Time—as perceived is linear. It goes from “here” to “there” one time-slice per… … how OR in what, do we quantify the movement of time when time is the only thing which quantifies movement? But times goes linear to perception. But this is not the only “time” which exists. If you are asked…
In how many times have you existed?
Your answer will probably be along the lines of past-present-future. But did you know that — according to the Many Worlds Theorem — there are true simultaneous occurrences of your present now? According to Einstein, the word “simultaneous” may not exist in reality as its true sense. Reality which is bound by perception is prone to relativistic judgement: I wrote, only because you can read; the tree fell, only because you observed; I am only because you are—and so on. The “you” can be replaced with an “it” too. Then: I wrote, only because it read; the tree fell because it observed OR it could be observed (with “it”, the linguistics of existence becomes flexible and confusing); and I am, only because it is. Reality has a objective relative observer. And as long as perception is concerned, in order for things to “make sense”… “linear” is the model best suited.
However, many worlds will always escape this observer. According to the theorem, there is a probabilistic possibility that the I who writes this blog is seated right next to1 my grandson’s first child during his first university exam who is seated beside one of your ancestor’s daughter during her second marriage as she walks past the one-year old me who is still pissed of at the doctor for spanking my ass. Everything that has and will happen is still and already happening, respectively—each world, here and now. Is there is a separate observer for a separate world? This would smoothly dovetail into a “Many Observers Theorem” where each observer is king in his own relativistic world. But we are blinded—a necessary blindness—from the existence of the other worlds which our
constraint individual perception shuns.
Turn down your individual and up your imagination for this part → Mathematically, this theorem can only begin to work from the 5D-space and up. This is where physics can “bend time” and “fold time”—in a sense. This allows under the assumptions that:
- 3D deals with the axes: x, y and z. Imagine yourself at your house. Now imagine yourself at your work. Those two spaces, albeit the same and constant without you in them, are quire different when you’re there. These are two different “space-state”s (i.e. states of space).
- 4D is space time—all transformations of space through time. Remember our two “states of space” in 3D? How did the space in your home get from how it was with you in it to how it is with you out it? You could have walked, disintegrated, gotten adult-napped, or your work place would have literally slid into your home space—who knows? However this happened, this is one transformation. And this will be one point in 4D.
- 5D, call it “the time bender” OR… more technically, “space-time-possibility”—a state-space of all possible permutations of all transformations of space through time. This is a mouthful, yes, and unfortunately, it’s already in our mouths. But if we can train our teeth to chew one segment at a time, we shall swallow this monster before it chokes us. Consider the point we created in 4D. This was but one of the many possible ways 3D was transformed. A point in 5D is all the possible ways 3D can be transformed. This will mean there are many “lifetimes” in 5D. This means in 5D, you could be moving from your house to your work and from your work to your house at the same damn time! Cool, ain’t it?
- We aren’t done yet. The many worlds, as I know it to be an answer of the question asked, exists in 6D—don’t get overwhelmed now, these Ds go up to 11!
So yes, there is a possibility that “you’re here, reading this, and you’re also in the past, wetting your nappy, and you’re also in the future, gnashing your three teeth and hobbling with your gnarled cane”. It’s the Many Worlds Theorem.
- The italicized are not movements in 3D space as we know them but, for the sake of explanation and understanding, one could assume that. Beware though, this act collapses events in higher dimensions into 3D. Considering them sans thought may prove radical, confusing to say the least. ↩