Life in lower vibrations...

jp1111 says (to nygdan):

"Your arguments basically seem to stem from our current knowledge of science. Since we don't know it all, one should not say anything is non-sense just because it does not fit a known theory, unless one can prove it wrong. Probably, the vibrational theory is just another way of looking at things."

Well, I'd say that, too. but what are you supposed to base your arguments on, if not knowledge? If I say, "Well, I agree that two and two are four, but maybe tomorrow something which never happened before will suddenly happen and two and two will now be five! Can you disprove that?"

Of course I can't. Maybe it will be five. Maybe I will be finally able to prove that I really am the Long Lost King of France, too; but you're probably not going to be holding your breath waiting, right?

If you base a discussion on what is known, it's like agreeing to set up the rules that you will abide by. Here's an example.

"Ahora encendido al asunto: La vida en vibraciones m�s bajas que nuestros el propios, ser�a una existencia m�s negativa que nuestros el propios. Ser�a como falsa infiernos del telenovelas b�blicos. En las profundidades de puntos bajos, estar�a infierno, un lugar del mal inmenso, oscuridad y destrucci�n. El lugar que reside del diablos!"

Would you care to argue that point, sir?

Well, you probably wouldn't, because you might not be able to read and comprehend Spanish! If we're going to discuss something, it makes sense for us to say something like "since we both speak English as our first language, let's keep the argument in English so that we have a basis for communicationl", right?

Well, it's the same way with logical constructs! If someone makes a comment that is completely lacking in logic or common sense or has no evidentiary background -- and you call them on it -- are you going to accept, for the sake of the debate, them saying something like:

"Okay, I have absolutely no evidence for that, it just sounds cool to me which is why I use it. But you have to accept my idea as being as valid as yours, because someday, maybe in a couple of hundred years, someone might find some evidence for my assertion."??

Hardly. If you accept every assertion as equally valid and truthful, you are, in effect, throwing out the very concept of evidence and observation. We will all be failing in our main job here which is, of course, to....

....deny ignorance.

Originally posted by jp1111
one should not say anything is non-sense just because it does not fit a known theory,

I didn't say nonsense to denigrate it, I meant that it, literally, was not sensible, irrational.

Just to get your view on this, how do you explain consciousness?

I wouldn't even begin to try to explain something I don't understand. It looks like the author of that page however, has done just that. The ideas they present, as I think most can agree now, are unscientific. So how did the author arrive at those ideas? Basically, they just made them up. They took the idea that molecules 'vibrate' and, for whatever mystical reasons, decided that there are good vibrations and bad vibrations. Perhaps they feel that musical instruments are a divine allegory of the nature of existence, or perhaps they are just big beach boys fans. But they arrived at their conclusions thru irrationality, mysticism, and sophistry. While that doesn't mean that they are ultimately wrong, they do not have wany way to show that they are right (since its metaphysics/supernaturalism). And, I would add, there is no way to demonstrate that their ideas are 'wrong' if they are only talking about metaphysics. Science cannot make any statements about the metaphysical world.

indigochild
If there are higher dimensions, then it reasonable to assume, that extra-dimensional being would be composed of other forms of matter and energy

Why would it be reasonable?

offthestreet
We will all be failing in our main job here which is, of course, to....

....deny ignorance.

I would add that blindly speculating about 'lower dimesnional beings' would be increasing ignorance, at least if we can't define in logical terms what it is we are talking about. If we are talking aboout atoms vibrating due to heat, or movement of electrons, or anything like that, then it would have to be clear that thats what is meant and the discussion will have particular considerations because of that. If, however, we're talking about non-physical, non-existant, 'vibrations', indeed, why call them vibrations at all, why pretend that any vulgarization of 'strin-theory' is at all relevant, andwhy even think that we can talk about 'higher' and 'lower' aspects? The thread starter seems to be talking about the 'metaphysical' kinds of 'vibrations', which is all well and good, but we shouldn't be pretending to be having a scientific discussion then or think that we can get too specific about what happens at 'lower' or 'hellish' 'vibrations'.
[edited to tidy up the attributions and shorten the quotes a bit]

[edit on 9-10-2004 by Nygdan]

Albert Einstein used the term 'vibrational intensity' to describe this concept. Why is the cosmological constant what it is? Textbook physics dictates to us that we do not know.

But, 100 years ago, textbook physics didn't know about quantum mechanics or string theory or any of those things.

Tesla documented a phenomenon called scalar wave electromagnetics, again, something that didn't make it into the textbooks, but it's well documented if you read some of Tesla's collected works, including things he, himself, never originally published but did record. It's a property of electromagnetics whose effects cannot be readily measured by an oscilloscope, but which affects physical matter in a measurable way. It's not quite peizoelectric effect, but it's going in that general direction.

Everything is made of something. Vibrational intensity describes the way in which matter exists, I suppose in terms of general relativity... What we see and touch in the universe all vibrates in this 'other dimension' or 'other way' at an equal or near equal level... like a carrier wave (for lack of better words) upon which the qualities of matter and energy for this frequency of space/time ride.

In fact, in Buddhist cosmology, things that are not in and of themselves qualities or aspects do not truly exist. Matter is a collection of qualities, but it is illusiory and fleeting, it doesn't exist. Only the qualities themselves exist, and when combined form the various types of materials, phenomenon and energies we observe in our day to day.

Just my two cents.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Well, I'd say that, too. but what are you supposed to base your arguments on, if not knowledge?

It was just an observation. I'm not saying that you should not base your arguments on knowledge.

