I have but I still can't see them as being possible.

As with many things, people imagine unscientific/impossible scenarios based loosely on scientific facts or hypotheses (Superman flying quickly around the Earth to reverse time, for example).

"Science" does not necessarily believe there are unnumbered parallel universes where everything that could be different is different (depending on what you mean by "science").
One or more "scientists" might consider the idea, but that doesn't actually make it "scientific", as they might not actually have any real basis for the idea.

Apparently, those sort of parallel universes were suggested by someone as a "possible" explanation for fine tuning (though not necessarily actually possible) -specifically without the necessity for creative activity/a creator (basically, why the universe is not a huge, confused mess -and why there is some basic logic which explains/can describe the parts of it which are a localized, confused mess [my own general definition]).

Also apparently, that idea is far from the idea upon which it is based.

When considering the entirety of that which exists, everything has to "add up". However, we don't know much about everything -and we begin understanding locally -so we are not likely to understand how it should ultimately add up. We really just know that it will/does somehow and basically how it would.
If we consider the physical universe to be everything -but there is more to everything, then the math would be off. If we (smarter people than me) realize the math is off due to that assumption, we consider other possibilities beyond the obviously physical.

(as for "why" everything MUST be BASICally logical, we may have to accept the answer "it just is -otherwise [not that there is an otherwise] it could not exist".)

Is the universe built upon something else for which we can not yet account? Is there only one universe? What fraction of "everything" is our universe?
If our universe is everything, then it is "1" -or "all that is".
If it is not everything, then it is a presently unknown portion of "1".
While we presently cannot directly experience or observe much of our universe (much less beyond), we know that if something exists, it must follow some logic -so it is inherently understandable and might be known using logic. Knowns essentially reveal the nature of unknowns. In other words, we might know that which we cannot directly experience or observe by employing logic. That is a pretty basic and simple/obvious idea -but one which many don't fully realize.

Anywho.... rather than thinking of parallel universes where everything ranges from awesomest to suckiest, perhaps we should focus on that which might be changed to move our own toward the awesome end of the scale. After all, the states of those universes would be due to everything happening differently than in this one -HOWEVER, only on a certain level. They would still be exactly the same BASICALLY. They would be exactly the same basic thing/sort of thing in a different arrangement -which means our universe could be awesomest BY ARRANGEMENT.

The problem is that we cannot "go back" and undo what WAS done -and that our own personal "time" to do anything at all is limited.

But... what if we don't have to go back? What if our time is not limited? "Everything" CAN inherently be rearranged -but WE PERSONALLY do not have the knowledge, level of interface or opportunity to do so. Even so, we DO have much power to change things in that way locally -forward in what we call time.

Rather than going back in time, what WAS done CAN BE UNDONE going FORWARD in time/sequence of events. However, it would take one decision-maker with the necessary knowledge, level of interface and opportunity to do that which we can not.

Interesting!

Something to consider.
Alternate dimensions are not this dimension.
Since we (mankind) can't yet experience alternate dimensions, we have no basis to set rules for those other dimensions. We can only set rules for the dimension in which we currently reside (at which, your hypothesis seems accurate).

Another thing we (mankind) has no idea about is Time. We can't know if time is dimensionally fundamental and works as it does in this dimension.

I remember seeing a program on TV (NOVA, I believe) in which scientists were discussing cosmological decades. During the distant cosmological decades there is a belief that anything which could happen in this dimension will happen.
It uses time as a factor in probabilities.

If it could be true in this dimension and since we can't experience multiple dimensions, we can have no clue as to whether each possible outcome for each moment of time doesn't actually happen in a different dimension.
Not parallel but similar, changing a small amount as the dimension in focus moves away from the source dimension.

Since cause and effect have a great degree of influence in this dimension it is likely cause and effect has similar influence in other, close dimensions.
Its possible as the observation moves to more and more distant dimensions from out baseline, cause and effect have greater or lesser influence. We can't know because we have no observational experience.

This Universe, in this dimension, has a defined (observable) scale from the macro to the quantum. Each moment by scale has cause and effect. There is either change or no change moment by moment. It is that change which we call time. In a completely frozen Universe, time will not exist.

