TriumphantGeorge Compedium (Part 1)

* * *

Welcome to Dimensional Jumping (982)

Dimensional Jumping is a place to share your personal experiences of the shifting nature of reality, through the deliberate application of techniques to bring about "jumps" in our personal worlds - in effect, switching to a more desirable universe.

Below is the original method that kicked off this sub. However, there are different ways to approach this, and one flavour might suit you better than another (particularly if you don't like the idea of a literal "other you").

You might also choose to ask: "What's it all about?"

IMPORTANT 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.

* * *

What's it all about?

"It"

One of the most difficult things to grasp when it comes to "jumping" and its associated metaphors, is the change in the concept of what "you" are. Although this isn't required in order to make changes, it's probably the most helpful thing to get a handle on for both "jumping" and for just everyday living.

The summary of your situation is this:

What you truly are is an "open space of awareness" in which experiences arise.
The experience you are having of being a person in a world is really a thought about "being a person in a world".
It just so happens that this is a very bright, immersive, multi-sensory 3D thought - and we confuse parts of this thought with who we really are, incorrectly.

Experiencing It

There are various methods which can help us to recognise it. What they all have in common is that you stop trying to thinking about this situation (that just creates more experiences) and instead directly sense the space around you and within you.

Meditation is one such method, however as mostly practiced it's a great "settling down" technique but relies upon chance for a glimpse of the background experience. Far better to pursue things directly. For this, we can pursue exploration of our direct experience, by attending to it and/or by choosing to alter it:

The books of Rupert Spira (Presence Vol I & II), Greg Goode (Standing As Awareness) - see samples via links - and Douglas Harding (On Having No Head and Head-Off Stress) are particularly good with helping readers investigate our direct experience as it truly is. The Harding experiments are an easy way for a quick flavour of what is involved.
Application of the jumping techniques described here can be applied for experimenting with making changes to our experience. Attempting to directly create synchronicity via patterning is a quick way to prove to oneself that your personal world is more malleable and basic than you might have assumed. (Relevant to this, Kirby Surprise's excellent interview discussing synchronicity is well worth your time.)

Understanding It

Reading about theories from science and philosophy relating to "private world" ideas can help provide us with more grounded metaphors:

Marcus Arvan's P2P hypothesis envisages us as separate nodes each with a private copy of the world; Christopher Fuchs' QBism approach to quantum mechanics (more here) reinterprets the wavefunction as something akin to a personal "world-pattern".
Richard Conn Henry's article on The Mental Universe and N. David Mermin's Bad Habits article on not confusing ideas with solid reality both give a nice overview of how direct observations should be treated as primary.
Finally, George Berkeley's Three Dialogues is where it all began for idealism (the notion that everything is thought or ideas with no solid substrate behind it).

Reporting It

Another source of inspiration and knowledge can be unusual personal anecdotes - in the form of "glitch in the matrix" or "reality shift" stories, and reports of altered state or NDE experiences. An example of a description of being being open awareness, and a thought becoming immersive and becoming a dominant experience, is this account of meditation into pure awareness.

Excerpts:

"The best way that I can describe it is that this state was beyond the need for thoughts or senses. Thoughts and senses are things that in my view pertain to consciousness. Where I was, it was a state of pure awareness-beyond consciousness and therefore the need of thoughts or senses."
"It was ... like letting go of something that I was stuck to. It was as if I was a balloon that was tied down and then suddenly released to begin floating. Like I was carrying a heavy weight on my back that was finally lifted. This was the feeling right at the point of entry. What followed was the state that I could never fully describe in words."
"The experience was void and yet all encompassing at the same time. It was a state of demanifestation with the seeming power to remanifest should I choose to introduce thought. It was kind of like this; I wasn't thinking but if I did think, I would become what I was thinking. Therefore, I dared not think about anything because that would have meant that I would have manifested out of total awareness and bliss. Being in this state was beyond bliss, you want to stay there and not do anything to disturb it."
-- Victor C Other 6247, NDERF

Being It

This part is easy, because no matter what experience you appear to be having right now, you are still that open conscious space. You cannot not be this.

You might take on the shape of this or that world, but like a pool of water that has become rippled, you are still that water.

The added benefit you have over most puddles: you are a pool with the power to ripple itself!

* * *

KEY POSTS

The following posts detail the metaphors and mindset which underlies the "dimensional jumping" approach:

The Hall of Records

Reposting this to help clear up questions about what happens to "the other you". There is no such thing : what you are doing is selecting a different subjective experience, like shifting to a slightly different dream. This involves thinking of "you" in a slightly different way.

The Hall of Records

Imagine that you are a conscious being exploring a Hall of Records for this world.

You are connecting to a vast memory bank containing all the possible events, from all the possible perspectives, that might have happened in a world like this.

Like navigating through an experiential library. Each "experience" is a 3D sensory moment, from the perspective of being-a-person, in a particular situation.

And there may be any number of customers perusing the records. So this is not solipsism: Time being meaningless in such a structure, we might say that "eventually" all records will be looked-through, and so there is always consciousness experiencing the other perspectives in a scene.

At the same time, this allows for a complex world-sharing model where influence is permitted, because "influencing events" simply means navigating from one 3D sensory record to another, in alignment with one's intention.

This process of navigation could be called remembering. Practically, this would involve summoning part of a record in consciousness and having it auto-complete by association. This would be called recall. You can observe something like this "patterned unfolding" occurring in your direct conscious experience right now.

So in terms of "dimensional jumping" you don't need to worry about another "you". You are not even the person you are experiencing, you are simply looking at this particular series of event-memories, from this particular perspective. "Jumping" means to decide to recall a memory that is not directly connected to this one.

If you are feeling adventurous you might also check out my post elsewhere on The Patterning of Experience.

Note that none of this metaphorical stuff is necessarily required though - all that matters is that you are willing to let go of the current experience, and believe that you can connect to another experience which is discontinuous with it. However, these "Active Metaphors" better allow you to format yourself.

I do like the idea that we might one day develop a Library Guide for Researchers which would help us all navigate this stuff more easily.

...

Q: Have you ever heard of NLP? It sounds very very similar to your idea of how dimensional jumping works.

I have indeed heard of NLP!

The early modelling stuff was good I thought (Frogs into Princes, The Structure of Magic Vol I) but after it became a marketing thing and John Grinder disowned it, it went downhill it seems, so not followed it much lately.

Whereas NLP was playing around the edges of "how you conceive of things affects your response to them" - it never had an underlying philosophy of the world at large - the "jumping" thing is more a case of leveraging philosophical idealism. It's only a step away from "magick" I'd say, but also nearer to its essence.

Have you experimented much with either?

Q: I've been actually getting into Magick and NLP lately and I came across this sub around the same time as well, and you're right they all strive for the same kind of idea: that you have a 'choice'. I feel like Dimensional jumping is a way of convincing your subconscious to allow you to manifest a powerful will upon the reality in front of you, in the same way as magick, it's just that they have different techniques of communicating with the subconscious, all have a powerful desired state but are all different 'methods' of reaching that ideal state or outcome. So I'm remaining humble and skeptical but at the same time, I notice a pattern in all of these. Whatever the thinker thinks, the prover will prove. So in a way, I've rationalized that we are always dimensional jumping, constantly shaping our will and our energy field, it's just that sometimes there are crazy synchronicities that happen. I'm curious to see how you would differentiate all of these.

I say: there is no subconscious. It's just the parts of the world you aren't looking at right now.

All intention affects a part of this world directly and the effects are seen from that point on. The only difference between approaches (of any sort) for creating change is the world-metaphor (including the what-you-are metaphor). The world-model you've committed to limits what you will observe happening - so to make massive change, you need to alter that or put it temporarily offline, or a halfway version between the two.

Q: That's very interesting! Could you expand a bit on what you mean by the world-model? If I understand it correctly, this has to do with your attachment with the world around you? Basically what I understand from what you've said is that by bringing in dimensions to this and having little attachment to the universe you are currently in (as what you are is nothing in the world), you are less subject to the circumstances of such world and are therefore able to make massive changes to your life? By temporarily offline do you mean that you need to 'suspend disbelief'?

EDIT: Adding headings for easier reading!

The World-Model

Could you expand a bit on what you mean by the world-model?

The "world-model" would be how you think things are "behind the scenes".

For instance, perhaps you think that the world actually exists as a spatially-extended place that is "happening", even when you're not experiencing that? Or perhaps you think that space is itself a part of experience, it "arises with" it and is not "out there" beyond your current perception, in which case you'd recognise the world as having no depth.

In general, whatever you adopt fully ("believe") then your experience will tend to behave "as if" it is the case. This of course make a massive difference to the changes you can make. If the world is actually super-flexible but you have assumed it to be far more rigid, you will be limited in results (except for occasional strange accidents) because you are simultaneously "casting spells" for a solid world and a flexible change.

Going Offline

By temporarily offline do you mean that you need to 'suspend disbelief'?

In a way, yes exactly - but it's good to be a bit more specific. What does it mean to "suspend disbelief"? It means to cease asserting that the world is a certain way.

While you are "re-triggering" the world you can't make much change, since you are re-asserting it being how it is right now. That would be like trying to stand up while keeping the idea of sitting down firmly in mind! You have to let the current state "go fuzzy" so that you can "think into it" with a modified version.

So I mean something like: temporarily detaching from the thought of "the world". Typically, people get themselves into altered states via trace, meditation, drugs, staring into mirrors, or simply withdraw from that main sensory thread.

An alternative and more permanent alternative to forcing these states is to change your world-model, of course.

The World-Thought

To reiterate this point:

All intention affects a part of this world directly and the effects are seen from that point on.

If you adopt the flexible world-model that your experience has no "depth" and is basically a 3D multi-sensory thought, then it becomes clear that every thought you deliberately intend on top gets incorporated into that world-thought to some extent.

Detaching from the world-thought, letting its intensity subside (become "daydreamy") and thinking new facts into it is essentially how "jumping" and all these things work.

Cutting and pasting an example from elsewhere:

Owl & Screen Metaphor

You draw a picture of an owl on your TV screen. It is always there, but its visibility depends upon the rest of the imagery onscreen. When the dark scenes of the TV show switch to a bright white scene, suddenly the owl "appears" - it is "manifested".

Now instead imagine an owl idea being dissolved "holographically" in the space around you, and replace the notion of dark/white scene with appropriate contexts. Having "drawn" the owl into the space, you go about your day.

Mostly the owl isn't anywhere to be seen, but wherever an appropriate context arises then aspects of the owl idea shine through and are manifest: A man has an owl image on a t-shirt, the woman in the shop has massive eyes and eyebrows like feathers, a friend sends you an email about a lecture at the zoo highlighting the owl enclosure, a newspaper review of Blade Runner talks extensively about the mechanical owl in the interrogation scene, and so on.

The Infinite Grid of All Possible Moments

The Infinite Grid of All Possible Moments

Thought I might as well post this here in case anyone finds it a useful metaphor. Below is the description that goes with this animation.

The idea is that it can be used as a way of visualising how all time is simultaneous-parallel, and perhaps jumping between "moments" if you want to pursue an alternative to the candles-and-mirror approach.

Introduction

This animation is intended to illustrate the idea that all possible 1st-person perspective moments exist simultaneously - as part of a metaphorical "Infinite Grid".

In this model, what "you" are is the conscious experiencer who "looks through" a particular grid position as a sort of "viewport", and your timeline corresponds to the trajectory you follow across the grid, from moment to moment. Memories are attached to you, the experiencer, rather than to the moments you experience (although information may also be available as part of a particular moment).

We tend to follow sequences of closely-related moments, to form a coherent personal history - however there is no reason why our experience can't be discontinuous and jump across locations, times, and viewpoints, with a mere detaching and shifting of attention.

The Experience

At the beginning of the video, you are lying down in your apartment, relaxing; the traffic noise comes through the half-open window and there is light rain against the glass. Soon you let go of the sensations of that moment, the sound echoes and fades as the experience dissolves into the background space, and you become delocalised.

As the image of your apartment fades you realise that you are not that person in the apartment, but instead you are a vast aware space in which all possible moments are simultaneously realised and available. Any and all perspectives are available to you.

Randomly, you recall a holiday you had almost a decade ago, with a friend - or was it the friend's story of his holiday, and you never went? - and an intention forms to attach to that moment, accompanied by a sense of movement, a growing feeling of localisation.

Sounds and images rush forward, as you feel yourself entering a bodily experience once more...

-- The Infinite Grid of All Possible Moments (16:9) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdA4yN77q1o]

...

Synchronicity abounds - today I came across a review of the TV series Being Erica. In the show, the patient undergoes a therapy process which involves their awareness being directed to a previous (or parallel-previous) moment. They can then make changes by responding differently within the moment, the repercussions of which are reflected in the subsequent "present".

Never seen it - it looks far too rom-com for my liking - but I liked the idea. Dimensional Jumping would be going directly to the "present" that followed from such a change, without the detour.

Q: All I can take from it is that so long as we don't become involved in what we're experiencing we can perceive anything from any view. So we're not really jumping dimensions, we're shifting perception.

Right. And we don't even mean any view right now, or even any view in the past you were involved in. The jump from being in bed to being in a night-time dream is just the same process.

We're shifting perception, or I'd say: attention, because that retains the notion that you are everywhere-all-at-once anyway, it's just that you are focused on one particular aspect of the infinite pattern. The larger point is that if you want to make particular changes perhaps it's better to have a scheme of thinking that you can absorb in which to do it, which accommodates it, rather than simply let go and kinda intend-hope. Meanwhile - "everything being available" means both that everything exists and, conversely, that nothing exists but anything can pop into being as required. Doesn't matter which way we conceive of it (not possible to distinguish between the two).

Q: I see you said "infinite pattern",and how how anything can pop into being as required.So,you are saying we experience what we focus our attention to.Therefore we can experience any moment,at any instant of time by focusing our attention. And that everything is in our head,nothing out there?I don't really understand ...What is reality,or is it just in our head/mind?

There is no head/mind except as a sensory experience (or a thought-about it) in your awareness. They are real, but only in that sense.

One way to say it is that: reality is awareness taking on the shape of experience. In other words, waking life is dreamlike. All possible moments are 'dissolved into' the background of experience - that is what the 'Infinite Grid' metaphor proposes. You don't walk around the world, you instead have the world move within your experience.

An earlier attempt to explain this using the life-as-game metaphor: here.

The extra bit is that with the 'facts of the world' being dissolved into awareness, it is the shifting of your attention from one aspect of it to another, unpacking one moment into sensory experience then another in a non-discontinuous way, that gives the impression that you are living a life as a person, in time and space.

What dictates your trajectory? Your held intentions, expectations and beliefs. Dimensional 'jumping' operates by having you detaching from those - detaching from the 'facts of the world' - thereby allowing them to shift in a way they otherwise could not.

Q: So in relation to that... We are still living all the past moments and experiences, even though our direct consciousness is in the present time? There's a 13 year old me out there in first period English... hmmm.

Not quite. Better to say that all possible experiences are present now - like all frames of a movie, except all frames of all movies, jumbled up - and available for viewing if you chose. What you are, is the eyes which can view.

So there is no "you" in English class (I liked English!) but there is a fully-immersive "moment" that you-as-consciousness could step into if desired. Right now, your attention is on the moment with this "viewing the fascinating outpourings of reddit" image in it.

Maybe I'll go check out your English class moment...

...

Q: Deleted

Part 1/2

Hey, provocative is fine too! Let me give a full answer with background, since I'm not sure what you've read and not, and it's also a good opportunity to bring together some thoughts.

Skippable Background

If you've been reading all our tangled comment discussions over at /r/Oneirosophy, you'll know what the underlying project is, which is basically philosophy realisation manifestation:

To develop what I've been calling Active Metaphors which can be used to reshape our experience. There are no theories as such because there is no solid underlying to experience (although there are very ingrained habits). Any descriptions are valid only insofar as they lead to desirable experiences and make sense of experiences to date.
To get to the essentials and thereby describe and account for: daily experience, "glitch in the matrix" experiences, and direct intentional change.
To find better ways to lead people to the underlying realisation of the structure of experience and what they "really are", which is independent of the present sensory experience.

