TriumphantGeorge Compendium (Part 7)

POST: Logical question

[POST]

Forgive me if this is n00bish, but here's what I don't get:
A) I tell my friend I'm jumping
B) I successfully jump
C) Does my friend in my new dimension remember me telling them I jumped?

[END OF POST]

I also thought - if all the dimensions are not really parallel lives but probabilities, why bother 'changing dimensions' if you can change something in THIS dimension with the same effort? For example, what is the point of jumping into the dimension where you never had a disease (and mess around with the timeline), when you can (theoretically) eradicate it here?

It's just an enabling metaphor to let you have (near-)instantaneous change. It's probably better to say they are like "parallel dreams" rather than possibilities. I can be easier to conceive of detaching from one situation and attaching to another, than it is to convincingly argue how "dissolving disease" would work.

Sometimes the mystery aspect is what helps things along.

I see it as changing the settings :-) once you change them, you can see how it is reflected around you.

Ha, yes, nice metaphor. :-)

I see it as updating or inserting new facts into the world. With the understanding that the "sharing model" of the world means it's basically mine to play with, and everyone gets a similar influence. Ongoing sensory experience then spontaneously falls into line with the updated facts.

BTW, talking about settings reminded me of the Hawaiian (allegedly) ho'oponopono technique - that would actually fit better on Oneirosophy, as its premise is that reality is internal, so if you want to change anything around you, you need to find a corresponding thing INSIDE you, and change that.

Yes, I've played with it! Essentially, it's about dissolving/overwriting troublesome aspects of yourself with the feeling of love/forgiveness. A book called Busting Loose From The Business Game has a similar approach based on "reclaiming your power" from events as they arise. My own generalised version turned into this Overwriting Yourself post.

I guess it makes sense that we should all be talking about basically the same thing. In effect: digging around in the background for facts we don't like, then deleting them!

I'd go so far as to say everything is inside you - even the room and situation you are experiencing right now - because you have no outside. The sensory experience is just a perceptual mirage floating in awareness - a partial slice of the real world, which is the world of facts dissolved into the background.

There is (or used to be) a similar ideological premise in traditional psychoanalysis

Jung played with "Active Imagination" which basically does this. I think it is very much out of favour now (if it was ever really in favour). These days it's all about semi-mechanical tools such as Cognitive Behaviour Therapy - they focus on activity rather than meaning. Which is a major error really.

That is also why I commented that jumping dimensions seems (to me) as merely a functional narrative...

I think you are exactly right: you are dreaming-imagining your experience.

Which means you are 'First Cause' for everything around you. But people find that difficult to get to grips with - "okay, now what do I do with that? how do I make things happen?" - because you cannot experience the making of changes. You are the change. To make a change is to take on a new shape, meaning there's a shifting of self but no "doing". So we invent 'Second Causes' or 'enablers', whether they be technological tools to make the changes on our behalf, or active metaphors such as "dimensional jumping" or whatever.

In all cases, it is we who make the changes directly. When we use a tool or technique, the tool is a result on the same level as the outcome. We cause them both; the whole story of "using this to make that happen" is our creation.

Extra thought: This problematic thinking is everywhere. For instance, people try to fix their posture by training muscles and pushing one bit versus another, etc. But your posture is the arrangement of you. There are no "parts" to posture. The only way to have better posture, better shape, is to re-shape as a whole. To... shift.

Actually, when I think back, I believe that most profound changes in my life happened when I slept. I have a habit of going to sleep when I am stressed, as I somehow hope I will wake up and things will be different. I remember once I was supposed to have a surgery, and I was very scared and upset - I had no idea what to do, so I went to sleep praying that somehow the problem would resolve itself. I spent a couple of days in bed, trying sort of GET OUT of the situation I was in, like trying to break out from the INSIDE. After that, I came back to my normal schedule, but after I had a second health check it turned out the problem was not there anymore, and I did not need a surgery after all. Now, it's not like it magically DISSAPEARED - but there was a clear shift in the severity of the problem, to the point when it didn't require any intervention. It was really neat - not a massive change, but a change enough. Only after I started reading this forum I thought that maybe, somehow, my talents at lucid dreaming are not as useless as I previously thought.

Ah, interesting story. I think sleeping with intent works quite well (and I'd see that movie). Which makes sense in this overall scheme - sleeping and dreaming is an opening of attention, a loosening of your hold on current patterns to let them shift.

One time, I had completely screwed up at work, and took the day off sick when I had the corresponding presentation. I slept/dreamt through that day and "deleted" it. I went into work after the weekend, and the project was never mentioned ever again. Good appraisals, etc.

It is sort of like they know, but they don't at the same time.

Right.

As I like to think of it, it's like you've changed some of the facts-of-the-world. Afterwards, people's natural spontaneous actions and thoughts arise from these updated facts. If you push them, it's like there's still a memory of the old ways - however they aren't seeding the current world. But I'd say the old memory was your old memory.

My thinking is that the fact you can push them on this at all is because you know you made the change, basically. And by probing them, you are getting back your own doubt on the matter. Implicitly, by questioning them you are brining the old fact back into existence.

Meanwhile, if you had made a change but you had no idea you were responsible - e.g. a strong imagining of a change in a daydream - you'd probably experience this as some sort of Mandela Effect type deal, and just be very confused that nobody could remember what you do.

I am not sure - I sometimes think there are those twilight situations, when you stil have one leg in one world - so to speak - and another in a different one, and for a moment both are possible. Or maybe I think of soemthing else entirely, but cannot identify it correctly.

I agree with that.

Hmm. The fact that you would entertain the previous history means you have not fully committed to the new facts. If you did - they wouldn't remember. But then how would you tell? Whatever version you try to investigate, that's what you'll get back!

Yes, maybe that is the way to put this, not being fully commited. Maybe these options sometimes are probable but transient, and if you don't commit yourself to them, they become ghost-options, that almost-happened, but never did. Like they were up for grabs, but you didn't use the opportunity and they went back to the ghost world.

You (as in, everyone) should experiment with the synchronicity thing. You will directly experience that the world reflects your firm opinion - or your indecision.

The personal experience is more like a dream which operates on an "as if" basis. If your worldview is fuzzy about certain things, then the evidence you encounter appears fuzzy or contradictory also. That's why I think we need to definitely decide what's going to happen regardless of current sensory evidence, rather than start with the evidence and try to "work out what to do" or what is possible.

(Also, I think that that type of change does not really require any dramatic jumps as it still fits into the previous narrative)

How to think about that? Well, anything "out of sight" can be changed. The more out of sight, the easier it is.

The first level of "seeing" is the sensory experience that you are having. The second level of "seeing" is the narrative you are holding onto. The third level of "seeing" would be more general facts about your life. Fourth level, increasingly diffuse facts about the larger world. These fictional levels are the order in which you focus on and fix things. Background inconsequential things are shifting all the time, or rather they are "fuzzy" and never fixed anyway. Meanwhile, the sensory experience is pretty locked down ("no disintegrations!", no teleportations).

Any level can be allowed to diffuse into "fuzziness" if you step back from it, but it's not so easy to retract from the senses or the main storyline. It's always easier to have a change if you can avoid an obvious discontinuity - if you "avert your gaze" as it were, from the thing you are changing, or at the very least look only for the intended outcome.

Sleeping while the world shifts is an extremely handy way of disconnecting from one set of facts and awakening to another set. It's one way that we permit discontinuities. Probably it happens all the time, but because we never pause and check "how it was before" we don't notice. (Just like the people who if prompted know that something used to be the other way, but their actions are coming from the new facts so they don't notice.)

