! Still, at least we've got a sense of humour eh? That was a nice little exploration - cheers!

POST: Are you guys for real?

Is this a reference to some book or movie?

Well, I guess so - in some ways, it's inspired by the writings of some Berk [https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/berkeley1713.pdf], although some people find they Kant get into that [https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/]. I'd view the notion of "dimensional jumping" itself to be an active metaphor to enable dramatic change.

Q1: The most frightening instance of dimension jumping that I've encountered was from Lovecraft's, Dreams in the Witch House.

Dreams in the Witch House. From wiki - "The dimensions of Gilman's attic room are unusual, and seem to conform to a kind of unearthly geometry. "

New one for me. Looks good. I love a bit of "unearthly geometry".

Q2: Yeah this sub seems insane, to be honest. To someone who believes this stuff: why? I am genuinely curious to know what could convince you that people have the ability to move between "dimensions".

A1: Dreaming and exploring things that seem impossible at first is pretty much what the human race is all about. Also bullshitting! I would know, its finals week..

A2: I think you're missing the point - i'm not sure anyone actually believes they're switching places with another them in a different dimension which has mirrors as the holding space between. But at the same time, 'act as if' does have a certain power. treat it like /r/nosleep meets philosophy. Probably it's similar to early Christianity - there were a lot of powerful metaphors being made that can have significant philosophical and psychological side-effects, but for that to happen, one needs to treat those metaphors as a kind of reality. The problem is that when some people's reality of a kind has some effect on them, other people copy this, but skip the middle bit and start trying to understand these metaphors as reality as they are used to perceiving reality and then those people start treating these metaphors as gospel (...no pun intended) and everything gets wacky. So, tl;dr, it's a suspension of disbelief. at least that's how I read it.

A nice angle. The sidebar uses the phrase "Active Metaphors" for this very reason. A metaphor must be fully adopted, lived from, in order to be active. You can't stay in one metaphor while trying to leverage another, just as you can't remain lying down and be standing at the same time. Early Christianity was probably about this sort of thing. That knowledge was mostly lost once we took the symbols and characters and relationships as literal, and then rewrote the accounts a few times from that viewpoint. Not that any of these views are required to use this subreddit.

A3: Slightly tangential: What if you are lying down on a plane that pivots you upright? Wouldn't that technically be considered "lying down while standing", since you are not standing on your own volition?

Haha, I like your style! :-)

However, I would counter that there is a difference between "standing" and "being upright". Of course, this leads us still deeper: because if you are dedicated and play proper attention, you'll discover that it's possible to "be upright" unaided without actively doing "standing". (Recommended reading for such things [https://web.archive.org/web/20130216142759/http://www.missyvineyard.com/].)

No euphemisms or double entendres were hurt in the creation of this comment!

Q3: Does leaning (against a wall, for example) still count as standing? Or what if you are partially suspended by harnesses to reduce the weight on your legs? Are we going for a purist stand?

I think that my stand on standing hasn't got a leg to stand on! ;-)

POST: What happends with the other you?

See other posts too [POST: What happens to the other-dimensional you you switch places with? ] - this has been answered a few times.

The summary: There is no other you. There's not even a this you. What happens is that you are "shifting your attention" from one experience to another - like jumping dreams. A bit like consciously viewing one dream, then deciding to attach to another instead.

POST: What happens to the other you when you jump?

There's no other you. Answered a few times elsewhere [POST: What happends with the other you?] and elsewhere [POST: What happens to the other-dimensional you you switch places with?]. Basically, this is about shifting attention to another experience. Like changing channels on a TV. When you change channels on your television, do you have to push aside another "you" that was watching the programme you switched to?

Extra quote:

[In response to someone asking what happens to the "other soul" during a jump]; It's more a case of shifting your perspective to another experience. You are simultaneously everywhere (all possible moments), it's just that you are focussed on a particular moment or trajectory across moments. This works because although we think of ourselves as 'inside a body looking out', our actual experience is one of 'being a conscious space' and having thoughts, body sensations and an environment arising within that. A bit like connecting to a particular instance of a video game or shifting your attention across a grid of all moments. In your terms, it would be like your one 'soul' is actually spread across all possible experiences - all experiences are 'dissolved' within it - but it is 'concentrated' on one particular possibility at a time, bringing it into the senses. Everyday Example: Focus your attention on the sensations of one hand. Now focus on the other. When you shift your attention from one hand to another - attend to one and not the other - you don't have to "swap souls" with your hands in order to do this. You are always both hands (and indeed, your whole body), it's just that you are only bringing one hand into sensory experience at a time.

Also, look up the Hall of Records and the Infinite Grid posts.

Thanks for the clarification and extra reading.

No problem. It's potentially confusing, if you are thinking of "physical worlds" and somehow "transferring consciouses" - but actually the world you're in now isn't physical in the sense of being "spatially-extended", other than your own personal perception of space.

POST: [deleted by user]

Scientifically (evidence based) speaking, memories are physical properties stored in the brain.

Actually, not really. Memory is still not understood. No location has been discovered that corresponds to memories, and the mechanism of memory is unclear. But in any case, I have to say, that wouldn't matter. That's all 3rd-person theorising, whereas "jumping" is a refocussing of your attention onto a new format of experience. There is a difference between direct-experiencing (our actual lived life) and thinking-about it (our contemplations and imaginings about that lived life).

• Are you experiencing a brain right now? Really take a bit of time to check.
• Pause for a moment and recall what you had for dinner yesterday. Did you use your "brain" to do that? And is the image you get made from neurons?
• Imagine you have a dream in which electrodes were attached to your brain, and you were shown this on a monitor as they triggered certain responses. When you wake up, where is that brain?

Brains things which are inside your experience, not the other way around.

TL;DR: Treat memories as being part of your "conscious perspective", not as part of the world you are apparently experiencing.

I recommend you to to listen to the 'Joe Rogan Experience' podcast with Sam Harris. #543 is the podcast number. Really interesting.

Thanks, will give that a listen! I disagree with Sam Harris about a few things (when he wrestles with materialism vs perspective) but I always find him a good presenter and thought-provoking.

Since we're recommending...

You might find Bernardo Kastrup worth a look for a more idealism-based perspective, actually, and Douglas Hoffman has a nice "interface theory" for reality. For the more direct experience stuff, I think Rupert Spira is one of the best, and I like a bit of Douglas Harding and his experiments. Finally, George Berkeley is the guy that got me thinking about this stuff originally.

Not quite related (but actually fundamental to this subreddit), a guy called Kirby Surprise (nice) wrote probably the only decent book on (and called) Synchronicity - really it's more about the "patterning of experience" - and there's a good interview with him that's worth a look.

Whew!

I could have entire hours of conversion about it.

Yeah, as you can tell, me too! :-) Cheers!

POST: Alternative methods to Jump

A1: Holy shit, are you serious man? You can just edit your post. Also, methods don't matter.

Q1: Not sure what you are talking about? I intentionally am NOT including these in the main body of the post because the last time I did that some mod nuked the post so it can't be found unless you already know where it is. But I doubt that will happen if it's as comments, we'll see.

See my mod note above. In future, though, please hit "message the mods" if you have a query, and raise it directly. Circumventing moderation isn't really going to help: modding happens for reasons, such as reporting or rules or topic appropriateness. (Remember: as per others' comments, this is not a general chat forum, and nor is it a broad "techniques for self-help" or "magick rituals" forum in the manner of LOA, and so on.)

Clearly from looking out for evidence of that I am clear that view is winning.

I've got a couple of pending comments of yours to reply to which I'll try and get to soon, which might clarify this, but: at the moment you misunderstand the point being made about "multiverses" and so on, and the relationship between "physical things" and ongoing experience, etc. Which is, in short, that "multiverses" in this context would be just another "story" about an experience, but you do not actually experience "multiverses". This doesn't mean it's not a useful concept; it just means it's not a fundamental description of the experience. Also, the very nature of "evidence" is problematic here, because our usual assumptions about shared experiences fall apart. Again, we're back to unpicking the assumption that you are a person-object located within a world-place, and that the "world" is a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended 'place' unfolding in 'time'". The point of the experiments is to, over time, indicate that all of these assumptions are somewhat dubious, or at least not constant. This means that we cannot rely upon concepts derived from those assumptions, when 'explaining' those experiences. Where this goes is that, later, in addition to noting the content of an experience - and all the (many) narratives we might construct which fit that experience, none of which seem completely accurate - we also note the context of all experiences.

Basically, we end up asking: what are all experiences "made from"?

I'll try and pick up that other thread soon, to make things clearer. But I think that you are assuming that I am proposing some particular theory or worldview, when in fact what I'm talking about is a non-world-view, or the "meta" perspective of all worldviews and experiences, if that makes more sense.

POST: A film about Dimensional Jumping

Does a bit. Except, I suppose, that it very deliberately omits things like "brains" because in that description there is no place for a "brain" to be. In a similar way to how we attribute results to other entities in error because we can't experience "the doing" (we are not separate from the results), we often identify with "brains" or other objects in error because we can't experience "being a doer" (again, because we are not separate from the results). In both cases, we fail to realise that we are the subject to all experience, rather than an object within experience. All experiences, and thoughts about experiences, are, in a sense, "results". Any descriptions about experiences are themselves further experiences - and because thinking requires that things be broken down into conceptual objects related within a mental space, we end up accidentally "looking past" ourselves as the subject, and in error focus upon: "which conceptual object is 'me'?".

...Yes, he's referring to the same thing - but beware of getting bogged down in a concept of it, which tends to make it complicated. What he (and I and anyone else) is essentially saying is that there is no doer as such; "awareness" (or "consciousness" or "God" or "The Father") refers to the sort of "non-material material whose only inherent property is being-aware" and which "takes on the shape of" states of experience, by becoming them.

"Awareness", then, is a unique word in that rather than a mental object that's pointing to another mental object or a sensory object, it is pointing to the subject or essence of all objects or patterns or experiences. If we forget this, we can start accidentally treating "awareness" (the word, the object-concept) as pointing to an awareness-thing (like awareness is another object, an entity, or a being), and talking about it acting on things or how to understand it or whatever. But since it is "that which all things are 'made from'", that is a meaningless statement. It is self-causing; it shifts-into rather than does-to.

I'd also add that it's important to recognise that awareness does not take on the shape of a 3D world and then you walk around in it. Rather, it's that awareness takes on the shape of this moment of experience - which may be a moment shaped "as if" you are a person-object located within a world-place, that you are "over here" and the rest of the room is "over there" - etc.

The little exercise at the bottom of this comment [POST: I'm so confused] is meant to illustrate that, or at least point in that direction.

POST: 10 People remember a vertical green line in the Banner.

