parallel universes

[threed]

Has it been proven that there isn't?

And that proves, what? That there is?

But something has been interacting with humans for as long as we have been here.?

And what proof do you have for that?

You know what? There are people in this world you don't know. You never will know them. There are people in your town that you will never know. You have no idea what they are doing right now. So based on that fact, are you going to sit there and say you know that there are no beings in the Universe that might be more advanced than us? You can perceive all of the Universe? You know what they know and what they are doing?

Can you even justify that thinking?

Yeah, but I can find at least some evidence for them on Facebook or Twitter.

We can't prove everything because we don't know everything.

And so that proves everything else?

 

[threed]

proving it

This sort of debate really isn't a waste of time. Wallowing in the mystery is.

Let's say you want to prove that you can go back in time. We've already bantered back and forth about that on these boards. Take for instance my post about the need for information/energy storage.

Yes, that's just a speculation. But it starts the ball rolling. So, you look for a feature in the universe that might give some indication of that function. If you find anything -- even tangentially -- you dig deeper (with this "speculation" in mind).

Eventually, merely speculating about the unknown could possibly bring you in touch with a heretofore unknown aspect of reality. Often, the key is knowing what questions to ask.

But this process entirely precedes belief.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

And that proves, what? That there is?

You are the one hung up on proof. You keep asking where is the proof that there are other civilizations. So where is the proof that there isn't. Just because we don't have any proof doesn't mean they aren't out there. You are missing that point.

You don't know the people up the street, but they exist. Do you need proof of that?

Why are you even on this forum? You sound like a troll.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

proving it

This sort of debate really isn't a waste of time. Wallowing in the mystery is.

Let's say you want to prove that you can go back in time. We've already bantered back and forth about that on these boards. Take for instance my post about the need for information/energy storage.

Yes, that's just a speculation. But it starts the ball rolling. So, you look for a feature in the universe that might give some indication of that function. If you find anything -- even tangentially -- you dig deeper (with this "speculation" in mind).

Eventually, merely speculating about the unknown could possibly bring you in touch with a heretofore unknown aspect of reality. Often, the key is knowing what questions to ask.

But this process entirely precedes belief.

You can't speculate on something you don't know. All we can say is maybe you can go back in time, but we don't know that you can, and we don't know how it would work. Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean that someone else might have learned something about it, and figured out how to do it.

There are a lot of mysteries that science likes to study. And we might not ever have answers either... it's not always about proof, because some things can't be proven. Like is the Universe finite, or infinite? It can never be proven. Not with our current knowledge anyway. And that's what I keep saying. Just lose the word proof already.

 

[threed]

You are the one hung up on proof.

It's quite simple David my man. If you don't have any proof then you have no way of knowing that it exists in the first place. If you can't prove it, then how do you know it's real? You don't.

Why, then, do you believe it? Because you want to. Because you have an emotional need to believe it. That's when it becomes a psychological matter.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

It's quite simple David my man. If you don't have any proof then you have no way of knowing that it exists in the first place. If you can't prove it, then how do you know it's real? You don't.

How do we know Pluto exists? Because we can see it. You can't touch it though. So wheres the proof?

Also your reasoning is still flawed, since not being able to prove something only means you have not devised an test that proves a hypothesis. That's a standard part of science. Things like the LHC are being made to try and prove ideas. And it might not either. They are looking for things that they don't even know exist. And that's what we are doing here.

Why, then, do you believe it? Because you want to. Because you have an emotional need to believe it. That's when it becomes a psychological matter.

And psychologists don't agree that things like abductions are psychological. They don't know what's going on, but they do agree that it's not a confabulation. So you are making statements with nothing to back them up. Are you a psychologist?

I'm not sure what thing you think I believe in, or have an emotional need to believe in, and I can assure you I don't. Do you have an emotional need to only believe in things that can be "proven"?

