Reality and Probable Events

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Consider Joe and Jim, two people who were great friends throughout their high school years.  Joe and Jim meet for the first time in many years at their 30 year high school reunion. As they talk, Joe recalls how in 12th grade chemistry class, they were lab partners. At this point, Jim stops Joe and says to him, "No, that's not true. In 12th grade chemistry class, your lab partner was Henry and my lab partner was Ray". "Don't you remember?"

At this point Joe pauses. He thinks about this for a few moments and as he does so, he comes to believe that he is right and somehow Jim is mistaken here. However, not wanting to cause any issue about this, Joe changes the subject and they spend the rest of the evening having a great time together reminiscing about their high school days.

As Joe and Jim, leave the reunion and go their separate ways, on their way home, both eventually recall this specific conversation. Furthermore, as both of them think about it, both are convinced that they are right in their assumptions about what actually took place in regards to their 12th grade chemistry class lab partner relationships. They also conclude that somehow their friend is mistaken.

Now, Joe believes that in 12 grade, he and Jim were chemistry class lab partners. Thus, in Joe's reality, he and Jim were chemistry class lab partners.

However, Jim believes that in 12 grade, he and Jim were not chemistry class lab partners. Thus, in Jim's reality, he and Jim were not chemistry class lab partners.

Now, given this then, the way I interpret Seth's ideas, I would say that the individual reality of one of these two people, is based upon an actual event that physically occurred in their joint reality, while the individual reality of the other person, is based upon a probable event that did not actually occur in their joint reality.

Do you agree?

[LenKop]

Hi jb,


The question you pose is one I'm sure many Sethies have pondered. And shortly after I read your post I came across this quote from FB, via Asuman Altan....


'And, I know I am only going to confuse you but if you have probable selves then you know there are probable universes and probable earths and probable histories of your earth and you see what this is going to do to your concept of reincarnation as you now hold it. So within the system that you know, you also have probable reincarnational selves within those probable historical earths. Now, this does nothing to deny the basic integrity nor validity of what you may prefer to call the soul. It simply means that the inner self also is far more creative, far richer. And, far varied and much different than you originally supposed.'
ESP 1971.02.16


So I do agree that both realities exist and don't exist. And I think it's implications for creating our own reality run very deep indeed. How many times has a past instance been created anew because of the probability involved for a future occurrence to manifest? Take 'healing' for example. We are taught so often to work on overcoming past traumas. But isn't that just giving life to those traumas, and cementing them in our reality? Would it not be more powerful to focus on the life we want, and then any past difficulties would simply disappear from our consciousness?


I guess that is why Seth goes on so strongly about our belief systems, and that 'the point of power is in the present.' 


Len

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Here's another question.

Let's say that, in this forum, we all believe that in 2015, Barack Obama was President of the US. Here, I will call this a "mutually agreed upon" mass event.

In other words, we all agree that in 2015, the President of the US was Barack Obama.

Thus, here it appears that a "mutually agreed upon" mass event, is an event that actually occurred in history.



Now, let's say that, in this forum, some of us believe that the story of King Arthur is real and true.  That is, some of us believe that the story of King Arthur actually occurred in history.

On the other hand, let's also say that some of us believe that the story of King Arthur is neither real nor true. That is, some of us believe that this King Arthur story is a myth which never actually occurred in history.

Now in this example, I would say that those of us who believe that the King Arthur story is real, believe in a "mutually agreed upon" mass event.  However, I would also say that those of us who believe that the King Arthur is a myth, also believe in a "mutually agreed upon" mass event.


Thus, in this example, it appears to me that just because people believe in a "mutually agreed upon" mass event, does not necessarily mean that this event actually occurred in history.


Now, let's just say that it turns out that there is no way to actually prove, one way or the other, whether the King Arthur story is either true or just a myth.  Given then this, what can we say about the belief of those people who believe that this story is true and what can we say about the belief of those people who believe that this story is a myth?

[jbseth]

'And, I know I am only going to confuse you but if you have probable selves then you know there are probable universes and probable earths and probable histories of your earth and you see what this is going to do to your concept of reincarnation as you now hold it. So within the system that you know, you also have probable reincarnational selves within those probable historical earths. Now, this does nothing to deny the basic integrity nor validity of what you may prefer to call the soul. It simply means that the inner self also is far more creative, far richer. And, far varied and much different than you originally supposed.'ESP 1971.02.16

Hi LenKop,

Thanks for the quote.

I think the implications of Seth's concepts are enormously incredible and to be honest quite staggering.
Basically, the sky's the limit. 