My involvement on this subreddit came about by accident really: I came across it and thought it maybe a bad idea to having people randomly encounter the sub and do undirected detachment, without the awareness and framework that, say, people in /r/occult might have. Multidimensional magick, one of the original forms of this, was basically "submit to my true will on the wheel of fortune" and the instructions themselves compare it to suicide (of your world anyway).

It's fun to mess around with concepts and philosophies and ideas - it absolutely is - but since results can be a serious thing, there needs to be an element of caution and a way of thinking about things, so that it's not treated too casually. So here I am.

Meanwhile, I am committed to the view that people shouldn't believe anything unless they've tried it - dismissing something is fine though - so the attitude here is to be "here are ways of thinking about things, try them out". But just doing it randomly isn't so good.

Hence encouraging people to experiment with doing low-key stuff (e.g. intentionally creating synchronicity, which underlies everything really) as a way to see how it fits. It pretty easy to prove to yourself that there's "something going on" and it's then up to the person to pursue it or not. If you've read the 'reality-shift' accounts elsewhere you'll find that most people just find it very disturbing, even if it happens deliberately rather than accidentally, because of the implications.

You find you're living in something which behaves a little like "declarative dream world", where (as Alan Chapman says much better than I in his excellent primer) everything means what you decide it means.

So, anyway.

In terms of reporting my own experiences, I do try to keep my personal stuff out of this and you'll find that anyone who explores this much - whether in a more traditional form or the direct intending that we're describing here - will be inclined to do the same. Most people discuss ideas rather than results. There are basic practical reasons too; people tend to adopt a "law of silence" in magick for reason (avoiding being stuck with certain patterns and bound to others). However...

Part 2/2

Jumping & Me: Effects and Side-Effects

Personally I don't do the "jumping" thing as described in the original post here. As linked in the sidebar, it's more about this...

Overwriting, Deciding and Patterning for extended pattern triggering and autocompletion.

...which is for experimenting with different metaphors to make changes.

In a sense, there's no real "method" involved - you let go of this thought, you welcome a replacement thought - but a formal super-flexible description is helpful because it provides an intentional route. However, in the main the techniques are intended to create a baseline open state which is as "thin" as possible.

When people talk about little strange effects like you describe, they are "collateral shifts" or side-effects from not really having a clear intention. Just like synchronicity experiment where you end up with the same concept overlaid everywhere. They're happening all the time anyway if you pay attention, inconsistencies and persistencies. With directed intention, though, you are being specific, having already set the ground.

So typically we are talking about information acquisition, creating and undoing situations - generally, modifying or defining "facts" without breaking personal reality and making it temporarily no longer "make sense". Those are my experiences and results do happen. You're just doing what you've been accidentally doing anyway, but knowingly.

What people will probably tell you is that: If you've done the "releasing/overwriting" work, dealt with a few major bumps, life gets more relaxed and smooth anyway. Unless you are into experimenting in order to understand and play and explore, it then becomes about just maintaining a certain state. Because at some point you're wasting your life:

One day the Buddha met an ascetic who sat by the bank of a river. This ascetic had practised austerities for 25 years. The Buddha asked him what he had received for all his labour. The ascetic proudly replied that, now at last, he could cross the river by walking on the water. The Buddha pointed out that this gain was insignificant for all the years of labour, since he could cross the river using a ferry for one penny!

At some point you can de-pattern yourself to basically stop being very human; if you want to live in the world then you have to remember what you're living for. The balance is to realise the nature of your situation, get rid of unwanted debris, and then enjoy the rest, having a tinker about when you feel so inclined. Having said that...

Teleportation: Endgame For 3D-Imagery-Update

I've also seen a comment that you talk about teleportation/change of scene.

I think that came from "Next: Teleporting for beginners" which was a little joke, but also deliberate because teleportation is the extreme end of what we are doing - aiming to observe discontinuities in experience rather than subsequently discovering them - which is why I've used it in examples.

Since making changes requires that you detach from the part of experience you want to change (whether by it being out of sight or just being withdrawn) then I see that experience as the ultimate experiment for personal fun. Time compression with Fotamecus doesn't count, for instance, because you don't experience it happening. I've not done it yet, alas! The method-process would be exactly the same as everything else. You are not really "in" the room you are experiencing; it's present imagery and you can directly experience this fairly easily.

So "work in progress" is the idea. But I'm just doing this for enjoyment; perhaps others are more serious about such things and would like to push it further, faster.

Have you done much experimentation yet?

TL;DR: My attitude is: here is the situation as I'm seeing it, if you like those ideas then try experimenting for yourself and see if it's your thing.

Q: Deleted

So you see where I'm coming from. As to the "basic method" that started this sub, I think that (like the Multidimensional Magick post) it just releases what you are holding back and lets it manifest.

So potentially, if you're holding back some fury, then you let go of that, and your world shifts in that way... and then you lock back up again, fixing that state in place! That's why I'm all about encouraging people to have something in mind, and try a more specific approach to change.

Candles and mirrors are traditional for all sorts of capers, I guess because they encourage a sort of detached state naturally, and because mirrors themselves are, I think, highly active metaphors.

If you think about it, the only "you" you experience is the one in the mirror. It's only by a trick of thinking that you associate the image with what you are and how you look. The Douglas Harding experiments are a good way to explore this deliberately, if you haven't tried them already.

Q: Deleted

Great question. I'd say it's a matter of intention. Let me have a go.

First, let's establish a particular view: that what you "really are" is the consciousness in which experiences arise. So you might have the experience of being-A-in-the-world and you might have the experience of being-B-in-the-world. The switch you are talking about is a swap between one and the other. You-as-consciousness persists, but the content had changed personalities.

If you simply intended that you have the experience of B but the world (A) is the same, then you've summoned the experience of being-B-in-the-world-of-A. You won't have a choice ("what should I do in that situation?") because you won't remember being A at all. You will and always will have been B. Some crazy folk might come up to you and say you are A, but you'll think that's nonsense.

But... that's not what you would do, because with that approach you've basically decided that "I will change by updating my personality and deleting my memory but the apparent world remains the same", and have put them out of step.

The key here is about perspective. There is no 3rd-person view to this, no outside view, you are always choosing what subjective experience to have in the future.

What you would actually do is change the whole experience, right? You would "update the world" such that you were and always had been B and had no recollection of A - you'd update for a consistent experience.

For all you know, you might have already done such a thing last week. One morning last week, you were C and working in a coal-mine in New Zealand. You decided to update the world such that you are invisiblemongoose, always have been, and are living wherever-you-live-now. And that become true and always true. But something, some itch, some previous trace is still there, and you feel driven to go on reddit and find out about how worlds can be changed overnight...

Or does the fact that only my perception have changed and not theirs means that I did something wrong?

Remember, you have to think in terms of 1st-person subjective experience. You wouldn't actually know this; you'd just think that there was a bunch of strange folk telling you that you're someone else.

EDIT: I remember reading a couple of posts over at /r/tulpas where people were asking about swapping, but I don't remember anything else coming from it.

Q: Deleted

without total faith in the metaphysical phenomena the person wouldn't even swapping at all

Yes, on the tulpa example: I think you're right that such a radical change is going to be all or nothing, whereas the original setup was almost "what if I did it but didn't really?"

If you choose to "switch to personality B and have no memory of A" then that's a different thing to "change the world such that I was always personality B".

That's why I think that can't be just a matter of different metaphors, like many discussions seems to point that is all the same thing, but there is obviously a key difference between...

It's a tricky topic so let's try and work through it.

When it comes to approaches (1) and (2), they are really the same approach, surely? Reality doesn't work two ways, it has one way. The metaphors are just ways to conceive of change. And if you can conceive of something, you can experience it - because the only difference between an experience and a thought is the brightness and stability of the sensory imagery.

Fundamentally, anything can happen. There's no reason at all why this room can't just disappear right now and another room take its place. Why doesn't it do so? Habit or momentum, you might say, and the extent to which I am holding on to - continually activating - current patterns of experience. And implicit in any "decision" is the context and intention.

If I decide to gradually become a better person, then that's a gradual letting go of patterns, a gradual wearing away, and a slow change in "time".
If I decide to just instantly become another person, then that requires I completely let go of the current pattern, to allow it to shift more rapidly. This is a type of world-suicide - or more accurately, it's like going to sleep, entering a lucid dream, letting go of all hold over the initial world and never coming back.

The trick to thinking about this is to flip around our conception of the world. We are not bodies or people in a world, we are a "conscious space" in which being-a-person-in-a-world type experiences arise. And furthermore, that "conscious space" is infinitely malleable and can take on any shape at any time.

Where metaphors come in is that they give you a context for change. If you adopt the metaphor of "the world is a solid spatially-extended place" then your experience will tend to correspond to that: slow change. If you adopt the metaphor of "the world is one of many worlds and we can 'translate' between them", similarly. It provides a path of manifestation.

In both cases it's really the same deal: A dreamlike experience with no solid substrate behind it, which behaves "as if" the ideas you accept are actually true. But the only truth is that there is conscious-awareness having experiences.

Q: Deleted

EDIT: Ah, was replying to the other one so just copied it over here.

So, is it basically a matter of one's level of detachment from the current patterns of experience?

Nicely done on the Totoro link! Of course, sometimes trees just glitch themselves, apparently. Actually, I think /u/Roril had a tree-related story somewhere, but I can't remember what it was.

And yes, that's basically it: we detach such that we aren't constantly re-triggering the current experience, and this allows a more dramatic, discontinuous change to occur in experience. We're basically loosening our hold on the world to let it shift.

The person still need to figure out how to reach such a level of detachment...

You can't figure it out. Figuring out is an experience.

...achieving a specific set of skills...

That's an experience too. Detaching isn't an experience or a skill.

And so on. Rituals are a way to cheat into detachment: making you hard-focus until you get exhausted or pushing you into a state where sensory experience blanks. But the only way to be detached really is to cease controlling your attention so that it disappears and you are left as an "open space" with your experience floating in it. Detachment is to cease something, not do something.

You don't get better at "doing" visualising as such, I found - you just gradually stop being in the way so much. If you start doing daily visualisation practice, you'll likely notice yourself trying to "paint" the image or make it appear. That won't help though. When you get good at it, what happens is you "want" the image and then it appears "by itself". (EDIT: You imagine-that the image is there as a fact, and let it appear by itself.) People call this "the subconscious" or whatever, but really what's happening is that the image, being a continuous part of the intention, is arising without resistance. Your intention to visualise has shifted things, but really it's switching into allowing that brings things up a level.

Having said all that, people do find rituals and techniques helpful, because they find it easier to believe that something else is doing the work, something else has the power, rather than themselves. But since it's all in your imagination anyway (literally everything), it's just a story you're inventing. You might as well get used to being more detached generally, and just relaxing into a more relaxed state if required for "editing" type activities?

When Biblical stories talk of "faith" (knowing things will happen despite lack of evidence) and "giving up to God" (allowing body, mind and world to shift) and "dedicated prayer" (non-deviation from intention of desire) and "asking and receiving" (declaring what you want, letting it come into experience) and all that, it's this they mean: giving up apparent control in order to gain true understanding and influence. There's no world behind the picture of the room you are experiencing right now, etc.

You could lie on the floor and decide to absolutely just give up control totally and forever, right now, and you'd probably have an interesting experience as a result. (Or: get a bit dusty depending on the state of the floor. Who knows?)

EDIT: This all makes it sound much more esoteric and complicated that it really is. Although the "world" might seem complex, the actual reality of it isn't. Just like no matter how many scribbles you do on a piece of paper, no matter how tangled the lines, it remains: a piece of paper with scribbles. No matter how many waves there are in fish tank, it's still just water.

Q: Talking about this? [https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/33fhff/this_street_had_every_tree_on_it_cut_down_until_i/] That's a tree returned within 6 months of being chopped down. Also of importance is how I once saw Halley's Comet in the daytime in May 2000, but now it switched to 1986?!? [https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/34bo02/halleys_comet_last_appeared_in_2000_not_1986/]

Aha, I summoned you using my special powers! ;-)

That's it, I was looking for it in /r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix. I missed your Halley's Comet one - just reading through the comments, that sounds pretty interesting (not something I experienced). Oh and there are indeed daytime-visible comets so ignore all that nonsense.

Q: Deleted

Those sneaky Kahunas - nice trick! Our own technologies are, I think, driven by exactly the same process. The screen you are using does not "work" as you might imagine. Or rather, it works exactly how you imagine-that it should - it's just that there is nothing "behind" that imagining.

The classic "beginner's luck" is a thing, I think, and children in their ignorance do occasionally seem to have quite extraordinary experiences - later dismissed as false memories. There's nothing wrong with capitalising on it. Maybe get the children to do everything for us? :-)

Well, experimentation is the way to go. There's nothing to it really: be okay with things as they are, and then imagine-that things are how they should be.

...

Q: Lol why is everything deleted here?!

Looks like someone cleared out their account. (Really annoying that, cause it completely destroys a conversation by deleting half of it.)

Q: The way most of the responses I've read by you in this thread are written I can get a sense of the posts that were missing.

Yeah, you can see that someone has cleared out their account... so all the things I was responded to have vanished. We will never know what the "great question" that kicked it all off was...

The Imagination Room

Things tend to come up in comments and discussions which then get lost in the fog of history, so I'm posting a few potentially useful fragments as posts to make them easier to find.

The Imagination Room

There is a vast room. The floor is transparent, and through it an infinitely bright light shines, completely filling the room with unchanging, unbounded white light.

Suddenly, patterns start to appear on the floor. These patterns filter the light. The patterns accumulate, layer upon layer intertwined, until instead of homogenous light filling the room, the light seems to be holographically redirected by the patterns into the shape of experiences, arranged in space, unfolding over time. Experiences which consist of sensations, perceptions and thoughts.

At the centre of the room there are bodily sensations, which you recognise as... you, your body. You decide to centre yourself in the upper part of that region, as if you were "looking out from" there, "being" that bodily experience.

At the moment you are simply experiencing, not doing anything. However you notice that every experience that arises slightly deepens the pattern corresponding to it, making it more stable, and more likely to appear again as the light is funnelled into that shape.

Now, you notice something else. If you create a thought, then the image will appear floating in the room - as an experience. Again, the corresponding pattern is deepened. Only this time, you are creating the experience and in effect creating a new habit in your world!

Even saying a word or a phrase triggers the corresponding associations, so it is not just the simple thought that leaves a deeper pattern, but the whole context of that thought, its history and relationships.

Now, as you walk around today, you will feel the ground beneath your feet - but you will know that under what appears to be the ground is actually the floor of the room, through which the light is shining, being shaped into the experience around you. And every thought or experience you have is shifting the pattern...

A Personal Addressable Voxel-Space

Another way to envisage this is as a voxel space.

Imagine a complete and total void with not even space. Now, imagine a 3-dimensional array of cubes going on forever. Each cube can contain a sensory "pixel" (visual, auditory, texture, taste, feeling). The room you are in now is basically a particular sensory pattern existing in that array.

If you think a thought, that appears in the same voxel-space, only less intense and less stable. However, it leaves a trace upon the space, a slight deformation, however subtle - which results in a momentum from the current state towards the state described or defined by the thought.

If you are completely detached (is in, not "persisting" other patterns) then the transition between states is effortless and clean. Otherwise, what occurs is a mangling between the present state and the thought, and any other thoughts you are holding onto or resisting.

So when you "look back" you are literally re-defining the target of the voxel-space to your previous state again. That's why lots of "manifestation" type techniques recommend "letting go of your desire". Not because you need to forget what you are after, but because our tendency is to re-created the "state of desiring" when we think about it.

Imagining That

When we talk of imagination and imagining something, we tend to think about a maintained ongoing visual or sensory experience. We are imagining a red car, we are imagining a tree in the forest.

However, imagination is not so direct as that, and to conceive of it incorrectly is to present a barrier to success - and to the understanding that imagining and imagination is all that there is.

We don’t actually imagine in the sense of maintaining a visual, rather we “imagine that”. We imagine that there is a red car and we are looking at it; we imagine that there is a tree in the forest and we can see it. In other words, we imagine or ‘assert’ that something is true - and the corresponding sensory experience follows.

We in effect recall the details into existence.

It is in this sense that we imagine being a person in a world. You are currently imagining that you are a human, on a chair, in a room, on a planet, reading some text. We imagine facts and the corresponding experience follows, even if the fact itself is not directly perceived. Having imagined that there is a moon, the tides still seem to affect the shore even if it is a cloudy sky.