Well, it's the same way with logical constructs! If someone makes a comment that is completely lacking in logic or common sense or has no evidentiary background -- and you call them on it
[...]
Hardly. If you accept every assertion as equally valid and truthful, you are, in effect, throwing out the very concept of evidence and observation. We will all be failing in our main job here which is, of course, to....

....deny ignorance.

Deny Ignorance? Do you consider calling other people's statements as "non-sense," "gibberish," etc. denying ignorance? How about giving us some valid reasons why it is non-sense? To better ask, can you prove that the vibrational theory is wrong? If you can, then it would be denying ignorance, otherwise people who believe in it would'nt change their minds just because it doesn't make sense to you.

I don't accept evey assertion as valid and truthful. But, I am open to consider new and different ideas. I am not saying that I have a complete faith in the vibrational theory, but I will not say that it is non-sense until someone proves it wrong.

"Okay, I have absolutely no evidence for that, it just sounds cool to me which is why I use it. But you have to accept my idea as being as valid as yours, because someday, maybe in a couple of hundred years, someone might find some evidence for my assertion."??

They are not saying that you have to accept their ideas. If it doesn't make sense to you, then don't believe it. However, if you want to argue by just saying that it is non-sense and not demonstrate why it is so, then you will have a lot to say in the paranormal forum!

jp1111 says:

"It was just an observation. I'm not saying that you should not base your arguments on knowledge."

And yet most arguments, including your defense of the vibrational theory are not based on knowledge; they are based on faith -- which you yourself allude to when you say "...I am not saying that I have a complete faith in the vibrational theory..."

"Deny Ignorance? Do you consider calling other people's statements as "non-sense," "gibberish," etc. denying ignorance?"

I don't believe I called any of these assertions as nonsense or gibberish; perhaps you have confused with my colleague, nygdan.

"How about giving us some valid reasons why it is non-sense?"

Actually, I can give you some reasons why some of your statements are non-sense, but I will quote someone who can say it better than me -- you yourself, when you say:

"...can you prove that the vibrational theory is wrong?"

and

"If you can, then it would be denying ignorance..."

and

"...I will not say that it is non-sense until someone proves it wrong."

You see, jp1111, anyone who has taken a basic philosophy or critical thinking course knows that it is impossible for anyone to prove a negative. I can no more prove that the vibrational theory is "wrong" than you can disprove my assertions athat I am really the Long-Lost King of France, or that the mushrooms in my front yard were place there by The Little Fairies of the Midnight Rainbow to rest their feet on after a pick-up soccer game.

No matter how hard you tried to show that, based on mitochondrial dna or records, I am not really the Long-Lost King of France, I could always come back with such snappy retorts as, "well, you can't prove that the mitochondrial DNA tests wasn't false, so there!"

or

"you can't prove that the Little Fairies of the Midnight Rainbow didn't get inside the camera and ruin the film, so there!"

This is why any request to prove a negative are always a failure, and all they do is to derail the argument. The approach itself makes no sense; it is (literally) nonsense.

The way science (as opposed to faith) operates is that two people observing something about the universe try to explain it by separate (and often competing) hypotheses.

The person whose hypothesis is usually accepted as a valid theory is the person whose hypothesis is:

1. Buttressed by some sort of observable facts;

2. Lends itself to proof or disproof by experimentation, which experimentation can be performed by anyone with the same repeatable results;

3. Explains certain observations better than any other explanation or hypothesis; and which

4. Is concise and clear, and possibly applicable to other observations of the Universe at all.

In this thread, none of those parameters for the "vibrational" theory are present.

"They are not saying that you have to accept their ideas. If it doesn't make sense to you, then don't believe it."

I appreciate you permission to do so, and, if the mood strikes, I will not only not believe it, I will explain, using the best data, evidence and logical constructs available to me, why I think it false.

"However, if you want to argue by just saying that it is non-sense and not demonstrate why it is so, then you will have a lot to say in the paranormal forum!"

True, and most of it will be a waste of my time and the server's electrons.

But my point is that I am not, "just saying it is nonsense"; I am not failing to demonstrate why the "vibrational" hypotheses are bogus; that is not my job.

It is the proponents of such assertions whose task it is to show that their particular assertions are better at identifying problems, answering questions on a wide and hopefully coherent front, and even being able to predict future activities ot one estent of another.

So far, the proponents of the "vibrational" theory have failed in their approach -- because they're not even able to make the attempt.

I wouldn't even begin to try to explain something I don't understand.

Then, why are you?

Why would it be reasonable?

I think you should refer to an interview of co-founder of string theory, Dr Mkaku on BBC(Sorry, you will have to find it yourself) where he talks about matter being unstable in the higher dimensions, and could exist in other forms. It is not a big leap of faith, as matter can exist in other forms here too. Reasonable.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
And yet most arguments, including your defense of the vibrational theory are not based on knowledge; they are based on faith -- which you yourself allude to when you say "...I am not saying that I have a complete faith in the vibrational theory..."

I never said that my arguments are based on any scientific knowledge. Since metaphysics is not based on any observable facts, people who believe in it solely do so with faith. It may not be a directly provable subject, but it cannot be disproved either.

I don't believe I called any of these assertions as nonsense or gibberish; perhaps you have confused with my colleague, nygdan.

I know you did not directly say it, but you did agree with Nygdan and presumably, you were speaking for Nygdan. And you said, "If someone makes a comment that is completely lacking in logic or common sense or has no evidentiary background -- and you call them on it..."

I appreciate you permission to do so, and, if the mood strikes, I will not only not believe it, I will explain, using the best data, evidence and logical constructs available to me, why I think it false.

