TGU on changing the past

Monday, May 24, 2021

10:30 a.m. I just realized (Seth: The Way Toward Health, p. 284), there is an easier explanation of miracles than the one I worked out, or that the guys gave me, of multiple versions of our lives. Seth: “… because of the nature of simultaneous time, new beliefs in the present can also affect those in the past.” And suddenly it is clear to me.

[TGU:] And you ask, “Why didn’t you explain it that way?”

The question did cross my mind – to put it mildly!

You could not have heard it, and as so often, we were faced with a choice between two courses of action, either of which was likely to mislead you. We could go along with your underlying mental trend and describe your lives as being an infinite number of versions – as we have till now – or we could try to get you to see what could not be seen until certain other things clarified for you. But now that simultaneous time is clear, our previous explanation need not be discarded, for it is not wrong, only incomplete (as is what most people probably get from “simultaneous time” as a concept).

I didn’t think we were going to do a session today, but I guess we are.

Not necessarily. It depends largely upon your energy reserves and your ability to go slowly.

Okay, thanks for that reminder. I felt it take effect.

It is a simple reality, but explaining is not simple. Bullet-points may possibly hold it together.

  • All moments of space-time exist. This means they continue to exist. Nothing that came into being is lost merely because the present moment has moved on.
  • All versions of your life may be said to exist too, only not in the somewhat simplified form you envisaged.

Whew! I’m sitting here feeling you vacillate, trying to decide how to say it. And although I know exactly what is hanging you up, I can’t help you. How to say it?

It is difficult, because, as you can feel, so many words will mislead. Mind-to-mind, it is simple to get across, as you just experienced. But to explain a gestalt in a sequential manner, as words enforce, is not so easy.

Could we do it by pictures?

Sketches, you mean?

Well, they’d be indecipherable at first, but then we’d have something to explain.

Actually, this could be done quite well as a computer animation. But you cannot convey in one cel what even a five-minute Mickey Mouse cartoon contains.

It’s – interesting. Frustrating, sort of. I clearly see where you want us to go, and it ought to be easy to describe it, but the non-misleading words do not exist, at least, not in my vocabulary. Every way we could say it would be misleading. Could we just say it, and then list what we don’t mean?

People would come up with misunderstandings you’d never anticipate. It is true that these could be dealt with one at a time if need be – but how would you address the misunderstandings that never come to light, either because the person holding it did not contact you, or because the misunderstanding was assumed to be the true meaning?

The gist of it is that “alternate versions” of our lives is the same thing as “changing the past from the present” when you look at it right. But that leaves out so many important relationships! Really, you’re talking about the nature of time.

Of time as experienced in 3D, yes. But although you can experience it only one way, you can conceptualize it more than one way – obviously – because the mind is not of the 3D but of the non-3D primarily.

Which has different rules. But how do we absorb the nature of time in non-3D without it being contaminated by our experience in 3D?

Good question. It requires concentration and clarity, lest semi-conscious associations contaminate the picture.

If we ever do succeed in saying this, it’s going to seem like an awful anti-climax to people.

Maybe, maybe not. To some it will be as striking as it was to you.

I think I just got a glimpse.

Go with it, and we will see.

Envision the universe as a display of lights of various colors. That’s the situation now, this minute. But people are continually making choices; things are constantly changing, and each change changes the color of whatever lights are associated with the change. Thus, the light display changes continually. It is never static. It is a continuously changing light display. But any one moment is, in effect, one cel, one static picture. All the cels exist as cels; all the displays exist as combinations of cels.

So far so good. Continue with it. What happens when you make a decision that changes the past?

It’s like the historical record changes.

No! No, that isn’t right, that is a reversion to past understandings.

Well, tell us, then.

A change to the past does not erase the record, nor write over it. It in effect duplicates it, only changed. Most of the light display may be untouched, but still the change will be registered in addition to the original record. And of course this one will serve as a platform to be altered, too, so it will spawn what we should all “changed duplicates.”

I see it. I’m not sure we conveyed it. Both analogies were sort of correct – the “multiple versions of a life” and the “changed the past.” Neither analogy is exactly right, because they are analogies and not identity. They are attempting to cram into 3D an understanding that originates in All-D.

As we said, we had our choice of how to inadvertently mislead. But your present understanding is more sophisticated. If you can hold the sense of an ever-changing light display, with archive copies of every display, you will have a more vivid and alive idea of how it is that miracles are everyday reality.

It’s still going to require that people get the spark.

It always does. But willingness to be open to it is all they need.

It has been only 45 minutes, but I’d say let’s quit. This is more than I expected to do. I thought I was just going to make a note.

We’re pleased and we hope you are pleased. Today’s accomplishment wasn’t so easy.

You’re telling me! Okay, till next time, then, and thanks.


Frank DeMarco, author

Papa’s Trial: Hemingway in the Afterlife, a novel

One thought on “TGU on changing the past

  1. I often wondered what Seth meant by that as well. Clearly, retrocauslity is not possible; while the equations of physics allow for it, the past is blurred to due to statistical entropy, which sets the (mechanical) arrow of time. So what remains is, what you call “the probability cloud” model of being. This is, in case you don’t know, a variant of Hugh Everett’s 1956 Thesis, which later became know (falsely) as the Many-works model, or in your case, the many-mind interpretation of QM (which I believe is more correct), say along the lines of Longwood. What you are proposing here is that past branches can re-mingle. In that way, you can “change” your prior history, rebase it in that way. This has been an issue of contention in the science community (as if many-world is not already); for example, even Carl Popper believed the branches should remerge, but today calculations show that this is incredibly unlikely, to the point of it will never happen. Plus, as you know, all this is QM and at much lower level than where we live at.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.