And having imagined a fact thoroughly, having imagined that it is an eternal fact, your ongoing sensory experience will remain consistent with it forever. Until you decide that it isn't eternal after all.

Exercise: When attempting to visualise something, instead of trying to make the colours and textures vivid, try instead to fully accept the fact of its existence, and let the sensory experience follow spontaneously.

...

Q: Deleted

So, idea-fact-thing-pattern intensified and accepted! There's no how or why needed at all; that's just additional narrative dressing. It's never necessary to "work things out" or even justify things in any way. Those are just routes towards, finally, allowing something to be the case. Realising and integrating the "fact" that nothing is concrete (even the experience of "concrete") is probably a good first step, actually.

Q: Deleted

So, your dimension=what you are is the environment in which all appears. All other characters are just as real as you-as-person, in the sense that you are "real", because you-as-person is just part of the environment too. It just so happens that you have taken on that particular perspective.

If you need a model for the sharing, I'd suggest that rather than a shared "environment", the so-called world is a "shared resource of information" and each of us has access to it, like a box of patterns we can use to build and change things. You can do what you want with your copy of the world, and just think that the overlap with the appropriate aspects of other perspectives will take care of itself.

Philosopher Marcus Arvan actually promotes a P2P hypothesis which is like a non-centralised game. However, if the apparent overlap is itself defined by your copy of the world, then basically it's "as if" you dictate the shape and contributions of other nodes too. Other relevant links in this post ("What's it all about?").

All Thoughts Are Facts

All Thoughts Are Facts

On using the world-as-thought perspective as a way to create deliberate synchronicity and therefore particular scenes:

You are an "open conscious space" in which thoughts arise. The apparent world is basically a very bright, stable, full 3D-sensory immersive strand of thought.
The world evolves by the accumulation of observations or "facts".
Every thought you have about the world is literally adding a new fact to the world.
Thoughts which randomly arise simply reveal the current state of the world.
If you deliberately think a thought, then you are deliberately adding a new fact to the world. (This is how to make changes.)
The more intense the thought, the stronger the influence of that “fact” upon your experience.
If you respond emotionally to a random thought, then you are in effect re-thinking it as a more intense thought, meaning it will contribute more. (Hence fearful thoughts tend to increase the prevalence of fear-related experiences; however this works just as well for nice-emotion thoughts.)
If you “grasp” onto a thought then you are persisting it - you are maintaining it at its present level of intensity and not letting it fade and be “forgotten”.

Things such as detachment, surrender, abandoning yourself, and so on, are all about letting the current dominant thoughts or “facts” become softer and fade, letting the world shift freely, and allowing other thoughts to shift into prominence.

...

Q: Reminds me of a line from Star Trek -
"Nothing unreal exists" - Spock
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SECu1fR0dWE]
i. e. it is not event possible to imagine a thing, event or world that is not a part of existence, however, it may be a part of a reality frame that is not accessible from this one.

He's a logical guy, that Mr Spock! And after all, possibilities are concepts in "logical space". If you can conceive of something, you can experience it in some form - because of course even just the conceiving of it is the experiencing of it in some form.

Q: So, can we change facts for other people or just fr ourselves? Is everyone living in different realities that can still interact with eachother? Or can everyone change facts for everyone else if they want to? I'm fairly new to this sub, and very intrigued.

If you adopt a new perspective on your apparent reality, you find that in effect you have a private copy of the world. Your experience is basically an ongoing immersive thought about being in that world. So you can change that apparent world however you like, and that includes your experience of other people's situations.

Your question is then inevitably: in what sense am I sharing the world with other people? And the answer is something like: it's more like sharing a "resource" than an "environment", like everyone has access to the same library of possible experiences.

Q: Thank you, hopefully I'll continue to get a better understanding reading posts here. It does get slightly confusing at times, ha.

Ha, no problem. It's actually super-simple it's just very hard to put into words!

If I were you I'd simply choose to completely accept one of the two metaphors listed in the sidebar and take it from there. (They are designed to give you an easy way to adopt this without having to worry about the details.)

Then, every day spend ten minutes lying down on the floor and "playing dead", giving up control, surrendering completely to gravity, releasing your mind and body and especially attentional focus, letting them move however they want - to get used to what detaching is like. (It feels nice to do this anyway. Nothing to achieve, no aim other than allowing things to shift about as they please. The most relaxing thing you can ever do.)

Thanks! I'll try that.

A Line Of Thought

A Line Of Thought

All possibilities, anything you can conceive of in thought, exists logical space. What dictates whether an idea becomes a dominant aspect of your world is its intensity:

We recall things into existence.

A line of thought…

The world is just a line of thought, albeit a bright and stable and immersive one.
The world has no depth.
Dissolved into the background space are all possible forms and relationships. It’s like a toy box filled with pre-made shapes and layouts, objects and containers.
To bring them into worldly existence, we merely have to recall them.
To recall them is to superimpose those patterns upon current experience. They are incorporated and “manifest” wherever context permits.
The more specific we are with our recall, the more narrowly defined the context. (For instance, we might incorporate a timeframe or location or circumstance, and manifestation would be constrained appropriately.)

Manifestation vs synchronicity…

An ’intention’ is simply the name for a pattern which we want to see incorporated into our life.
It can be non-sensory, since it can be the overall felt-sense of the pattern, without it necessarily being expanded into the sensory.
What separates an intention from recall is the introduction of a specific spatial and temporal context plus, typically, a subjective viewpoint.
This marks the difference between experiencing manifestation (including body movements, thoughts, “results”) and synchronicity (the appearance of the same patten across unrelated situations).
If you can recall (conceive of) something, you can experience it.

Sync-TV: The Owls Of Eternity™

What's On TV?

One way of thinking of your current experience is that you are a conscious being who has tuned into one of a billion different TV channels. Each TV show has been filmed from a 1st-person perspective viewpoint. You are a viewer who has forgotten that he isn't actually the character onscreen.

Doing a "jump" means to select a custom channel which fits your desires. The selection mechanism operates by using your thoughts. You imagine part of the content of the destination channel; the mechanism then autocompletes the selection!

The problem, though, is that without realising it we have our thoughts firmly fixed to the control panel at its current settings. So before a change can happen, we need to loosen that and detach from the scenes we're watching now. Only then can the channel mechanism perform the autocomplete.

This makes it clear that there is no other "you" who gets left behind when you "jump", and nor does anyone get displaced:

When you change the channel on a TV, do you leave behind another "you" still watching the previous channel? Obviously not.
When you change the channel on a TV, does the previous channel still "exist" even if nobody is watching it? Does it matter? Surely not.

Synchronicity TV

We can modify the TV metaphor and make it more subtle, to help us imagine how selection and synchronicity works. Instead of switching to another channel, we are going to modify our current channel to make the content more pleasant. By doing this, we're in effect creating or shifting it into a customised channel.

In this example, we really want to experience more owls in our life, apparently without regard to the constraints of time and space and causality.

For this, you draw a picture of an owl on your TV screen. From that point, the owl picture always there, but its visibility depends upon the rest of the imagery onscreen. When the dark scenes of the TV show switch to a bright white scene, suddenly the owl "appears" - it is "manifested".

Now we adapt this to daily life. Imagine an owl idea being dissolved "holographically" in the space around you, and replace the notion of dark/white scene with appropriate contexts. Having "drawn" the owl into the space, you go about your day.

The Owls Of Eternity™

Note that the manifestations occur from the point of thought onwards - and that the owl pattern is overlaid on all subsequent experience regardless of prior observations.

Hence, owl-related events might arise which, in the standard view, must seemingly have their origins in external events prior to your act. You may also notice, say, lots of owl-related items in your house which surely must always have been there. You may even find yourself noticing owl-related aspects when you recall events from your (apparent) past.

In fact, you may well start feeling uncertain as to whether these things always have-existed or whether they only now have-existed as a result of your act.

These owls are spatially agnostic and have no respect for temporal matters! (8>)=

Note: These examples are linked to the ideas described in A Line Of Thought and The Patterning of Experience.

...

Q: I work for a medical company and 3 years back worked a flu clinic. We went to an old folks community and one patient, probably about 80 years old came up with an owl hat (like an owl sitting on top of his head), 3 watches on his arm with an owl design on each one. He also had an owl shirt and a cane with a plush owl sticking to the side of it. I told him nice hat.
His response: "I don't give a hoot!"
I don't know if I've ever laughed that hard in my life. I know, I know, not super relevant, but had I done this exercise the night before and then had this happen to me.....my goodness, I would be quite surprised!

Oh dear!

Q: This sounds kinda like just confirmation bias to me?

As in "seeing more red cars because I've just bought a red car", for sure. If you experiment though, you find it's something more than that. I'd scale it like this:

conf. bias > coincidence > synchronicity > "manifestation" > shifting > "jumping"

They're all just varying levels of "pattern selection" or activation or overlay, of course. The exact same attentional mechanism that's always happening when we redirect ourselves, just to a greater extent. The thing to consider is, what are you selecting the pattern from?

You might be tempted to say that we select the pattern from the 3D-immersive environment around us, but actually that apparent 3D-immersive environment is the result of pattern selection.

Q: Isn't this kinda like the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon? I've just seen a few posts about it recently...

Haha, very funny! As mentioned elsewhere, if you actually do the exercise, the progression of plausible explanation scales something like this:

conf. bias > coincidence > synchronicity > "manifestation" > shifting > "jumping"

Strictly speaking, you of course can't tell the difference between noticing more of something and there being more of something, but when events arise that's a little different. And there's plenty of scope for changing the target and being more restrictive, to further prove to yourself there's more to it that that. If B-M could be described as "pattern selection from a 3D scene", then this effect is like experiencing "pattern selection from a 4D environment".

As I say, you have to actually do it. Just thinking about it, you don't learn anything other than, well, what you think will happen. It's quite good fun, the more you play with it, the more interesting the results can get.

Q: Interesting... Thanks for clarifying! I'm pretty new to all of this but it truly is fascinating.

No problem. I suggest having a go with the owls, try the Two Glasses Exercise, and see whether there's something in it that interests you. They're both low-effort and they don't require any belief. (In fact, the whole point is that nobody should believe anything; you try stuff out, draw your own conclusions.)

Q: Tried this, but I really am only seeing owls where I might normally expect them (apps, toys, Halloween stuff). Gonna try it for $20 bills though...

Yeah, I'm not sure Halloween is the best time. $20 bills sounds like a good financial strategy. Although I suppose, there's no guarantee that they are going to be your $20 bills...

Q: Interesting, but doesn't this lead to solipsism?

Not solipsism, because "you" aren't actually a person, what you are is a conscious perspective that is "before" the experience of separation. There's not "only you" because you are in effect taking on the shape of all people; it's just that your sensory experience is from a particular vantage point.

In effect we experience a private copy of the world, and so does "everyone else". The nature of the overlap between us isn't like the sharing of an "environment", it's more like the sharing of a "resource", a toy box of possible patterns and experiences.

This is difficult to describe in words, because in this view space and time are parts of experiencing - so we can't actually talk about different perspectives being located relative to each other or occurring at the same or different times, but language presupposes such "parts" and "locations".

The Hall of Records metaphor is one way to approach it. Basically, all conscious perspectives will turn out to be the same perspective in the end.

Q: If everyone is watching his own private TV channel, then the other people in your life are fictional.

So are you, though, in terms of "being a person". Going beyond the metaphor: you're not fictional, you just aren't what you thought you were.

Q: I don't like the "everything is fiction and I am actually God playing with puppet theater" approach. That's just solipsism.

Yeah, it's not really, although that metaphor obvious implies a separation, as if there's a "you" and a "theatre".

A better descriiption is to say it's more like everyone is an "imagination space" in which their experiences appear. Everyone exists 'parallel-simultaneously' in a sense, although the relationship between people can't really be described. This is because the perception of space and time is part of an experience, rather than a context in which experiences arise; you can't really talk about how different perspectives co-exist. The Infinite Grid and Hall of Records metaphors give one way to think of this.

But...

If you stop thinking of the world as a "spatially-extended place unfolding in time" and instead think of it more as a "resource" which contains all possible experiential pattens, that's closer to the mark I'd say. Right now, you are a "consciousness' which is "taking on the shape of" experiences - specifically the experience of being-a-person-in-a-world. And everyone else is too. It's just that you are not in the same place and time; rather, you are all sharing the same "toy box" of experiences.

And when we say "everyone" there, really we can't talk about it being lots of people that are living in a world; it's more like lots of parallel-simulataneous experiences that are happening.

Q: If I am everyone and no one at the same time, if this is all a theatre in an imagination space, how is this different from "we are the universe experiencing itself subjectively"?
You are not playing for any particular character, you are playing for all characters at once (this is eerily reminding me of Buddhism actually). All these parallel experiences are your experiences, you are living through every one of them. Still, this worldview is unsatisfactory to me.

How is this different from "we are the universe experiencing itself subjectively"?

It's not different at all, although we have to be careful what we are calling "we", because apparently being "you" is part of the experience. I wrote the phrase being-a-person-in-a-world in the earlier comment, but the next step is to rephrase this as "taking on the shape of":

being-a-world-from-the-perspective-of-a-person

Where "world" is in the larger sense of the concept, as something like the currently active patterns or "facts". This leaves the universe as being something like "all possible states".

All these parallel experiences are your experiences, you are living through every one of them.

For sure, but not "yours" in the sense of being a person. Rather, it is in the sense of being "that which has or takes on the shape of experiences".

Still, this worldview is unsatisfactory to me.

What aspects do you find unsatisfying or problematic?

Q:
What aspects do you find unsatisfying or problematic?
For one, it rejects anything that can be observed because it's all in the imagination space anyway. There are no really rigid basic rules that can never be broken, because it's imagination space anyway.
I don't want to live in such a universe. I want to live in my 3d space moving over time with me as an individual. Of course, my wants or beliefs play no role in anything, whichever model you pick.

For one, it rejects anything that can be observed because it's all in the imagination space anyway.

Well, I'd say that aspects of anything, as patterns, can be brought into sensory form, and that's what you are experiencing right now. Is this so different to seeing the world as made from atoms "out there" and you being trapped in a skull "in here"? This way, you have no boundary and the whole universe is "dissolved" inside you.

Even in the standard model of perception, you are not observing anything directly. If you go with the idea that there are nerve impulses being sent to your brain and within that a multi-sensory image of the world is created - you still end up with a similar result in a way. The result is that, right now, looking around this room, all of it is just mental imagery floating in your "perceptual space" - i.e. your mind.

The only difference is that we are recognising that, since we never experience anything beyond this "perceptual space", and that even our thoughts about an "external world" arise inside that same space, really there is no such thing as an outside, stable place.

Sure, we can pretend that there is one, based on how our experiences seem to have some habitual regularity to them, but the actual existence of a stable "substrate" that supports them, is fiction and faith.

There are no really rigid basic rules that can never be broken, because it's imagination space anyway.

Again, this is not so different to the standard view in a way. The "laws of physics", for instance, are not laws in the sense of being fundamental to the universe and being obeyed by all things. Scientifically speaking, a "law" is a general rule inferred by observation. We have observed certain "regularities" or habits in our experiences of the world and, combined with the concept of an objective external 3D place, we imagine that there is a stable place which unfolds consistently with those regularities.

But we are just imagining it to be the case.

In fact, the "laws of physics" have changed many time over the last 100 years, never mind the last 1,000. The "physical universe" of today is drastically different to the "physical universe" of 100 years ago...

So we're left in much the same position in the standard model, as with the "imagination room" model:

We only ever experience our own minds. Any "external world" is completely imaginary and without direct evidence.
We observe regularities in our experience. Any "laws" are completely imaginary and without direct evidence.

The benefit of actually recognising this, though, is that the direct experience of being open and unbounded and "the space in which everything arises", is actually very nice. As an idea it sounds cold and empty and lonely; as a reality it is the opposite.

Q: "As an idea it sounds cold and empty and lonely; as a reality it is the opposite."
This is exactly as I'm finding it to be - a somewhat disturbing or even frightening idea, at first, but before long you see it is your saviour, your Best Friend, your Self. The key is to work with it - work with it as if you were 5 years old again. :)

That's a nice image, actually. There's definitely a "return to childhood" aspect to it.