So an assumption would be that time is a fundamental dimensional condition and since time is based on movement, movement is also a fundamental dimensional condition. Lack of movement, lack of time could only apply to one frozen dimension. If we call that frozen dimension the baseline, each moment in time and the resulting movement has two paths. No change or change. Ramp that up from quantum to macro and dimensions could be very different from the baseline frozen dimension.

People tend to think personal probabilities when they imagine probabilities and the resulting dimensions. However, the dimensional differences may be so subtle and encompassing even force carriers and wave forms are changed. The dimensional changes may be so exact we can't detect them and in reality, we already move thru a series of dimensions from birth to death. The process of existence may be a constant dimensional journey away from our original dimension at conception. One we can't recognize, can't record or determine.

I believe people sense 'something' is occurring because many people refer to a 'path' of life. Our path of life changes significantly as time progresses. We remember those changes as the past. Since we are unable to revisit those past dimensions, we understand we can't change the past. Even if we could visit those past dimensions, the exacting nature of reality would change the results in ways which we could not predict. Unless we could also control and influence all specific changes occurring at a moment by moment precision. From the macro to the quantum.

If there are multiple dimensions or universes.. and time either applied differently or did not apply due to a static nature of a dimension/universe, the belief is still that they are happening at -or within -the same "time" as ours (even if they happened before or after ours, still within the same overall time/reality). If they are happening at all, then they are all within overall time. (Static would be relative to dynamic. Slowed, sped-up or inconsistent time would be relative to time in the other dimensions -but also to the whole, etc.)
Therefore, there would necessarily be one overall law/math/logic which governs all -and allows for the existence of all.. including any differences. They would all necessarily be built upon the same foundation. There would necessarily be a common reference.

I have a problem with the whole idea of parallels because it's just messy -unnecessary -an overly-complicated idea attempting to answer a very simple question -and the idea of "different possible outcomes" really goes against all logic. There is absolutely no reason or supporting evidence to believe or indicate anything could have happened differently before the development of true decision.
There is no reason to believe that what inevitably happened (before decision) was the production of universes/dimensions of every possible description (which would mean every possible "natural" decision -which isn't actually a thing) -because there is only one overall state -therefore only one possible state of everything at any given overall "time".
It would literally require conscious decision to produce any more than one overall possibility -negating any reason for an answer explaining its absence.

Besides, isn't the underlying reason for the idea of such parallels (not speaking of any scientific evidence of anything) the fact that, from our perspective, this universe/dimension sometimes really frickin' sucks -yet would not if certain things were different? We can literally see that it need not suck -but it does -which means if decision were applied at the necessary points, it would not suck/would not have sucked.

Perhaps ironically, it is the suckiness of our present state which teaches us to increasingly become masters of that state -whether as successive generations of humans, or as whatever we might be as individuals after this life.
Though decision required much for its development, that which allowed for the development of decision travels to be subject to decision. Therefore, an optimal state can be achieved thereby.

It is difficult for some to believe a perfect "God" would create/allow this mess, because we believe a perfect God would have made everything perfect for us. However, if a perfect God set about making more perfect gods, a temporary dip into imperfection would be just the ticket.

I am not against the idea of there being more universes or "dimensions" -more than presently meets the eye, so to speak. Who knows if our universe is like some fruit on a vine or something like that? I'm just not buying the "every possible outcome" aspect.

First I want to say thanx for an interesting and thought provoking discussion.
Certainly the most interesting one on my recent threads sort.

This Universe is set in this dimension. The cause and effect is established and maintained by the conditions in this dimension. The rules of time and space apply to this dimension. All theories formed are based on the conditions of this dimension.

For this discussion the Universe is the mass/energy whole. The dimension is the conditions governing the mass/energy whole (Universe). From a reference of those residing/existing in this Universe it is a value of 1. One as in the whole.

From an isolated view with no evidence of anything but the whole, it is understandable someone could think there is nothing else.
Like being born. living and eventually dying on a island in the middle of the ocean. Having never seen or been anywhere else, someone might believe it is all there is. Yet, far away, beyond your sight/reach lies a whole world very different from all you know and understand.

