Metaphysics - Science and the Superphysical

[papageorge1]

Bernardo Kastrup wrote a compelling description of what human physiology might look like in 10 dimension:

"According to different versions of String Theory, and especially M-Theory, up to 10 dimensions of space are required for describing and explaining the behavior of matter. For years now popular culture has acknowledged this abstraction with a certain degree of wonder, thanks to the likes of Brian Greene and other science popularizers. Yet, there is one remarkable implication of these theories that seem to escape the attention of most of us: If matter exists in 10 spatial dimensions, then our bodies, which are made of matter, also fundamentally exist in 10 spatial dimensions. So the 3-dimensional body we see when we look down while dressing up each day is, in fact, a flattened projection of a 10-dimensional structure way beyond our ability to visualize spatially. ... How many structures are lost when we project a 10-dimensional body onto only 3 dimensions? How many 'organ systems' become completely invisible? How many complex, vital structures inherent to the inner-workings of a living body disappear in the projection? Going from 3 to 2 dimensions, as we all know, implies significant loss of information; and that is just the loss of a single dimension. Imagine the loss of 7 dimensions."

 

Our minds conditioned by the three dimensional world asks where are these so-called chakras, astral bodies, etc. claimed by many with extra-sensitive psychic (beyond three-dimensional) senses. There is theorizing going on already (string theory) that shows some ability to address these so-called super-natural things.

I suspect we are seeing the dawn of the next centuries of science.

Thoughts? I know these things are all theoretical and not testable at this time. But as I've suspected for some time now, I believe these so-called paranormal Unexplained Mysteries do involve 'real' things we don't understand. I hold this to be the strongest and most reasonable theory out there.

[The Eternal Flame]

55 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Bernardo Kastrup wrote a compelling description of what human physiology might look like in 10 dimension:

 

I believe these so-called paranormal Unexplained Mysteries do involve 'real' things we don't understand. I hold this to be the strongest and most reasonable theory out there.

They is no such thing as dimension maybe more phylosophy..?

real things whe dont understand can you give us an exemple?

Edited December 6, 2019 by The Eternal Flame

[Piney]

21 minutes ago, The Eternal Flame said:

real things whe dont understand can you give us an exemple?

Here's a simple explanation of what string theory actually means by "dimensions". They are just facets of reality. Not other planes.

https://phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.html

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

Here's a simple explanation of what string theory actually means by "dimensions". They are just facets of reality. Not other planes.

https://phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.html

This thread is using the term 'dimensions' not 'planes' anyway. Though I am not clear on what is really different between saying additional dimensions/additional planes/additional facets of reality.

[zep73]

May I remind You that "string theory" is a failed hypothesis, because it never accomplished any predictions, nor was there ever any evidence to support it. It was a wild mathematical fantasy.
But even if it had evidential support, those extra dimensions are extremely tiny and reside inside particles.

The most successful theory of everything we have right now, is quantum field theory, which has an abundance of evidence to support it. And it only has 3D+time.

Edited December 6, 2019 by sci-nerd

[+Desertrat56]

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

This thread is using the term 'dimensions' not 'planes' anyway. Though I am not clear on what is really different between saying additional dimensions/additional planes/additional facets of reality.

It depends on whether you know math terms or don't, I think.  It bothers me that math terms are used in new age terminology to mean something different so I prefer the way Piney said it.  Dimensions and planes are not the same thing.

[Piney]

Just now, Desertrat56 said:

It depends on whether you know math terms or don't, I think.  It bothers me that math terms are used in new age terminology to mean something different so I prefer the way Piney said it.  Dimensions and planes are not the same thing.

Thank you.

I just woke up and I'm slightly dizzy......

[+Desertrat56]

4 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

May I remind You that "string theory" is a failed hypothesis, because it never accomplished any predictions, nor was there ever any evidence to support it. It was a wild mathematical fantasy.
But even if it had evidential support, those extra dimensions are extremely tiny and reside inside particles.

The most successful theory of everything we have right now, is quantum field theory, which has an abundance of evidence to support it. And it only has 3D+time.

This reminds me of an episode of The Big Bang Theory when Lenard's girlfriend broke up with him for saying something like you just posted, she was an acolyte of string theory.    Maybe what you said is why it is still called a theory.

[zep73]

14 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Maybe what you said is why it is still called a theory.

I'm sure you know this, but for those who don't, I'll write it anyway.
Most laymen and scientists understand the word "theory" in two very different ways. For most laymen a theory is just an idea. A proposal. But for scientists theories are much more. They must carry evidence and be falsifiable. A scientific theory is a description of reality, not just an idea or proposal. Ideas and proposals are called hypotheses.
So when scientists talk about theories, they talk about tangible things with proof.

And that is why "string theory" was never a theory. I was always just a hypothesis.