Q: I just want to pipe in this old thread and say I was skeptical as fuck when I decided to try this. Within a single day owls started popping up. Watching futurama? Background billboards have owls. Checking the news? Blathers (an owl) amiibo was announced. And plenty of other instances of owls, despite me almost never encountering them before. Neat. I'll have to try this again, along with the other exercises.

It's good, eh? It's a nice exercise because it doesn't require any specific intention or belief - it's pretty much dumb-mechanical - but it gets you thinking about how it is possible, and helps flatten your concept of "experiencing the world" into something more like an "imagination room".

Next up: Two Glasses Exercise

Q: Hi, I'm very interested in this concept but quick question, are we actually supposed to do anything related to an owl or just be on the lookout for them?

You don't need to do anything, don't even be on the lookout for them. They know how to take care of themselves.

Just do this:

Right now, take five minutes and spend it imagining that there is an owl in front of you in this room - but before you begin, decide-that imagining this owl means-that "my life will be filled with owls from this moment onwards".

Then carry on with your life.

Q: You put a trademark on this?! This is nothing more than telling somebody to have a positive outlook on something and it will happen, but with a TV metaphor.

Um, the trademark is of course comedic™. Although the exercise does not happen in the way you are suggesting.

Q: So retuning the channel, or editing the content is like shifting into 'a parallel world'. Wow! Like switching onto pre-existing train-tracks, roads, or paths, that don't really 'exist' unless we use them (incarnate into them)...I mean, a road isn't really a road unless cars drive down it right? ... This idea of the past rearranging itself is fascinating to me. I think the past does rearrange itself.... I get synchronicities all the time. A lot of the synchronicities I notice though pretty much every day, are my spoken words matching up with an emphasized word on TV, or said in a public space for example (along those lines of circumstance) and I point it out to people. This might be something different though... I assume that our 3D reality is manifested following some 'etheric' programming that takes place at a level of reality above ours. And at that 'above level', things are nonlinear, so what might seem straightforward and connected in a very logical way at a higher density, or nonphysical level of reality, might manifest in our world in a very 'coincidental' way - synchronistic. I like these ideas of programming our reality with thought, manifestation, and intent. It is empowering. Reality is very subjective, we all write our own lives.

So, it's like changing state - having a different set of patterns become more prominent. There are lots of different metaphors that can be used, but things like "TV channels" give you the feeling that there are states or patterns which are latent, they are just not currently "happening" until you trigger them into experience.

Synchronicities are an interesting side of it, definitely. It's very much a potential example of the "patterning" of experience - i.e. that both sensory experience and thoughts arise in the same perceptual space, and the same forms appear in both. If you see senses and thought as separate, this seems incredibly mysterious (how can the "outside world" know that I was thinking that?) but seeing the two as arisings within the same mental space makes it more palatable, and is a better starting point for contemplation and theorising.

I'd be wary of thinking of things as literally being levels (although it's a handy way to visualise things); I tend to think it better to try to connect everything to direct experience in some way. So for instance, you might play with the view that all potential experiences ("3D frames" of experience) are always present, always in the background, and it's just that some are much "brighter" than the others, and so dominate experience. A bit like how the daytime sky is dominated by the sun, but actually the stars are still there.

The only way to really investigate experience is, of course, to experiment with it, and see what happens. So long as we treat all experiences as just experiences, and don't get too caught up in the patterns we create (no "messages from God" or "signs we live in a computer simulation"), then this can only be beneficial, I'd say.

Q: Hi! So I tried both the owl and two glass exercise. You say that after you do the exercises you should move on with your life and think about the exercises as little as possible. I'm finding this hard to do because I have also been trying to cultivate my awareness for lucid dreaming (reality checks, questioning if I'm awake, trying to pay attention to details) so I find that my mind is trained to try to remember the details of my day (and dream content) and play them over. This makes it hard to let go and not think about owls or the glass exercise. Anyone else have this issue? Any suggestions on not overthinking?

You don't have to prevent thoughts about them - passing thoughts are inevitable, and that's totally fine. That's different from replaying things deliberately and tinkering with them.

If you think of every deliberate thought as being a direct interaction with the world, then you can see where this comes from: A passing thought is simply revealing the state of you-and-world as it is; let them pass and they will fade. A deliberate thought, meanwhile, increases the intensity and therefore the contribution of that pattern; choose them wisely.

The pouring of that water is the changing of the situational pattern. Literally. Your work is done, so there is no need to revisit it. The summoning of the owl is the intensification of the owl pattern; no need to do more.

Main points -

Let passing thoughts pass without intensifiying them.
If you are actively thinking, then treat those thoughts as a direct intensification of those thought's patterns and therefore their contribution to your experience.
In general, if you are thinking actively, you should always be thinking from the end-state that you desire - not the start state or the process. Again, a thought=a literal increasing of the contribution of that pattern/state.

Q: Great thank you, that is very helpful!!

Welcome! There are all these "rules" that people have come up with over the years in systems like LOA, without giving the reasoning (or perhaps without even having a reason), so it's good to try and clarify.

The key is to remember that this is a "dumb" process. You are simply turning up the dial on some possible experiences while letting other ones fade out - either directly (the owls exercise) or indirectly (the glasses exercise). There is no intelligence at work other than you and your intention. Be sure to report your results, here or in the other post as appropriate.

Q: I wonder how this would work with something that you can't give a specific image, because it's not an object or you just do not know how it looks like until you see it / found it. Can be also a person you didn't met yet. Any suggestions?

I'd say, you summon the feeling that would be associated with it. Just as picturing an owl triggers all experiences associated with an owl image, so summoning a feeling triggers all experiences associated with that. (That's why some people advocate just generating a feeling linked with non-specific phrases like "oh, it's amazing!" and "life is so wonderful!")

The fact that you even have an idea of something you want, means you already have some sort of sensory fragment. So imagine what it would be like if that fragment were being experienced right now - rather than the seeing of the thing or whatever.

Q: That sounds very plausible. It might be still difficult I guess, because I look for something I didn't experienced yet. I don't know what it would be like if that fragment were being experienced right know. All I have are assumptions. This makes it harder to recognize situations containing that fragment. I will try it anyway. Thank you!

I'd just intensify the fragment. That alone will also intensify the contribution of its extended pattern to your experience. Another trick: imagine that the air around you were being filled with the "atmosphere" of that fragment, its "essence". Feel that atmosphere become stronger and more prominent. Live with that as you go about your day.

Reality-shifting Retrospective

The post below is excerpted from page 15 of the stories section over at Realityshifters.com. I came across it again recently and figured others might find it interesting. It's not strictly dimensional jumping, but it covers the imagination -> reality thing very well from one person's view.

It was one of the first "hmm" stories I came across, after reading an old book on visualization which had also covered the "car parking space" thing mentioned, and it triggered the whole idea of an "ongoing updatable now". Enjoy.

Three Shifts

Nugo, El Dorado Hills, California

These are three shifts that took place just days apart.

We live next door to a park and we were going to go play base ball with the kids and dog. My husband goes to the bucket to look for the MIT, bat and ball, and ... No bat, my son looked-No bat. I looked-No bat. I walked away and thought to my self "reality shift" and said aloud to myself I can shift this, the bat is there. I told my son to look again. There was the bat under a toy that we had all looked under.
I was wiping off the counter in the kitchen and there was a bottle of soda on the counter with no lid on it. Looked around for the lid and figured it will show up. Well, it did! Right on top of the soda. My son who was standing next to me said, "That wasn't there before." It was fun to have someone else witness it too.
Change of season for the clothing and I was looking for this sleeveless top in the closet. Went through each hanger 3 times, dug through all the drawers no shirt. I knew this shirt was there and I really wanted to wear it. I just stopped and laughed pushed back a hanger that I had pushed many times and ah ha! It was there!

About Shifting

I could go on and on about shifts in my life and I subtly knew about them but kind of dismissed them as oh well. All I have to do is Ask, "Parking space in the front please" and wait usually no more than 30 seconds and one always appears. I have been doing this for years unconsciously but now it is a conscious thing. You call it reality shifting but I call it manifesting. Everything we need is there for our asking. Once we understand that this is truly an illusion and it is ours to manipulate and direct through our thoughts many shifts can take place.

This is why the power of imagination is so important and my big soap box is that our children are lacking time to create - i.e. taking all art out of the ciriculum. We are creators and it is through the mind-our creativity that we can manifest our reality. If I was of the conspiracy theory mindset one would think creativity has been slowly squeezed out of our lives because it prevents us from manifesting our given right to all information, all things and allows for others who understand this consciously and unconsciously to control.

If we can think of it, it exists! If we can think of it, it exists. Once we realize this potential - or not even potential, this truth - that we have total control over our destiny, then, and only then can we make choices/shifts in how we live. Yikes! Frankly, that is a lot to ask for of most people. People like the idea that someone, something else controls their destiny.

How I Manifest/Shift

It is created with a thought. A very focused clean and clear thought. Then a visual image is formed in the mind clean and clear, then the request is made to the great cosmic goo where all matter is derived, it is brought down through the various frequencies, transformed through the power of the spoken word, and then the knowing, knowing that it is true. A key point is to know that it is true-already. Gratitude is always good, then just look to find it. Give thanks when it does appear. Your mother taught you that please and thank you are always good - it applies here too.

Very simple yes, but the knowing part is for some reason is the hardest part to accept. Ninety-nine percent of the time I can request a parking space and get it at once. Ego says, "That was just luck." Reality says, "Just ask and you shall receive, it is all there waiting for you." There is no difference between a bottle cap, parking space, or baseball bat, or 10 million dollars.

It all comes down to whether or not we know that this is what we truly want, and if we are ready to receive it into our lives. A bottle cap has a lot less impact upon our lives than millions of dollars -- but they are all the same energetically. They all originate in a thought and isn't that what everything is?

...

Q: I've often wondered exactly how different manifesting and shifting to another diminsion really differ.

Different metaphors for the same thing really: Changing your experience in a way that's beyond your usual. I suppose the different terms suggest different levels of change, how "reality-breaking" they are.

"Manifesting" tends to imply smaller changes apparently coming through normal channels. They can be "plausibly explained" but are just a bit unlikely.

"Shifting" suggests larger changes that you can't really explain away, because they are very hard to explain based on your knowledge of how things were.

Say you lose your wallet somewhere while out shopping (not a great example but let's go with it):

Manifesting="a series of coincidences means someone finds it and you get your wallet back". So lucky!
Shifting="your wallet materialises on the table, and everyone denies you ever lost it in the first place"

Q: very interesting, thanks for sharing
I tried this yesterday with a few things, but I have trouble at the point when it comes to "knowing that it's true already". I wanted to do the thought experiment, where you just turn off all your sensoric experience to get aware of what you really are, I simply cant get to the point where I dont feel my limbs anymore or dont hear anything.

On the thought experiment, you are just imagining what it would be like; that's enough to give you the understanding.

On knowing it's true - try and view your experience as being a thought about a world. Just a very intense one. If you can think of something, it therefore exists, because reality is just a "bright and stable thought". Shifting is then just about letting the current dominant thought fade (detachment and allowing), and having a replacement take root in its place.

Your experience right now is a thought and only exists as a thought; thinking of something means that the something must already exist and that it could become the dominant experience.

Q:Thank you, I appreciate the effort you take to answer all these questions you get asked every day.
And another Question, if you don't mind, I'm pretty curious :D
"thinking of something means that the something must already exist"
So really everything? An abstract example: If I can think of a T-Rex, does it mean I could really see a T-Rex outside? Sounds a bit stupid, I know.
And another thing I'm curious about, I read yesterday in this forum that we only see other persons as we determine them to be, but what is about people that want to hurt us / kill us, I mean it seems that it doesn't matter since we can't really die (according to some posts I read) but why would I allow this?
edit: haha when I talk to you I have to be careful about time :D Of course I mean 'yesterday' and 'everyday'

I appreciate the effort you take to answer all these questions you get asked.

Well, the gift that is mobile computing coupled with a love of metaphor mangling means it's not a problem. :-) And it's interesting to try and bring together all the old knowledge into a way anyone can understand, hopefully.

I don't have all the answers of course, and everyone has to prove things to themselves, but I'm always up for sharing my thinking-so-far.

EDIT: Just added headings to make this a bit of a clearer read.

T-Rex Life Invasion

So really everything? An abstract example: If I can think of a T-Rex, does it mean I could really see a T-Rex outside? Sounds a bit stupid, I know.

Really anything...

So if you view everything as a "pattern" or a thought, then the fact that you experience it at all (as a dim sensory image when you contemplate it) means that it truly exists to the same extent as anything else does. There is nothing "behind" your present experience it; it is only a bright sensory thought. Therefore absolutely anything could happen.

But, you have over time accumulated certain habitual patterns - formatting contexts such as apparent space and time; things you have ingrained which you might call facts-of-the-world. This is a good thing, because an unstructured world is no world at all. However, this dictates how much you have to detach in order to have a shift.

For instance, most people don't really want "discontinuities" - i.e. things appearing from nowhere - so what tends to happen is that they appear in a way that is "plausible", albeit massively coincidental. Perhaps they really want a particular object, but rather than it just materialising, it'll be in a place that they maybe didn't quite look hard enough, that there's some vagueness about, or a friend coincidentally calls that evening offering a spare one.

You can usually feel your own resistance to stuff. Okay, imagine for a moment a T-Rex appears outside the window. What does that mean for your world? What are the implications? I bet you don't really want them.

But results are always guaranteed: If you intend a T-Rex with commitment, then you will find T-Rexes fill your life, in terms of art and television and overheard conversations and dreams and all sorts of oblique ways too, like news of a fossil discovery...

Which is where the whole idea of experimenting with creating synchronicity and The Owls Of Eternity came from, to demonstrate to ourselves that it is automatic, almost mechanical, and can be very direct...

Direct Avian Incorporation

Random not-great example of directness. Over the weekend I was listening to an ASC podcast about the making of Twin Peaks, slightly daydreaming, and there's a whole conversation about the red room scene and how they created the bird shadow within the spotlight. As the host says "bird" I have an image in my mind which clears and there's a bird outside the window exactly in the centre of my field of vision. Not a great example but what I'm trying to convey is the nature of the experience, that when you're detached your thoughts can get directly incorporated into the thought-image of the moment. (Similar to this story. "Found object" stories in general have an element of this.)

You are truly not experiencing a spatially-extended world; there is nothing "happening" except for this current "sensory fact".

Aspects of Extended Persons

I read yesterday in this forum that we only see other persons as we determine them to be.

We have to be careful with the wording here - we are usually not explicitly specifying other people's traits, they are following "logically" from the pattern of our world we've accumulated to date.

When we shift an element of the world, the world stays self-consistent. If you make the world a friendlier place (say), people's personalities will shift to being nicer, but it'll be the "nice aspect of that person". Other times, people might disappear from your life because they don't have the aspect which corresponds to your intention, without them changing so discontinuously that it's beyond what you find acceptable.

The Evil Persons of Doom

But what is about people that want to hurt us / kill us, I mean it seems that it doesn't matter since we can't really die (according to some posts I read) but why would I allow this?

The main answer is: your world is stupid. By which I mean, it's just a collection of imagery and it doesn't know what images are "good" or "bad". In Biblical parable terms, the world is "unjust", meaning that it doesn't pass judgement upon your requests, it is actually an automatic and mechanical process.

So if you have a view that the world is a dangerous place, then that pattern is overlaid onto the world and you will have experiences which correspond to (arise from) that pattern. Or bad people might come from the logical implications of another intention, etc.

So you see it's not about "allowing". Like in the bird example, it's simply a case of what you are thinking being superimposed and incorporated into your experience, one pattern on top of another, to make a composite pattern which then unfolds self-consistently.

It doesn't matter since we can't really die.

The "conscious aware space" that we are is eternal, although all experiences rise and fall. So every moment is a death, in a way, it's just that we can't imagine the next-moment that might follow the last-moment of this body-pattern. Although we do dream every night, so we should have some clue.

