Stealing the Future

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
OK so let's say that you really like technology targets. And you get a task from a client that is gradually working through the detail of something you don't understand but clearly get pieces of and it's some kind of technology. Now let's say you come to believe that the tasker is working on developing a technology which does not exist yet.

It exists in the future.

If you help the tasker figure out and hence 'invent' the technology now, is it theft if the future doesn't exist "yet"?

If your tasker invents it now, the person will never have invented it in your shifted (by this) probable-future. So it can't be stolen as it never was. That inventor will probably invent something else instead. But since in the future, afterward, the guy didn't invent it--as it already existed in his world--then what?

Did you steal something that doesn't exist, from a time that hasn't happened, from a reality that never manifests?

Just curious as to what other people think about this. This is the kind of stuff I think about when I'm supposed to be doing something worthwhile instead. ;D

PJ
 

LD

Member
Staff member
Interesting. What though, if it was actually invented in the future by your client as a result (or aided by) your viewing. If time is an illusion and everything has "already happened" so to speak, what's to say you're not just viewing the invention you helped create in the future with your viewing in the past?


Or maybe it would just tear a hole in the space/time continuum and we'd all be doomed unless we could find a DeLorean and figure out exactly when lightning will strike the clock tower...
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
I dont know interesting thoughts

what im thinking most is did i write myself in for a 10% of any future profits from developed hardware form my consultancy ;)

daz
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
Actually had a few thoughts.

Maybe you were alwasy destined to go get the data and steal the show form the start - destiny.

AND

I believe we and everything in the universe is connected -therefore its like creativity, its there for anyone to grab and use - not stealing. How can you steal what you have full and total access to?

daz
 
Palyne,

Uh-oh, watch out - you're sidling into Courtney Brown's work space:

http://www.farsight.org/demo/Multiple_Universes/Multiple_Universes_Experiment.html

IF there are multiple universes, then...that would explain some of the conundrums. [size=14pt] IF[/size]

(BTW, that experiment won't provide evidence, IMO, even if successful, about whether or not multiple universes exist, and I question (but don't know) that the samples are large enough for any firm statistical result. But if it is deemed successful by Courtney Brown, the PM, you could try a variant of that reverse chronology a bunch and see if you do consistently get better results. (i have another post somewhere here that goes into the scenarios in detail.) The experiment could have a practical result.

Has anyone ever done what you describe - having such an objective where the viewers provide info of this kind and this has led to the successful development of a device, process, etc? I suppose it would be Joe McMoneagle, if anyone. (Or various nonpublic viewer teams around the world ? I'm not aware of a team that has, and has shown, that capability.)

Cheers,
Jon
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
I know of something akin to this but it's nothing I can share about.

Re: probability: sure, that whole topic has been a topic of interest pretty much since RV arrived in the modern world and all us Jane Roberts / Seth freaks started pondering the probabilities framework LOL.

On your specific ref: I read Dr. Brown's page on his website. I honestly could not understand how the proposed experimental process would clearly demonstrate let alone provide serious evidence for what he was intending. (Without burying itself in tasker overlay, DAT issues, etc.) This is possibly my lack of logic or understanding but I spent quite some time pondering it, and I just couldn't see "how he could get there from here," so to speak.

I wanted to ask him, but I'm unaware of any public venue where he would seriously discuss all the logic, protocol, and details of his experiments as an 'equal conversationalist'. And while my comments regarding him/his participation in RV historically are related to that behavior/instance/trend -- not so much personally-personal -- I seriously doubt a dozen years of my being outspoken and snarky about such things has endeared him toward me LOL, and I worried if I wrote him directly questioning it he'd consider it some sort of attack so I just dropped it.

Anybody who could maybe explain it in different ways than he did to make it clear how his experiment could really provide clear evidence for what he's saying, I'd be glad to hear it -- um, but on another new thread dedicated to that please since it deserves its own space.

Back to the topic of the thread -- 'stealing' from the future. You know, I can't even count the number of songs I've written that had a clear correlary in words or music on the radio 6-12 months later. (Very exasperating when I was young.) I've had all kinds of ideas in books that I've been too busy to bother writing, only to read them in a book 1-3 years later.

Literally it's to the point where I'm starting to think that every creative idea exists and "information wants to be known" as Seth might have put it, and it's going to come through -- maybe in many people -- and if you don't do something creative that is in your lap, you can just bet that someone else WILL do it, and then you'll look like a plagiarist when really you invented it truly (noooooo, not that this IRKS me or anything, haha).

This reminds me of the phenomena of things historically being spontaneously invented near the same time frames at opposite sides of the world.