Edited December 6, 2019 by sci-nerd

[papageorge1]

14 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

It depends on whether you know math terms or don't, I think.  It bothers me that math terms are used in new age terminology to mean something different so I prefer the way Piney said it.  Dimensions and planes are not the same thing.

This is not new age terminology but the scientific theory called String Theory. They are using the term 'dimensions' and I'm fine with that. Not sure at my level of involvement that I need to get overly concerned about word choices. I get the point of what Kastrup is saying.

[zep73]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

the scientific theory called String Theory

As I explained in the post above yours: It's not a theory!

[Orphalesion]

38 minutes ago, Piney said:

Here's a simple explanation of what string theory actually means by "dimensions". They are just facets of reality. Not other planes.

https://phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.html

 

22 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

It depends on whether you know math terms or don't, I think.  It bothers me that math terms are used in new age terminology to mean something different so I prefer the way Piney said it.  Dimensions and planes are not the same thing.

I was told by someone here that "Planes" is just as bad as using "Dimensions" since Plane is a mathematical term that described something completely unrelated to the spiritual/religious/New Age concept.

I think the better description of the concept is probably "Realm" or "World" (though that could be confused with planet). Since it doesn't confuse it with anything in physics or mathematics (at least as far as I'm aware) 

Edited December 6, 2019 by Orphalesion

[papageorge1]

21 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

May I remind You that "string theory" is a failed hypothesis, because it never accomplished any predictions, nor was there ever any evidence to support it. 

It does appear to me that quite a number of rather heavy minds are not labeling this a 'failed hypothesis' as sci-nerd is.

[zep73]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

It does appear to me that quite a number of rather heavy minds are not labeling this a 'failed hypothesis' as sci-nerd is.

Most articles you can find on the subject are 5-10 years old or older. Science has moved on since then. Progress happens fast these days.

Forget string "theory". It's yesterdays (hyperbole) trend.

[papageorge1]

30 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

As I explained in the post above yours: It's not a theory!

The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is not important to this discussion.

[papageorge1]

35 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Most articles you can find on the subject are 5-10 years old or older. Science has moved on since then. Progress happens fast these days.

Forget string "theory". It's yesterdays (hyperbole) trend.

I’ll keep my point about quite the number of serious minds taking it very seriously today.

Apparently you’re not a fan.

 

Edited December 6, 2019 by papageorge1

[Piney]

1 hour ago, Orphalesion said:

I think the better description of the concept is probably "Realm" or "World" (though that could be confused with planet). Since it doesn't confuse it with anything in physics or mathematics (at least as far as I'm aware) 

Astral Realm or Astral Plane, the thing still doesn't exist as a separate place.  It's a invisible, undetectable "overlay" in this reality.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

It does appear to me that quite a number of rather heavy minds are not labeling this a 'failed hypothesis' as sci-nerd is.

Are any of them actual peered reviewed physicists? Because I've been going through Rowan U's PDF files and it appears they do.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, Piney said:

Astral Realm or Astral Plane, the thing still doesn't exist as a separate place.  It's a invisible, undetectable "overlay" in this reality.

What the heck is an invisible, undetectable “overlay” in this reality supposed to be as opposed to a dimension or a realm or a whatever term?

We can only have an inkling as to how to conceptualize and term this. The OP quote said ‘dimension’ and let’s move on if you have any opinion on the quote.

[papageorge1]

9 minutes ago, Piney said:

 

Are any of them actual peered reviewed physicists? Because I've been going through Rowan U's PDF files and it appears they do.

They are some of the brightest minds on the planet. They write peer reviewed stuff all the time which are likely over your’s and mine’s level of understanding.

Don’t try to sound smarter than you are. I understand my limits at least.

[Piney]

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

What the heck is an invisible, undetectable “overlay” in this reality supposed to be as opposed to a dimension or a realm or a whatever term?

Schwing!  Right over your head.........which is probably for the best. 

[Piney]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

They are some of the brightest minds on the planet. They write peer reviewed stuff all the time which are likely over your’s and mine’s level of understanding.

Then list them and their universities and labs because the physicist at Princeton and Rowan have ditched it. 

Oh look!  Bernardo Kastrup doesn't seem to be a physicist. 

https://www.freewiki.eu/en/index.php?title=Bernardo_Kastrup

[papageorge1]

5 minutes ago, Piney said:

Schwing!  Right over your head.........which is probably for the best. 

No, right over YOUR head or you would know how to clarify those words.

[Piney]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

No, right over YOUR head or you would know how to clarify those words.

Well......Orphie got it. 

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

Well......Orphie got it. 

Let’s see Orphie explain it then.

[Piney]

19 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Let’s see Orphie explain it then.

It was a me to him statement concerning a previous teaching discussion and none of your business.