And knowing it is possible helps a ton, even if it's not meant to be emphasized. Normally believing is the challenge.

I wouldn't disagree there. But it's much more powerful to (for example) do the suggested exercises for a specific thing, and have an outcome related to that specific thing arise. And that gives a direction for further exploration (since the "results" may not be quite what one thought one was intending, but provide insight in another way regardless, beyond simply "stuff changed"). Anyway, we keep it on the "deliberate" side because there are already other subreddits for spontaneous experiences (Glitch and Mandela, for instance), and it can easily swamp the subreddit to allow "this weird thing happened" posts; it is meant to be more about investigating. Having said that, posts are allowed to stay sometimes if they lead to an interesting discussion in the comments (the comments are mostly where the sub content is, I'd say). Which was the case with your first post. It's just not very helpful to have multiple, essentially off-topic, posts, because it leads to more of the same, as that then appears to be what the sub is about. And as I said, this does come up fairly often, at regular intervals - because even just engaging with this topic tends to encourage noticing of... this or that.

...

A1: Please stop being so dramatic. There is already another thread on the same inconsequential stuff.

POST: Mdmerafull, hdoublearp, PunkRockParanormal & aether22 remember a green vertical bar.

So, from a previous thread about the number (of which there have been many, so you can use search to find all the different responses that have come up if interested):

We really don't. The mods never change the number, and in fact they couldn't really, not consistently, because it's in multiple places (sidebar, sidebar text post, introduction post, header graphic image, subreddit title, various references throughout the subreddit's post and comment history). Any posts containing it show the time of any edit, just because that's how Reddit works, plus there's archive.org.

As regards changing the header graphic, from an earlier message:

Never been changed since the last style update. To be clear though: the number is guaranteed to never be changed; the style can't be guaranteed because sizing and other display aspects might be subject to updates to Reddit's code, browser or OS updates, and so on. However, when mods do perform a styling update, out of courtesy we'll always make an announcement as we have in the past. Remember too that you can check for yourself independently over at archive.org.

Meanwhile: I'd suggest that if you notice spontaneous changes in the header, then that simply means you are noting that your ongoing experience isn't as stable as you had previously assumed. That is, that your usual assumption of being a person-object located within a world-place may not be entirely accurate, and the "world" may not be best described as a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended 'place' unfolding in 'time'" (the standard description). This can be pretty exciting, of course! However: The term "jumping", if it is to have any meaning and to continue to be useful, should be reserved for intentional changes. And in terms of investigating the nature of our experience (and the nature of our descriptions about experience), rather than simply noting that things are a bit more "loose about the seams" than we previously thought, only deliberate experimentation is really of much use. It should also be noted that a "dimension" in this sense might be best considered as a way of formulating change, of structuring an intention and incorporating it. The concept of "dimension jumping" would itself be part of the pattern of the outcome; the "mechanism" is really just part of the target result and doesn't actually cause anything. (This is why the demo exercises are called "exercises" rather than "methods" or "techniques".)

So one has an experience "as if" one has changed dimensions just as one is currently having an experience "as if" one were a person-object located within a world-place. The experience of "jumping dimensions" is therefore better thought of as a change of experiential state: "dimensions" are states rather than places. This of course involves a change in our understanding of ourselves and the world. Which leads to: I'm not sure of the thinking behind altering the header graphic at certain intervals? Given the above.

but excuse me for not being a person that bows to experience fully unreservedly, to anyone ever.

The point here is most definitely to have a discussion! As per the sidebar, you're not meant to believe anything in particular without personal experience or reasoning it out. (And even then, we should be a little skeptical of what lies behind them - if anything.)

This sort of conversation is actually what the sub is all about!

And my understanding is that there is not single "official" explanation proposed by the group.

Right.

Also my life's work is in physics, so because of this I tend toward some version of the Multiverse idea.

That's my background too, although I also have an inclination towards Paul Feyerabend and George Berkeley and the like, so there's that. We have to be clear about when we are being scientific versus philosophical, though. Neither one is better than the other; they just have different limits and spheres of application. I'd suggest that "dimensional jumping" is inherently non-scientific (note that this is not a dismissive statement), although that doesn't preclude it being studied as part of a structured investigation - which is what we're generally doing here.

But if you take the multiverse idea which can be at least partly understood and account...

I'd suggest that while the description may be understood - that is, that it is internally consistent on its own terms - its connection to our direct experience is somewhat debatable. I did a comment over at ME on this, so I won't go much deeper into all that (check it out), but the general point would be that since there is no way to observe "branches" and suchlike, only changes within one's perspective - a lack of "observational touch-points", if you will - there's an issue with taking it as "what is happening" and basing anything off of that. The "multiverse theory" is perhaps more like a narrative or a language we can discuss changes in terms of, rather than an actual theory or explanation. There is no evidence for "branches" other than as one (of many) ways of thinking about quantum states (which are basically just mathematical structures with no inherent meaning and with no way to distinguish between interpretations). They are definitely never experienced, I'd assert. Within this context, we have to ask: what would a regular changing of the header graphic contribute to our investigation? How can an observed change of header graphic be tied back to the concept of branches experimentally, rather than simply conceptually or narratively?

It ultimately comes down to: what, exactly, in our direct experience, would lead us to conclude that the content of our experience is structured as "branches" and that recent branches are more or less likely?

Also the indication that it changed might well be side effects of an intentional jump for some

How would we distinguish between that versus a spontaneous change? Isn't it the case that, truly, the only definite confirmation of a "jump" is that you intend for a specific outcome, and later that outcome arises within your experience?

POST: How do I learn to do these things?

What "energy"? I'd say forget about "energy" - especially if you can't define what you mean by it - and go directly for the outcomes you want, following the advice below.

...So, to be specific: it's a feeling? And, for example, in social situation, you might want to generate an experience "as if" other people were experiencing that feeling about you, and acting accordingly?

...That makes sense. We have to be careful because terms like "energy" and "vibration" and "frequency" get used in such hand-waving ways as if they were things or causes - perhaps because of their sort of feel-good use in law of attraction type descriptions - whereas here we want to be much more specific about their meaning. They key here, then, is that you'd want an experience "as if" such a thing occurred. This is different to saying that our experience actually is made from "energy" and that this is how the world is structured and how changes are caused, or whatever.

I read that energy is everything... I didn't do anything special but there energy is attracted to mine.

I'd suggest being a bit skeptical of all those sorts of descriptions. Or at least, view them as descriptions - that is, little parallel structures of thought - rather than "how things are". "Energy is everything" is essentially a meaningless albeit feel-good idea, potentially, at least in terms of trying to actually do anything in terms of it. How exactly does "energy is everything" connect to our direct experience? It's so vague. And if it's merely a description of the content of a particular type of experience - a feeling, for example - then it's potentially a mistake to take that content as being how experiences "work". Now, if we said something like "everything we experience is ourselves, as awareness, taking on the shape of sensory moments", that would at least be something you could examine immediately, rather than only contemplate in disconnected abstract thought. Again, though, we'd be appropriately skeptical!

Anyway, I think you're onto a more useful approach with the formulation:

I want certain feelings and experiences.

That keeps things nice and clear. Essentially, you want experiences whose content is "as if" (that is: "consistent with the idea that") there is such a thing as energy and connection between people, whether or not that is how things really are. This avoids you ending up hypothesising about something happening "behind" your experiences, when in fact experiences may not actually have any "behind" or "outside" - or indeed any particular, fundamental, unchanging "how things work" at all.

...Well, it's not necessarily clear that they are attracted to anything, in some behind the scenes way. Your actual experience is of perceiving other people apparently being attracted to you, or of seeing other people apparently being attracted to one another. But the idea of "attraction" is something you are inferring: it belongs to your description rather than to the experience itself. You don't actually experience "attraction" in the sense of a causal mechanism; you have to be careful to not mix up that "buzzy feeling" that is part of an experience, with something that is "causing" that experience. That you have this experience (of seeing this) isn't necessarily due to anything about the "people". There's no "attracting" going on behind the scenes, perhaps. Your experience of apparently seeing such things may be completely down to your own patterning, your own state as an experiencer!

The problem with the idea of "attraction" is maybe that it implies that there are independent objects, located within some sort of environment, and that there is some sort of "mechanism" - triggered by an act of some sort - which leads these objects to move towards each other in some way. These "objects" may of course be people, or some sort of event. But the inherent divisions implied within this description is misleading, I think, because it leads us to try to conceive of some sort of action we might take in order to acquire certain properties which in turn would bring about an outcome. When in fact, if you attend to your actual experience as it is, it is not actually divided in this way. And when you dig into that "attraction" type description, it reveals itself to be so hand-waving when it comes to the specifics, that there's not much of use going on. It's not really a model of experience at all - it's more of a narrative, a language that is used to talk about certain experiences using a certain turn of phrase.

So, personally, I'd move away from trying to imagine some sort of thing that happens "out there" that brings objects and situations from "over there" to "me" (one type of "attraction": the LOA style) and also away from the idea that there is a particular property you can acquire which makes you attractive (another type of "attraction": personal magnetism). Instead, I'd tend to think of this in terms of: how do I go about shaping my ongoing experience such that it contains moments "as if" I were summoning objects and situations and "as if" I was magnetic. That is, experiences that are consistent with those descriptions, those concepts, while avoiding falling into the assumption that those descriptions are how such experiences are actually caused.

POST: If we make our own reality...

[POST]

So I saw many people saying that we make our own reality, and if that's true then how is it possible for unexpected things to happen? things your mind wouldn't even be able to think of... And how is everything so consistent?

[END OF POST]

You don't make your own reality - in that way. That is, you haven't deliberately constructed, via specific choices, your experiences in advance and in detail. It is perhaps more accurate to say something like: what "you" truly are is are what experiences are "made from", and right now you are in a particular state or pattern, from which your moment-by-moment experiences arise.

An analogy:

Imagine that you have a transparent sheet with a grid drawn on it. Now, take another sheet, with a differently-spaced grid, and place it on top. Do you know what the final combined grid will be, before you look at it (experience it)? Note that going off to calculate the final grid would itself be a type of experiencing.

If we take the first sheet to be "how I am now". And then the second sheet to be "an intention". That is the way in which you might say you "make your own reality". Really, it's that you are in a particular state (a sort of "landscape" of facts), and then you deform that state (change part of the "landscape", like overlaying another pattern, affecting the whole thing), but you don't experience the final result until you "look". Even if you know the change you've made, the specific fact you've introduced, you still don't know how that change has deformed the landscape, until you "look" (experience it).

A shorter way to say this might be: you don't get to "pre-experience" your experiences.

