Hi Ronny,
so let's take the "choosing a path" model and have a look at it.
It remains the problem that when there are entities moving on a path in time, they are different entities than those who, at a branching point, chose another direction, "split off", so to say. Thus it would not be appropriate to speak of "other versions" or "parallel versions" of a person, if we not make the additional assumption that we speak not of our here-now-in-the-physical self but instead of a higher self which is containing all the split-offs of us; between these parts of a higher self then may be a form of information exchange take place, the so-called bleed-throughs. Or we don't allow split-offs, but then, if we keep the already existing path model, we had two types of paths: Those on which an entity is moving, and those which are "empty", we might call them "realized/manifested" vs. "virtual/unmanifested". But there's a problem. It doesn't make much sense to me to speak of those empty paths, as the entity moving on a path seems to be an integral part of the path itself. Imagine a path of a person, but without that person. That doesn't make much sense. So then, we have infinite paths of persons.
The practical value of this model is another question to consider. It would only make a difference if we in any way had access to more than one path at the same time. That's, in my understanding, is what Seth/Roberts called "bleed throughs". Because if access to only one path is possible, it just won't make any difference, we had our one world, and the infinite number of other paths just wouldn't matter to every single I here, now. The very, very most of informations of our other versions on different paths would be totally confusing and meaningless to us, as most paths, would be so different that we wouldn't recognize anything there, the more the longer the branch-off lies back in time.
Also remaining is the question after the circumstances under which branch-off points are set.
There's another funny thing coming from the infinite number of paths. When there is actually an infinite number of paths, meaning an infinite number of possibilities/realities, then there might be an infinite number of paths which are the same, given the possibility that a branch-off can be created, and in the following the differences of the two (or more) paths can be leveled out again. Even when the chances are very little, but not zero, we'd have an infinity of those same-paths.
Btw, the concept of free will doesn't sound very convincing to me, at least when the term is used as it is commonly used. We had a discussion about it here:
http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1189351469/0Well, sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better to spend more time in meditation than thinking about these intellectual concepts...
What the psychotic aspect of these "journeys" belongs, the main thing is the ability to sort experiences into categories. Let's say we have a person who is an extensive daydreamer, but is not called a psychotic, that's because this person is able to distinguish between the world(s) of daydreams and the world of the common, normal, physical matter. If this person hadn't this ability, this person would be called psychotic (or whatever). We actually can interprete some psychotic experiences as perceptions coming from other realities than what is commonly considered as the normal physical reality, when these perceptions cannot be separated from, and confused with this physical reality. I think Bruce wrote about this concept (or a similar one) at least in his 5th book.
Spooky