Theory Of Multiple Dimensions.

[Lucidness]

Do you agree with this theory? That theres every consumable and possible something/anything. There is a dimension with a cat with one eye. There is a dimension with a cat with 4 eyes. Every possible cat. Quantum physics formula :

[juroara]

I'm just a tiny little human on a tiny little planet in an equally tiny solar system. I pretty much assume what ever my human mind can imagine, is more than likely real. I just assume this because, I'm not sure the human mind is capable of imagining something that could never be a reality. Maybe it will never be a reality here on earth, but that's the point, reality is a lot bigger than earth!

[Xei]

No I don't agree, and I don't believe such a legitimate theory exists..?

[Lucidness]

What do you mean, this theory does not exist. Its a scientific theory. If you dont believe me, then fuck off.

[Xei]

Or, being a scientific theory, if I don't believe you you could just give some evidence for it.

[Jorge]

I don't believe this, I'm gonna go fuck off.

[Universal Mind]

If you dont believe me, then fuck off. According to the idea, if a person doesn't believe you, isn't there a dimension where the person does believe you? Since you can't travel to that dimension, you should thank the person here for believing you, although he doesn't believe you here. If the principle is real, wouldn't it be the case that there is a dimension where the principle is not real?

[Specialis Sapientia]

Do you agree with this theory? That theres every consumable and possible something/anything. There is a dimension with a cat with one eye. There is a dimension with a cat with 4 eyes. Every possible cat. Quantum physics formula : Quantum physics formula? Do you even know what the formula means? It's about Heisenberg uncertainty principle and has nothing to do with the theory you are talking about, even though such theory doesn't exist. What do you mean, this theory does not exist. Its a scientific theory. If you dont believe me, then fuck off. If it's a scientific theory, then what is it called? Who has worked on it? What is the theory about? What basis has it? There are two interpretations in QM that involves many universes, called Many-worlds interpretation and the extension called many-minds interpretation. Is this what you mean? No, I don't agree with it, it is incorrect, but there is still an important aspect in this theory that are not in the other interpretations, instead of another universe getting created for every event, the probabilities branching out for that event is in the future probable database (a function of the Consciousness System, but lets not go there).

[Xaqaria]

The many worlds theory of quantum mechanics states that everything that is possible exists, not that everything conceivable (as opposed to consumable) exists. On another note, I want to go to the place where everything consumable exists. No, I don't agree with it, it is incorrect, but there is still an important aspect in this theory that are not in the other interpretations, instead of another universe getting created for every event, the probabilities branching out for that event is in the future probable database (a function of the Consciousness System, but lets not go there). Although you are allowed to not agree with it, I don't think you are in a position to say it is not correct. The MWI is one of the only legitimate answers to the non-locality issue.

[Specialis Sapientia]

Although you are allowed to not agree with it, I don't think you are in a position to say it is not correct. The MWI is one of the only legitimate answers to the non-locality issue. It is one of the only legitimate answers to..? Far from. Non-locality is not an issue at all, if you model the universe as a virtual reality. Read this paper: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf (If you have not already done so) The paper does not give a complete answer, as explaining consciousness link to the theory, however the Theory of everything by Thomas Campbell does explain consciousness, reality, the anomalies of physics, quantum mechanics, PSI phenomena and everything else, as would be required by a theory of everything. Consciousness is (or best modelled) as a digital information system, which evolution is applied as a fundamental process, the evolution is the same as lowering the entropy of the system. As I have said, the MWI interpretation is false as it is based on a the subset of the system, and not the superset (in other words, based on the physical [subset] being fundamental, opposed to a non-physical consciousness that is fundamental to reality [superset]) . It is based on a belief system that limits reality to a subset of the solution space that does not contain the answer (Using the words of Campbell).

[Lucidness]

I agree that this theory is bollocks, but im just seeing other peoples thoughts. It does exist though.

[Lucidness]

Quantum physics formula? Do you even know what the formula means? It's about Heisenberg uncertainty principle and has nothing to do with the theory you are talking about, even though such theory doesn't exist. If it's a scientific theory, then what is it called? Who has worked on it? What is the theory about? What basis has it? There are two interpretations in QM that involves many universes, called Many-worlds interpretation and the extension called many-minds interpretation. Is this what you mean? No, I don't agree with it, it is incorrect, but there is still an important aspect in this theory that are not in the other interpretations, instead of another universe getting created for every event, the probabilities branching out for that event is in the future probable database (a function of the Consciousness System, but lets not go there). Yeah that is what i mean.

