TriumphantGeorge Compendium (Part 5)

POST: Butterfly effect

Just as a pedantic point, I'd probably not call this the "butterfly effect", since that implies that there is a sort of "causal ripple" or chain of events that arise from an intention. That can be a misleading image, because an intention isn't an act which sets off a series of happenings. It's an instantaneous shift in the "world-pattern", out of time. With that out of the way...

It's not necessarily true that an intention necessarily leads to further obstacles - but it is true that making any change inevitably implies other changes. Using the oft-invoked metaphor of the "blanket of material": if we think of our world as a single continuous pattern on a piece of material, then adjusting the shape of a fold in that blanket will by its nature mean that you will be tugging on the material and therefore reshaping other folds. This simply follows from the continuous nature of the material, which is a metaphorical way of saying that the world must always "make sense" as a whole between intentions. (Again, the reason I don't like to call this the "butterfly effect" is because the whole world shifts instantly, like a rebalancing; there is no ripple effect involved, in time)

Now, although these "collateral shifts" might be caused by the intention in the sense that you moved the material, they are not necessarily logically connected to the intention in terms of "objects in the world". For example, you intend to have success in a business meeting, and an extra tin of peaches appears in your parent's kitchen cupboard. Furthermore, even the collateral shifts that are logically implied by your intention aren't directly caused by it as such - it's more like an "autocomplete" based on existing patterning or plausibility. For instance, your success at the meeting logically implies that the other party in the meeting was less successful, which implies that he is less well prepared, which implies that something distracted him from his preparations. Even though you intended success the morning of the meeting, it will become true now that he stayed late at a party with his wife last night and so he didn't prepare - or whatever. So, I suppose that's a long way of saying that change always implies change! The world is a single pattern, so altering the contribution of one pattern always shifts the pattern as a whole, self-consistently. To expand on another point sometimes made: you are not generally "shifting all the time", inherently anyway I'd say, but any deliberate intention you do is a rebalancing, no matter how insignificant. With something like "dimensional jumping", we are choosing to make a larger shift than we would normally do - simply because we recognise that there never were any baked in barriers to the world, and we are comfortable enough to stop re-asserting those barriers. We are, like, making a year's worth or a decade's worth of changes in one shift. Inevitably, then, what would otherwise be minor collateral changes occurring over a long time, now occur in a shorter space of time. This can feel dramatic. You could end up having to "grow up fast" as your circumstances suddenly shift, without the usual acclimatisation period. This is not a reason not to do it, but it is a reason to choose your outcomes carefully. An extra thought is, you can always incorporate the intention that things will turn out for the best, more broadly. However, you cannot intend against the discomfort of change, since that is to intend against change itself.

==I get it now.

But what about having intended to connect with a person and that said person having sprinkled leg the next day? In that line of thoughts this person could lose his leg the next time I intend. (just to make the point) And it's as likely as not given the concept of rebalancing. What about when rebalancing is done the change affecting something/someone negatively, logically related or not to the intention? Is it all "it wouldn't happen if it wasn't to happen anyways in time"==

I guess what you need to do to deal with this, is come up with a model of responsibility that satisfies you. I'll outline one below that you might use, though: The implication of this "blanket" metaphor is that the whole world-pattern is dissolved within you. It is in effect your own "private copy" of the world, fully defined as space and time pattern, but all available all-at-once. However, that doesn't mean that you "know" the current state of the world. I'd suggest that you can only take responsibility for what you know, and what you intend deliberately. It is meaningless to draw causal connections between intentions and subsequent experiential content that was not the content of that intention. Those experiences may have already been there and been unaffected, or been improved. If the (hypothetical) link is outside of your sensory experience, if it cannot be experienced in advance, it is "does not compute" to speculate on it. You would be worrying about an idea about causality - and being skeptical of "ideas about" things is one of the main foundation of this approach. If you intend to connect with someone and you meet in the street because they sprained their ankle and had to stop to rest - well, you could hypothesise that maybe it was already "patterned" that they sprained their ankle, and what changed is you went down that street. Or the sprain changed date and location. But you would just be making up stories, since there is effectively no longer any "how it was before". Something to consider too, is: There is effectively no "how things are" until you've experienced them in the senses. And strictly speaking, the only definite "how things are" is the content of your sensory experience right now. Before you intended to meet that person, subsequently encountering them with their sprained ankle on the street, perhaps they had actually been patterned as "died in a car crash five years ago"...

How come they could have been patterned as "died in a car crash rs ago" given the concept "how things are" (your sensory experience right and only every now) when I saw them the previous day and every other day. It is mind blowing what I've got from your post.

Well, for the sake of the example, I was actually assuming that the person was someone you hadn't seen for years! Basically, I'm saying that you just have no idea of how things might be patterned before you intend or before you encounter facts relating to them in the senses, and how dramatic the shift might have been in a good way.

Ok got it. Till the next time I don't understand something. I feel a little bit foolish. Thanks. Does this thing works for depressed mood (currently nofap but just came off depression). And is it okay to use the two glasses method as often you want for different purposes? Like one day one thing and the next other. (Or two times a day) What would be more direct way and with the same efficiency? Dammit it's hitting me bad.

Well, I could have been clearer!

I was trying to emphasise that while things are still unobserved, you have no idea what the implied patterning might be for those things. The extent of a shift could mean a shift from an upcoming "reading in the paper tomorrow that your friend Bob died five years ago" to an upcoming "grabbing a coffee tomorrow and bumping into your friend Bob". (Meanwhile, there is a side discussion to be had about the extent to which having observed something means it is "fixed fact" from then on. It is not, necessarily, but that "fact" does become a strong contributor to subsequent experiences, so re-patterning it would involve quite a rebalancing. However: Mandela Effect or Glitch reports about someone you thought was dead years ago, still being around, etc.)

Every Two Glasses session is a fresh session. So, you can do it for one situation. Then, another time, do it for another situation. Every time you do it, you are connecting different states to the glasses and water, and performing a different shift. Doing it for mood is actually a good experiment to do, but: decide in advance that you won't oppose or fiddle with any mood shifts that happen. (Another experiment: just sit quietly for a moment, and then "intend" to "feel really happy" - and see what happens.)

I fell into deep meditating state. All is good now. Immediate changes were my internet connection dying since I wrote the previous comment and having no more flatline (nofap). I guess that's what we call a jump.

That's an interesting combination, for sure!

More weird was what followed (see Derealization if you haven't).

Just glanced over at it. If you are still feeling a disconnect, maybe try directing your attention towards your lower abdomen - not focusing on it so much as including it in your "presence" or "sphere of awareness" or attention. Then, gradually include other parts of your body space. You may have ended up being "over here" while the rest of your sensation are "over there"; this would dim everything down and make you feel kind of remote. There's a difference between everything being dreamlike (which it is), with feeling separate from it (which you are not). Generally, relaxing into the dreamlike feeling is a release of attention, an opening out, and feels present, good and "alive". Don't be afraid of just "intending" that sort of thing, just as you did with the mood, after deciding how you want things to be. You can tinker with it until you get something you like.

POST: WARNING - Please heed - Horrible result from mirror jump - family member suicide due to demonic possession

It's always hard to deal with the loss of a family member. That's never an easy thing to go through, and it's inevitable that we will go looking for reasons and answers afterwards. However...

There are no "evil demonic spirits", and people should be wary of obsessing about whether they "caused" something bad to happen when the connection is very vague like this (generally speaking anyway, and definitely in this case). If you didn't explicitly intend for something to happen, then any connection you make between your action and subsequent events is pretty much just story-making. It pains me to say it, but for a change this may actually be confirmation bias!

So, your post should serve as a warning - not about exploring the topic, but about being specific with intention and being quite ruthless when drawing connective lines between experiments and outcomes.

On Believing in Things

If you believe in things - by which I mean, if you fully adopt the conceptual framework or pattern of a particular worldview - then you are certain to have experiences "as if" they are true. This applies to spirits, souls, dimensional jumping, alternative realities, alien beings, norse gods and... just being a person hanging out on planet Earth leading a boring life. None of these things, including mundane life, are fundamentally true as context; they are relatively true as content. Note, I am not saying that those experiences are psychological or that they are "not real". Rather, I am saying that the only thing that is consistently real is the fact that you are having an experience (that you are a "consciousness"), but actual the content of the particular experience depends on what ideas you have absorbed. In other words: all experiences happen on an "as if something is true" basis only. Dimensional Jumping depends upon this. It is the fact that if we strongly adopt a specific intentional pattern, we can have experiences consistent with that pattern. (And that, by implication, our everyday world is noting more substantial than a pattern which we happen to have adopted and accepted unwittingly.)

So there are no alternate realities as such; there are just discontinuities in our experience "as if" we had switched reality. There are no "evil demonic spirits" , but we can have experiences "as if" there are such things. You can test this for yourself, by selecting an arbitrary pattern and then fully committing to it. For example, deeply decide to pretend that the weather is controlled by spirits who listen to your mood and adjust the sky accordingly. (Seriously.)

On Intention & Responsibility

I'll keep this one quick, because it has been expanded upon in the links below. The summary:

• If you did not intend something specifically, then you are not responsible for it.
• Responsibility is dependent on knowledge. The only knowledge you have is of the content of your specific intention.
• Responsibility for things outside of that intention, would require knowledge of what was going to happen before that intention, knowledge that it changed after that intention, and that it was your intention that specifically caused the change.
• None of these apply in your case. You didn't even intend anything! You just had a spooky experience!

Basically, I think you are probably just suffering from a mixture of fear and guilt - perhaps exacerbated by a religious upbringing - and are attaching meanings to events accordingly. Perhaps you associate exploring these areas as "bad" or "forbidden"?

Most problematically, you are mixing differing worldviews. The worldview that leads to "dimensional jumping" is by definition one that does not include "evil demonic spirits" as beings with independent agency!

In summary, then:

• You are not responsible for the events that occurred. (For starters you didn't do anything that would lead to change, and if you had you still wouldn't have "caused" the outcome since it wasn't specified).
• You do not need to worry about evil spirits and so on. (Well, unless you really like worrying about them, of course. That's up to you.)

Related Links: You might find the conversation over at The Butterfly Effect post worth a look too, for this. See also: the Kirby Surprise interview about synchronicity that is linked in the introductory sticky, for quite good examples on the "as if" thing.

I suspect this is what lies at the heart of why things like servitors or tulpas work. If I convince myself that entity X causes Y to happen, then I just need to continuously assert that entity X exists for Y to happen seemingly naturally, right?

It's at the heart of how anything works, really, but those are definitely good examples. It's all about your intention and the implications of your intention - where I'd define intention as "thinking the fact of something being true or existing" or "increasing the relative intensity or contribution of a pre-existing pattern". (I say "pre-existing" because you should consider all possible facts or patterns to be eternally present and always contributing to your ongoing experience; what changes is their relative 'brightness".)

POST: Owls say go for it but everything else says to give up.

I think you are kind of mixing up models here: that of direct patterning (the owls) and "messages from the universe" (your interpretation of the numbers). The fact is, the more you imprint yourself with 555 and 999, the more those numbers will appear in your experience, regardless of any meaning - just like the owls. So our thinking then goes to: how can we pattern the experience of "getting together with someone", using the same principles that are behind the owls? In general, I wouldn't worry about "the universe" and what it has to say, except as a reading of your own previous intentions. Which isn't to say that you can't structure yourself such that you experience "having insight via symbols" if that's what you like, but it seems a very roundabout way of handling something you can likely do more directly.

POST: Can I use the two glasses method to get a girlfriend?

If there's someone you like, ask them out. If there isn't, just start keeping an eye out. A sip of water in the meantime will, at the very least, keep you hydrated in preparation for the fun ahead. And if you're doing that anyway, putting a couple of labels on the glasses isn't much bother. ;-)

you'll get a girlfriend but end up in a universe in which you also die of cholera

Um, that does seem a little bit extreme! :-p

I was exaggerating...

...your monkey doesn't just have paws, it has talons laced with teen-specific biocide!

Are you saying I am a teen? Well, thank you very much for that compliment. Haven't heard that in over 40 years. Anyway, I wasn't being mean, I could have used anything else as an example but many people here on reddit don't get subtlety. So I thought, go and say something easy to understand. How is this being taken the wrong way? [Seriously].

On my end, I was just entertained by your example of a "monkey paw" effect being so extreme, promoting mental imagery of a particularly savage occult revenge monkey - the "teen-specific biocide" was because our OP is only 17. Although I'm sure you are young at heart too. ;-)

I think others may have misread your response as being dismissive, though, just because without a smiley to denote that it is well-meaning, the interpretation of it is vulnerable to whatever mood the reader happens to be in when they encounter it.

POST: Half a year ago, I jumped. Here is my final update.

It's a shame the header is the same number, but I believe that it should be a longer number (6+ digits) so that smaller jumps could be noted as well, and not just planet-changing ones. Maybe I'll make a website with a long dimension number for dimension jumpers to use

It would really make no difference, because: a) dimensions are not literal of course, but also: b) if there are an infinite number of states, then there are an infinite number of different states with the same number, no matter how long that number is. This is why the sidebar emphasises that the header number should be views as "an emblem of change and a symbol of potential rather than an ID".

The longer the number, the more likely it is that during the creation of the website, a different number was generated, hence, it would allow one to detect more minute changes.

I don't see the logic in that. You'd have to lay out why, exactly, it would be more "likely". The creation of a website is a static event - it is true now that the result will be this - within a particular state. The creation does not "happen" in time. There are an infinite number of states which have that same result. Furthermore, there is no necessary link between the number and the rest of the state. Literally every other part of the state could be different, and yet the number could be identical - even if that number was infinite. This is because the number is not a hash, or summary, of the state; it is merely another pattern of fact within it.

There is no indication that the header number on this subreddit will change either, but if it does - it will be irrefutable proof for the individual that they did jump. The number will be randomly generated and parsed through multiple more time randomly, which should, in theory, give a different result in each dimension since even small changes result in random number generators having different outcomes.

Indeed: a change of state doesn't necessarily give rise to a change in number, but if a change in number were observed then for the observer that would be proof of a change (whether in the world or in their memory of the world). Again, though, given the background concept of a shift, it just doesn't necessarily matter whether the number is randomly generated, multiply parsed, and so on. None of that actually "happens" as such, in this model. The number as it is, was - in narrative terms - already randomly generated by the entirety of all history, but really the moment, now.

We seem to have different ideas of how dimension jumping happens. In my interpretation, you are switching places with yourself from an alternative timeline as such, their past might have difference to your past. Hence, if the past was different, the outcome of the random number might be different and that would eventually change the number displayed on the website.

So - that's not the concept, really, as I see it. There is no "other you" and there is no past as such; there is just an ongoing now-state which has a patterned personal memory. If you update a fact in this now-state, the whole state will shift coherently, but it is not the same as going back in time to make a change or there being a parallel timeline that you are jumping to. There are no timelines, other than as a narrative fiction to help construct or describe intentions; "dimensions" fall into the same category. If I modify my current state, then, there is no reason why the number should change unless it is entangled with the fact I am modifying. Not entangled in terms of a history, note, but in terms of a logically coherent world at this moment. For example, being silly for a moment, if I shifted my state to one where the number "9" was written differently, then the number would have to change visually to be consistent (although: I could also subsequently encounter a plausible story about it being a stylised choice, or an error, which "explains it"). So it doesn't actually matter what the supposed mechanism by which the number is generated is; that process never actually "happens" anyway - the mechanism doesn't really generate the number in the way we normally assume - and if you make a change to your state it definitely doesn't "happen" again as some sort of replay. Your state could change such that the evidence, now, for your past is completely different, and still the number could be the same - especially if it is an supposedly random number (because then it has no logical link to the rest of the state at all). What we need, then, is something which absolutely dependent on the rest of the state, that must be different whenever the state is different. The only thing that fits the bill is your own global sense of state - your felt-sense. Other than that, the way to know whether you've "jumped" is by observing that the experience you have intended, has now become your experience!

That's an interesting explanation! I was basing this idea off the fact that many people reported seeing slight alterations in history when they jumped, so I thought that those changes tend to have a Butterfly effect on the rest of history - inevitably leading to different outcomes for random situations. Since, dimension jumping is still an unexplored concept, I will follow through with the website idea. Who knows? Maybe there is only an ongoing state of things, or maybe there is a parallel timelines in the sense I intended. Thank you for your input, it is much appreciated!

Yes, as I see it: "alterations in history" in the sense of the past changing is an interpretation. What is actually observed, is a discrepancy between what you see now and what you remember, also now. Once a fact has been changed, then all subsequent experiences will be in alignment with that fact "as if" it were always the case - the world always "makes sense". However, the world did not get "replayed" from some historical point. The entire pattern of the world is always now. There some additional factors that come into play to do with how we conceive of events, but the essential idea is: you can't rely on the replay of a process in your test, because the world merely has to be self-consistent as a pattern; it doesn't have to actually unfold in time. Anyway, yeah: don't let me discourage you from playing with stuff, because if nothing else it encourages us to think things through. However, I would point out that one of they key underlying ideas in this subreddit is that there is a difference between thoughts about experience - "parallel constructions in thought" - and the experience as-it-is. Have you ever observed a "timeline"? Or is it a diagrammatic convenience that exists only in thought? This is a general point about the reification of abstractions, and it is worth considering no matter what your overall position on this. This even includes ideas such as the world apparently being a "spatially-extended place unfolding in time". That's why the sidebar has a section on "Active Metaphors".

Thank you for providing me with an interesting read, I will definitely think about this. All dimensional jumps are really hard to have experiments conducted on, as they are not falsifiable. I hope to merely bring another possible anchor point on which people can maybe build more concrete data as regards to "jumping". Your replies have been very enlightening, thank you.

