# Wild Speculation

What are the problems with this theory? Other than the fact that it’s wild speculation…

Humans think in one perspective each using a common logic. Logic requires conceptualisation, order and limiting frameworks to work with which all humans have the capacity to perceive in a relatively common way. Right?

The main frameworks that humans apply logic to are dimensions. Space, time, probability, etc… and the main perspective each human uses is the sensory interpretation appearing to be exclusive to its self. It appears to each self that only one space, one time and one probability can be perceived and processed at a time, and they unfold logically and thus sequentially. Right?

We see existence as a particular arrangement in one probability of space that could be represented as a line travelling along a time scale. But as soon as itâ€™s there, its gone, so the line must be infinitely thin. As soon as it exists in one time, it exists a bit further down the scale. Before this line was the past. After it will be the future. But at some time or other, the line must have and will pass through every point on the time scale, meaning that at some time or other, every time exists. Right?

So if every time exists in all the spatial arrangements in every probability, does that perhaps mean that everything is everywhere, at every time and in every probable combination and the way we see it is just a symptom of our limited imperfect perspectives? That we just process in the only way we can, an existence that is interpretable to any subjective (or otherwise) perspective that perceives it in the way it perceives itâ€¦

Whoo-wee I dunno about that one but it reminds me of a dialog in a book, “Just A Couple Of Days” by Tony Vigorito:

Here’s a point to consider. If the shortest distance between two points is a line, then what is the point of this line?

From my vantage point, the line itself looks like a point.

See now, here we have written at least two points, yet there is no conceptual distance at all between them. So, how can we distinguish between points in time and points in space, and most important, points to make? I have a point, and I still wish to make a point, and yet I can’t see the point of it all.

The point of existentialism is that there is no point, but the point of Zen is both pointness and non-pointness.

Perhaps this points the way to an entirely new ethic, wherein the sage advice is not that it’s impolite to point, but rather that it’s simply an impolite point.

I think I see your point, but I’d like to point out to you that in pointing out your point, the point has become lost in the pointing.

I have a metaphor which is maybe alike your ‘wild speculation’.
I look at mind/reality thing as a puzzle. Concepts are pieces. Pieces are understanding of time, space, probality and common things, like your job, family, hobby’s. Overlooking this big puzzle, where the pieces fit in, gives insight and the possiblity to make opinions about it.

Did I understand the first part of your ‘wild speculation’?

You had a nice build-up, but this line contradicts itself. I don’t necessarily believe in a linear time, but according to your post, it isn’t at “some time or another”, but at a very specific time that each moment will exist, that being from past to future. It travels along in only one direction, and doens’t “bounce around”, as would be needed for an arbitrarily existing “time” to exist without having sprouted directly from another time - that being the time directly before it on your hypothetical time “line.” Make sense?

A “time” is nothing more than a very specific spatial arrangement. This “one time”, being a one specific spatial arrangement, could not exist with another spatial arrangement of another time. However, it may be argued that every possible spatial arrangement will occur, eventually, given infinite time, but it will only come about naturally, and causally, at the tail end of that time line. But tis an interesting speculation. Good job.