They're all "enfolded" into the background, and you only "know" them when they are "unfolded", moment by moment. In this way, if we go with this description anyway, we are in a situation where we both "create" our experience and know it intimately by being the pattern-landscape, but at the same time it is also completely mysterious because we don't know it as sensory-type expanded moments in advance.

POST: Confused on the nature of dimensional jumping

Ultimately, the point of the subreddit is to investigate the "nature of experiencing" by way of experimentation and contemplation (with attempts at generating outcomes being an ideal way to do this). This involves examining assumptions such as...

Out of what I've read though this sub, the experiences that sound legitimate make it seem like an internal mindset change, rather than an external reality change. It doesn't really sound different than the law of attraction (believe something hard enough and it manifests). What's the difference?

...what is an "external reality"? Where is this "internal" mindset and what is a "belief"? How, exactly, would the "law of attraction" work? What does it even mean to talk of "how it works" with regards to anything?

...as if our consciousness has no connection to our bodies, or can go where it wants.

What are "you", precisely? And what is the relationship between "you" and "the world"? Is the world truly a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended place unfolding in time" with "you" as an object located within it (the common default description)? Do you ever actually experience that, or is it rather just a thought you have about an idea of "the world" now and again?

This is a lot harder accept and sounds quite a bit more drastic than what I talked about in the last paragraph.

How did you come to accept the default description you are using currently? If you pause and examine your direct experience, now - what is there that is truly stable and persistent about it? What are the facts which never change? Is it not the case the only that which never changes can be fundamentally true - in other words, "real" - and that all other facts must be relatively and temporarily true only? How does this relate to things seeming "drastic" or not?

And so on.

See also - the containing threads for comments here [POST: Questions regarding DJ], here [POST: Won $500 a few days ago], here [POST: Speculative answers to Frequently asked questions.], here [POST: A few questions.], here [POST: It wasn't a panic attack! ] and here [POST: The difference between low of attraction and dimensional jumping] from previous discussions on the differences between the "law of attraction" and "dimensional jumping".

POST: The difference between low of attraction and dimensional jumping

Well everything, of course, works the same way, since there can only be one way things work. But -

This subreddit encourages you to reconsider things at a basic level - what you are and the nature of experiencing itself - and suggests that there is no "how things really are" and there is no "how thing really work". Whereas the law of attraction tends to assume a particular mechanism, or "formatting" to experience, dimensional jumping advocates reconsidering that very formatting itself. It suggests that if you fully adopt a certain metaphor, then your experience will tend to fall into line with that. In the end, it strives for the most flexible metaphor possible that ties up to our direct experience of ourselves as a sort of "open aware space in which experiences arise" - hence the metaphors described in the sidebar. They are to be taken literally, in the sense that you can adopt them and have experiences "as if" they were literally true - what we might call "the patterning of experience". The upshot of this is that, instead of having vague notions of "maintaining frequencies" or "attracting" something, you can adopt any metaphor which inspires you to an intention - an intention which means-that, or logically implies that, you will get the outcome your desire. Choose your own mechanism. Because really the only thing that ever "happens" is intending. However, it is always more important that you recognise the nature of your own experience, since that frees you from having to adopt any particular worldview "true". Unfortunately, the descriptions tend to be a little abstract at this level, because we are actually trying to discuss the thing "before" thoughts or descriptions, or sensory experiences, or even division and change.

If you are experimenting with producing a particular outcome, then really you should consider it "done" at the moment of the intention. It's perhaps a little easier to do this by following the instructions in the Two Glasses exercise (see sidebar links); just carry on with your life neither anticipating nor debating the result, but also not worrying about any passing thought (you should just let them pass by). Basically, it's about having some faith, but mostly it's about not reacting to what comes up along the way, and therefore accidentally re-intending against your outcome.

But luckily for you...

As to your sense of "awareness of my consciousness", just relax and enjoy it. With that open space, you are in the ideal position to be okay with passing thoughts and fears, without reacting to them. Most people spend their time narrowly focused on an aspect of their sensory experience, not realising that they can release a hold on this and they will "open out" - become that "background space" with sensory imagery just sort of floating inside of it. If you've got that, you don't need to tinker with it - in fact, any attempt to fiddle with it tends to reduce it - just decide that if you occasionally notice you have narrowed your focus again, you will "cease" doing so, and allow it to open up once more. Then, fear or discomfort will be like ripples in an ocean, rather than waves in a glass of water.

You probably feel less like a "person" and more like an "awareness", but that's just because you're not used to it. As for choosing things, there's nothing more to it than intention - which means, to deliberately increase the contribution of a particular pattern. The "intention" is the pattern, "intending" is the bringing it into mind. All patterns are already existing; you only ever change how much a pattern is going to contribute. If you think about it: what else can there be? Your sensory experiences and thoughts are all "inside" your open awareness, rising and falling. They have no solidity and can't "cause" anything; they are results. The only cause is intention, and the results happen immediately. It becomes true now that the event will happen then. Of course, that's not something you should take anyone's word for - it's something to experiment with and test for yourself, and decide whether it is true or not. In small ways, and then in big ways. Only you can explore this; nobody can do it for you.

So is this state the same state I get in meditation? And I don't feel like I 've done any jumping. Just made connection with that awareness so now I can be that awareness. I definitely feel like less of a person and I want to feel like a person you know it's weird. Are you constantly in this state?

The difference would be, do you feel less like a "person" but more open and alive - or instead do you feel dissociated and numb? What you are after is to feel like a big open alive space, with your sensations, perceptions and thoughts floating in that. You should feel good.

If instead you feel like you have shifted position somehow, but are not open, then you might want to adjust that, by - for example - lightly centring yourself on the centre line of your body (just behind the eyes, centre of the chest, or lower abdomen) to feel a bit more connected.

"sensations, perceptions and thoughts" yes. Alive as of means just having the awareness and observing. It feels good (currently I hold it back) but maybe because I am not used to that stillness and feeling pleasant out of the nothing and maybe I decide that is something wrong and artificial.
But certainly I am not numb in a negative neither neutral way. I am confused. And maybe it's due to the thought that I won't get any further than this stillness and not have that higher emotions that I know as a person.
Edit: Maybe I am not open that's why it feels like there's no air there and you are not required to breath.

Sounds to me like you are just settling in and getting used to not constantly reacting and bouncing around like a rollercoaster! Also, it can take a while to get used to that different sense of "location" compared with what you used to have (since now you realise you are sort of "everywhere and nowhere", and always were, in fact). Anyway, I think you'll gradually feel more comfortable with letting go to it, and it'll settle out by itself, one way or the other.

In this state do you reach higher emotions different from peace? I want to feel emotions like love, ecstasy, creativity.

There's nothing stopping you reengaging and having more of a rollercoaster experience again if you want. The open space thing, once settled out, should feel sort of like "open joy" and feel decisively positive (since it's basically near-unobstructed awareness), but it's a position of choice rather than limitation.

Is it wise to do the mirror method everyday after it hasn't worked. I also kind of split it into two session. Anything wrong with that? Is there any restrictions? Basically can you do how many times you like till you feel fully satisfied.

I can't speak to the mirror method personally. If you were doing the Two Glasses exercise, then I'd always say to wait until things settle out - days, a week - because results there usually come by "apparently plausible but seemingly unlikely paths" and you can't "get better" at doing that.

In fact, you can't really "get better" at intending as such, I'd suggest. However, you can intend persistently until you get "the feeling of something being true", when bringing to mind a particular scene or pattern or whatever which means-that you've got your outcome. The trick is to make sure you don't reset yourself every time you do it - like, to reuse an example I've used before, sitting down again before intending to stand up (you don't end up "more stood up" by repeating the sequence).

Q1: BTW, this is an interesting book based on a very similar way of thinking: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Changing-Reality-Huna-Practices-Create/dp/0835609111]

I've read a little on Hawaiian traditions - where they overlap with the "reach into yourself because that's where the world is" approach of other traditions - but that one's new to me. Thanks.

Q1: It's a really good one - I bought it in Foyles, but I'm sure you can buy it online.
EDIT: what is particurarly interesting, I think, is that there are some exercises provided, but it is sort of made clear that these are just for the ritual/symbolic value, and you can replace them with anything else. I actuallt meant to recommend this to you long time ago, but kept forgetting.

Foyles: by far the best book store, you have excellent taste! :-)

I've bought a Kindle copy and had a quick browse so far. Yes, it does seem to have that attitude of: here are some worldviews, but their importance is as structures for experience, and should be used based on usefulness not on "being true".

Overall, it seems like an excellent survey of all the ideas or things one might experiment with. If there's anything lacking (from my first skim reading), I suppose it's a more explicit tying back of experiential content to our "nature" - I think that this could have provided a foundation that would helped the last sections (on "shifting realities" and also what he describes as "grokking").

But otherwise a really nice clear read, which is specific about explanations just being stories, that you have to actually explore it to understand it otherwise it's just inert "knowledge". It even has a section about "patterns", so I'm obviously going to approve! :-)

Q2: (I apologise for not replying properly before , but I had to go back to the book to comment in more detail)
Yes, I really liked the author's take on reality and his exercises (re-arranging shells for example) remind me of what you are trying to introduce in the Dimensional Jumping sub. The idea of 'changing your symbols and changing your life' (p. 179) is very much what you advocate, and puts the focus rather on the spirit of things than the actual ritual ('what kind of candles should I use?' etc.).
I also realized, while reading it, that I am a natural shaman ;-) :-D I've mentioned many times here I've aways had lucid dreams and I seem to solve quite a lot of issues in those dreams. That's why I like the book; although you are right it could be organised a bit better, I feel the general idea seems very natural and not forced, with the 'change from within' instead of some violent manipulation of the 'world around us'. I think it is helpful to read something that incorporates these ideas into the normal, every-day life, instead of showing them as some kind of 'supernatural' force.
(BTW, when I was in Costa Coffee the other day, I saw a guy trying to explain parallel universes to some random coffee drinkers ;-) Maybe he was a fellow Redditor?)

Yeah, I like how, later, he emphasises the four worldviews as being simultaneous perspectives, which links those shells to both the "objective" and "symbolic" angles. The perfect approach for a "natural shaman", of course! ;-)

Hmm. Do you think we have accidentally created a secret coterie of incognito jumpers, some of whom have now decided to feel out for additional members? It all fits: certainly they would be Costa or Nero rather than Starbucks! :-)

Q2: Well who knows where he jumped from? :-D I wanted to talk to him - maybe make a joke and/or snoop a little - but he left. Maybe we should wear t-shirts with 982? ;-)

Haha, maybe! We're getting into real secret society nods and winks here, updated for a modern aesthetic.

