Author Topic: Random Question 1 - Pre-Emptive Construct Usage  (Read 3267 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

May 15, 2011, 12:00:51 AM
Read 3267 times

TakeV

  • Veritas Council
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Mad Scientist

  • 946
  • Karma:
    55
    • View Profile
I believe an explanation is in order, particularly as "Random Question 1" implies some sort of series of random questions. Indeed, that is hopefully the case.

I've come to the realisation that I bug kobok way too often with random questions about fringe effects and theory of psionics. So now, I've decided to post some of these ponderings to the public, in order to see if some kind of discussion around them starts. My hope is that an interest may be sparked into seeing just what the possibilities of psionics truly are, and perhaps others will be inspired to put some of the conclusions proposed in these threads to the hard test. Science!

Each week, I will be posting some theoretical question revolving around psionics, be it the practice, the mechanism behind it, or the ethics of performing it.

Discussion #1 - Pre-Emptive Construct Usage

One theory of psionics with a lot of evidence behind it is that acts of psi are not subject to time. Because of this, we have access to all sorts of neat applications, the most famous of which being clairvoyance, though skills such as future selection also can take advantage of this trait. We are able to affect the future with our kinesis, able to trigger constructs upon future constraints, and to a limited extent we may affect the past as well (Though, this is limited to affecting things not really "known", however that is a discussion for another day).

The question is this: Suppose I plan to make a construct, and in the future I may or I may not actually create it, it is not certain at the time of planning. However, since the construct does not depend on time, it can be accessed at any time, in theory. So, if I plan to make a construct, can I then use it before I actually create it?

May 15, 2011, 12:05:49 AM
Reply #1

Trowa

  • Veritas Moderator
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 558
  • Karma:
    40
    • View Profile
I'd say (though with very limited practical knowledge for those who don't know me), that the moment you decide to make the construct, it exists (in some form) already.

So, absolutely possible.

May 15, 2011, 12:09:35 AM
Reply #2

TakeV

  • Veritas Council
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Mad Scientist

  • 946
  • Karma:
    55
    • View Profile
Suppose that I decide to make the construct, but I flip a coin on it. Heads, I actually go through and make the construct, tails I do not. Before I flip the coin, can I access the construct?

May 15, 2011, 12:16:56 AM
Reply #3

Silver_Archer

  • Veritas Moderator
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Prophet of Doom

  • 1385
  • Karma:
    43
    • View Profile
Well, I don't know about the construct which you may or may not make, but if you attempt to use the construct before you flip the coin, the construct will either be there or not and this will be the equivalent of observing the outcome of the coin flip. This means, you will not be in a position to future select the outcome of this coin flip to land either heads or tails, i.e. the coin flip will be truly random and outside of your ability to influence. If you do not attempt to use the construct before the coin is flipped, then you can still influence the coin flip as you wish, therefore essentially being able to control whether or not you WILL make the construct with certainty. However, since you did not attempt to use the construct before the flip, you never observed whether it existed before the random event was resolved.

Therefore, I conclude you will have to choose to be uncertain about at least one thing.
<Forg> Everything is adjustable when you have a saw.

May 15, 2011, 12:18:46 AM
Reply #4

Trowa

  • Veritas Moderator
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 558
  • Karma:
    40
    • View Profile
TakeV:  Huh.  Well, I'm not sure if that changes anything.  You still intend on making that construct, so by intent itself it probably exists *somewhere/'somewhen'*.  Future aspects could prevent you from undergoing the process whether the coin is heads, tails, or never flipped. 