On the whole, I'm still kinda for apparently living a long life in this TG format, I must say. :-)

EDIT: Haha, yeah, well there's no way to get around that time talk nonsense, so I'm giving myself and "every-one" else a pass on that. :-)

Q: Thanks, I think I really understood almost every bit of it :)
As a 13year old, one day I watched the whole day TV and really everything, from 10am to 12pm had the same topic (I cant remember exactly but I just will take the owls)
News: Owls, The Simpsons: Owls, Science Magazine: Owls +more shows
I really thought this can't be coincidence but had really no other explanation than this, so I had to stick with it.
quoted text "Other times, people might disappear from your life because they don't have the aspect which corresponds to your intention, without them changing so discontinuously that it's beyond what you find acceptable."
But they won't disappear like "poof" from my memory or? For example they would say "Hey I got this new Job in New York I have to move away from germany" and disappear like this.
So I can only make objects, for example, appear when it's logical (win the lottery and get a car), but can't say I want a car to "spawn" over there?
But it would make sense that there is no good or bad, since this is all imagination of one person.
I hope my writing skills and formatting don't give you eye cancer, as you can extract from the text, I'm from Germany

But they [people and objects] won't disappear like "poof" from my memory or? For example they would say "Hey I got this new Job in New York I have to move away from germany" and disappear like this.

Yes, there would tend to be a plausible story happening. Not because there has to be, but because implicitly that's how you're continuing to pattern the world. The more detached you are, the more rapidly these things happen - e.g. next day someone calls up and they're leaving in three hours. It works the other way too: a friend you haven't seen in five years emails two hours after, with a great offer.

So I can only make objects, for example, appear when it's logical (win the lottery and get a car), but can't say I want a car to "spawn" over there?

But remember that it's your logic that counts. If you come to truly accept (both in terms of possibility and in terms of allowing) that objects can appear and disappear, then it will become "logical" that this can happen too.

Do you think you can control the clouds just by deciding to? After all, the clouds are simply in your mind so there's nothing stopping you! If you don't really think you can though, then that means you are thinking you can't - and that thought will be true, in your logical worldview. (If that makes sense.)

There's also the thing that your world might shift right now to a different state and you will have no memory of it. Suddenly your green car is red, but there is no trace of it in the world of it ever having been green. If the entire state shifts including personal memory then it's just "always been that way".

But that's not worth worrying about (except that you should always have in mind the idea that you want to remember everything that happens).

I hope my writing skills and formatting don't give you eye cancer, as you can extract from the text, I'm from Germany

Nein, alles gut, es gibt hier keinen Krebs - alles klar! ;-)
(Please excuse my bad attempt at German!)

...

An exercise to try:

The Act is The Fact - Part One: An Exercise

NOTE: I strongly recommend you don't bother thinking about this too much. Just go and do it. It works. Any ideas you might have about it are useless to you. Come back and read and contribute to the comments after you have done the exercise.

EDIT: Made a minor change to the instructions to clear up a potential ambiguity, 21-Sep-2015.

Although we often tend to view "dimensional jumping" or "reality shifting" as a specific event involving a particular act, in fact it is just a special case of a larger truth about the nature of experience.

In everyday life we are usually oblivious to all of this, due to inattention, or deliberately ignore it, because its implications can make us uncomfortable. However, it is to our advantage to embrace this knowledge and there are simple ways we can leverage it for easy change.

There is more to be said on that, and I'll follow this up with another post in future, but for now I'd like to encourage everyone to perform a very simple practical exercise.

Instructions: Two Glasses Exercise

Here are the instructions, which you should follow exactly:

Choose a specific situation that you want to change, but one that you don't necessarily have much influence over.
Decide clearly what the current situation is, and what the desired replacement situation is.
Get two glasses.
Get two bits of paper or labels.
Fill one of the glasses with water.
On the first label, write a word that summarises the current situation, and stick it to the filled glass.
On the second label, write a word that summarises the desired situation, and stick it to the empty glass.
With the two glasses in front of you, pause for a moment, and contemplate how your life is currently filled with the first situation, and empty of the desired situation.
Then, when you're ready, pour the water from the first glass (the current situation) into the second glass (the desired situation), while really noticing the sounds and feeling and shifting of the water from one to the other.
Sit back and see the glasses in their new state; allow yourself to take deep breath and feel relieved.
Drink the water and enjoy the satisfaction of having made the desired change.
Take off the labels, put away the glasses, carry on with your life.

One thing I'd like to emphasise is that you will get results here, so if you do decide to perform this exercise:

Please take this seriously and only choose a replacement situation that you will be happy to live with.

...

Q: I've always been able to make myself sick (think going home from elementary school) .. I could convince myself that I had a fever even though I was fine and then the thermometer in the nurse's office would read a temperature. I have always felt like I had some control of my world, but I never went beyond making myself sick. (What a great use of my energy!!!) So, I've been suffering from some terrible fibromyalgia like pain for about a year. My assumption has been that it's stress related since I'm fairly healthy and have a clean bill of health besides being slightly overweight. I'm also a first grade teacher and being in constant, exhausting pain is not exactly conducive to the work environment. So, I decided I would try this experiment about two weeks ago. On one glass, I wrote "pain" and the other I wrote "health". I tried to be very careful with my wording. I set my intention, did a few cleansing breaths, and poured the water. Then I moved on with my day. As of today, I have had no serious back pain since that day, and only slight tingling/aching after bending or crouching for too long at work. No feet that feel like stepping on glass. Love pats from my son don't feel like he's punching a bruise. I told my partner that even if it does come back over time, at least I had some relief!! I'm VERY satisfied with my results so far.

Hey, that's brilliant news! Really pleased to hear it! And, of course, I'm slightly amused that you spent your childhood using your "infinite powers" to make yourself sick. Kid logic eh? ;-)

Q: This is Wiccan spell casting 101.

For sure - or rather, it has common elements, without the unnecessary (or rather: optional) cultural baggage. It is simply meant to provide a useful experience for those who would not otherwise encounter it. (And it's a bridge to a more generalised version.)

Q: It's all quantum consciousness and fractal spacetime in the end :) whatever method works is what works!

Spacetime?? A mere fairytale! Those darned "quantums" do seem to get everywhere these days though. ;-)

Q: as above, so below

Hmm, I kinda think that phrase is a block to understanding for a lot of people, just because it immediately causes them to think in terms of a spatial relationship (even if it is a metaphorical one), which separates out two aspects which are not separate. But then, that's probably to take it too seriously anyway.

Q: A theory of everything has to include everything. ;)

And that includes the theory itself! :-)

Q: So this is what wicccans do to cast spells?

Well, they use the idea of associating objects with things within a ritual.

Q: Okay well the reason I'm asking is because I am a Christian believer but I still like to consider and ponder the thought and possibility of multiple dimensions and I personally don't believe that the two have to be mutually exclusive however, being a person of a particular faith I don't want to be practicing spell casting so that's why I was asking.

I see. No indeed, they don't have to be mutually exclusive at all. In fact I'd say the essence of the Christian faith is perfectly aligned with this (although we're talking New Testament God rather than Old Testament). I'd suggest that the "mechanism" behind this, such as it is, is precisely the same as that which underlies traditional prayer. In other words, it is "with God" rather than a manipulation of the world in opposition to God.

Q: Hey, tried this two days ago. From all my attempts so far this exercise was the only one with results. Its not the exact solution to the unwanted situation I had in mind when I did the experiment though (it would be a huge jump, like change past events), but its a small, positive development, and it could lead to my desired situation. Nothing is yet guaranteed though, I'll have to wait a few weeks. I did it just as you described, I didn't meditate on this or thought too much about it, just decided the outcome, emptied the glasses, threw the labels in the trash and forgot about it for a couple hours. Later that day I received some good news about my problem. Should I keep doing it or once is enough?

That's good news! Once is enough, because the change has now made. It's like changing the TV to a channel that will be showing your favourite show. Once you've switched channel, you don't have to keep switching channel - it's done. Now you just have to carry on pottering about until the show comes on.

Q: Interestingly, the ideas you propose here are consistent with the writings of physicist Max Tegmark, which you perhaps may already know. However, he does not go so far as to suggest that it is a phenomenon that can be tested and/or manipulated. I.e. he proposes that the basic substance of our universe is a sort of mathematical object, but stops there and does not make the final step to equating that object with the Akashic Record.

Yes, I've read some of Tegmark's work with interest (and he's an entertaining guy).

EDIT: It's been a while, so apologies if I'm misrepresenting his approach.

From memory, where I'd differ is that he still views the universe as a "thing" and that it is "made from" structures which have an independent existence, and his treatment of consciousness as a state within that. There we, once again, take the information processing metaphor as "real" and independent, and place consciousness within that. The universe still seems to be a "place" rather than a idea or pattern which formats experience.

Tom Campbell takes a similar approach, although he does suggest that intention can select outcomes; it's just that he binds himself with the concepts of probabilities and rulesets, as if they are independent system properties "out there", and implies intelligence in that beyond ours.

In our approach, we recognise that all narratives are abstract and arbitrary; they are experiences like any other. There is no fundamental structuring at all - except what we adopt as consciousness. We are intelligent, patterns are "dumb".

And that's why we can test and manipulate it - we've got it the right way around. Recognising ourselves as unstructured consciousness which has "taken on the shape of" particular patterns, we are free to "shape-shift" in order to change state and select the form of subsequent experiences.

The problem is that this requires some faith of a sort:

You have to actually do a "shift" in order to experience a state change and thereby prove to yourself that patterns are arbitrary. If you try to work this out intellectually from your current view, or investigate without actually intending results, you'll just continue to have experiences from your current state - confirming your current state.

That's why there's the Two Glasses Exercise above and the Owls Of Eternity synchronicity exercise. Easy stuff that hopefully gives people the experience. Then they can play with reformatting themselves with whatever "active metaphor" they're attracted to (Hall of Records, Infinite Grid, Imagination Room, etc).

I think if Tegmark (or we) reinterpreted his description as "experiential formatting" then it could be quite a powerful enabling metaphor.

Coincidentally, there was a programme featuring Max Tegmark about "the multiverse" last night. It wasn't very good at all, but I'd say Max came over best out of the four scientists featured.

Q: Interesting, I'll have to watch.
What I like about Tegmark is that his work on the multiverse points to something about consciousness and reality that lies beyond the common material assumptions that most people hold. Probably beyond those that most physicists hold (can't say for sure ... I studied advanced physics in college, but I eventually moved on to biology/medicine). But his approach is still very material, and seems to miss the obvious follow-up question: what is the substrate for the (presumably eternal) mathematical object that houses our multiverse?
On the subject of scientists and consciousness, I recently read an interview with neuroscientist Sam Harris on the "illusion of self". He takes a very Buddhist perspective on the absence of self. Of course there isn't a self in the way we commonly think, but he goes too far, and when questioned about inconsistencies in his assertions, he waives his hands and fails to deliver answers. This sub has an interesting approach to the problem. I'm still conducting my own personal experiments based on the recommendations here. I will report back when I reach conclusions. Thanks for the mind food!

But his approach is still very material, and seems to miss the obvious follow-up question...

Yes, that's the thing. Tegmark essentially gets to the "patterning" approach, but then insists that those patterns are somehow "external" (the problem with all simulation and information models). If he just made the step to saying that these patterns are modulations of consciousness, that there is no "underlying", he'd be pretty much there. I can understand why he'd be reluctant to do so though. (He's also bound by viewing the world as a "place" I think.)

Other physicists such as David Bohm have gone there - as did many of the early 20th century physicists. But at some point there's risen the tendency to confuse our abstractions as being objects rather than narratives. (See Mermin.)

Sam Harris is okay as an engaging speaker, but he doesn't really get to the bottom of it. His conception of self is of "this person" but he doesn't follow it through and arrive at the context of experience. I think he confuses "consciousness", "consciousness-of" and "self-consciousness" - which is why "awareness" is a better word perhaps for the "non-material material whose only property is being-aware". He then ends up in a corner when it comes to things like free will.

We have to remember that this crosses over deeply into philosophy, and neuroscientists tend not to be that well-versed, and even with the physicists there seems to be a trend towards ignorance of the fact that all models have an implied philosophy whether recognised or not. (See George Ellis for comment here.)

A better bet in my view is cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman's take (see TED talk), with interface theory and conscious realism. It still implies an "external environment" of some sort which I disagree with, but the rest of the picture is interesting. (If you get rid of space, there can only be internal environments - or actually, "dissolved" environments.)

Yeah, it is the ultimate mind food... with mind as its ingredients!

Q: Hello guys! This is my first post on the sub and also my first ever comment on reddit! I'm really skeptical of these types of things even though I research them and hope that they are true. Could this method work for any change? Any significant change? I'm transgendered. I haven't done anything at all yet for transition. Could I use this method to switch to a dimension were I am actually a woman?

Potentially any change, although this method is going to generally produce results by "plausible if very unlikely" means. In other words, that's a pretty big discontinuous change for this zero-prep approach! Although you'll tend to get results of "some sort" anyway even for "impossible" things.

Q: I did the Two Glasses Exercise today. My wife has been quite sad (hormonal), on and off for over a year now since our second child was born. It's tearing me apart and it's difficult to get her to get help. I've witnessed the worst part of SSRIs and often it's trading one problem for another, so I'm opting to silently set some intentions. Wish me luck. I'll check back soon once I determine if it worked.

Hey, my thoughts are with you on this one. Friends went through something similar and it was very distressing (all good now though). Consider "luck wished".

Q: It's working!

But of course! Once it's complete, do post your results (you don't have to go into specifics if it's private, just the general idea of what you chose and how it happened for you).

Once there are a few in, I'll write up the second part of the post.

Q: Question -- can you change a past event with this method? I truly believe that all events, possibilities, experiences to infinity are concurrently happening. There is a singularity where everything comes from ... everything that could/has/will happen on every level macro to micro is all going on at the same time. We (or I) seem to choose one "time stream" to exist in. It would make sense that I could "jump" to a dimension where a past event never happened and my reality changes to reflect that.

Well, the above method is intended to be a demo that gives "plausible if very unlikely" results, although people have used it for rule-breaking outcomes. Give it a go. Meanwhile, if you check out the introduction post, there's a link to Neville Goddard and his "pruning shears of revision" in the edits that's worth your while.

In terms of your model, I'd throw away the notion that everything is happening at the same time and that there are time streams and so on. Throw away the idea of an unfolding world, and instead go for something quite static. Perhaps go with something like:

Every possible "moment" of experience is present in your perception right now, like an infinite stack of photographs of the world, all being displayed simultaneously.
However, they are of different intensities.
The intensity of a "moment" dictates its contribution to your experience.
The "moment" you are experiencing now is the "brightest" in the stack.
The "moments" you have previously experienced are still quite bright and shape your ongoing experience.
To change the so-called past is really to reduce the brightness of a particular moment, now, so that it is contributing less to your ongoing experience.

So, a stack of photographs (or more generally: patterns or facts), each contributing to your experience, change the relative intensity to change your apparent world.

Q: Just did the 2 glasses experiment. I have a lot of anxiety so labeled my first glass and current situation as "anxious" and the desired outcome "less anxious". I will check back if I notice changes. A question though, is there a limit to how many times you can do this exercise on the same situation perhaps altering it slightly? How many times can you do this exercise for different situations in your life? Thanks!

You should do it once for a situation, and then let it settle out. If you keep doing it repeatedly for the same situation, you are just constantly changing state. Remember: the change happens at the moment you do the exercise; it's just that the you don't necessarily encounter the evidence until later. In other words, future events are set in place when you do the exercise.

There's no limit to how many times you apply the exercise for different situations - but you should perhaps leave a gap between each use, because things might get a bit unstable if you do it a lot, without letting things settle a bit after each time.

Q: Deleted

Well, when you want a change, then something else has to change too, and there will always be some collateral shifting to keep the world coherent and "plausible". And that's a good thing.

Generally, if you're feeling superstitious like that, just have the additional background intention that things should work out the best for everyone. But your real problem is that you are full of "whatiffery". But what if this or that. Well, what if something really great happens?

When it comes to this stuff, you shouldn't be planning or second-guessing at all. You simply do the exercise, then consider it done at that moment and carry on with your life - the results will come to you.

Really, you should start treating all your thoughts as direct interactions with the world. Don't spend time deliberately thinking anything that you don't actually want. Passing thoughts are fine; they're just fleeting ripples. But to intentionally think stuff you don't want, would be... an error.

Y'know, all of the religions and magickal traditions have some concept of "faith" or "surrender" - this is what they mean. You have to simply trust that, although you can't see beyond the horizon of the present moment, that your intentions have already been incorporated and will come to you when the appropriate context arises. Trust it. (There's really no other solution.)