If so, I'll assume you don't beleive that we live in a very large universe with an uncountable number of stars, planets, etc. Because we can't prove that we do. All we can do is see them with our eyes, and take measurements of the visible light, and also invisible things like xrays, and other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.

But we can't prove they exist because they are too far away. We can't go there and see.

So by the same reasoning, we can be sure that UFOs and aliens exists because people see them, and even sometimes photograph them, track them on radar, and find trace evidence of their existence.

So we have the same "proof" UFOs exist as we do Pluto.

I have no emotional attachment to it, but it is a fact.

If you were really a scientific person, you would know that a lot of science can't be proven in a materialistic way. Dems are the breaks. What's the core of the Earth or Moon consist of? We have theories, but we have no proof. But you read these theories in books all the time. Same with the way the solar system was created, and even the Universe. Where's the proof? There isn't any. So does the Universe exist? Yes. Do we know why and how?? Nope.

 

[bobheck]

How do we know Pluto exists? Because we can see it. You can't touch it though. So wheres the proof?

Also your reasoning is still flawed, since not being able to prove something only means you have not devised an test that proves a hypothesis. That's a standard part of science. Things like the LHC are being made to try and prove ideas. And it might not either. They are looking for things that they don't even know exist. And that's what we are doing here.



I'm not sure what thing you think I believe in, or have an emotional need to believe in, and I can assure you I don't. Do you have an emotional need to only believe in things that can be "proven"?

If so, I'll assume you don't beleive that we live in a very large universe with an uncountable number of stars, planets, etc. Because we can't prove that we do. All we can do is see them with our eyes, and take measurements of the visible light, and also invisible things like xrays, and other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.

But we can't prove they exist because they are too far away. We can't go there and see.

So by the same reasoning, we can be sure that UFOs and aliens exists because people see them, and even sometimes photograph them, track them on radar, and find trace evidence of their existence.

So we have the same "proof" UFOs exist as we do Pluto.

I have no emotional attachment to it, but it is a fact.

If you were really a scientific person, you would know that a lot of science can't be proven in a materialistic way. Dems are the breaks. What's the core of the Earth or Moon consist of? We have theories, but we have no proof. But you read these theories in books all the time. Same with the way the solar system was created, and even the Universe. Where's the proof? There isn't any. So does the Universe exist? Yes. Do we know why and how?? Nope.

Pluto follows an established orbit -- its position is predictable and verifiable 24x7 through telescopes. We even sent a spacecraft to it and, hey, it was there where it was expected to be and we took pictures of it. If we want, we can go back and do it again.

Tell me where and when a UFO will appear, and take pictures, then repeat that process at another time, and then you have a parallel.

I am definitely not saying UFO's do not exist, but it is not the same thing.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Pluto follows an established orbit -- its position is predictable and verifiable 24x7 through telescopes. We even sent a spacecraft to it and, hey, it was there where it was expected to be and we took pictures of it. If we want, we can go back and do it again.

Tell me where and when a UFO will appear, and take pictures, then repeat that process at another time, and then you have a parallel.

I am definitely not saying UFO's do not exist, but it is not the same thing.

OK.. that was a weak analogy. :redface:

But my point was that some things can only be observed and little else. We can't exclude observational evidence just because we have nothing else to back it up.

Sometimes science is kind of like looking at an automobile though a telescope, never having seen one up close, and trying to figure how it works. That's not a bad thing, and there are a lot of brilliant people thinking about these subjects.

I just don't get hung up on "proof" because it's often that we just don't have any yet. But we keep looking. We never had any verifiable evidence of another planet outside our solar system until recently, but we assumed we would find them once our equipment and techniques improved.

It just seems our brains are hard wired to work with a limited amount of information of just the right kind. We don't have a clue if there is stuff all around us that we can't perceive. Sort of like the dark matter thing.

 

[Brian Now]

It's known as the The Delay and Antedating Paradox. The idea has been around since 1979 when Benjamin Libet first documented this phenomenon.

Ok, I remember hearing about this before. This is still theory though.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Ok, I remember hearing about this before. This is still theory though.