I'm waiting for your explanation.

True, and most of it will be a waste of my time and the server's electrons.

Then, you are wasting your time here too.

But my point is that I am not, "just saying it is nonsense"; I am not failing to demonstrate why the "vibrational" hypotheses are bogus; that is not my job.

You are failing. You have not yet explained why and how it is bogus, which would not be possible.

This is why any request to prove a negative are always a failure, and all they do is to derail the argument. The approach itself makes no sense; it is (literally) nonsense.

Then, why are you even trying if you already know that your approach makes no sense?

This would be my last post in this thread. I don't want this thread to be moved in some religion and spirituality forum. I apologize the author of this thread if I have anyhow caused harm to the original pupose of this thread.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Then, why are you?

I have not been doing such. I hate not tried to explain conciousness. Why the complete inability to understand a simple sentence? Was it purposeful or the result of reading comprehension problems? All I have done is pointed out that their 'ideas' are methodologically unsound.

I think you should refer to an interview of co-founder of string theory, Dr Mkaku on BBC

I beleive this is the interview:
Dr: Do eleven dimensions mean there are other life forms of any kind?
Dr Michio Kaku: We do not know if life-forms can exist in another dimension. However, atoms as we know them may not be stable in other dimensions. If we replace Newton's Inverse square law with an inverse tube law then solar systems and atoms fall apart. However, new forms of matter may exist in higher dimensions.

So, again, why is it reasonable to think that there are other living beings in these other dimensions? By that I mean, what reasons are there to think it? Is there any evidence that suggests that an unknown 'form of matter' that may exist in another dimension [that may exist or may not) is going to behave anything like matter in this dimension and result in living organisms? If the basic laws of physics of other dimensions can't be gotten at, what reasons can one use to think that matter will form into atoms that can react in some other-dimensional chemistry (again, acting under completely different physical laws) to form life?

Viva Wright: Is there the possibility that unconscious knowledge is transferred between universes?
Dr Michio Kaku: At the present time, physicist believe that consciousness is confined to the human brain so telepathy between universes may not be possible. However, the problem of consciousness in a quantum-theory is still an unresolved problem. M-Theory is still a quantum-theory.

In other words, no, there is no evidence that suggests that, if intelligent life existed in other dimensions that it would be communicating at a distance with life here and influencing it. Merely because quantum physicists haven't explained conciousness in terms of quantum physics is hardly enough to state that such things do occur.

jp111
Do you consider calling other people's statements as "non-sense," "gibberish," etc. denying ignorance? How about giving us some valid reasons why it is non-sense?

Yes, I most certainly do. For millenia mankind scrabbled in the dark, having non-sense-based ideas to explain everything around them, sometime quite precisely. Those were ignorant times. Now man knows that he knows very little, and knows that the only way he is going to prevent himself from slipping back into ignorance is to look at everything in the harsh light of rational thinking.

To better ask, can you prove that the vibrational theory is wrong?

No, I cannot, even in theory, demonstrate that a metaphysical / mystical concept is wrong. Thats the problem, they can't even provisionally be demonstrated to be wrong. They also can't be confirmed.

because it doesn't make sense to you.

It doesn't make sense to anyone, its not rational, its derived entirely by faith and beliefs. It might make 'sense' in the popular/vulgar meaning of the word, it might 'jive' with some people, but its not something that can be laid out before you, along with the evidences for and against, and allow one to rationally say 'this makes sense' DOn't get me wrong, i am intruiged by the general subject under discussion, but, what good can come out of any discussion if people just present competing ideas, some phyiscal, some mystical, and don't try to rationally examine any of them?

I have not been doing such.

Yes you have. You said you do not explain what you do not understand. The entire universe you perceive IS your consciousness. You do not understand the universe and your consciousness, yet you attempt to explain things, preclude others things, label other things as illogical, irrational or senseless, when you do not even understand your very existence. Is this ignorance? I think it is.

So, again, why is it reasonable to think that there are other living beings in these other dimensions? By that I mean, what reasons are there to think it? Is there any evidence that suggests that an unknown 'form of matter' that may exist in another dimension [that may exist or may not) is going to behave anything like matter in this dimension and result in living organisms? If the basic laws of physics of other dimensions can't be gotten at, what reasons can one use to think that matter will form into atoms that can react in some other-dimensional chemistry (again, acting under completely different physical laws) to form life?

I said to you, that in higher dimensions, matter would be unstable or exist in other forms. It would be thus reasonable to assume a dimensional being would be composed of other forms of matter and/or energy. It is simple logic. I cannot break it down any further for you.

As for the question, why would it be reasonable to assume life would exist in other dimensions? As life exists in this dimension. Again, simply common sense. Same for the, why would it be reasonable to assume life would exist in space? As life exists in our solar system.

You are trying to explain everything in terms of what you know and with limited methodology, thinking in the-box. As you've admitted above, you don't know anything. I don't know if it's due to limitations of mind or just a lack of imagination, that you need everything spoonfed to you, or you'll refuse to eat it, but, if you really have a thrist for knowledge, then I suggest you open your mind a little. You cannot really say you have a thrist for knowledge, and then ignore your own existence. It's the first question every human being asks. That is why the wise man starts his journey for discovery within; not outside.

Enjoy life, experience it, the truth will come to you when you're ready for it.

Dr Michio Kaku: At the present time, physicist believe that consciousness is confined to the human brain

And I believe, in fact I know, that consciousness is not confined to the human brain. I have my own absolute-proofs for this. You can find your own. It is interesting that some would choose to believe, they are nothing but biological machines, that malfunction and then cease for eternity. What purpose does this give you in life? Does it really make you happy?