I was thinking of an example, but nothing comes to mind ... it would be a situation which is weighing, with different outcomes open, and suddenly everyone goes blind to one of these options, somehow as it is not supported ... I am not sure how to phrase this.
The only example I can think of (which is not perfect, but maybe you will understand what I mean) is when I broke my toe and suddenly everyone got blind to this. I was mentioning it (and whinging), but it was like noone could hear it, or noone remembered it. I was quite upset when I had to remind my parents that I had a broked toe, but it was like it was going over their head. It did heal quickly and with no problems, but I discovered that sometimes when this is happening it is not good to push this, and just let it flow. EDIT: it is like the broken toe didn't belong to the timeline, or something (?). Silly example, I know.
I am not sure if I made myself clear (and I apologise for my English, which is not my first language)

Reminds me a little of this story:

Changing the Past, Cindy - Cooperstown, New York
Several years ago I was walking through the woods and I fell. As I tumbled downhill, I heard awful sounds coming from my knee and ankle. I remember thinking that my knee was shattering. When I stopped rolling, I immediately put my hands up towards my leg to start a healing process, saying over and over in my mind frantically, "back in time, back in time."
It was getting dark, so after five minutes or so, I pulled myself up to the main path so I could be found. If I had stayed where I was maybe my ankle would have healed completely right away. When I got to the top, I started the healing again. Perhaps at that point it was for my sanity. I had just finished my second chemo treatment, and I was determined to stay focused on not taking on anything else. Since then, a guide of mine has helped me see the big picture, and I've learned that it's very interesting what we can and will do to get a merit badge, or should I say Spirit Badge! ~@:)
The paramedics told me that it was probably just a sprain. I know they didn't think that I was in pain, because I was calm and quiet, but on the inside I was screaming with pain... yet focused on reversing what had happened.
In the Emergency Room, I was told that I would probably have to have surgery on my ankle, because of the type of break it appeared to be. A few days later when I went to see the orthopedic doctor, he was looking at the x-rays and turned and looked at me with a puzzled look on his face. He said, "your ankle is broken in three places. It looks as though I had already set it ... they are aligned perfectly." I've often wondered if I had reversed a knee injury and had started on my ankle.

(I've had some experiences which you could, I guess, classify as 'jumping dimensions' - it felt, however, as if I was in a bad dream and desperately tried to divert my attention elsewhere, to the point where the situation changed.
I will give you an example.
I have very long hair, and sometimes I dream it is cut short. I am usually very upset by this, but I know it is a dream, and I concentrate for a while, and suddenly I have my long hair back on again (it's almost as 'log out, and log back in again). If I don't manage to do it in a dream, at some point I actually wake up for real, and my hair is still with me :-)
In 'reality' I had some situations that had the same feel - they were going in the very wrong direction, and some things seemed unavoidable, and suddenly everything 'magically' resolved itself, and sort of ... I don't know ... dissipated, and I felt as if I woke up from a bad dream. I suppose 'changing dimensions' is like this.

Ah, missed this - yes. That's a great example and description.

Found this article: [http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2012/03/how-to-switch-dimensions/]

Pavlina. We was always a bit of a dick, but was thought-provoking at least. Actually, I remember him experimenting with subjective reality stuff a long time ago. Think he killed his forums, but there was some interesting stuff there from people who had played with it a little.

IMHO, he had some really inspiring stuff going on before he started his sexual experiments and lost the focus.

Yes, that's where it went wrong, I remember. I think that was where he shifted from being "interesting and provocative" to "defensive and slimy". Shame he deleted the forums. A few good stories in there that would have made for good /r/DimensionalJumping or /r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix fodder.

POST: Are you really jumping to different universes...?

You need to view it completely from your own perspective. You are not a person walking about a world; you are a conscious perspective having a 1st-person experience. It's more like you are switching from "looking memories about being in Situation 1" to "looking at memories about being in Situation 2".

There are loads of ways to think about it (recent example), but all rely on you accepting that the "sharing model" of the world isn't simple - i.e. it's not like we are all in a room, choosing the consensus decor together. We are each in our own rooms, with different versions of the same people.

POST: Should I really try this?

This is a theory, but basically, when you jump, you're actually switching places with another version of you who is aware of jumping. They may or may not be a lot more different than you. This you may seem a little off to your family at first, but they may get used to it. As an example.. If the you you switch with becomes employed and starts making great grades and what not. Your family would just think of it as you making your life better, etc.

No, you are not switching places as such. You are shifting your attention to a different possible experience, more like.

Haha. Sure, try it. Sit in front of a mirror with a candle and concentrate as much as possible. Everything that will happen is that you waste some time of your day. Sorry that you'll hear it from me but you will never change your dimension. You'll be stuck with your current state, your bad grades and nothing will ever change this. Only you can change it yourself by getting off your ass and do something against it on your own, like learning more to get better grades and try/work hard to find a decent job. Supernatural stuff doesn't exist on earth. I don't know if any of the Religions out there are true or false and if an afterlife in heaven or something like that exists but right here, right now, you and any human on earth including all the people here in Reddit will never experience supernatural stuff. You can't jump dimensions, you can't bend a spoon with your mind and you shouldn't believe stupid stuff other people tell you.

Have you tried it? Now, some people get carried away, for sure, but if you commit to it you are pretty much guaranteed to encounter some subsequent effects.

People get hung up on the "dimensions" imagery, but it's really part of a much older idea: consciousness as primary, the apparent world experience as illusory. Or in philosophy, that the world-as-it-is is an "infinite gloop", which is formatted into meaning by the mind which perceives it.

Shift your own patterning/filtering, shift your experience. Your milage may vary...

Well I got the first part of what you said and I know that a lot of people on earth believe in something like this but that's just because of their inexperience. Your last sentence on the other hand doesn't make any sense at all. Just a couple of fancy words mixed together to sound amazing while there's no meaning behind them whatsoever. Back on the first part. I'll tell you a nice story: There's a scientific theory which is called "Last Thursdayism" which was a response to the "Omphalos Hypothesis". I'll explain you the meaning behind these scientific theories and the solution to them. Technically you could invent any fictional stuff you want and nobody could prove you wrong. For example the "Last Thursdayism" is the logic, that the world might have been created last thursday. Technically, you couldn't prove someone wrong who said that. You couldn't travel back in time before the thursday to prove it wrong. How could you ever prove, that the world wasn't created last thursday? You could say that 2 years ago you married your wife or stuff like that. I could reply that this thought was just implemented in your mind when you were created last thursday. You could say "But I got photos of the marriage." and I would answer you that God also created these photos to make you believe that you already existed 2 years ago. The thing is that scientists and any human on earth is allowed to disprove these theses or theories by declaring them as unreliable. It works by measurring how much you have to invent to keep the theory alive. In the end in our actual universe everything makes sense, everything that exists supports other existing things and supports the logic behind them. In the "Last Thursdayism" you would need to support everything by inventing more and more stuff and so you can say that the Last Thursdayism, even though you could never prove it wrong, is surely not real and people shouldn't believe it. Now back what I want to make you understand by this: Your "much older idea: consciousness as primary, the apparent world experience as illusory" is nonsense. It's Idiocy. It's simply not real and you are stupid to believe it is. If you would still reply with "No, I believe in it, why shouldn't it be real, for me it very well is real." I would answer you, that I got a real dinosaur pet that is invisible and only I can see it and that my story is by far more likely to be actually true/real than yours and the fun thing is, that the last statement is a fact. It would really be more likely to be true than your nonesense even though it's complete bullshit itself.

I think you misunderstand this whole thing.

First, I would never suggest someone believe something without putting it to the test. This is easy done in this case. If it's just a bit of a laugh, that's fine too.

On "consciousness is primary", you probably haven't done enough reading to understand the way in which that is meant. It's got nothing to do with imagination and belief as you describe. In philosophy, you might check out panpsychism and idealism; in older traditions, Hinduism and Buddhism and even early Christianity. For a modern take, cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman's interface theory is worth a look.

I get your point put you have to differentiate between religion and superstition.

Well, religions now are largely a bastardisation of their original form. There's a lot we could go in here, but the Western religions are really a mutated, cut-down version of a more mystical approach to living. They have taken literally what was intended as metaphorical, and have lots the original message and replaced it with something far more dubious - I would say.

