It realy depends on what you belive the theory of eternalism would allow us to view the past present and future as easily as just looking around you should type it in on wikipedea and see if it makes sense to you.
Wait, #1, this is common?? I\'ve been all over sights and I can only ever find a hand full of people at most who \'see the future\' (note: I don\'t count dreams). It\'s extremely irritating since I naturally am precognistic and I want to learn more about what I do and how I do it.
To: Reanimator/ I\'ve thought of that. Actually it was my first instinct to think that I was the one making the stuff in my head happen. I\'m not sure it\'s true though. I asked around after having found another, very useful site. (abovetopsecret.com) One of the people who commented said something like \"If we could create reality we could invent colors but, you can\'t think of a color you haven\'t seen can you?\". I figure it\'s like that. If we could create reality we wouldn\'t have things like gravity. We just blast right through it.
certain things a clairevouyant will see, are not meant to be changed, but rather accepted... the sight gives them the chance to accept a death or some other thing, by being allowed a preview to sort of skip over the grieving process or some other thing
This is an improper interpretation of eternalism. Eternalism simply states that all points in time have equal ontological status. There is a subtle difference between history and time. Time can be thought of as a dimension whereas history can be thought of as the line which connects points in time. The temporal history of an object can be thought of as the thing which does not make all possible outcomes happen all at once. Think of the US and China both existing in two different points of the world. I can not be in both locations at once. If I want to move to China, from the US, I must travel through space. Think of time in a similar fashion. The past and the present and the future all exists. The physical points in time do not change; rather, the history of the physical object travels from the past to present to future. If the future moment is equally existent as the past or present moment, then that would mean that for every probable outcome there is a probable reality. The past is not here. It exists, but it exists in a different world out there somewhere. The future exists, but it exists in a future world out there somewhere. What constitutes the coordination of present to future is the deterministic history of that object.
Eternalism is not the same as fatalism.
Quote:
The eternalist thinks that time, correctly understood, is a fourth dimension essentially constitutive of reality together with space. All times, past, present and future, are actual times just like all points distributed in space are actual points in space. One cannot privilege any one moment in the dimension of time as “moreâ€
??
Wait, #1, this is common?? I\'ve been all over sights and I can only ever find a hand full of people at most who \'see the future\' (note: I don\'t count dreams). It\'s extremely irritating since I naturally am precognistic and I want to learn more about what I do and how I do it.
To: Reanimator/ I\'ve thought of that. Actually it was my first instinct to think that I was the one making the stuff in my head happen. I\'m not sure it\'s true though. I asked around after having found another, very useful site. (abovetopsecret.com) One of the people who commented said something like \"If we could create reality we could invent colors but, you can\'t think of a color you haven\'t seen can you?\". I figure it\'s like that. If we could create reality we wouldn\'t have things like gravity. We just blast right through it.
Some Things Are Fate
certain things a clairevouyant will see, are not meant to be changed, but rather accepted... the sight gives them the chance to accept a death or some other thing, by being allowed a preview to sort of skip over the grieving process or some other thing
Re: Eternalism
This is an improper interpretation of eternalism. Eternalism simply states that all points in time have equal ontological status. There is a subtle difference between history and time. Time can be thought of as a dimension whereas history can be thought of as the line which connects points in time. The temporal history of an object can be thought of as the thing which does not make all possible outcomes happen all at once. Think of the US and China both existing in two different points of the world. I can not be in both locations at once. If I want to move to China, from the US, I must travel through space. Think of time in a similar fashion. The past and the present and the future all exists. The physical points in time do not change; rather, the history of the physical object travels from the past to present to future. If the future moment is equally existent as the past or present moment, then that would mean that for every probable outcome there is a probable reality. The past is not here. It exists, but it exists in a different world out there somewhere. The future exists, but it exists in a future world out there somewhere. What constitutes the coordination of present to future is the deterministic history of that object.
Eternalism is not the same as fatalism.
Quote:
The eternalist thinks that time, correctly understood, is a fourth dimension essentially constitutive of reality together with space. All times, past, present and future, are actual times just like all points distributed in space are actual points in space. One cannot privilege any one moment in the dimension of time as “moreâ€
Add new comment