Actually, the header graphic design is loosely based around the idea that "dimensional strands" are colour-coded, and so 982 would be a particular strand or synthesis of multiple strands, like overlapping patterns. A bit like Peter Saville's designs [https://www.eyemagazine.com/blog/post/upon-paper]. So the t-shirts could be even more abstract and mysterious and "only those who know, can tell" than having the number!

Q2: The Secret Society of Dimensional Jumpers! Imagine the conspiracy theories that would evolve around us :-D
But imagine the excitement if you saw another jumper on a train, wearing some discreet colour scheme.

It could get very confusing, though, once your ongoing experience got patterned with the colour scheme, owl-style. Soon the world would seem to be entirely filled with jumpers, exchanging knowing glances on public transport!

Q2: Well true, and you will keep bumping into yourself from other dimensions as well. But still, next time I see someone talking about parallel universes I will make various hints and look at them in the meaningful way. Or shall I make owl sounds? Hoot hoot.

Hmm, I'll be looking forward to you posting the results of your "look at them in a meaningful way" experiments. ;-) Of course, once we get the eyewear range up and running, none of this will be a problem. (8>)=

Q2: OT, but you (and other Reddit shamans) may like this; [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwd-nWr_-70]

I like a bit of flute! Here's my current somewhat more downbeat listening: Endless Falls by Loscil (full album playlist: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1EAF0D24D35C2235])

POST: It wasn't a panic attack!

I've experienced something that blurred the lines for me between dimensional jumping and the law of attraction.

Really, they are just modes of operating. The "law of attraction", "dimensional jumping", "strong energies" and "being a person hanging out in the world" are all on the same level. It just so-happens that the last of these is our strongest habit and so it seems like the "normal" one, which makes the others seem special. In each case, what is really happening is that we are explicitly or implicitly choosing a particular worldview or conceptual framework and adopting it, such that we have experiences "as if" they were true. But none of them are fundamentally true. There are actually no inherent limitations to your experiential content at all. So don't let the specific labels get in the way of experimenting or lead you to overthink things.

Aside - It occurs to me that some of the problems people have with the law of attraction, is that they try to work out how it works - as if there is a pre-existing mechanism that needs to be understood, a technique to be mastered. Actually, you are better to simply fully commit to a particular description of "how things work", because that will lead to an experience "as if" that is how things work. Ironically, going looking for the right way to do it is basically an intention to have the experience of searching for a right way to do it...

POST: Speculative answers to Frequently asked questions.

[POST]

Warning: Prepare for a wall of text
I think it may be presumptive of me to consider myself an expert in this topic, but I do think I can shed some light on many of the questions that frequently come up. Rather than just reply to all of them I thought I'd make this post.
Premise: Dimensional jumping is a subset of the "Law of Attraction" and similar manifestation concepts (magick, positive thinking, etc). As such, it is more or less a metaphorical concept. It is important that you keep in mind that dimensional jumping might not literally involve moving from one dimension to another. However (for reasons that are a bit deep for this post), it is likely the most accurate metaphor for how the system really works.
FAQ
Is it possible to______?
In general, yes. You can insert literally almost anything into this box and the answer is yes. However, that does not necessarily mean it will be easy for you. In general, the system protects against things that violate what we perceive as the natural order of things (i.e. laws of physics, the continuity of reality, etc). That does not mean these things cannot be violated, but just that if your desire can come about without violating these then it is more likely to choose the path of least resistance.
For example: If you've had a pet pass away, and you'd like to go to a reality where the pet was still alive. This is possible, but it is unlikely that you would be willing to effectively rewrite the laws of physics to make it possible. The more likely event will be that you suddenly and coincidentally find a new pet who behaves suspiciously like your old pet, and fills that same emotional need. You may even suspect that the new pet is a reincarnated version of the old one (possible, but not necessary).
Ok, so if "almost anything" is possible, then what is impossible?
Though I'm sure not every here believes in channeled information --I have my doubts about much of it myself-- I do often find things from Bashar to be very insightful. In this regard I think his Four laws of creation are the best way to answer this question.
For practical purposes I think we can simplify it even further to two laws for dimensional jumpers:

1. You exist -- You cannot jump to a place where you do not exist (Though if you really stretch you could find a way to pretend you don't exist if you wanted)
2. Everything changes - You can't stop things from changing.
   What happens to the me in the reality I jump to? What happens to the me in this reality when I jump?
   This is a question that actually goes very deep. First, its important to realize that in the grand scheme there is only one you. However, that "you" may be in many realities at once experiencing itself as discrete versions of you. This is largely academic and doesn't affect anything.
   I think it may be easier to divide this into two questions that really strike at the heart of peoples real concerns:
   Am I causing harm to the alternate version of myself by taking over his/her life?
   No. It is very likely that there is no alternate version of yourself with whom you are switching places. But if there is, then that version of yourself chose to switch in the same way that you did. If there were no other way to achieve your jump than to go to a universe where there is a version of you already existing, then you will enter a copy universe.
   But going deeper, this answer isn't 100% accurate either. It is important to realize that dimensions aren't perfectly discrete. They exist more like wave functions, allowing all probabilities to exist until they need to be observed. Think of it like a computer game. In most computer games, if you walk into a dungeon, the inside of the dungeon has not been rendered yet. Once you step in, it begins to render. But even then the render is only partial because it does not render the elements you do not see yet. Instead it starts making decisions about what is probable, and what it needs to be prepared for you to see. Then when you see it, it renders those frames.
   So there isn't a dimension where you were born a different gender, 5 inches taller, or with blue hair. Instead there are multiple -near infinite-- hyperdimensions of probability where all of these things are true.
   What happens to my loved ones in this reality when I jump?
   A bigger question is : Where are your loved ones now? Going back to the idea that dimensions aren't perfectly discrete, realize that the dimension your loved ones live in is not the exact same dimension as yours. Instead, you share a hyperdimension where your individual dimensions overlap a bit. The things you do in your dimension affect those closest to you, but only if they allow it. In the same way, those close to you affect you, but only if you allow it.
   The people who are close to you, are that way precisely because you choose to be in very similar dimensions. If one of them decides to radically change themselves, you may find that they suddenly move away, die, become imprisoned, or simply change friend circles.
   So the direct answer to the question becomes a bit complicated. They may experience you dying, or moving away. But they may have already experienced this. They choose their overall experience of how they perceive you. You simply help them by filling in the gaps...you add a personal flare to the "you" they want to experience through your choices and actions. Your choices and actions tug on their reality and pull it in a certain direction. They can resist it (but usually don't).
   However, you only stay close to those who are in realities similar to yours. So if you make a change radical enough both of you will experience drifting apart from one another....except not always. If one of the people in the group does not want to let go of the experience of the other person, then that person may be replaced with a sort of "bot" to simulate the experience.
   So here is an extreme example: Your spouse is in the hospital with a terminal illness. You want to jump to a reality where they do not have this illness and you can live your lives together. What happens if your spouse truly exists in the reality where they have a terminal illness? Well, you would jump to a new reality where your spouse would miraculously recover, while they would stay in their reality and experience their choice of interaction with you. Presumably they would experience you staying with them lovingly until they died (and perhaps some version of you does exactly this).
   But then does that mean the spouse in my reality is not my spouse, but is a bot?
   Maybe, but not necessarily. As mentioned above it is possible that there are multiple discrete versions of each person. So they may simultaneously choose to experience dying in the hospital and their miraculous recovery. Perhaps, they may even choose to have one version of themselves go along with you just to aid you in your choice of realities.
   It is also possible that your spouse is only existing in the universe where you perceive them to have an illness because you are choosing that universe. They are simply agreeing to go along with you, and when you choose to go to the recovery universe then the illness universe disappears back into the cloud of probability (I choose to avoid the word "collapses" because that actually has the opposite meaning in quantum physics).
   So if you are worried about how your choice might affect your loved ones, realize that the choice you are making now to not perform an intentional jump is affecting them in some way as well. They may be anxiously waiting for you to jump.
   It is important to remember that each individual chooses their path. We do influence one another. That influence can be very strong (especially against a person who does not have strong beliefs). But we never actually "force" someone to experience something they didn't agree to.
   Wait, go back. Are you saying we live in computer simulation?
   No. Not really. But a computer simulation is a very good analogy for the true nature of reality. It is a small technical distinction, but an important one. It is more accurate to say that our idea of "computer simulation" is a way we chose to mimic reality to understand it. We do not literally live in a computer, at least not the way we understand a computer physically, but many of systems of reality are very similar to a computer's operation.
   How does that work really?
   The "computer" that is our reality has simulated any and all possibilities and carried them out in a deterministic fashion the form of a wave of probable outcomes. It biases most of its power towards the most those outcomes that the observer (the player of the game --i.e you) are more likely to choose to experience. Then when you make those choices it renders the outcome.
   This is the technical way of looking at the thing many of these enlightened people have been saying for so many years: "All is one, and everything exists right NOW".
   The whole thing is just a big collection of possibility. Time, different universes, different choices...all these things are just different points and directions inside the same thing. Further more, if you are playing a game you know that when you walk for 4 hours in a computer game, that you aren't actually physically going anywhere. It's all inside the computer. In the same way, all distance in reality is simulated. All difficulty in moving from one reality to one another (turning your hair blue and living on mars with Beethoven) is simulated. All of these things are directly right on top of each other.
   EDIT: u/TriumphantGeorge/ pointed out that I should make a distinction here. There is really no "how it works" in the grandscheme of things. (see his comment below). But for practical purposes I believe everything mentioned here and elsewhere on this sub is useful framework. But, in general, on this sub if TriumphantGeorge says it, it is usually pretty accurate. It is just unfortunate that maximum accuracy requires maximum ambiguity
   So none of this is real?
   This is as real as it gets. Have you ever really defined for yourself what the word "real" means? The concept of "real" is defense mechanism. It is the same idea that attempts to enforce the continuity of reality. It is probably put in place by the system to prevent wild jumping around in the system. When looking at reality from this high a perspective its easy to see that he concept of what is "real" has no actual meaning.
   Then how does mirror method/ two glasses work ?
   These techniques are sort of like brute force hacking. They are about allowing yourself to let go of the unnecessary hold on continuity of reality by giving yourself an excuse for glitches in continuity. So tomorrow when you ask yourself, "Wait a second, wasn't my neighbors car red and now its blue?" You can give yourself the excuse that you've "jumped". What is more accurate is that you've just allowed yourself to "jump" further and in a different "direction" than you normally do.
   There are many things that create artificial difficulty in jumping, but personally I feel the need for continuity and causality is the strongest. We fight tooth and nail for all of it to make sense, but it doesn't have to. These techniques are sort of hacks to get yourself into the mood to allow some of it to not make sense. Or rather it is a way for you to make sense of the discontinuity.
   As such, proper technique is less important focus, intention, and belief. So don't worry if you spill water doing two glasses, or you don't see anything weird with the mirrors. All of this is secondary to trusting and focusing on your goal, and allowing the technique you choose to work.
   That's all for now. If anyone has some other questions that I can add to this, I can either reply in the comments, or if the question is general enough for a FAQ, I will edit it in later.

