• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/plus/

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

June 30, 2019 — Dr. Michael P. Masters



Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
A truly fascinating romp through time and space.

So is time travel possible, and are we witnessing visitors from our far future rather than aliens from space?

We enjoyed our visit with Dr. Masters so much that we invited him to continue the discussion on this weekend's episode of After The Paracast, which is an exclusive feature of The Paracast+.

For more details about our premium subscription package, please visit: Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
 

Linton

Intellectually Omnivorous
Great show. Fantastic guest. Found the debate about the possibility of time travel interesting. I personally find the idea of multiple timelines ridiculous, and the block time scenario makes far more sense. If the hints of nature can be any guide, the true nature of space-time is likely a nested fractal. Traveling through time wouldn’t be so much a trip through space, but a trip “up”, “down”, into the actual fabric of existence. In this way travel through space would become irrelevant as all of space and time and possibility is already wherever you are.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Excellent guest. Very intelligent and articulate.
Surprised Randall decided to debate Dr. Masters so aggressively.
I was asked by Dr. Masters why I find block universes to be less preferable, and it's not often I get the chance to explore the topic with someone of Dr. Masters calibre. He was very gracious about it because at heart I think it's safe to say that we're both truth seekers, and we both appreciate the value of comparing ideas. It's the cornerstone of good research. Fabulous guest :cool:
 
Last edited:

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Great show. Fantastic guest. Found the debate about the possibility of time travel interesting. I personally find the idea of multiple timelines ridiculous, and the block time scenario makes far more sense. If the hints of nature can be any guide, the true nature of space-time is likely a nested fractal. Traveling through time wouldn’t be so much a trip through space, but a trip “up”, “down”, into the actual fabric of existence. In this way travel through space would become irrelevant as all of space and time and possibility is already wherever you are.
Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure any of the concepts are very easy for most people grasp, including some of the best academics. But I do enjoy exploring them and am open to discussing them further. Maybe we can both learn something? I'm certainly willing to change my views if given sufficient reasoning, and am equally as open and friendly as those who like to pose counterpoint. It's the heart of the Socratic Method. May I ask why in the context of time travel, you find that a block universe makes more sense than a multiverse?
 

Linton

Intellectually Omnivorous
May I ask why in the context of time travel, you find that a block universe makes more sense than a multiverse?
So essentially my issue with a multiverse is that every trip back or forward in time would really either result in an alternate parallel universe, or an outright jump to an already existing parallel universe. The energy supplying these alternate realities would have to come from somewhere and if someone were to go all time travel crazy and bounce around like Dr. Who, you would be generating so many realities as to be absurd, each with an origin focused around one traveling individual. It seems like an unlikely overly complicated model for an otherwise well structured universe. It would also render time travel pointless. You aren’t witnessing or affecting events in your own timeline of origin. As soon as that became clear “time” travel would come to a quick end. It would also go against the idea of the Mandela effect, which I have a fond place for (so this bit of bias can be ignored). Anyone from any alternate timeline would have no reason to have any memory spillage from the other lines, as your duplicate never experienced the events you did after the timeline split.

A block model makes sense from a higher dimensional sense. Where from the perspective of a higher dimension everything down here is a convoluted mash of stringy matter extending forward and backward in time. It’s not so much that the universe is some physical “block” paperweight sitting on some diety’s desk, but more that the nature of time and it’s interaction with our 3 dimensions would be perceptible as a whole.

To connect it with the simulated universe theory (in which case, we might be a paperweight) time becomes a very complicated equation, and our reality is just a representation of that equation moving toward solution.

A fractal model for time could still work with higher dimensions, might give the illusion of alternate timelines for time travelers, who accidentally visit non-dominant branches. Perhaps the Mandela effect is a result of these non-dominant branches. As fractal time beings we would have some possible seepage of memory from non-dominant, dead-end branches that still exist within the pattern of our primary time pattern. It may even be the result of time travelers going back and altering the dominant formation of the pattern, but ultimately they would never be able to change the events of history as they recall it as their leap back is already a part of the dominant pattern they are traveling from.