Call it presumptious, but I know you are not happy, and how can you be, when you do not even believe in your own self.

One thing many people ceaselessly fail to realize: rigorous adherence to the currently accepted beliefs about the sciences has NEVER advanced science and learning beyond that which had previously been believed or known... so I guess I won't be counting too many names, here, on the 'genius' list.

You know?! I talked with the lot of you, tonight, and damned if you don't play your sophomoric hands when someone mentions the words 'gay' or 'queer'.

What difference are you people making, anyway? You all ignore the ones with whom you cannot pick a fight and go directly after those with whom you can!

That's not a discussion of any kind... it's nothing more than a -bleeping- braul!

The most mature member on this forum that I met this evening is 10 years my junior and I'm 28.

You go on picking fights with each other over the stupidest things when it's obvious that none of you have the professional clout to defend your own arguments, yet when common sense rears its head you play the safe deaf ear.

C'mon! What you people are doing doesn't make this look like a forum, it's more akin to a circus act, a fantasy.

... and no, enumerating your reasons in orderly fashion doesn't make what you say any more true ... for people who I've met with doctorates in quantum physics are more open to those "other possibilities" than those on this board who so stridently try to defend their own rigorous (and many times unfounded) stances upon rhetoric, alone. Then again, I cited Einstein, and that might have been too much for people to handle.

I'll bet most of the more argumentative people on this board have no idea that Einstein, Schroedinger, Eddington, de Broullie, Planck, Jeans and others had very detailed and elaborate spiritual beliefs... They ALL wrote about God, about the spirit and about worlds beyond; but none of the most bothersome lot of you has such a r�sum�... and I'll place a bet on THAT assumption. The collected works of each of these individuals I use as reference. If you'd like a specific quote, ask me, and I'd be happy to furnish it from the same books you could very well check out from the public library; but oh, none of them ever asked someone to do their homework for them.


[edit on 10-10-2004 by ironyWrit]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

Yes you have.

I completely disagree that everything is conciousness and I completely disagree that a person is explaining conciousness when they talk about 1+1 equaling 2 or the mechanics of levers or biological sciences. I have not been talking about conciousness this entire time and -no one- has been able to explain conciousness, certainly not people talking about imaginary 'vibrations'. I am comlpetely justified in stating that something is irrational or rational. Their statements are irrational, they are not based on evidence, logic, or anything else. They are merely beleifs.

So, again, why is it reasonable to think that there are other living beings in these other dimensions? By that I mean, what reasons are there to think it? Is there any evidence that suggests that an unknown 'form of matter' that may exist in another dimension [that may exist or may not) is going to behave anything like matter in this dimension and result in living organisms? If the basic laws of physics of other dimensions can't be gotten at, what reasons can one use to think that matter will form into atoms that can react in some other-dimensional chemistry (again, acting under completely different physical laws) to form life?

I said to you, that in higher dimensions, matter would be unstable or exist in other forms.
Might exist. The source you cited did not say anything beyond that. The rest is unreasonable extrapolation of conditions in this dimension.

It would be thus reasonable to assume a dimensional being would be composed of other forms of matter and/or energy. It is simple logic. I cannot break it down any further for you.

Then you are incapable of logical thought. All that has been stated is that some form of matter may or may not exist in some other dimension that may or may not exist and that it may or may not even have the same physical laws as this one. To begin talking about life forms composed of that matter is completely baseless imaginings. Don't pretend that you are talking about reasonable things here. Knowing absoluetly nothing about these 'higher dimensions', one cannot reasonably make any statements about specific items in them like that.

As life exists in this dimension. Again, simply common sense.

By that line of thought then because I exist in this dimension, I also exist in another dimension. Infact this other dimension would have to be a complete and perfect copy of this dimension, since you are saying what happens here should happen there. You are saying; given that life exists in every dimension we know (namely, this one) then life must exist in all dimensions. But that, again, is just as reasonable as saying that everything about this dimension is true for all dimensions, and that everything in this other dimension is just life here. If anything, thats already in dispute, because Dr. Kaku has been pushing that other forms of matter and other unknown laws of physics exist in these other dimensions. IOW, whats true in one cannot be said to be true in the other.

Same for the, why would it be reasonable to assume life would exist in space? As life exists in our solar system.

Insofar as the conditions of existence are similiar, then one should expect similiar results. What conditions are similiar between our dimension and Dr. Kaku's other dimensions?

As you've admitted above, you don't know anything.

A cheap and ultimately incorrect rhetorical turn. I merely stated that because I don't understand a full explanation of human conciousness, that I would not endevour to explain that particular process. Apparently you disgree on trying to explain things you don't understand.

then I suggest you open your mind a little.

Ones mind should not be so open that your brains fall out.

That is why the wise man starts his journey for discovery within; not outside.

Irregardless, a wise man would not state that idle speculation about imaginary dimesions and imaginary beings is a rational application of knowledge. You have no information to go on, and are trying to talk about the characteristics of these things that you do not know, have not experienced, and aren't even sure if they exist. Furthermore you are taking the scientific conclusions acheived br Dr. Kaku and other theoretical physicists, and, while simultaneously rejecting the methodology by which they acheived those conclusions, using them to support some other entirely different imaginary world.

Dr Michio Kaku: At the present time, physicist believe that consciousness is confined to the human brain

And I believe, in fact I know, that consciousness is not confined to the human brain. I have my own absolute-proofs for this. You can find your own.