I don't want you or anyone else in this subreddit to change anything of their way of thinking.

That is absolutely not what this subreddit is about. It's very much about: "here's an experience, check it out".

They just need a single comment that tells them that the stuff here is not true to understand that there are two sides.

But that's not how to do it (in my opinion). They shouldn't be believing anyone who says "this is true" or "this is not true". I think you are working against your aim by doing this.

What you really mean to say is: people should think for themselves, right?

If there isn't a single comment anywhere about all this being a joke...

Well, it's not a joke. You do make a good point, and I'm going to take on this suggestion. That good point is: we might better emphasise in the sidebar that people should make up their own minds.

By the way, i'm not a native english speaker so sorry for any bad wording, inappropriate words or sentences that are difficult to understand.

No problem. I appreciate that you are coming from a "good place" on this. But I also think you have maybe come to this subreddit with preconceptions - perhaps due to that /r/nosleep post (which I think is quite unfortunate).

Religions really changed a lot and are a bastardization of their original form.

The original ideas were about empowerment of the people. It's really sad to see how it has been flipped around. Certainly in religions where there is an "entity god" to be feared and who passed down moral laws and punishments! "Non-religion" religions like Zen Buddhism seem to have retained more of the original concept - giving people ways to have a better life - but even they get mangled when they are translated into western ideas, often.

Neville Goddard (who I mention in a post here) interpreted the Christian Bible as describing different metaphors for approaching living. In effect, he is talking about using the mind to set goals, and so on. Quite a lot of the stories in the Bible are about the relationship between mind and body, imagination and perception, and between action and results (including moral action). There's a lot of metaphysics in the Bible. Unfortunately, those stories are now taken literally, as if the people were actual people, rather than symbols for certain relationships.

All that knowledge gets lost and becomes about being obedient rather than thinking for ourselves. Shame.

Yes, but I need to explain this a little closer again so that you exactly understand what I mean: I read in a thread about a confused person...

Your basic idea is absolutely right - in that as more subscribers appear, they don't maybe understand the context of this. That's why I've added a note to emphasise how one should approach this sort of thing. I would much rather just assume that people would think critically, make their own judgements, perform their own experiments - but it does no harm (and much good) to emphasise the position taken in this subreddit.

(In other subreddits, such as /r/Oneirosophy which is about studying perception from a subjective idealist point of view, there are explicit warnings and that is a valid idea.)

Well yeah, everyone has his personal preconceptions, I'm sure of this. I usually lean my preconceptions on experiences and facts and not on what a random person said.

The way I think of this: I never take my own thoughts too seriously. I never "believe" my own thinking. That way, I'm happy to change and see things differently according to new experiences I might have, or new information I might come across.

...nosleep is about horror stories, so I can assume that the story didn't have a nice ending.

The "new" story has the guy "jumping" into a dimension where he discovers he has just murdered his parents (bummer). The original story for the subreddit is actually about an experience someone had with mirrors (follow the sidebar link) which was kicked from /r/nosleep for not being believable (ironically).

Personally, I think having /r/nosleep stories now using the concept and linking to this subreddit is not a good thing. Not much we can do about it though.

But some things depend on the religion.

Very true. I think the 'insights' are about the same thing, however they are of course filtered through the culture of the time, and then filtered through history, idea, and power-struggles. Maybe that's why the information needs 'refreshed' periodically - insights are re-discovered and re-presented, to make them understandable again.

In general, most people think for themselves and make their own judgements but...

Yes, I do agree wholeheartedly with this, as a moderator for both subreddits. This one only recently kicked off; at first it was a pretty focused set of people and it wasn't very likely that anyone would happen across it uneducated. It's important to be informed in things where real effects are produced but explanations are lacking. Often people joke around with such things - and then they get a result, and it's not such a laugh anymore.

I thought nosleep is about fictional stories because the first post I ever saw was the Dimensional Jump one.

Yeah, /r/nosleep is indeed mostly fictional; don't read it myself. As with all those subreddits, there is some confusion, but that one is intended to be "fictional but play along" whereas /r/thetruthishere is about "true unexplained mysterious events" and /r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix is intended to be fairly dry reports about unusual experiences.

I don't deny that mysterious events can occur. But they are only mysterious events as long as we don't yet have a plausible scientific explanation for it.

Well, not all explanations are "scientific" because that only deals with a certain methodology - but I certainly agree. There is no such thing as supernatural, there are only experiences for which we do not have an account. For some experiences, perhaps we never will. But that doesn't mean they are "beyond reality".

Unusual experiences are great but if they really occured, then there just be an explanation for them.

We are not so far apart really.

If someone experiences something, they experienced it. Whatever the nature of that experience is, that's for discussion. In many cases we may never know - in others, we might gather enough anecdotes to come up with a theory.

Nothing can occur that is impossible with our laws of nature (aka what science has discovered so far).

Of course, the "laws" of nature don't say what is possible or impossible. They are not laws in that sense (they don't say "what is legal"). Rather, they are the simplest regularities we have observed, with the broadest applicability. They are "conclusions from the evidence so far".

If an observation is made which is contrary to one of these regularities, then we try to rework the theory to fit the observation. That's what science is all about.

Actually, Wikipedia for a change has a pretty good definition of a physical law [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law#Laws_of_physics].

(One of my pet hates is that people confuse the notion of a fixed or "given" law with the idea of a "physical law". If we'd taken that viewpoint in previous centuries, we wouldn't have got anywhere.)

POST: I feel like there are fakes

[POST]

By that i mean i feel like there are a lot of people lying about jumping on here. I say this because if you jump dimensions, how could you come back on reddit in this dimension and share about it. You know, since there is no known way to return back to your original dimension

[END OF POST]

Guess what, 100% of the people here are fake. Jumping Dimensions is a joke. It's not real. It doesn't exist. I could make a fake account and share my experience of a fictional Jump and people would believe me. I could talk about all the coincidences and stuff that happened and ask questions if this or that happening is normal and people would answer me how that's completely normal and stuff like this can happen, even though I was lying the whole time and these fakers would perfectly play into my hands. =)

Hmm, so what exactly is the point of you participating here? You don't seem to understand the underlying concept vs the metaphor, and seem... opposed and defensive about the whole idea of (I guess) occult type projects or glitch type reports. Why bother posting?

Because there was a /r/nosleep reference to this subreddit and several thousands of poeple are currently checking this subreddit out for fun and are new here. Out of these thousands of people there are a few that are too young or not educated enough or haven't realized yet, that a lot on the internet is troll and fake. I don't want these very few young and/or uneducated people that came here to believe that the nonsense on this subreddit is real. I think I help them a lot by making them understand early that this subreddit is just a stupid joke so that they don't bother with it for too long and don't get sad afterwards when they sooner or later find out, that it's not real.

Admirable public service announcement. But warnings from ignorance or fearful discomfort don't help anyone. Are you really so worried that a few folk might look in a mirror?

I think we need to trust people to make up their own minds - take responsibility for informing themselves first. Which, ironically, you haven't!

There is no ignorance or fearful discomfort behind that. I wouldn't be here talking freely to you if I had a fearful discomfort about these things and it would only be ignorance if these things about dimensional jumping EVER had a piece of truth behind them to support them, which they don't have. It is as wrong and as much of a lie as an old woman looking into a crystal ball telling you your future. It's as wrong as some TV series where someone tells you your personality or future based on your asterisk or some cards he/she randomly pulled out of a deck to earn money through exploiting your human weakness of being concerned and worried about things and your future. You/the subreddit are not pushing anyone and not taking money from anybody so what you're doing here is not illegal and might be a nice hobby for some people. The "public announcement" how you like to call it is just there to not make people believe in these lies and fantasies other people tell them. Like I said, I dont want people to get sad after they realize that something, which sounds as nice as dimension jumping, is actually just fiction. They could put their hopes into this theory, hoping that it changes their lives which are currently in a bad state and in the end all their hopes get crushed. Or they drown from reality by never stopping to believe in such mystical bullshit aka superstition, which for obvious reasons has a bad reputation in reality and normal life.