It's been documented in tests by a number of researchers, and there are a number of theories as to what's going on. It's unclear why it happens, but it's well documented that it does happen. So it's well proven, just not understood.

It could also be an ESP type of thing. I think it's fairly common for people to have an experience, like they just think of someone you haven't heard from in a while, and then they call you. I know it happens to me all the time. What's the mechanism behind that? Is it perceiving an event right before it happens, as with the Delay and Antedating Paradox, or are you sensing that someone is calling you.

There was a study done recently that showed that hunches are often more reliable than reasoning when solving a problem. Once again the mechanism is not understood.

My dad had dreams all the time about different people he used to know many years ago. He would get up and say I just had a dream about so-and-so, who he had not thought about for a while. Then he would pick up the paper and see that they had passed away that day. He knew that's what the dreams meant. He loved going to funerals because he would see old friends. He also once had a dream where he saw a date written in the sky with bright golden wiring that he said was as bright as the sun. His sister passed away on that date following the dream.

It happened so many times when I was growing up that it just seemed normal. My brother used to joke with me about when it would happen with us, and then he had a very lucid dream that a co-worker fell in a very peculiar accident and broke his arm, only to have that exact event happen later that day.

So we know this kind of stuff happens, but we don't know how it happens. And how to you find out what's behind that? The best you can do is try to test to see if people can perform ESP in a lab setting, and that almost never works, as it seems the tests break the phenomenon.

 

[Schuyler]

So we know this kind of stuff happens, but we don't know how it happens. And how to you find out what's behind that? The best you can do is try to test to see if people can perform ESP in a lab setting, and that almost never works, as it seems the tests break the phenomenon.

The following is totally speculative. I'm not trying to prove anything. This reminds me of the saying about fairies in that they cannot be seen directly, but only from the side. As it turns out, our visual acuity is better off-center. For example, if you look at the Pleiades constellation off to the side, you are likely to see more stars than if you look directly at it.

It's as if 'the phenomena' are designed from that perspective. When you attack it directly, it disappears. When you 'let it flow' with intuition and hunches, you have more success. Most all experiences, such as you have related, are anecdotal and highly personal. They can't be easily used as objective evidence of anything. Science demands reproducibility; that cannot be promised with these kinds of incidents.

Naturally, the rationalist/reductionist point of view demands a direct attack and views the resultant failures as proof no phenomena exist. I know the term 'think outside the box' has become hackneyed and trite, but, eh? We're trying hard to make this stuff into science; and it doesn not appear to be working.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

The following is totally speculative. I'm not trying to prove anything. This reminds me of the saying about fairies in that they cannot be seen directly, but only from the side. As it turns out, our visual acuity is better off-center. For example, if you look at the Pleiades constellation off to the side, you are likely to see more stars than if you look directly at it.

Thats's right, the peripheral version is more sensitive to light, but we can't focus on it.

It's as if 'the phenomena' are designed from that perspective. When you attack it directly, it disappears. When you 'let it flow' with intuition and hunches, you have more success. Most all experiences, such as you have related, are anecdotal and highly personal. They can't be easily used as objective evidence of anything. Science demands reproducibility; that cannot be promised with these kinds of incidents.

Naturally, the rationalist/reductionist point of view demands a direct attack and views the resultant failures as proof no phenomena exist. I know the term 'think outside the box' has become hackneyed and trite, but, eh? We're trying hard to make this stuff into science; and it doesn not appear to be working.

That's a very good point. maybe it's as simple as finding the right way to try and view something.

One of my favorite weird quantum mechanics things is the double slit experiment. Depending on how you do it, you either have the interference pattern from waves, or that collapses and you have some straight bars. It's almost as if the future of that event is already mapped out, but changes with the context.

It gives me the creepy feeling that what we perceive as reality is only as real as our brain lets it be. It's kind of like taking a RAW image file and looking at it directly. It's a lot of static looking stuff. Then you translate the data and you see an image.

