One assumption everyone is making is that Steve is absolutely correct. He never claimed that! He said S/R and LoA are still works in progress for him. He is playing with the concepts as we speak.
Here is another way to look at it and it goes like this: There is a single container as Steve suggests, but within this single container each being/creation has his own universe. How? This is actually predicted by the string theory and here is my interpretation of it. A 6D point in the 11D universe contains all possible outcomes, events and timelines of a single initial condition. Then upto and including 9D, infinitely many universes each with a different and unique inital condition are defined. The last dimension overlaps all the infinitely many universes onto each other!... This is also what they call a "holographic universe".
So I-M now goes like this: You see a specific object (gir/guyl, house, job) you would like to experience personally in
your very own universe. It is visible from your universe obviously, but you don't "have" it yet. So you get busy intending it into your universe. This means you are trying to bend your universe to intersect with that object, but you have no idea what kind of a path you have to follow to intersect with it... and you also don't know how the path will continue to unfold once you intersect with the object! If you follow the path that intersects with that specific object within your universe, will you be screwing yourself down that same path?
On the other hand, if you intend
any object that fits a certain description (can be as specific as you want without pointing at a "specific" object), you get the best fitting match that also keeps you on a "good for you and all" path (assuming you intended that as well), so you don't get screwed down the road.
So you can intend one of the following:
1) Specifically described objects (nonstatic paths) or
2) Specifically described paths (nontstatic objects)
One catch: You can't pick the object and the path at the same time! Why? So says the uncertainty principle. You get to observe position (outcome) or path (velocity/direction). Not both!
In this case, #2 sounds more practical. I don't know about you, but I'd rather pick the path that would give me the best view in my universe without having to dodge crap along the path all the time because I want "that" thing. You could go with #1, but you'd be constantly trying to get back on a decent path (unless the specific object and a "decent" path happen to overlap).
I have no proof that this is this way, but to me, it is a logical explanation of the 11D universe concept. Also a good way to explain the outcomes of events without having to resort to tug-of-war. Every being in the 11D universe has a "best" path that is unique and perfect "for that being". When you try to intersect with the best in someone else's universe, then you get in trouble.
Lastly, noone controls "what" exactly unfolds in his/her universe because each universe started with a different initial condition leading to different experiences. You "be" a certain way and "that reality" unfolds before your eyes.
Where is God? He is the superposition of all the "I"s that represent each of the infinitely many universes with unique initial conditions. God is the single container that creates and experiences all of it simultaneously.
You are not God unless you can experience infinitely many perspectives of "I" simultaneously.
There you have it... Chew on this for a while.