On this island life is a certain way, it moves at a certain speed. Sometimes it sux and sometimes its wonderful. Since there has been no evidence of anything else and nothing else has entered your domain, to your frame of reference nothing else exists.

The issue with this analogy is on an island, the universal laws which govern the universe, which makes the island... would also govern all the other places (unknown to you) which could occur on the planet/universe in which your island exists.

If you ramp this 'isolated view' up to an 'isolated dimensional view' the possible changes (unknown to you) may not be governed by the same universal laws. Because it is a different dimension, only assumptions can be made based on the laws governing the only dimension you know. Your view is limited to your own understanding. Placing an assumption on an unknown is pointless. Without frame of reference the assumption is likely to be wrong more than right. Plus, there is no way to validate anything because to do so, requires you to actually go there to make observations which could support your assumptions.

Its really all fictional until it is supported by evidence supported by testing and observation. There is no science which proves parallel universes or multiverses. There are scientific theories but theories are merely educated guesses. I think of them as "Grand Assumptions". LOL

Here's where it gets weird;
There is a difference between multiple Universes and multiple Dimensions.
Multiple Universe implies more than one Universe in the same dimension.
Multiple Dimension implies the same Universe governed by multiple dimensions.

A Parallel Universe is a set of two exactly the same universes governed by the same dimension. A carbon copy of one. Both governed by the same fundamental forces. Both sharing the same cause and effect outcomes.
In one Universe, you exist as you know. In the other Universe, someone else exists as you and you exist as someone else. They experience your life, make the same choices you did and have the same outcome you did. You exist experiencing someone else's life. Neither knowing of the other. You have a different name, different body, different dreams and so on. Someone else has your body, your dreams and so on. Again, there is no way to prove it.

A Parallel dimension is when the same rules apply to the Universe.
You exist in both but one has a different nature than the other.
The differences could be subtle or extreme but one you would not be able to fathom the conditions of existence the other you experiences. There would be no shared frame of reference.
This you might experience one dimension but the other you lives in a dimension where gravity is more extreme or time moves in a different way or cause only results in effect sometimes. Perhaps the other you lives in an existence where physics results in what we call magic? The other you is still you but that you can pull energy out of the air, make a ball of it and throw it at someone.

That's just two possible looks at parallels. Parallel is two matching. Think parallel lines. Two lines matching.

Having no science backing multiple Universes or multiple dimensions all speculation on the subject falls withing the Science Fiction & Fantasy realm.
Science fiction & fantasy is also called "Speculative Fiction".
Many subjects discussed in forums deal with speculative fiction. Its the "What If" side of known reality.

The thing about speculative fiction is the fact that it is fiction until it becomes fact. Once it becomes fact it can no longer be speculative. In speculative fiction, nobody is right and nobody is wrong. Somebody can make sense to what we know and understand but since nobody actually knows or understands the actual. Everybody and nobody is right or wrong.

We "ARE" this Universe, this dimension. We are unable to experience anything else because we reside within it. We are unable to actually step out to get a different view of it.
Our imaginations might allow us to fathom that different view but the imagination is based on stimuli gained from experiencing this Universe only. All imagination is governed/limited to what we understand. It is extremely difficult to imagine something without some common reference.

Its why the aliens in science fiction have something in common to humans. Whether it be body style or value systems. Something truly alien would either scare the hell out of us or be so different we wouldn't be able to recognize it.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around your awesome "moving through different dimensions as we age" idea. I'm still at the "whoah" stage.

Its based on static states of time progression.

Summarily;
Each moment of time is a state of reality. If frozen solid universally, that static state would remain fixed.

Any change of state advances time by that moment to the next.
The previous static state no longer exists.
The state change might be the spin of a boson or something even more minute which has yet to be discovered.
The reality changes moment by moment from a previous to a new state.
Each state is a reality in and of itself.

As we age we move with reality from state to state.
Since each state is frozen from change, it is also its own dimensional state.
If time stopped, I mean states stopped changing moment to moment, we would be frozen in that state. Even if you were falling from a tree, you would never hit the ground. You would be frozen in that state, with the reality in which you exist.