[END OF POST]

A couple of quick points:

Dimensional jumping is a subset of the "Law of Attraction"

I'd probably say that "dimensional jumping" overall is an umbrella for all changes to experience; the specific metaphor of "dimensions", meanwhile, is a subset of that. Dimensional jumping in its broader sense attempts to be a "meta" view, prior to any particular model of experience or change, assuming only that there is some structure or "patterning" involved (the most basic description that can still "makes sense").

it is likely the most accurate metaphor for how the system really works.

Although for convenience we usually ignore this, it's definitely worth emphasising that there is no "how it really works", and that the idea of there being a "how things work" is itself a metaphor.

The actual closest we can get to "how it really works" is probably something like: "you are that which takes on the shape of experiences; you can shift your 'shape' and therefore your experiences" - that's it. Which, of course, is basically saying: you just do. This can't really be described, so we often use misdirection to help things along, in both our descriptions and in our exercises. (Everything we do say about it is a "parallel construction in thought", and is itself just another experience at the same level: the experience of thinking about the nature of experience and change. And so on. Everything is an experience, with nothing "behind" it.)

This means that if one does want to use the simulation metaphor - because they find it attractive and it suggests certain ways of thinking about change that they find useful - they should bear in mind that it is not you who is inside a simulation run by an external simulator, rather you are the simulator which is "running" the simulation within you.

Technically that's not how the computer really works deep down, but it is a method to get at the core to achieve results.

And it's worth noting, I think, that it's completely fine to go with the "simplified diagram" version of things like this. We are not saying that "this" is "that", we are simply saying that there are benefits in viewing the world "as if" it corresponded to certain aspects of "that".

[There is no "how it works."] It is, but this is such an advanced concept.

But also it can be a very simplifying one: that is, that it is "all experience, no external world" or "all patterning, no solid substrate". As always, it depends on the aim. If it is simply to provide a method which "gets results", then it can be temporarily beneficial to just say: "this is how it is", and in acting from that model they will have experiences "as if" it were true. Ultimately, though, this is somewhat of a dead end, and people start questioning the method, which then affects the results. To really become free and flexible, and not get lost in disruptive theorising, we have to come to the realisation that the "how it works" is also based on intentions and their implications. Not only does performing an act with intention bring about a result, it also implies the context of the intention. In other words: if you go looking for evidence that things are certain way, you will have experiences "as if" they are that way, when they change their mind, another way. Not knowing this can be very confusing.

So yes, technically in a sense using the simulation metaphor is sort of like picking an operating system and programming language.

Right, in a way. Once we are aware of this - that metaphors are "formatting" rather than explanations - then we are freed somewhat from the tyranny of trying to "understand" a mechanism that isn't there. We can treat the use of a metaphor as a choice of how we'd like things to be, rather than it having to be fundamentally "true". At that point, we realise that we can stop looking for descriptions which explain experience (whew!) because we understand that descriptions are patterns overlaid upon - or restructure - experience. Therefore, "how things work" is a pattern in experience in exactly the same way as the pattern of events resulting from an target outcome; they differ in terms of abstraction, not of kind.

I've added an edit in the post that hopefully helps make that distinction.

Note that this wasn't about pointing out flaws in your post; I was just picking up on some threads for an expanded conversation. You should leave your post as it is - it fulfils your purpose as stated - and readers can then follow what's written in the comments, if they want to dig deeper.

This recursive logic bothers me.

The recursive logic can be problematic, but I actually think the drive to release oneself from that recursion - the "stepping back" from that - is where you shift to a different context, and grasp your actual situation.

The question that we end up asking is:

• What are "you" and what is your relationship to "the world"?

Or shorter version:

• What is the "nature of experiencing" itself? What is the context of experience rather than the content?

And the answer to that, which is arrived at by (really simple) directly looking at our experience as it is, means we don't need to battle with the recursion issue. Although it's still slightly claustrophobic to try and think of it, because it as something with no "outside" to it, it can't be thought of conceptually, only directly intuited.

Also, the "you just do" sounds suspiciously like "I am that I am".

Well, it's inevitable we end up with phrases like that, because we're trying to point out that you are the entire moment of experience. Even when you are having the experience of apparently being "over here" and the screen is "over there", in fact you discover you are everywhere, just having "taken on the shape of" that experience of apparent separation.

It sounds very exotic, but it's very simple: anyone can close their eyes right now and try to:

• a) find the "edges" of your current experience,
• b) find where "you" are in your current experience.

But of course, it can't really be put into words. We end up with metaphors like: What you are is a sort of non-material "material" whose only inherent property is being-aware, and which has all possible experiences "dissolved" within it. It can experience any of those possibilities simply by "shifting" itself to "take on the shape of" that experience. Right now, you have taken on the shape of the experience of being-a-world-from-the-perspective-of-a-person.

And a whole load of other metaphors involving blankets, beaches, water, and anything else that's vaguely malleable! :-)

[Free Will and Determinism] But I can't quite put that into words as to why that is, I just know it as an intuition.

Right! It cannot be thought about, it cannot be described.

The essence of it is, while your state between shifts is fully deterministic, you-as-awareness is not. Awareness is "before" all structure and formatting, and that includes division and multiplicity and, relations and changes in space.

So basically, there's no point in trying to work out whether you-as-awareness has "free will" because, in a sense, both "free will" and the "working out" are "made from" awareness. However, you can know it directly (intuition). And in fact, this direct knowing is the same way in which you are experiencing the entirety of your current state right now, even though only an aspect is "unfolded" as 3D-extended senses.

Aside - I think that confusing the formatting of the senses with the formatting of the world-as-it-is can be a real stumbling block, and is what leads people to think of the world being a fixed 3D-extended "place", and there being an "outside" to their experience even though a moment of directly attending to it reveals there is not. The ingrained idea of the world involving "separate people exploring a spatially-extended place unfolding in time" is a big hurdle.

Yes, but now it seems more accurate to ask what is the world's relationship to me?

Yes! And I think that urge to reverse the wording is the first thing that comes out of the contemplation of this. And then, having taken that step, the rest becomes much clearer, more easily. Yeah, time to get some dinner, that sounds like a good idea! Catch you later.

A brief addition, because someone posted a follow-up comment and then removed it, but they brought up a good point, about the difficulty in thinking about this - and the subsequent difficulty you can have trying to think about anything. Once you've recognised that you-as-awareness as the true nature of experience, you can end up being caught in a bit of a bind. After all, you-as-awareness cannot be thought about, and trying to think about it can feel either slightly claustrophobic as you try to turn yourself almost inside-out while having no "inside" or "outside", or unmoored because you have no stable platform within experience from which to comprehend experience. Because of this, it is good to take one particular perspective and go with that as your "default formatting". Remember: there is no special or ultimate "shape" of experience you should be aiming to adopt, you don't have to be seeking to constantly experience yourself as an unformatted space whose only property is being-aware - because: then what? It is enough to know that is the case, regardless of the experience you are currently happening. What we want, then - since there is no "correct" perspective - is to select a basic perspective which is the most flexible and beneficial.

The ideal default, I suggest, is to format yourself as "a background space within which sensory experience arises". This places you-the-observer as a pure, relaxed, background expanse, with you-the-content floating within it. This gives you a stable platform to operate from, to think from. You view the world, then, as "a three-dimensional multi-sensory thought of a world, that is floating in the space of a perceiving mind". Other thoughts are then parallel experiences, floating in mind. You can of course then choose to reshape yourself as "being a person in a world" when you want, but you will always have this format of "being a space within which the sensory thought of a world is floating" available to you going forward.

Q1: you don't have to be seeking to constantly experience yourself as an unformatted space whose only property is being-aware - because: then what? It is enough to know that is the case
the formatting i'm having at the moment is along the lines of changing my patterning from an apparent "internal/mind-only state" and expanding it to become "the world"
because before, my experiences were felt only intellectually (which is purely a fictional experience itself) so by changing that to be-the-world it should then become manifest
because all events are rooted in consciousness anyway [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqOjFC9MCDc]: the intention of creating something creates it
The ideal default, I suggest, is to format yourself as "a background space within which sensory experience arises".
this is the goal
You can of course then choose to reshape yourself as "being a person in a world" when you want
this is what i am doing by "transferring" the intention from an apparent mental-construct to an apparent-physical experience
yet both are the the same in principle being derived from an intention manifest in consciousness

The intention of something is that thing! The thought of something and the actual something differ only in their intensity and their location (3rd person vs 1st person, basically). Isn't this shift in relative position - changing from watching something to being "clothed" by it - actually the essence of what you're speaking of ?

POST: Won $500 a few days ago

Congrats on your win!

I believe dimensionaljumping and law of attraction are essentially the same thing.

The usual philosophical follow-up questions: What "thing" is it, precisely, that both "dimensional jumping" and "the law of attraction" are? How does the law of attraction work, exactly, and what does this imply about the nature of our ongoing experience - and the nature of "the world" and "you"? Strictly speaking, without answering that we can't really say that "something triggered the win" nor that two things are the "same thing".

Im guessing it was the feeling state that shifted me into an experience that matched the state?

It's potentially a way of looking at it. One possible model is that adopting a particular pattern (an image, a feeling, whatever) can trigger the associated extended pattern into prominence, and that this then informs your subsequent experience. Although we might wonder: what are "states" made from? And where are they? Or are they just metaphors which are used to formulate intentions, and which have no existence other than that?

The idea being, that the more clearly structured our description is, the more we move towards a situation where any apparent results can be linked back, and the outcome repeated (eventually ruling out coincidence or a tendency towards superstition).

It's hard to pin down what, if anything, triggered the win here, I think, because there was a bit of a muddle of activities going on in this case. Did you get paid in $100 bills, for example, as in your visualisation? Or was there a more specific intention that accompanied the image? How would you go about repeating it - what have you learned from the experiment that you could reuse?

I played the scratch offs for the sake of enjoying the game without caring if i won or lost.

Yeah, I do think the attitude of basically "being okay with whatever happens" is a key ingredient, even when it comes to managing and directing everyday life, never mind the more esoteric experiments.

I was grateful for having that experience I desire, now. Without the feelings of desiring/yearning (that would imply having it in the future).