Basically, ideas like "falsifiability" are pretty much meaningless here, since you are no longer modelling things using the "objective world" container concept. Even our usual description of ourselves as "a person in a world of objects" no longer applies; we have to shift to a direct observation perspective, and reconsider the "nature of experiencing" itself. All of which is, of course, why this is such an interesting avenue to explore! The "results" are actually secondary, in the end; that's just the hook really. Thanks for the enjoyable discussion! (And if you like that article, you may also find this Quanta article [https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained-by-its-founder-20150604/] and this Nature article of interest [https://www.nature.com/articles/507421a].)

So, I mean, are you just essentially going back to the Bill Hicks 'joke'?: Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Myself, I'm getting to the stage where I'm becoming more...adept at jumping and jumping into realities where life is substantially different to the 'human' experience. Jumping itself is easier, jumping into a substantially different 'reality' is more difficult although I feel like I'm getting to that point rather quickly. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. :)

Well, maybe. I do like the phrase "we are the imagination of ourselves", though; that nicely captures it, eh. It avoids any "stuff" or labels but gets to the essence of the experience. There's no perfect description though. I quite like:

• "What you truly are is 'awareness', whose only intrinsic property is being-aware, and which 'takes on the shape of' states or experiences, such as the experience of being-a-world-from-the-perspective-of-a-person".

However, I just can't get it to work in my stand-up routine, for some reason. :-)

George... during our chat today I mentioned the same Bill Hicks quote. Although, I have a feeling that isn't the first or last time it's been quoted here lol.

It does seem to have been "quote of the day", today!

POST: An experiment with the two glasses method

Well, the whole thing is an exploration of "the nature of experiencing", so treat it like an investigation, I'd say, and feel free to try anything. Having said that, 2G is not designed to be "world-breaking" so much as "world-shifting" - it typically involves results that fall within "plausibility" even if situationally completely improbable. So I would generally start with things like outcomes you want to happen in life, introducing patterns into your ongoing experience, stuff like that, and do this repeatedly until the idea of it being a coincidence become ridiculous. Then you can push it further, and contemplate what it means. Until then, lacking a sense of why the exercise is designed the way it is and how the results come about, efforts to "prove the validity of the methods" can sometimes miss the point. Even the phrases "validity of the methods", "strengthen one's belief" and "strengthen the ritual" are somewhat loaded with assumptions - assumptions which might turn out to be incorrect upon further examination. Think: what are you testing, exactly?

Q1: The way you explain things is the master of craft i would love to experience. Phenomenal work TG, and may i ask: " do this repeatedly until the idea of it being a coincidence become ridiculous." So just keep repeating the same thing day-by-day even if it fails? How does feeling intake into these assumptions/experiences?

I guess I mean, that if you keep deliberately intending for results (using your narrative of choice), and you keep getting them, then over time "it's a coincidence" or "it's confirmation bias" will not be tenable. In other words, you don't have to force a "rule-breaking" experience in order to be convinced; simply continually getting what you ask for can be sufficient. Although in fact, the manner by which outcomes come about will tend to become more outlandish, the more you continue. But only you can do this, personally, by intending; nobody can demonstrate this for you. Of course, if you don't get any results at all, ever, then you can feel free to dismiss the whole idea that there is anything unusual going on also. Not sure what you're asking, regarding feeling. Care to expand?

Q1: I completely agree as i've have experienced this to a certain extent, beginning with average cars such as a corolla S 2016, to a Maserati. Now speaking about the feeling, in the sense towards manifestation itself. You know acquiring ownership of the coincidence that often manages to follow you as you proceed with the intentions. Since this matrix is all mental based on feelings as some would say. So instead from seeing it day-to-day basis where ever you go, To having it, being able to use it, etc.

Hmm, so I'm not sure I'd agree that what we're dealing with here is "all mental based on feelings". Feelings are certainly things that can arise as aspects of our ongoing experience, parts of the pattern, and there can be a general felt-sense that is like a summary of our current state - but regardless of whether we feel like we are the world, or feel like we are a little person, we always are the entire thing. Meanwhile, I'd say we have to be careful of the desire to want feel ourselves "doing" things: intention is not a "doing" and has no particular experience associated with it. To focus on wanting to, for example, "feel powerful like a God", can be more of an impediment than anything else. Better to simply recognise the true situation, and from that recognition will flow experiences which support it. Having said that, spending a moment to assert that you are "the space in which, and as which, sensory experiences arise" can give you that sense of a shift in your perspective, placing the world and the person you apparently are in proper context. The experience is sort of like waking up and realising everything is inside you (and that there is no outside to it). Maybe that's a way forward?

POST: Is it possible to jump and change things for another person? If so, please help me.

Forget the idea of gurus or prodigies, it's all down to your own experimentation, but I can think of a few things:

• Try the "boundary" exercise described in this post [POST: Jumping for remission of mental illnesses] (you may find some of the other exercises in that thread useful too);
• Try reframing your experience as you being an open space in which sensations arise (this changes your sense of self relative to others);
• Experiment with "asserting" that the space you occupy is friendly and polite, by reaching out and filling the space around you with that "atmosphere".

Most importantly, though, you have to cease preparing for or defending against impoliteness, because doing that implies the fact. For as long as you keep doing that, you will continue to maintain that patterning in your experience in one way or another, I suggest.

A1: you can start by deciding you are not a victim. There is no inherent "negativity" of others. There are only other people talking or taking actions, with or without the intent of manipulating you emotionally. It then is your choice as to how you view and react to their blah-blah. You are currently choosing to view them as "being negative" and then "getting you down". Imagine if you were viewing them on TV doing their blah-blah. Would you make the same choices based on what you saw? So choose otherwise. Stop with this "impervious to negativity". Negativity is not a "thing". It is a decision in your mind.

POST: It worked in ways I couldn't imagine.

Dimensions aren't "places". You are assuming that the world is a "simple, single, shared, spatially-extended place unfolding in time" and that people must "go somewhere", but this isn't necessarily true. Keeping it simpler, though:

can see the post from your previous, "unhappy" universe (the one where you wrote that you are going to jump), which shouldn't exist in your "happy" universe.

However, there can quite easily be a "universe" where she posted an unhappy post, and then things magically turned around. The truth is, that the concept of a "universe" is just that: a useful idea. It implies there are a set of "places" with an unchanging fact set, and this story jars against that, but it is just a concept. In your actual experience what happens is that the content of your experience shifts. You never really experience going anywhere; that's just a description that is sometimes useful to help us conceive of change or grasp experiences. Anything that you think about experience that involves an unobserved "outside" aspect is immediately "wrong", just useful narratives. This includes "dimensions", "universes", even "objective worlds" or any other version of an "external environment" idea. So, to argue about whether someone's changes are because they "jumped dimensions" or something else, is really an argument about categorisation rather than about what "really happened". What really happened was: the content of their experience shifted.

Q1: What really happened was: the content of their experience shifted.
But if your concept is right, there is no "their" experience, because they are just a part of my experience. And in my experience, you say, literally anything can happen, breaking any laws of physics and common sense. I could end their existence by shifting my experience, shift it so that they never existed. Would it end their first-person experience too? The world isn't shared at all, it seems. That's a cool concept of course, but i'm not getting lucky with any of the techniques. Even with the owls.

Indeed. Although to pick up on a couple of points:

• You can't end "their" experience because, as you note, it is "your" experience, which in turn means there is just "experience" really, with no ownership, only experiencing. The Hall of Records metaphor tries to provide a simple way to think about that sort of thing, but of course in truth it is literally unthinkable. Conceptual thought is "too late" when it comes to trying to grasp the nature of experience. You can't think of what is "before" division and multiplicity and change (= objects relating to one another in a mental space), because thought is already chopped up into objects. Thoughts never get "behind" experiences; they are themselves just experiences.
• The "laws of physics" and "common sense" aren't rules in the sense of being a solid independent structured substrate upon which events occur. Rather, they are the "codification of [a subset of] experiences to date". (The "subset" part is because what gets included is already pre-selected by a conceptual framework, particularly the "container concept" of an "objective world", which relatively recent). So, we must remind ourselves that: the observations restrict the possible valid models, the models don't restrict the possible valid observations.

But yeah, all of that is fair enough and fascinating to ponder, and it can help you somewhat grasp the nature things as it is, but to really know it you'd want to actually produce experiences on an "as if" basis that goes beyond your usual assumptions. So, the owls should be a nice easy entry point. There are some things which might get in the way of making any changes, though. For example, something to check for yourself: When you go about your day, do you tend to "grip onto" your attentional focus? Or do you tend to assert your current bodily position and current experience? Are you "in control" from moment to moment, moving your body deliberately and with focus? As opposed to, "directing" yourself to do something and then allowing your body, thoughts and attentional focus to move "by themselves" towards your goal. As you read these words on this screen right now, is your spatial attention narrowed down onto them? Are you "using your eyes" to see this paragraph? Or are you "open and spacious" and allowing the world to "come to you" instead?

The reason for asking that is that continually intending everything, never releasing experience to just flow, can essentially amount to a constant re-assertion of your previous or habitual state, in opposition to other intended changes. This is why we say that doing the exercises should require no effort and no particular sense of intense focus or doing (because it "fixes" you in place).

Q1: This is why we say that doing the exercises should require no effort and no particular sense of intense focus or doing (because it "fixes" you in place).
Sounds like having concentration problems and bad memory would help, lol. How should one achieve the state of being "open and spacious" if concentrating on it would be an obvious mistake? I'm doing blank mind meditation every day for about a half an hour. Doesn't seem to help.

Ha, yes, people with poor memories might be getting everything they ever intend always, effortlessly, but ironically they never get to appreciate it. :-)

Alright, I'm now going to type out whatever occurs to me on this topic - So, it's not about having a blank mind or whatever. Rather, it's about reshaping your experience so that it is formatted with a different perspective, and you then don't narrow again. A key thing to realise is:

• Events are apparently local; intentions are actively global.

Which is to say, that although (for example) when you move your hand, the sensation of that occurring seems to be localised spatially, the intention or "wish" that triggers that experience is not localised - it is "unlocated" and "unbounded". It is a shift in the subject, not of an object. This is why you don't need to concentrate your spatial attention on your hand in order to move it, and if you do then you are intending something additional (narrowed attention and tension) rather than doing something causal. This can be visualised as overlaying a pattern of intention upon the current pattern of experience - like moire fringes. The intentional pattern has no boundary, it is equally everywhere, however it's combination with the current pattern results in a localised experience. Now, how does this apply to being "open and spacious"? In two ways:

• To become "open and spacious" one simple decides to be open and spacious.
• Having become "open and spacious" one now allows one's sensory experience to simply unfold unobstructed, without narrowing down or gripping it, having realised that intending does not require focus or indeed any "doing".

The phrases which may help describe this formatting of experience are:

• What you truly are is an awareness, a non-material "material" whose only inherent property is being-aware, and which "takes on the shape of" experiences. Or:
• You are an open mind-space within which your ongoing experience spontaneously unfolds. Your main strand of experience of "being a person in a world" can be conceived of as a particularly bright, stbale, 3D-immersive, multi-sensory thought.

Finally, a little exercise can help give us a direct experience of what it means to be the subject to all experience, to recognise that we are not an object and that we are "unlocated". 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 of your experience - the only actual facts, really; everything else is transitory. It also lets us realise why narrowing down or forcing change tends to backfire, because it is a restrictive deformation of your current experience, which obstructs other intentions. In short, you want to cease interfering and adopt the stance of being rather than doing-controlling, at which point your intentions are minimally obstructed. Otherwise you are effectively intending two things at once: you are intending your current situation and your target situation simultaneously, like trying to get up out of a chair by focusing on "being sat down" while intending to shift to "being stood up"! (Lots of people do exactly this. It is a worthwhile exercise to experiment with standing up effortlessly without "doing" it. The same principles apply to both the mundane and the exotic.)

Q1: In a stupid simple takeaway from this, isn't this why a "assume the wish fulfilled" is a helpful technique? Effectively replacing your reality that way you aren't forcing anything anymore?

Yes, although I think that phrasing can sometimes leave people with no way into it (depending on their background). So equivalently we might say that we would "think the fact of something being true", where that "thinking" involves attending to an unbounded, unlocated, non-object thought. An intention, basically, which is: the pattern that you wish to make more prominent in your ongoing experience. When engaging in that, there is no experience associated with it as such (unless the intentional pattern has implications for your sensory experience right now), because there is no object present only a "dissolved pattern" being increased in its intensity, however there is a knowing that you are intending.

do you mean more discontinuous, less plausible intentions?

It was more to do with the spatial and temporal "co-ordinates" of the target outcome vs your current experience. I mean that you never actually experience "intending", you only ever experience the "results" - as in, the resultant content of your state. So if you intend something that doesn't affect this current sensory moment, then there's no reason why you should experience anything while doing it, other than "knowing" that you are intending. If you intend an outcome that takes place tomorrow, or a fact that only affects a situation in Sweden while you are in Toronto, there's no "result" for you to experience right now, even though your state has shifted. (Note: you might sense a "shift" but that's not necessarily the case.)

Q2: /u/triumphantgeorge now this just occurred to me: since i've been looking for anyone who could possibly understand me to meet, and any scenario i choose can be experienced - then couldn't i meet you? i imagine it would be like the "(you) speaking as i'm thinking" verse i saw in the caitanya bhagavatam. and if i wanted you to do something - wouldn't you?

It's an interesting idea. However, if you have already "patterned" me as a quite independent, purposeful character in your experience, then it might not be so simple as simply "wanting", because my "definition" might be contrary to that. You might have to change me first. As in dreams, you'd probably be better intending a new, fit for purpose character, rather than adjusting an ingrained existing one in an attempt to make it responsive.

Q2: As in dreams, you'd probably be better intending a new, fit for purpose character, rather than adjusting an ingrained existing one in an attempt to make it responsive.
but ultimately it would only be my decision, wouldn't it. as with everyone in the entire cosmos - only i decide everyone's fate and behaviour....

...and your new decision is added to the accumulation of all your decisions to date, as an amendment to your present state.

so there are no "fixed" characters

No fixed anything, only things that you keep intending or implying. The "implying" part is the tricky one, because sometimes it is implied by a more abstract pattern than an individual fact, perhaps. For example, intending a movement implies a location implies a coherent continuous space, and so on. Whole world dynamics may be associated with a particular fact or outcome, therefore. So one might need to keep in mind the "granularity" one is dealing with - attend to a more global fact, in order to better tackling minor or local facts subsequently. (The only thing that is permanent and fundamentally true is the fact of "awareness".)

/u/triumphantgeorge so couldn't i just make you appear somewhere at my choosing?

I don't see why not. But then, what I see or not doesn't really matter. Can you see a "why not"?

the only impediments I see are recognising your form and the 'story' by which i see you

...within you.

...

A1: I don't care if I jumped or if it's all coincidence. My life is better and I'm happier. Your skepticism is real downer though.

POST: Changing the past?

What you are really after, is to shift your ongoing experience such that it behaves "as if" the past were different. Neville Goddard has a nice discussion on that in one of his essays - see the links in the relevant post, perhaps.

POST: Get off your ass and do something about it.

However - if the purpose of the exercise is ultimately to conduct an experiment, to give yourself an experience that provides an insight into "the nature of ongoing experience", then your post is missing the point. Putting that aside though, if we were staying focused on outcomes it would probably help if you describe how, exactly a person goes about "making it work out". You can encourage people to "do things", but you have to say what exact things people should "do". Meanwhile, any description like that has a set of hidden assumptions, an underlying philosophy. Since in the end that's the deeper purpose of this subreddit - to reveal hidden assumptions, and use that knowledge - then laying this out would be helpful. Like, your theory of why "fate is more likely determined" by what you choose to do other than "2 fucking glasses". What if you choose to do two glasses?

Otherwise you're literally and unhelpfully saying: "hey, don't do that thing, instead do... um... y'know... something else".

What a person should do obviously depends on the situation he is in? I'm just saying take an active step to ameliorate your predicament.

Of course! But the difficulty can often be in knowing what that active step should be. You need the world to "move" and a path to open up. Just "doing stuff" often doesn't produce that; it just produces "being busy" without any accomplishment. In fact, your own behaviour is also part of the result of performing the experiment. The reason the final instruction in the exercise is to "carry on with your life" is because the overall movement towards a goal also includes your own bodily and mental movements. It doesn't say "now sit and wait for the championship trophy to be delivered by FedEx".

Example: Perhaps what might happen is, the day after the exercise you would feel the urge to call a friend, and in your conversation he might mention he just met a great coach that was doing free sessions, and you would find yourself feeling enthusiastic about that so you'd go along, and the new coach has a special method he uses which lets you master certain moves really quickly, so by the time the tournament comes around you are totally ready in that particular area, and then in the tournament the moves that come up happen to be the exact ones you've just mastered in such a short time - the trophy is yours. You get the idea. Although in practice it can be both more or less "logical" than that, more or less pushing against the boundaries of apparent likelihood, depending. Ultimately, the whole thing is recognised to be a sort of "patterning" of your ongoing experience.

POST: I'm interested in the idea of jumping - help me test it

The simplest way to demonstrate that there is "something to this", is to perform the exercise repeatedly over an extended period for many different outcomes, until eventually the idea that it is "coincidence" becomes ridiculous (or doesn't, of course). This then leads you to examine your assumptions about the "nature of experiencing", and things progress from there. Beyond that, if you are looking for "proof" of something, though, you should be clear about what, exactly you are looking to prove. What do you mean by "confirm if something happens". What precisely is the "something" that you are trying to confirm "happens"? What does the term "jumping" mean for you, basically?

Of course, it is not the pouring of water as such that produces an outcome. And the outcomes from that process tend to unfold as "seemingly very unlikely, but still borderline plausible and non-reality-breaking" narratives. We demonstrate to ourselves that something is going on, and then we move onto examining the nature of that "something". I think your two suggestions might be skipping ahead too much, before you've really thought deeply enough, and so might neither prove nor disprove anything as they stand.