May 15, 2011, 12:22:42 AM
Reply #5

Rawiri

  • Veritas Teacher
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Wandering Nomad

  • 928
  • Karma:
    41
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Teacher
    • View Profile
I think making a firm decision would be somewhat akin to "future selection." So if you haven't made a firm decision (i.e. prior to the coin flip) then would it necessairily even exist in your future at that point? In which case I'm not sure you could use it pre-emptively until the decision was made. (and then in theory, I could say you COULD use the construct and then LATER decide to not make it, so it was in your future and THEN wasn't...but since it was at one point, you could use it at that point in time)
« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 12:26:22 AM by Rawiri »

May 15, 2011, 04:16:42 AM
Reply #6

Violet

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1003
  • Karma:
    33
  • Personal Text
    Your friendly neighborhood Verigeek.
    • View Profile
I've come to the realisation that I bug kobok way too often with random questions about fringe effects and theory of psionics.
*chuckles* You're not the only who does that, at least. Regardless, I will do my best to answer the question.

I think there would not be much of a difference between deciding to make a construct and deciding to do anything else. In both cases, whether you will succeed in doing whatever you want to do depends on multiple elements - your skill in performing said task, the actions of others, other circumstances that might influence what you are about to do, and, in this case, the result of the coinflip. In this, I think performing an act of psi is no different from anything else. Let's use a few simple non-metaphysical examples:

  • You decide to throw a dice. If the result is six, you will perform a handstand. Otherwise, you won't. Now even if the result of throwing the dice equals six, that does not necessarily mean you are able to perform a handstand. I suppose the same goes for psi, regardless of you deciding to make a construct in the future after flipping a coin, does not necessarily mean you have succeeded in doing so. Thus, if you had been scanning the future, you would be unable to see yourself doing a handstand after getting a six, because you were unable to perform handstands. (I know, it's obvious.)
  • After practicing handstands a lot, you decide to throw a dice, and if it's a six, you will show you can do a handstand in front of your friends. You throw the dice, get a six, and try to perform a handstand in fron of your friends. You fail, because one particular 'friend' decides to be funny and grabs your hand while you try to perform the handstand, resulting in your landing flat on your back (and having a bad case of upper back pain). Again, if you had been scanning the future, you would be unable to see yourself performing handstands, because the circumstances would have made this impossible.

Thus, assuming you are capable of creating the construct and there are no other circumstances that will make it impossible to create the construct, I don't see a reason why you would be unable to access the construct 'before' it has been created. If you scan the future and you see the construct you have created (in the future, that is), you have created the construct in the future. Bottom line: yes, I personally think you can use the construct before you create it, as long as you have created it in the future. Probably sounds like a paradox, but I don't think it is.

What I'm wondering about is what would happen if you decide to create a construct in the future, you scan the future and see that you have made the construct in the future, then use the construct, and ultimately decide not to create it. This would, I think, create a bit of a paradox. I'm not sure whether you would actually be 'forced' to create the construct if you had been using it already (or whether the act of using it would create it in the future, regardless of whether you were to sit down in the future to do your meditations and create it), or whether you would not be able to create it in the first place if you were going to change your mind about it later (this then being one of the circumstances that make creating the construct impossible).
« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 04:34:52 AM by Robin »

May 15, 2011, 08:43:49 PM
Reply #7

TakeV

  • Veritas Council
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Mad Scientist

  • 946
  • Karma:
    55
    • View Profile
If you scan the future and you see the construct you have created (in the future, that is), you have created the construct in the future. Bottom line: yes, I personally think you can use the construct before you create it, as long as you have created it in the future. Probably sounds like a paradox, but I don't think it is.

I think you may be onto something here. That a construct may only be used before it's creation if it is actually going to be created in the future. I don't see a paradox here.

However, your question about using a construct and then not making it seems to contradict this assertion. It seems that if a construct is used, then it has to exist at some point in time. Thus, perhaps you either didn't actually use it, or you do create the construct at some point in the future that you don't realise?

Or perhaps the act of using it is enough focus and expectation of it's existence to create it in the first place?

---

I should say in this thread that I have myself used a construct before I created it, though it's creation was not uncertain. The sigil linked in my signature was drawn first, then I immediately used it to form the proper focus needed to create a focusing construct.