Perhaps the stability and relationship thing didn't come with her because I hadn't gotten to that part on my list yet before she came up and said hi

Ha, I love that. Following on from what you say about "yearning", I agree that does have an impact. We might draw the connection between this and "thinking about" vs "experience of". If you are thinking about something, imagining it in the 3rd person, then it is "over there" and you are "over here". There is a distance between it, and it is that distance, the gap between the desire and fulfilment, which leads to the yearning. For as long as the outcome is held in this 3rd-person state, then it cannot be experienced. For it to become an experience, one needs to be "clothed" by the outcome, it must be released from suspension "over there" and be allowed to dissolve into the main strand of experience "over here" - the 1st person. Basically, you must allow it to cease being a located, bounded thought, and become an unlocated, unbounded thought - because that is what ongoing experience is. To release something, then, is to allow it to dissolve into the background, and therefore become integrated into your main strand of 1st person experience. One might skip this, however, by formulating your intentions as "unlocated, unbounded" thoughts in the first place, rather than as object-type thoughts - provided one wasn't resisting change to the main strand at the same time.

POST: Questions regarding DJ

So, for your first point, see previous answers about "dimensional jumping" and the "law of attraction": here [POST: Won $500 a few days ago ], here [POST: Speculative answers to Frequently asked questions.] and here [POST: A few questions.]. As for the story, it's just that: a /r/nosleep type story "inspired by" the topic of dimensional jumping (although really a misunderstanding of the topic as it is described in the sidebar).

Q1: Wow, thanks for the fast reply tho, would you be able to explain the difference beetwen DJ and LoA for dummy people please? Like I though it was something like: DJ (2 glasses) might "change everything" (might change your relationship with parents, close people etc) just for your wishes while Law of attraction you're just asking for one thing while it be the only thing changing or only things around it wil change.

Your timing was good!

So, the real answer is that "dimensional jumping" and "law of attraction" are both aspects or artefacts or leveragings of a deeper truth. The difference between them is, I'd say, that "dimensional jumping" is knowingly employing this and understands there is no solid underlying "how things really work", whereas the "law of attraction" tends to be based on a hand-waving sense of there being a "how things are really". (And often a poorly-defined one, leading to almost superstitious behaviour in search of "vibrations" and the like.)

At root, though, they both work because change arises due to intentions and their implications - and the world-descriptions those intentions are structured in terms of - rather than due to a technique or method based on the world being a certain way independently of those intentions.

Q1: Thanks for all your answers :) so after all there are no big changes if you do 2 glasses if you dont really want big changes around you due to whatever you asked for, right? Since you might make the shape of whatever you want.

Right, so the idea is that when you write the labels you contemplate the specific situation you are in, then contemplate the specific outcome you want, and in each case "feel out" the words that capture those situations (that is, you let the words come to you rather than logically working them out). There's no reason for anything more dramatic to happen, other than what makes sense in terms of "this" turning into "that". You're not going to some other drastically different place, you're just tweaking up your current experience a bit by "re-patterning" it (is the concept behind the exercise).

Q1: Alright, thanks :) It sounds better than dimensional jumping wich sounds kinda shady actually compared to what it really is. Since as far as i've understood there's no jumping to other dimension (thats why you are not ocupping any other body and yours its not ocuped either)

Yeah, well "dimensional jumping" is just one of many metaphors which, the idea goes, you can use to generate experiences "as if" they were true. So, if you want radical change in your life, something that breaks the rules a bit, then constructing intentions in terms of that metaphor allows you to "re-pattern" your experience in a way that actions based on the usual world description would not. (Although there is also some misdirection involved to ensure that you don't resist, or later counter-intend, the outcome.)

Fundamentally, you never occupy any body, you just have an experience "as if" you are "a body within a world". The deeper observation referred to earlier, is realising that the only fundamental truth is the fact that there is an experience happening - that is, the fact of being-aware. The actual content of experience, though, is impermanent and has no solid underlying substrate, and hence the possibility of shifting its condition without limitation. (All of which, of course, should be checked by personal experimentation; you're not meant to take anyone else's word on this.)

Q1: What breaks my brain is that then, the world is a place of shared experiences, right? Since, as an exemple, i've met you, and you're an human being more than something that i've created.

That's everyone's favourite topic, apparently! See recent discussion: here [POST: What happens to the other 'you's when you jump?], for example.

Q1: I feel like a freak but i find these "theorys" (for scepticks or however its written in english) interesting. But, what would happen if 2 same persons make the 2 glasses method to be attached to the same person, lets say "x" and "y" want to be with "l", what would happen?

At a fundamental level there are no people and you are not actually a person! Basically, don't worry about it - you can treat it like a "private copy" of the world where everything in your experience is an aspect of a larger you. As I say, the only thing that is always true is the fact of "awareness"; everything else is true on an "as if" temporary basis only. So there are no conflicts, because there is only ever this experience happening.

Q1: Thanks for all the answers btw :) That sounds totally awesome, is this connected to the astral projection/law of attraction philosophy, i mean, we're here to live, so just do it. Or does this go in other way that people who believe in karma and so would reject this, like if this woud be cheating?

Welcome! I don't think the idea of karma as in "judgement and payback" is valid. There are no inherent rules-based morality laws or an independent benchmark for appropriate behaviour.

There is karma in the sense of, if you "pattern" yourself with a particular outcome or a particular worldview - whether by intending it or doing something that implies it - then it will become prominent in your life. But that's not the same as "balance" or whatever. Rather, it's just what a "patterning" approach means by definition: you get what you assert plus the logical implications of that assertion - i.e. if you intend something then you are also intending a world in which that intention makes sense.

So, basically just do it. There is no morality or judgement outside of yourself, so it's up to you. The nature of "patterning" does imply a certain "do unto others (unto the world-as-experience) as you would have done to you", though, of course.

Q1: wow! This is a very interesting and good point of view, mother of god. So, what do you think about the infinite knowledge that is right now in the universe? Like, none of it "exists" as it trully is, or it is really something exist and we discover over our experiences?

You could consider that the world is not so much a "spatially-extended place unfolding in time" as a "toy box of all possible patterns and experiences, from which we draw to create our 'private copy'". All possibilities, then, are present eternally (which means "outside of time" rather than "forever"), "dissolved" into the background. However, that too is basically a metaphor which you can experience "as if" it were true, albeit a metaphor which gets closer to being completely inclusive. Again, only being-aware - or "awareness" - is fundamentally true (exists), however it can "take on the shape of" any experience "as if" it were true (exists). To summarise this view:

• What you truly are is "awareness", a sort of non-material "material" whose only property is being-aware, and which "takes on the shape of" experiences.
• The experience you have taken on the shape of right now is one of apparently being-a-world-from-the-perspective-of-a-person.

The problem we have when thinking about it (this is covered in the last link) is that our thinking is already pre-formatted into a "shadow sensory" shape. We cannot think of things which are "before" experience, because thoughts are themselves are just experiences. We have to be careful and not make the mistake of assuming the-world-as-it-is is of the same format as our sensory moments, since they are just a particular patterning themselves. This tends to inform our idea of what "to exist" means.

Generally, I'd say that everything exists as potentiality (enfolded), and the current sensory moment exists as actuality (unfolded). However, right now you are actually experiencing absolutely everything, and this is true always - however, different pattern-facts are just "brighter" than other pattern-facts (their relative contribution to this sensory moment is stronger). We might call the current relative distribution of pattern intensities our present "state".

Basically:

• Think of the situation now that you want to change. Pause and wait for a word to come up which feels like it fits as a summary of that situation.
• Think of the situation as you want it to be. Pause and wait for a word to come up which feels like it fits for that.
• Use those words for your labels.

Follow the instructions as they are written in: these instructions [The Act is The Fact - Part One: An Exercise]. That's it!

Q1: Hi again. Tried it about last week but literally: 0 changes. Not even around me. If done the two glasses but the glasses aren't transparent at all (they have like pictures). Does It matter? I'll try again soon, but I'd like to know how to do It perfectly when I just want to thing one change while maintaining my family bounds exactly the same.

The properties of the glasses don't really matter - although it's helpful if they are transparent to some extent so that you can see the water levels and so fully experience the pouring of the liquid. So don't worry too much about that. Other things to consider: remember to follow the last instruction; generally allow a week or so for anything to become obvious; later, if no luck, perhaps consider whether you are someone who "holds onto themselves" in everyday life, do you "control" yourself moment by moment?

Q1: What do we mean by "controlling", sorry for obvious questions but since english is not my main language (not even close to) somethings might be a little bit confusing to me.

It's not you - it's hard to put into words anyway! So, an example:

Sit in a chair. Now stand up.

Does it feel that the standing up experience just "arises" and your body "moves by itself", or do you feel that you are "doing" the standing up? If you feel that you are "doing" it, can you identify what it is you do? Are you tensing muscles? Thinking intensely? Narrowing your attention down? Do you begin by re-asserting the fact of "sitting down" before you being targeting "standing up"? None of that is required.

Now, instead of doing anything about standing up, just let your attention be open and expansive in all directions (don't narrow down onto your body parts), and just-decide that your body will stand up: simply think "being-standing-up". And then don't interfere. Allow the experience of "my body standing up" to just arise and unfold in your awareness, by itself.

Some people constantly "re-assert" their current body position and then use effort to overcome it, and they do the same with thinking, and in particular they "concentrate" their attention on the target of what they are doing. None of this is actually required (in particular, you don't need to narrow-focus on your target in order to intend it and have it happen), and what it tends to do is "fix" you in your current state, and prevent it shifting - in the example, like you are intending "being-sat-down" and "being-stood-up" at the same time!

Q1: alright, i think I got the point, so how do we transfer that to 2 glasses? And by the way, how was this method discovered? i've been looking on google but there's only reddit threads, no other websites so im curious :p

In two ways. Firstly, when performing the exercise, simply perform the acts as described in the instructions, and don't "concentrate" or "focus" or in some way try to make anything happen. Secondly, in your everyday life work towards staying "open and spacious" and go about your tasks by just-deciding rather than "manually" moving yourself (body, thoughts, attention). The exercise itself, I put it together when someone posted a question over at /r/glitch_in_the_matrix asking whether it was possible to deliberately create a "glitch" type experience.

Q1: Got it! Thanks!
Yeah, but my point of the question, is how would someone discover the method, since lot of people on this reddit say it works im just curious why it is not famous out of reddit itself

Oh, I see. Well, it's just one example of that sort of thing, I suppose, and it probably doesn't make much sense out of context?

It's probably best described as an experiment rather than a method. Its underlying purpose really is to trigger an experience that encourages a questioning of your assumptions, and perhaps thinking along a particular direction about the "nature of experiencing". Without that larger idea backing it, the ability to have conversations like this about it in a forum, it probably isn't very valuable.

Q1: Gotcha, thank you once again!
Could I ask you to share your own experiences that have worked with 2Glasses (if not very personal) as how was it before, what you wanted to change, and how it changed and what else changed due to it?