I don't mean fearful quite like that. And perhaps I am misjudging you. I meant it more in the sense of someone fearful that the world isn't quite like they assume, and resistant to other people even looking at it for themselves.

I think you are showing little confidence in people to make judgements, from their own evidence!

Your comparisons don't work because this subreddit literally arose from people's "hey check this out" story. Much as /r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix did. A phenomenon was noted, there are several ways to try and replicate it for yourself. If you don't manage to replicate it, nothing lost.

We might compare this situation to lucid dreaming: its existence was denied for many years, older traditional accounts were dismissed as nonsense, many people were quite aggressive about opposing the possibility of it due to its implications for theories on dreaming/waking, eventually the sheer number of reports led to a study which led to greater acceptance. The same thing happened with hypnosis (still not understood).

EDIT: In both cases (even now) it's up to people to try it for themselves. It really doesn't matter whether anyone believes in these things or not, just as some philosophers believe theoretically that "consciousness is an illusion" but I'm still pretty much convinced I am conscious from personal experience...

Don't worry, I completely understood what you meant by fearful and since I know the world is like it is and not like people in this subreddit say and dimensional jumps dont exist, I'm very condifent and there's nothing that bothers me. I might show little confidence in other people's judements but that's based on facts and a good understanding of logic, physics, chemistry and therefore what is possible and what is not. And if someone is talking about something that you can scientifically prove to be impossible, then I show little mercy to somebody who's trying to convince me of believing it or to defend people who believe it. I want to repeat again that I dont want anyone here to stop believe in what he believes. I just want to make it clear that my point of view and the truth is, that what he/she is believing isn't true. You just have to accept that. It's based on the knowledge the humans have discovered so far. Any scientist can prove that dimensional jumps like this with a stupid mirror and a candle don't work and that everything you believe to happen is just fictional. That's why out of 7 billion people, not a single one of them would be able to do a dimensional jump because it simply doesn't exist. That's why I dont need to try and experience/replicate it myself. It's like somebody tells me I'll survive when I jump out of the 40th level of a building head first into the street. It's obviously proven to be deadly to a human body and if we take some unbelievable luck and coincidences aside, then 100% of the people doing that would die. So I don't need to try it out myself first to believe it, when I know the definite result beforehand. You can't compare Lucid Dreaming to dimensional jumps. Even if Lucid Dreaming at one point in time was considered to be nonsense, you could never completely disprove it since at that time and still today we don't know everything (but a lot) about dreams and dreaming yet. It never was something that you could disprove by facts since it was so badly explored yet. Unlike that, we have very well explored mirrors and candles and a person who's sitting on he floor trying very hard to concentrate. We can definitely prove that this won't change anything and that nothing will happen and therefore dimensional jumps are impossible and therefore you can't compare it in the slightest to Lucid Dreaming. Hypnosis is a difficult topic since, like you already said, it's not yet completely investigated. Unlike the dimensional jump thingy, you dont just have a candle and a mirror that won't do anything. The hypnosis is something that is done in different ways. I don't know enough about the topic but a person talking to you and giving you orders to concentrate on yourself, trying to focus on something specific, using special words and wordings and trying to manipulate you with what he's saying and wants you to believe or using the pulsating pattern of a pendulum, which could make you a little dizzy or whatever and many, many, many, many other things could eventually result in an effect in your brain, which is completely reasonable and physically/chemically reasonable. However, I think these effects are very minor and can't make any big change like you believing that you're a chicken. Maybe it could make you believe that you're arms feel really heavy even though they obviously aren't. Personally, I never believed in hypnosis and I am very very sure, that it doesn't work on me no matter which expert would try it on me. There's also the form of Hypnosis called "Trance", which can result in different conditions of yourself after a highly mental concentration but this minor effect (if it is even noticable) is also just completely reasonable on a chemical level and won't cause anything superhuman or supernatural.

Hey, thanks for engaging here, you've put a lot of thought into it and it's appreciated.

A few points:

• I wouldn't get hung up on the candles-and-mirror thing; that's just a method of detaching from the current sensory experience.
• Science cannot investigate subjective experience. That's not what it's for. Science is about identifying shared "observed regularities" and making connective stories about them. Science is not about "truth". It's about coming up with the best predictive model for a particular phenomenon. It describes observations, not how things are.
• The problem with lucid dreaming and hypnosis is, like 'jumping', they are about subjective experience. Only personal experimentation can reveal the facts of the matter to you, one way or the other.
• When we are dealing with these things, philosophy and metaphysics are the appropriate areas.

We should be clear and not appeal to vague hand-waving science when it comes to these things - there presently no physical-chemical descriptions which account for subjective experience. There is no explanation for consciousness, or even an idea about what form such an explanation would take. (Refer to Donald Hoffman and neuroscientist Krisoff Koch for interesting takes here.) Repeat: there are no good models which match the facts. We don't even know why we perceive objects, how perception works at all, how eyesight works. So we must conduct our own investigations. Where science ends, personal investigation and judgement must begin. Random good article: George Ellis [https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/cross-check/physicist-george-ellis-knocks-physicists-for-knocking-philosophy-falsification-free-will/].

Q: Well first off, I find it important that we differentiate between "phylosophy and metaphysics", "definite science" and "higher science"...
Definite science is the science that can definitely prove and disprove things, it's about daily life and things we have very well discovered already and facts we can definitely draw.
The higher science is the science of theories, models and other constructions that we aren't a 100% sure about, which could be the proven definite science of the future. I think definite science can very well investigate human experience. Subjective experience might be a bit tricky but we can draw general similarities between humans and statistically a human brain should work just the same way as another one.
That said, we've discovered a lot in chemistry. About messengers (biochemical prozess in your brain) and how it effects our perception and body in general.
We use electroencephylography (EEG) to measure the electric currents on your brain to understand why and how lucid dreams happen. It's definitely not the most accurate way to understand the human brain and just a little step forward but it can definitely show and prove different and particular things that happen in our brain in various occasions.
// So now where I have left over:
It's definitely not just vague hand-waving science. We can exactly tell how people perceive objects and how perception works and your eyesight. We've discovered long ago how all that stuff works and how your brain processes information. That said, through these knowledge we can determine whether something is possible to happen and what the changes could be and what a particular event could cause in your subjective perception and experience.
So science can very well prove, that for any individual, something like dimensional jumping doesn't work. You can do the process but nothing will happen at all. There's no chance, no scar that could ever disappear, nothing that wouldn't be like it was before that doesn't revert back. It's simply impossible and just superstition that makes you believe that something changed, but in fact, nothing ever changed. There's no chemical or biological or physical process, in which a dimensional jump could ever occur and in which reality could ever change.

[Hi, thanks for continuing! This has been an interesting exploration.]

Science, Definite, Indefinite

Definite science and higher science

Well, your distinction is arbitrary I'd say. A model which does not connect to observation is not a scientific model - it's just a conceptual framework. What you really mean is: proven theories vs unproven theories.

It is worth reading the George Ellis article in Nature on this very point. The article begins thus:

This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree.
-- Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics, George Ellis & Joe Silk

It's the difference between something corresponding to experiment versus it simply being self-consistent.

I think definite science can very well investigate human experience.

Science is the investigation of human experience, definitely. There is nothing else for us except human experience - and all human experience is subjective. It has a limitation though: That it can only deal with those experiences which can be shared symbolically and which can be accessed in simple, describable ways. This puts much of subjective experience out of reach.

It can definitely show and prove different and particular things that happen in our brain in various occasions.

Certainly. Observing brains even allows us to correlate certain 3rd-person imagery with certain 3rd-person reported experience. However, it does not allow us to observe and measure the experience. This cannot be done. That's not a problem really, it's just a recognition of what we are actually doing with science. It's all "inside us" and we can't get outside to measure it.