POST: Is this a stupid concern?

Nobody has jumped yet. We all want to jump dimensions but there hasn't been legitimate proof that anybody has jumped to a radically different dimension yet. That's what we're all hoping for - real evidence of that but there hasn't been anything. It's like everybody comes back here empty-handed. No worthy proof of any sort of real Dimension Jump.

This... isn't how it works, Roril! I thought we'd already worked through this previously?

If someone says something about their experience to you, then that experience of "someone saying something about their experience to me" is an aspect of your ongoing experience. There is no "outside" to that. This means that any "external" proof of a change is actually just your own experiential content. It's like being in a dream and waiting for someone to tell you it's a dream. If someone did tell you it was a dream, then it would actually be you telling yourself that it's a dream! The idea that one of your dream characters wakes up, discovers it was a dream, and then returns to your dream to tell you about it, would be ridiculous.

No we're the dreamers, though!

You are the whole dream.

Johnny Deep.

Mister Literal!

POST: Dimensional Shifting in a nutshell

Let it be said first that, you are ALWAYS shifting. You are shifting multiple times as you read this comment.

I'm not sure this is necessarily the best (by which I mean most useful) way to look at it, since it conflates "current sensory content" with "current state", potentially. It is, I think, much more useful to conceive of a "state" as comprising the current set of pattern-facts that are contributing to your experience, and a deterministic set of "moments" corresponding to that. That way, a "shift" or "jump" can be defined as an intentional change from one state to another, and a "dimension" is basically a state consisting of a particular set of world-facts. "Time passing" is then considered to be a static pattern associated with a particular state. This doesn't necessarily affect your overall descriptive scheme, though; it's just a point of clarity. (The same consideration also applies to the Infinite Grid and Hall of Records metaphors linked in the sidebar, which cover similar ground.) However, it does lead to another important aspect to this:

At this moment shall we say, at 3:01pm, I am at point A.

In what sense are you "at point A", though? What is this "I" that is there? Related:

Again, we humans are limited.

In what sense are we "humans", if "being human" is actually just a particular type of experience associated with a point in a configuration space? Surely you are having a "human-formatted experience", rather than actually being human?

Thanks for the clarification G! :) Yes you're right, our body (human-formatted experience) is inside our consciousness not the other way around (consciousness being inside our body). I still have the habit of considering our temporal selves as a reference point haha.

Right. It's a bit counter intuitive, because we can't actually think about this, since we are talking about the subject to all objects, and words and concepts only deal in objects - but it's beneficial to point it out. The primary benefit of noting this explicitly, I think, is it makes it clear that all content and formatting is a "modulation of awareness" - including the metaphors we've just been discussing. It's all "patterning" and none of it is fundamentally true, only relatively so. This reminds us that the only thing that is unchangingly true is "awareness" (or "consciousness"). And it's not even "our" consciousness, because it is "before" division and multiplicity; it is simply the property of being-aware, independent of any particular content or structuring or apparent perspective. Basically, it underlines that all aspects of experience, even very basic aspects, are on an "as if" basis only. This leads nicely to a consideration of the "how" of shifting, which might be usefully described as a shape-shifting of oneself, as awareness, to another "as if" form.

Q1: In what sense are we "humans", if "being human" is actually just a particular type of experience associated with a point in a configuration space?
but where do people - yourself included - exist in relation to me?
people have mass and location despite the content of their 'personality' and 'experiences'
if I assume my experience of my body incorporates the totality of the cosmos1A 1B 2 then 'finding' people shouldn't be so mysterious
presently I feel i have to cut all the bonds of speculations of matter being existential separate to awareness and in that regard, people would be as objects too
Rupert Spira - Consciousness Is Not Produced by the Brain [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icBYIUTZ5gI]

Although, really, "mass" and "location are ideas, concepts we use to describe our experience; we do not actually experience them as such. People are essentially sight, sound and texture within mind, and everything else is inferred.

Could you explain what you mean by "division and multiplicity?" I'm a tragically linear thinker and none of this will ever work for me until I iron out these details.

I just mean that the fundamental state is undivided, has no property other than being-aware. So in that state there is not "many things", but also not "one thing" either: "things" and "numbers of things" are just meaningless when talking of that state. It is the "subject" that takes on the shape of apparent objects ("division" into objects and "multiplicity" because immediately we are dealing with "countable things") but is not itself an object. It's hard to describe (impossible, in fact), because thoughts and concepts immediately involve dealing with objects, but we can always point to the fact that the context of our experience, our experience right now, is always that subject, which is us.

POST: Theoretically, could you jump to a fictional universe/ a world you created in your mind?

How can you tell that your current experience isn't already a fictional universe that you created, perhaps accidentally, in your mind? How could distinguish between this being a "real place", and a "persistent realm" that you'd set in motion while forgetting your experience prior to that? (I mean this seriously: look around, what are the actual signs, if any, that could tip you off? And consider: are those signs not just a part of the "fiction" of this experience?)

It seems a very depressing prospect.

I don't think it is, though. Although in that comment I'm presenting it as "hey perhaps you did this unwittingly", in actual fact the concept lends itself to a positive interpretation, that of great possibility, great potential and freedom once it is grasped. And for people who are kind of "down on death", it's surely a prettier picture. Remember, in this description a "hard reset" couldn't be done to you from the outside (because there is no "outside" in this view). It's something that would occur due to ignorance or deliberate choice. The former, we can address. Is that not hopeful, rather than depressing?

Could the patterning model be intrinsically anti-entropic?

Fundamentally, it is "before" the idea of entropy, because even "things change" is a pattern. Or more specifically: "time passing" is a pattern, an experience, rather than a fundamental thing. So "eventually" one is bound to realise rediscover one's power. You are eternal "being" but you are not doomed to endlessly repeat, because you are not a finite mechanism. There is no "logical reason" at all, then, why the whole thing can't just drop away, right now, and you switch to a state of infinite abstracted possibility - free from that crappy hellishness. The issue is, perhaps, that it must occur to you to ask - or in some way end up implying - this. I guess that if the same power that moves your arms and legs (or rather: takes on the experience of apparent movement) also moves mountains, it's no good if one doesn't actually attempt to use it in that way, with commitment?

So, what reassures you that this is not a problem?

It's inherently not a problem, though, right? Unless you are still identified with being a particular person (or person-pattern). Once you realise your actual situation - if you are identified, instead, with the property of being-aware - then it isn't. This occurs in a couple of ways, in fact. First, you don't mind the idea of things shifting in the sense of it being an existential problem. Second, you know that if you want you could establish a context to experience, a context that is independent of its content.

Nonetheless, there are things outside our direct control. Things that happen to us, apparently without our deliberate choice (sometimes against it).

The issue, perhaps, is what exactly one means by "control", "us" and "choice"?

Arms and mountains are identical in nature and their shifting is identical in nature, is the point. Coming to that conclusion, I'd say, is the "purpose", after the fact, of exploring these things (if we should call it a "purpose"). Namely, coming to a direct understanding of the "nature of experiencing" and, secondarily, being able to leverage that in order to summon desired experiences.

But synchronicities like this one seem to suggest a not-so-controllable "what you focus on, expands" type of "mechanism", instead of a neat "what you decide, happens".

I'd phrase it as, that the way in which one changes one's ongoing experience is by "increasing the relative contribution of a fact or pattern". In effect, one shape-shifts oneself to a new state. There is no "way" or "method" or "mechanism" for doing this; one simply adopts the new "shape". Any apparent experience of cause and effect are actually both "effects"; all experiences are "results" and no moment of experience "causes" another moment. Pondering - This means that the devil's in the details somewhat when it comes to things like "decisions". If we translate "decision" as "asserting the fact of something being true", then we're on the right track in terms of a description. This is different to some interpretations of "decision" - and indeed lots of other words we try to use to point to this - most of which maintain a separation between "decider" and "world", for example. The changes we're talking about here are literal and direct, with no medium or intermediary. If you ponder this - and you must do so from a 1st-person perspective, because there is no other - then the result can be even a slight feeling of claustrophobia, because you can't "get outside" of this. Attempting to "take on the shape of" the experience of capturing the idea of "taking on the shape" is conflicted. However, the attempt to do so, and the giving up of the attempt, is often an nice way to cut straight to the insight. (See also: that feeling-out exercise, elsewhere.)

I have no way to know if the right interpretation is the idealistic one... "Oh wow, I'm awakening to my true nature!", or the materialistic one...

It doesn't really matter. All your experiences are you "taking on the shape of" an experience; all your thoughts about experience are you "taking on the shape of" the experience of thinking about experiences. All interpretations are incorrect - simply because they are interpretations. We might recall the metaphor of the sandcastle: It is not possible to build a sandcastle which captures, in form, sand and the beach, even though the sandcastle is both sand and the beach. If we build sandcastles and call them "sand" and "the beach", they will both represent and not be, sand and the beach; the interpretation will be right in the sense that it is what it is interpreting, but it will be incorrect as an interpretation. (This is just another way of saying, "the 'awareness' that can be spoken or thought of is not the true awareness".)

Could you please help me understand this with an example?

So, if one is identified, say, with a particular location in the body space (many people identify "me" as a small sphere somewhere behind the eyes, for example), then when experiences arise which imply that location is no longer there, your "me" content will disappear also. However, if one deliberately "takes on the shape of" being, say, an "open aware space within which all sensory experiences arise", then you've brought into play, identified with, a foundation which is independent of the usual world content. What you actually are is "that which takes on the shape of" 1st-person experiences, so that never dies. However, if you do want to maintain a particular sense of identity, a continuity of experience, then you must bringing to experience a persistent aspect such as that, to which you can attach a "me". To get a feel for the larger point, stand up and put your arms out into the space around you. Now, imagine the your arms are extending into space, somehow in all directions, such that the entire moment of experience is your body. Note: you are the moment and its context, you are not "the environment" in the sense of a "place". Then, imagine that you are a "shape-shifter", but instead of just a body space which shifts, the entire space is you. You are "non-material material" which shapes itself into experiential states, then.

"choice" : intending an increase of the relative contribution of certain facts or patterns

So, now we have to be very specific about what "intention" is, in the sense that it is literal. That is, if "an intention" is the pre-existing pattern one is bringing into prominence (along with its logically-implied extended pattern), and "intending" is the shape-shifting act of doing so, then there is no actual "doing" of it. For example. If one is sat down and then stand up, one either stands up or does not. Here, the "intention" is the pattern being-standing-up, and if one fully intends it, it is true: the experience of "standing up" arises. Now, why is it that one does not experience being-sat-down in one moment and then discontinuously being-stood-up in the next? In this description, it's because there is already an entire world-pattern, structured in a certain way, aspects which is associatively triggered by the intention "I am going to stand up" or "it is true now that I will be stood up then". There is also the issue that people don't actually specifically intend discontinuities; they intend fact-patterns which are overlaid of the existing world-pattern, rather than deformations of it.

Why, then, arms obey every whim and mountains stay still?

Your arms don't obey your every whim, though, do they? Your intentions are incorporated into your experience, and your arms and legs follow certain patterns plus that intention. If you don't address the world-pattern in order to change that, or don't specifically intend discontinuity in your experience (perhaps be re-considering your idea of what "the world" is, and asserting a new perspective), or don't completely release the current pattern temporarily but absolutely, then that's how things unfold. It's also worth noting that your idea of "you" is a pattern which might place certain apparent limitations. This is what I mean by intention being direct and literal amendments to your current state. Meanwhile, though, it's worth noting that, if you pay attention, things like mountains do move all the time. Both in the sense of the apparent fact of where they are, but then in the seemingly cheating sense of when you apparently move your head, or blink, or turn away, or change location. (I say "seemingly" because it's not really cheating - it's a worthwhile path of contemplation. In what sense is a mountain in a particular location, anyway?)

POST: Is it possible to travel to a fictional universe already made/fanfiction?

Do a search for "fictional universe", since this has come up a few times over the last couple of months, and the previous discussions cover a lot of ground I think. For example, /u/dungjames posted about this, and another post a couple of days ago, but there are more in-depth conversations previously involving "persistent realms" and so on.

Dreams to me are more complicated than rocket and physics combined, i mean if i just slowly grasp something in my mind i can understand it and eventually do it but my own mind is against me because it just having a hard time while my body does is smile and do what it can to enjoy the day

The issue with dreams is, there is no "how" to them, other than fully deciding and keeping in mind that you are going to dream. There not really anything to "understand" at all. There is no complication, because dreams are "made from" visuals, sounds, textures, and so on, and felt-knowing. There is nothing "behind" the dream to learn or work out. You simply... dream.

Then my dreams are so unstabled because of the amount of information going to my head and emotionally issues

You can overcome that, though. Something that helps, is reading around the topic a bit more, so that your idea of "dreams" becomes more stable. (Lucid Dreaming: Gateway to the Inner Self by Robert Waggoner is worth a look, in my opinion.)

I also really recommend spending some time just not bothering to think - to "cease interfering" with your experience. A daily 10 minutes is good: lie on the floor in the "constructive rest position", cease interfering with body, thought and attentional focus, just "let whatever happens, happen" with no aim. Over time, you'll find yourself naturally levelling out and opening up, as "stuck thoughts and incomplete movements" unravel themselves. The clarity that comes with this will help your thinking, emotions and dreaming.

POST: I tried to jump and my dietary preferences drastically changed

I'm not sure I really followed that... much at all! In terms of an overall description rather than the parts, that is. How can you be "close" (or indeed any distance at all) from "the source energy you draw power from"? The "pain and indifference associated" with a meat product isn't your pain; in a description involving "3D cross sections of timelines" the idea of a pain external to you is meaningless. Finally, surely it takes no time at all to "get through time" - by definition. There is, however, definitely something to be said for not obsessing about synchronicity (particularly if you are prone to being attracted to the "messages from the universe" type idea) because it quickly escalates and deepens, becoming distracting, especially if you try to "work it out".

Let's take this a step at a time.

Every action you do in the 3rd dimension creates infinite 4th dimensions...

What leads you to believe an action in the 3rd dimension creates anything at all? Are you not inclined to think that all things are eternal, pre-existing? In which case, a "3D experience" is a selection of experience - as visual, auditory, textural, etc, moments - not a creation. And if that were the case, what would this "energy" be, exactly? Other than a word for "the stuff of which experiences are made" - which is to say, nothing at all, other than the property of being-experienced. Beauty, then, would not be something that was "created" by veggies and plants (for example). Rather, it would simply be the recognition of the nature of experience, rather than the content of it. Your 1st-person experience (being all there is) would be inherently pure, regardless of its present "shape". Meaning that 'light" and "dark" would be, fundamentally, illusory - a fiction in description, and not actual.

Q1: Hi, I'm interested in what you've written about synchronicity. Do you think synchronistic events are symptoms of 'dimension jumping?' I have been reading things on this sub for a couple of months and it fascinates me, but I have never set a specific intention to 'jump dimensions' before, as it's written about here. I have, on the other hand, become very interested in the concept of synchronicity in the last year, and I think these such meaningful coincidences/synchronicities have happened to me on a number of occasions in the past year. I have done research into Carl Jung's work and read the book about synchronicity, and I think about it a lot. With this in mind I'm interested to know how you perceive synchronicity and how it relates to dimension jumping? It was a pleasant surprise to see it mentioned on this sub!

So, I don't think they are a symptom of "dimensional jumping" exactly, so much as an indication of how our ongoing experience works anyway. Our standard description of our situation is that we are a "person", an object, located in a "world" which is a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended place unfolding in time". This makes accounting for things like synchronicity, and many other experiences, quite problematic. However, when you actually attend to our experience as it is we find that, loosely speaking, what you truly are is an "open aware space" within which experiences arise. We can conceive of this space having all possible structures "dissolved" in the background, but with a particular set of those structures being relatively dominant at any time. That is, contributing to ongoing experience. We are "patterned"; we are in a particular "state". Although we think of our experiences being "out there", they are actually arising within us. Synchronicity, then, is a product of our present "patterning". This is true of all of our experience, however synchronicity sticks out because, unlike other content, the synchronistic experiences are not fully defined in time and location. In a sense, it feels as if there are images that are somehow "overlaid" upon our perception; they have been "drawn on top of" our unfolding world. This is actually not a bad way to describe it...

Hence, we can summon owls and we can conceive of ourselves as a self-experiencing context rather than as objects within places.

POST: I'm lost. Need answers before jumping.

I so disagree. ;-) What's a "vibration"?

...In a sense, yes, it can be semantics - but I think it's important to step back and recognise the "meta" context to the various descriptions used. (Interrogate what semantics themselves are, in a way.)

In other words, you can have experiences "as if" it were true that there as such things as "vibrations" and branching outcomes, and you can have experiences "as if" there are "dimensions" and you jump them - but actually those things have no causal power, they are essentially descriptive frameworks, concepts only, which don't really describe anything. Parallel constructions in thought. That is, they are ways of formulating intentions, rather than "what is going on". This might be important, because if you have this the wrong way around - if you think that frameworks describe what is behind the scenes in terms of "fundamental truth", rather than being conceptual building blocks from which "relative truth" can be constructed and brought into experience - then it's easy to end up chasing your tail, unwittingly creating muddled patterns of experience... And thus end up adding all sorts almost "superstitious" additions, in pursuit of "how it works", when in fact there is no "how it works" or method or mechanism underlying experience. Hence lots of "here is my improved two glass method" suggestions, which mostly add more sensory theatre, and perhaps obscure what the whole thing is possibly meant to point to.

I think that you yourself are caught up chasing the tail with your endless questioning!

"Endless questioning" is exactly what we should be doing, though?

The point is to explore and investigate both experiences and descriptions, to experiment and interrogate to get to the bottom of them. Otherwise we're just picking stuff to "believe", with no basis - we're fantasising.