Its the sense of movement from static state to static state how we define time. Time moves at such a rate it is beyond our ability to isolate one static state from the next.

To expand just a lil;


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles_Anti.svg/1280px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles_Anti.svg.png
(Both a pic and a url is provided in case you can't see the pic)

The Higgs Scalar Boson is the only 'known' elementary particle which does not have a spin. With no spin, It exists outside of/beyond time.

Using this picture, Every other elementary particle has a spin rate.
In the static state of time, no particle spins at all.
The state change which defines time (change of state) occurs as the particles begin to spin. Up until the moment movement occurs, it is still a static state. As it moves, it moves to a new static state.

This is where it blows my mind...
The movement from one static state to the next static state requires an infinity of movement of lesser and lesser value as the frame of reference changes.

Imagine a ruler marked at 1 milimeter. Between zero and 1mm the spin moves to its next static state. However, if you use a microscope and gain a closer look at the 1mm range you would see a series of state changes. Move in closer, yet another series of state changes.
So a a chage in state from a frozen state to the next frozen state indicates a series of frozen states along the way, all the way to an infinity of changes from state to state. Each resulting in a different state.
So minute is the change it makes particle spin look like a speeding train.
It all blurs together into a smooth sustained movement of time.

There is no known science able to detect this change of state so time and the mechanisms which govern it are all speculative.

So, as you age, the particles which make up the reality in which you exist age with you. The flow of time is the flow of changes from static states. Each static state a reality frozen in that state.

The idea is extremely complicated but as I progress in how I understand it, it does make sense, to me.

Time is relative to the observer. Observations can be misleading when facts are missing. I don't know the scale of the effect. The infinite conditions make the ramifications exciting to me.
For instance, what if the Universe as we know it is but a small sectional view of the state changfe range of change. The 1 mm view, with all the views within it the decreasing views ranging downward. That our 13.7 billion years are just a moment in the scale of time. That beyond our ability to fathom lies an entire universe with movemet scale just as encompassing as we have. That beyond our universe is a movement scale jast as encopassin as this one.

There is no elementary time frame/particle/effect as far as anyone knows.
Its like looking at a pebble then finding a compound then finding an atom then finding a proton then finding a quark then finding something and so on.

Time and size is relative to the observer.
Dimensions are also relative to the observer.

Time travel:
True time travel is impossible in this Universe.

True time travel to the past would require duplicating the state of the entire Universe at all scales to a state which no longer exists.

True Time travel to the future would require creating a state of the entire Universe as it will be after cause and effect establish a line of specific state changes.

The time travel experiments hypothesized by science at the quantum level are an information plant to a similar state of the Universe in a relatively very short time from the observation point. Not truly a time travel because the information resulted in state changes to become information and moving to a point before those changes happened would require changing the entire Universe.
Not really time travel at all, but a directed state change resulting in a different outcome.

What science fiction gets wrong is the time travel which someone or something moves to a different time and lands on Earth. The Earth is moving, the Sun is moving, The galaxy is moving, the galactic super-cluster is moving and... the Universe is moving. All moving at different rates, speeds and directions.
The Earth will NEVER be in this spot ever again as it is right now. It will never be accessible without calculating every single state change in the Universe with exacting precision. A single error in calculation could put the poor fellow in the center of the Earth or far out in space. If an error is made all subsequent calculations would also be wrong. I doubt even an AI the size of the planet would be able to do the calculations. So the T-800 of Terminator could not happen.

Then you have the whole cause and effect change of states which would unravel reality creating a different reality. Which would generate a different dimension of which there could be no return.

Not sure how it would translate on the quantum level, but a person traveling to the past would essentially add "stuff" to the past -make it heavier, so to speak -but as past, present and future are sequential rearrangements of the same stuff, the past does not exist to be visited in that way (though memory can serve as storage for a partial model of past states).

I agree from a memory point of view.

The only thing which actually exists is the present.
Problem is, the present isn't what we think.
It has to do with the speed of perception.
We can't detect the lag because we are conditioned to it.
Much like being in a bath of tepid water and you no longer feel the water.