So what we perceive could be because of the way our brain is "wired". We don't see most of the electromagnetic spectrum with our eyes, and we only hear a limited range of frequencies. So everything has been filtered, and then processed so we see patterns, or faces, or whatever, that we need to identify to survive.

And there could be a hold lot of other stuff going on, and we have no way to detect it. Maybe we could make a device to detect it, but how would we know what to look for? Like looking for dark matter. They seem to think its there, but they can't see it. It's kind of frustrating!

It could also be that certain other phenomenon manifest by becoming something our brains can kind of understand, but partly because we interpret it as some known object.

Then you have all the totally philosophical questions, like what is life and why are we self aware, and it could just be another "force" like electricity or magnetism (which are of course two sides of the same coin), but something we have not yet discovered. So like radio waves propagating until picked up by a receiver, the life waves get picked up by a biological receiver.

I'm not saying I "believe" that to be so, but it's an interesting mental exercise. I just think there's much to learn. And where do you start?

I guess that's why this stuff is called "esoteric."

 

[Constance]

Thats's right, the peripheral version is more sensitive to light, but we can't focus on it.

That's a very good point. maybe it's as simple as finding the right way to try and view something.

One of my favorite weird quantum mechanics things is the double slit experiment. Depending on how you do it, you either have the interference pattern from waves, or that collapses and you have some straight bars. It's almost as if the future of that event is already mapped out, but changes with the context.

It gives me the creepy feeling that what we perceive as reality is only as real as our brain lets it be. It's kind of like taking a RAW image file and looking at it directly. It's a lot of static looking stuff. Then you translate the data and you see an image.

So what we perceive could be because of the way our brain is "wired". We don't see most of the electromagnetic spectrum with our eyes, and we only hear a limited range of frequencies. So everything has been filtered, and then processed so we see patterns, or faces, or whatever, that we need to identify to survive.

And there could be a hold lot of other stuff going on, and we have no way to detect it. Maybe we could make a device to detect it, but how would we know what to look for? Like looking for dark matter. They seem to think its there, but they can't see it. It's kind of frustrating!

It could also be that certain other phenomenon manifest by becoming something our brains can kind of understand, but partly because we interpret it as some known object.

Then you have all the totally philosophical questions, like what is life and why are we self aware, and it could just be another "force" like electricity or magnetism (which are of course two sides of the same coin), but something we have not yet discovered. So like radio waves propagating until picked up by a receiver, the life waves get picked up by a biological receiver.

I'm not saying I "believe" that to be so, but it's an interesting mental exercise. I just think there's much to learn. And where do you start?

I guess that's why this stuff is called "esoteric."

I found a link to this 2009 forum discussion concerning the concept of 'parallel universes' after reading the current 2016 thread concerning the concept of 'parallel interacting universes' at @Parallel worlds exist and interact with our world, say physicists

I hope readers of that current discussion will read this 2009 thread. I'm especially impressed by the scope of @DavidRavenMoon's contributions. Does he continue to post in the Paracast forums, under this or another name? Even if he doesn't, I think the current thread on 'interacting parallel worlds' could be improved by taking up what DRM has provided in this 2009 thread. In his last post to this forum he confronted the ramifying question of what we currently understand about the nature of human consciousness and the capacities of human minds at this point in our evolution. These are highly contested issues in the interdisciplinary field of Consciousness Studies, developed over the last 25 years, and these issues are far from being resolved at this point. Understanding consciousness, mind, and 'reality' as we experience them today calls for an understanding of their origin and development, which as I see it requires investigation of the evolution of consciousness and mind in species of life on earth. Carrying this inquiry further is essential to obtaining a grounded understanding of the naturally given limits of human perception and the need for critical perspective on the questionable ideations and memes that have become influential in the dominant culture of our time -- especially those related to 'the paranormal' and the notion that contemporary developments in computer technology can illuminate for us the nature of the universe in which we find ourselves existing.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I found a link to this 2009 forum discussion concerning the concept of 'parallel universes' after reading the current 2016 thread concerning the concept of 'parallel interacting universes' at @Parallel worlds exist and interact with our world, say physicists

