I don't understand what kind of constant you are looking for.
I'm talking about the constant in the instance of the arrow of time.
You seem like you've studied physics at college level, so I'm sure you're aware that it
is a highly sought-after concept, that would likely earn you a nobel prize.
just trying to make a point about subjectively experiencing something differently, not things actually being different. I think you may be missing an important point here: time was not going in reverse during that trip, my experience of it was. It is a subjective experience anyway that in extreme cases can be tinkered with like that.
It's not right to assume explanations that break the laws of physics instead.
I didn't assume anything...
I think you may have misinterpreted the
semantics of my post?
(Something very forgivable considering that online comm's don't allow for the type of intonation the spoken word has; but seems to be a recurring theme here...)
I asked several questions that
postulated both scenarios, that were used as a means of reference to point to the arrow of time. (if you'll pardon the pun)
I prefer your explanation better, however.
Looking back maybe I could have worded it in a less vague fashion, but I
certainly didn't assume anything.
I considered both potential outcomes hypothetically: one that broke the laws of physics, and the simple answer that explained what actually happened: that you projected a small "movie in reverse" type hallucination.
I'm not sure how I feel about this... it feels like you're explaining something to a child: like you think I can't discern between someone taking acid and tripping balls, and someone travelling backwards in space-time.
I was only pointing out that backwards/forwards has no official point of reference.
Time can be really strange when the mind is concerned, for example it lags behind.
I believe this is one of the reasons schitzophrenics hear voices that can "predict" things: the right brain is much faster than the left, and as it passes information over to the left, the left doesn't understand its origin or what it is, and so become afraid and converts it into audible hallucinations. [I read this in a thesis - 'Left in the dark', I'm no PhD]
it needs to be substantiated to be credible.
Define substantiated?
It seems more like you are convinced by it.
I'm undecided, but leaning.
I spent roughly two years cross-examining this, a large part of which was in the company of a team of expert physicians: and we concluded that this isn't a delusion, and there's nothing "wrong" with me, to put it in layman's terms.
(That we could find anyway.)
I'm open to the possibility that this is something other than what the thread title says; it's a title not a conclusion.
I'm even open to the possibility that this is a bit of undigested beef that played tricks on me, or that there's more of gravy than of grave about it! to quote Dickens.
But psychologically speaking this isn't on the radar; and I must admit I find it a little annoying when people are so closed-minded that they jump to dismiss everything as a mental health issue because it's convenient, and closed the conversation...
I mean, if you were coming to me with a carefully thought out study of the pharmacodynamics of ketamine, and the statistical possibility of me having a sort of genetic imbalance that could have contributed to my hallucinations, I'd be very grateful and talking about that right now.
However all people seem to be saying is that it might be psychosis, it might be a delusion, it might be a scitzoid personality disorder - all of which I personally investigated with a medical team and could not find a match for.
I know the internet made everyone an expert, but if you remove the mental health shill posts from the thread you actually get a lot of people contributing and posting quite interesting things;
unfortunately most of these people are being drowned out by posts telling me people's
opinions on whether or not they can believe this, and blind supposing on the state of my mental health - after I asked that it not become a repetition-fest.
When you eliminate the possible outcomes, the ones remaining - no matter how unlikely - must at least be entertained.
I think you need to understand better what skepticism is and how it works.
OKAY, RUDE!
..And such a shame too.. I was so proud of you up until this point...
Us being the biggest thing in the universe or not is really vague.......
......Yes, microcosm and microcosm are reflected in each other but what does that have to do with anything?
Okay, so I should have explained this better...
The micro and macro aspects repeat throughout all things.
It's no coincidence that a planet with its moons resembles an atom with its electrons.
That is the micro and the macro.
That when stars cluster together they form galaxies, which spiral outwards.
Micro and macro.
Or that a triangle is the smallest shape you can make, and that two make a MerKaBah, which fits inside the 'Genesis Pattern'.
Micro and macro.
An animal cell and a chicken's egg. Micro Macro. everything is repeating itself in cycles as it gets larger (due to space-time tension, the same as liquid tension makes rain droplets)
I even read an article that said the same is true of organic life: that the sun gives off a spray which is the foundational block of our DNA. (don't quote me on this until I find the link)
So my point is: most people bumble about their lives in a bubble, convinced there is no god, no heaven or hell, no life outside this planet.
But everything repeats itself. We're not the only beings, there are thousands of them - some tiny bacteria, some massive great big planets - each with their own consciousness, thoughts, and individual journeys.
I don't know what I met up there, but it's the same thing documented in thousands of near-death-experiences.
The same thing that's talked about in Val Valerian's Matrix series.
I don't know if it was God, or just an entity bigger than myslf, but If I can repeat that experiment over and over for a month, and get the same results each time, meeting the same "God-like" entity each time, then maybe I could map out how it's possible, and be able to repeat that experiment.
Maybe I could show someone else how to meet it? In the name of science, that has to be explored, right?
I'd be a fool not to see this through...