Intermission: An Exercise

Here's a worthwhile little exercise which emphasises the limitations we have:

• Point to your real hand.
• If you are pointing to any particular location - stop.
• Even by the standard explanation, the hand that you are pointing to isn't your "real" hand - it's a construction of the brain, inferred by sensory inputs.
• Try again...
• So it becomes obvious that wherever the "real" hand is (assuming there is one), it is "outside of all this". And what you are experiencing right now is effectively a "perceptual dream".
• Note: If you end up pointing to your head (where your "brain" is), then start again but this time ask: where is your "real" head?
• Bonus point: Now, think about your real hand. Where does that thought appear? Does it not appear in the same "perceptual space" as your sensory experiences? You just can't get "outside" of this!

Vision, Perception, Neuroscience

We can exactly tell how people perceive objects and how perception works and your eyesight. We've discovered long ago how all that stuff works and how your brain processes information.

Unfortunately, we really haven't. Perception remains largely mysterious and unexplained. We can observe light going into the eyes, we can observe regions of the brain "lighting up" (terrible phrasing) but we do not have an explanation for perception. Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman's interface theory talk is definitely worth your time. It specifically talks about visual perception from the beginning. I strongly recommend watching that talk. You can also read his related paper on Conscious Realism.

Meanwhile, retired neuroscientist Raymond Tallis has a reasonable article that's worth reading for another perspective. Now, I don't entirely agree with him, but it nicely outlines the various considerations.

Proving, Disproving, Experiences

So science can very well prove, that for any individual, something like dimensional jumping doesn't work.

This statement doesn't remotely follow from what you've just said, unfortunately.

It's simply impossible and just superstition that makes you believe that something changed, but in fact, nothing ever changed.

If you experience a change, and that change persist, then something did change - right? Although in a sense you are correct: in some philosophies, a change is a shift of perspective with reference to an unchanging structure, rather than an actual change in the world.

There's no chemical or biological or physical process, in which a dimensional jump could ever occur and in which reality could ever change.

Again, I must return you to a previous statement: Lack of an explanation does not mean lack of a phenomenon. If you experience something, it happens, regardless of whether you can account for it.

It would probably help to return to a question I asked in an earlier post: Can you prove that you are conscious? Can your prove that you have thoughts? Can you explain consciousness? Can you explain thoughts?

Does your lack of proof and explanation mean you have neither?

Note: A hand-waving "explanation" that these things "happen in the brain" or "emerge somehow" is not an explanation at all. If you can't say how it works, precisely then you have categorised it rather than explained it. The more closely you examine these things (for instance: vision) the more you realise we haven't explained them at all.

Outside, Inside, Nowhere

So I'm going to jump ahead here without having developed the full path for it, however all the essentials are there if you follow your experience, so...

We might summarise much of the above by saying that you are imagining an outside world, and you are thinking-about an world, that you have no evidence for other than the imagining of it. Earlier I said that:

• Science = senses + imagination

By now you probably realise that the true situation is actually:

• Science = imagination + imagination

On Perception

When we feel something, there's an electrical impulse sending information to our brain, which then it processes and it gives you the answer whether it's cold or hard, hard or soft, rough or smooth, etc.

That... isn't an explanation. Can't you see that? What do you even mean by "gives you an answer". Where and what is the "you" for starters! Keeping basic though, there are two ways in which this isn't an explanation:

• It doesn't remotely describe how light entering the eye is transformed into a full perceived environment.
• It doesn't remotely account for subjective experiencing.

You've basically said "the brain takes light and turns it into an image". That is not an explanation, you have described no processes whatsoever. You've said "magic", to link to an oft-used illustration.

Perhaps it's good to get back to basics. Light enters the eye, hits the retina, as an inverted image (although from the eye's perspective, it's not an image, it's a series of activated rods and cones of course). That information enters the brain. From a subjective point of view, my actual experience, I see a complete and unwavering room with objects which are spatially-extended in an environment. How exactly is this produced?

We do not have an account. It's fine not to know, but to say we do know when we don't seems unwise. A full description of perception will, in my opinion, incorporate complex memory. We do not see directly, we see (loosely) the thoughts that are triggered by information that enters our brain - which is of course then also an imagining... ;-)

Proving, Disproving, Experiences

You can take a subject group and let them try the dimensional jump with whatever instruction it would be possible for them.

You are kind of missing the point here, because you are assuming we live in a "simply-shared world", which we do not. Dimensional jumping by its very nature cannot be studied scientifically (which means, "intersubjectively") because it "comes before" the basic formatting (check out our man Immanuel Kant - easy intro but slightly wrong; better into here). It is a matter of metaphysics really.

Science = imagination + imagination No. Not at all. That's complete bullshit. Any scientist who ever lived/lives on this world would scream with laughter about that equation. It's absolute nonsense.

It's exactly how it is. Our perceptual experience is an imaginary one, "inspired by" accumulated information, triggered by snippets. We then make up connective stories in our imagination. Amusingly, the stories we adopt then inform our subsequent experiences.

Your mind is a big happy fiction machine, feeding upon itself. Having been told this, you'll probably start to notice it in the coming weeks.

• Experiences leave traces which in-form subsequent experience.
• Thoughts are experiences too, which also act as in-form-ation for subsequent experience.
• Your life is a big, looping metaphor machine and you didn't know it until right now.

On Consciousness

Man, you didn't even try with the consciousness thing. I'm really disappointed! ;-)

We simply have to answer this by saying that we have to accept that the universe exists and that we are real. So our thoughts and consciousness is too.

Okay, why not try this: The only thing you know for certain is that you are experiencing, therefore you are conscious and that you exist. Although you know that you are having experiences and thoughts, it is impossible for you to say what their nature is. You can think-about their nature, but that will just be another experience.

In effect we end up saying: All we know is that we are experiencing. And what we are experiencing is a real... experience. We cannot say that it is a "real" anything-else though.

There's no reality where dimensional jumps ever exist.

All that is required for dimensional jumps to exist, is for them to be experienced.

My post doesn't underlie any faith ... It underlies science and reality. Facts.

But it seems to me that you don't even know that science, reality, and facts actually are. Except (now) you might say that they are experiences. Beyond that, though?

I think if you read again what i've just written in my post, you should realize that dimensional jumps don't exist and that we can even prove that it is impossible and just a big hoax.

Unfortunately not. If anything, what you have done is further convince me that what I might have assumed was a solid world is in fact... a transient illusion, with no solidity at all, made up only of my experiencing of it.

In fact, I think you have convinced me that dimensional jumping - being a persistent experience - is perfectly possible and is not contrary to anything other than... previous habits.

POST: Just another skeptic..

[POST]

Hey guys! I really can't believe I'm posting this , but see , can't this phenomenon all be explained?
(This is kinda my first post , so sorry about the formatting)
My theory is kinda hard to explain , but I explain it easier to explain with an example. When we all were kids , we had that constant fear of a monster under our bed (assume you did) We took whatever sounds that occurred to be that monster! Our brains were searching for some evidence to show that our strong belief in something non-existant to be true (our brain is basically trying to screw us up!) So similarly , the process of dimension shifting , that sudden blurryness , all of it , its just some kinda evidence our brain is coming up to show that dimension jumping(what we believe in) is true! Even the changes! We search for the smallest changes to be true! It can be a coincidence , like that post where a redditor did a good dimension jump into a dimension where her fiancé complimented her on her looks! That person was looking for , or noticing the compliments she got about her looks!
Let's think of it as this way , If something happens when ur not expecting something , you wouldn't even be surprised. But if something happens (or changes) when your expecting something to happen/change (after a dimension jump) you'd automatically link it to the jump , wouldn't you?
So yeah , I think you kinda got my idea , I tried explaining it every way I could! Have a good day!

[END OF POST]

There's something to be said for seeing what you are looking for, definitely. However, it really doesn't explain some if the side effects - unless you view them as "memory mangling".

