• Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!

Multidimensionality of Time

Khoren_

Practical Philosopher
Joined
Mar 25, 2022
Messages
228
Reaction score
520
Awards
9
Note: Given this is a discussion on the general idea, but I have a few texts I will reference, as well as a few youtube videos, I felt this was best placed into "Gen Occult" as opposed to specific book discussion.

This is the last bit I wrote, and looking for some feedback, some insight, really just putting it out there.

When we are discussing the implications of a multidimensional time, we have to realize that the one dimension of time is not the only dimension of time. We are so used to experiencing time in a linear, causal progression, to the point that we heuristically assign all moments prior to cause all moments antecedent. While, broadly, this is true insofar that all moments antecedent are influenced by all moments prior, this does not mean that all moments prior cause all moments antecedent. For what it is worth, we will play with this idea somewhat in this book, as there will be a discussion of “material conditions”1, but note that this does not mean either “physical properties of prior moments” nor does it mean that all moments prior in fact cause all moments antecedent. In most cases, relationalism – the idea that things exist as a relation to other things, and do not exist as a thing-in-itself, as reputed by Immanuel Kant – is the underlying axiom that is assumed here. Events, people, things, ideas, etc. exist in relation to others, and thus are influenced by these others. Given that all of reality is indeed relational in nature, we expand this to mean that reality as we understand it is also intersubjective – or the idea that things are defined by their interaction with conscious minds2. But I digress.
As we expand our understanding of time from one-dimension to many, we must also reconcile this with our causal heuristics. Causality as it is understood must be tossed as the sole underlying function of the universe. Now, reminder, we are not tossing the baby out with the bathwater as we can utilize the heuristic of causality to allow us to understand how correlative capacities of the universe can inform our actions, both in multi-dimensional time and in the motions of our magic.
First, what does it mean for time to be multi-dimensional, both in the practical and the theoretical capacity in which it affects us? Does this mean that we can traverse multiple dimensions of time, much in the same way we do space? Or does our capacity for integrating the heuristics assigned with one-dimensional time limit us to actually influence anything beyond our own experiences? All in all, we must realize that the universe is way grander and vast than we come to understand it, and as such this may mean our current heuristics of understanding time needs to be updated.

To answer the first question, we need to explain how to discuss this planar time3. Normally time as a linear progression exists as a “before”, “during”, and “after”. It is easy to conceptualize the progression of events, and even subject this progression to causality heuristics, as it is the way we logically understand them. However, tossing out the heuristics of causality, we see less of a causal influence of events before others, and more of a correlative one. Events that happen after other events aren’t necessarily caused by those events, but may show similar correlative properties which can lead those not completely versed in statistics to believe that there is a causal relation. This even can extend to a more complex understanding that events after can cause events before, if you look at the statistical model showing that the correlative properties are effectively 1:1. A more reasoned understanding of correlative effects, however, can lead one to understand that events can happen synchroncistically, as opposed to causally. This, again, does not imply that the material influence of prior events do not affect posterior events, but rather leads us to rethink what it means to cause something. More on this when we discuss possibility, probability, and the function of attractors. While the majority of events do have arbitrary durations that only exist as a means for us to demarcate various moments in time, this is not inherent to the events, and thus can only be used as a shorthand when discussing events. When we move from a linear progression to a more planar progression, we find that these durations, and even the supposed causal nature of reality, breaks apart more easily. An event exists as a vector, and not a “line”, in which the arbitrary “start” of the event denotes the origin of the vector and the duration of the event exists as the magnitude and direction of the vector4. The “end” of the event doesn’t even occur, at least not in the same way that it would in linear time, which is why I shorthand the conceptualization to a vector space5. For those who have taken more advanced mathematics, each event space on the temporal plane can be seen as a sum of many differential planes, much in the same way we conceptualize magnetic fields.