I think you need to do as you say, pick one perspective and keep experiencing your world through it.

I don't say that, though, necessarily. Why pick one perspective and follow it? At least, if one is going to pick a perspective, then it seems to be a good idea to choose it knowingly - to have a handle on what "a perspective" is. Chasing your tail arises when you try to use concepts that, while they are internally consistent, don't have an underlying foundation - castles in the sky. Carefully examining those perspectives (endless questioning!) is exactly how we avoid chasing our tails!

You should help then find their own perspective through yours, not force yours.

Nobody's forcing anything?

How does anybody "find their own perspective", if there's no discussion and challenge (by which I mean: in the sense of picking at the underlying ideas, not in the sense of fighting to be "right" or to win an exchange). There are other subreddits where people can embed themselves in fluffy concepts and wishful thinking - this, generally, is not one of those. The focus is more on experimentation and examining the descriptions used, to see what (if anything) makes them tick. Although, of course, engaging in that is optional, I'd say it is the way forward in terms of making progress. Fuzzy thinking and "leave my perspective alone!" gets us nowhere.

I'm talking about saying things like "lol not true "

Well, I've definitely never said that!

but you are taking it way too far, and it is uncomfortable... You should foster conversations, not confront no stop.

Fostering conversations is generally what happens, though? My "so disagree" was playful, the "what's a vibration" was an opening gambit to start things off. (It wasn't intended to be confrontational.)

I think it needs more openness.

It is quite open. However, it is also not just another /r/psychonaut or /r/occult or /r/lawofattraction, because what would be the point in that? There is a fairly specific idea underpinning it, as articulated in the sidebar and the links in the introduction. Which is, really, to also dig into the idea of "understanding", as well as views of understanding.

I only want to clarify things by adding new ways to understand the same thing.

Of course. Perhaps I could have been clearer, but what I was fishing for when I said "what is a vibration?" and then...

In other words, you can have experiences "as if" it were true that there as such things as "vibrations" and branching outcomes

...was really, what is the nature of a vibration, and how exactly does it lead to a shift in experience, rather than just the surface concepts and phrases. It wasn't meant to be a "stop". For example, you say:

So, the more you ''fake'' a feeling, the more that feeling is part of you, the more it is part of the world.

Okay, but what is "the world" and what are "you", if that's the case? Obviously it can't mean a world as in a "place" (that is, a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended place unfolding in time") and the "you" can't be an object in an 3D environment. That's what I mean by digging deeper. It's "endless questioning", but with a purpose, rather than just tail-chasing. "More openness" isn't the same as "avoiding examining what is meant by something, in detail" so that people don't feel "uncomfortable", I'd hope! Because, I'd suggest, when we really unravel this - our assumptions about this - it is an uncomfortable thing, although ultimately worthwhile and beneficial.

What do you think of the theory about the many yous? For example, there is the 3D you, the 4D you, guiding the 3D you.

It's a little like JW Dunne's idea of The Serial Universe, which was basically a diagrammatic representation of multiple levels of "observer", as a means of wrestling with different states and change. I think the error in it, though, in terms of linking it to the properties of actual ongoing experience, is that it assumes that the "observer" (or better: experiencer) is located - is an object, has a boundary and a restricted content. But in actuality there are no levels or hierarchies; what you are is not an object; this structuring is just an aspect of thinking, not of experiencing as such. So, I think that it is better to consider the "you" as the starting point, as the non-object subject of all experience, which is then said to "take on the shape of" particular states and experiences. Obviously, this is no "you" in the sense of being a "person", but rather that-which-experiences - with one of those experiences being to take on a shape (as state) that is "as if" one is being-a-person-in-a-world. In such a scheme, the only fundamental property - the only unchanging truth - would be the fact of the property of being-aware or "awareness". (That is, before even any notion of division or multiplicity or change.) Everything else would be relatively true only, on an "as if" basis. In this case, "dimensional jumping" or any other conceptual framework for modifying one's experience, would just be a structure to assist the formulation of a desired change and adopting it fully. The "cause" of the change wouldn't be "energy" or any other idea or indeed experiential content - the only cause would be the context, the context of you-as-awareness, which would shape-shift into a new state and experience, a new set of relatively-true patterns or facts.

The benefit of this view is that it dissolves the boundary between "what I am experiencing" and "the description of what I am experiencing". They are both experiences (with the latter being "the experience of thinking about 'experiencing'"). It also highlights that there is nothing "behind" our experience: it is a pattern of and as "awareness". Intending change, then, is a matter of taking on the shape of an idea of experience (a shift in itself), and then taking on the shape of an idea as experience. Unfortunately (as you can tell!), this is very difficult (in fact, impossible) to put into concepts and language, because that will always be "inside" experiencing, and "parallel to" the content of what we might call the sensory moment. So we tend to get into verbal tangles that are intellectually unsatisfying, even though they point to (and are "made from") the direct truth of the matter.

To recycle a previous metaphor:

• The Beach: The metaphor of the beach - about metaphors. It is not possible to build a sandcastle which captures within its form both "the beach" and "sand". However, the sandcastle is both the beach and sand. You can certainly label one part of the sandcastle "the beach" and another "sand", but the properties of those parts, being of form, will not capture the properties of the beach and sand themselves, which are "before" form. If you forget this, and start building ("thinking") further sandcastles based on those labelled parts, all further constructions and their conclusions are immediately "wrong", fundamentally, even though they may be coherent structures ("make sense") on their own terms.

When I was asking "what is a vibration?", therefore, it wasn't that I was challenging your description and suggesting there was a better one, one that I preferred and which was preventing me being "open" to yours. Rather, it's that I was pulling into the discussion the whole idea of descriptions as being "right" or "true" at all, when it comes to this subject, and when it comes to experience generally.

(You can skip to the headlined part if you want to avoid the discussion.)

I am trying to give additional perspective, and you wanted to be playful...

I don't see the problem, frankly? We can talk vaguely around the surface of the subject, or we can get straight to the heart of it, which is confusing initially. Of course it is! Otherwise there would have been nothing to discuss or have a subreddit about in the first place.

I suggest you be a bit more stable and less ''ready to set things straight'' all the time.

Do you mean: avoid addressing underlying points or having a discussion that is worthwhile, and instead having one that feels nice rather than has a chance of going anywhere useful? ;-)

This implies that something is having the change. The idea of experience comes from somewhere! It implies the thing having the awareness had the concept that there is more to it.

The "thing", though, is not a thing. It is not an object, although it "takes on the shape of" the experience of apparent objects. The clumsy wording is an attempt to avoid suggesting a division between an experiencer and the experience; they are the same thing. (And it's why we invoke lots of metaphors and imagery such as "the beach", "the blanket" and so on.)

That's the point, and why...

There is no knowledge of the inner workings, which makes it as satisfying as science two hundred years ago, as you have no real tools to measure anything!

While for intellectual satisfaction we naturally feel the urge to want to understand "experience" and therefore "jumping" conceptually - that is, mental objects connected to and having effects upon other mental objects, representing supposed "real" objects - and come up with a "how things work", ultimately we cannot in this case, because this is the "stuff" that all such concepts are "made from". In other words, this particular relationship cannot be thought-about. There is no deeper underlying "how it works" or mechanism to this, in the usual sense. Any apparent "how it works" is itself a pattern in experience. There are no inner workings in the usual "methods" sense of it. But there are patterns, and ultimately "dimensional jumping" is about "patterning" experience. The two glasses exercise is derived from that: the leveraging of pre-existing patterns based upon a direct view of the nature of subjective experience. And the concept of "active metaphors", as described in the sidebar, is about patterning your experience using different concepts and noting how your experience subsequently falls in line with that.

People need answers, and this is confusing.

One issue is that the answers are best uncovered by conducting experiments and getting results that break down your assumptions, and get a direct experience of it. You can't really give people a full-proof method for anything - the method is the seed for a custom, personalised investigation; it's basically an exploration of your own patterning, and unravelling that.

I do not mean to start endless debates, I want to start new opportunities for growth.

I understand that, and that's exactly what this sort of exchange is about. We can't "start new opportunities for growth" if we are just doing the same thing over and over again - rearranging the furniture rather than leaving the room. So we get a bit philosophical and metaphysical.

I think you need to put WAY MORE emphasis on the being ''in trance, in meditation'' aspect of the whole thing.

It's mostly pointless, that's why I don't. It's not really much of an aspect of it at all (although being relaxed in the sense of allowing movement to happen unobstructed, basically non-interference, is always something to aim for). Suggesting that we focus on that, is like suggesting that someone who has lost their keys looks for them in their well-lit house, even though they lost them in the forest.

Being Practical

In terms of being practical, though, I'd say it's best to be "direct" about all this. So, you attend to your experience as it is, directly, by examining it using things like the Feeling Out Exercise or similar. This gives you a sense of your ongoing experience as it is, rather than merely how you think about it.

(It also highlights the whole problem we have when it comes to thinking about experience: we're just creating more experiential content rather than actually getting "behind" or under-standing anything. But then, the very fact that we can generate "thinking-about" experiences does itself give us an insight. How do we do that?)

Other than that, the two exercises in the sidebar, plus the notion of creating metaphors which can be used to pattern experience, are basically it. There is nothing else. But the exercises have to be treated as loose frameworks for experimentation and contemplation, rather than "methods", because the whole idea of a "method" that operates based on a "mechanism" eventually becomes problematic. While that can seem frustrating for someone who wants "answers", the fact is that the whole idea of "answers" and "causes" leads us to miss the point, because the insight we are after is "one step back" from all that. We can end up like someone trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle where the problem pieces are attached to their own hands, but they don't realise it!

POST: My Method (Two Glasses)

Q1: So, basically the same old two glasses with some new age stuff added in? I think I prefer the simplicity of the original.

Q2: I can see why one would say that; this is better for people like me that need more clarification and instruction. I also like this method better because it puts more emotion into it which I feel many lack during the exercise. The first ten or so times I tried the original it did not work because I was so full of questions. When I spoke with Andrew (and I've spoken to a few others) this seems to be a recurring theme with the original method. This is not meant to replace the original, just to help those that need it. The original is like the Mini Cooper, this is like the Mini Cooper Countryman.

Although, if the underlying purpose is to get to the heart of things rather than necessarily to "get results" as such: how much of this is effectively "sensory theatre", derived from unexamined assumptions and concepts?

Good point, but maybe that sensory theatre helps people like me get results.

Maybe. But is it the sensory theatre that makes the difference? Is sensory theatre causal? Or is sensory theatre itself a result? And if so, what is it that causes change? It's worth considering this, otherwise we might be in danger of descending into a sort of superstitious behaviour, due to not realising the "meta" aspect to it all (something that I think ideas like "the law of attraction" can and has fallen into).

Unfortunate Cats & Causality

I guess it's like the age-old saying, "there are more ways than one to skin a cat."

Or, it could be that there is one way to skin a cat (or indeed, to produce any change in experience), but there are many different stances one could adopt while doing so, some which might feel more comfortable than others. Still, it will always be the act of "movement" that will skin the cat, not the particular stance - and in fact the stance is also an act of "movement". (Not a great analogy, that, but you get the idea.)

And so we ask: well, what is this "movement" in the more general sense, for this topic? There's no real way to say it because it is "before" concepts (the thinking of concepts is itself an outcome of "movement"), but we could call it "intending" or "shifting state" or "becoming a fact" or something like that.

Imagining-That

In the Imagination Room metaphor we introduce the idea of imagining-that. This awkward phrasing is to suggest the concept of "imagining the fact of something being true", with any sensory experience being an aspect of that fact-pattern. This, in turn, leads to imagining the fact of properties - see, for example, the blue sphere example:

So, first imagine a sphere in front of you - say, a blue sphere with no particular detail, just floating there. Okay, now imagine a sphere in front of you, identical in every way to the first, except also imagine that this sphere is imbued with the special power to make the room filled with joy. But do not change the sensory aspect of the sphere in any way when you do this. This is basically "imagining the fact of something being true" abstractly. That is, that an object, or your ongoing experience more generally, has a property, without actually visualising any sensory aspects to that property. Instead of doing all the "sensory theatre" of picturing stuff, in an effort to associatively trigger the fact or as an excuse to do so, you can just directly do intending-asserting of the fact into greater prominence. Finally, after taking a pause to clear yourself out a little, instead of using the sphere image, simply directly intend that the room is filled with joy, and experience the result of that. That is, wordlessly intend the fact of: "it is true now that this room is filled with joy". And, um, enjoy.

And so this imagining-that is another way of talking about this, which highlights that the content of sensory theatre is not causal. But then, how so this, we might ask:

Why Did It (Or Did It Even) Help?

until I started reading other's experiences and putting what works for them together that I came up with this and it's worked insanely well thus far.

This brings to mind when people first hear about the idea of lucid dreaming, and spend lots of time immersing themselves in books, articles, and personal accounts of lucid dreaming, pondering the nature of lucid dreaming and imagining what it would be like. The result: they "spontaneously" have a lucid dream, even though they didn't "do" anything to get one. Subsequently, they focus on trying to have lucid dreams using techniques, and they struggle. I suggest this is due to immersion and commitment, the shaping of themselves according to those ideas - basically, they have patterned themselves (in the sense of you-as-awareness rather than as a person) and the content of their ongoing experience subsequently is (because it is inseparable from it) from that new state or formatting. So you were "reading other's experiences" and accepting what they say worked and dedicating yourself, in a committed way, to coming up with something that worked. But it isn't the technique that works, that has made the difference - it's the fact that you focused upon, and assumed with full commitment either directly or via implication, a particular patterning. This is why it "worked insanely well" for you - and why although others might get a brief boost from something fresh, they probably won't get the same outstanding outcome.

There is something more to be said, though:

Two Glasses & Patterning

The original instructions for the Two Glasses Exercise, which are stripped down to the minimum required for a reason which should be clear, leverage an existing abstract pattern which is fairly universally shared, while also minimising the possibility of undoing the shift that is produced. Actually, it's really two patterns: that of shifting amount-intensity-location (modifying the relative contribution or existence of a quantity), and that of association-overlap-identification (creating a handle onto pre-existing states or patterns).

This is the "cheat" involved. However, having gotten results - which is greatly existed by, as the instructions suggest, following the instructions as written and then carrying on with your life without over-thinking it or putting effort into it - and then having experimented with different and increasingly unlikely outcomes which obviously cannot possibly be related to a literal pouring of water or labels, the more general notion and prevalence of patterning becomes apparent. (Particularly when considered alongside the Owls of Eternity exercise, the metaphors linked in the sidebar, and the notion of "active metaphors" more broadly.)

I'm interested in your reply to this - do you use the original verbatim or have you tweaked it?

From the above, you get the idea: the method doesn't really matter, although it is a hook into and a platform from which to explore the nature of experience (which was the original idea of it: it shows "something's up!", and prompts: "what is the nature of this?"), after which you could experiment more directly.

Q3: Hey TG! Can you please expand on the following:
Actually, it's really two patterns: that of shifting amount-intensity-location (modifying the relative contribution or existence of a quantity), and that of association-overlap-identification (creating a handle onto pre-existing states or patterns).
Also, what is your opinion on the effectiveness of your emotional state in regards to all this? Would you say your emotions towards manifesting something you desire is irrelevant under the context of you-as-awareness? Is the connection between the two merely a perceived pattern?

Ah, by that I meant that we are not completely void emptiness before we do this stuff - we have patterns of all sorts, from the fact of the senses, to that of length and change, and ever more abstract ones (which can't really be conceptualised). Basically, the world that we are "makes sense", and that is because it is a set of patterns, as selected from the background of all possible patterns. And the two glasses exercise operates by, instead of having you having to intend an desired fact-pattern (outcome) from nowhere, piggy-backing on a couple of already-active ones. Specifically, the meaningfulness of "amount" and "location", and the explicit or implied assignment of meaning (the labeled-glass water levels are implied to mean the "intensity" of the current and target situations, become "handles" onto them). This not something you have to "do" as an act, I hasten to add, it comes for free with the "dumb patterning system" that you are - and in fact "trying" to do it tends to get in the way, since inevitably you use effort or bring to mind other patterns (and what is effort? usually just the production of a feeling of muscular tension, which has it's own associated extended pattern).

As for emotional states - I'd say that emotional content is just like any other content, a sight or a sound or a smell. It is tempting to treat it as special because it can't be articulated well, seems all-encompassing because it is not so clearly located as other sensory stuff. However, I'd treat it as part of a moment. For sure, by associative triggering, deliberately holding a particular emotional state is like selecting out patterns associated with that state versus others, but I don't think it's a great approach overall. It's a bit like, again, going back to visualising something ("a blue ball") without the intention ("picturing this blue ball means-that my exam will work out great"). The intention - the explicit or implied statement of something being true - is the actual pattern that you are seeking to make more dominant, everything else is sensory theatre and non-causal (which you are, ironically, triggering by intention as well: "it is true now that I am perceiving this image"). Of course, it's difficult to make broad pronouncements here beyond the basics, because we're all dealing with different initial patterning, different extended patterns associated with things like (for example) "a blue ball" or "the feeling of being melancholy" or whatever. Hence, the encouragement to experiment and explore, because there is no method or mechanism as such - for they, too, are patterns, with nothing solid and permanent underlying them. ("Active metaphors" being the concept of coming up with "formatting" which you then adopt to pattern a "how things work", rather than just a "what's going to happen".)

POST: Ideas for a group jump

There's potentially a problem with jumping as a group, due to a possible lack of "other people".

I know what you mean, but then again nobody can prove it.

We have to ask, though: prove what, though, and to whom?

If there is no difference between having an experience "as if" something is true and it "really" being true - and I suggest there is not - then it comes down to the content of your experience, and the nature of it. You can only demonstrate things to yourself, whether there "really are" other people or not. You can notice the variability in content, and you can examine the "meta" of your experience, how it is rather than what it is formed into currently (as an apparent first-person perspective).