Side effects? As in?

Events that happened last week didn't actually happen, that sort of thing. The argument you had never occurred. That person never got sacked after all. Lots of "but I'm sure that..." things which are unrelated to your intention.

Maybe déjà vu can also be the reason for that c: But , we can never know if the person who claims that is lying or not.

Yeah. Or some other sort of memory mangling! How could we tell the difference? One of the 'problems' with this is that it is a subjective experience (of course). So by its very nature all evidence is going to be anecdotal. But that's why this subreddit isn't about proving anything to anyone. It amounts to: Some people have had an experience, here's how you can maybe produce that for yourself, you decide.

You could see it as a targeted or practical version of /r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix. People do have unusual experiences. Some of them would be useful if harnessed. Is this one way to harness these 'glitch' type effects?

In the end, all that's going to matter is that for you the world apparently changed in a useful way and didn't revert back.

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

Plot twist: Nobody was human anyway, they were just "having a human experience".

Although I won't hear a word said against The Intelligence. He's knows loads of interesting facts, always gets his round at the bar, a generally nice guy. It's best not to mention his "appendages" though...

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

The idea here is that people can take it or leave it: do the experiments and see what happens, or not. There's no debate or opinion to be had. There's no worldview being pushed; except try stuff see if it works or not. If it's not for you, nothing is lost, except a bit of time, which was probably going to be spent in bed or in front of the TV anyway.

Think of it as a practical /r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix or /r/Occult centred around a particularly powerful active metaphor built on the philosophical concept of Idealism.

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

It's a metaphor to trigger a genuine effect. The "dimensions" imagery does get confusing; it would be better to say something like "state jumping" or "format shifting". But then you have to talk about the structuring of mind and conscious experience.

Changes are experienced. The nature of those changes, that's something else. It is easier to do just by having a go. But note that nobody's pushing it here - "there's an interesting phenomenon, you might be able to leverage it, up to you".

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biases is very general meant.

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

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

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

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

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

This is very important generally:

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

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

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

Placebo Effect

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

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

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

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

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

Science and The Real

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

So you are saying:

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

I suggest that all these statements are dubious or incorrect.

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

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

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

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

Scientific Proof

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

Really? How... exactly?

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

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

My Brain Is Lying

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

How exactly does this work?

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

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

The Placebo Effect

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

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

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

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

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

A1: get em george

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

The Placebo Effect - Continued - Untricking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Placebo Effect - Continued - Double Tricking!

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

Taking into account your whole comment, you are saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you like owls?

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

I read your other post. Not sure why you are talking about Scientology and the supernatural! Okay, quick summary response (I'm not talking about the subreddit topic here, this was all about science, perception and consciousness). Your problem is that your education in science, philosophy and metaphysics probably is stuck at high-school level. That's not a problem of course, but it does leave you in the position where you "do not know what you do not know".

Most of the problems with our discussion was because you haven't really thought about these things properly and in depth. Things that seem "obvious" to you are actually not so when you look deeper into the details. In physics we have tackled lots of things (although we still don't have a good description of quantum mechanics other than "it's maths and it works"), but when it comes to explaining the mind we are basically right at the start. We are not as far along as reading popular science articles would have you believe.

I'll leave you with one final thought to ponder: Do you genuinely feel, right now, that your experience is made up of neurons? If you don't, that means there is a gap we need to find an explanation for. (There are actually many gaps like this in our explanations.)

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

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

POST: I'm so confused.

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

POST: [deleted by user]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POST: I have a few questions

[POST]

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

[END OF POST]

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

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

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

See what happens with that as a starting point.

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

That sounds so frustrating. I'm pleased you've realised it in context though (that's it's a nasty pin in an otherwise comfortable cushion).

First, I'm going to give you some practical advice: Get yourself some Neem toothpaste and mouthwash. It's magical stuff for keeping the mouth happy more generally, I've found, clearing up little flare-ups. Definitely worth a spin for you.

Okay, stage two of the experiment. You've got the idea now: we're going to work towards you being able to generate the feeling of what it will be like when you're sorted... This time, you're going to do the same thing, but deliberately imagine situations where people smile and respond as they will when this is all fixed.

The important thing here is that you imagine the situations as if looking through your own eyes, being there, having the experience. If the downer images you get are pretty much the same all the time, I want you to change those images into version where people are smiling, chatting, and you are responding, smiling chatting and relaxed. Again, we're looking for how it will feel when things are great. Okay?

Bonus paragraphs...

Bonus 1: When you've done that, you are going to be more specific. You are going to imagine, as if it were happening, a situation with that nice girl which meant that this had already been sorted. Totally immerse yourself in and enjoy that imagining. Right?

Bonus 2: There's something extra to be careful about here. When we have something we are unhappy or worried about, it's a fact that the world tends to confirm our fears. Not just confirmation bias, it tends to give us a little more than that. So I want you to be careful of looking out for signs that people are responding to your breath. Just decide to give up on that, and be okay with how you are now, for now - because it will change soon.

Bonus 3: Maybe once you've got "the feel", you should ask the girl out anyway? And you're gonna recall the "vibe" you've developed doing the exercise. Try some neem, load up on mints if you need a crutch, then "fuck it!" and enjoy some fun. You'll regret it later if you don't. And if its doesn't work out... oh well, next time!

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

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

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

POST: New here, with questions.

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

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

See links in sidebar for techniques and metaphors.

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

[POST]

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

[END OF POST]

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

Like /u/Aeropro, I read it the other way also. That this subreddit is based on a subjective experience, so you have to seek out the subjective experience in order to prove to yourself that there is no basis for the subreddit. It's fine to leave it open or to just not care, of course, but denying there is an effect just because we have no explanatory framework for it is meaningless.

The notion of "dimensional jumping" is the driver for and a way to explain changes. Like any other "cause and effect" type story, it's a way of joining two experiences together to make it easier to "understand" (read: to repeat and leverage an apparent connection).

Since we can't get behind the scenes, as it were, of this sort of phenomenon, you can't experience a mechanism behind the effect. (We never can, really, even in science, but at least there we are in the realm of shared observations, and so we can share a narrative fiction to go along with them.) So we make up one, subject to revision.

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

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

I think the commenter was generally in favour though: as it's a subjective experience you can only prove it to yourself.

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

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

An excellent assessment. I too am "an empiricist before I am a rationalist". Subjective experience is primary, connective fictions (explanatory frameworks) are secondary, but useful and perhaps in some sense causal.

The main-push physicists of the early-mid 20th century were not at all like most physicists and scientists today (who are effectively "engineers with beliefs"). They knew exactly the nature of what they were doing (modelling observed regularities, not uncovering truth). Some still do - e.g. George Ellis here [https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/cross-check/physicist-george-ellis-knocks-physicists-for-knocking-philosophy-falsification-free-will/] and here [https://www.nature.com/articles/516321a] and there are many others. As their points are more subtle, and less attractive to funding and to the popular "gee whiz!" media, they tend to get less coverage unfortunately.

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

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

"It only works if you believe"

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

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

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

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

The assertion being made is:

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

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

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

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

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

EDIT:

Preface

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

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

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

Response

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

To yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is a less harmful statement (but still deluded).

But your modified statement is incorrect, because you are responding to a position nobody is taking. In context, the statement I made isn't a "position" or a statement of fact, it's a report of an experience.

If I were to make a change to clarify things for you, it would be to preface it with "People have found that..."

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Random comment:

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

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

[POST]

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

[END OF POST]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's why "technology" can be useful:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POST: Dead celebrity?

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

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

POST: Got a little question

[POST]

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

[END OF POST]

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

In more detail:

Everyday Life Mode

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

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

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

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

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

Dimensional Jumping Mode

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It shifts your world including your experience of "you", so it's good to be cautious. It's an effective suicide in that the "you" that you are experiencing will shift more discontinuously than is usual. Having said that, most people are unwittingly do a version of this quite frequently - but they are just oblivious to it because their world is remaining self-consistent.