It may sound a little like I’m talking about branching or parallel timelines in slightly alternate terms but it really is a dramatically different model. It might help to think of it this way: The people in separate or branching time lines have their own experiences and completely different futures. The people in a fractal time model experience a number of variations but ultimately share one perceptual experience and have one shared inevitable future. Our free will is simply a part of the complicated math that forms that shared pattern.
 

blowfish

Whittingham
Once again this crazy field of ufology throws a spanner in the works of theories as skeptic's fear of thinking outside the box. For example , having watch excellent Dr. Brandenburg interview on youtube discussed the phenomenon of U.A.P. ( UFO/ Flying Saucers) and Mars . Found this latest article by ESA. INT on Mars interesting and the scale of the dust storms. Dust storms swirl at the north pole of Mars.

The Jimmy Church radio show yesterday was excellent show and what ever they are? They seem to outsmart human technology and designed by human science. Remember a Submariner whose job was Sonar analysis told me they were large craft and the objects had a cloaking capabilities out of this world. He own words was we did not have the know how or capability to create the movements these unknown objects USO could do. Like on J.C guest discussed about the shit-storm that comes with disclosure he was told to never speak of this on the record and told me after a lecture as it was concerning he left not long after the event as effected him deeply. He laughed at the thought humans made this type of gear and said complete bullshit. Therefore jumping to conclusions it could be time travelers is one element rather keep an open mind on all possibilities.
 
Last edited:

kanakaris

Paranormal Adept
Excellent guest who has a point : why do 'they' look so much like us ?There must be a connection .Is it the time-dimension ?Who knows...
I only cringed once when i heard the 'G'-word.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Okay. You're a thinker instead of a critic. I'm impressed. Let's unpack some of those ideas and compare the way we look at them.
So essentially my issue with a multiverse is that every trip back or forward in time would really either result in an alternate parallel universe, or an outright jump to an already existing parallel universe.
In one context I see what you're saying, and it's a valid point that we can come back to later, but that's not the context I was trying to illustrate on the show. Not sure if you're on The Paracast Plus commercial free version or not, but I can track down the time if you need it.

My suggestion was that in a multiverse model there is no time travel in the usual context and no new timeline needs to be created in the process. What is happening is that there are two separate roughly parallel universes that have evolved from a different starting point relative to each other within the larger frame of reference. So for travellers from the more evolved universe coming here, it would appear to them from a subjective perspective, like going back in time.

In this model, backward and forward "time travel" only requires two universes. The limitation is that unlike the typical sci-fi type time travel stories, there is no option to "dial-in" a particular point in time. That would require that there be a corresponding separate universe for each point in time. Given that the universe on the grandest scale is infinite, it's not philosophically impossible, but I tend to share your sentiment that it seems unlikely, especially if our universe is a construct that was created within the larger universe.
The energy supplying these alternate realities would have to come from somewhere and if someone were to go all time travel crazy and bounce around like Dr. Who, you would be generating so many realities as to be absurd, each with an origin focused around one traveling individual. It seems like an unlikely overly complicated model for an otherwise well structured universe.
A valid point within the "simulated universe" model as mentioned above. However only two universes are required to produce the effect, and several don't seem unreasonable as a possibility. Our own minuscule efforts to model universes include several versions already, and I imagine they're all stored within a series of folders on some supercomputer.
It would also render time travel pointless. You aren’t witnessing or affecting events in your own timeline of origin. As soon as that became clear “time” travel would come to a quick end.
The multiverse model wouldn't necessarily render travel between universes pointless. Perhaps there are certain resources available in a less evolved universe that aren't available anymore in the more evolved one. Plus the opportunity to study a parallel timeline could give those in the more evolved universe clues to missing pieces in their own past. It would be amazing. Far from pointless IMO.

