I've heard you scientists like time and space, so check this out:There is a strong similarity, although the two teachings arise from different frameworks.When Sathya Sai Baba says, "The present is Omnipresent," he is usually pointing beyond the ordinary idea of the present as a brief moment between past and future. He is pointing to the eternal Now-the timeless reality of the Divine, the Atma, which is always present and never bound by time. In that sense, the past and future are mental constructs, while Reality is experienced only in the living present.Bashar's teaching that all information can be accessed from the "here and now" also places great emphasis on the present moment. However, Bashar explains it through a model in which all moments exist simultaneously and consciousness can access different streams of information from the present. Sathya Sai's emphasis is more on realizing one's identity with the Divine Reality that transcends time altogether.So while the metaphysics are not identical, both teachings converge on a practical insight: the more attention is withdrawn from psychological attachment to the past and future, and rests in the present, the more wisdom, clarity, and truth become available. The "Omnipresent" is not merely the current second on a clock; it is the timeless Presence in which all experience appears.
Ignore hinduism. The Orthodox Church understands this too.
>it's a midwit mistakes eternalism with instantism episode
>>16992472Forget religion. This is about science.
>>16992326>Sathya Sai BabaStopped reading. Fuck off.
>>16992567That's expected. Some people are allergic to truth.
>>16992326Yeah that's it, you find god and then help others with spacetime.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I think it's right. Not from any bullshit spiritual or magical perspective, but from the perspective of a possible mechanism for the mechanics of the multiverse. Consider: every possible universe state exists somewhere, where it's actual. Every possible state mapping exists, which represents every possible set of physical laws and constants. We're just inside a single slice, interpreting the relation between the frames of our existence as time. The version of you from next year exists too, you just haven't reached them yet. The trafalmagorians were right reee
>>16992326Try >>>/x/, that's more you're jam. This is a science board.
>>16992604Consider: every possible universe state exists somewhere, where it's actual. >Gbberish assumption>Not scientific
>>16992620>From my perspective other possible universes don't existThey'd say the same thing about you. But you are correct, in that we can't reliably prove multiplicity of reality from a single casual timeline. We could just be really, really lucky.
>>16992756Luck has nothing to do with it. You live in the reality that IS. The chances of reality existing are 100%
>>16992793But what about the perspective of the non existent observer who doesn't have a perspective
>>16992794You can give Little Timmy No Shoes a pair of shoes, but his identity is Little Timmy No Shoes, so you haven't met his needs and we need more taxes to cover those needs
>>16992869If Little Timmy No Shoes bases his identity on lack of shoe ownership, does including him in the shoe having group kill him as a person, replacing him with Little Shod Timmy. Are we not killing identity when we buy kids shoes? Do we have the right to just change somebody's while existence? This is a slippery slope, sir, and I don't like where it's going. Today shoes, tomorrow food. I say enough, sir.