1 Given that Marx’s first intention of Material Conditions implied that there was a directionality to time, and that physical events cause moments antecedent, this is going to be a bit of a demarcation. I agree with Marx in that the surrounding environment does in fact influence the events and decisions made, but I disagree broadly with the idea that there is a directionality to time and that there is only the physical processes of the world that influence these events. When I discuss “material”, I do not imply physicality, but merely state that events, ideas, people, etc. have an influence upon other events, ideas, people, etc. Material in this case is taken to mean “being both relevant and consequential”.
2 In this assumption, there is no such thing as a “nonconscious mind” – to be differentiated from a subconscious or unconscious mind – and thus all things are “conscious” in that they have vectors of time and space that influence other things. Yes, this includes things as small as electrons and as large as celestial bodies.
3 I will admit a lot of this explanation will be almost taken verbatim from The Zip Creator’s Saj video, but there will be some key distinctions, namely the existence of causality. I hope to provide enough of a differentiation from how they explain and conceptualize planar time that it will be seen as suitably distinct.
4 The explanation of events existing as a vector is, again, a shorthand to explain how the event itself originates in the plane of time, and then ripples out from the vector itself in “all directions”, influencing both past, present, and future events. Think of these vectors as if you took your hand and ran it in a line, or plane, through a still pond, with the effects rippling out from the “origin vector” of the event.
5 As a note, the vector space is also not strictly linear in form, and can actually be more regularly described as a vector plane, where the “origin” can be a point or a line and the “end” can extend nigh infinitely into both the “y” and “x” axis.
 

SkullTraill

Glorious Light of Knowledge and Power
Staff member
Custodian
Librarian
Joined
Apr 12, 2021
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
29,566
Awards
20
we have to realize that the one dimension of time is not the only dimension of time.
We don't have to realize that. It is not common knowledge, established theory, or even a functional hypothesis (from the sources being discussed here). It is nothing more than wild conjecture. And while multidimensional time may be something I and others are open to thinking about, it's far cry from something we have to "realize".

While, broadly, this is true insofar that all moments antecedent are influenced by all moments prior, this does not mean that all moments prior cause all moments antecedent.
and that physical events cause moments antecedent
What's happening here? Moments "prior" and moments "antecedent" are the same thing? Antecedent means something that precedes another, so what does "all moments antecedent are influenced by all moments prior" mean?

is the underlying axiom that is assumed here
While colloquially an axiom is defined as something given to be true, generally in literature and academia it's something that is self-evident, and an atomic/basic statement that is generally not up for debate. It's true that in mathematics and logic, people argue about axioms, but generally the most common and fundamental qualifier for axioms is that they are self-evident and/or don't require rigorous proof. Relationism is not an axiom, and is more of an assumption (pretty big one) or perhaps just a springboard to dive off, a sort of framework that you're basing your ideas around. I wouldn't call it an axiom.

n event exists as a vector, and not a “line”, in which the arbitrary “start” of the event denotes the origin of the vector and the duration of the event exists as the magnitude and direction of the vector
A vector is a line. An event can be described by 2 2-dimensional points, start and end, which would itself be able to be described as a vector, but the event itself exists as a 2-dimensional shape on the plane. In fact, if it's not a rectangular event (which the Saj video says it doesn't have to be) then a vector would not be enough to describe the shape of the event in a descriptive meaningful way. Even assuming that all events are rectangular in shape, you need to find a better way to explain this, as a vector is most definitely a line. If you're comparing it to an "infinite" line, world-line, or some other type of grid/boundless line, then specify that.

The “end” of the event doesn’t even occur, at least not in the same way that it would in linear time, which is why I shorthand the conceptualization to a vector space
The "at least not in the same way that it would in linear time" merits a justification/explanation far more than the "why" of your "conceptualizing" the end of an event to "vector space" does. What does this even mean? In the saj video, the events start and end, IIRC only the "ripple effects" or the causal connection in the "future" axial directions extend to infinity. That doesn't mean the event doesn't end on that axis, it just means it can effect things on that axis infinitely if there is no movement along the other axis. I'm not sure because the Saj video is not a comprehensive explanation of multidimensional time, just a good exploration of how language could be constructed in such a universe if all the creators assumptions and cut corners were valid (they are not). More on the video later.

EDIT: Rewatched the video and sort of get what you mean. Those areas that extend to infinity in the axial futures (magenta areas) are areas where the event has ended but the outcome of the event is unknown, meaning, since you're not moving forward in time on the other axis, you will never cross the area where the outcomes happen/exist (cyan area).

For those who have taken more advanced mathematics
Don't do that. YOU have not taken advanced mathematics. YOU do not know advanced mathematics. Therefore nothing YOU write will be restricted to people who do know advanced mathematics. If someone does not understand or grasp what you are saying it will most likely be either a communication issue (from either side), your own inability to codify your internal head canon, or simply you being wrong/inconsistent about something. It will never be because someone doesn't understand "advanced mathematics" unless "advanced mathematics" is vectors and matrices.

each event space on the temporal plane can be seen as a sum of many differential planes
A sum or product of many different areas on the 2d temporal plane, not the sum of many different planes.

much in the same way we conceptualize magnetic fields
I don't think so, really. Can you elaborate?