This life experience could be the result of my mind creating this whole reality and you guys don't really exist except for me.

I think the flaw in that description, potentially, is in what you are talking about when you say "my", "me" and "you guys". The sense in which we might say that there are no other people - that is, individual consciousnesses "inside" bodies - is that there are no people at all, including you. You are having a being-a-person-in-a-world experience, but fundamentally you are not a person. You are an experiencer which has taken on the shape of an experience, a structured or patterned moment. You'd be better described as "awareness" having "taken on the shape of" the apparent experience of being-a-person.

Note, I don't say "an awareness" or "the awareness" (or "consciouness") - just "awareness". That is, there is not even one awareness, because it is "before" countable objects, hence saying something like "our combined awareness" doesn't mean anything. (The Feeling Out Exercise and the discussion in the link is meant to draw our attention to this, although I'll add that it's important to actually do it rather than just think about it.)

All of which is to say, you could quite possibly have yourself an experience "as if" a group of people all get together and make a change in the world, but all you'd "really" be changing is the content of your own sensory experience (that is, the shape of you-as-awareness, which happens to be structured currently as an apparent you-as-person). That's good enough, maybe, but in terms of understanding "what is going on" more deeply, there are some things we should bear in mind regarding our assumptions, perhaps.

You can keep telling yourself that you are god controlling an avatar, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

That's not the sense in which it is meant, though. It is more like saying that what you truly are is a "material" whose only inherent property is being-aware (hence "awareness") and which takes on (or has taken on, and perhaps not deliberately, in the sense of "after deliberation") the shape of patterned states and, therefore, experiences. It's not like being a God, as it's usually conceived of. The person you seem to be isn't an avatar. The "person" is an idea or thought you have from time to time; you never actually experience being a person as such, only sensations and perceptions "floating" in and as you-as-awareness.

There could an objective reality and you would have no way of knowing the difference.

If you don't know the difference - if it is not possible to experience the difference - then the concept is meaningless? The notion of an "objective world", it is has been said is construct of convenience with no evidence:

It’s said that in earlier civilizations, people didn’t quite know how to distinguish between objective and subjective. But once the idea of separating the two gained a toehold, we were told that we have to do this, and that science is about the objective. And now that it’s done, it’s hard to turn back.

If you think about an "objective world" now, what form does it take (it is a thought-experience, surely?) and where is it (within and as awareness, surely?). If you attend to your direct experience, now, as it is, there is no place for an objective world to be, other than inside awareness (loosely, "dissolved into the background" of the present moment), which means an "objective world" is in fact a subjective thing. And that's just the thought of an "objective world"; the actual objective world would not even be a conceptual object, or an object at all. The notions of "objective" and "subjective" both logically collapse into something like the above, as intuited from direct experience: there is just patterns within and as awareness. Basically, we're saying that all things are within the "subject" - and the subject not being an object, having no edges, boundaries, division or inherent properties, there is "not even" one of them, and from this it follows that there is no "objective" world, because there is no room for boundaries of "type" (which is required for an objective world to be able to impinge upon a subjective world). If there were an "objective world", then, it would have no interaction with, and therefore no effect upon, your subjective experience whatsoever!

Maybe there is a real reality out there and you can't see it and/or comprehend it but it would still be there and exist.

But if you can't tell, in what way does it exist for you?

And as we've noted, directly examining your experience (which is not just the content of your senses) leaves no place for an "external" or "independent" reality (which is basically what we mean by "objective"), because it has no "outside". Returning to the "meta" of all this: when you think about "an objective reality", what exactly is your experience of doing this thinking? And that experience, that thinking and the content of it, in what way does or could that correspond to a "real" reality, one that is not subjective? Are you not just making "sandcastles" in the manner of these metaphors?

The Beach

The metaphor of the beach - about metaphors. It is not possible to build a sandcastle which captures within its form both "the beach" and "sand". However, the sandcastle is both the beach and sand. You can certainly label one part of the sandcastle "the beach" and another "sand", but the properties of those parts, being of form, will not capture the properties of the beach and sand themselves, which are "before" form. If you forget this, and start building ("thinking") further sandcastles based on those labelled parts, all further constructions and their conclusions are immediately "wrong", fundamentally, even though they may be coherent structures ("make sense") on their own terms.

You have to take a step back. The "objective world" concept is only addictive, only "seems right", in terms of a particular structure of thought. If you step back from thinking, though, you can see that this structure is just a "castle in the sky", a self-consistent conceptual pattern which is just floating there without an actual foundation, no grounding in direct experience. (Besides, that is, the experience of "thinking about the ideas of objective and subjective".)

In a way that feels real enough when I feel pain or hunger.

But that's got nothing to do with "objective". (After all, you can have pain and hunger in lucid dreams. When Johnson says "I refute it thus" to Berkeley's subjective idealism, he does not actually refute it - he illustrates it.)

When it is said that there is no world external to you, it doesn't mean there is no world external to what is labelled "the person" (by which I mean, a particular set of sensory patterns and concepts that are a subset of the world); there's just no world external to the experiencer.

Well, look, I read Descartes and the part about "I think therefore I am" did change my life.

I meant it more in the sense of noting that descriptions are themselves just experiences, and so they never get "behind" the nature of experiencing. The idea of an "objective" world never gets "behind" subjective experience; it is meaningless when it comes to tackling the nature of experience itself. It's a little different to saying "the only thing I am certain of is that I exist", because it takes the next step and examines what it means to think of existence at all (and whether it can be thought of - I say not).

That being said, there is no way for you to differentiate between a reality that you created with your thoughts or one that really does exist.

If there is no way to differentiate, then the question is meaningless, right? But there are assumptions in that sentence we could unpack. For example, are we saying that we are creating reality "with our thoughts"? (Aren't "thoughts" really results of something, of "intention"?) And is our definition of "really exist" just "something that isn't created by our thoughts"? (We'd have to nail down what causes thoughts first, I'd say.)

Even the word "reality" is a problem: what do we mean by that? It's a form of "zoning" of experiential content or of concepts. If all zones are still within and as "awareness", then our questions would be better formulated differently. How about this. We can ascertain directly that:

• All experience (including the experience of "thinking") arises within and as awareness.
• It seems that we can direct the content of experience to an extent: we can intend the "body" portion of experience and get immediate sensory change; we can intend thoughts and they appear immediately.

And then: Is our question not really simply that some aspects of our patterned experience seems easily directed (intention and sensory result are nearly coincident, spatially and temporally, everyday movement and thinking), other parts seem less easily directed (intention and sensory result less coincident, Two Glasses style), perhaps not at all (intention to reformat world facts?). So are we not unwittingly equating "inertia of intentional change", as seen through a descriptive framework of "world as a spatially-extended place unfolding in time", with "really real"?

Who wants to live in a world where Dolly doesn't have braces.

Well, I suppose Dolly might!

My point is that I would rather tackle the nature of reality instead of experience... You have no absolute truth.

The "problem" is that "reality" is just a concept you have; that that concept is just an experience (of "thinking"); and that all you actually have is experiences. The "absolute truth" is whatever is unchanging, and the only thing that is unchanging is the fact of the property of being-aware. However, I will add that when I say "experience" I don't just mean the current senses of visual, auditory and so on - I mean the whole "being state" of now, including that felt-sense summary, and all that stuff.

Again, even if we cannot with current technologies, maybe someday we will and you have no way of claiming that this assertion is false.

See, that doesn't help though. It's like saying that, when in a lucid dream, you might discover a machine which will let you distinguish between the content of the dream and the "real reality" - but the machine will itself be made from "dream", as will any experiences you have of uncovering the "real reality". The only reality is "awareness" (dreamer+dream), and every experience you have (dream content) is made from "awareness" (dream). You can perceive this to be true directly. No matter what the content of a dream, it is all "dream" and it never gets "behind" the dream. There is nothing "behind" awareness.

You keep referring to "as awareness". I get the "within" part, not the "as" part.

Related metaphor:

The Blanket

What you truly are is the "non-material material" whose only inherent property is awareness or being-aware, and which "takes on the shape of" experiences. Right now, you-as-awareness have "taken on the shape of" the experience of apparently being-a-person-in-a-world. This can be conceived of as a non-dimensional blanket, within which there are folds (fact-patterns) which represent the world (world-pattern or current state).

So the "as" is to emphasise that it's not a case of you being awareness and then experiences are floating inside, with awareness "looking at" the experience. Rather, awareness has formed itself into the experience, so the experience is "made from" awareness. If you pause and "feel out" your present moment right now, you can notice that this is true, directly. The Feeling Out exercise, previously, is about realising that you-as-awareness actually becomes the whole moment. You find that, although you tend to assume that "you" are over here and the resst of the room is around there, when you actually try to locate yourself - locate where you are actually experiencing this moment "from" - you discover that you are the "over here" and the "over there", sort of everywhere and nowhere. You are the whole moment, the whole situation or state.

Can you make 50k appear in my bank account? These are just numbers in a thought simulation right?

Scratch the bit about "in a thought simulation", I'd say; that's another narrative that involves a sort of separation. The question is basically: if my state is "just" me as patterned awareness, why don't all my assertions instantly become true in my sensory experience - right?

Ok so now that we went down the rabbit hole in my other reply, consider this: why would you call it a "problem"?

By "problem" I was referring to a potential issue with the concept of "jumping as a group" - not a problem with looking for the experience of it. The phrasing meant that it's a "problem" in the sense of there being things to consider in the context of "dimensional jumping", not that it's somehow "bad".

You suggest it's pointless, but you could be wrong, isn't it true?

I didn't suggest it was pointless, though? What I suggested was that if someone pursues "jumping as a group" then they might not be doing what they think they are doing, and that there is a benefit in digging into that.

By saying there's a "problem", you managed to discredit my post and you got 5 upvotes. Good job!

The word "problem" hardly discredits your post, though, and the link provides the full context for my comment. Obviously, it was intended to prompt further discussion, such as we just had. This isn't about winning "upvotes" (who really cares about that, on a subreddit like this?). Perhaps the one-liner approach didn't come over quite as playfully as I meant it to, however!

POST: Can somebody please explain the owl method

It's one hundred percent confirmation bias.

Although, we should ask: what exactly is "confirmation bias" in this case?

If the term is taken to mean "noticing patterns that were already there in a three-dimensional environment (a place)", then the extreme experiences one can have often seem to conflict with that. If, instead, we expand the term to mean something like "selecting patterns into sensory experience from a non-dimensional environment (an infinite gloop)", then we've got a description that's more useful, perhaps. In the first case, "confirmation" refers to confirming ones prejudices. In the second case, "confirmation" is more in the sense of confirmation of a property of experience. In neither example, of course, do we have access to an independent external reference against which to measure the "confirmation". However, in the case of "dimensional jumping" and that exercise, we explicitly recognise this fact - and pushing against ("confirming" or not) the standard "world experience" assumptions is actually the basis of the exercise.

POST: My last post here and a golden nugget of advice for you

While I see all related meta-physical perspectives as ultimately the same one from different angles of viewing, I don't want to take away from that concept at the core of this sub or distract from it.

Well, that really is one the core concepts of the subreddit, rather than a distraction from it. That is, along with being hardline on the nature of the relationship between descriptions and direct experience, of course. And hopefully putting concepts like "you", "internal", "universal powers" and even "truth" under appropriate scrutiny - since often there is no underlying content when their meaning is unpacked. We can end up with buzzy stuff that amounts to “What is your why?” (awful movie, don't watch it). We have something that sort of feels good to read, but there is nothing really in it. It may actually be the case that you're not certain about the concept behind the subreddit, given the responses you've given elsewhere? They seem quite vague and fluffy and LOA-ish!

To clarify for new readers: As per the sidebar, "dimensional jumping" is set up as an example of a structuring metaphor, one which can be used to formulate intentions and generate "as if" experiences, rather than something literal or even something fundamental in a symbolic way. This ultimately leads to an examination of what our experiences are actually "made from": what the relationship is between "you" and "the world", as a sort of "practical philosophy" investigation.

Humans are the only ones who wrongly apply these petty, subjective judgments to things.

Although, to be fair, no other judgments are available!

Tech point: Deleting your Reddit account does not delete your posts, unless you manually go through and remove them. It merely changes the username against your comments to "[deleted]".

(Combining two responses:)

The words I've used are completely 'empty' on their own of course if you want to look at it that way, as all words are, but they are intended to get the brain cogs whirring as some kind of response.

Words are "empty" only in the sense that they are not aspects of the direct experience to which they (hopefully are intended to) refer. However, they are aspects of a particular thinking framework or description. The important thing is to elucidate the thinking framework as best we can, and be clear about how it connects to direct experience (or not). Otherwise we aren't saying anything, we're just creating little "castles in the sky" which kind of feel good, but have no grounding or utility beyond that.

You seem to be saying that what you deem to be 'within the realms of LoA' is not suited to be here. I see them as ultimately the same...

Yes, they are ultimately the same, but only in the sense that every moment of experience is ultimately of the same nature - and one may have "as if" experiences themed in the style of "LOA" or "dimensional jumping". To be clear, the main distinction would be that LOA takes its various ideas as literally true; "dimensional jumping" in this subreddit is seen as a structuring metaphor (amongst many; the sub just happens to be named after one of them) which is not itself literal. There are no "dimensions" in the same way that an LOA follower (or similar, this applies to any semi-realist approach) might conceive of "frequencies" and "attraction" and "energies" and so on. And therefore the use of the phrase "as if" refers to the content of one's experience being apparently consistent with a particular description, but that description not being a true explanation of the cause or form of the experience (the context). In a sense, experiences themselves are not taken literally, but the metaphors themselves are literal, in a way.

Trade 'universal powers' for whatever words you like really. I don't use that term myself but it's one I know others identify a certain understanding with, hence why I used it.

It's surely important to specify what exactly you, as the author, mean by "universal powers", rather than allowing others to "fill in the gaps" with whatever "certain understanding" they might identify with?

Otherwise there's a danger we are simply creating highly nominalised self-referential language which has no content, but has the apparent "structure" of meaning - in the manner of hypnotic language forms, for example.

My point was, you can choose to judge yourself as 'unworthy' of receiving any given thing for x, y, z reason/excuse, and can just as easily judge the opposite.

Doesn't your post just basically, in summary albeit in a roundabout way, say "you are worthy and the possibilities are limitless"?

Why, exactly, is someone "worthy" of receiving anything? Perhaps they are not worthy; we shouldn't just take it for granted that we are. And what leads you to suggest that the possibilities are limitless? And why does this matter?

Without being more precise, there's no discussion to be had. Especially if we're just going to end up saying the equivalent of "the words are whatever they mean to the reader, I myself never use these words"!

You get the idea. As mod, obviously I'm inclined to push back on potentially vague cheerleading posts, just to ensure we're engaging in some of the level of a philosophical investigation (with practical aims), rather than the equivalent of YouTube video buzz-up new-agery! Literal vs metaphorical; connection to direct experience; digging behind the meaning of terms; justifying assertions; etc. And it's one way to turn potentially off-topic posts into a relevant discussion.

(Resuming from earlier:)

because these 'frequencies' and 'energies' don't fit into your perception.

This, I think, is the root of our disagreement here - although disagreement probably isn't the right word: it's more like we're actually talking about slightly different things. And I think you've inferred that I'm saying that you are deliberately being obscure or misleading or deceptive, when what I really mean is that as it stands it's not clear how the description used connects to direct experience. It was not clear to me what you were saying.

And so: Let me set out some thoughts.

For clarity, I'm not talking about "perception". That word implies a perceiver who has a certain inherent form, and a perceived which is independent of that and also has an inherent form. It tends to smuggle in certain assumptions about "you" (being an object of some sort) and "the world" (being a place of some sort). This in turn leads us, not necessarily intentionally, to view everything as consisting of "things" that are "made from" stuff. To avoid that, I find it's probably is better to begin with just saying that there are "experiences". Now, we can have experiences "as if" we are "frequency" - that is to say, consistent with the description that "everything is frequency". We can also have experiences "as if" we are person-objects in a world-place, consistent with the current usual view of ourselves. We can also have experience "as if" were are something like void-awareness. And so on. But the only common thread is, loosely speaking, that whatever we are, is "that which takes on the shape of experiences". And any thoughts about something outside of that experience, are themselves just more experiences: the experience of "thinking about experience". There is no "outside", and there is no fundamental formatting, other than the fact of "experiencing".

In this sense, the possibilities are indeed limitless because it can be directly observed - following some experimentation - there is no persistent structuring. And also, more importantly, it can be directly recognised that everything is "you" (in the sense of you-as-experiencer or "awareness"). The direct observation, and the subsequent recasting of the nature of experience and of descriptions, is of course ultimately our main topic here. So, the above is an attempt to illustrate what I was getting at when picking up on "frequencies" and so on, and indicate the level I was thinking at. It seems that perhaps I appeared to be attacking the content of your statements, denying your experience or your formulation, but what I trying to push back on was the context of them.

Looping back, now:

You state this, and then dismiss any other possibility while implying my words and advice are shallow, because these 'frequencies' and 'energies' don't fit into your perception. I accept that your experience is different to mine.

Yes, no doubt the content of our experiences differ, and the concepts used to describe them differ too. Your post, though, seemed to me to present the concepts as being "true" at face value, and that's why I responded in a way that tried to pull at that a little. (Apologies for any apparent condescension; it wasn't deliberate.)

I'm not dismissing the possibility of any experience. But I am, I suppose, dismissing the possibility that the content of any particular experience or description represents something fundamental.