May 15, 2011, 09:09:47 PM
Reply #8

Forg

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • The V' Smithy

  • 829
  • Karma:
    20
    • View Profile
This hinges greatly on the nature of the 'future'. Where as there are many likely outcomes (theoretically, any outcome is possible, where some are less likely than others). So in observing the potential future in which the construct exists, assuming the conditions Robin stated in which no particular flaws stand in the way of the creation of the construct, we could thereby mimic that creation.

But mimicry is obviously not taking an existing construct and bringing it to the present, as much as it is recreating it. I'm obviously not really answering any questions here, but I've never tried to take something from the future and bring it to the present that wasn't just knowledge. I would theorize that such a thing cannot be done, since these outcomes don't necessarily exist simultaneously, but may just be glimpses of what can be. Such as predicting the eventual ripple in a pond, before a rock is thrown.


I'm not sure if what I said was entirely coherent, so please say so if it wasn't...
Be your own light, your own refuge. Believe only that which you test for yourself. Do not accept authority merely because it comes from a great man, or is written in a sacred book, for truth is different for each man and woman." -- Buddha

May 15, 2011, 09:46:03 PM
Reply #9

Rawiri

  • Veritas Teacher
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Wandering Nomad

  • 928
  • Karma:
    41
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Teacher
    • View Profile
If you scan the future and you see the construct you have created (in the future, that is), you have created the construct in the future. Bottom line: yes, I personally think you can use the construct before you create it, as long as you have created it in the future. Probably sounds like a paradox, but I don't think it is.

I think you may be onto something here. That a construct may only be used before it's creation if it is actually going to be created in the future. I don't see a paradox here.

However, your question about using a construct and then not making it seems to contradict this assertion.

I don't think that is necessarily the case. Let's see if I can explain my point of view here.

The first premise on which everything I say is based, is that the future already exists. It is actually "tangible" and not "ethereal". Which is to say, more or less, your life is already "out there" in all its completeness, from life till death.

However, we do not experience it all at once, but bit by bit, travelling through time. In the same sense that a whole mansion already exists, but we only experience it bit by bit as we move through the rooms.

On that basis then, in the decision that one will create the construct, ones future is shifted. i.e. a room in the mansion that you have not yet entered, has say, a stereo in it. So that stereo is playing music, and that music can be heard through most of the mansion (i.e. it can be enjoyed through time, even though you have not yet "reached" that room). So for that time, you enjoy it even though you are not in the same room.

Now just because the whole mansion (your life) already exists, it does not mean it is static. A room in the mansion could have something occur in it, before you get to it and it could be very different to how it was while you were in another room and unaware of it.

In this case, lets say the room with the stereo in was broken into and the stereo was stolen. It was totally removed from the mansion. The music has stopped. You can't enjoy it now, no matter where in the mansion you may go, because it is no longer there. But, despite that, you were STILL able to enjoy it previously, before reaching the room it used to be in because it was there. (The construct was there, and then it was not) A part of your life has changed to how it was.

So the stereo being stolen would be akin to you later deciding you would no longer create the construct. But before you changed your mind, the stereo WAS in another room (your future) and could be listened to and enjoyed.

I hope that's...sort of clear.



« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 09:50:36 PM by Rawiri »

May 15, 2011, 10:05:13 PM
Reply #10

Silver_Archer

  • Veritas Moderator
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Prophet of Doom

  • 1385
  • Karma:
    43
    • View Profile
Your analogy creates a 'dynamic mansion' by essentially allowing for inter-temporal changes in the state of the rooms of the mansion. The problem here is... your mansion is supposed to be a model of time to begin with. You cannot actually rely on using that dimension in your explanation, because in doing so you've basically incorporated a fifth (since your mansion is already an 'area under the curve' of the entirety of your 'time' presence in the world). At least, that is how it seems to me. 
<Forg> Everything is adjustable when you have a saw.