The human body is covered in sensors which sense different stimuli and sends that information to the brain for processing. Time elapses from the time the stimuli is sensed till the time the brain processes it and registers a change.

What we experience is a constantly changing past of a present which has already changed. We can't detect the lag and think we are experiencing the present because the time span is too short for us to detect.

A ramped up example is the time it takes for light to reach the Earth from the Sun or a star. About 7 minutes from the Sun to the Earth. We see the Sun as it was 7 minutes ago. We sense the present as it was a moment ago with the moment being an infinitesimally small fraction of a second. But.. It is the past.

In a way, our memory records and stores fragments of the ever changing states of the present, which we define as the past. We use those memories to predict a future based on the patterns of past present states. The closer to the present, the more accurate the predictions.

The Universe is not a static state. It is constantly changing. The past does not exist because the Universe has changed. Since we are part of the Universe as a whole and one thing affects the other and cause and effect occur, the Universe will never be as it was even a moment ago.
Likewise, due to cause and effect and the chaotic nature of reality, no specific future can be predicted beyond a small range of time (an infinitesimally small fraction of a second).

We can take an educated guess of future events and locally they may be accurate, to a degree. However, without knowing everything about everything, everywhere at all times, we can't know for sure what changes occurred which actually led to the future prediction being accurate. But, humans have the ability to recognize patterns in nature. Its what sets us apart from the other life we know.

Its safe to assume Time is not a separate dimension. But, as I said before, time as we know it might be relative to the observer. The detection of the pace of time could be relative to scale as well. No matter the dimension, the movement of state changes defines Time itself.

Time, time, time
Matter, matter, matter
Ho hum
Is it possible that neither exist, that we tie ourselves to them, like a ball and chain
Is it possible, that by just being, allowing ourselves to be, and just listening to the birds or the ocean, without even knowingly or purposefully listening to them, that we then slip into a parallel universe.
I keep being told lately, that I think too much
That baffled me for awhile, on the 1 hand, I agreed with it, on the other I asked, any tips on how to not think too much? No and a laugh was the reply. Well is there a book I could get on it? Another laugh.
Would reading the book constitute thinking, and therefore make the whole thing null and void, maybe
So, occasionally, without even thinking about not thinking, I sort of, stop thinking
It's really quite pleasant
The lady who tells me I think too much, has a valid point I feel, I do sometimes think too much, and it can make my head hurt
Is it therefore possible to apply that same rationale to this thread, and perhaps other parts of life
Sometimes we think so much about life, that we miss life, a sort of, can't see the woods for the trees scenario

Time is somewhat ...elastic ...but the bottom line is that what is done is done. In order to undo, states may be reversed, but still by sequential arrangements "forward" or "next".

Doesn't this imply the Universe is a construction of our own making and without you the rest of reality cannot exist?
This is known as Biocentric Universe Theory see:



People used to tell me that too. I have a few takes on it.

Firstly, degenerative brain disorders (Alzheimer's) are less likely in people who actively use their mental faculties. My father & mother were thinkers and never suffered that problem.

Imagination leads to creativity and invention. Artists, inventors and planners are all thinkers.

Many people don't have the capacity for imagination or creativity and they sometimes see people who are thinkers as wasting their time or worse, are jealous of them and try to get them to adopt their numb to life ways.
I couldn't think that slow if I wanted to try. I'm not wired that way. If you want to think like a stump so you can fit in with your friends, you might want to think about getting more exciting friends instead. Why change yourself to something lesser just because someone else is telling you to do so?

Then you think a lot for long periods you get fatigued (headache). This is because a thought is a chemical-electrical reaction inside your brain at the axon-dendrite synapse.
Just like exercising your muscles to build stamina and endurance, thinking intensely builds stamina and endurance in your brain. Just as your muscles might ache after a long severe workout, your brain can ache after a long period of intense thinking.
Someone not conditioned to an long, intense workout may not want to do it.
Likewise, someone not conditioned to intense thinking may not want to do it.

The thing to take away from this
Always be yourself, It's your life.

From a 'perception' point of view...I agree.
Time is relative to the scale of the observer.