But as you correctly point out, it wouldn't really be "time travel". That is simply an illusion, and that is one of my major points. Because it could be an illusion we shouldn't decide to be so sure that it's really time travel, or else our worldview could be all messed up, and that's why I don't buy into the idea of "time travel" in the typical sci-fi sense ( other than to agree with the Vulcan Science Directorate )
It would also go against the idea of the Mandela effect, which I have a fond place for (so this bit of bias can be ignored). Anyone from any alternate timeline would have no reason to have any memory spillage from the other lines, as your duplicate never experienced the events you did after the timeline split.
I too find the Mandela Effect quite interesting. I remember both scenarios. I definitely recall Mandela dying in jail along with all the news and mourning crowds. I also remember thinking: "WTF, is this some sort of impostor?" When he got released. Have you run across the bit where the actor who played Jaws in the James Bond movie said before he died that he remembered dolly with braces?

Anyway, no need to be disappointed if multiverses are the case. The Mandela effect is safe. All that would need to happen is for there to be a parallel universe that started at the same moment as ours and evolved almost, but not exactly the same, and for someone to be transported from one to the other. Perhaps the mechanism of transport are abductions, or perhaps they're "portals". Or maybe the overlord of the great OS decides to simply cut and paste someone out of one and into another. We get exactly the same effect.
A block model makes sense from a higher dimensional sense. Where from the perspective of a higher dimension everything down here is a convoluted mash of stringy matter extending forward and backward in time. It’s not so much that the universe is some physical “block” paperweight sitting on some diety’s desk, but more that the nature of time and it’s interaction with our 3 dimensions would be perceptible as a whole.

To connect it with the simulated universe theory (in which case, we might be a paperweight) time becomes a very complicated equation, and our reality is just a representation of that equation moving toward solution.

A fractal model for time could still work with higher dimensions, might give the illusion of alternate timelines for time travelers, who accidentally visit non-dominant branches. Perhaps the Mandela effect is a result of these non-dominant branches. As fractal time beings we would have some possible seepage of memory from non-dominant, dead-end branches that still exist within the pattern of our primary time pattern. It may even be the result of time travelers going back and altering the dominant formation of the pattern, but ultimately they would never be able to change the events of history as they recall it as their leap back is already a part of the dominant pattern they are traveling from.
The idea of "higher" and "lower" spatial dimensions is in and of itself logically incoherent. To really understand why requires it to be grasped entirely on an abstract comprehension level. Mathematical expressions and references to them can't get you there, though they might help a math-head see where the breakdown is. I can try to explain it in words, but it's still not easy for some people to get, especially those with Aphantasia.

First, it's important to note that people wrongly assume that time is a fourth spatial dimension ( which it's not ). Within spacetime geometry, the word "dimension" with respect to time, is synonymous with "aspect" rather than "spatial dimension". Read closely and you'll see the difference, but those who don't get that, have interpreted the "dimensional" aspect to suit their own notions.

The next thing is to come to the realization that the nature of spatial dimensions is existentially a codependent hierarchy. In other words there can be no second dimension without a first, and no third without a first and second. So for example, there can be no "third dimension" that is somehow separated from it's 2D foundation and hanging "up there" over those in Carl Sagan's Flatland. The base of any 3D object such as a skyscraper would be clearly defined by the shape of it's foundation on the ground, just like everything else, which means that logically, there is another rule that must be the case, which is that in any given spatial construct all its dimensions must exist simultaneously everywhere.

Extrapolating that into any hypothetical spatial dimension beyond 3D means that any 4D ( not to be confused with 3D + T ) skyscraper would also have to be firmly rooted in 3D space. It would not be possible for there to be some single "higher" spatial dimension that other 3D things could "come out of" into the "lower" 3D realm. Any such "dimension" would clearly require it's own separate 3D construct for there to be separate 3D things in it. However it would be possible for another 3D construct ( spatial universe ) to exist, that things could be transported to and from, giving the illusion of them coming from another "dimension", in the generic sense like "another mysterious place".

Once ( if ) you get all that, then it simplifies the whole "dimensional" problem a lot and eliminates the sort of concerns you have.

It may sound a little like I’m talking about branching or parallel timelines in slightly alternate terms but it really is a dramatically different model. It might help to think of it this way: The people in separate or branching time lines have their own experiences and completely different futures. The people in a fractal time model experience a number of variations but ultimately share one perceptual experience and have one shared inevitable future. Our free will is simply a part of the complicated math that forms that shared pattern.
Like I said on the show, math is at best a description or representation, not reality itself, and just like other abstract representations such as artwork, it can create nonexistent impossible scenarios ( like Escher's impossible staircase ). Math-heads however, seem to think that math=reality. I'm sorry to say that it doesn't.