So they are entirely subjective proofs that are only valid and true for you but they are also absolute? Also, you start of saying 'i beleive', which is all well and good, but then you state that you know. How do you know if its entirely subjective? If only you knwo it and you can't explain it to anyone else and you can't demonstrate it logically, then you don't know it, you beleive it.

What purpose does this give you in life? Does it really make you happy?

Since when is a person's happiness or sense of purpose the sole interpretor of reality? You are stating that you only accept things that make you happy and give you a sense of purpose, and you want me to 'step outside the box'?

Call it presumptious, but I know you are not happy, and how can you be, when you do not even believe in your own self.

Not only is it presumptuous but it is wrong. It also has nothing to do with 'higher dimensional beings' being fantasised about on a web forum.

ironywit
rigorous adherence to the currently accepted beliefs about the sciences has NEVER advanced science and learning beyond that which had previously been believed or known

This is a common assumption on the part of many people. Like many common assumptions its wrong. Science has advanced tremendously by the arduous and thoughtful application of rational thinking and examination of the evidence. Sometimes this has entailed rejecting tpreviously held theories yes, but it doesn't involve irrational baseless speculation.

I talked with the lot of you, tonight, and damned if you don't play your sophomoric hands when someone mentions the words 'gay' or 'queer'.

I didn't respond to what you wrote because there was nothing there that either hasn't been said before or was worth responding to. All you did was make some vague statement about quantum mechanics not being in textbooks 100 years ago, cite an undocumented experiement by tesla, and then refer to 'buddhist cosmology'.

What difference are you people making, anyway?

I do not beleive anyone who posts to any webforums can reasonably think that they are 'making a difference'. We are having a discussion about a particular topic, not battling on in some crusade.

Einstein, Schroedinger, Eddington, de Broullie, Planck, Jeans and others had very detailed and elaborate spiritual beliefs... They ALL wrote about God, about the spirit and about worlds beyond;

Absolutely irrelevant. They did not arrive at or demonstrate their particular sets of theories by beleif. Their ideas have been so succesful because they do not require beleif, but instead stand or fall on the weight of evidence. Also, einstein did not beleive in any sort of personal or interventionist god, this is another common understanding that is also wrong.

... and no, enumerating your reasons in orderly fashion doesn't make what you say any more true ... for people who I've met with doctorates in quantum physics are more open to those "other possibilities" than those on this board

And those same people with doctorate in quantum phyiscs would have any paper they submited for publication rejected if it doesn't enumerate their reasons in an orderly fashion. Any books they wrote in a similar manner might be read and enjoyed by other physicists, but they wouldn't be scientific books and they wouldn't be advancing science in the least. Sure, thats not the end all and be all of everything, being scientific, I am not arguing that. I have merely been pointing out that irrational speculation is just that, and shouldn't claim to be any more than that.

Well, if we are making no difference, and are having a discussion, like you suggest, then, with subject matter that is obviously theoretical, I found it apt to point out that some of the most brilliant minds in this field had their own beliefs, thoughts and ideas about such things.

We're not growing a culture in a petre dish, here... we're talking about something completely outside the boundaries of empirical physics, anyway.

Unless you're suggesting that I somehow tried to prove the existence of other realms... it stands to reason you can't prove this realm exists in the same fashion.

Sure, you can feel it with your senses, but many, including myself, can claim that we feel those other places, too.

I'd love to see a scientific proof on the existence of the universe.

And yes, Einstein had spiritual beliefs, that may or may not have included a "God" perse... he had argued about the "suchness of being" and he wrote exstensively on the subject in his personal writings.

On the other hand, this kind of rebuttal is not what aggrevated me. It was, exactly as you stated previously, something we don't pretend to understand from a scientific perspective, at that, rigorous scientific dissection of the topic could only conclude one thing about the argument: whether or not it made grammatical and logical sense. Some things, however, are left to jist.

Maybe it was the 'scoffing and ridicule' ; the declaring, categorically, that something someone's trying to say made no sense whatsoever, that it had no merit, that their ideas are incorrect because someone is able to out-talk them, or bring them down to their level or what-have-you... I just noticed a post with that topic. It didn't seem like a discussion, it *seemed* like an exchange of "you're wrong, " "no, you're wrong, " "no you" etc...

There are scientific topics regarding all of this worth researching... but someone will always be there to tell you the sky is green...

[edit on 10-10-2004 by ironyWrit]

I am comlpetely justified in stating that something is irrational or rational. Their statements are irrational, they are not based on evidence, logic, or anything else. They are merely beleifs.

No you are not, you just think you are. Like I said, you cannot even explain your own existence. So how can you say what doesn't exist?

Yes, consciousness is everything you perceive and know, it is your own subjective universe. How do you know your universe is not the matrix?
How do you know you are not dreaming? You don't know anything about the universe, all you know is what you have been told and what you have seen, you are not capable of thinking outside of it, simple as that, if this hurts your ego, too bad.

So, again, why is it reasonable to think that there are other living beings in these other dimensions? By that I mean, what reasons are there to think it? Is there any evidence that suggests that an unknown 'form of matter' that may exist in another dimension [that may exist or may not) is going to behave anything like matter in this dimension and result in living organisms? If the basic laws of physics of other dimensions can't be gotten at, what reasons can one use to think that matter will form into atoms that can react in some other-dimensional chemistry (again, acting under completely different physical laws) to form life?

The reasons to think it, is simply, because there is life here. If there is life here, why wouldn't it be elsewhere, it is your job to prove the negative. Since you can't, then don't make irrational statements.

As for the biochemistry; I thought you said you could not explain consciousness. What are you doing now then?