The mechanics of time is the universal change in state from one to the next in the entire Universe. The perception of the rate of state change is relative to the scale of the observer but the fact there is a state change is not.


This implies time travel is possible.

Since state change is universal (encompassing the entire Universe), time travel would require 'backing up' or predicting and changing the entire Universe to exactly the previous target state or a predicted target state.

To be able to do so would require an intelligence and capacity which is far beyond comprehension. In a religious frame of view...God. From a science fiction frame of view, perhaps a civilization which has existed for more than ten billion years might have that capacity but even then, I seriously doubt it.

In the end........................................It always comes back to Poo.

The math behind it?

absolute proof: Mew + Pew = Poo

alternate universe: Mew + Poo = Pew


On a serious note though, some real cool thoughtage goin on in here....

No, I dig that, but no
You speak of creativity and such. Well sometimes the best ideas come when you are not consciously seeking them out, and are not even conscious, let alone conscious of thinking.
I'm not saying to never think. As you relate the brain to exercise and such, sure it's good to exercise it, but it's also good to rest it, and not just by sleeping
I just think ( perhaps feel is a better choice of word ) that thinking can sometimes be a double edged sword, and can perhaps sometimes get in the way of instinct, and just a natural way of arriving at things. For instance, you could think, to try to write a song, and you may do so. Other times a song may pop into your head, when you were not consciously trying to write a song, and were perhaps not consciously doing anything. Much as you may listen to the ocean, without even necessarily realizing that you are doing so ( sort of ). Like your miles away, and a voice sort of creeps up from the depths of your being and says, what's that sound? I can hear something, and you reply, I don't know, but yes, now you mention it, I can hear something too ( or maybe even you say, yes, I know, beautiful isn't it ), and then perhaps a moment later you sort of realize, oh, it's the ocean. Perhaps using the words focus or perception maybe better terms for what I'm attempting to drive it. And thus it could be for writing a song, without even realizing that your writing a song. And if this is true, surely it can be applied to other things. And I posit this, as the possibility of some sort of parallel universe ( sure, it could be something else)
The other day, you said something like, you were floating around the universe, laughing at rocks. Maybe the rocks were laughing at you? Maybe you and the rocks, were laughing together. Maybe I should have another coffee. I genuinely feel the lady had a point btw , she's a really nice lady

I can agree with that.
Consider for a moment, our instincts are fine tuned by thinking.
For me, perception and stimuli cause thinking.

In my youth I spent some time in sensory deprivation tanks (in college-'uni').
In a 'dep' tank, the goal is to find your inner self as the stimuli fades.
When outer stimuli is nullified, the mind is free to 'roam'. Eventually ya start to hallucinate memories of stimuli. However, being source only in the mind, those senses are not real and if you realize that, you can manipulate them with your mind. When that happens reality takes a back seat to the imagination.

However, reality is still present, you just can't sense it. You lose track of time and space. You are no longer mentally bound by the laws of nature. You can fly or burrow. While reality still exists, in your mind, reality becomes what you make it.

In a sense, it could be considered entering and existing in a different dimension. Still anchored in this dimension, you can live for a short while, in a dimension of your own creation.

During the same time period I also played with LSD. Tripping on LSD was similar but different than experiencing sensory deprivation. Like two extreme ends of the same scale. This time, stimuli pushed my perception in new directions. It caused my natural instincts and reactions to amplify. Sometimes to the extreme.
Looking back, I wonder why I never tried tripping in a dep tank? Tho I doubt the research team would allow it. I was a volunteer subject doing it for the money.

My point, pertinent to your reply, is the fact the brain is engaged even when we are not actively thinking about something. Even when we're dreaming, we are thinking. The mechanism of thought, the axon-dendrite synapse continues as long as we are alive. The only exceptions are partial suspension under anesthesia or in a coma and during a vegetative state. Some people live their entire lives, from birth to death with no interruption of brain activity.

Even instinct and reaction is a thinking process.
The brain is a complex and still very mysterious organ. Humans are slowly uncovering its mysteries but progress is rather slow.

Its possible we may sense other dimensions but not realize it.
I read a book years ago, can't recall the name or author at this moment, which dealt with a man existing in a different dimension with a different series of events when he dreamed. He had a different name, different family, different job and so on. It was an interesting tale of the unknown possibilities of the human mind.