[LenKop]

Hey jb,


The King Arthur example is really at the heart of most philosophies. The question is 'what is the truth?'. If we believe in something, does that make it true? If we don't believe, does that make it untrue? It reminds me of an old Simpsons episode, where the giant advertising paraphernalia has come to life, and one of the characters says the only way to make marketing go away is to ignore it. Lol


I'm not pretending to know, I can only offer an opinion laced with more questions than answers.


I think the question 'what does it say about people who believe/don't believe?' is too simplistic. There will obviously be a myriad of other beliefs inter connected with any particular theme within a person's self that will sway their mind in any particular direction. Anything from direct experiences, to past/future life experiences or being inspired by teachers, family or friends when young, to reading a book that makes 'sense'. Who knows?


Also , from a mass perspective its quite difficult to know how consciousness moves. Or how even myths evolve and change as in Chinese whispers, serving a use for a time, but then changing as we evolve. So our conventional ideas of history need to be discarded, because, in terms of reality and probabilities, it is only our imaginations that write, or believe, in any particular history, depending on our deeper beliefs about reality itself.


Chapter 3 in Mass Events focuses on myths particularly, which, in this world of shallow memes, I find refreshingly deep. Perhaps another thread could focus specifically on myths so as not to hijack this one.


Len

[Deb]

in Joe's reality, he and Jim were chemistry class lab partners.
However, Jim believes that in 12 grade, he and Jim were not chemistry class lab partners.

The thing I don't understand about this scenario, and most likely I don't understand probable realities fully, is that both parties in the Joe/Jim case should be existing, together, in a shared probable reality only in this instance. Meaning, Joe's memory (1) would be one probability and Jim's memory (2) would be a second probability and they would branch off as Joe1 + Jim1, and Joe2 + Jim2 where each scenario is true. I envision probable lives the way it was demonstrated in Richard Bach's 1988 book,

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

, where in my mind probabilities are like a flow chart, branching off into infinite possibilities based on decisions we constantly make (there's that free will thing again). But each branch would be a coherent version of the story to all characters involved.

So in your scenario, it seems for them to each have different memories and they are both right, there would have to be a merging or overlap of probabilities. Which I suppose is also another probability. If that was the norm, I think we'd have complete chaos on earth, no one would be able to agree about anything.

It's may be similar to (but different than) what Seth talks about with us each seeing an object completely differently. The wine glass, another person, ourselves...

"None of you sees the glass that the others see... Each of the three of you creates your own glass, in your own personal perspective. Therefore you have three different physical glasses here, but each one exists in an entirely different space continuum."

And then:
"Now there is an infinitesimal point where Mark's perspective and Ruburt's overlap. Again, theoretically, if you could perceive that point, you could actually see the other two physical glasses."

There's a lot about this in The Seth Material, Chapter 10, The Nature of Physical Reality.

I also found this on the Internet, I don't have this book yet:

The Early Sessions 2,  Session 68

"Neither of you can see the glass that the others see. We spoke of this briefly. I would like to go into more detail. The three of you each create your own glass. You each create your own glass in your own personal perspective. Therefore, here you have three different glasses, but each one exists in a different perspective, in an entirely different space continuum.

I have said that if five people seemed to view this glass, then what you would have in actuality would be five individual physical glasses. As you and Ruburt and Mark view this glass, each of you see a different glass.

Without such cooperation no physical construction would be possible. I will, if I may, use our glass again to make another point clear."

Seems to me the King Arthur story has to do with beliefs rather than probable realities. Because beliefs aren't necessarily truths or events, they are just beliefs, whether accepted by one person or millions (religion comes to mind). Len covered it really well, I need to take a look at Chapter 3 Mass Events. Good idea to start a new topic on myths.

BTW there's a new King Arthur moving coming out next year. I saw the preview yesterday, so I guess it's a probability and not simply my belief. 

[jbseth]

Hi All, 

In one of Seth's books, Seth Speaks, I believe, Seth mentions that there is a probable reality where Christianity did not flourish. In addition to this, in one of the Early Session books, Seth also says that there is a probable reality where Napolean conquered Europe.

For many of us, our reality is based upon the facts of history as we understand them; that is, the events that actually occurred in history.

For example, I would say that most of us in this forum would agree that we live in a reality where Christianity did flourish, where Napolean did not conquered Europe and where Barack Obama was the President of the US in 2015. These are the facts of history, as we understand them and we accept these facts of history as truth.

But what are we to believe, in those situations where the facts of history are either unclear or can't actually be determined, such as in the King Arthur example and the Jim and Joe example that I mentioned previously?

Does our reality actually depend upon the actual facts of history? Is our reality any less real, if we can't determine the actual facts of history? Does the existence of probable realities, make this all a non-issue?

What do you think?

[LenKop]

I don't think there is any real 'issue' here.


