The Existent Versus The Non Existent

“But why is it supposed that the universe was created in the past rather than newly created in every instance that is experienced? No two instants are identical. The things we find in one are not exactly the same as the things we find in another. What, then, is the justification for saying that something was created in the past and that its existence has continued into the present?”
-Julian Barbour, The End of Time

At the crux of the study of the anomalous we have the dualities of determining what could be called "entification" derived from classifying something as a entity that is lodged between existence and non-existence that is often discerned by our measurement and relationship to ourselves and the environment by it’s abeyance to the laws of time. This nexus of manifestation versus that is often labelled imaginary when it comes to experiential accounts of high strangeness, and yet that vast majority of those who label the anomalous as non -existent may be following an imaginary path of constraints. One could say this arbitration of entification as to it’s existence could just as easily to be said to be upside down as right side up.

The linearity of time as counted by our measurements of references in regard to the paranormal is perhaps an incomplete geometry. Spacetime seeming has no “now” as a marker beyond that which we assign it. There appears to be several gaping holes between the nature of Spacetime and our orientation within it that leads to critical assumptions that are inherently self referential. First this was done by the axial rotation of our planet in relation to the sun and then by the necessities of movement ( however it was assigned to tasking) we created the artifices of clocks and calendars to allow comparative measurements in our orientations.

The “unlawful” violation of these parameters is marked by anomalies in various classifications that are drawn up by their appearance(s). I suppose one could call them ghosts that are often said to appear to our senses as being “nowhere” in particular in their orientation to ours within what is sometimes referred to as a “timeslip”of our references.

Physics suggest the unified nature of spacetime and the freedom of coordinate choice it allows imply that to express the temporal coordinate in one coordinate system requires both temporal and spatial coordinates in another coordinate system. We seemingly lack coordinates beyond those on a basis of comparison to that which we occupy and unlike in normal spatial coordinates, there are still restrictions for how measurements can be made spatially and temporally by intervals.

One knows that spacetime has an unknown symmetry despite our lives being organised by various clocks and on the basis of this one could deduce that our conceptual basis of spacetime that is both experiential and mathematical falls into the realm of being imagined, which I suspect is also inherent in the organisation of processes in manifesting thought.

All this leads us to question the basis of how we conceptualize entification as physicist Claus Kiefer says, was 'to see that gravity is a manifestation of the geometry of spacetime; in fact, gravity is geometry. .Hence, the background, the absoluteness of spacetime, must be seen instead as dynamical. Things interact with other things, not against a fixed background. But what happens when the insight of general relativity is led to quantum mechanics? There, instead of particles moving along trajectories, we have waves. We cannot fix precisely the momentum and position of the 'particle'. To say 'where' something is, is to describe a wave that extends to infinity, with probabilities of position, some places being higher in probability than others. Only after the wave 'collapses' is the position clarified. We then have two theories – one dealing with 'our' size things up to galaxies (general relativity) and the other dealing with tiny things (quantum mechanics). The attempt to merge them or unify them runs into the problem of time.”

If , as Claus says, gravity is a function of geometry then when it comes to “anti-gravity” as a dualism in regard to UAP, is another spacetime geometry is intersecting with our own is a misnomer as the gravitational forces of a spacetime other than our own would just as likely not require it. Yet off into fool’s errands we go.

In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. The spacetime of our universe is usually interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the "fourth dimension". By combining space and time into a single manifold as a continuum, it seems that our discernment between existence and nonexistence of any phenomenon as measured by time is as arbitrary as notching a point upon a circle.

In the 11th Century Ibn Al Arabi measured the concentric nature of spacetime and so this is far from a new discovery.

“Ibn ʿArabi describes below the universe as it appears to the observer. He starts with two ends meeting to make a circle, making a circumference. The circumference points to a centerpoint. Lines go from the centerpoint to the circumference. Each line from the centerpoint ends in a point in the circumference. Then, the centerpoint continues until it ends in the circumference and becomes the centerpoint of another circumference, 'half interior to the first circumference and half exterior, making the principle of outward and inward”
And then,
The two ends meet as they did for the first circumference, until it takes on its [first] shape, because it is impossible that it go out in other than its shape. Then there occurs to the circumference what occurred in the first circumference, and so on until infinity. It is what protrudes from these treasure troves which themselves have no end to what they contain. It is the new creation which existence is in always, forever. Some people, or most people, are in confusion about that, just as He said, 'Rather, they are in confusion about the new creation' with every breath, but in the shape we mentioned.
Then, as the circles continue with each breath, 'the first circle which originated these circles becomes hidden, unrecognized, unperceived, because each circle approximating it or far-fetched from it has its shape. To visualize this, we start with a circle, which expands to create a pair of linked circles. The linked circles appear as a new circle, hiding the previous circles underneath it, and so on.
From this, we see that Ibn ʿArabi accepts the feeling, the phenomenology, of time without saying that there is in fact an absolute time. His ultimate argument is that time, as he says, is an illusory thing, non-existent.”
-Time In Ibn Al Arabi by Eric Winkel

Perhaps our concepts of time are less malleable than time itself.