It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by IAmD1
Hi Bluejay: Thank you for your indepth response but I was after the scientific definition of dimension and density and the application of these on the metaphysical world.. I am aware of these terms in a metaphysical sense but to be honest they originate as scientific terms and as such I would like to start by defining these.
I believe many of these terms including vibrations and such as used in metaphysics is sometimes used incorrectly and there fore I would like to deny my ignorance by getting the facts before delving into the philosophical debate.
many thanks for taking the time to reply. hopefully as this thread moves from the basic science into the grey area that you will be back to debate (if there is anything to debate) wether what you believe is fact or fiction or somewhere inbetween =)
[edit on 1/5/2010 by IAmD1]
Originally posted by polarwarrior
Having studied science and engineering at university I have longed to form the bridge between the metaphysical and the physical sciences. ......You are correct to say these terms are used incorrectly if you feel the science denifnition is the only allowable one
Have you been out of body? astral traveled or been to other densities? ...
[edit on 1-5-2010 by polarwarrior]
Originally posted by blujay
I totally understand. It is a process and since all we've been taught is 'science' that is a comfortable area to start.
I have been where you are. I was one of the people proudly displaying my silver Darwin bumper sticker and a fact finding fiend.
It all comes together eventually and you find that science and spirituality meet up in a very comfortable arena.
Best to you.
Originally posted by IAmD1
As I've been reading here on ATS and elsewhere on various alternative and science topics I realise that my understanding of density and dimension is very limited. I see terms such as 4th and 5th density beings and 4D reality thrown about left right and center but can make no discernable sense of it.
I therefore call on the more versed on these subjects to help me answer a few questions on I have regarding these terms and perhaps in laymans terms explain if there is a finite answer to these questions or if it is borderline metaphysical in nature. So here goes my first set of questions:
Dimensions:
1. How many dimentions are there and what are their names?
Originally posted by IAmD1
Dimensions:
4. How does time become a dimention according to the definition
(the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.)
Density
A. How many densities are there?
Applying the science:
X. In terms of dimensions and density how can we explain ghosts, the human spirit, dreams and other metaphysical entitites?
Y. Are there a dimensional or density separation between our 'inner' world ( that which we sense beyond our 5 physical senses) versus our outer world that which we experience with our 5 senses ?
Z. How many dimentsons does a human being have (defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.)
Degrees of freedom is a general term used in explaining dependence on parameters, and implying the possibility of counting the number of those parameters. In mathematical terms, the degrees of freedom are the dimensions of a phase space.
All structures that exist mathematically also exist physically. This is in the sense that "in those complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world". The MUH can be considered a physico-mathematical expression of the philosophy known as modal realism, which treats physical reality as indexical, or self-referent, rather than absolute. The MUH suggests that not only should worlds corresponding to different sets of initial conditions or to different physical constants be considered real, but also worlds ruled by altogether different equations.
Tegmark claims that the MUH has no free parameters and is not observationally ruled out, and is therefore to be preferred over all other TOE's by Occam's Razor. He envisages conscious experience as taking the form of "self-aware substructures" of mathematical structures, which will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically "real" world.
The MUH is related to the anthropic principle, to theories hypothesizing a multiverse, and to Jürgen Schmidhuber's ultimate ensemble of all computable universes