Maybe what we create -- even alone and without regard to anything else -- is never "truly ours alone". Maybe the energy that pours into creativity comes from some energy source we are part-of-but-not-all-of. Maybe that's why the same creative base comes through all over the place in many people and generally in the same era, albeit people do it in their own distinct ways.

If we don't truly 'solely own' "energetically" what we create in the present (even if we do own it legally), then how can anyone 'solely own' what they create in the future, in order to call someone else viewing that stealing?

Is viewing future technology just a psychic bittorrent? ;)

PJ
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
PJ, I agree with this.
I've also had a conversation with Ingo about how RV is a creative process from the roots up - its also why I sub named Eight Martinis the state of the ART of remote viewing - it an art form a creative expression, individual to each or us. Each session is like a mini work of art.

In the holographic theory of the universe holds tru then there is no future - all information is now, which is why rv works. The information for everything isn't out there somewhere - its inside of us - like the song says 'we are made of stars'.

Im convinced I'm now better at graphic design because rv helped me be more creative, opening up to the creative process. Its also why when I get a good idea - i can bank on it that someone else is also doing it about the same time.

As I said how can we steal ideas that we all have normal access to anyway?

psychic bit torrent - ye I think so :)

daz
 

dann

New Member
The future... Are we there yet? ... how about now? ... are we there yet? :)

The only reality is eternally now. Consider a musical melody. The only thing that really exists is a single sound vibration having a certain pitch and a certain combination of harmonics. Melody is a musical story pattern that only exists in memory. Memory itself is a present moment experience, a collection of mind-body states that become energized by what is happening now.

The past doesn't exist, except as a story that we weave out of the way things around us have accumulated into certain shapes and patterns. The future is a similar story except it is based partly on accumulated shapes and partly on anticipated shapes.

So how does precog viewing work? I don't know, but clearly, it does. "Has the event already happened?" My suspicion is that there is something unreal about the structure of that question. It sounds sensible because it follows grammatical rules, but if there is only the present moment, then "Happened" may not be a legitimate concept. Is it more of a device to make linear language and story telling possible.

Socially and culturally we are quite committed to the use of language. And so we have agreed that things have happened, are happening and will happen. But precog is an anomaly of the rules of linear language. It indicates that there is something else going on. If we try to capture anomalies in story lines then we are bound to run into paradox. Language may be the wrong tool for outsmarting anomalies. Until further conceptual developments occur all we can do is hang loose and partake of the anomalous, getting the sense of it through experience in the moment. Hanging on to a paradox or trying to unravel a paradox by finding a better story is probably going to generate a block against the experience.

So where does future technology come from? Who owns it? Well... ownership is another socio-cultural contract and thus an artificial creation, like the rules of grammar. Inspiration probably comes from the Akashic Commons. It's products are then bound up in socio-cultural glamors and enchantments.

If Monsanto and other corporations can use such enchantments to patent life, I suppose future-tech ownership rights are vulnerable to similar insanity.
 

Mycroft

Active Member
LD said:
If time is an illusion and everything has "already happened" so to speak, what's to say you're not just viewing the invention you helped create in the future with your viewing in the past?
For an easier convention in understanding, this would be what Tesla intended in his autobiography. He claimed to be able to test the viability of his competitors inventions before they had completed them thereby eliminating his necessity for trial and error.

Consider Win Wenger's, take on this whole thing. While we can conceptualize many important things, can we call it invented until the material and the technology is available to bring it into being?

If something should be considered invented just because it was conceptualized then Jules Vern's estate should hold the patent for everything from TV's to Nuclear Subs.

Apple sued a company a couple of years ago for putting a sketch of a future project on their web site. When I saw the sketch it wreaked an RV signature.

I left an example of this type of thing on this forum a few years ago, I've referred to it before. I used Win Wenger's method for bringing things back from the future and posted it here. The item was self illuminating Christmas bulbs that were self contained with their own replaceable battery. It took nearly two years but I saw them advertised at Christmas either 2005 or 2006. Did I invent them? Maybe, I certainly helped bring them back from the future but I gave away the idea right here in this forum.

How does one steal a work in progress? I'm not sure, how many projects are abandoned only to be restarted by others years or even decades down the road.

Lyn Buchanan takes a very strong stance on this type of thing and I'm sure I don't understand entirely upon what he bases his premise.

Mycroft
 

dann

New Member
Consider Win Wenger's, take on this whole thing. While we can conceptualize many important things, can we call it invented until the material and the technology is available to bring it into being?
As a patent holder I can tell you that ideas are the easy part. The devil is in the detail.