May 15, 2011, 10:15:04 PM
Reply #11

Rawiri

  • Veritas Teacher
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Wandering Nomad

  • 928
  • Karma:
    41
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Teacher
    • View Profile
That's an unfortunate part of the explanation I find difficult to get across in an analogy, since any tangible analogy I have is (naturally) something within time. :P

In the analogy, time is the movement through the mansion's rooms, the mansion itself exists outside of time (and changes outside of time too).

May 16, 2011, 07:58:07 AM
Reply #12

Arpspasm

  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • ****
  • Hundred-plus Club

  • 372
  • Karma:
    2
    • View Profile
Would using a construct created at some "future" point anchor the constructs creation into ones possible futures? also how far into the future are we talking, would not the level of interaction with ones constructs be capable of using constructs from other incarnations?
"This life's dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye."
-William Blake

May 16, 2011, 05:18:31 PM
Reply #13

Kettle

  • Teacher Emeritus
  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Frequent poster

  • 376
  • Karma:
    20
  • Personal Text
    Frequent poster
    • View Profile
I will answer the initial question with a firm "yes", in that this is essentially all that I do now when forming constructs, and I will explain why.

Time and linearity are a misconception made by the physical mind in its limitations. Neither time or linearity are real and therefore the soul  can completely disregard these concepts (and they are only that) which gives us, the psion, the ability to do what we do. The reality is that it only seems that we are doing something outside normal limits with precognition and future selection if we look at the universe from a limited physical perspective. Following the concept of time and linearity are in fact the odd method, there is no 'time travel' and there can be no paradox.

The conceptual domain is all information and possibility of all physical and energetic forms (constructs). These forms exist and have always existed regardless of your awareness or conception of them. It is irrelevant to ask whether or not it will work if you don't create it in the future because there is no future and you never really do create the information that is the construct, it has and always will exist.

To me then it seems much easier to simply decide the effect I wish to create and simply seek the appropriate form to carry out the action, the perfect version of which exists, and has always existed, in the conceptual domain.

-k

May 21, 2011, 06:16:24 PM
Reply #14

Orthas

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Archivist

  • 574
  • Karma:
    1
  • Personal Text
    Page of Cups
    • View Profile
I don't think I can answer this question for a metaphysical object but it does remind me of a question I have pondered for physical objects, for which I think I can give a theory with an answer.  However, I'm struggling to make my explanation coherent.

1) What If I I owned a wormhole that could travel 10 hours backwards in time?

Now firstly quantum theory says that at any moment any object could pop into existence, the probability is unlikely but possible.

So, if I'm sitting on the end of my wormhole and a diamond pops out of it, (akin to using your construct), then if I drop it into the wormhole 10 hours later, (make the construct) everything is fine.  We can actually use this description to describe the electron-positron pair creation we see everyday in particle accelerators, which can be thought of as an electron suddenly coming into existence hanging around for a bit then travelling back in time to when it first appeared.

What if I spend or break the diamond, (like not making the construct) well we could say the diamond was just an unlikely spontaneous quantum creation and not from the future.

The problem comes when I ask what if I never received a diamond but drop one in anyway?  (This is prevented by your prescription that affecting past events isn't possible)  Well in that case we could say that history is rewritten (we all vanish and a new past is written in which the diamond was received), this seems very aesthetically unsatisfying.  Or we could use an alternate universe theory in which we change an alternate timeline.

The simplest answer is of course that backwards time travel isn't possible.

So what does this mean for constructs, well basically if constructs are like physical matter then whether you make it or not is irrelevant, either you made it (the simplest) or it came into existence by itself (acceptable too).

The question of 'what if you try to use a construct and it doesn't work, and then you make the construct in the future?' is a bit more interesting, and would suggest either constructs don't pass backwards in time, or perhaps a branching timeline in which your construct travels backwards and then along an alternate line, or a different answer.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2011, 06:25:48 PM by Orthas »
“And you shall drink your cup alone, though it taste of blood and tears, and praise God for the gift of taste.” -Almustafa, Garden of the Prophet.

Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur