But I don't know that many technical details on the subject.
But if you are referring to ``dots'' as infinitesimal points, then there are an infinite number of points on a line of any finite length, and the number of points is uncountable. So if all uncountable infinities are the same... for every point you can find inside the square, can't you find a point on the line as well?
For example, 4 space + 1 time dimensions is an easier Universe to contemplate. In this Universe stable orbits do not exist - there could be no solar systems!
In a Universe with 3 space + 2 time dimensions that you mention, how would things age? Would "cause" have to precede "effect" in both time directions?
This is what they mean when they say "unpredictable". Our Universe is chaotic, but chaos is not unpredictable - it is only unpredictable without perfect information. I think the "unpredictable" Universes described in that chart mean even if you knew everything about a system you could not predict what would happen because there are too many degrees of freedom - but I could be wrong.
Picture a piece of graph paper; something with a regular square grid. Label the squares going up and down the page as ``momentum'', and the squares going across the page as ``position''. Now each square on the graph paper can be identified by two numbers (say ``position 3, momentum 5'' or ``position 1, momentum 13'')
Now in classical physics an object - like an electron - would be a push pin. You can stick the push pin into any square you want.
In quantum physics that same electron would be a popsicle stick. The stick lies flat on the graph paper, and you can rotate it any direction you want. Importantly, the stick takes up more than one square.
If we want to ``measure the position'' of the popsicle stick, the stick is rotated so it is vertical on the graph paper; it only occupies one column of squares - so it has only one position. If the stick didn't start out vertical, by measuring (i.e. rotating) we have ``collapsed the wavefunction''. Before rotation the stick occupied several columns; and therefore had the possibility of being in several positions. After measuring there is only one position.
Importantly, note that by ``measuring the position'' of the popsicle stick, and by rotating it so it is vertical, the stick now occupies the maximum number of rows - it is now spread out across the maximum number of momenta. Ever time we ``collapse the wavefunction'' in regards to one aspect, we ``spread the wavefunction'' in regards to another aspect. Once the wavefunction is ``collapsed'', we can keep measuring the position again and again; we will always get the same result.
Now if we try to ``measure the momentum'' of the popsicle stick we will be rotating it so it is horizontal and occupying only one of the rows that it was spread out across before. Now we have again ``collapsed the wavefunction'' (in the momentum, or vertical axis, rather than the position, or horizontal axis, we previously did), and we know the momentum of the electron. But again, notice that now the popsicle stick stretches across the maximum number of columns; so we have many possible positions.
When you collapse a wavefunction, you put the electron in one out of several possible states (and the particular state it ends up in is random) - for one particular aspect (like position). The penalty for doing this is that the electron now occupies many possible states in the other, complementary, aspect (like momentum). Once a wavefunction has "collapsed" in one aspect it will stay like that until something else comes along and mucks with it.
This is basically a simple example of the Uncertainty Principle.
Some people believe that this is just a mathematical ``trick''; that objects are really ``push pins'', not ``popsicle sticks'', and that wavefunction collapse only appears to happen because we don't have all the details.
I believe that the wavefunction is real, and that the collapse actually happens.
I do not believe we will ever be able to teleport people in any practical setting, because I do not believe we could ever reconstruct something as complicated as a person without being at absolute zero in a complete vacuum (which would obviously kill the person).
I am sure that strong EM fields affect our minds, but the trick is using EM to do something specific. I think it is quite possible, but will take a lot of study (especially since every person is different) to do anything reliably.
In an atom, even a complex atom like, say, lead, there are a fairly small number of fundamental particles interacting in a very small region of space (i.e. Lead-204 has 82 electrons and 612 quarks all crammed within a volume of 2.25 x 10-29 m3.
Importantly, the lead atom itself almost never ``blinks'' or ``appears here or there''. The total cluster of 694 fundamental particles behaves rather like a ball. The individual electrons certainly exhibit a lot of quantum behaviour, but that is because they are fundamental particles - there is no way a single particle can ``disentangle'' from itself.
For a lead atom to ``blink'' or ``appear here or there'', all 694 fundamental particles would have to behave as one coherent and entangled entity. This can happen, but rarely does.
Jupiter, on the other hand, has a ridiculously large number of fundamental particles (probably over 1050) and, importantly, has an internal temperature of on the order of 1000 degrees or more. Temperature is an indication of the randomness of the composite particles (a single lead atom has a temperature close to absolute zero), and randomness is the exact opposite of coherent entanglement.
For Jupiter to ``blink'' all of these particles would have to behave as one coherent and entangled entity. It can happen, but the odds are astronomical - the odds of it happening once in ten billion years are close to zero. (And this is just for Jupiter to act as a single entanglement. Even if that does happen there is no guarantee it will ``move here and there'' by more than a nanometre. The odds of Jupiter becoming entangled and also manifesting that entanglement in a manner detectable from Earth are even more remote.)
Quantum weirdness has recently been shown for some large-ish molecules in perfect laboratory conditions (see here).
(Although I am sure there are those working in physics who might consider this to not be that mysterious.)
Einstein, Schrodinger, Planck, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, Fermi, Feynman, and Bohr all belong on that list as well.
I like Bardeen, Slater, Born, Bohm, and Jarzynski because it seems like they are neglected sometimes.
Meissner, Maxwell, Faraday, Tesla (for his experimental work, he was pretty bad at theory), Lorentz, Gauss, Leibnitz, Schwarzschild, Eddington, Wheeler, Kohn, Sham, Thomas, Hartree, Fock...
I am not sure I can rank these folks though.