(Actually its the company that I used to work for that holds the patent.)
 

Mycroft

Active Member
Dan N said:
As a patent holder I can tell you that ideas are the easy part. The devil is in the detail.
A year or more ago I was researching an aircraft design that was created by a man who swore the design would fly. Was absolutely convinced that it would work. Made the necessary schematics, dimensions and went before the king. They all laughed at him. He was a man out of time and went home and blew his brains out.
What the man actually envisioned 160 years too soon was a version of todays stealth bomber. Fortunately for us, his drawings still exist. Absolutely chilling.

Mycroft
 

katzenhai2

Ambassador
What do you think should a men 160 years ago with a stealth fighter (and for what inventing it?) without radar screens existing?? Sometimes your comments makes me wonder... *despairing*
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
Lol katz, mycroft was refering to the design looking
Or resembling a stealth fighter.

By the way the title of this thread makes
No sense to me. You can't steal the future any more
Than you can steal the past. Everything is already IN-PLAY
Past, Present and future is yours for the taking....if you can take it :)

T
 

katzenhai2

Ambassador
Phew. Please don't throw tomatoes towards me. ;D

I think a paradox can't exist because as outlined by Tunde, anything is NOW and in charge of each other. Like a snake bite its tail. You can't go back in time and kill your own grandfather because then you would never have existed, at least in my understanding of time. So whatever you do, there will an event/effect which hinders you to kill someone important to your life. Not in terms of destiny, more of a physical necessity (because it already happend). Same applies to remote viewing and the future. I don't believe in parallel worlds/realities.
 

Mycroft

Active Member
katzenhai2 said:
What do you think should a men 160 years ago with a stealth fighter (and for what inventing it?) without radar screens existing?? Sometimes your comments makes me wonder... *despairing*
I cannot presume to know why or how he did it any more than how Jules Verne did what he did any more than I could presume to understand why you have such difficulty understanding what I have written. Perhaps your hopelessness could be replaced with a remedial reading course?

Here are two links, obviously they are not all inclusive. Make an attempt to understand these men were visionaries. They could see the future and did their best to recreate what they saw. The stories on these two pages vary considerably from others on the internet but the net effect is much of what we have today was credited to this one man.

" Alphonse Penaud, a French designer born in 1850 made what must be one of the most inspired series of informed guesses in all technological history. Working with the mechanic Paul Gauchot, he designed a streamlined bat-winged stealth shape with twin propellers, a glassed-in cockpit, and a retractable tricycle undercarriage!"
ref.
http://www.combat-diaries.co.uk/diary21/diary21chapter_1.htm

bio ref.
http://www.flyingmachines.org/pend.html

It is through people like this that feed the memes so others can create, invent and civilization prospers.

Mycroft
 

Glyn

New Member
Hi Mycroft,

Here's another visionary who designed aircraft. J W Dunne, the father of Future Memory theory. Funny how it comes together on a thread about time. LOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_William_Dunne

On the idea of whether it's possible to steal from the future. Well there are intriguing paradox problems to overcome....brain spaghetti stuff in fact...if we stay on the linear time track. They say that nature abhors a vacuum..and probably a paradox as well. J W Dunne thought we had multiple 'selves' linked on an unconscious level, in what we would today term alternative dimensions of time, and today's Quantum theorists talk about different dimensions don't they? Anyway....so that's where we'd get the information, we steal their ideas, it's easier. Is it ethical though? Who cares, I haven't seen any interdimensional lawyers about...but I guess it's just a matter of time. ;D

OK you can shoot me for that awful pun. ;D

Glyn
.
 

Mycroft

Active Member
Glyn said:
Hi Mycroft,

Here's another visionary who designed aircraft. J W Dunne, the father of Future Memory theory. Funny how it comes together on a thread about time. LOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_William_Dunne
Thanks Glyn, when this discussion started I had considered Future Memory, but have always relied on you to tutor me on the subject.

[quote author=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_William_Dunne]Through years of experimentation with precognitive dreams and hypnagogic states Dunne posited that our experience of Time as linear was an illusion brought about by human consciousness. [/quote]Fantastic man..and yes his work is so fitting for this topic.

Thanks!

Mycroft
 

Negrodamus

New Member
I look at it like this. Every single idea that humans have comes from the Matrix, Plato called it Forms.

Forms are the manifestation of everything before it becomes present in the physical world.

Just about every genius has used intuition to figure out their problems including people like Einstein. Einstein considered intuition to be paramount to logic.