I will admit a lot of this explanation will be almost taken verbatim from The Zip Creator’s Saj video, but there will be some key distinctions, namely the existence of causality. I hope to provide enough of a differentiation from how they explain and conceptualize planar time that it will be seen as suitably distinct.
I think this is the underlying problem. As I said before, that video isn't a exploration or explanation of multidimensional time beyond some basic assumptions and cherrypicked concepts that they required in order to explain their thought process for constructing an imaginary language (also at a very basic level). It is super interesting, but you using it in any way to intellectually fund your "multidimensional time" conjecture is the equivalent of learning thermodynamics from a video about cooking steak.

Ultimately, it's my opinion that you shouldn't keep this chapter in your book. It will look half-baked, poorly researched, pseudo-intellectual and overall just take away from your credibility that you worked hard to establish in other sections. I know you've done some cursory research into this subject, and I'll never be so rude as to suggest that you haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it and formulating some type of conjecture in your head. But to profess this from an expert position would be disingenuous because there is no formal logic, math, or physics applied here. Just a tiny bit of philosophy and a big bit of head canon.

All for a subject that is not only lacks experimental proof of any kind, but is in fact actively disproved in all areas except perhaps QM/very small/fundamental scales of the universe, very large scales, or very strange singularity type events (big bang etc). Or maybe in some meta/pseudo sciences like sociology. Idk.

If anything, a suggestion that additional dimensions of time could be a potential explanation to the unpredictable/counterintuitive nature of magick would suffice, rather than a whole chapter - which you're forced to be comprehensive and authoritative in.

Of course this is my personal take on this topic, and you don't have to listen to anything I just said. Who knows, maybe this'll be a hit with the average joe and you'll become a best seller. I don't want to be the guy that takes that away from you.

Double EDIT: P.S. This is still very much an interesting topic that we can and should discuss and think about. I just don't think it's baked yet.
 
Last edited:

Khoren_

Practical Philosopher
Joined
Mar 25, 2022
Messages
228
Reaction score
520
Awards
9
We don't have to realize that.
Realize these nuts. Nah, but the idea is that this section comes directly after discussion of how magic almost requires rethinking how we understand time. Sure it's not a "have to", and I can probably rethink this wording, but this is a triviality.


Moments "prior" and moments "antecedent" are the same thing
I don't know why I kept forgetting that Subsequent was a word.


A vector is a line.
I was thinking of a differential plane, i.e. where you use vectors at various points to describe how that point would interact with a function. A vector can also exist in a three, four, or n-dimensional plane, but is often then described as a vector space. The goal is to describe how the influence of a particular event (regardless of it's dimensionality and "shape") will still influence events in a seemingly omnidirectional space. The goal is to explain how an event isn't necessarily defined as a "start and end" but rather a less defined space and thus can also influence other events in a less definite way. A rock falling down a hill may seemingly end with the rock at the bottom of the hill, but given how we group things we cannot stay with absolute certainty that the event started at time a and ended at time b, and even if we can delineate at least the beginning of the event, we cannot say as certainly that the "end" of the event occurred. Because when dealing with multidimensional time, even if an event has a stable beginning and "end" in the sense of having vertices on the plane, we still can't conceive it as the same as a beginning or end of a linear event.

Rewatched the video and sort of get what you mean. Those areas that extend to infinity in the axial futures (magenta areas) are areas where the event has ended but the outcome of the event is unknown, meaning, since you're not moving forward in time on the other axis, you will never cross the area where the outcomes happen/exist (cyan area).
Yeah.


YOU have not taken advanced mathematics. YOU do not know advanced mathematics. Therefore nothing YOU write will be restricted to people who do know advanced mathematics.
response in the discord.
For those who aren't in the discord:
I have taken graduate level Maths, and have a degree in Biology with some post-undergrad work on chemistry and mathematics. I'm just a terrible teacher and is probably why I never got a TA position.


A sum or product of many different areas on the 2d temporal plane, not the sum of many different planes.
I was getting ahead of myself here.


I don't think so, really. Can you elaborate?
Loop back to my mention of vector spaces and differential planes and how mandelbrot sets work... in fact let me post a video that does a better job explaining it than me:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




Ultimately, it's my opinion that you shouldn't keep this chapter in your book.
The only reason I even entertained adding this section is because I'm kind of mentioning how time isn't linear and causality may not be real multiple times and figured I should at least attempt to describe what that means.
 