I hope readers of that current discussion will read this 2009 thread. I'm especially impressed by the scope of @DavidRavenMoon's contributions. Does he continue to post in the Paracast forums, under this or another name? Even if he doesn't, I think the current thread on 'interacting parallel worlds' could be improved by taking up what DRM has provided in this 2009 thread. In his last post to this forum he confronted the ramifying question of what we currently understand about the nature of human consciousness and the capacities of human minds at this point in our evolution. These are highly contested issues in the interdisciplinary field of Consciousness Studies, developed over the last 25 years, and these issues are far from being resolved at this point. Understanding consciousness, mind, and 'reality' as we experience them today calls for an understanding of their origin and development, which as I see it requires investigation of the evolution of consciousness and mind in species of life on earth. Carrying this inquiry further is essential to obtaining a grounded understanding of the naturally given limits of human perception and the need for critical perspective on the questionable ideations and memes that have become influential in the dominant culture of our time -- especially those related to 'the paranormal' and the notion that contemporary developments in computer technology can illuminate for us the nature of the universe in which we find ourselves existing.

I would agree that DRM makes some fascinating and very interesting points. He brings up the multi directional nature of information as it relates to time in a very comprehensive way.

Does anyone know about substantiation for the following quote?

But they have actually photographed particles in two places at once, and in an transitional state...

I tried to find this photographic information for verification's sake but couldn't, albeit this is from 7 years ago.

 

[Randall]

... I tried to find this photographic information for verification's sake but couldn't, albeit this is from 7 years ago.

Jeff: I found a brief reference to something that seems like what you're looking for in a video, but you'll have to follow-up on it ( around 2:25 ):

I'm with Einstein in that I don't like the idea of a single particle in multiple positions at the same time. I can't help but think that there's another way to interpret the data. But don't ask me what that is. One thing I do know is that the interpretation is based on the math involved in the physics, and that means that it's an abstract model rather than the real thing. In other words, IMO I think scientists should be saying that within the framework of their interpretation, what appears to be multiple particles in different places can be explained mathematically as a single particle in different places. But is that really what's going on?

The other thing you'll probably run across are different interpretations of what they mean by being in two places at once. Sometimes they use the term "superposition", which is actually different, and sometimes they use the word "states" which is also different. Other times they use wave-particle duality to infer simultaneousness, but that is also different. The differences are all subtle, but are nonetheless not exactly that same as saying particle A is simultaneously at 3D spatial coordinates A + B + C. Yet in some cases it seems like this is exactly what is being suggested.

In the end the problem boils down to this: The math says that single particles can be in two places at once. Experimentation seems to confirm the math. But does that necessarily mean the math is right? No. It just means that if you look at the problem using that particular math, you get a way of looking at the problem that doesn't make any sense. So maybe, call me crazy, but perhaps there's another way to look at the problem that does make sense, but we just haven't figured it out yet.

 

[victimized]

Parallel inaccuracy actually.

Stone belongs to a condition of natural fusion, sciences unnatural conditions of artificial applied conversions.

The stone of Earth is a naturally fused condition with fused nuclear orbital signals.

Science alters the natural orbital signal to "attack/convert" natural fusion and then causes the human mind to receive transmitted atmospheric irradiation that causes the human mind to perceive the conditions that science introduced.....artificial signals by artificially changed nuclear orbital signals.

It is why the UFO attacks, for to convert is to attack. The human scientific mind knew that conversion or the conditions of occultism/science was to alter to holiness of SION, being transmis SION by conver SION. Conversion the condition that the occultist considered as an act of transformation through destruction.

Therefore the occultist mind considered that it was okay to destroy to transform, therefore already know that they have altered/changed the natural condition of conscious awareness into an artificial state.