Parallel universes are real, claim scientists

[aquatus1]

6 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Dear Science-lovers,

I would like to tell you, how science evolved as far as I know...

Science evolved through questions. Every discovery that has been made is just because scientists questioned natural phenomena. And they questioned what they EXPERIENCED. They tried to explain such phenomena using various theories. To find out if the theories were true, they carried out experiments. Experimental verification gave them enough 'proof' that the theory they have made is correct. But then, they find the theory cannot explain certain aspects of the phenomenon and replace the old theory with a new one. We again find that this new theory is not capable of explaining still more aspects of the phenomenon under study and find a new theory. This process goes on... So, Science is continually changing, and you all know this.

Yes, we do.  You are the one acting like we don't know it, but mere claims and accusations don't actually change reality.

Quote

If Science is continually changing, you must admit that it is not a good idea to be dependent on it.

Why?  The entire fundamental purpose of science is to determine the validity and credibility of a given theory.  When you have done everything intellectually possible to determine that something is credible, while at the same time acknowledging that it is in the human condition to make mistakes, why shouldn't you depend on what you have learned?  How else would you be able to learn that it is wrong?

Quote

Since no one has seen the atom, all the theories relating to the atom may not be true.

By extension, since we have actually seen atoms, then all the theories relating to the atom may be true.

However, no actual scientist would say anything so irresponsible.

Quote

The reality may be completely different from what the theories suggest! And the thing is, if we don't see it, we can't say for sure how the atom looks. We may still make more theories, but there will still be doubt unless we SEE the structure of atom. And if there is doubt, it's NOT knowledge, it's faith- faith in scientific methods. Science HAS limitations...

Yes, it does.  And if you were to actually try to use those limitations to prove your position, you would actually have a credible argument.  However, you don't.  All you do is try to claim that, because science has weaknesses, it cannot be trusted.

And that is why it is clear that you do not understand science.  Because you believe (yep, "believe", as in, "not know"), that science is a system of faith, as opposed to recognizing science for being what it actually is, i.e. a system to curb, as much as possible, the human tendency towards fooling itself.

Quote

As for the energy body, you know nothing about it. But you 'THINK' that you know. If you have meditated, tried making a psi ball, tried studying the aura, tried developing your abilities,                  have at least a rough idea about Kirilian research, or the NEW system   there is point in discussing further. There is absolutely no point in arguing without knowledge.

Don't be silly.  I have personally done ALL of that in my youth, and not only that, I suspect I did so in much greater detail and with much greater faith that you.  A person whose only recourse is to cast accusations and claim superiority based on nothing more than...well, claimed superiority, does nothing more than demonstrate their own insecurity in their beliefs.
 

Quote

 

If you have tried any of these, you will know. But you don't want to CONSIDER the possibility. You think that Science is superior and that Science can never be wrong. You will say that these things are IMAGINATIONS of some fools, but will never admit that you don't know about it. If you say that these things are imaginary, prove it! You can't prove it because you are STUCK with the physical world, yet all these things concern the MIND. Have you studied the MIND(not brain)?

" If you INSIST that only crawling is possible, you will never learn to fly..."

 

Yes, I have.  And I also studied the possibility that I was wrong.  And I discovered, to my dismay, that indeed I was.  That is why I became a rationalist.  Because I discovered my ability to be wrong.

As for you, if you ever want to progress, to grow, to evolve, then here is a hint:  You need to stop being so close-minded.

[rashore]

7 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

 

 

Dear Science-lovers,

I would like to tell you, how science evolved as far as I know...

Science evolved through questions. Every discovery that has been made is just because scientists questioned natural phenomena. And they questioned what they EXPERIENCED. They tried to explain such phenomena using various theories. To find out if the theories were true, they carried out experiments. Experimental verification gave them enough 'proof' that the theory they have made is correct. But then, they find the theory cannot explain certain aspects of the phenomenon and replace the old theory with a new one. We again find that this new theory is not capable of explaining still more aspects of the phenomenon under study and find a new theory. This process goes on... So, Science is continually changing, and you all know this.

If Science is continually changing, you must admit that it is not a good idea to be dependent on it. Since no one has seen the atom, all the theories relating to the atom may not be true. The reality may be completely different from what the theories suggest! And the thing is, if we don't see it, we can't say for sure how the atom looks. We may still make more theories, but there will still be doubt unless we SEE the structure of atom. And if there is doubt, it's NOT knowledge, it's faith- faith in scientific methods. Science HAS limitations...

As for the energy body, you know nothing about it. But you 'THINK' that you know. If you have meditated, tried making a psi ball, tried studying the aura, tried developing your abilities,                  have at least a rough idea about Kirilian research, or the NEW system   there is point in discussing further. There is absolutely no point in arguing without knowledge.

If you have tried any of these, you will know. But you don't want to CONSIDER the possibility. You think that Science is superior and that Science can never be wrong. You will say that these things are IMAGINATIONS of some fools, but will never admit that you don't know about it. If you say that these things are imaginary, prove it! You can't prove it because you are STUCK with the physical world, yet all these things concern the MIND. Have you studied the MIND(not brain)?

" If you INSIST that only crawling is possible, you will never learn to fly..."

Everything changes... so by your reasoning it's not a good idea to be dependent on anything. Since metaphysics and the paranormal continually changes too, you must admit that it is not a good idea to be dependent on that either, yes?

[Calibeliever]

Mixing science and metaphysical often becomes an apples to oranges discussion. I have studied the metaphysical for nearly all my adult life and have come to many personal conclusions about the nature of life and how to conduct myself accordingly. I am also a lover of the scientific method and I try to employ it in all my endeavors, especially the metaphysical. That may sound counter-intuitive, but to me it makes perfect sense.

What do my feelings matter? It's results that really count, right? If certain practices (meditation, etc) create better outcomes for me then I will continue to meditate. If casting negative energy toward people I think have slighted me creates a detrimental feedback loop, then hopefully I'll learn to not do that as much. We can argue forever about why these things happen, but it will just be my anecdotal observations vs yours. That's not science.

Health care organizations and others have begun to empirically measure the impact of meditation and other techniques on the reported general well-being of patience, but this science is in it's infancy. And many of the effects you cited above can actually be induced by electrically stimulating sections of the brain. Just as we haven't seen inside an atom, we haven't yet deciphered consciousness. 

I'm not saying the things you're offering are wrong for you, but to assume you have a higher knowledge because you've experienced feelings or had a personal insight is naive at best. There is a place for both personal spiritual growth and the scientific process. They are not mutually exclusive.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Calibeliever

[StarMountainKid]

"The nature of Reality is invisible and cannot be perceived by the conscious mind." - Taoist monk.

[aquatus1]

Yeah, that's a common refrain among the faithful.

[StarMountainKid]

6 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

Yeah, that's a common refrain among the faithful.

The mind can learn to understand the mechanics of the universe. We can describe its behavior, but not what is behaving. What is behaving cannot be defined as the thing itself. So, we perceive only behavior.

For instance, elementary particles. Are they things behaving, or are they only behavior? Either way, the origin of of the behavior of elementary particles and fields remain beyond our conscious description, beyond knowledge.

We would need a meta-definition to describe what an elementary particle is separate from its behavior. I think this is what is meant by "the nature of Reality is invisible and cannot be perceived by the conscious mind."

 

 

 

[Avinash Suresh]

17 hours ago, rashore said:

Everything changes... so by your reasoning it's not a good idea to be dependent on anything. Since metaphysics and the paranormal continually changes too, you must admit that it is not a good idea to be dependent on that either, yes?

Of course! You must trust only what YOU experience.

[Avinash Suresh]

Something I entirely agree with...

[Avinash Suresh]

19 hours ago, Calibeliever said:

What do my feelings matter? It's results that really count, right? If certain practices (meditation, etc) create better outcomes for me then I will continue to meditate. If casting negative energy toward people I think have slighted me creates a detrimental feedback loop, then hopefully I'll learn to not do that as much. We can argue forever about why these things happen, but it will just be my anecdotal observations vs yours. That's not science.

Feelings DO matter, at least for me. They provide feedback on what you ARE from within...

19 hours ago, Calibeliever said:

Health care organizations and others have begun to empirically measure the impact of meditation and other techniques on the reported general well-being of patience, but this science is in it's infancy. And many of the effects you cited above can actually be induced by electrically stimulating sections of the brain. Just as we haven't seen inside an atom, we haven't yet deciphered consciousness. 

Yes, we haven't. But at least we can take a step in the right direction by ADMITTING the possibility of existence of consciousness and studying it, rather than just sticking to the physical body.

 

19 hours ago, Calibeliever said:

I'm not saying the things you're offering are wrong for you, but to assume you have a higher knowledge because you've experienced feelings or had a personal insight is naive at best. There is a place for both personal spiritual growth and the scientific process. They are not mutually exclusive.

I completely agree with you that Science and Spiritual growth are not mutually exclusive.

I never assumed having superior knowledge, but you really can't deny that what YOU experience is true. I just wanted to make my point clear that our Science is based only on the physical world. If some person experiences things that cannot be explained by means of material technology, he is called insane and such evidences of existence of non-physical things is immediately put under cover...

I'm not entirely against Science. But the fact that our science is based only  on the material world, not looking into other aspects of reality(or even admitting the possibility of other realities) saddens me.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Avinash Suresh

[Emma_Acid]

4 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Of course! You must trust only what YOU experience.

If you had even a glancing knowledge of the workings of the brain you'd know that this is totally wrong. Subjective experience is the most untrustworthy thing there is.

[rashore]

5 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Of course! You must trust only what YOU experience.

Um, no, that's just foolhardy to do that.

And besides... If with metaphysics and paranormal you must trust only what you experience... then we must not trust anything you claim to have experienced. And you cannot trust any claim anyone else has ever made, because YOU didn't experience it. None of the rest of us can trust that either, since we didn't experience it.

However, we must trust science, or at least some science, because we are all experiencing the same thing together on a regular basis- particularly in those times when we experience science to chat with each other on the internet 

[Avinash Suresh]

16 hours ago, rashore said:

Um, no, that's just foolhardy to do that.

I don't think so. But it's not necessary that we think the same.

 

16 hours ago, rashore said:

And besides... If with metaphysics and paranormal you must trust only what you experience... then we must not trust anything you claim to have experienced. And you cannot trust any claim anyone else has ever made, because YOU didn't experience it. None of the rest of us can trust that either, since we didn't experience it.

You don't need to even trust my experiences...

 

16 hours ago, rashore said:

However, we must trust science, or at least some science, because we are all experiencing the same thing together on a regular basis- particularly in those times when we experience science to chat with each other on the internet 

... neither do you need to trust ALL that Science says. Of course, there are pros of science but that doesn't mean we depend solely on it.

I'm just saying you don't need to trust ANY information(scientific or non-scientific) until you SEE for YOURSELF...

[Avinash Suresh]

17 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

If you had even a glancing knowledge of the workings of the brain you'd know that this is totally wrong. Subjective experience is the most untrustworthy thing there is.

http://themindunleashed.com/2014/03/brain-create-consciousness.html

http://www.abundance-and-happiness.com/quantum-physics.html

[Emma_Acid]

1 hour ago, Avinash Suresh said:

http://themindunleashed.com/2014/03/brain-create-consciousness.html

http://www.abundance-and-happiness.com/quantum-physics.html

Total nonsense and the same old misreading of quantum physics. The brain creates consciousness. Every shred of evidence we have points to this. The brain does not create reality. That is a misreading of the wave-function collapse element of quantum physics.