The thing about the ocean sound....
We are surrounded by sounds and sights and sensations daily which we learn to ignore. Right now, I am ignoring the sound of traffic outside my window. Its there, but I don't focus on it until I do. Then I hear it. I'm aware of it, but I ignore it. Ignoring it requires a concentration. I don't 'think' about ignoring it, I just do. I don't think about talking louder because of the traffic, I just do. Its a mental process but not an active thought but if I were not thinking about it, I couldn't adjust to its variations.

Perhaps we exist in multiple dimensions at once and focus on the specific dimension of our own choice, without making that choice actively? Yet at some level, our mental process is thinking about it and making the choice?
If we are existing in multiple dimensions who could prove it if each of us exists in the dimension of our own making?
Kinda like; I see the color blue. You see the color blue. The guy on the other side of the world sees the color blue but each sees blue according to how they see it and the commonality of the color blue is just the individual representation of blue in different dimensions which dictate the conditions which make the color blue. Where in reality, the baseline dimension, the actual color blue is some other color entirely.

What I meant was that if I move an object -then put it back where it was -the state is changed, then reversed -but still forward in "time"/sequence of events.

On a greater or overall scale, yes, it would require that one literally be in a position to do so, have the necessary power, memory of previous states, etc.

If "everything" necessarily "evolved", if you will -to become self-aware and creative before "the creation" was possible, then it would essentially be positioned as the mind of all we can experience. It would literally be in a position to affect "everything". (some things ARE impossible prior to creativity)

We are limited because our individual minds reside in bodies with limited ability to interface. We can only affect not a heck of a lot. However, we do increase our abilities and range by creating tools. Such tools could be incorporated into the design of a more powerful body of some kind.

If the necessary tools are incorporated into the way the creation functions, one in the position of "most high" could make changes to "everything".

I think we have a miscommunication here?

Time (as far as anyone knows), in this Universe/this dimension, encompasses everything within this Universe/this dimension.
Even stuff we don't know exists.
While time is relative to the observer, it exists whether it is observed or not (or it would be fragmented).

In your replies, I've noticed you refer to personal level observations and make assumptions about universal conditions. I'm not saying its bad but it is a common misconception.

Lemme splain...
When you move an object you don't realize the object is already moving.

Relative to you, it is stationary. When you move the object back, relative to you it has returned to its stationary point. Relative to the observer...you, it is back where it started.

But its not...
You, the object, the place, the planet, the Sun, the galaxy, the galactic super-cluster, the super-cluster filament and the Universe are all moving, constantly and at different relative rates.

To you the object is back where it started but to reality and time, it will never be at the same point in space-time ever again.

To time travel, the exact coordinates of the objects position would have to be exactly calculated universally in space-time.
If one movement calculation is off by even the tiniest amount, it won't work.

Problem is, from our relative observation scale, we have no idea what is moving which way or how fast. Plus, the longer the span of time, the greater the difference in calculations/movement.

The Earth isn't just spinning at a constant rate, its slowing down.
The Earth wobbles as it slows and this gives us our seasons. As it slows, it wobbles in greater duration arcs.

The Earth isn't just revolving in a perfect circle around the Sun. It's an oblong circle which too is slowing with time. Years and days on Earth are actually getting longer but we don't notice because of our relative observation.

The Sun is spinning. Its slowing down.
The Sun is also moving with the Orion Arm of the Milky Way galaxy. That movement is not a circle its an oscillation. The Sun actually moves up and down in its trajectory around the galaxy.

That's just the local stuff. Time travel would require you to know exactly where the position was/will be for that moment in time.
Plus, gravity affects all the trajectories, velocities and positions. So any passing wayward mass changes those details by just that much.

There is no fundamental balance in space-time unless the entire Universe is frozen solid.

Not sure what you mean by assumptions.
The example was simple just to illustrate the point simply -that reproducing any previous state is still done forward in sequence of events.

All things that change do so within "everything", as it were (not saying there is a border, as such) -so everything is a sequence of events/states.