You're welcome. I'll leave you to conduct your own experiments and check it out for yourself, but if you're interested: here is the original comment [POST: [EXPERIMENT] Glitch Generation Test, I Need Your Creative Ideas!] describing the exercise, and the first responses!

...

Q2: [There is no morality or judgement outside of yourself]
yes there is - me

Hmm, you are not outside of yourself!

Q2: other people are because they are not directly me and do things I despise... judgement, see

But you are not "directly you" either. To despise them is simply to despise aspects of yourself, and for as long as you despise them, it'll persist...

Q2: for as long as you despise them, it'll persist...
that's right, because by thinking about them, I am reinforcing that "pattern". so I have to "drop" them... but realistically, they're not going to just vanish; so there must be a need for a war or something
But you are not "directly you" either
this is still confusing to me [https://youtu.be/DyOxHTLE3EE]

Drop "realistically" too, then...

POST: What happens to the other 'you's when you jump?

The content and links in the sidebar cover this, I think, but -

Although it's fun (or disturbing!) to contemplate, there are not any "other yous" in the sense of physically (in a separate space), simultaneously (in a parallel time) "happening" (unfolding in time). I'd suggest that the only thing that is "happening" is your 1st-person ongoing experience right now.

"Dimensions", as an (active?) metaphor, provide a way of conceiving of a discontinuous change in the content of that ongoing experience that breaks your usual narrative of the world as a "spatially-extended place unfolding in time". Other narratives might then seem more appropriate - for example, we might think of "the world" as a sort of toy box containing all possible patterns and facts and moments, from which we select our particular "private copy" experience of a world.

Q1: I rather like the "private copy" metaphor, it helps me grasp the whole idea of "patterning." The only thing I don't understand is how it can be "private" when our toolboxes seem so show the same pattern, and my patterns can influence your patterns. I'm sure you get this same question in its different forms very often, and I guess it can be boiled down to this: if objectivity doesn't exist, then why do our subjective experiences "sync up" so well?

There are a few ways to tackle this, but let's say: if objectivity doesn't exist, then subjectivity doesn't exist - there is just "experiencing". Therefore, our subjective experiences in fact don't "synch up" at all. Your current experience is the whole thing, you are being-a-world-from-the-perspective-of-a-person (and by "a world" we mean a particular shaping of the metaphorical eternal "infinite gloop").

The Hall of Records metaphor gives us one way to conceive of this. It essentially says: all perspectives exist, but the only thing that is ever "happening" is this experience, because "experiencing" == "happening". There is no "outside" to that. However, really, we have a problem here: that our thoughts about experience are themselves experiences, and so already formatted into pseudo-sensory object-based experience. We cannot therefore think about experience; it is already "too late". What we are talking about is "before" division and multiplicity. So, we might say that there is only one toolbox, not many, and only one experience, not many. Strictly speaking, given the above, we should say that there are not-many toolboxes, and not-many experiences. We literally can't conceive of this in the abstract, we only conceive of particular experiences, as experiences!

Although we can't think about it, we can directly attend to our experience and get an unmediated insight though. (Excuse some recycling here.) A silly little exercise illustrates this. We might close our eyes and try to:

a) find the "edges" of your current experience.
b) find where "you" are in your current experience. and:
c) investigate what your current is experience is "made from". finally:
d) think about yourself, and then note the location of that thought and what it is "made from".

The conclusions of this are the facts upon which all of experience is built. (Try it before reading the next paragraph!)

I anticipate what you discover is: there is no edge to your experience, and so there is just a sort of unbounded space of "awareness" rather than "an" or "the" awareness; you seem to be both everywhere and nowhere, you are unlocated and unbounded; the entire experience appears to be "made from" you, as in you-as-awareness rather than you-as-person; what you previously considered yourself to be is a thought of you, and that thought is located within you-as-awareness and is made from you-as-awareness.

Eventually - from this, the experiences you might generate from other exercises, and some contemplation - you conclude that the only inherent property of experience is being-aware, and that to talk of there being "other" subjective experiences or an objective world is not right or wrong, but meaningless. You can't "understand" this in terms of conceptualising it, but you can know it, directly.

I've spent my whole life using "subjectivity" basically as a synonym for "experience."

Me too, largely, which is why it's worth doing what we're doing now: just emphasising that it's a shorthand for "the subject" rather than it being a perspective that is embedded within an environment.

I'm imagining an Alex Grey painting with an infinite pattern of eyes embedded into the background, which alludes to the idea of awareness being an inherent property of all things.

A nice image. If the background is made completely from "eyes', then all objects which appear within it are also made from "eyes". Although, because that can suggest that one part of the background is "looking out" at another part, it's probably better so that it is made from "sensing" or "being". That way, we get the idea that the background doesn't go beyond itself, it simply experiences itself, in and as the shape that it has currently adopted. This is where we eventually come to the idea of calling it "awareness" and its only inherent property being being-aware.

However, it's really useful to come up with different visual images, like the one you suggest, for helping us grasp particular implications of this. So long as we bear in mind that the true situation is "non-dimensional", as it were, then we can't really go wrong.

At the core of reality I imagine a uniform, unbounded 3D grid ...

In some respects this is similar to The Infinite Grid metaphor, I suppose. These metaphors can be very useful for: a) conceiving of a structure which can be used to formulate intentions; b) providing a thinking framework to discuss certain experiences. It is important, though, to note that it is not "how things really are" - because there is no particular "now things really are" or "how things really work".

There is no stable underlying substrate within which we are operating, hence the "formatting" of your world experience at an abstract level is just as much a pattern as everything else. When we intend something, we not only intend that outcome, but we also implicitly intend the conceptual framework that was used to conceive of it. That is, that when you intend to go out into the garden, you are also implying the extended pattern of that intention, which involves apparent houses, gardens, a persistent environment, spatial extent, unfolding change, and so on.

So, every intention is a shift of the entire world! However, we tend to only intend things that are consistent with our current experience, and thus every time we go out into the garden, we further entrench this entire universe or dimension (that is: patterned state). What we are doing on this subreddit, what the exercises encourage, is intending an outcome which is not consistent with our current experience of "how things work", and thereby we reveal to ourselves that "how things work" is something we implicitly intend and which is within experience, rather than some stable independent landscape that we navigate across.

This node could be described by some as an "ego," a container for the awareness. Is this description compatible so far?

Well, the ego isn't a container for awareness. Awareness has no edges or boundaries, it is what everything else is "from", so it cannot be contained. What you think of as the ego is just a concept. In terms of what you actually experience, I'll be it's just an occasional thought that arises here and there, which you attribute to an ego. Again, what you are actually experiencing is being "awareness" with sensations, perceptions and thoughts arising within and as it.

The little four part investigation demonstrates to you this fact of experience. It is important, though, to actually do this, to attend to experience directly, rather than just think about it. Your thoughts about it won't get "behind" it, they will be just more experiences, deformations of your current experience - like rippling a pool of water that you are trying to perceive the surface of. Realising this, you discover the the "ego" is really a thought about an "ego", rather than an actual thing. It is a pattern of experience, nothing more. (I suggest.)

POST: A few questions.

I guess probably the best way to start, is to ponder:

• How, exactly, does the "law of attraction" work? (And what is the model of the world upon which it's based?)
• What are "you" and what is your relationship to "the world"?

As the sidebar says, "dimensions" are really just a concept or metaphor (as indeed is the concept of "reality"), one that is used to describe an experience and/or formulate an intention. It is not really "how things work" or "how things are". (In fact I'd suggest there is no "how things work", and "how things are" cannot be described because descriptions themselves are made from it.)

Ultimately, then, this is about generating experiences which lead one to contemplate the "nature of experiencing", and understand the relationship between experiences, intentions, and descriptions. And getting some desirable results along the way, for sure. The Two Glasses exercise, specifically, is really a structured approach to getting someone to shift state from one with "this" pattern as dominant, to one with "that" pattern as dominant - whilst making it relatively unlikely that they will counter-intend it afterwards, and in a way that naturally raises questions about causal relationships within experience.

POST: I've got a bit of a problem.

Q1: I am saddened that this subreddit seems so negative suddenly

Q2: It's the flood of all these new people. The whole "vibe" of the sub changed. There's no more teachers. And all the noobs are just relishing in their ignorance.

Q3: Imo "teacher" isn't the appropriate term.
Assuming that the core intentions of this sub are:
(a) to rise curiosity about the relationship between "I" and "the world" and subsequently between "experience" and "descriptions".
(b) Suggest tools to help individuals in their personal investigations.
What is lacking at this phase are more people willing to redirect "noob discussions" to the core theme. The modus operandi of /u/TriumphantGeorge is a good model.
My suggestion to make this task easier is to create a hypertext in the format of Question/Answer linking to previous discussions here. Maybe it could be done in a collaborative fashion utilizing a shared doc...

Indeed, those are the core themes - although they are usually best articulated as part of a dialogue, rather than a statement of intent I think, because the various terms tend to have different meanings for everyone. That's also why there isn't a basic Q&A/FAQ here. However, a wiki page linking to "historical discussions of note" may be a useful thing for us to introduce. Meanwhile, the number of subscribers and new interest probably now exceeds what is practical for a subreddit topic like this, and has for a while. In moderation terms, we've tended to let things breathe for a bit, then reel things back in. That is, allow some basic or repeat posts to stay for a while - because they often allow a strand of discussion to develop that is valuable even if the main post is not - and later remove ones that didn't flourish. But this does mean we suffer from waves of "incomer ignorance" dominating the sub sometimes, and perhaps we need to push back on that a bit more.

...

A1: Grow a pair sissy.

A2: I agree with you. I was sitting in front of the mirror bored for 40 minutes straight. OP is just afraid of the dark.

POST: Can you change yourself physically when you jump?

I would also like to know if I can change myself physically when you jump, but this comment is pointless so think of it like a bump.

The likely range of bodily change is often asked in rhyme,
The key you seek to make it sleek will come to you in time.

Sooooooo, yes?

[Come on, you gotta keep in the spirit of it!]

Dramatic shifts and bosom lifts mean lowering your defences,
Parts are moved and others soothed while detaching from the senses.

I would like to have clear answers, because I really don't want various types of cancers.

[That's better!]

The theory's said that results are lead by the thoughts we hold in mind,
But the strength of these asks commitment, please, which is difficult to find.

Commitment is something I am not familiar with, but I could do it for this, now stop rhyming please and help me jump into the abyss.

[Very good.]