[bmk1245]

I wonder, anyone with "chakra" have managed to stop the train? There was one chakra-flooded trying that stuff, unsuccessfully though... Well, I'd like like to see Avinash's performance.

[Audio Imagez]

According to the theory, if infinite universes do exist, then that means that for each possible outcome of any given event a universe exists for it. Is that correct?

[StarMountainKid]

33 minutes ago, Audio Imagez said:

According to the theory, if infinite universes do exist, then that means that for each possible outcome of any given event a universe exists for it. Is that correct?

I'm no expert on the subject, this is just my understanding. I may be way off course, naturally.

Each possible outcome on the quantum scale, elementary particles like electrons, photons, etc. What is the probability of one outcome to materialize from many possible outcomes?

My analogy would be, every possible outcome of quantum events exist in superposition or all together, but when we make a measurement on the quantum scale or particles interact with each other, one outcome occurs and becomes our reality. This is because the measurement and that which is measured become entangled with each other.

The question is, why this outcome and none of the other possible outcomes? The Many Worlds Interpretation posits that when a measurement is made, all possible outcomes of that measurement occur in separate realities.

We see a single outcome because we are part of that outcome. We just happen to experience that outcome because we did the measuring. All the other possible outcomes occur in different realities.

I like to think of realities instead of universes. It seems to me more accurate to envision multiple realities existing than multiple universes existing. Occam's razor. There may be only one universe but many realities of that universe.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Avinash Suresh]

20 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

Total nonsense and the same old misreading of quantum physics. The brain creates consciousness. Every shred of evidence we have points to this. The brain does not create reality. That is a misreading of the wave-function collapse element of quantum physics.

Okay, then... Give me your shreds of evidence.

[Avinash Suresh]

3 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

I wonder, anyone with "chakra" have managed to stop the train? There was one chakra-flooded trying that stuff, unsuccessfully though... Well, I'd like like to see Avinash's performance.

Yes, there are several such 'Overconfident' people who want to run before they start to walk.

Instead of looking for physical evidence in others it would be better if you try it yourself. BTW, I have not yet developed myself enough to achieve those feats.

[bmk1245]

6 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Yes, there are several such 'Overconfident' people who want to run before they start to walk.

Instead of looking for physical evidence in others it would be better if you try it yourself. BTW, I have not yet developed myself enough to achieve those feats.

I tried that stuff when I was much younger, and much stupider.

Anyway, when you'll be ready for "train stop", please, give me PM. I must see that...

[GlitterRose]

Quantum stuffs are weird. 

I like that this at least has the capability at some point of being testable. 

[brlesq1]

So there's a universe where I'm not bipolar and overweight with all the pills I have to take to stay sane. I wish her well.

[bmk1245]

8 minutes ago, brlesq1 said:

So there's a universe where I'm not bipolar and overweight with all the pills I have to take to stay sane. I wish her well.

You can figure out that in our universe.

Rule number one: don't eat yourself to the death.

Rule number two: don't eat yourself to the death.

Rule number three: see number 1 and 2.

[brlesq1]

2 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

You can figure out that in our universe.

Rule number one: don't eat yourself to the death.

Rule number two: don't eat yourself to the death.

Rule number three: see number 1 and 2.

Ah, if only it were that simple. I'm constantly dieting and exercising as much as I can, just to keep my weight where it is. The various medications have slowed my metabolism considerably, a known side-effect. As it is, I eat just enough to keep my body from thinking it's starving.

[bmk1245]

17 hours ago, brlesq1 said:

Ah, if only it were that simple. I'm constantly dieting and exercising as much as I can, just to keep my weight where it is. The various medications have slowed my metabolism considerably, a known side-effect. As it is, I eat just enough to keep my body from thinking it's starving.

Have you tried buckwheat diet? In the evening, put tablespoon of buckwheat (thoroughly washed) into the glass and pour sour milk (kefir), and in the morning you'll have quite nice breakfast.