Then you are incapable of logical thought. All that has been stated is that some form of matter may or may not exist in some other dimension that may or may not exist and that it may or may not even have the same physical laws as this one. To begin talking about life forms composed of that matter is completely baseless imaginings. Don't pretend that you are talking about reasonable things here. Knowing absoluetly nothing about these 'higher dimensions', one cannot reasonably make any statements about specific items in them like that.

Now that is just funny. You are telling me I do not understand logic, when you have contradicted yourself so many times with this logic of yours.

"Baseless imagingings" there is base to it, because it is already an established fact that life can exist in a dimension. Is stating that a head or a tail will appear again after tossing a coin, "baseless imagingings" Well it is, if that is your opinion or belief, you seem to confuse this with fact.

By that line of thought then because I exist in this dimension, I also exist in another dimension. Infact this other dimension would have to be a complete and perfect copy of this dimension, since you are saying what happens here should happen there. You are saying; given that life exists in every dimension we know (namely, this one) then life must exist in all dimensions. But that, again, is just as reasonable as saying that everything about this dimension is true for all dimensions, and that everything in this other dimension is just life here. If anything, thats already in dispute, because Dr. Kaku has been pushing that other forms of matter and other unknown laws of physics exist in these other dimensions. IOW, whats true in one cannot be said to be true in the other.

Again this ties into what is consciousness. Since you do not know if consciousness is a product of matter and energy, or seperate, we cannot state if it is affected by them. However, you are right, what is true for this dimension, cannot be said to be true for other dimensions, that could mean the minds that exist in other dimensions cannot be said to be the same as us. I am not saying that, are you?

Insofar as the conditions of existence are similiar, then one should expect similiar results. What conditions are similiar between our dimension and Dr. Kaku's other dimensions?

We don't know, simply because we have not been to them.

A cheap and ultimately incorrect rhetorical turn. I merely stated that because I don't understand a full explanation of human conciousness, that I would not endevour to explain that particular process. Apparently you disgree on trying to explain things you don't understand.

As I said, all you know is what you have been told and percieved. Outside of that you know nothing. Yet outside of that is your very existence and being. You thus know nothing about your existence. Again(as mentioned earlier) You only think you know.

Some wise man once said: true knowledge is knowing that you know nothing.

Ones mind should not be so open that your brains fall out.

Your brains do not seem to be helping you too much. So open a little. Take onboard every concept, without judgement, distill them, and then listen to your intuitive voice. The truth will come. Scientific discoveries are not made through logic only, they are made when logic and imagination work synergistically. Archimedes, Newton and Einstein knew this.

If you only follow logic, then like you have done in this post, you always come to a dead end, simply because you are repeating a predefined thinking pattern. Everything you are reading, hearing and thinking is being processed trhough predefined thinking pattern, always producing the same results, and getting you nowhere closer to the truth.

You are a prisoner of your own rigid, close-minded thinking. Did they not teach you anything on lateral thinking?

Irregardless, a wise man would not state that idle speculation about imaginary dimesions and imaginary beings is a rational application of knowledge. You have no information to go on, and are trying to talk about the characteristics of these things that you do not know, have not experienced, and aren't even sure if they exist. Furthermore you are taking the scientific conclusions acheived br Dr. Kaku and other theoretical physicists, and, while simultaneously rejecting the methodology by which they acheived those conclusions, using them to support some other entirely different imaginary world.

A wise man would walk, stop, and then carry on walking.

And I believe, in fact I know, that consciousness is not confined to the human brain. I have my own absolute-proofs for this. You can find your own.

So they are entirely subjective proofs that are only valid and true for you but they are also absolute? Also, you start of saying 'i beleive', which is all well and good, but then you state that you know. How do you know if its entirely subjective? If only you knwo it and you can't explain it to anyone else and you can't demonstrate it logically, then you don't know it, you beleive it.

That's your philosophy. Not mine. I know, because I know. I am part of the universe, the universe is a part of me, I know everything about it. As I said, you find your own proofs. I have mine.

Since when is a person's happiness or sense of purpose the sole interpretor of reality? You are stating that you only accept things that make you happy and give you a sense of purpose, and you want me to 'step outside the box'?

If you are not happy and you have no purpose, why do you exist? You exist to not exist? Everyone wants to be happy and loved, that is why we live, yet you choose beliefs that reduces life, and yourself to machines, faciliates war, apathy and depression, and then talk about logic?

I am sorry, but I found you most illogical. Another thing, if you do not believe in anything beyond your own bubble of a universe, why are you even here at this site?

[edit on 10-10-2004 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
As for the biochemistry; I thought you said you could not explain consciousness. What are you doing now then?

biochemistry need have nothing to do with conciousness.

Is stating that a head or a tail will appear again after tossing a coin, "baseless imagingings"

A more accurate representation would be to say that we have a coin, we flip it, we get heads. Now someone somewhere else might flip something, and you are saying its going to be either heads or tails. We do not have enough information about this other thing to state that it is a coin with heads or tails in the first place. If anything, the only information we have is that which Dr. Kaku has presented, namely that if matter exists there its entirely different. There is simply no reason to think that something entirely different, acting under entirely different physical laws, will react the same way.

I am not saying that, are you?

I haven't been making any statements about any of the characteristics of this otherworldly dimensions, other than to cite what Dr. Kaku has said about it. I do not see any reason to think we can extrapolate from what we know about this dimension onto this other one. We don't know if atoms would be stable, or even exist in the first place, nor if they could combine into molecules and on and on to actual lifeforms. Therefore, one cannot use reason to speculate on the existence of life there. On can guess or beleive or even assume that life would be there, and make some reasonable statements starting from that. But given what we have, that if matter exists there its in an entirely different form and that the laws of physics are probably different, well, we unfortunately can't say that life exists over there, anymore than we can say carbon exists or metals exist.