Q: Deleted

For sure, but - you should be careful what you wish for, and choose carefully. "Diligent" (conscientious, attentive, productive when required) definitely sounds like a better idea than "hardworking" (swamped by obligations?). Be mindful of the village girl, in terms of being specific.

Q:
instructions, which you should follow exactly
I've a problem...
I sense negativity in the first glass, the unwanted situation. So, to my mind, pouring that tainted water into the second glass would be like contaminating the desired situation.
What can I do?

If the water is consciousness, then it is inherently pure and can never be tainted in a fundamental way.

However, if you feel that the water as you think of it might retain a "memory" of the previous situation, it makes sense to go through a process which involves purification or filtering.

There are many different ways you might do this, so choose the one that feels right to you:

Get a sieve or a strainer. Simply recognise that this has the property of removing residual situational elements. When you pour the water into the second glass, do so through the strainer.
Or; Pour the water from the first glass into an empty kettle. Boil the water to cleanse it, before pouring it into the second glass.
Or; Pour the water into the new situation glass as described. Now, put a water purification tablet into the glass. This will cleanse the water of any residual effects of the previous situation.

Q: The "water is consciousness" clarification did the trick and aligned my mind with the correct meaning of the metaphor. Now the negativity seems somewhat confined to the solid part of the glass (a dented glass, for example, is bad but cannot stain the water)
Thanks!
I'll keep you posted on the results.

Great!

You could perhaps treat the glasses as mere clumsy physicalities of the ideals they represent. In other words, dents and so on do not matter, because it is the "container" or "location" property of the glass that is active here, not any other properties.

Q: What if the water is already purified? Is the cleansing process more of a symbolic thing? Thanks

Really, you don't need to do this. It was just to allay someone's fears. Just sticking to the main instructions is all you need.

[COMMENT BY petrus4]

I sense negativity in the first glass, the unwanted situation. So, to my mind, pouring that tainted water into the second glass would be like contaminating the desired situation. What can I do?

I truthfully don't consider there to be anything wrong with acknowledging the fact that we are currently in an undesirable state. I've been downloading Neville Goddard a lot recently, and he might disagree, but hear me out on this.

As a real world example, I have a cold right now. I am using the present tense; I HAVE a cold right now. I don't want a cold, but I have it, and I am not yet good enough at what Neville teaches to get rid of it in five minutes' flat. So instead what I am doing, is the only practical thing that I can do right now. I drank lots of vegetable juice and took a herbal remedy yesterday that I have found in the past to be effective, and I am drinking lots of water, and sleeping when I need to, etc.

I'm also, however (and here is the important part, from an LOA/Goddard/dimensional jumping point of view) releasing as much emotional resistance to the current fact that I have a cold, as possible. I am not emotionally attached to the fact that I have a cold. As a result, my condition over the past 24 hours has improved fairly dramatically. Yes, I still have a few of the symptoms of a cold, and might do for another day or so yet, but I'm not allowing myself to care; because caring about a given state is the main thing that keeps me attached to it. The cold will go. Not instantly, perhaps; but with time.

I also used this both last night and earlier this evening, and it worked fairly quickly both times. I live in a place that has chickens and three roosters, and last night they crowed for a good portion of the night and kicked up a real ruckus. Given that I was unwell at the time, cold, and needed sleep, that did not please me at all. So while feeling fairly intense irritation towards the roosters, I practiced my usual method of first mentally seeing a doorframe through which I could hear silence and no roosters crowing, and walked through it.

Absolutely nothing happened. I tried it probably 3-4 times, and the roosters just kept on crowing. So I stopped, and took a different approach. I forced myself to release all of the emotional resistance I had towards the roosters crowing. I told myself that the roosters could crow all night if they wanted to, and I wouldn't care a bit; I'd put the fan on to drown them out and just sleep right through it. The roosters stopped crowing less than five minutes later, and I went to sleep.

Flash forward to this evening. Given that I'm in a hostel, the main building has very thin plaster walls, and thus noise from one room, penetrates to all of the other rooms. Although I later got up again, at the time I was once again trying to get to sleep, and there were noisy children in an adjacent room. Again, same situation; I was sick, cold, wanted to get to sleep, and became annoyed with the children. This time, however, I remembered the result with the roosters, and simply went straight to the detachment phase. It worked like a charm. The kids were a bit persistent at first, but they still noticeably quietened down in about a minute. After about another five minutes, they were silent.

This is where the guys over in /r/Buddhism are missing the point. Nibbana is not about you ceasing to exist; it's about your attachment to your current situation ceasing to exist. The secret, in the most literal possible sense, is learning not to give a fuck. As Patanjali wrote several thousand years ago, when you are indifferent to Nature, she becomes your slave.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0ZAOFC9f84

"Now we will tell you that thought creates form, and with emotion you vibrate it into being." -- Wendy Kennedy, in the above movie, channelling the Plaeidians.

So don't deny your current situation. Denial is resistance, and resistance is emotion directed towards the undesired state. What you get is what you feel emotion towards.

What you do need:-

Tenacity.

I am going to use the word tenacity where Neville Goddard uses the word faith. I truthfully do not like faith as a word terribly much, because to me it is fuzzy. You want something with a practical operating definition, where you can actually feel the word's definition when you say it or think it to yourself. Determination or tenacity is one such word. Grit your teeth and set your jaw.

Now, this is also very, very tricky. You do not want tenacity specifically towards your desired outcome, because that will again announce to the system that a} you aren't in the situation you want, and b} that you care about that. That will screw you up. What you instead want is tenacity about the idea that you are going to get what you want, but you very deliberately leave out any specific details about "what you want," means. I'm not attached to the roosters crowing, or any other specific outcome. I'm only attached to the idea that I have what I want. No specifics.

To go back to the earlier example, I genuinely didn't care about whether or not the roosters stopped crowing. I made the decision that I was going to sleep no matter what, and the roosters could do what they liked. This level of generality also gives the system room to give you what you really want, not just what you might superficially think you want.

Another example. I am not currently as good at this, as Neville Goddard himself was. I'm just starting out. That is completely fine. I can admit that and not get my nappy in a twist about it at all. I also already know from direct experience, however, that Neville's tech (to borrow a Scientology term) works. So from that, I also know that I am going to end up just as good at this as he was himself. It's a done deal. It's just a matter of time. Resistance is futile. Neville mentions that there is often a time lag for things. Don't get hung up on that.

The ability to turn your emotions on and off on command.

You do not want to get rid of your emotions entirely. Emotional attachment is the fuel which keeps you inside the entire karmic system. If you want liberation, then sure, scrub your emotions completely. Total lack of desire or attachment is what will derail the karmic train, and let you out. I don't necessarily want to get out just yet; I'd prefer enjoying some time playing the game with God mode first.

But think of your emotion as electrical current, and emotional detachment or indifference as a circuit breaker. Meditate regularly, because that will help you get to the point where you can decide what you do or do not want to care about. I can still know on a purely intellectual level that I'm not yet where I want to be; I just have to make sure that I don't care about it at all, emotionally. Nonchalance is the old word that used to describe that state.

[END OF COMMENT]

A useful word here is "distinction".

The distinction between you and a distraction, between one part of your experience and another, persists it. For as long as one part is perceived as "other" then direct intervention doesn't do anything. On "faith" - it's a ruined word now, but Neville Goddard's use is about right: it's an "assuming" or "knowing" that something is the case. The process works, simply use it.

When you turn a door handle, you push the door simply assuming it will now open. If you later notice the door has become closed again, you simply turn the door handle and open it once more. In the same way, when we make an adjustment to the world, when we put it into a certain state, if we notice it has drifted or reverted, we merely return it to that state. At some point, the door stays open, the state becomes fixed.

Q: I drank deeply of the tall glass I used, so deep it was one chug and my physical thirst is quenched. I feel this is good. Worth noting, maybe? The series of links that took me to this thread coincided with a few ear ringings. Two in the left, one in the right. I don't know if any of you are aware of the significance that ear ringing holds in the occult, but either way, thought I'd say so. I am interested to see the result.

Interesting. What matters is the significance these things have for you, really. But it sounds like part of a larger narrative. Looking forward to your results!

Q: So, I did this exercise last night.
I had a really close friend years back. We were extremely close and we cared about each other deeply. We got into a huge fight, and things were never the same again. Even though we have both apologized to each other, we are no longer best friends like we used to be. I still miss our friendship and think about it daily.
Anyway, I put labels on both cups. One that said 'closeness' - that one was empty; the other one said 'distant' - that one was full. I took a minute to contemplate how our friendship used to be, and how we're almost strangers now. When I poured the water, I was strangely struck by how beautiful the water looked when it was hit by light. I took a deep breath, and felt more relaxed. After that, I put both glasses away.
Now my question is...do I have to stop thinking about our lost friendship for a while? Do I keep my mind as blank as possible for the next couple of days?
UPDATE AFTER 7 MONTHS: Here [https://old.reddit.com/r/DimensionalJumping/comments/4helat/half_a_year_ago_i_jumped_here_is_my_final_update/].

Now my question is...do I have to stop thinking about our lost friendship for a while? Do I keep my mind as blank as possible for the next couple of days?

Just know that it is already done. You have literally updated the state of the world by doing this exercise, and you will encounter the evidence of this in good time.

Would you think about something that was already a done deal? No, because thinking is for things which are uncertain or regretful. Passing thoughts are fine, they are just like leg twitches. Would you obsess over a leg twitch? No, it's just a passing distraction. So treat thoughts about this area like that - dismiss them with an "it is already done!" and continue with whatever it is you are doing. Aside - you should never deliberately spend time thinking about anything unless it is for the purpose of inserting that thought-pattern into the world, because that is what you are doing.

So, all of the above is the reason why the last instruction is to "carry on with your life"!

Q:Thank you, this was all very helpful. However, there was one thing thing you said that I need clarification.
Aside - you should never deliberately spend time thinking about anything unless it is for the purpose of inserting that thought-pattern into the world, because that is what you are doing.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Am I creating some unintentional repercussions by thinking 'I wish we were close friends again'?
I hope I can provide an update next time I post!

It's fine if such a thought arises, just appears in your mind, and you let it pass. But you shouldn't deliberately think it. Don't get hung up on this though!

First of all, why would you do that anyway? It's a superfluous act. Talking to yourself like that surely isn't healthy. ;-)

In this particular context though, you are making a declarative statement of fact which, by its nature, activates the extended pattern associated with it. This happens automatically since it is required for the statement to have meaning. If you say "I wish we were close friends again" you are literally triggering the experiential pattern of "wishing you were close friends again", which implies the fact of not being close friends. You are persisting the state of "wishing" and of "not being close friends". This complication is why the exercise is constructed in the way it is; it avoids all this formulation stuff and just accesses states directly, shifting their intensities.

Summary -

Statements are not just observations, they are assertions which trigger the corresponding state, intensifying its contribution to your experience.
Do not engage with any thoughts which arise that are contrary to your desired state - don't fight them or explore them, just let them pass.

Q: Hey, so this probably means nothing, but I've been having intense dreams lately. So, we're not close friends yet but I'm still patiently waiting to see if the glasses experiment worked. But I've been having a very vivid dream in which my friend and I are close again, and when I woke up I was still able to resume that dream the next time I fell asleep! And this happened twice already. This has never happened to me before. I also saw a large owl in that dream.
Sorry for the lackluster update!

Interesting! Thanks for the update. Hopefully more to come on that. Yeah, those owls get everywhere, once they've been summoned, a good sign.

Q: Deleted

That's a good one. Was having a conversation about collateral shifts elsewhere. Copy here in case you find it a useful way to think of this:

Factual Updates and Collateral Shifts

If the world is a continuous and coherent pattern, a blanket of material with folds as facts, then you can't adjust one fact without tugging a little on the rest of the material, impacting the other folds. Although these "collateral shifts" would make sense in terms of the fundamental nature - the blanket - they wouldn't follow the logic of the world's apparent content - the folds.

For instance, your car tumbles off the side of the road but - flash! - suddenly it didn't happen after all. Changing that fact inevitably results in a collateral shift of the world as a whole. But it takes the form of, say, an extra tin of fruit in your kitchen cupboard, a news reporter's hair being parted at the other way, and an acquaintance you've not seen in 10 years now never existed. Those changes are causally linked to, but not logically linked to, the event.

Quite possibly you would never encounter these updated facts. However, the change in your felt-sense of things - that "global summary" sensation that you have - might mean that the world sort of "tastes" different subsequently. You intuitively know that you are no longer in the same place. There's a different "flavour" to your life after the accident somehow.

Q: Hey man, thanks for sharing all this wonderful information. It's really fascinating. So with regards to this exercise, let's say for example I wanted to change something physical such as growing slightly taller.
Would it be safe to do such a thing if I am happy to live with it?

Hey. You can try it for anything you want, there's no danger with it because it doesn't attempt to force a change - things will seem to appear by "plausible if very unlikely" routes. You can't tell in advance how it will play out, but you always get results of some sort. Give it a go and see what happens. (But do follow the instructions.)

Q: Part Two?

...still to come, once the people have had time to play.

Q: When do you think there will be a part two?

My thought was to leave a few months after the first post. The idea is that the second post goes more into the concept behind it and, from there, where else you can take it. If I did the follow-up too early though, people would be less likely to blindly follow the two glasses instructions, and would try to second guess themselves "doing it right". Without the further discussion, there can be no danger of confirmation bias in terms of having a theory of what, exactly, is meant to happen; it's easier to be honest with oneself.

Q: That is really true. I just thought maybe there was a second part relating to actions we can take, rather than just an explanation or further information at to why this works. Thank you for the swift response :)

The second part will point out the relative arbitrariness of actions, and the primacy of assigned meaning. I've already ended up talking about it in discussions under other posts really, but want to gradually build up a set of posts which are look-unable, from me and others. Swift response=distraction from tedious other project. :-)

Q: Haha, that made me giggle. I guess I will go stalk your profile and see what you wrote before. :)

Heheh. That would be a long slog. The essentials are something like (haven't got the exact wording here):

Shift=Detachment + Intention + Act
The assignment of meaning to an act is what gives it casual power.
Experiences gain causal power through accumulated meaning, establishing habits.

Q: I have found what you said to be very true. The more significance you give something, the more you become attached to the outcome, the harder it is to shift to a place where the outcome is reality. I think for most people, the hardest part is detachment. That is definitely the part I struggle with the most.

Yes, detachment is the vital thing - or better said more recently, perhaps: non-attachment. This amounts to:

Ceasing to interfere with the shifting of state or the unfolding of experience.

If you are completely open to shifts, then you get to "just decide" change - simply intend. Of course, if you want any stability to your experience at all, then you don't want to completely eliminate all structure. So it's more about adopting an "active metaphor" (a metaphor which acts as a base patterning on your experience), such as the imagination room, which provides flexibility but still enforces a high level of coherence.

Q: Deleted

Not easily noticed... except by the author! (I kept my inbox replies going on this one.)

Of course, it can be adapted. It's about anchoring world-states and there are lots of ways to do it. The reason for the instructions being as they are, is that it's immediately intuitive to most people - it doesn't need to be thought about, and hopefully it doesn't really occur to people to think about it. What's important is that you assign meanings to the configurations and to the act, so that they are attached to the states.

You can even do the exercise using your imagination also! But there's a reason to use explicit 'external' objects and have them distinct from yourself. People's body volume tends to be a mass of muddled meanings, and there can be a confusion about where "you" are relative to the situation and what you represent during the exercise. Simple objects like glasses and water, meanwhile, are relatively pure in terms of their 'extended patterns', and the assignment of meaning tends to be much 'cleaner'. (Although you might still notice some synchronicity involving water-filled receptacles and notions of 'transfer'.)

Q: Are there any side effects that happen when you do this? Such as immediate exhaustion or dizziness?

Yep, those things can happen. Remember, this is about a change of state of the world - and since "the world" also contains your body, then that is part of the shift. Your experience is local and your intention here applies globally, but global changes can also involve immediate local changes.

Q: So maybe I don't fully understand the experiment, can someone help me determine what is a possible scenario? Say, I have school today (the only day this week since Thanksgiving is coming up and I'm in University) and I want to eliminate school today. If I labelled glass A: "School Today" and glass B: "No School Today" is that a plausible idea? I am skeptical of the idea regardless, but could you do it for anything or are there specific rules to follow that I am missing?

