Hi Phillip,
You wrote:
"They are merely guesses for the most part. I understand that most of it could be completely unfounded and false... idiotic ramblings, whatever. Anything that I have said which makes no sense, please let me know. I want to correct my mistakes."

I think the main mistake, if any, might be in expecting anyone here to provide skeptical feedback. With all the browbeating that I have received from Retiru, Snowqueen,
Dogbert, and Hovel, it seems to me it might be considered impolite on this forum to provide worthwhile skeptical feedback.

Since I am already considered impolite, I will
provide a little sample of good replies you might have received in a different forum culture.

Phillip:
"I think that the future is written, and we cannot change it... the universe calculates the future on the basis of its own facts and rules, we only think we have free will, when, in fact, there is no such thing (as far as I see it). "

Pearson:
Complex systems operate in chaotic conditions, which 'find' a course forward or backward that is consistent with the operating rules. Ah,...here is the rub: here probably cannot only be one future unless there is only one present; and since your view of the present and mine differ, there is not only one future. One of us will have more influence. Remain silent if you agree.

Phillip:
"I think that all past events are 'recorded' in Akashic Record-like state known as time. Akashic record-like meaning the same as normal minus the clairvoyant part. I think that all the mystics and what not are nonessential to the idea. Anyone can access (and is, in fact, accessing) the records".

Pearson:
If you have not visited my time travel site,
that explains one thing: you haven't gone to
that library yourself and pondered it.
If there is such a library, the contents of which nobody has claimed (to you or me) to have completely inventoried or read, then there is no way for you to claim that it contains ALL past events or that they are recorded accurately.
It is an empty claim, grandiose and anti-mathematical. You say all the mystics are non-essential, and I say the persons who do not think skeptically enough, but mainly politic and browbeat others, are non-essential.

Before you take potshots at mystics, see if the
folks masquerading as scientists are not flim flam artists themselves. Or be prepared to be on the wrong side of the argument, if you prefer.

Regards,
Mike