SkullTraill

Glorious Light of Knowledge and Power
Staff member
Custodian
Librarian
Joined
Apr 12, 2021
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
29,566
Awards
20
I was thinking of a differential plane, i.e. where you use vectors at various points to describe how that point would interact with a function. A vector can also exist in a three, four, or n-dimensional plane, but is often then described as a vector space. The goal is to describe how the influence of a particular event (regardless of it's dimensionality and "shape") will still influence events in a seemingly omnidirectional space. The goal is to explain how an event isn't necessarily defined as a "start and end" but rather a less defined space and thus can also influence other events in a less definite way. A rock falling down a hill may seemingly end with the rock at the bottom of the hill, but given how we group things we cannot stay with absolute certainty that the event started at time a and ended at time b, and even if we can delineate at least the beginning of the event, we cannot say as certainly that the "end" of the event occurred. Because when dealing with multidimensional time, even if an event has a stable beginning and "end" in the sense of having vertices on the plane, we still can't conceive it as the same as a beginning or end of a linear event.
Firstly, it doesn't have to really be a differential plane to be 2d time, unless there's some transformation being applied via some set of arbitrary rules or laws that apply to the plane. That's not something that is default or essential to exploring the idea of multidimensional time. It could be useful in the future after the core concept itself is established, but for example we don't discuss the curvature of linear time in a gravitational field before we actually set up a baseline understanding of time itself.

Secondly, while it is not exactly like linear time, there is most certainly a definite beginning and end to all finite events, its just that you may (if you could) choose a path where you don't pass through the end point. But let's not forget that the temporal dimension is not something we really move through of our own accord. We could simply have a set speed through both temporal dimensions in the same way that we currently do through a single temporal dimension. In fact that is kind of one of the only things that separates a spatial and temporal dimension.

response in the discord.
For those who aren't in the discord:
I have taken graduate level Maths, and have a degree in Biology with some post-undergrad work on chemistry and mathematics. I'm just a terrible teacher and is probably why I never got a TA position.
In good spirit, I choose to believe that you have a biochem degree (not sold on graduate math, though, because ->) but it is not evident or obvious from your postings. At best, benefit of the doubt that since it was a while ago your memory of some things are hazy. I get it. It's the same for me, but that's why I typically google and research thoroughly before posting something publicly, and make sure I understand concepts beyond the surface level so I'm not just talking about things that I know the definition for, but also their uses and how they relate to and are used in other areas of math/science.

Loop back to my mention of vector spaces and differential planes and how mandelbrot sets work... in fact let me post a video that does a better job explaining it than me:
I know how the mandelbrot works, and really while you could probably do some math woo woo to make it work in some sort of differential plane model, it doesn't have to be. At its core it is just a set of points in the complex plane run through a simple, regular function and filtered based on output. It's unclear how any of this really relates to the actual content of the topic being discussed here. Not saying there can't be any connection, just that it's not apparent from what you're posting.

To me (maybe naively, idk) it seems like whenever you're backed into a corner or have exhausted your expertise in one area, you hop on a new buzzword/jargon that seems to me, quite disconnected. Again, in good spirit, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that this is because you have something complicated in your head that you are trying to express excitedly via whatever tools at your disposal, but it's not helpful sometimes.

Like, at the end of the day, the question you were asked here is "how does the event space relate to magnetic fields?" and yes, there are differential equations for describing magnetic fields, but what on earth does the mandelbrot set have to do with that? And how exactly does the 2d temporal plane relate to magnetic fields? Just the fact that they both use differential equations? Tons of mathematical theories and branches use calculus. Why do you think the temporal plane must be a "differential plane" that's the meat of the question. Drawing vague parallels is not really that helpful when brainstorming an abstract concept like this because you are not "teaching" it you are still trying to establish your conjecture.

The only reason I even entertained adding this section is because I'm kind of mentioning how time isn't linear and causality may not be real multiple times and figured I should at least attempt to describe what that means.
Understandable, but as discussed for the sake of your own credibility it may serve you better to make suggestions and give people things to think about than authoritatively stating these ideas which can't really be backed up.
 

whome

Banned
Banned
Warned
Probation
Joined
Oct 27, 2024
Messages
46
Reaction score
25
Awards
1
we have to realize that the one dimension of time is not the only dimension of time.

So the human practice of parallel processing also exists in Nature
 
Top