The problem with the mirror method and the tesseract approach is that they present a ritual which is by default "undirected". Since most people don't understand what "intention" is (even if they imagine something, they'll often not will it to give it context) even directing it is a little haphazard.

That's why I think Neville Goddard style approaches or pattern-triggering are problem better, because you are more conscious of an "act" taking place, and you already have a direction in mind. A problem with all magickal dabbling is that people tend to not believe it, or believe that belief is necessary, and so mess around - and then get actual results whether they realise the connection or not.

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

POST: About dimension jumping..

[POST]

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

[END OF POST]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[POST]

The mirror method puts the reality shifting process outside oneself. Bring the process back to the Source within yourself, and it makes the transition easier and with less chance of unintended consequences. Back in late May I decided to try the mirror method. Over a few days I jumped a few times with pretty good results, though I had very little somatic feedback to signal that I had jumped. My intentions weren't for external changes. My intentions were for internal changes.

My intention for one of the first jumps was to know that I could shift reality. I intended to be a master jumper. In the days following, I started to see a lot of synchronicity. At first it was surprising to see my thoughts reflected in reality. It was so accurate that I ruled out the possibility of confirmation bias. I chronicled some of the events at /r/Glitch_In_The_Matrix. However, the results were better with spontaneous thought than with intentional thought. I wanted to know why, so I took the red pill and went down the rabbit hole.

My search revealed many metaphors and ways of saying the exact same thing, that reality is inside out. My mission was to find the most direct approach to change what is within in order to change what is projected without. After looking at the many different layers that I found in the Library of Babbling On, I was repeatedly drawn to the Ho'oponono prison story. It reveals a very direct approach to shifting reality, cutting out all of the nonsense and mumbo jumbo that is heaped onto the process of what is very simple.

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

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

The incantation effects the following:

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

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

Edit: typo

[END OF POST]

Agreed.

It's all "active metaphors", as it's phrased in the sidebar. They are all different ways of indirect creation and amendment in what amounts to an imagined world.

Remember that even with the mirror method, you are dealing with something that is within you; the so-called "mirror" is inside your experience. Real mirrors are actually just very stable ideas of mirrors.

So in the mirror method you are declaring that "mirrors" have the property of allowing jumps - and so they do. Equally, you could declare that visualising a desire in detail "inserts it into the universe" and so it will come to pass. And so it does.

Or perhaps there is a bad situation, and you bring forth a thought about it. Implicitly in doing so, you are recognising that this thought is the situation. By updating the "bad feeling" into a "good feeling" you are literally changing that situation. (This is the Ho'oponono approach.)

In all cases, the implicit truth is that everything in experience is basically objects made from imagination. To imagine-that you are doing something is to actually be doing that something - subject to the other things you have imagined to date.

You can have a lot of fun experimenting with this. Random example: take two glasses, one filled with water, one empty. Declare that the empty glass is you and that the other glass is the world. The water is an experience you desire. Now, pour the water from the world-glass into the you-glass knowing that you are pouring your desire from the world into your personal experience.

To "reprint" something from before:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responsibility=Response Ability

Cute!

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

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

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

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

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

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

You aren't going anywhere.

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

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

No, definitely don't delete the post. It's a good starting point for a discussion.

It's not that you are "in the wrong", it's that there are multiple ways to consider things, some of which may be more or less useful for one's purpose.

Our eventual aim should (perhaps) be to be able to take the "meta" position: that is, to consider different interpretations as relatively true while being held, but recognise that from a fundamental position those are just "as if" positions. (Of course, this is a conclusion we would arrive at via personal investigation; it is not something to 'believe in".)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We do evolve into higher and higher states of consciousness?

Well, I'd be inclined to say that all patterns and states are pre-existing, and we simply adopt them. In the same way as we might associatively flip through our memories, so we might flip through "moments". The story of "higher states" is similar to the story of "progress" in society. Really, things change, with notions of progress or improvement being a parallel narrative, I think.

If all moments are available always, then any moment can be brought into experience at any "time" (because "awareness" is "before" time), which means there is no necessary development - although "associative traversal" of moments might tend towards an experience of apparent continuous evolution of some sort.

as a conscious entity...

Are you a "conscious entity", though? It might seem pedantic, but it's important to be clear about the nature of this experience. If what you are is, for example, an "awareness" whose only inherent property is being-aware, and which "takes on the shape of" experiential states, resulting in experiences "as if" the dominant fact-patterns that constitute those states are true - then "being a conscious entity" is a formatting of your experience, not what you are.

What you are in that case is not an object, hence not an entity, at all. There is not actually "one" of you - because what you are is "before" division and multiplicity - and therefore there cannot be more than one "awareness" either, not fundamentally. There is just... "awareness". Which cannot evolve, really. However, it can certainly "take on the shape of" the experience of apparently evolving. But equally it could just adopt, on a whim, the state of being at any point of such an apparent evolution!

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

That's a key point, actually: people often push back against anything that has a hint of solipsism about it, because they don't like the idea that there's "only me" or everything is in "my" mind. However, we are not talking about "my" mind at all, because "awareness" isn't a container or a thing.

This is where we get into problems due to language, though. The very fact of using a word suggests an object, meaning we are "already wrong" (the "awareness" that can be spoken of is not the true awareness, to paraphrase). Language and conceptual thinking are already "too late", because they are experiences which are dependent upon the formatting of experience into objects, which are then related in mental space. It is not possible to think about, or have an experience of, that which experiences are "made from". That would be like trying to build a sandcastle which is the shape of both "sand" and "the beach". The sandcastle is both sand and the beach, but it cannot capture those things in form.

All of which suggests that, say, seeking "enlightenment" in experiences is pointless - because all "enlightenment experiences" are simply more experiences. You always are your nature; it is not something you can find or think about. However, you can infer this by noting the content of your experience directly, and how the only thing than never changes is the fact of being-aware - that is, a permanent contentless truth.

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

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

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

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

POST: Are you guys for real?

Is this a reference to some book or movie?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A nice angle.

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

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

Haha, I like your style! :-)

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

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

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

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

POST: What happends with the other you?

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

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

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

There's no other you. Answered a few times elsewhere [POST: What happends with the other you?] and elsewhere [POST: What happens to the other-dimensional you you switch places with?]. Basically, this is about shifting attention to another experience. Like changing channels on a TV.

When you change channels on your television, do you have to push aside another "you" that was watching the programme you switched to?

Extra quote:

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

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

Thanks for the clarification and extra reading.

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

POST: [deleted by user]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since we're recommending...

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

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

Whew!

I could have entire hours of conversion about it.

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

POST: Alternative methods to Jump

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

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

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

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

I've got a couple of pending comments of yours to reply to which I'll try and get to soon, which might clarify this, but: at the moment you misunderstand the point being made about "multiverses" and so on, and the relationship between "physical things" and ongoing experience, etc.

Which is, in short, that "multiverses" in this context would be just another "story" about an experience, but you do not actually experience "multiverses". This doesn't mean it's not a useful concept; it just means it's not a fundamental description of the experience. Also, the very nature of "evidence" is problematic here, because our usual assumptions about shared experiences fall apart.

Again, we're back to unpicking the assumption that you are a person-object located within a world-place, and that the "world" is a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended 'place' unfolding in 'time'". The point of the experiments is to, over time, indicate that all of these assumptions are somewhat dubious, or at least not constant. This means that we cannot rely upon concepts derived from those assumptions, when 'explaining' those experiences.

Where this goes is that, later, in addition to noting the content of an experience - and all the (many) narratives we might construct which fit that experience, none of which seem completely accurate - we also note the context of all experiences.

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

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

POST: A film about Dimensional Jumping

Q: [Deleted]

Does a bit. Except, I suppose, that it very deliberately omits things like "brains" because in that description there is no place for a "brain" to be.

