If CERN proves there are parallel universes, will you move?

This one has served humans perfectly well for tens of thousands of years. I think I’ll stay.

Naw… I intend to stay put and hope all of the other assholes move out. ;)

Nah. The mortgage on this house is already paid in full and I like being near the grand-nephews.

No. Life in this universe adapted to the conditions specific to this universe.
Conditions in other universes would most likely not be favourable (that is how it is spelt correctly) to life as we know it.
anyway, if the multiverse theory proves to be correct, it will destroy the creationists “fine tuned universe” argument even more.

Woody Allen once wrote that he doubted that was a heaven, but planned to take a change of underwear just in case. I’ll do he same with regard to a parallel universe.

Beam me up, Scotty.

Good question. There are other dimensions and to get there is not so hard and we all have the ability. This would not be a suprise to me at all and if it is done right some good information will come of it. We are progressing through dimensions and in time you will live in a different one.

@ETpro You sound like Terence McKenna.

@JustmeAman
“There are other dimensions and to get there is not so hard and we all have the ability.”

Elaborate?

Only if I can choose the universe.

We are in the 3 dimensional Universe that we were born in but from there it is up to you to choose.

I like entertaining the multitude of possibilities.

I would prefer to stay here, but I am perfectly fine with my double doing all the chores in our parallel universe, I’ll even buy her some mud boots for the trip. lol

@JustmeAman We live in a universe with either 4,5 or 11 dimensions depending on how you look at it. Not 3.

@Aster What exactly sounds like Terrence in anything @ETpro has stated?

None of this will make any sense until Information is given its rightful place alongside Energy and Matter.

@FireMadeFlesh, @YoBob, & @worriedguy Stick with the safe bet, hey?

@hawaii_jake Now there’s an adventurous soul.

@JustmeAman How does one go about moving into unseen dimensions?

@Aster Thank you. The only thing I would take strong exception to about being Terence McKenna is I’d have been dead for over 10 years now.

@downtide Great point. Not just any universe. I am not moving unless I get a better one.

@Coloma If you have a link to the online Double shop. PM me. I need somebody to catch Hell for the stupid things I do.

@FireMadeFlesh Mathematically, 6 or 11 work for string theory.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Thanks. I really don’t get much of my algorithms from the I-Ching.

“How does one go about moving into unseen dimensions?”

In order to address that question, we must first carefully define what a dimension is.

Perceptions of what a dimension actually is can vary wildly. The drive in the countryside went by fast for you, but running late for my appointment, it seemed an eternity for me. The soup is hot… compared to what? I’m lying on my hotel bed in New York. You’re sitting on your sofa at home. Yet we’re both here. Where are we exactly?

I see your words on this page. They represent your thoughts. Thus, your thoughts are with me, and I with them. But how can that be when your current physical reality is skiing in Colorado? 70 years from now we’ll be dead and gone, yet our thoughts will still be available for others to share in the future. Thoughts are much more than words on a page. The words only represent the thoughts. Where will our thoughts be after we’re dead?

We must break free of the materialist perspective that requires the concept of dimension to consist only of physicality. Is not a memory of my son’s birth capable of transcending time and catapulting me back to that very moment? Does not a vision of tomorrows artwork transport me into a potential future dimension?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Yes, I understand that view of dimensionality in a metaphysical sense. But the extra dimensions that it seems must exist for this Universe to extend 13.75 billion light years in every direction (among the 3 we can sense) no matter where you are when you view it, here, in a distant galaxy, or even at what looks to us to be the edge of spacetime—that requires dimensions that are not perceived by us but are as real as the three we do perceive.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I like reading about the things you think about, but you should really read some modern theoretical physics, if you want to talk about cosmology like this on common terms with the rest of the thinking world. A lot of the things you say just don’t make sense to me (and others) because we are not in agreement over the meaning of particular terms, and you do not understand/agree with some fundamental physical principles of the universe.

Rather than descending into a quagmire of semantics over something you say that seems contradictory to me, you should put in the terms of science. Science can explain anything. You might not agree with the commonly accepted theories, but that doesn’t mean “science is wrong” Those theories are scientific, but science is not “those theories”.

All you have to do is present your argument in unambiguous and hopefully-not-very-arbitrary terms, just like every other cosmologist in the world.

For example, if you think another realm must exist to account for the reality of information, explain the mechanics of its existence. Is it another dimension? Is it quantised or continuous? How does it interact with the other dimensions of the universe? I’m not asking for equations, just a general idea.

And then you have to explain how this is more simple and therefore more probable than information existing only as consciously perceived constructs and interactions of mass-energy/space-time.