A guideline proposed before for this exercise has been: "for outcomes that are plausible but perhaps very unlikely". In other words, they must make logical sense in the world - no discontinuities against the physical "habits of the world" - but can correspond to very remote chances within that boundary.

Q: I'd be happy if somebody helped me, So my p.c. Is broken and I want it repaired. So what word do I use to summarize my situation? Am I allowed to use multiple words? I thought about going with "pc broken". I'd appreciate any directions. (My pc basically suffers from "Hard-disk failure")

The word comes from your own contemplation of the situation. You think about the situations, and ask yourself what words best captures those, feel appropriate, and then use them. This is not about "sending a message to the universe", so it's not about writing a description of what you want (like to Santa Claus, spoilers: Santa is not quite real). Rather, the words are "handles" onto the situational patterns that are dissolved into the background right now.

*Q: Possible dimensions I could see myself using this to jump to.

A dimension without mobile phones. This would be my main priority. At this point it isn't so much that I want to get rid of mobile phones, as much as I'd like to go to a few dimensions without them, purely in order to see whether or not society really needs them.
A dimension without Google. We don't need Google, because search engines existed before it did, and I consider Google megalomaniacal and undesirable. Truthfully a dimension without corporations more or less in general would be nice. I could live with building my own transistor-based computer; if you use breadboards or similar instead of PCBs, it isn't all that hard.
A dimension without transhumanism. This would also require large chunks of the twentieth century's predictive programming science fiction to cease to exist.
A dimension where either Hellenic polytheism or Hinduism are the global majority religions.
A dimension where the natural environment is in much better shape, and is actually valued by the majority.*

Hmm. Well, the exercise in this post is really about shifting specific personal situations in your current world-pattern. Which is not to say you won't get a result if you use broader terms, but the effects may not be quite what you had in mind...

Have you looked up persistent realms? If you just want a quick look-see of what dramatic alternatives would be like, without disconnecting permanently, that's the way to do it.

Interested though: your list seems to be fairly counter-technology. What's the thinking behind that?

Q: I'm definitely interested in the persistent realms link, but it doesn't seem to be working for me.

Hmm, just clicked and it's working for me. What are you getting?

Q: The page doesn't load. Maybe it doesn't work on my phone.

That's probably it - it's a forum post on the Dream Views website. Works on my tablet and desktop, haven't tried it on mobile but the formatting is quite crazy so it probably wouldn't play nicely. It begins:

[START OF POST]

What is a persistent realm?

It's a term I use to describe certain kinds of dreams I have. Dreams that are persistent, meaning where your actions have consequences, dreams you can resume each night where you left off.

So why do I call them "realms"? Well, for me these kinds of dreams are a bit more than just persistent. There are a few more unique characteristics to them:

Persistence - When you "enter" a realm, you "resume" the dream where you left of last time. (more or less)

Consequences - Because of the persistence, every action you take has consequences. If you change something it will remain changed forever. For example, people will remember you and the conversations you've had with them.

Laws & Dream Powers - A realm has a set of laws of physics (fitting the setting of the realm), which may be different from waking life. There may be ways to cast magic for example. You can learn, understand, use (and abuse) these laws, but you can never do anything that violates them. (Such as using dream powers) If a character does something ridiculous then it means that there is a law enabling him to do so, and you most likely can learn to do the same thing.

Realism - Those dreams feel pretty damn real. I assume the main reason behind this (besides the technique I use) is that all dream characters are intelligent. You won't encounter the typical "derpy" DC who seems completely lost. DC's are intelligent and follow their own agenda. Their actions can be completely unexpected.

[END OF POST]

It then continues at length. You'll find a nice overlap between the poster's ideas for creating realms and experiences, and some of the approaches we discuss here. Which makes sense of course: this world is an immersive, persistent realm too.

Q:
Have you looked up persistent realms? If you just want a quick look-see of what dramatic alternatives would be like, without disconnecting permanently, that's the way to do it.
I ran into that post at some point. I would need to train myself a bit more as a dreamer, but of course it is doable. I will go through it in a bit more detail.
Interested though: your list seems to be fairly counter-technology. What's the thinking behind that?
Every piece of consumer technology released since 2000 that I've seen, seems to reduce the sum total of individual autonomy and control that the user has over their own lives, or more specifically, the use of said technology itself. Mobile phones are one example; new hardware formats like UEFI are another, and recent additions to the Linux and BSD operating systems are another. There is a very broad, identifiable trend in my observation. The current scenario appears to be headed towards technocratic fascism, and my primary interest in both this stuff and Goddard's, is to ensure that I don't go there with it. I need to get off this timeline. I am relieved to discover that Goddard's material actually works, because therein is the only salvation that I know of. It's either this or suicide, and suicide is not an acceptable option.*

Every piece of consumer technology released since 2000 that I've seen, seems to reduce the sum total of individual autonomy and control that the user has over their own lives.

I agree this has been the trend, although I think it is a natural side-effect of technological development. That as electronics becomes discrete, and protocols are encapsulated within protocols, we multiply our ability to create complex things in simplified packages, but we lose the "tinkerability". That's okay in and of itself, but it has implications, as you'll agree I think:

Hurdles to Access - Fifty years from now, anyone will still be able to rig up a basic record player and play a vinyl album. To play a CD, you'll probably need to build a semiconductor fabrication plant first. To access that file that nobody bothered to write an converter / interpreter / emulator for, you're stuffed.
Reduced Transparency - More important though, is that more stuff is happening "elsewhere". When thing reach a certain level of complexity, you simply can't examine the details for yourself, and when storage and transfer occur beyond your sphere of vision, your own information ceases to be under your direct control or awareness.

The first one is nothing new, it's been going on for years. It's the second one that's problematic. The technology itself isn't a problem - it's the creation, ownership, and conflation of "data doubles" and an attempt to capture that development that is the problem.

But I'd say this is more about politics and people than it is about technology. I think that's where the solution lies. The gentrification of the first wave of technologists is not helpful here, but I'm pretty hopefully generally. And I have a certain morbid curiosity when it comes to these things. Which is, of course, why I am participating in this "subset" in the first place.

Meanwhile: yes, Neville Goddard works but really there's a more general sense in which you can work with this. If you just want out completely, then it's worth your time playing with the persistent realms idea. I see suicide as the ultimate in "undirected jumping" and is absolutely not recommended. Of course, what you should really do is stop engaging with this aspect of your experience - because the more you get yourself all irritated and annoyed about the direction of this stuff, the more it's going to whirlwind around you in an ever-accelarating storm of synchronicity...

Q: are you people serious-?

It's easy enough to find out, right?

Got a couple of glasses? Got water on tap? Is there a specific situation right now that you'd like resolved but can't think how? Then you're all set to try the exercise for yourself.

Q: Can this change things that involve people other than you? If I wanted a relationship, would I put "single" on the undesirable, and "partnered" on the desirable? Or if I wanted to lose weight with this, how would the transition work? Would I wake up and just be in shape if that's what I wanted? Or would it start dropping weight over the course of a few days?

Yes, you can do the partner thing. Anything within your subjective experience (which means: everything really) is up for grabs. For this exercise, the nature of transition will tend to be "plausible". The main point here is to demonstrate something to yourself, something essential about the nature of your experience.

Q: Question: should I continue to revise my day as Neville Goddard has suggested after doing this, or would that be considered interfering?

That's an interesting question, and I guess it depends a little. But in general I'd say go ahead, that's fine, because the exercise above should in any case about situations which are a bit more remote from your immediate influence. When revising the day you are looking at the specific subjective scenes which unfolded, rather than the larger world. For instance, revising the scene where you argued with your brother at his house isn't going to affect the pattern associated with that business deal in Ohio - etc.

Q: So even if my focus of the two glass experiment was a better relationship with my brother, revision would be more of a help than hindrance?

I'm suggesting that you do the exercise for your relationship with your brother, then let it play out (knowing that it's sorted) and don't micro-revise that relationship. (I mean, you'd rather just have a good relationship, right?) Instead save revision for "course correction" of things like reversing a bad meeting at work, etc.

That way you are changing the situation as a whole, as well as properly demonstrating the approach to yourself too.

Q: Oh, okay! Thank you for the clarification!

No problem - good luck and remember to post your results!

Q: question, I'm seriously thinking about trying this out.. there's this girl I really like we used to talk but things didn't work out for some odd reason? She just stopped talking to me it was so sudden. Long story short she's with another guy now but I cant stop thinking what could have been if we had dated. so what I'm wondering is if I were to put "She doesn't talk to me" and "She wants me" on the cups, is that sufficient? or do I have to be more specific and put her name and what not.

What matters is what the labels mean for you. They don't need to be detailed, they just need to capture the essence of it for you. You aren't "sending messages to the universe" here; you are basically attaching those world-states to the glasses.

I would make a suggestion here: you should be more clear about your actual target situation. Is it really that you want her to want you? She can do that and you'll never know about it. Or do you actually want her to be your girlfriend? Your labels could be (choose your own, this is just my examples): "Estranged" and "Together" or something like that.

Q: This might be a dumb question, but, is this something that would work for multiple things? Say I have 2 things I want to change. Could I do it once for one thing and then do it another time for the other?

No, it's a fair question. Yes, every time you do the exercise, since you are approaching it with different situations in mind (and on labels), it's a "fresh" event. But it's best to leave some settling time between sessions, like a week after each one, I'd suggest.

Q: That's great to hear, since there are multiple aspects I'm interested in improving. I'm still contemplating whether or not to give it a try.

Well, the whole point is that it makes a great demo exercise just to see if there's "anything going on with this stuff". So try it on something like a personal situation that you'd like sorted, but which you have limited power over, and isn't too intense - and see what happens. It's better to play with these things before you really need them. There's a tendency for people to suddenly go "hey I need to sort out this really important thing", which makes it harder to follow the last instruction.

Q: I guess I'm just concerned about possible negative effects. I don't wanna mess with my life to the point of regret

Well, then you'd just fix it, surely. :-)

But perhaps the way to think of it is, that this is an acceleration of change. Rather than plodding across the existing landscape for a year to get to the mountain with your prize on it, the landscape compresses and you get there in a week. There may be a period of bumps (you're covering a year's terrain in 7 days) but to say that not taking control is more risky than making an actual decision isn't very convincing?

You'll always have regrets. If they are certain, better to get to them sooner rather than later. If they are not certain, than making conscious decisions is the way to avoid them. (Anyway: I think most people report regretting what they didn't do rather than what they did do.)

Q: Interesting way to look at it. Can you think of any specific examples of regrets people have had afterward?

I meant regrets in life, rather than as a result of doing the exercise!

There will always be "collateral shifts", because if you want things to change then, well, things have to change. Unfortunately (but also marvellously) you can't know the shape of the landscape until you encounter it - and you are the only knower.

All of this stuff applies anyway to your life, it's just that when you start investigating things such as this, you become properly conscious of them - the mystery aspect, and that every intention moves the whole world. But at least when you intend deliberately, you choose. Right now, you're walking across a landscape that you made accidentally and clumsily.

Q: Ah that clears it up a bit, thanks! I think I'll try it and post my results as I notice them

Great! There's really nothing to worry about. And with a tool at your disposal which can help you and others, life can only get better surely.

Q: Well, I just did it, so I guess we'll see what happens!

We shall indeed! So, yeah: follow the last instruction (carry on with your life; results come to you, so there's nothing to be done) and give it a while to settle out

Q: Nothing occurred(well not nothing).. Maybe i did something wrong or my statement wasn't clear enough? Not much has changed though :/

nothing (well not nothing) ... not much has changed

What does that mean, more precisely?

Q: My financial life hasn't changed the way i directed for it too be, intentionally, visually. Maybe i need to continue creating, sometimes i just feel like giving up since i don't see the occurrences changing, but then again whats the point of giving up if theres nothing to lose.

Suggestion: maybe initially go for something tangible, a specific thing or situation, rather than something as abstract as money?

Q: I think i just realized why i've been down lately and stressing. I've been caring "too much". I've been caring of how my mom feels about not wanting to work anymore, wanting to be retired as i wanted that for her but now i'll imagine the situation of her being happy, stress free, she is relaxing now that she doesn't have to work anymore and all her bills are being paid. May i create this? Of course it seems like i'm creating it for her but in a way its a reflection of me as well and i am creating this situation for myself. Too me money isn't much, my mindset towards it is invalid and only factual towards it being essentials towards material possessions/bills. Its not the money i want but the security the comes with it. Can you give an example of what you personally have created that is something tangible/specific situation and/or just anything in general even if it is not your experience

I think that no matter what your approach to getting something, you need to conceive of it as a lived situation from your own subjective perspective. Whatever you seem to want, what you actually want is one or more experiences, whether that's an audio-visual experience which implies a desirable fact, or an ongoing experience of a feeling which implies you are in a particular state. So, it is important when setting targets (everyday goals or more esoteric things) to frame them positively: in the sense that they are formulated as an actual thing you could live as a moment as a moving-towards, rather than an abstract concept or a pushing-away from something. (See links in edits 3 & 4 perhaps.)

Q:I have two questions: Will this work if I want to make someone else's situation better? How often can one do this?

So, the way to think of this is that you are selecting subjective experiences for yourself. And this of course means that you can select experiences of other people changing and getting better. Typically, I'd allow some settling out time after each use of the exercise; couple of weeks maybe. The original idea of the exercise was as a demonstration to show that there is "something going on", with minimal effort, so it's a kind of "fire and forget" approach. It just so happens that it's a handy tool also.

Q: Is there a part two?

In the pipeline, but since it'll discuss some of the related ideas, and it's better to just do the exercise without overthinking of it, I've held back from doing it for a while. Although I've discussed most of it in conversations already.

Q: When you say, 'choose a specific situation...', how specific is specific enough? What I mean is, I tried this because I'm going through a period where I feel really down-in-the-dumps and almost like nothing ever goes quite right in life, so I chose the words misfortune and good fortune. Is this too vague, or will it still have an effect?

It says that because the idea is that this is a "demonstration" exercise, and so if the situation is fairly specific, it's easier to decide whether there was a result (to show "there's something going on"). There's no actual restriction on what you can choose, though.

Q: Hey. For a few years now I hated how different I was from everyone, just weird. So just now I did this exercise. I wrote weird on one cup and normal on the other. I hope everything really works.

Maybe they'll all suddenly realise that they were the weird ones all along. ;-)

Q: Haha I hope

Seriously, though:

Don't worry too much about being "weird", especially if you're still at school or starting out in life, because later you'll look back on those "normal" people as being the boring people, and you'll discover more interesting people who overlap with you more.

If there's something I'd recommend, it's learning how to be calm and relaxed, to be able to step back a little from things as they are happening, which will let you be more yourself. When people judge themselves as being "weird", sometimes what they really mean is that they're nervous and this causes them to behave a little hysterically in response to social situations - because they are not trusting or allowing their spontaneous selves to flow. (I don't know whether that is your situation; it just occurred to me to offer a viewpoint just in case.)

Q: So I did this exercise 2 days ago, is this similar to casting a sigil? I use to try casting sigils a few months ago and none of them worked :(

Only in the sense that it attaches meaning to sensory objects, but of course there's a commonality to all these sorts of things.

If sigils didn't work, can I ask: did you play with the situation mentally at all after you had cast the sigil?

Q: I did play with them mentally in a way. I was very open minded for how the things would come about happening, and I could see possible routes for the things occurring everywhere, but none of them really came about.

Really, you should leave them alone. Once you've done the act, simply get on with your life knowing that the work is done and it'll show up.

You should think of your thoughts as literally pulling and pushing on the world. And unfortunately, if you start pulling up that "part" and thinking about different routes and even having doubts, you are potentially reshaping that part accordingly.

That's like having spontaneously created a schedule by intention (albeit one you can't see) and then keeping changing your mind on what you want and how you want it, so that the schedule keeps revising itself.

Q: Yea, I think it's very possible that whatever I was thinking about at the time could have interfered with it happening, however I never really did much obsessing over any of them, but I was pretty curious of how they would play out. Weirdly enough, one of them was to be given a bit of cash, (I can't remember how much it was, I think it was like a specific amount like $30) but it didn't happen for like a month so I completely forgot about it. I also don't think about the others anymore haha, so it would be nice if they came about happening

Heh, well you know I'm just theorising of course without knowing the actual situation there.