For example if we convert Escher's impossible stairs into a set of mathematical coordinates that correspond to the positions of the materials that a real-world staircase would require, it turns out that such a staircase cannot actually be built. I've had math-heads tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, but it's true. They're so blind to the difference between abstract representation and reality itself that they just don't get it. Interestingly some have actually attempted to build Escher's impossible stairs. You can look it up, Better be careful trying to climb them though ;)

The point here is that there is a certain conceptual grasping of why these things are impossible that isn't explainable in simple words or math. You just need to "get it". What I've tried to do is point the way to that understanding. I hope I succeeded.

So to sum up, the problems you pointed out appear to have been adequately addressed, but if you see any holes please let me know. In the meantime, we haven't even touched on the problems with time travel in the context of block universes. I don't have the time now to write about that, but if you get what I was saying above, you're already half ways there.

Good discussion so far :cool:
 
Last edited:

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Excellent guest who has a point : why do 'they' look so much like us ?There must be a connection .Is it the time-dimension ?Who knows...
I only cringed once when i heard the 'G'-word.
Can you give me a rough time spot when that happened?
 

Linton

Intellectually Omnivorous
Part of the reason you make a great co-host on the shown; a readiness to discuss your own thoughts and a willingness to process those of your guests. Love listening to the discussions.

My suggestion was that in a multiverse model there is no time travel in the usual context and no new timeline needs to be created in the process. What is happening is that there are two separate roughly parallel universes that have evolved from a different starting point relative to each other within the larger frame of reference. So for travellers from the more evolved universe coming here, it would appear to them from a subjective perspective, like going back in time.
A fully valid model. My argument would be that actual time travel would be possible in both parallel universes. Were someone capable of doing both (time travel and universe hopping) I think they would quickly realize the difference and the benefits and drawbacks to both. Honestly I think a little bit of both scenarios goes a long way to encompassing many of the experiences people have in the broad realm of the supernatural.

I too find the Mandela Effect quite interesting. I remember both scenarios. I definitely recall the Mandela dying in jail event along with all the news and mourning crowds. I also remember thinking: "WTF, is this some sort of impostor?" When he got released. Have you run across the bit where the actor who played Jaws in the James Bond movie said before he died that he remembered dolly with braces?
YES!! Completely fascinating. It seems to me to negate the “Better Off Dead” explanation. But then again, Gueneth Paltrow recently couldn’t recall appearing in “Spider-Man Homecoming”, so who knows. I keep a few gem Mandela effects of my own close to the vest just to see how if anyone else pops out with them, as a little confirmation for myself, but so far no bites. We could do a whole separate thread on this, and I would love to hear you two do a whole show exploring the topic. Like you I have a clear memory of both aspects of Mandela himself. My own “false” memories don’t begin, it seems, until around 1988/89 and then there are many. Maybe it’s just age setting in early. ;)

Perhaps the mechanism of transport are abductions, or perhaps they're "portals". Or maybe the overlord of the great OS decides to simply cut and paste someone out of one and into another. We get exactly the same effect.
That’s the issue with a simulated universe scenario. All the math and science isn’t going to detect or allow anything that the maker/system administrator hasn’t intentionally allowed. So ultimately, if they don’t want us to figure it out, or don’t want us to travel to other simulations, we just won’t be able to. That also allows for a lot of reality bending user intervention that we would never be able to explain. So, right there with you on that.

The idea of "higher" and "lower" spatial dimensions is in and of itself logically incoherent. To really understand why requires it to be grasped entirely on an abstract comprehension level. Mathematical expressions and references to them can't get you there, though they might help a math-head see where the breakdown is. I can try to explain it in words, but it's still not easy for some people to get, especially those with Aphantasia.
You’re exactly right in your description of the way dimensions work, and I think that you are right in that many people mistakenly throw time in as a dimension. My point was, however, that from a fourth dimensional perspective, you would be able to clearly perceive the “lower” three dimensions of the universe. It would be the interaction of time with three dimensions that would render those three dimensions into an “observable” whole. That is where the “block” scenario comes in. Like, you said, dimensional stuff and the way time interacts with each can be hard for people to wrap their brain around because it seems so abstract. And omg I have aphantasia about aphantasia. How do people even function like that? Fascinating. Not much blows my mind, but aphantasia...my artistic mind shivers at the thought.