I've never had cause to dabble myself in this - except that I did accidentally 'keep things going in the right direction' when I was growing up, unwittingly. But the process is the same for all this stuff: Enter a state of detachment (so that you are not "holding onto" present patterns, and they fade) and will the desired change (triggering the desired pattern, to intensity) without using any effort. It's a bit more difficult, I think, to let go of the body, so it's easier to will it in the future - and if there's some 'token action' you could take in that direction, that can be helpful.

How can you will change without using any effort

I think of it like "remembering". Do you use effort to remember something? It's like that. Will is how you actually accomplish things; everything else is an effect. It's hard to describe. I mean, how do you see or hear? You just do it. But it's the difference between having a 'technique' and it working or not working. It's sort of a commitment to something being a fact. Here's a little experiment which can give you the experience: Get a friend and challenge them to an arm-wrestle. Do this twice.

• On the first attempt, use all your muscle power to attempt to win the arm wrestle, as you normally would.
• On the second attempt, withdraw your 'presence' from your arm and simply "strongly decide" that you are going to win the arm-wrestle. Now, resist the urge to interfere - leave your arm alone and simply let your arm do the winning for you.

That "strongly deciding" is the willing. It is that which brings about the result. In this example, you can will muscular movement or will the result. When doing these types of things we want to use the second sort. And so it is effortless.

what is a token action?

A 'token action' is just something which you can pass off as the 'cause'. For instance, if you wanted to lose weight you might, having willed, go jogging once a week and eat an extra apple. (In the arm-wrestling example, 'muscular trying' is a token action which actually gets in the way of the result.)

POST: So...could every person that you talk to in your life actually have their consciousness in a different dimension?

Today's Conundrum - Nobody is looking out of the eyes that look at you, except for you. If you pay close attention, you'll realise that even you are not looking out of your own eyes.

This has always been my assumption- we live in our own worlds

Yes, effectively we are each living in our own patterned "dream-space". When we "jump" we are letting go of some world-patterns, allowing them to shift according to our intention.

Aside - This sometimes leads people to worry about "other people", but the answer is that you are not a person either - you are a conscious perspective, in which the "dream-world" appears. And so is everyone else (if you need to believe in "elses"). It's best to just say "it all works out in the end; everyone experiences the version of themselves they choose to".

Thats seems pretty limited-Im also a person and youre a people. Its part of how this works.

Well, it's optional but - It's better to say you are experiencing being-a-person or a "person perspective". It seems like a detail, but things make a whole lot more sense if you take this approach. Not just "jumping". Search for the "person" you assume you are, and you won't find it. You will, however, find transient sensations, thoughts and perceptions in an "open aware space". The person you seem to be is as much the content of your world as the rest of the environment.

That's a lot of robot talk to skirt that it's People not- animals or robots or anything else that has the ability to surf the meta fiction as with jumping. It's the Person, human that bridges mortality & immortality - that's pretty fucking important. With heady robot talk about consciousness you miss the most important part

Hmm, so what is "the most important part"?

The Human.

Okay, interesting point. If you are experience something, you can't be that something, I suggest. But this depends on what you mean by "human". If you mean "human" as in, a particular formatting of mind but independent of the body and thought, then I might agree with you. Human experience is a filtering of potential experience. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be able to do "jumping" and the like. In fact, the whole jumping process is precisely about detaching from that formatting and letting it shift. You let go of "being human" to, briefly, be nearer to raw unformatted consciousness and more responsive to intention. You die and resurrect.

Without that there is no subjective experience to experience.

Very true. And if you pay super-close-attention, you might realise that your subjective experience is constantly disappearing and re-emerging, like the gap between frames in a movie. At best, we are half-human in our experience. But since time can't be measured against anything within those gaps, so each gap in a way lasts forever, maybe we are barely human at all... And who knows what you become in those unremembered experiences between your "human" moments...

Yikes. Rocks have consciousness. The universe is aware.

Nah, rocks don't have consciousness. Nothing "has" consciousness, I'd say. I wouldn't even say "the universe is aware".

Well there are plenty of people to disagree with you on that so I'll leave you there. We'l have to agree to disagree.

Just to be clear, lest I leave a confusion: I'm not saying you are not conscious. I'm saying that consciousness must be something you "are" rather than "have". What you then seem to be is the shape you have taken on, as consciousness. My "wouldn't say the universe is aware" statement is misleading in this way. Better to say "is awareness" and "has awareness of its form". Anyway, thanks for the exchange.

...

Can a Mantra be a Metaphor?

Good question! Some thoughts: If we abstract these terms out into "patterns" then, effectively yes. To say a word is to trigger its associated patterns. Meanwhile, a metaphor is simply a named set of overlapping relationships (patterns), connected and associated with an unnamed set of overlapping relationships (patterns). To say the word "owl" is to trigger the associated patterns of "birds", "wings", "big eyes", 'tree branches", "Blade Runner Voight-Kampff Test", "Rachael", "night-time", etc. To think-about an owl is to do the same.

On archetypes

Gods and Goddesses, owls and archetypes, they are all just triggers for pre-existing extended patterns which cannot be encapsulated in a word or an image, but can be triggered or intensified by them. All possible patterns are here, now, in your experience - it's just that some are more intensely activated than others. To feel better (simplistically speaking) you want to allow the "bad feeling" to fade and a "good feeling" to become more intense. How to do? "Detach" from your current experience and "allow" it to shift; trigger a pattern which implies the desired state. Literally, you are a wide-open perceptual space with some experiential patterns more intense than others. You don't "heal" so much as "allow experience to apparently shift". More accurately: you can't change anything, you can only let the present pattern dim and intensify an alternative pattern by "recalling" it.

POST: What's the point of the Dimensional ID 982 if an infinite amount of other dimensions could have the same number on their sidebar? Why doesn't everyone pick the own ID for their original dimension?

The ID is there for fun really. It's part of the mythology.

Even if people were to pick their own personal ID, there's no reason why it would change just because other changes have occurred. There of course an infinite amount of different types of experiences in which the ID is still that number.

Really I'm referring to "mythology" in its looser sense:

"Mythology can refer to the collected myths of a group of people—their body of stories which they tell to explain nature, history, and customs"

The concept of using some sort of "Universe ID" or anchor to identify shifts was one of the early ideas in dimensional jumping, so it's part of the shared history of the subreddit. If you think about it though it doesn't really work as a reliable reference (why should that number necessarily change just because other things have changed?) so it's really just part of the fun rather than something inherent or useful in the approach. If it does change however, then you will know for sure that things have shifted, right?

POST: So can i jump without the whole "candle n mirror @ night"?

The point is to get yourself into a detached state, released from holding onto the current sensory experience. Check out the other methods post linked on the sidebar - e.g. Neville Goddard approach of entering deep relaxation, etc. You don't even need the timing, although there's something about the quietness of late night, and it feels "special" in a way that helps. The trick to letting go is to let go of your attention. People understand letting go of the body and thought, but they leave their attention narrowed. Free your attention also. Then, once you've settled out, you can begin, focusing your will. Check out the couple of (free) books referred to in the Neville Goddard post. His approach is probably the most accessible, next to the stripped down version. Here's a good exercise to begin doing (there's a more advanced one here):

Daily Releasing Exercise

• Twice a day, 10 minutes, lie down in the constructive rest position. On the floor, feet flat, knees up, head supported by a couple of books, hands resting on your lower torso.
• Completely let go to gravity. Give up totally, play dead.
• If your body moves or thoughts come up, let them be. Just let them release without interference.
• If you find your attention becomes focused on something, the same: just let go of your attention. Give up, again.
• At the end of the session (don't worry about exact timing), decide to get up, but don't make any movement. Wait until your body moves by itself. This won't happen for a while, but during one session, it will.
• In general, resist the urge to interfere with your body and mind, to push it along. Settle back and let it run at its own pace.

POST: Has there been any thought given to the idea that you are consciously manipulating reality, rather than jumping to a different one? Is that question semantic?

A1: I think that quite rightly sums up the issue. The way I like to express it is that you do not exist in multiple dimensions but rather multiple dimensions exist in you. If you think of all possible worlds as a probability wave, it is a matter of conciousness "collapsing" the wave into multiple realities. Much like the old idea of our subjective reality being a dream and we have the ability to change the dream.

Right! I'm not quite so keen on "wavefunction collapsing" because it's maybe not a great interpretation even for physics (it implies an event), but the idea that you are a conscious space and all possible experiential/factual/logical patterns are by implication if not in fact latent within you, like memories waiting to be triggered, is pretty close as metaphors go.

Q: So do you think humans have 'incarnations' in lower and higher dimensions simultaneously? Could I dimensional jump my consciousness 'up' a dimension instead of 'left or right'?.

All there is, is experiences, and all experiences arise in your "perceptual space". In a dream of walking across a field, do you go anywhere? What if you had a dream about exploring other dimensions? No, in all cases what you get is... more dream. When you wake up in the morning, again... more dream. You might consider that you are only dreaming of waking up.

(To illustrate this, try out the little experiment in the middle of this post [Outside: The Dreaming Game].)

POST: Noob here. Am I too negative to try this DJ?

Right..the only reason I would want to DJ would be to fix the negativity, ha. So, if I were to get in the right mindset to do it, I wouldn't want to anyway. I will just have to figure something else out, but it was just a thought. Thanks for your reply.

Yeah, if you "defocus" yourself a bit, the rest of your mind is going to snap to the same thing! So messing around with mirrors seems like a bad idea.

Possible suggestions: You should concentrate on something more general: bringing into mind scenes of what you'd like to experience, vividly and with the feeling of how you would feel, as if you were experiencing it now, in the 1st-person. That alone will make a big difference to you. Even just because it's fun and feels good. Although outside random events might act to budge you out of negativity, the longer it goes on the more the world will have lost that random factor, and settled into your attitude along with you. You are going to have to "shape-shift" yourself!

Think of it as having ended up with a slouched, weeakposture. You can wait for something to bump into you, or pull you up, but that might be a long wait. The best solution is to shape-shift yourself, take on the form of upright posture and power. It might be worth reading the Neville Goddard version, described best in The Law and the Promise (see links in that post), for inspiration.

POST: trying tonight

Work on summoning the feeling of "how you would feel if you were as you want to be". This will help more generally.

POST: Too scared to jump.

Try other methods. They all amount to: entering a state of sensory detachment, and allowing a shift towards some intended state. No matter what you have to "let go" in some way, but some are a little more pleasant if you don't like the morning ritual bit!

Have you ever seen those isolation tanks? I wonder if those can be used in jumping. I don't see why not.

Floatation tanks? I've had a few sessions in those: very relaxing. It was before I started thinking about these things though. Potentially it could be ideal. The more you feel "totally supported" the more you feel comfortable in removing attention from your body sensations (that's why maybe lying on the floor is better than lying on the bed is better than standing up, for this).