We don't know, simply because we have not been to them.

Which is my only point, precisely. We have no information. We have no reason to think that anything over there is similiar to over here.

As I said, all you know is what you have been told and percieved. Outside of that you know nothing.

Indeed, how could one otherwise know anything?

Yet outside of that is your very existence and being. You thus know nothing about your existence. Again(as mentioned earlier) You only think you know.

It does not follow. Furthermore, we can know about some things scientifically.

Some wise man once said: true knowledge is knowing that you know nothing.

Yes, socrates I beleive. I beleive he'd also recommend a rational analysis of things, rather than mystic interpretations.

Scientific discoveries are not made through logic only, they are made when logic and imagination work synergistically. Archimedes, Newton and Einstein knew this.

The source of inspiration is irrelevant. All of these men still had to demonstration rationally and non-intutively that their hypotheses and statements were correct, or at least the best explanation for the evidence given.

If you only follow logic, then like you have done in this post, you always come to a dead end,

You are suggesting then that we can't know anything rationally, at least at this stage, about this other dimension, which is what I have been saying. You are also apparently advocating that we make stuff up about this other dimension, and, if it appeals to our intuition, then accept it. What does it matter if one comes to a dead end anyway?

Did they not teach you anything on lateral thinking?

One does not need to be taught to make liberal use of ones imagination. One, however, does need to be taught sometimes to distinguish between imagination and actual existence.

A wise man would walk, stop, and then carry on walking.

I do not understand the relevance of this comment.

That's your philosophy. Not mine. I know, because I know.

Ok, so you set your subjective beleifs as objective truths. Fine.

I am part of the universe, the universe is a part of me, I know everything about it. As I said, you find your own proofs. I have mine.

You have no proofs. YOu merely have your own beleifs. If they were 'proofs', then they would be able to be demonstrated to other people, thats what 'proofs' is usually used to mean.

If you are not happy and you have no purpose, why do you exist?

Irrelevant. You still exist. Happy, sad, you exist. Purpose or no purpose, you still exist.

I am sorry, but I found you most illogical.

Thats probably because you understand the entire universe and even other dimensions, and are simply so far above and beyond a mere walking talking pinball machine such as myself that you can't help but see it that way.

The thing that confuses me about this whole argument is that Michio Kaku never implied in his book (Other Dimensions, which I enjoyed reading very much) a reality in which physical characteristics are engendered in anything other than the physical realm.

If you're going to put his works into application, here, then physicality loses all relevence and meaning beyond the physical plane.

There's the world of vibrations, the world of waves, the world of rays and the world of the infinite; that all is relative to the observer, in that case, yes/no?

biochemistry need have nothing to do with conciousness.

Is that why you are saying that it would be unreasonable, or baseless imaginings to say life can exist in other dimensions, because other forms of matter may not form living organisms? Once again, you have contradicted yourself.

A more accurate representation would be to say that we have a coin, we flip it, we get heads. Now someone somewhere else might flip something, and you are saying its going to be either heads or tails. We do not have enough information about this other thing to state that it is a coin with heads or tails in the first place. If anything, the only information we have is that which Dr. Kaku has presented, namely that if matter exists there its entirely different. There is simply no reason to think that something entirely different, acting under entirely different physical laws, will react the same way.

Actually that is not more accurate. It is the same coin tossed to determine the same, is there life in this dimension. There are only two factors: life and dimension.

This actually illustrates what I said about processing information though predefined thinking patterns. You take a truth, process it though a function that turns it into false, and then process the false through the same function to turn into a false-truth. Next time, try and process the information through something else. Ask your intuition or your heart.

I haven't been making any statements about any of the characteristics of this otherworldly dimensions, other than to cite what Dr. Kaku has said about it. I do not see any reason to think we can extrapolate from what we know about this dimension onto this other one. We don't know if atoms would be stable, or even exist in the first place, nor if they could combine into molecules and on and on to actual lifeforms. Therefore, one cannot use reason to speculate on the existence of life there. On can guess or beleive or even assume that life would be there, and make some reasonable statements starting from that. But given what we have, that if matter exists there its in an entirely different form and that the laws of physics are probably different, well, we unfortunately can't say that life exists over there, anymore than we can say carbon exists or metals exist.

Well, that is what I said. It would be reasonable to assume that life exists in other dimensions, and it would also be reasonable to assume it would be different. I am glad you concede that. This is much better than "baseless imaginings"

Again you have made the mistake that consciousness needs some sort of chemical or atomic reaction to form. You have said yourself, you do not explain what you do not understand. So don't.

Which is my only point, precisely. We have no information. We have no reason to think that anything over there is similiar to over here.

Yes, we don't. Again, we have not been able to explain consciousness in terms of matter and energy. If matter and energy exists in other dimensions in other forms, then it is reasonable to assume, that considering that consciousness is independent of matter and energy(science cannot prove otherwise) then consciousness would too.

Indeed, how could one otherwise know anything?

Exactly. We can only know what we learn and see, that we choose to believe or disbelieve, thus what we know is only a belief that we know. Again to quote socrates: true knowledge is knowing that know nothing.

Yet outside of that is your very existence and being. You thus know nothing about your existence. Again(as mentioned earlier) You only think you know.

It does not follow. Furthermore, we can know about some things scientifically.

You cannot explain your existence or being. If you cannot explain your existence or being, and it is with this you try to know, then you can't explain what you know, then you know nothing.