-------------

"It is better for people to be like the beasts...they should be more intuitive; they should not be too conscious of what they are doing while they are doing it." - A. Einstein

The only real valuable thing is intuition. - A. Einstein

-------------

I am a firm believer of the concept that consciousness is the basis of all reality, and even the bible says nothing is old and nothing is new. How do you know this technology did not exist in the past or on another planet or another alternate reality, or possibly from the mind of God itself.

If the technology exists now, it's because it's meant to be, karma controls all, NOBODY, I mean nobody can do anything without the okay of the one who is all.

We are just beginning to study the metaphysical or spiritual world. This is the place remote viewers call The Matrix, science calls the unified field, it goes by many names, but in truth, they are all titles as it has no name.

“When science begins the study of non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence. ”

Nikola Tesla

I agree with Nikola Tesla, the inventor or the alternating current, that if remote viewing we used to study and objectify metaphysical principles and refine it into a science, humanity would take a quantum leap in advancement, not just technologically but on ever level of our being.

Robert Searle has some REALLY great ideas that would be perfect for a remote viewer, it would be a new branch of science that takes off where quantum mechanics leaves up, and jumps head first into the weird world of hadronic mechanics.

http://www.kheper.net/essays/Multi-Dimensional_Science.html

Here are Searle's theories on how to use psychics to pervade the unknown, this would be PERFECT for remote viewers, since rv grew out of a laboratory environment.
 

Mycroft

Active Member
Negrodamus said:
“When science begins the study of non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence. ”

Nikola Tesla
Ah, you quoted one of my biggest heroes, the man Einstein could have grown up to be if his cronies an automotive manufacturer, the light bulb guy and Uncle Sam wouldn't have hated so much. Oops, off topic..

His autobiography gives more detail into how he did what he did and at the end of his life he was heavily involved with contacting the dead and apparently had a modicum of success. Unfortunately he was still haunted by politics even in death as his personal belongings languished for six years before being gathered up, inventoried and forwarded to his estate.

Apparently being able do devise a method to shoot down UFOs wasn't enough to erase the inertia of having flipped off the military establishment the bird during the Philadelphia Experiment...

No idol worship here, no sir.. ;)

There is a site dedicated to him, they have most all his (remaining) papers available for download and others for purchase.

Mycroft
 

ticklish

New Member
It reminds me of something I once read about Dean Radin tasking Joe McMoneagle to imagine a machine that would aid viewing. I heard little about it other than the comment it was being attempted.

Can you steal an invention from the future? With my limited knowledge of remote viewing, it would be very difficult. First of all, if the technology is sufficiently advanced you might "see" the device and get a sense of the generalities of how it might work, but you would lack the concepts to bring it to fruition.

Imagine a 19th century Jules Verne RV'ing an early atomic bomb from the Manhattan Project. He may get a sense of the tremendous destructive energy, the general size and shape of the weapon, even the fact there are charges expertly shaped and timed to implode around a core with a strange sense of energy.

What he doesn't have is any information on the structure of an atom, quantum mechanics, or what a what a neutron is. He would have to be a pretty good viewer to understand that the core is uranium, but he wouldn't yet be educated to the difference between Uranium-235 and Uranium-238. Even if he did, he wouldn't have the centrifuge technology to separate the isotopes. Given that explosive charges exist, he might get a sense that they were designed to squeeze the central portion, but the technology to manufacture the specialized high-speed switches woudn't exist either. Never mind the specialized materials in the bomb to reflect the neutrons.

In brief, he'd lack the understanding of what he should be looking for, and even if he did see it, he would lack the technology to complete the design. Any significant improvement in an invention or device incorporates contributions from multiple disciplines and multiple scientists/engineers, so I'd imagine would spend a long time having a large number of people performing multiple viewing to grasp the details.

If RV were going to work, I'd imagine it would be worth pursuing in terms of an incremental improvement of a device, rather than coming up with something completely new. Picture an electrical engineer with a transistor leakage problem on the new Pentium_Googol chip. He might task a viewer (hopefully a PhD in electrical engineering) to view the solution in five years. That could keep the task within the range of what they can reasonably understand and within the range of existing technology.

As far as it is an ethical question, I wouldn't see RV'ing a future invention as much different than reading the scientific and engineering literature out there to get a general grasp of the problem before you start your own project. Like any good reference, it could potentially provide some insight to what avenues are worth persuing and help focus your work. At best, RV would provide a piece of puzzle, it wouldn't give you the whole enchilada.

Ask any graduate student in the sciences or engineering; If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research.

Bill
 
Top