I have a sort of bookends approach to this interesting observation: 1. Most important, Seth is a fallible source, not an Absolutely True source, so discerning his intent becomes key. 2. Given the nature of probabilities, free will, and the-many-in-One nature of All-That-Is, we may invoke a ''different probabilities'' argument for every ...

Hi, to everyone following this thread, It is true that I do tend to focus on the physical aspects when describing these things, but I make no excuse for that. The physical is 99% of our daily experience, and is why we are here. I do, and have, pointed out many times that there is a whole mass of stuff going on 'behind' the physical, that ...

annav:Hi, I would like to add my two lepta, here, mainly on the probabilities. There is a confusion in the seth semantics between possibilities and probabilities. It is probably due to Jane's lack of scientific background. When we say that all probabilities happen somewhere, we should be saying all possibilities happen someplace in the ...

annav:In a parallel thread, somebody inserted a diagram of how probable paths work. I am not good at drawing on the net, but it is like two inverted cones made up of probability lines, and we sit in the middle focal point. Choosing/finding a different past is moving on one of these lines. So in a sense, we both create and choose a different past ...

Hi Guys, How often have we heard that 3 people witnessing an automobile accident all see completely different things? The assumption is always that it's just human error, and if a camera is watching, THAT will record what actually happened. However, what if this is just an example of how each person created the event in their reality. ...