The source of inspiration is irrelevant. All of these men still had to demonstration rationally and non-intutively that their hypotheses and statements were correct, or at least the best explanation for the evidence given.

You are missing the point, my friend. It took an imagination to lead to the scientific discovery. They did not use logic, they used the abandon of their minds. In other words, unlike yourself, they stepped out of their predefined thinking patterns. Archimedes, frustrated himself with the kings problem to find out of his crown was pure gold or not. He spents days, nights, working on the problem with logic, with scientific analysis. He got nowhere. One fine day, while having a bath, no longer thinking about the problem, bang, the answers came and he shot-out and ran in the street shouting "Eureka"
The same with Newton and Einstein, years of daydreaming, and one day the answer just comes.

It really is that simple, every answer lies within you, all you need to do is listen to your intuition. When it comes, it will come with the logic layed out for you. To listen to your intuition, you dream, imagine and create fantasy worlds and play in them. That is why most science fiction becomes science fact.

It is really sad, if you can't do this. It means there are a lot of problems and suppresed emotions for a long time. Often, skepticism and materialism like yours is rooted by deep-set emotional issues.

One does not need to be taught to make liberal use of ones imagination. One, however, does need to be taught sometimes to distinguish between imagination and actual existence.

Right, what is actual existence?
And wrong, people do need to be taught how to make liberal uses of imagination. You are one such person.

A wise man would walk, stop, and then carry on walking.

I do not understand the relevance of this comment.

Do you understand that life is a journey. A wise man keeps walking to this destination. You on the other hand, have stopped, you "know"

You have no proofs. YOu merely have your own beleifs. If they were 'proofs', then they would be able to be demonstrated to other people, thats what 'proofs' is usually used to mean.

Proof:

The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
A statement or argument used in such a validation.

Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

On all three counts, I have proof. I have had evidence, arguments, demonstrations, but ultimately intuition and experiences that has compelled me and convinced me, incontrovertibly, that consciousness is NOT confined to the brain. I have my proofs, now you find your own.

I cannot prove this to you, because proving something to someone, requires that they are listening. You clearly are not. I can guide you to countless studies in parapsychology for evidence, and you can find your own proofs.

Irrelevant. You still exist. Happy, sad, you exist. Purpose or no purpose, you still exist.

There is a difference between living and existing.

Thats probably because you understand the entire universe and even other dimensions, and are simply so far above and beyond a mere walking talking pinball machine such as myself that you can't help but see it that way.

No, it's because you contradict yourself all the time. Make irrational statements. Continue to brandish about with this logic of yours, when this logic fails your very existence. The worst; you don't even believe in yourself. This is not really about "dimensions" or "aliens" or "god" you have a lot of issues in life and with the realities of life, and you vent this frustration through this skepticism. You got a lot to resolve.
I do not blame your inability to understand, how can you understand, with all that noise in your head. Quieten down. Relax. Breathe. Dream.

Open up, and you will be thankfull that you did. There is a whole universe out there waiting for you. Move at your own pace, but do move, don't stand still and question if you should move, or you'll never move.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Perhaps, but then they wouldn't be metaphysical concepts anymore no?
[

Why not??? No reason for them to change from being methaphysical object if science proves them.

And sooner or later science is probably going to "discover" what some cultures have known for thousands of years already. In fact, science is usually last in finding out these concept.

Look at the mind/body relation for example. Ancient eastern cultures knew this for hundreds or thousands of years already. For example, in a recent edition of newsweek, there were several articles about mind/body and how the mind can make the body sick, or healthier. Untill recent decades, mainstream medical science refused to even consider this fact, while it was known for centuries by ancient cultures. Are we supposed to lead, or are we supposed to play catch up???

I have been out of my body several times, and especially during the first times I've experienced life other than mine when I was outside my body. I was in a higher dimension than the 3-d realm. But very close to it still, because I could still see and hear physical stuff (like my cellphone ringing). But I did see, hear and feel those creatures... Just as good as any animal I would see in normal waking life. When I was back in my physical body (after being so stupid to force myself in my body to pick up the phone) I couldn't see them again of course.

About a year before that. I was close to having an OOBE. I would take an afternoon nap, and just let my thoughts run in my head. At some moment they would suddenly stop. No thoughts in my head, just me observing. Then it would suddenly get very bright, as if somebody switched on the lights. After that I could see. Even though my eyelids were closed. The first time I had that experience it was a shock to me. I was just going to get a quick nap in my room (I was living in Holland at the time and my pc monitor was facing my bed). I found myself sitting up and looking around in my room. I looked at my monitor and I saw an image in the monitor. A face. I was so surprised by this it stopped and I sat up (in real life) I looked at the monitor and it was off. (I usually have the monitor set to turn off after 20 mins, but the pc was also off). After having this one or two more times, I decided to google anything on the subject to see if I could find out anything, which I did... (one other thing, I read about "seeing through closed eyelids" for the first time after having the experience and not vice versa). On thing I also saw when I was on vacation in Aruba (where I live now again) during one of these experiences, was an old fan that I used to have when I was a child. My parents had thrown it away years before I "saw it". I then later learned that sometimes you see furniture and appliances in the "real time zone" that haven't been there for months or years. The've been there so long in the physical world, that their image or print in the real time zone can be strong enough for them to remain there long after they've been dumped or thrown in the "real world".

I hope this makes sense. I know that there's at least one other dimension out there where things exist that can not be seen here in the physical world.


www.health.harvard.edu...

[edit on 11-10-2004 by TheBandit795]