[Xaqaria]

I agree that this theory is bollocks.... It does exist though. wat

[Xaqaria]

It is one of the only legitimate answers to..? Far from. Non-locality is not an issue at all, if you model the universe as a virtual reality. Read this paper: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf (If you have not already done so) The paper does not give a complete answer, as explaining consciousness link to the theory, however the Theory of everything by Thomas Campbell does explain consciousness, reality, the anomalies of physics, quantum mechanics, PSI phenomena and everything else, as would be required by a theory of everything. Consciousness is (or best modelled) as a digital information system, which evolution is applied as a fundamental process, the evolution is the same as lowering the entropy of the system. As I have said, the MWI interpretation is false as it is based on a the subset of the system, and not the superset (in other words, based on the physical [subset] being fundamental, opposed to a non-physical consciousness that is fundamental to reality [superset]) . It is based on a belief system that limits reality to a subset of the solution space that does not contain the answer (Using the words of Campbell). Do you have a link to the following paper that he mentioned, that derives the core of known physics from first principles? You and I are not in disagreement, except in our levels of certainty. I cannot say the MWI is definitely false, any more than I can say any of the other fundamentally untestable interpretations are true or false. Virtual reality theory is very appealing to me and yet without the intervention of a god (or programmer) I cannot know if it is true.

[Bonsay]

If the principle is real, wouldn't it be the case that there is a dimension where the principle is not real? No, because the principle is the basis for the alternate dimension. No principle, no dimension.

[Dannon Oneironaut]

Do you agree with this theory? That theres every consumable and possible something/anything. There is a dimension with a cat with one eye. There is a dimension with a cat with 4 eyes. Every possible cat. Quantum physics formula : Yes, and I live in these dimensions. But I don't consume cats.

[Spartiate]

What do you mean, this theory does not exist. Its a scientific theory. If you dont believe me, then fuck off.

[Specialis Sapientia]

Do you have a link to the following paper that he mentioned, that derives the core of known physics from first principles? You and I are not in disagreement, except in our levels of certainty. I cannot say the MWI is definitely false, any more than I can say any of the other fundamentally untestable interpretations are true or false. Virtual reality theory is very appealing to me and yet without the intervention of a god (or programmer) I cannot know if it is true. He has written a chapter 2, following the first one. http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRTCH2.pdf I have not read it in depth yet, just glanced at it. The trilogy by Thomas Campbell is available for free on Google Books, it derives (unifies) not only physics by first principles, but also metaphysics and philosophy. http://books.google.com/books?id=6To...big toe&pg=PA1 One of his earlier lectures can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akgCb...x=0&playnext=1 The trilogy in-one-book can be bought for $25.50, it is much more comfortable for one to read it in book format, than on a computer screen. I know you will like it!

[Xaqaria]

Read it, watched it. I'll probably be picking up the books soon.

[Dannon Oneironaut]

If you imagine it, it does exist. it exists in your mind. If you dream it it exists in your mind. However briefly. Some people say that the mind is a dimension of depth that the fourth dimension is the surface of. But imagined image exists at least in the imagination. If the imagination exists in only your brain or another dimension is for you to decide, but either way, even your brain is in a dimension.

[Xei]

Right now I'm imagining that what you just said isn't true. Guess it ain't.

[Dannon Oneironaut]

Right now I'm imagining that what you just said isn't true. Guess it ain't. In your mind.

[Xei]

Yeh I'm also imagining that it's an objective truth independent of my mind. In my mind.

[Dannon Oneironaut]

Yeh I'm also imagining that it's an objective truth independent of my mind. In my mind. I know you are.

[mindwanderer]

John Frusciante, ex guitarist of RHCP, has for a long time claimed to visit the fourth dimension... which he explains to be nothing but pure energy. He says that is where spirits are, and that it's where all music is before it becomes music. He says all music that ever was, and ever will be, is in the fourth dimension... and that we 'channel' it through spirits. Whether he's been there or not, he's probably the best 'musician' to have ever been. But that's all for another thread isn't it?