If we can take surfing as an analogy. We are riding a particular wave of consciousness, or our outer ego is. this does not diminish the other waves behind and ahead of us, nor does it detract from the waves that have reached the shore, or the ones that are just taking shape. Nor do any waves in the sea separate from their source.


The word 'fact' might be the linchpin in this topic. Seth always mentions our beliefs. Well, what is my belief regarding a 'fact'? Is it because science proved it? Many things science proves have been disproved by....wait for it....science. Is a fact merely someones writing that has passed down through generations? We know the 'winners' write the history books, and moreover, translation plays such a big part, and often the powerful will influence those writings too.


And history is simply what a whole bunch of people say it was. If no one says anything about a particular time, does that mean that history didn't exist? If people disagree about an event, who gets to record the history then? These days we have cameras that record history. I never thought of it before writing this, but what does that say about the mass beliefs that we share in this reality? Do we so need physical proof of everything that is occurring? Are we so insecure that every moment in time and space need to be documented, in case we forget? Or is it opening our eyes to the beginnings of telepathy and greater faculty discoveries? Connection to each other regardless of space and time...I find this interesting...


One of the biggest lessons I'm learning is how small I thought God, or the Universe, or whatever you want to call It, was. I now believe anything is possible. We create our realities. So we have created 2015 with Obama as president. But that is one reality we've created. We shouldn't assume other parts of our selves, and ATI, haven't created other realities too. And perhaps in 2000 years, there may be a probable world where they may talk of this mythical story where there was a black president...


Len

[Deb]

I thought this quote is sort of in alignment with our topic, and interesting timing. It was on Facebook 12/6, posted by Ivan Kelly, he called it "the nature of shared events."

"As creatures dwelling in time and space, your senses provide you with highly specific data, and with a cohesive enough physical reality. Each person may react to the seasons in a very personalized manner, and yet you all share those natural events. They provide a framework for experience. It is up to the conscious mind to interpret sense events as clearly and concisely as possible. This allows for the necessary freedom of action for psychological and physical mobility.

You are an imaginative species, and so the physical world is colored, charged, by your own imaginative projections, and powered by the great sweep of the emotions. But when you are confused or upset, it is an excellent idea to return your attention to the natural world as it appears at any given moment - to sense its effect upon you as separate from your own projections.

You form your own reality. Yet if you are in the Northeast in the wintertime, you had better be experiencing a physical winter (humorously), or you are far divorced from primary sense data."

Mass Events, Session 812

[Batfan007]

Hi All,

Consider Joe and Jim, two people who were great friends throughout their high school years.  Joe and Jim meet for the first time in many years at their 30 year high school reunion. As they talk, Joe recalls how in 12th grade chemistry class, they were lab partners. At this point, Jim stops Joe and says to him, "No, that's not true. In 12th grade chemistry class, your lab partner was Henry and my lab partner was Ray". "Don't you remember?"

At this point Joe pauses. He thinks about this for a few moments and as he does so, he comes to believe that he is right and somehow Jim is mistaken here. However, not wanting to cause any issue about this, Joe changes the subject and they spend the rest of the evening having a great time together reminiscing about their high school days.

As Joe and Jim, leave the reunion and go their separate ways, on their way home, both eventually recall this specific conversation. Furthermore, as both of them think about it, both are convinced that they are right in their assumptions about what actually took place in regards to their 12th grade chemistry class lab partner relationships. They also conclude that somehow their friend is mistaken.

Now, Joe believes that in 12 grade, he and Jim were chemistry class lab partners. Thus, in Joe's reality, he and Jim were chemistry class lab partners.

However, Jim believes that in 12 grade, he and Jim were not chemistry class lab partners. Thus, in Jim's reality, he and Jim were not chemistry class lab partners.

Now, given this then, the way I interpret Seth's ideas, I would say that the individual reality of one of these two people, is based upon an actual event that physically occurred in their joint reality, while the individual reality of the other person, is based upon a probable event that did not actually occur in their joint reality.

Do you agree?

Joe 1 remembers the event as a psychic event, while Joe 2 (or probable Joe) remembers the details as a physical event. Joe 3 has a dream about a conversation with somebody who he has never met in his life, yet that person FEELS intimately familiar.

Joe 4 staid home and while he he did experience the event mentioned that involved him and Jim, never had the present day converation, nor ever saw Jim again in his lifetime.
Joe 5 started out intending to go the reunion, but had a fatal car crash on the way there.
Joe 6 stayed home and had a sandwich and a good sleep. He watched a movie as he drifted off and could not help but thinking it was time to service his car and get some new brakes, as it was overdue.....


**
For whatever reason we get into this either/or dichotomy thinking (religion, science, spirituality, political candidates....) and this is me sidestepping that mode and offering a different perspective.

As I gave nothing of Jim 2 and Jim 3's perspective, perhaps you could imagine this yourself?