One problem is that every intentional act is a world-changing magical act. Lots of people are actually just spontaneous in their daily life, they don't "interfere" with it much (don't even know they could), and so the occasional intervention takes effect and then doesn't get undone.

Meanwhile, others - ironically, often those who are interested in the topic and pursuing it deliberately - are constantly unwittingly "redirecting" themselves, wrestling with their world. So they fire of a sigil or whatever, but don't realise they are effectively doing constant "re-sigilising" through their world-focused thinking process.

Which is why I think it's a benefit to everyone to practice a daily releasing exercise, and then "stop generating". Learning how to, say, stand up from a chair without doing anything. It teaches you how to intend a state-change only when desired.

Q: Yup, the second one could be me :P
I've gotten pretty into this stuff over the last few months, (actually learned a lot from stuff you have contributed) so I could be getting in my own way unknowingly, but I'm always willing to keep trying stuff because this whole thing going on is fascinating to me.
I'm eager to see that follow up post on this experiment! I'm curious about more of how this experiment works.

Yeah, it can be difficult because you want to do something to make things happen - feel some sort of mental or physical effort going on. But that's just the intentional generation of the experience of effort; it has nothing to do with making the desired changes!

Hopefully I'll have time this weekend to sit down at a desk and bash out the second part. The idea is that it will link the experiment (which amounts to ritual really) to the larger view of patterns and meaning and metaphor and so on.

Q: I assume meditation counts as a releasing exercise right? (I do mindfulness meditation sometimes where I just focus on my breath and watch my thoughts without trying), so maybe I should try to make that a daily thing, but it's hard cuz I think I'm addicted to stimulation haha.

Well, meditation can be good, but really I'd practice this: lie down on the floor in the constructive rest position (knees up, feet flat, books supporting the head) and play dead. Let go of controlling your body, your mind but most importantly: your attention. Let them shift and move and unwind as they want. Whenever you find yourself holding onto your focus again, cease to do so. In other words: "stop generating" and allow the pattern of experience to flow as it wants.

Q: Interesting, alright. Any reason why that particular position?

It corresponds to an ideal balanced posture - no residual muscular effort required to maintain it, fully supported. It's pretty much the only way to have your neck muscles release. (And it has to be the floor really, or a very sturdy mat, definitely not a bed.)

You'll feel it when you do it. There's initial discomfort because you are residually "holding yourself in the air" but when that settles out it can be super-relaxing. (10 minutes, twice a day, or whenever you are stressed.)

Q: So far, I haven't seen results with this method but it has only been about a week. I'm not saying that this method doesn't work, it could be something I'm doing wrong. I purposely made my "replacement situations" VERY ambitious. Example...I've been working out for years but desire to be a bit more muscular, so that was one thing I asked for. It's funny because if anything, I seem LESS muscular. I'd also like to mention that it's likely I still have resistance to change. I'm basically at the point where I know something is up but can't control my "dream" yet. Literally almost everyone I know has changed since "jumping", heck even a squirrel fell out of a tree after my friend specifically said it would never happen, lmao. But I still don't feel that I have the ability to "just decide" yet.

Ah, it's interesting what people choose as the situation!

So, ambitious is fine, although because this particular experiment doesn't force anything, your result will happen by "plausible if unlikely" routes. In other words, there will arise "apparently reasonable excuses" for what you to get what you want. Anyway, this is an interesting one to watch happen.

Yeah, the "something is up" period is fascinating. There's still the urge to try and make things happen by somehow doing them; like you can use your muscular tension or effortful frown to assist you. You know something is going on but it's still not clear how, exactly. There may be a squirrel or two to go...

Q: Haha yes, the muscular one will be interesting to see happen. However, my pouring into the "Billionaire" cup will be even more interesting to watch unfold ;) Especially because I'm a programmer who makes apps, which makes it completely within the realm of possibility that it happens. I have a theoretical situation for you. Say a regular, ordinary person with 0 knowledge of oneirosophy/DJ/insert-metaphor finds your post and performs this experiment. Are you confident that they will achieve their replacement situation? Or is it required for one to know at least "something is up" before getting results?

Theoretical Situation

They get the best results! Everyone else who thinks they have some knowledge of "how it all works" subtly tries to manipulate themselves, or help it along, or work out what's really happening.

This is one of the reasons I came up with that particular formulation: it's not so easy to make sense of it, even if you have thought about this stuff before, unless you've been pondering raw pattern/meaning activation.

Of course, once you know the underlying, you can go directly for it, but it requires a level of bloody-mindedness. Just as you can't "sorta, maybe" lift your arm, you have to follow through and not re-edit the world before it happens, so it is with this. You are interacting with the world directly.

The Billionaire's Cup; [1]

Hmm. Being into programming and creative stuff is good, just in terms of allowing things to happen, because opportunities can come from nowhere and still be plausible. Most people find that easier than getting that inheritance from a long lost uncle or whatever. Even though, of course, everyone has a potential long lost uncle; they've just not called him into experience yet...

[1] Choose wisely.

Q: Thanks for the insightful post. I've seen you mention multiple times that one reason for "detach-and-wait" methods failing is by accidentally modifying the world back to it's original state. Let's say one is screwing about and this phenomenon occurs. Does one re-perform the experiment and wait or simply place their faith back into the original experiment? I would guess that the latter would be enough to work, since it is the intention that matters right?

You simply need to do something which means-that you have returned (are returning) your world-pattern to the desired state.

You can reperform the experiment, or perhaps mentally recall the final state of the experiment and the feeling you had, or just superimpose "RELOAD" over the scene before you with the intention that you are loading up the state again.

But this is only a problem if, after realising what you've been doing, you think-that you've undone it.

The whole "faith" thing is about realising that since changes are direct and immediate, creation is "already done" at that moment. It's definitely best you can commit and so stop tinkering; the exercise in the post is meant to avoid that crossing your mind (because you probably don't have access to the pattern anyway).

Q: I understand that changes are "direct and immediate", but what is the amount of time taken to see changes indicative of? Have you found through your trials that a persons level of "resistance" can make experiments such as this one take longer for the patterns to become noticeable? As in, could it possibly take decades? I guess what I am asking in simpler terms is that theoretically if TriumphantGeorge himself were to perform this exact experiment and ask for something non-trivial (money, fame, power), does it reveal itself near immediately? This is something that I've been struggling to understand lately. If the time taken to see changes is relatively unpredictable for even well-versed folks such as yourself, this method would seem much less powerful in comparison to the immediate "asserting" methods.

this method would seem much less powerful in comparison to the immediate "asserting" methods.

Completely right!

The origin of this exercise is purely to get people to witness a result with zero effort or interest at all; you don't need to commit to "jumping" or any other metaphor. Although the pattern of change is implemented immediately here as always, it is overlaid upon whatever other patterns have already been accumulated, so you will see it only when the context allows it to "shine through", as it were. You aren't gripping the world in the same way as you do with other methods. Where its advantage lies (apart from not needing any practice at all) is that having done this, you gain direct knowledge of how your entire experience and every intentional act you perform works the same way. You realise there is no technique. It's simply a matter of how specific and strong the intention - and not re-intending subsequently. If by simply pouring some water while simultaneously summoning the pattern of a state you can bring it about, it makes you realise: a) how powerful you are specifically and, b) how cautious you should be generally.

Q: Deleted

Personally, I would not think in terms of "dimensions" except as a powerful metaphor - as in, if your experience shifts dramatically it is equivalent to being in a different "dimension". You will never have any experience outside of "your reality", so any change that happens is basically a modification of that.

This particular exercise should be thought of as a way to change a situation in your life without having to get bogged down in any theory!

Q: Is it possible to have effects that result in other people leaving your life? Or is this exercise limited to purely personal situations where controlling where the people in your life go is out of bounds? The reason I'm asking is I'm hoping to do this to have my in-laws want to leave our house and go back to their home country.

There are no restrictions here, only choices. For the purposes of this, think of yourself as having your own "private view" of the world. You can have any experience you want in your private view, since it's your "personal slice" of the infinite gloop. Nobody can stop it. Anything can happen.

Go for it.

Q: Will the water spilling have an effect on the result? The glass that I was using to pour the water spilled a bit when I was pouring into the other glass. The rim is round with no spout so the water just kind of ran down the glass and dripped off the base. Not a lot of water, but it wasn't a little either. Should I try again using a more square glass?

If you feel you've left yourself with doubt - if you don't feel satisfied - then you can repeat it, just so that you can comfortably feel that you completed it, and move on.

Q: Okay, thanks! I'll try again because I feel like I didn't do it right.

Yep, good stuff. As it says in the instructions, you want to be able to allow yourself to take a breath and feel relieved at the end - and then you can just move on (because you've already made the change).

Q: I somehow got it into my head that you said you could write a "word or phrase" on the labels, so I wrote a phrase. Did the experiment last night, and I may be already seeing results, but it's too soon to say for sure.

so I wrote a phrase

That's fine. I say "word" in the instructions to prevent people writing extended descriptions, rather than calling up the essence of it. The effort to encapsulate it helps, since it corresponds to identifying and accessing it. Things tend to happen pretty quick (in fact, the underlying change to the world occurs upon completion of the exercise). How soon you encounter the evidence of that obviously depends on the particular situation.

Look forward to hearing your results once they're in.

Q: Thanks for the clarification! On a related note, if I wanted to do the exercise again, is it better to wait until the results from the first one are "settled"?

For this, I'd tend to do one thing at a time, but there's no restriction really.

Q: Can we write a specific delivery date under the label of the desired situation? ...or the ripples in the ocean of patterns are too chaotic for such a level of precision?

There are probably better ways if you want to be more targeted (this demonstration exercise is deliberate in its stripped-down elements) but the process itself doesn't limit you in this.

Q: What sorts of better ways might there be for more targeted pattern activation?

There are links in the intro post so check there, but it's pretty much summarised in its raw form in this post: The Patterning of Experience.

Q: I have a family member who drinks too much and its negatively affecting my desire to be around him. Is this act applicable to such a situation? What is the implication of another's free will here?

Yes, that is a suitable situation. The free will discussion is somewhat tangled, but trust me that you don't need to worry about. It all works out.

As an easy way to think about things: consider this to be "your copy of the world". Wouldn't you want to make it the best world it can be, with everyone in it becoming the best version of what they can be? Any action which supports that outcome is a morally good one, and your intention sounds like it fits in nicely.

So maybe think of the "end situation" as being one where the family member is sober and also much happier as a result. That way everyone benefits.

Q: Deleted

You could drink it if it feels right to do so, symbolically. Since, part of the point of this is to prove there's "something going on", I'd take on particular situation and let it play out completely, until you know it is done. (Thing take a while to settle.) Then armed with the knowledge you've gained, you can choose how you manage it from then on.

Q: Just a quick question, sorry if it has already been asked. I'm thinking about trying this, but haven't done it yet. I can think of a few different things in my life that I would really like to change. Is it ok to do this multiple times within a short period, for different situations? Thanks.

Since part of this is to prove to yourself that "something is going on", I would choose one situation, do it, let the results come in, let the world settle out again. After all, what's the hurry? If it wasn't for this post you wouldn't even have the option. And why would you start stirring your reality around with a technique you hadn't properly investigated yet? You get the idea. (This is fun stuff, but it should also be taken very seriously.)

Yep, so, pick one situation first and follow it through!

***

OVERVIEW OF METHODS

In essence, all of these describe the same technique: detaching from the current sensory pattern, allowing a formatting shift, and triggering a replacement (either by deliberate intending or by accidental alignment via mood association).

The mirror technique that began this subreddit (described below), which follows a traditional approach to detaching one's attentional focus to permit a formatting shift.
Neville Goddard's approach as described in books such as The Law and the Promise, which itself is based on ideas about the serial universe popularised by the likes of E Douglas Fawcett and JW Dunne.
Overwriting, Deciding and Patterning for extended pattern triggering and autocompletion.
Memory-block exploration via Infinite Grid and Hall of Records metaphor structuring.
Ebony Apu and the Hawk and Jackal system of Multidimensional Magick.
Direct creation of synchronicity (basically another version of the patterning approach). See Kirby Suprise's book, Synchronicity, and this related interview.

The key to doing things knowingly is to change your perspective philosophically; but understanding is not required for producing an effect. You may also find the concept of "persistent realms" to be useful.

The mirror technique

This is the original mirror-gazing method by /u/Korrin85 which kicked off the subreddit:

First things first, you're going to need a mirror. The bigger the mirror the better. If you could theoretically walk through it all the better. It helps out a lot.
Best times to do this are at night. Most success happens at around 12-3, although you can still do it in the day time. Just harder.
Turn off all the lights, get rid of as much noise as possible, and sit facing the mirror. Have a candle between the mirror and you. Everything else around you should be dark.
Relax, clear your mind. Concentrate on your reflection. View your reflection as another YOU. A YOU from a different place. Call out to that YOU, whether it is out loud or in your head. Concentrate on switching places with that YOU.
It takes awhile, and some get it faster than others, but if you "shifted" from your current universe, you should feel something. Some of the signs for small shifts have been a brief feeling of movement, a moment of disorientation, or even your reflection blinking at you when you didn't blink. Bigger shifts include your reflection moving on it's own or even the feeling of you literally moving into the side. The bigger the shift, the more you feel.
If you feel any signs, STOP! Take a few days to note any changes. They can be small, like a scar on someone that has mysteriously disappeared or something being a different color. The more you shift, the bigger the differences you see.
Optional, but it works better if you have a "destination" in mind. For example, you can focus on you switching places with the YOU that has more money, or slightly better off in general.

Also check out Korrin's expanded guide which included answers to a few common questions. [https://old.reddit.com/r/DimensionalJumping/comments/2ax00o/dimensional_jumping_for_dummies_revamped/]

The Imagination of Neville Goddard

One of the most eloquent promoters of the New Thought view that imagination affects experience was Neville Goddard. Although not strictly 'dimensional jumping', his ideas are one way that we can envisage "what fills the gap" - how new experiences are seeded in the gaps between moments.

Candles and mirrors and detached states are all very well, but the resultant shifts are a plunge into the unknown if you aren't clear about what dictates their direction.

This may sound familiar:

Self-abandonment! That is the secret. You must abandon yourself mentally to your wish fulfilled in your love for that state, and in doing, live in the new state and no more in the old state. You can't commit yourself to what you do not love, so the secret of self-commission is faith - plus love. Faith is believing what is unbelievable. Commit yourself to the feeling of the wish fulfilled, in faith that this act of self-commission will become a reality. And it must become a reality because imagining creates reality.
-- The Law and the Promise, Neville Goddard

The world is imagination! Notice the mention of "feeling" as being fundamental to his technique (described elsewhere in the book). This is also emphasised in his The Power of Awareness, which is probably the better book.

Both are interesting reading though, if you can put aside some dated wording and the biblical references. Goddard viewed the Bible as a metaphorical guide to the true nature of reality, with 'God' and 'Jesus' and 'the son and the father' representing the process of creation and the relationship between imagination and the world as experienced.

EDIT1: All of Neville Goddard's books and lectures are out of copyright as far as I know and can be found free online in various formats. The opening sequence of Out of this World is particularly recommended for this subreddit for his quick-n-dirty overview of 4D thinking and manipulation; it'll mop up a few recent questions I reckon. And for the super-keen metaphor enthusiast, there's An Experiment With Time and The Serial Universe by JW Dunne (see overview).

EDIT2: A better resource with all of Neville's lectures, books and audio can be found here.

EDIT3: For a quick theory-free summary of Neville's approach: Imagination Creates Reality and Awakened Imagination.

EDIT4: Also The Pruning Shears of Revision captures the essence nicely, and the description of Eden sounds a bit like an Imagination Room.

TriumphantGeorge Compedium (Part 1)

* * *

Welcome to Dimensional Jumping (982)

* * *

What's it all about?

* * *

KEY POSTS

The Hall of Records

The Infinite Grid of All Possible Moments

The Imagination Room

All Thoughts Are Facts

A Line Of Thought

Sync-TV: The Owls Of Eternity™

Reality-shifting Retrospective

The Act is The Fact - Part One: An Exercise

***

OVERVIEW OF METHODS

The mirror technique

The Imagination of Neville Goddard

Warning