To conclude on the other stuff: If, as moderator, I didn't challenge a post when the meaning wasn't clear within the context of the subreddit's underlying concept, then we'd become just yet another content-free "inspirational" forum with posts consisting of "beautiful messages" followed by "thank you so much this is just what I need to hear right now" responses. The actual intention is that it is an investigation into the nature of experience and descriptions, within a certain framework which might be loosely described as an experiment-led variant on subjective idealism or non-dualism. That's why there's this pushback from a philosophical angle. Hopefully you understand where I'm coming from now!

My post was intended to be certain core ideas I wanted to put out there for people to dive into before moving on from this sub and the internet in general.

The issue was (and remains) that you haven't actually clearly laid out your core ideas at all - to the extent that it is not certain that there is a specific core concept to work with, other than a conviction in believing in "limitlessness". Certainly not in the original post, but also not in this or the other response. In and of itself that is fine, of course - but in the context of this subreddit's central themes or the previous comment where I asserted a particular view for you to expand from or contrast with, we've not got anywhere useful. Now, I love a bit of vague, shifting, comma-delimited, full-abstraction jousting as much as anyone, but in this particular forum it's important to push for some precision! You can't simultaneously claim to be describing core concepts as a seed for discussion, while also suggest that you can't control what other people's interpretations are and that anyway you didn't intend to lead readers in one direction or another. People can't "take in" information by "coming to it themselves", if you don't actually provide any information. Such post-hoc justifications might come over as, at best, disingenuous. But anyway:

If we are to continue, and thus bring the post discussion into relevance for the subreddit, maybe we could tackle one or two particular ideas from earlier, and build out from that:

__

In what way are we "frequency"?

From my experience, we are frequency.

In what sense are we "frequency", and what exactly is it in your experience which has led you to believe that this is the case?

The observations that lead to this might be either experiential content (experiences apparently of something), or an observation regarding the actual form of experience more generally that we might call the context. The latter I have previously referred to as "direct experience" to distinguish it from the description or narrative ascribed to experience (I think you may have misunderstood what I mean by "direct experience" earlier).

In what way are "the possibilities are limitless"?

I suggest possibilities are limitless because why wouldn't they be? Where is the line and who draws it?

Do you suggest that the possibilities are limitless, or do you conclude that they are limitless?

If you are concluding that they are, then there must be a particular experience or logical framework which has led to that conclusion. If you are suggesting it on the basis of "because why not?" only, then the statement is potentially meaningless.

__

Now, it may be you're just not interested in this sort of discussion. But I hope you are! After all, it is literally the underlying purpose of this subreddit - experimentation and philosophical unpacking - and what distinguishes it from other LOA-type or inspirational-style "reality" subreddits. And that's why we take the time to try and steer ambiguous posts into exchanges of this sort, rather than just moderate them out immediately, etc.

We are not dealing with mainstream, majority-accepted-and-approved topics. I can only offer a door, and I do. I can only tell you of my personal experience, which doesn't appear to be what you're looking for from me. You appear to be essentially looking for 'proof' from me to convince you to 'see what I see'.

What I have been looking for, is for you to write out a description of your "core concepts" (the ones you have previously stated you came here to communicate) and the experiences which have led you to reach them, so that we can have a collaborative discussion, and explore the topic together. Since you have resisted doing that, there can be no conversation or exchange of ideas - that is, our comments are indeed going to be contentless and of no purpose whatsoever! That is the source of the frustration in this process. Belief and proof had nothing to do with it. You are amongst friends here, as regards "non mainstream" experiences and ideas; this was a good opportunity to share and to be shared with, for ourselves and for the wider subreddit audience, and to correct any misconceptions that might have arisen from the original post. So, as an alternative entry point, I gave one possible description, that you might respond to, plus two subsequent seeds for exploration. But the response was, again, essentially word salad avoidance and self-contradiction.

This leads me to conclude that I'm afraid I am not the right person to debate this with you.

Perhaps. Unfortunately, I suspect that you are simply not a person to have a debate with, at all, on this topic - but alas, experimentation and philosophical debate is the exact purpose of the subreddit!

And so we never did manage to bring your post around to being on-topic via comments. We did try though, eh? All the best, in any case.

You have asked me questions I am happy to elaborate on, but have closed your comment with "there is no discussion to be had"......I always felt this was the place for this exact discussion! But you've shot it down before we got the proper chance.

Not at all! What I actually said was:

Without being more precise, there's no discussion to be had.

Which was an encouragement to continue and expand on discussion, by clarification.

I see now that you dismiss my perspective as being "fluffy", "empty"

No, not your perspective. Your description. And not exactly: I used the "fluffy" to convey a lack of clarity, and you yourself had used the word "empty" to describe the nature of words, and I responded. Genuinely, as it stands, I found it hard to discern what you were trying to convey with your post, and how it connects to the subreddit's focus, other than just being broadly encouraging that people can achieve their desires. Your comment here isn't very easy to pin down either, I find.

I cannot control how you read my words, only how true they ring for me at that point in time.

Indeed, but we can certainly clarify what we mean, and why we mean it. So let's unpack it!

(More later.)

Thank you for choosing to open up discussion again. I look forward to your further response. :)

It never closed...

...I do find this very frustrating. I feel exactly the same about your responses, to be honest. I did reread the entire thread earlier today, and it seemed to me to be the story of two people talking past one other (despite, one assumes, equal attempts on either side to not do that). To an extent, it's a clash between different types of language (spiritual-emotional-metaphorical vs philosophical-abstract-metaphorical, perhaps, or whatever). However, that isn't entirely it. I think I have genuinely failed to communicate to you what I have been asking, and then as a result you have then answered other things or made broad statements which weren't relevant to that, or only tangentially. Regardless, the upshot is that I never really managed to pin you down in terms of clarification, in connection to the subreddit topic in terms of its focus on the nature of experience and descriptions (as direct experience and as philosophical investigation), and you no doubt didn't get to engage in the sort of exchange you prefer either.

That's life on/as beach for ya, I guess!

POST: The Game (book)

For people here wanting to jump, belief is critical. It's not enough to just want or "think you can" ...but with jumping it is more forceful, powerful.

Another way to consider this, is: If "you" are not actually a person-object and "the world" isn't place, but rather you are "that which takes on the shape of" experiences, then there is no separation between you-as-experiencer and your experience or state. This means that all change is direct - and this means you can't fool yourself, you have to actually hold in mind the specific pattern. That is, you can't simultaneously hold a "doubt" pattern in mind along with the "outcome" pattern, or you've intended a combination of both.

Intention & Fact Patterns

Basically, you have to intend the fact of something - rather than intend just the possibility of that fact, or intend the experience of just trying to have the fact become true, or intend maybe your act will make it come true. With no intermediary to this, the intention actually is the change to your state. Here, we have the term "intention" being the pattern you'd like to increase the contribution or "relative intensity" of in your ongoing experience; "intending" being the changing of that intensity, essentially by "becoming" the new state with that pattern incorporated. It's really just a deliberate increase of a pattern. If the intention-pattern is of the form of a "fact" or "outcome event", then that becomes "more true" in experience. If it is not of that form, then the pattern just becomes more prominent generally. In fact, this second type is a way of understanding what happens when we see whatever we are reading about somehow arise in "the world around us". Effectively, we have "patterned" ourselves, overlaid or incorporated those structures into our state as you-as-experiencer or you-as-awareness, by attending to them for a while. (The Owls of Eternity exercise is of course an example of doing this deliberately.) A classic example of this is described in Philip K Dick's essay, How to Build A Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later.

Belief & Intentional Patterns

The word "belief" doesn't really capture this adequately, I think, because it seems to have multiple and even slightly contradictory meanings in common usage. It doesn't lend itself easily to a more technical discussion. Anyway, so, as you indicate, it's not about "thinking that you can", because that isn't an actual change - it is just the experience of "thinking" with the content of "can do this". Or alternatively it is implicit intending of a state of something "being possible", with ones own interpretation of the concept of "possibility" coming into play. To actually make a change, you have to actually either intend something to the effect "it is true now that this happens then" or "it is true now that this fact is true" (the Owls of Eternity exercise is the non-specific version of that: it is essentially the fact "it is true now that the pattern 'owls' is prominent in my experience"). Alternatively, you intend something which implies that the desired fact is true, that leverages a pre-existing fact or pattern (like the Two Glasses does).

An illustration: If, right now, you intend "the image of a red car" in your imagination, you either have the image there clearly, or you don't. You can't half-commit and get a clear image appear in experience: either you make a clear image (actually get an image of a car) or you are making some other sort of image (a blur, a mangle, or nothing). The intention can be immediate (you assert it immediately as an experience) or implied (by assuming something does the work for you, a bridging pattern concept like "the subconscious" or whatever), but it is always direct in the sense that the actual pattern you end up intensifying is the one you get, not by something else working it out on your behalf nor the outcome you just hope for while not actually intending your outcome.

Books & Reality Patterns

Anyway, there's something special about this book.

It's interesting that, in particular, quite a lot of children's books seems to lay out ideas about reality, its nature and flexibility, and in ways which are detailed enough that they don't seem to be just general fantasy fun. One example pointed out to me a while back is the Children of the Lamp series, particularly the first book, The Akhenaten Adventure. I did have links to images of the relevant pages; I'll see if I can find them later. Also, the books of Philip K Dick, the essay author above, all have an underlying "reality is loose" theme that tends to bleed into everyday experience - particularly Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said and Ubik. The upshot is, that reading extensively around a topic, whether that be in the form of fiction or non-fiction, can be a great way to adopt new frameworks and have the corresponding experiences arise in the "world around you". This, basically, is the whole idea of "active metaphors" - but with the notion that we can incorporate the intention that these patterns become prominent and therefore gain a stronger effect, rather than simply have it happen passively.

Extra bit: it is also interesting to consider that, since there is no "outside" to experience, the experience of apparently "encountering books which seem to speak about the nature of reality and then seeing their content become prominent in the world" is itself an example of a patterning of one's state.

Q1: And as soon as I replied and went back to my book, the main character encountered a large owl in a dream. Lol 😂
I had to hop back here and jot that down. As I said a noticeable spike in coincidences seems to be occurring. A ruse in novelty if you will...aka out of the background of the ordinary emerges the unique.

Hey, them owls, they do get everywhere! :-) I've had a very owl-based few days myself, in fact. Aside - Owl events rather than owl noticings. Which I think is an important distinction to make, because it marks the difference between "seeing things that were already there" and a more definite "patterning" of experience. Of course, if you play with this for a while, it in any case quite soon becomes obvious that this is not "confirmation bias" in the sense of selecting details from a static 3D environment.

I later discovered a post with some excerpts from that The Akhenaten Adventure book, here [Excerpts from 'The Akhenaten Adventure' by PB Kerr].

I get a vague sense that there is almost a "security measure" in place, preventing all of our thoughts from expressing themselves physically

Heh, funny how Star Trek TNG spends every other episode touching on these sorts of themes, eh? It's like a reference library of analogies for these conversations. Anyway, I see it not as a "security measure" - that interpretation could be seen as an example of survivor bias? - so much as an inevitable observation one would make when in a position to be able to make it. That is, that the only world-experience that would ever get to persist in the first place, would be one where there was an "inertia" pattern as a dominant property. That's why, in general, your main strand of experience is "this world" whilst other strands are "your passing thoughts". However, you can have multiple "worlds" that do operate with the same inertia (creating "persistent realms" in lucid dreams, for example). And I'm sure you could have the experience of running them simultaneously too. As you say, though, the stumbling block is modifying the main strand "world" to make it less (but not completely) inertial - assuming, that is, one isn't satisfied with having other worlds available for all that flexible fun and leaving this one as it is. But then, if we use the "patterning" model where the world is viewed as being defined as essentially a stack of contributing "fact-patterns", wouldn't there be a fact-pattern that was the equivalent of the statement "it is true now that this world is inertial"? Would the best approach perhaps be to attend to and assert directly a change in this pattern?

I AM jumping to such-and-such dimension. I AM a powerful co-creator of my experiences. I AM able to shape and mold my world.

Right - just as you are highlighting there, if we are metaphorically-speaking "increasing the intensity of contribution of a pattern in our experience", then the pattern has to be the actual fact you want to "make true". Now, this pattern isn't actually the words, of course. We might say that the words are a "verbal aspect" of the pattern, that they are a part of the extended pattern, or that they trigger the pattern by association. The actual experience of recalling the pattern itself, though, is just as sort of objectless "knowing". And we can intend that directly, without thinking the words or an symbol, just by finding it by "feeling-knowing", and then increasing it. We do this all the time, of course. When we deliberately lift our arm, we don't say little sentences to ourselves and then trigger the arm; we simply summon the (non-verbal) fact of "it is true now that my arm lifts up then", and then the result arises within sensory experience.

From there, we also have the topic of what you might call "clean" intention. That is, intending a fact or outcome only, without also intending some sort of additional result as part of producing a "doing" experience ends up re-implying our current state. Some recent comments on that, here. Essentially, intending involves no activity at all, because apparent activities are always results (subsequent experiences in "sensory theatre"); whereas intending is a name for self-shifting and is causeless. Even with the Two Glasses exercise, our physical body movements are basically movements from nowhere, but we are distracted from this by the narrative of ourselves as "brains as body controllers" - and this is used for advantage because it in turn distracts us from the fact that we are associatively triggering established patterns such as "levelstrength" and "relocationtransformation" and "labels==identity" and so on, to get an implied result.

I coined the phrase "is-ness" for me, reality, that place.

Yes, that all makes perfect sense. Other terms for the hypothetical "void" state might be "pure being", "clear awareness", and all that. Essentially, if all relatively true "facts" were to fade into the background so that none was more prominent in experience than another, then there's just a sort of non-spatial non-temporal openness. (I say "hypothetical" because the fact of still having some sense of observing means it is not entirely void. Similar description: here [http://www.nderf.org/Experiences/1victor_c_other.html], for example.)

POST: REALITY SHIFTING TO BRING BACK PET/LOVED ONE

From what I've learned here, the thing you would write on your second glass is more like "happiness" or "acceptance" or "fulfillment." And see how the universe helps you deal with that. You can't bring someone back from the dead unfortunately. I like to think about the "rules" like the way the Genie from Aladdin explains his wishes. You can't make anyone fall in love. You can't kill anyone. And you can't bring anyone back from the dead.

I dunno about some of that. From past reports, the love or harm of apparent others is perfectly doable, and the experience of one or other is sometimes the first realisation that there might be something to all this. That's why the instructions for the Two Glasses end with the comment "Please take this seriously and only choose a replacement situation that you will be happy to live with."

I suggest that there is no intermediary (a "universe", a "genie" type filter, or any other entity) acting as an active arbiter of what is appropriate and which prevents outcomes that aren't correct according to some independent moral code. Rather, the intentional change is conceived of as being more direct than that. The manner of obtaining results more like using a "dumb patterning system" than requesting help from an intelligence, say (you are the only intelligence). Of course, in all cases only personal experimentation can reveal the truth of the matter one way or the other. Descriptions or theories are not themselves causal; even if they seem logically self-consistent and persuasively coherent. But: I'm certainly in agreement with you that nobody should be encouraged to hope that they can, say, reintroduce the presence of someone who has died back into their ongoing experience, when there is no evidence for that in any past experiences. To encourage experimentation, even, seems likely to simply prolong the heartache and, as you suggest, you might be better pursuing a shift in the quality of life in the aftermath.

Q1: Some shamans say that is possible, they are skilled in manipulating reality, they also dont follow the common thinking (conditioning) that most peoples follow. I think that you can do theses things, because mind have not limitation, in internet you will see peoples being cautios about it because theses kind of creations are a great leap to most believe in. I exploring seeing reality like a literal dream, and i can understand why this is feared, you can do things that can make you nuts if you are not ready to see. About bring back the dead i dont know what to say, but i think is good know at least how heal yourself and others, its a good ability to have.

Right. As I say above, since the subreddit is based on confirming for oneself, nobody's going to say "you can do this" or "this is really how it is" in the manner of encouraging an unsupported belief. However, it is fine to talk about it in philosophical terms, or how one might go about it practically, and what the implications would be (basically along the lines of: the fact of the death is updated, it now never happened, the overall "landscape" of facts is pulled into accordance along with that). It's just not very sensible to give hope in desperate circumstances where, inevitably, a sure-fire-certain confirmation is being sought that something is possible. And the implication of the request is: possible, now. The honest answer is: theoretically possible in the sense that it is not contrary to some descriptions of experience, but really it can only be said to be possible if you do actually manage to create the experience. (This is of course true of all experiences really, since no experience is "pre-experienced" and confirmed ahead of time.)

Q1: I know, its a good way of thinking. What i can say is...few years ago i dont even did know that mind and reality are like the same, i did discover the secret, but i find it weak, then i start looking for another kind of possibilities, i tried Faith, i tried nond dualism etc. I then find some obscure posts in internet explaining how you and reality are the same, they are only talking hypothetically, i believed, then start trying crazy things, like trying make the weather change...and it Worked. I did tried with many thing, and it worked pratically every time, sometimes in a soft way, sometimes in Strong ways. So, i never did try make someone back to the the life, but every time i did try something new, like something that is impossible to happens, reality responded to me in some way. This is the reason why i like say that anything can be made. I i apologize if i sound rude, i am more interested in making reality maleable, and i forget sometimes that most peoples want simple things. I will talk less about that here from now:)
:)

Wasn't rude, please talk freely. It's only in response to this particular OP's request that I am (as moderator really) highlighting the usual "confirm for yourself, nobody can confirm what is possible for you" perspective, because it's a sensitive issue and it has come up a few times in the past and not always handled that well in the comments. In general, the subreddit is all about experimenting with the things you are talking about - that is, pushing against the assumptions implicit in the standard description of the world, to see if they are really true - and coming up with different ways of talking about experiences (and not accepting any description at face value). You make a good point: that mostly people have a desire, and really just want that desire to come true. They are not necessarily interested in coming to an understanding of the nature of experience, of descriptions, and so on. This subreddit does try to focus on exactly that, though, with "getting results" just being a gateway into it.