Remember that creating a new dimension to explain something is a “last-resort”, it is basically the most improbable thing, as it requires the whole of the existing model to exist again and again for every point in the new dimension, which is a great increase in complexity & therefore improbability.

Which is why spirit-realms and god-realms and info-realms are not something people will accept easily.

@ETpro Check out time is in 20 minutes. Damn you for asking this Q while I’m on the road…;)

Can’t wait to explore your OP links. Consider it my bedtime story tonight…

Like you, I’ve been interested in this subject for some time. Quickly, and vaguely, I like where Sagan points to explain extra dimensions. Though we cannot see them empirically, we can detect their shadows upon our 3D realm. As this rotating tesseract attempts to demonstrate the shadow of a 4D concept… But we must extrapolate this shape into being one of simultaneous existence, all forms at once. Paper Artists have been exploring this phenomenon for centuries. What shape is this creation? I propose it is all shapes it is capable of being, all at once, but our limited dimension of time refuses to allow us to see this.

Now, is your expanding 13.8 billion year old universe capable of being modeled in the same manner as the paper art, or the turning globe?

I don’t know. But I cannot deny that this artwork inspires me to think about the expanding universe from a slightly different perspective… yes, as designed to be that way. And a bug on the end rim of the turning globe will have no less confusion about his whereabouts whether the globe is expanded or collapsed. It’s surface is no less dense either way. It’s mass is no greater or less either way.

@The_Idler Thanks for the input. I agree with you. My son is a physics major, with an interest in the quantum. You might imagine that I do my best to keep up with him. It’s a source of great father/son discussions.

“Is it quantised or continuous?”

That’s an important question. Quickly, I don’t know, but here’s what I’ve uncovered thus far. Our human propensity for observation/description is definitely an attempt to quantize. But that in no way presupposes that Information itself is a quantized agent.

Bhartrihari suggests that we quantize Brahman into our physical realm with every spoken word that leaps from our lips. I don’t believe it’s quite that simple, but there is something to his theories.

Information Theory is the science of quantifying Information. We do this with code of course, but the code itself is not the Information. The code only represents the Info. So where is the Info?

Are we accessing a pre-existing pool of Info, or are we creating it from scratch with codified thought? I don’t know. But there-in-lies, I believe, the crux of the mystery.

Imagine a Parent/Child relationship. The Parent has a volume of Informative knowledge at their disposal. This is apparent and demonstrated with expanded descriptive vocabulary capabilities. The Child has not yet developed the descriptive vocabulary necessary to embody the concepts. The Child must expand her vocabulary, and this is definitely quantifiable. But again, the vocabulary is not the Info itself. It’s only a tool that allows us to view the Info.

In closing, since observation/description is a tool used to quantify (or create) Info, I find it interesting that quantum physics is rife with claims that observation affects outcome. Could we be on the precipice of discovering an as of yet unknown pre-existing Pool of Information? Are we defining it into existence into our physical 3D realm? Or do we create it like a God would speak?

And God said, “Let there be Snow Cones!”

@ETpro The four dimensions was referring to Relativity, where time is the fourth. Five dimensions was a combination of Relativity and Carl Sagan’s hypotheses on the fourth spatial dimension. The eleven dimensions was a reference to string theory – I did not know it worked with six as well.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Thanks for the thoughts. I appreciate the link to Rhartnhan. Your discussion of the vocaublary of the parent versus the child brought back a memory from when my son, now a grown Army officer, was just two years old. We had been driving all day to get from New York to Washington DC and he wes stuck in a rather restrictive child safety seat between the two front passenger seats. As we closed in on Washington DC, he suddenly squirmed in his seat than announced, “I’m breaking, Mommy!” He may not have had fancy words to express what all three of us were feeling at that point in the road trip, but he darn sure got his point across.

Interesting story. Your young son observed and defined his reality by expressing it verbally. Even the thought of his situation would have been one of discomfort. He would have expressed it as “ouch” in his mind, even if he had not expressed it verbally.

Yet he chose to verbalize it, for by doing so, he could actually change reality. He expressed his concerns to “Mommy”, with the knowledge apriori that she would be moved into action. “Mommy” didn’t change your son’s discomfort. Your son did, by vocally expressing a new truth proclamation upon the old truth condition.

No, I’d put it on my list for next year’s summer vacation options.

It might be embarrassing for me if I show up and want to crash on my couch, rent-free, indefinitely.

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

@Rhodentette Right, what if you forget you already live in Universe A, and move there from Universe B to live with yourself. I’m such an insufferable bastard I simply couldn’t tolerate a spare copy of my crashing for free on the couch I claim as my own place to crash.

@ETpro I’d find myself an insufferable housemate, too.