Like I said on the show, math is at best a description or representation, not reality itself, and just like other abstract representations such as artwork, it can create nonexistent impossible scenarios ( like Escher's impossible staircase ). Math-heads however, seem to think that math=reality. I'm sorry to say that it doesn't.
Fully agreed that on this point. I get it, if math is your world, everything is math, and mathematicians would say that the holes in our present math are just maths that we haven’t discovered yet. But getting back to the simulated universe idea, it may just be that there are aspects of the true reality that we are never going to be able to understand, interact with or even perceive.

So to sum up, the problems you pointed out appear to have been adequately addressed, but if you see any holes please let me know. In the meantime, we haven't even touched on the problems with time travel in the context of block universes. I don't have the time now to write about that, but if you get what I was saying above, you're already half ways there.
To grind it all down. I think that anyone traveling through time would very quickly realize if they were no longer in their own timeline, and it would change the nature or purpose of such travel. As you pointed out, there would be various resources to be gained from such travels. So we can’t rule that out, and yes our perception of such travelers would be as though they came from our future. It certainly eliminates a lot of people’s paradox issues. I still feel, however, that a fractal model of reality makes more sense from a time traveling point of view. It would also fit in with some of the weirder observables in physics, while negating the paradoxes that time travel poopooers constantly harp on. Again though, as you said, I get that such concepts can be a little hard to convey without a full essay. Wonderful discussion.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
... Wonderful discussion.
Agreed :cool: So nice to engage in such positive and stimulating discussion. Many thanks for the compliment on the show too. Sometimes I have to check myself so as not to intrude too much on the guest's space, but it's nice to know a few listeners out there like that we don't simply let them ramble on without discretion too. You should consider joining us on a future listener round table episode.
 
Last edited:

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Will have to listen again.But it was when he mentioned Steven Greer.I think i also read about Greer in his book.
No big deal.
I'm right there with you by the sound of it. Who voted Greer in as Galactic Ambassador anyway? Besides I thought Claude Vorhilon a.k.a. Rael already had that dubious honor :p .
 

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
First, it's important to note that people wrongly assume that time is a fourth spatial dimension ( which it's not ). Within spacetime geometry, the word "dimension" with respect to time, is synonymous with "aspect" rather than "spatial dimension". Read closely and you'll see the difference, but those who don't get that, have interpreted the "dimensional" aspect to suit their own notions.

The next thing is to come to the realization that the nature of spatial dimensions is existentially a codependent hierarchy. In other words there can be no second dimension without a first, and no third without a first and second. So for example, there can be no "third dimension" that is somehow separated from it's 2D foundation and hanging "up there" over those in Carl Sagan's Flatland. The base of any 3D object such as a skyscraper would be clearly defined by the shape of it's foundation on the ground, just like everything else, which means that logically, there is another rule that must be the case, which is that in any given spatial construct all its dimensions must exist simultaneously everywhere.

Extrapolating that into any hypothetical spatial dimension beyond 3D means that any 4D ( not to be confused with 3D + T ) skyscraper would also have to be firmly rooted in 3D space. It would not be possible for there to be some single "higher" spatial dimension that other 3D things could "come out of" into the "lower" 3D realm. Any such "dimension" would clearly require it's own separate 3D construct for there to be separate 3D things in it. However it would be possible for another 3D construct ( spatial universe ) to exist, that things could be transported to and from, giving the illusion of them coming from another "dimension", in the generic sense like "another mysterious place".

Once ( if ) you get all that, then it simplifies the whole "dimensional" problem a lot and eliminates the sort of concerns you have.
You're bringing a tear to my eye here, Randall. The incorrect use of "dimensions" is one of my biggest annoyances in this field.
 



Top