In a similar way to how we attribute results to other entities in error because we can't experience "the doing" (we are not separate from the results), we often identify with "brains" or other objects in error because we can't experience "being a doer" (again, because we are not separate from the results). In both cases, we fail to realise that we are the subject to all experience, rather than an object within experience. All experiences, and thoughts about experiences, are, in a sense, "results".

Any descriptions about experiences are themselves further experiences - and because thinking requires that things be broken down into conceptual objects related within a mental space, we end up accidentally "looking past" ourselves as the subject, and in error focus upon: "which conceptual object is 'me'?".

Q: [Deleted]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wouldn't disagree there. But it's much more powerful to (for example) do the suggested exercises for a specific thing, and have an outcome related to that specific thing arise. And that gives a direction for further exploration (since the "results" may not be quite what one thought one was intending, but provide insight in another way regardless, beyond simply "stuff changed").

Anyway, we keep it on the "deliberate" side because there are already other subreddits for spontaneous experiences (Glitch and Mandela, for instance), and it can easily swamp the subreddit to allow "this weird thing happened" posts; it is meant to be more about investigating.

Having said that, posts are allowed to stay sometimes if they lead to an interesting discussion in the comments (the comments are mostly where the sub content is, I'd say). Which was the case with your first post. It's just not very helpful to have multiple, essentially off-topic, posts, because it leads to more of the same, as that then appears to be what the sub is about. And as I said, this does come up fairly often, at regular intervals - because even just engaging with this topic tends to encourage noticing of... this or that.

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile:

I'd suggest that if you notice spontaneous changes in the header, then that simply means you are noting that your ongoing experience isn't as stable as you had previously assumed. That is, that your usual assumption of being a person-object located within a world-place may not be entirely accurate, and the "world" may not be best described as a "stable, simply-shared, spatially-extended 'place' unfolding in 'time'" (the standard description). This can be pretty exciting, of course! However:

The term "jumping", if it is to have any meaning and to continue to be useful, should be reserved for intentional changes. And in terms of investigating the nature of our experience (and the nature of our descriptions about experience), rather than simply noting that things are a bit more "loose about the seams" than we previously thought, only deliberate experimentation is really of much use.

It should also be noted that a "dimension" in this sense might be best considered as a way of formulating change, of structuring an intention and incorporating it. The concept of "dimension jumping" would itself be part of the pattern of the outcome; the "mechanism" is really just part of the target result and doesn't actually cause anything. (This is why the demo exercises are called "exercises" rather than "methods" or "techniques".)

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

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

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

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

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

Right.

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

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

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

I'd suggest that while the description may be understood - that is, that it is internally consistent on its own terms - its connection to our direct experience is somewhat debatable. I did a comment over at ME on this, so I won't go much deeper into all that (check it out), but the general point would be that since there is no way to observe "branches" and suchlike, only changes within one's perspective - a lack of "observational touch-points", if you will - there's an issue with taking it as "what is happening" and basing anything off of that.

The "multiverse theory" is perhaps more like a narrative or a language we can discuss changes in terms of, rather than an actual theory or explanation. There is no evidence for "branches" other than as one (of many) ways of thinking about quantum states (which are basically just mathematical structures with no inherent meaning and with no way to distinguish between interpretations). They are definitely never experienced, I'd assert.

Within this context, we have to ask: what would a regular changing of the header graphic contribute to our investigation? How can an observed change of header graphic be tied back to the concept of branches experimentally, rather than simply conceptually or narratively?

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

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

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

POST: How do I learn to do these things?

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

Q: [Deleted]

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

That makes sense.

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

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

I'd suggest being a bit skeptical of all those sorts of descriptions. Or at least, view them as descriptions - that is, little parallel structures of thought - rather than "how things are".

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

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

I want certain feelings and experiences.

That keeps things nice and clear.

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

Q: [Deleted]

Well, it's not necessarily clear that they are attracted to anything, in some behind the scenes way.

Your actual experience is of perceiving other people apparently being attracted to you, or of seeing other people apparently being attracted to one another. But the idea of "attraction" is something you are inferring: it belongs to your description rather than to the experience itself. You don't actually experience "attraction" in the sense of a causal mechanism; you have to be careful to not mix up that "buzzy feeling" that is part of an experience, with something that is "causing" that experience.

That you have this experience (of seeing this) isn't necessarily due to anything about the "people". There's no "attracting" going on behind the scenes, perhaps. Your experience of apparently seeing such things may be completely down to your own patterning, your own state as an experiencer!

The problem with the idea of "attraction" is maybe that it implies that there are independent objects, located within some sort of environment, and that there is some sort of "mechanism" - triggered by an act of some sort - which leads these objects to move towards each other in some way. These "objects" may of course be people, or some sort of event.

But the inherent divisions implied within this description is misleading, I think, because it leads us to try to conceive of some sort of action we might take in order to acquire certain properties which in turn would bring about an outcome. When in fact, if you attend to your actual experience as it is, it is not actually divided in this way.

And when you dig into that "attraction" type description, it reveals itself to be so hand-waving when it comes to the specifics, that there's not much of use going on. It's not really a model of experience at all - it's more of a narrative, a language that is used to talk about certain experiences using a certain turn of phrase.

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

POST: If we make our own reality...

[POST]

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

[END OF POST]

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

An analogy:

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

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

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

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

POST: Confused on the nature of dimensional jumping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so on.

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

POST: The difference between low of attraction and dimensional jumping

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

This subreddit encourages you to reconsider things at a basic level - what you are and the nature of experiencing itself - and suggests that there is no "how things really are" and there is no "how thing really work". Whereas the law of attraction tends to assume a particular mechanism, or "formatting" to experience, dimensional jumping advocates reconsidering that very formatting itself. It suggests that if you fully adopt a certain metaphor, then your experience will tend to fall into line with that.

In the end, it strives for the most flexible metaphor possible that ties up to our direct experience of ourselves as a sort of "open aware space in which experiences arise" - hence the metaphors described in the sidebar. They are to be taken literally, in the sense that you can adopt them and have experiences "as if" they were literally true - what we might call "the patterning of experience".

The upshot of this is that, instead of having vague notions of "maintaining frequencies" or "attracting" something, you can adopt any metaphor which inspires you to an intention - an intention which means-that, or logically implies that, you will get the outcome your desire. Choose your own mechanism. Because really the only thing that ever "happens" is intending. However, it is always more important that you recognise the nature of your own experience, since that frees you from having to adopt any particular worldview "true".

Unfortunately, the descriptions tend to be a little abstract at this level, because we are actually trying to discuss the thing "before" thoughts or descriptions, or sensory experiences, or even division and change.

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

But luckily for you...

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

You probably feel less like a "person" and more like an "awareness", but that's just because you're not used to it.

As for choosing things, there's nothing more to it than intention - which means, to deliberately increase the contribution of a particular pattern. The "intention" is the pattern, "intending" is the bringing it into mind. All patterns are already existing; you only ever change how much a pattern is going to contribute.

If you think about it: what else can there be? Your sensory experiences and thoughts are all "inside" your open awareness, rising and falling. They have no solidity and can't "cause" anything; they are results. The only cause is intention, and the results happen immediately. It becomes true now that the event will happen then.

Of course, that's not something you should take anyone's word for - it's something to experiment with and test for yourself, and decide whether it is true or not. In small ways, and then in big ways. Only you can explore this; nobody can do it for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POST: It wasn't a panic attack!

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

Really, they are just modes of operating. The "law of attraction", "dimensional jumping", "strong energies" and "being a person hanging out in the world" are all on the same level. It just so-happens that the last of these is our strongest habit and so it seems like the "normal" one, which makes the others seem special.

In each case, what is really happening is that we are explicitly or implicitly choosing a particular worldview or conceptual framework and adopting it, such that we have experiences "as if" they were true. But none of them are fundamentally true. There are actually no inherent limitations to your experiential content at all. So don't let the specific labels get in the way of experimenting or lead you to overthink things.

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