In most cases you discover that you desire a presence rather than their presence

I'm inclined to agree with this, and your suggestion that it applies to the "death" of a relationship as much as to the death of a person. It is the pattern of experience that is missed, then, in the abstract rather than the specifics of a particular instance of that pattern. And if nothing at all has changed, there will be a similar sort of outcome, perhaps.

...

A1: "I know death is no small event"
What if that is the greatest illusion of them all?

POST: Who are You?

On the broader subject of "you", check out some previous comments perhaps: here [POST: In what way are other people real?], here [POST: [THEORY] The Nature of Consciousness] and lately here [POST: People around us]. They contain various observations and metaphors and so on which might be useful.

Cherry-picking a couple of points for now: One might describe oneself as a sort of non-material "material" whose only inherent property is being-aware and which "takes on the shape of" states and experiential moments. There is no "outside" to this. Note the use of the phrase "shape of... moments" in this description. What this is emphasising, is that you are this whole moment of experience, including the apparent experience of seeming to be "over here" and the room "over there". And "the world" is not a place and you are not an object within it. The world is more like a fully-defined pattern that is "dissolved" into the background of experience - in the background of you - whose sensory aspects are unfolded and then refolded as moments. "Jumping", then, would be the amendment of that pattern, leading to a change in the content of the moments which were experienced subsequently. Meanwhile, because there is no "outside" to you, it doesn't necessarily matter how you conceive of jumping; it is the intentional change (or the implication of a change) to the pattern of experience that matters. There is no particular image or method (any method really) that is the correct one. Really, it is the assignment of meaning that counts, the accompanying intention of any act.

An exercise to try taken from one of those comments is:

Feeling Out Exercise

... a little exercise can help give us a direct experience of what it means to be the subject to all experience, to recognise that we are not an object and that we are "unlocated". 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 direct facts of your experience - the only actual facts, really; everything else is transitory. Whatever you think about your experience is also another experience within this context. You can never get "behind" or "outside" of this, because it has not edges or boundaries; there is no behind or outside. (If you think otherwise, then pause and notice that your thought about this is also "within" and "inside".)

Which leads us to:

If you are the whole projection how do you create that state of mind of "I am everything and everyone" instead of I am me and outside things / people?

Well, ultimately that's just another experience, with nothing special about it particularly. So it's not necessary and it's not at a different level to any other experience. The only fundamental fact is the fact of being-aware, which means absolutely every other fact or experience exists on the level, the same level, of "as if it were true". So it's not something to get up about in terms of an enabler, I'd say. However, if you want the experience of that, here's my suggestion: you can simply sit down quietly, cease interfering with your experience (that is, allow body, thought and attention to move as they will spontaneously), and simply intend or hold the idea, nonverbally, of the pattern "it is true now that what I am is this entire sensory moment" (or your own formulation). Simply "sit with" this until a feeling of a shift happens by itself. No effort or forcing is required (and indeed this will work against you, re-implying your usual format).

Well let me tell you that in my multi-sensory experience there is a Superman who goes by the name of /u/TriumphantGeorge. Thank you... your answer is crystal clear.

Ah may I just ask... when intending and holding the idea of a pattern change, is it sufficient that you experience the new pattern as a 'feeling idea' because my mental vision is pretty much non-existent?

POST: Is it really possible to win a lottery using dimensional jumping?

Theories such as "universal balancing" and "growth potential of the whole universe" assume that there is one static "out-there" universe that everyone shares... Which I'm really starting to doubt as of late.

It also assumes that such a "universe" is organised according to what are actually fairly recent concepts, and it is implied that there is some sort of independent moral arbiter of what should happen. Another version of the "genie" entity concept, basically. Which is not to say you can't have experiences "as if" such things were true, but that is different to there being an independent structure based on them being fundamentally true.

I believe that however it is that the whole of "everything in existence" is organized (or lack thereof) at a fundamental level is doing what it does regardless of what and when humanity conceptualizes about any aspect of it.

The problem is that this is itself a conceptualisation, of course. Basically, what we're doing here is creating and exploring conceptual frameworks, and even the "meta" discussion about frameworks is also a framework (and therefore suffers from the same problem). Taking this further, that is actually happening is that in an effort to "understand" the nature of our experience, we are simply producing additional experiences which don't get "behind" anything, they are at the same "level". That is, we are generating the experience of: "thinking about experiences". Our so-called understandings are in fact "parallel constructions in thought". The upshot is, that all descriptions are to some extent "castles in the sky". They are extended metaphors with minimal observational touch-points, which need to be judged on their usefulness rather than their "truth" - because that's not what conceptual thinking produces. We must beware the "reification of abstraction", as physicist N David Mermin calls it. String theory and seeing "code" within it is a prime example of this, I'd say - I'm with George Ellis on this. Looping back to the start:

such that some underlying structure on which life is built is based on "something" fundamentally?

What we really mean here, ultimately, is: can we have experiences "as if" a particular idea is true? We almost certainly can. Does that mean that the idea is true? No. The ideas are not fundamentally true, except in the sense that it is true that there is an idea. This applies to our ongoing experience in general (the subject of this subreddit, ultimately). That is, what is true is the fact of experience. Any descriptions about experience are true as further experiences, but they are not true in terms of being "what experience really is". In fact, even the idea that there is a "how things are" and "how things work" is potentially problematic, once we dig deeper. What is reality, then? Well, this. This patterned moment right now, as experienced, with nothing "behind" it. (As an illustration of this, there's the exercise in this post to play with [Feeling Out Exercise].)

It's super-simple. Too simple in fact to be conceptualised, I'd say, because concepts inherently involve a starting with a particular property that ongoing experience does not have: that is, ongoing experience is undivided and is not "made from parts".

POST: 2 glasses method

Really, no belief is required. (What exactly is a "belief" anyway and why would it matter? We might ask.) It is in fact part of the design of the exercise that it demonstrates this isn't necessary. It's the avoidance of subsequent interference that matters. It's also not LOA, unless by that you simply mean that it operates in the same way as all experiences do, since of course all experiences have the same basic nature.

When you say, "this method is going to generally produce results by plausible if very unlikely means", how do you define/measure plausibility and likeliness?

I don't. :-)

We might ask, though. And the asking would probably lead to a different way of looking at things from the way that spawned the initial question (but define "probably" I guess). Anyway, to the actual point: I'd make a distinction here between the assessment of the "plausibility" or "likeliness" of something in advance - that is, the weighing up of possibility based on a particular description or model of "how things are" - versus how one might characterise it after the fact - that is, after one has had the experience and is reaching for a way of articulating it. In that statement, I'm using those terms in the latter sense.

POST: Can you expand your awareness after you jump and gain memories you otherwise wouldn't have?

I guess not. If you change a tv channel and you begin watching a show already half way, you are experiencing it now, but you don't know what happened previously.

Well, unless it's a marathon showing all the episodes, where you might get a "Previously, on neonledge" type segment. Or maybe there's a way to pause for a moment, introspect and check out the wiki for the show...

There's some debate on this - it probably "depends". From your own perspective, you have a history or trajectory which you remember, and may or may not agree with the observed "facts" of your present world. If you make a dramatic shift, that world starts there for you, but there is an implied history at least - which you should theoretically be able to access (or 'invent'). People who've experienced shifts spontaneously note varying degrees of urge-to-forget, conflict-of-memory, or no revised memory at all. This may be linked somewhat to intention.

My feeling is:

• If you do a shift deliberately then you will have your trajectory memories, and remain slightly separate from the world configuration you switch to.
• If you suffer an accidental large shift, you are more likely to suffer an urge-to-forget the event (if it was an experience) and 'lose yourself' in the resulting configuration.
• Minor shifts will lead to discrepancies like "Mandela Effects" but with personal relevance (e.g. people's hair a bit different, etc, not liking coffee when they used to, etc.)

There are lots on /r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix which might give you some food for thought. Overall, I'm concluding that if you do a proper directed change, then this isn't too much of a problem.

POST: ITT: Theories

There are no other selves!

Previously answered here [POST: What happens to the other-dimensional you you switch places with?], here [POST: What happens to the other you when you jump?], here [POST: What happends with the other you?]. It's an understandable question though, perhaps it needs to be put in the sidebar or (oh no) we might need an FAQ. Read the Hall of Records metaphor, for a way of visualising why this is the case. The idea is that you are shifting your experience. You are a consciousness connecting to a 1st-person perspective.

What evidence is there that this is true, though? Where did we learn this? Basically, how do we know that we're just switching our perspective, and there isn't some Other Me on the receiving end of our old life?

The quick response: What makes you think there are millions of different "You"s? And would they be "You" if they were having a different experience? And why would there be only one of each type of experience - why wouldn't there be multiple identical worlds for you to experience?

The longer answer is: You need to do a bit of contemplation and meditation to realise this. A couple of things: to realise that you "having an experience" rather than "being a person" (that you are a "conscious space"), and that the world isn't spatially-extended other than in your experience of it (there are not literally multiple physical universes out there). For directly investigating the first, you might try out this little exercise to get a feel for it for fun. But after there, you might check out Rupert Spira and his book Presence, or Greg Goode's Standing As Awareness. For the latter, philosophers such as Berkeley and Kant are worth your time.

I am changing experiences other than my own through this practice.

I know exactly what you are referring to. You truly only change "your" own experience though - however that includes your experience of other people, and of yourself. The effect is indeed "as if" there were literal dimensions (hence the naming). The trick to understanding this is that you do not live in a "simply-shared world". It's more like parallel-simultaneous-timeless dreaming. The oft-used metaphor that consensus reality is like, say, a bunch of people in a room collectively choosing the decor is incorrect. The truth is everyone has their own room, and implicitly chooses aspects of other people as well as the decor. If I had to describe it overall, I'd say it was like a personal dream, with you as the dreamer - except eventually you dream every possible aspect of yourself and everyone else. You can choose whatever experience you want, but eventually you will (or rather: already have) experience the other side of it. In actuality, it's sort of "all-at-once". This means: other people are real, but they are all you, eventually.

The Hall of Records metaphor is a way to simplify all that, but keep the key ideas in place. But... the fact is that the apparent world and apparent people do seem to change, particularly if you do an undirected approach like the mirror method. That's why I advocate more focused methods.

there absolutely are other literal dimensions and other literal "me"s.

You can have experiences consistent with that - but they are just more experiences. When you are dreaming, no matter what secrets you uncover and what discoveries you make, all you are really ever finding is... more dream.

...but my personal experiences have lead me to believe

Fancy sharing your experiences?

Certainly! You can read about my most recent jump here: [http://www.reddit.com/r/DimensionalJumping/comments/37o40v/make_sure_no_one_changes_the_lights/]

Ah. I missed that! To make a broad point: The metaphor you adopt dictates the overall pattern of the experience you get, and: if you're doing something major it pays to be specific because the result will take the easiest route. Spent time beforehand forming the intention in detail via your imagination, envisaging it exactly as if it were true now.

does this create any time-travelesque paradox, where if you did not lose a loved one, you wouldn't have had the motive to shift? it seems safe, but i'm unsure.

The "time travel version" of the Infinite Grid metaphor explicitly dodges this. No paradox, because you are always "experiencing moments" rather than "intervening via action" - in everyday life as well as in more adventurous scenarios.

i agree that i think it's safe, because i don't think you're hopping around on a singular thread, so to speak, and it could break. but your response sounds like you're dismissing free will. this seems odd because DJing is intrinsically a willful act.

You select your experiential trajectory via will, of course, it's just that you do not ever "physically" do anything. You just have "experiences of doing". In fact, it's this that makes free will possible - since it means intention is a filtering of experiences, a selection of a world, rather than something that occurs within a world.

POST: Just discovered this place. I have some thoughts I'd like to voice.

A good read, that. Couple of points:

• Yeah, inherently you can only prove these things to yourself. Even if you convince others, that can just be part of the effect. One of the things this stuff reveals to you is that you do not live in a "simply-shared world". In some ways, you are totally alone. In another way, you are everywhere - but we're getting a bit metaphysical now.
• In terms of "multiverses", if you follow this through what you end up with is more like "all variations can be experienced in consciousness". The overall result in terms of personal experience is kinda the same, but it does mean the analogy is more like "a conscious being watching a particular TV channel" (in super-surround-sensory-3D) rather than "your consciousness shifting from inside one brain to inside another brain".

I find the Imagination Room metaphor quite a useful way to envisage this situation. (Although the more accurate metaphor would use something like "a holographic space in which all possible experiences are dissolved", imagining that there are patterns on the floor is a nice visual way to bring this to life.)

...If this stuff even just makes people explore their ideas more thoroughly, it's a good thing!

EDIT: Slight repetition below. Sorry: lost track of which thread I was replying to!

Something to ponder: things don't necessarily exist in the form that we experience them in the senses. For example, recall what you had for dinner yesterday. See it, smell it, taste it. Now, where was that recall experience before you brought it into your imagination? Was is stored somewhere in the same form (spatial, temporal and multi-sensory) as that experience? Consider: was it "dissolved into the background" of your current experience all along, just waiting to be triggered and intensified - like a holographic image, sort of everywhere and nowhere? Could all possible experiences be present in this way, awaiting "recall"?

Perhaps the present sensory experience is like the sun in the daytime sky. All the stars are there, but concealed by the sun's brightness. What if you could choose which of the "stars" would be "the sun" tomorrow?

POST: Second update, noticed a lot of small changes, even a few with this sub

basically there are no correct or wrong metaphors

Exactly. However, the metaphors you adopt implicitly or explicitly will format your experience; your experiences will start lining up with them. This is true of any pattern your trigger: they amount defining the facts that future observations will remain consistent with; they amount to a pattern which is "overlaid" over your life. I shy away from the word "belief" though, because that has a fuzzy meaning, including ideas like "opinion". If we stick to something like "formatting" we are closer to the truth. I mean, would you say you "believe" in time and space and colour and cause-effect?

I can now understand why man created the idea of god and why he worships it.

Because we cannot experience ourselves doing anything - in other words, if intending means to change the shape of ourselves, we can only see the results, and so cannot conceive of our willing - we in ignorance ascribe cause to parts of experience. We feel muscular tension and call that "doing" when body movements arise, or we associate "this thought" with "next thought" and label that as cause, but when other things happen that cannot be so obviously linked, we try to find somewhere else to hang it - hence the invention of an "entity god". Having a god becomes a metaphor you can call upon to be the "cause" of the changes you are doing.

Stable ground

Although what you are is all of the world, it's beneficial to declare one part of it "you" and therefore hold that part stable. Otherwise the whole thing can shift all over the place, and there will be no persistence, because the there will be nothing for the rest of the world to hang from. Traditionally, this is the "ego" concept coupled with a small physical sensation or tension which us maintained - but if you choose your identity as the "background space within which experience arises" then you get the best of all worlds. You are not letting everything collapse into void, but you are also not constraining the evolution of the world-pattern.

I feel we all need to be one with our subconscious.

We always are, really. Reusing a metaphor: the whole world-pattern is right here, being experienced by you right now. It's just that some parts are brighter than others at a given moment, like the daytime sun obscuring the other stars in the sky. What we call shifting our attention is actually different stars having their turn at being the brightest.

EDIT: Which is why we don't need to deliberately focus our attention; that makes us feel that we are one tiny part by over-intensifying one aspect - deforming it with intentional change. Your "being one with the subconscious" would translate as letting attention open and expand?

How do I change my formatting? How do I decide? Is it a sort of feeling?

That's what this stuff is all about really. Detaching totally (basically: release the patterns) and intend-will-decide-summoning how you want it to be. Unfortunately, because of its nature (changing the shape of oneself), we can't describe how to intend; we simply do so, as "first cause". In general, you want to get relaxed and "allowing" such that summoning an image, etc, is completely effortless. There should be no pushing or tension involved in intending; it's more of a "releasing" or "letting happen".

"To intend is to wish without wishing, to do without doing. There is no technique for intending. One intends through usage.”
–- Carlos Castaneda, The Art of Dreaming

Something to ponder: How we think about something is that something. For example, if you think about tomorrow, the pattern that appears is actually tomorrow. It doesn't represent tomorrow; it really is the idea-aspect of tomorrow. Same with anything else you pull up from the background into sensory experience. So long as you are "calling it up", rather than just messing with imagery without intention, you are actually pulling up the actual thing from the "world-pattern".

POST: Problem with the original story

The general answer is: because when changes happen to you, you can still remember how it was before, so you can tell the story. Otherwise of course nobody would ever know of changes happening, since the world and their memory would remain in step (which may actually be the case sometimes).

I don't know. It seems like there should only be 2 options: The kid doesn't remember his old dimension's father or he's contaminating the new dimension that doesn't have an abusive father with slander; In other words - we should be getting the story from the perspective of this dimension's story creator - not the kid who left the bad dimension!

That doesn't make sense. So, the summary is that a kid had an abusive father and he jumped to a dimension where his father is not abusive. Naturally, the only record of this is in the memories of the kid and anyone who experience the change with him. The kid who did the jump is the author of the change and the story is from his perspective. Are you saying that the story should not be told? And are you suggesting that saying "my Dad was abusive in another dimension, but he's a nice guy in this one" is slander? Because I don't think Other Dimension Dad will be suing anyone for defamation... interdimensional law sounds tricky! :-)

I'm assuming he never told the story to his current nice Dad. But maybe I'm misunderstanding. What do you mean by "contamination" here?

The story should be told from the perspective of the kid who had is body stolen about how the mirror took his body somehow. Any recollection of having a bad father wouldn't exist since this dimension's story teller only knows of a good father. Why would this dimension's story teller all of the sudden start saying his father used to be abusive when that never happened - hence why he left?! Any memory of the bad situation would be contamination in this dimension - the story would not be told from the perspective of the mirror version of the author.

Okay, I see what you are trying to say: That from your perspective some kid just suddenly says his Dad used to be abusive but isn't anymore. So for the moment let's put aside the "jumping" metaphor and approach this another way. Now, there is only one dimension/world:

• Imagine that I sat an exam last week, and got a low grade.
• I now decide to cast a "spell" so that I got a good grade. The world is "updated" so that I now did well in the exam. The world has been shifted so that in effect this has always been true; there is not trace of the old state of the world, except in my memory.
• If I tell people about this, it will be as if I suddenly say "hey I failed the exam but now I have passed". As far as they are concerned, I had always passed.

This is what was happening with the kid. But wait, what if someone else is wishing that I failed and the same time as I wished I passed? It doesn't matter, because:

• Everyone has their own copy of the world.

You can have any experience you want, including updating the world's facts and history. The "other people" you see are just images of other people, the versions of them that correspond to your current intentions (aspects of their Extended Person). Meanwhile, sensations and perceptions and thoughts of "yourself" are a version of "you" that corresponds to your current intentions. What you actually are, it turns out, is the "conscious space" in which your experiences appear - the experiences of yourself, other people, and the world. Our experiences do overlap with other spaces but in a non-simple way that can't be explained easily, because it is "before time and space" (and unfortunately we can only conceptualise in terms of moving parts arranged in mental space). I've copy-pasted a comment from elsewhere which tries to explain this a bit more, kinda based on the Imagination Room metaphor:

On The "Sharing Model" Of The World

You are not a person, you are a conscious space having a "person-perspective experience" - senses, perceptions, thoughts, floating in awareness. The "person" you are might be considered as The First Tulpa. Meanwhile, it is just not possible to conceive in thought of the way in which there is overlap between apparent perspectives. It is not a "simply-shared" world model. The other people in your experience are your aspects of those people - and the "you" you experience is similarly an aspect of that idea. Often people talk about a "consensus reality" as if it's a bunch of people in a room, choosing the decor together. In fact, it's more like everyone has their own room, choosing versions of the other people and the decor. In fact, it's even more like everyone is a room, and is choosing versions of themselves and other people and the decor. In fact again, not even a room because the room represents time and space, which are themselves "contextual formatting" within you... you get the idea...

And "idea" is the key word. People are "ideas" or patterns, and it is those ideas which appear in your experience. "You" are just an idea you have associated with yourself. However, even a little bit of self-examination reveals that you are more like the stuff that worlds are made of...

In the future, people should set up their dimension jumping stories like this:

That's not quite right though. It's all about perspectives. From the kid's perspective (who is telling the story) the story is actually:

• "I always had a problem with my father being abusive to me. Then one day I looked in the mirror and had a really weird experience. It felt like I was somehow swapping places with the reflection in the mirror. After that experience my father was a nice guy. But what's even more strange - it was as if the world had changed so that he had always been a nice guy. Nobody remembered him ever having been a bad guy! It was as if I'd shifted to a new dimension where my father had always been a good parent."

Dimensional jumping stories can only be told from the perspective of the person who makes the jump, or perhaps with people who deliberately jumped as a group (see the Multidimensional Magick post for a comment on this: it amounts to "deciding" that you will have the experience of sharing the jump results.)

Of course, the methods suggested in the sticky tell you to say "swap" to trade places with the mirror person so you're giving the person who once had a good father an abusive one. How interdimensionally selfish, right?!

Haha, yes. But the swapping places thing is a metaphor. There is no "other you" out there who is getting a bad deal. What you are doing is switching from one experience to another. If you have a green car and decide to paint it red, that doesn't mean that some other person is forced to paint his nice red car green!

EDIT: It occurs to me you might be thinking from the perspective of "a dimension" or a "god's-eye" perspective of all dimensions, but there is no such thing. There is only the perspectives of particular subjective consciousnesses. All experiences and all stories are 1st-person-view.

POST: Schrödinger's cat and a new way of looking at "Dimensional Jumping"

Good read!

So what if our own expectations were enough to "lock" the state in place. I.e. if we were in our minds completely sure that the cat had to be alive

This is pretty much the idea of "false observations" behind descriptions such as All Thoughts Are Facts: It makes no difference whether an "observation" is supposedly internal or external, since they arise in the same perceptual space. What matters is in the intensity of the contribution. And anything you can conceive of can potentially be "observed" in this way, so all possibilities are here, now - just like you say. Basically: we cheat. If the world is defined by a series of observations (Observation Accumulation) and all observations must be consistent with previous observations (Law of Coherence), then:

• The only rule is that the apparent world remains self-consistent as an entire pattern. [1]
• If you "force" an observation using deliberate imagination, it will have as much contribution as a "spontaneous" observation.
• If a forced observation is about the past then subsequent observations will contribute as if it were an observation in the past.

And "Jumping" is the allowing your experience to be shifted as a whole (detaching) by inserting an observation that corresponds to what you want, while allowing the whole pattern to shift to accommodate it.

I think many cases of "jumping" are merely an effect similar to hypnosis, NLP

NLP and hypnosis is pretty close to jumping in some ways? Manipulation of the contents of mind. It's just that in this case we are accessing the world-pattern in mind rather than the personal-pattern. Although the distinction is sometimes hard to make.

how people can come back here and claim to have jumped, without seeming to have left?

I think that jumps are on a continuum in terms of apparent localisation of effect and the extent to which we still seem to share the world. You can have quite drastic changes and still have a reddit conversation here, because it's not a complete shift to an entirely different state; it's a modification of your state to a greater or lesser extent. The whole "world-sharing" aspect of reality is pretty impenetrable anyway, though.

[1] If you fancy a relevant slog through some related comments to that, there's this post about the "delayed choice experiment" and this comment was an early attempt to describe pattern-shifting in that context.

...Hey, that's the trick though isn't it? :-)

We can think of lots of interesting ways that "overlap" might take place, but we can never experience the actual overlapping process, so it will always remain an abstract notion - with us imagining how overlapping might work. Which is a problem, because: If your imagination dictates the content of our experience (the basis of jumping), then it also dictates the types of overlapping which can occur. This means that we select which aspects of other "private views" to incorporate into our own. Which means we can't distinguished between allowing content overlap from other views, and just simply dictating content. Every model fudges the objective reality part (P2P networks, QBism, etc) of how subjective views might overlap, because inherently the overlap would occur outside of the concepts of space of time. This makes it literally unthinkable, and hence meaningless. So I tend to take my working model as the world being a shared resource (of patterns) rather than a shared environment (spatially-extended world). Of course, this still leaves us with the option to imagine that we are co-creating, and have an experience which corresponds to that. For the fun of it.

EDIT: There is a notion that when we are "in overlap" with other perspectives, then we share a trajectory together, and that is the experience of "love" and connection. That's what differentiates the background people (nothing is looking through those eyes) and the close people (other perspectives experiencing it). That still suffers from the same problem of differentiation though; it's just a commitment to a particular "knowing".

if we are consciously directing our experience, then maybe even our memories are tied in to what locks us in our current state

Yes, because if memories are parts of the current "world-pattern" then they are contributing, shaping present moment experience. They are "facts" which current observations must be consistent with. If you bring up a memory (which is to say, ask for one and then it appears in mind) and edit it, there is no trace other than that, and it would be "as if" true going forward. The trick, I'd say, is that you have to be careful whether you are editing "the world's memory" or a personal memory.

merge with the consciousness of the businessman you, bring it back here, and accept that your prior "inserted memories" are now no longer inserted memories but actual memories.

Sounds like an approach. In fact, I think the "keep a diary of how your ideal would be" has been used to switch mindset. A bit like Neville Goddard's The Pruning Shears of Revision plus a switch. I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to go straight for the desire though, without bothering with the updating, since what you want is a discontinuous switch anyway? But it could be a way to run in parallel or something.

I think it's part of the reason visualisation alone is so powerful, but beer . . .

Rule #1 of the universe: Beer is always more powerful than visualisation! :-)

Q1: I've used this framework for years, and it's extremely effective (look for retro psychokinesis in my post history). I think it's an idea which time has come. You got me thinking: I always thought that once you observed something, you set in stone whatever outcome you observed. It figures then that your reality had fewer and fewer options has time goes on. But jumpers say you can change what has already happened. Strangely, this fact just only hit me. And this is a total game changer.

Yeah, it's the total game changer!

Have you read Neville Goddard's essay on The Pruning Shears of Revision? Detach from the old observation, amend it or create a new observation to replace it, is the summary. Multiply that up and and you realise that the apparent past doesn't matter much. What matters is the observations you make now. The extreme version would be to detach completely from the current experience, kick off a new strand of thought, let it become immersive, and then never return to the old strand...

What happens is, it resolves itself. You don't focus on the sensation, you don't narrow your attention, you let it stay open and wide and just allow the fear to be there. After a while it becomes stronger (but really it always was that strength, it's just that you were averting yourself from it) and then at that point it kind of expands into being nothing. If you take a step forward and then try to stop the movement, then you are left there with tense muscles and maintaining an off-balance position. The more you aver your attention the worse it gets. The only way to solve it is to allow the postural pattern to "follow through" and complete itself. This will involve temporarily having a strong experience, but that's necessarily part of the movement and release.

Q3: Using what I mentioned above, I like to think of things as such: once we've observed/ascertained a thing to be so, the related things required for it to have happened, the event itself, etc, are all "set in place" and certain. However that doesn't mean they can't be set back to uncertainty, and I believe no matter how firmly in place it is, it can be changed with an equal amount of effort.
The reason this is important is you'll find that it's VERY easy to make something happen the way you want (whether via this or via other methods) if there's already some uncertainty about it. A lot of people assume that means that's all you can do, but the fact of the matter is you just need to work out those prior beliefs and dissolve your framework back into a state of uncertainty before proceeding with inserting a new outcome. :)
Just my 2c :)
Edit: Someone gave me a really nice way of looking at it a while back. They asked me to think back to all those silly cartoons you'd watch as a kid where say a statue would start moving and stop moving whenever the main character turned around to look at it. My friend said to think of the universe in a similar way, at its core, the universe contains all of the infinite possibilities of people, states, objects, interactions, occurring simultaneously forever, but when an observer of any kind looks at it from a limited perspective it takes on their beliefs and assumptions about how it must behave and "freezes" into place with all the variables required to fit what they expect to see. That'd fit why a state of non-duality/unity with the infinite only ever comes exactly when we stop seeking and lose all expectations about what we are to experience, and shed our observer perspective completely.

I love the statue analogy!

Going off track a bit, Jesus, I think the biblical notion of "forgiveness" means something closer to "forgetting and letting shift" than saying sorry, which means the parables are describing that exact thing: allowing your previous observations to sink back into the gloop so that they no longer limit your next observations. That previously-activated pattern fades away because it is no longer being re-triggered by association. It's basically saying: yeah, what I saw before was true then but that doesn't mean it has to be true now. Those statues could be anywhere; they needn't be permanent "pillars of salt" unless I constantly look back to check their state. Neville Goddard like his statues too, being a big fan of Blake's “Sculptures of Los’s Halls”, which is a metaphor for eternal states. So it's like "letting your statues move", but it's also like shifting to a state in which your shadows are arranged in accordance with a different blueprint.

POST: I have attempted dimensional jumping twice now.

I think you're trying to do something quite dramatic without having really done the groundwork. Have you checked out the "related posts" in the sticky post?

You're trying to do something like a "reset", it sounds like.

...Actually, replied to the wrong post, sorry. Although the sticky links still apply. See my other response!...Then skip the mirror approach, go for something like the Neville Goddard version with a specific aim in mind (literally!)...Completely relax and detach, summon the corresponding imagery, maintain immersive focus until it becomes the dominant part of experience. Like direct-entry lucid dreaming, with coming back being optional, perhaps.....Yeah, don't try that standing up. Lie down, eyes closed, enter a relaxed state, then relaxed-focus on your target, allowing imagery and sensations to arise. What you're really asking for here is for one 3D-immersive thought to supersede another.

Just quickly...

Another example of a change was that a scar on your friend's arm has disappeared, or new buildings have appeared. But really, your just noticing for the first time.

Yes, noticing is nice way to put it. But we must understand that the environment in which we do the noticing has (I hate to say this but let's go with it) "higher dimensionality" than we usually assume.

Definition:

To "notice" something is to bring into perception something that was already there, but had not yet been experienced in sensory space.

The way in which something is "there but not yet experienced" is the important part. Specifically, we are not dealing with a 3D spatially-extended world which we explore - even though that is how it usually appears, so quick are we to "fill in the gaps" as we go. If we suddenly notice a book on our bookshelf which we haven't seen before, was that book always there? Yes, in some way. However, in order to see it we had to adjust our angle to the world. So, the effect can be both mundane and continuous, or dramatic and discontinuous, depending. For your main post questions, you should check out the last couple of edit links in the Neville Goddard post. For "jumping back in time" there have been people who've reported experiences "resets" of a sort (/u/MemoryEchoes and various glitch reports), it's not something I've wanted to do myself so I can't comment. However, the principle is the same no matter what: you are seeking to allow one 3D-immersive strand of thought fade and another one brighten and take its place. In any case, you could do worse than start doing the exercises described in this comment [POST: [AMA Request] TriumphantGeorge].

Yeah, I've had to explain to three people so far that you can't literally change dimensions. People are saying to try jumping to a slightly better dimension, like for example one in which you have an extra $50 in your wallet. I don't understand how people think that you can really change dimensions just like that, but I guess if your superstitious you could fall for it since there's nothing to clarify the subreddit' purpose.

Indeed! There's no such thing as a "dimension" other than as a concept. Mind you, there's no such thing as "space" or "time" other than as concepts either (they are bad habits). You can't literally change dimension, but you can't literally move in (conceptual) time or space either. What you can do is leverage concepts to trigger a change in ongoing experience, in perhaps surprising ways. I don't think this subreddit actually has a purpose other than supporting personal experimentation into the limits of how experience can be changed. It doesn't even have a worldview other than maybe "experience = fact, results = truth". That's why the sidebar isn't prescriptive. So don't feel obligated to take on the burden of explaining things to people, I reckon; it's for them to explore the world on their own terms I think! In my own view, people shouldn't actually "believe" anything - including anything about themselves. Until we do an experiment, we don't know anything, we are just recycling thoughts.

POST: Need help with intended goal

As someone else said, Neville Goddard is full of good examples. Although unfortunately his language makes for obscure reading. Generally I'd concentrate on what you want rather than the mechanism. Do you actually want to go back in time, or do you want to join the armed forces without that incident being a problem? Surely it's the second!

Think: what's the actual experience you want to have, if it were happening around you now, that would mean you would have got what you wanted?

Random example:

Yesterday morning's mail brought me one, where, in San Francisco, this captain, a pilot, and he writes me that I saw him backstage after one of my meetings, and there he said, "But Neville, you are up against a stone wall. I am a trained pilot; I have gone all over the world, all over the seven seas; I'm a good pilot and I love the sea, not a thing in this world I want to do but go to sea; yet they restrict me to certain waters because of seniority. No matter what argument I give them the Union is adamant and they have closed the book on my request." I said, "I don't care what they have done, you are transferring the power that rightfully belongs to God, which is your own imagination, to the shadow you cast upon the screen of space.
"So here, we are in this room; need it remain a room? Can't you use your imagination to call this abridge. This is now a bridge and I am a guest on the bridge of your ship, and you are not in waters restricted by the Union; you are in waters that you desire to sail your ship. Now close your eyes and feel the rhythm of the ocean and feel with me and commune with me and tell me of your joy in first proving this principle. and secondly in being at sea where you want to be. He is now in Vancouver on a ship bringing a load of lumber down to Panama. He has a complete list that will take him through the year what this man has to do. He is going into waters legitimately that the Union said he could not go. This doesn't dispense with unions, but it does not put anyone in our place- -no one, kings, queens, presidents, generals, we take no one and enthrone him and put him beyond the power that rightfully belongs to God. So I will not violate the law but things will open that I will never devise.
-- Awakened Imagination, Neville Goddard

See the "letters example" in that document for what you might actually do, to focus your mind on what you want to achieve.

POST: Seriously, has anyone used this for romantic/hedonistic pursuits?

Oh look, is it...? Yes, it is...! It's that guy! ;-)

Well, the same applies to this as to everything else. Doing the Goddard type thing, the usual approach is that you come up with an experience (imagined 3d-immersively from a subjective point of view) that means things are working out well, and live from it. You could do that with celebrities and, taking it seriously, you could well end up with chance meetings and opportunities to get what you wanted (random job offer in LA, invited to a party, actress is there). Y'know, but most people don't really want those things, they wouldn't really commit to it, or follow through. Anyway, top tip because you don't want everyone to be your puppet: Think of everyone as if they are an "aspect of you" and so your ultimate aim is that everyone should be happy in the world. Because a world full of happy people is a happy world for you to be in. So when you, say, create "fake observations" in your mind that mean you and girl had a great time, the focus is on how great it is for both of you. (For instance, your "scene" might be talking to a friend at a cafe and talking about "what a great time she and I had together" rather than "I totally had that girl last night".)

Q1: Haha. Yeah I think it is about time I read on Mr. Goddard's books. Does the Power of Awareness suffice? Or is there more I could also expand on?
Ah I see. So it also helps that I help imagine a non-ego oriented imagining? Take it from her side of it too? Can one expand to what other people would observe, say those who would be watching us at the cafe?

There's nothing to it really, but yeah, check out that or the ones in the edit in the relevant post for a quick take. Just imagine it from your perspective, through your eyes, being there. What I was getting at is that the circumstances you are implying should be ones where everyone is happy and independently for the situation - i.e. that you and the girl were on the same wavelength, it's an equal situation, with no apparent manipulation or one-sidedness. Just as you'd like it to be, of course.