On Parallel Universes

Originally posted by Alphadog
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

Right, so these dimensions we would be able to see them as thoughts.

This may also in theory explain deja vu maybe?

Absolutely. We have to 'handle' all of these dimensions, all these inputs. Think of it as a necesary filter humans use to exist and grow. We need definition. We need a starting point. or else there is no reference for anything else. Unfortunately, we are still so limited in our thinking, our existance, that we can only perceive time in a linear sense. So any input that we receive from 'outside' the norm has to be fit in what we can perceive. Thus limiting our overall understanding.

reply to post by james2009


Very good question,I myself have asked that.My best guess(only that) is that our souls exist simultaneously in all dimensions and all realities,since our souls come from a "eternal dimension".Really beyond that it is hard to explain or even think about,we simply can not comprehend that type of existence.It is like trying to visualize what the other 6 or 7 dimensions in M-Theory look like!We can't,it is a biological impossibility(I believe) because our brains have never existed there,so therefor we can not conceive of something we have never ever encountered on the level of dimensional existence.Hope that helped.

Originally posted by Alphadog
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

Wouldnt the "rabbit" have to exist on some plain at some point?

Only at the point that it was thought of in the first place.

reply to post by mikerussellus


Agreed and understood.

To add

en.wikipedia.org...
Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, often described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics being applied to everyday objects. The thought experiment presents a cat that might be alive or dead, depending on an earlier random event. In the course of developing this experiment, he coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement).

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Sun Apr 5 2009 by Jbird]

reply to post by mikerussellus


This part i dont understand really? The "rabbit" would have to have existed on some plain prior to the magician pulling it out of the hat otherwise the magician would be a creator.

Originally posted by Alphadog
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

This part i dont understand really? The "rabbit" would have to have existed on some plain prior to the magician pulling it out of the hat otherwise the magician would be a creator.

When you dream, don't you 'create'? When you imagine, don't you create?
What is reality but a justification of what you perceive?

reply to post by mikerussellus


Right but not in the same sense of physicality. Unfortunately i cant pull something out of dreams or imagination. Sometimes i really wish i could. The pulling the "rabbit" out of the hat is making something physical come to life.

Now as i was saying in other posts hat those dreams or imaginations re parallel universes that are actually hapenning at the same time then i can see where the "rabbit" already exists and can be pulled from that universe through the hat.

Originally posted by Alphadog
reply to post by paperplanes

 

Do you mean, for lack of a better example( im not trying to be funny), say the old pulling the rabbit out of the hat trick. Instead of actually hiding the rabbit, the magician would actually pull it from another dimension?

Im just curious, im not trying to be sarcastic or funny. Sorry if its coming across that way.

That's an interesting way to describe it. If you're thinking of the magician as one who is willing an event to happen rather than someone performing an illusion, then yes, that's a good summation of the idea. You're essentially manifesting the reality you want.

Perhaps an artist sketching a design would be a better analogy: she sits down and sketches out the design she sees in her mind, the figures and shapes she appreciates and hopes to create in this tangible reality. Rather than seeing all of the possibilities, she can only create the image that reflects her pre-conceived desires (or maybe she can see all of the possibilities...who am I to say?). Like a child creating the perfect lollipop in his mind and walking into the store to find it waiting at the counter. Sort of like that. Obviously, it's necessary that our desire can only reflect something that already exists somewhere. I'm having a tough time clarifying this .

[edit on 5/4/09 by paperplanes]

reply to post by Alphadog


But you can pull 'tangible' objects from the intangeble. Any invention starts as a dream. What makes pulling a rabbit out of a hat any different? If you 'think' hard enough about the rabbit, then you can create something from the intangible. Henry Ford didn't pull a Model T from an alternate universe. Thomas Edison didn't grab a light bulb from somewhere else. They were tangible things that were 'thought' into existance.

reply to post by paperplanes


I understand the concept but how would you get it from that dimension to this one? There would have to be some sort of portal, no? Like the magician would will it and the hat would be the portal. He would put his arm in the hat and pull the rabbit.

reply to post by mikerussellus


Ok maybe im looking at this from a different angle. Henry ford did have a dream and made his dream come true. Though he made his dream tangible from tangible items. The dream was intangible but it was restricted to items that were tangible. Same goes for edison. The rabbit you wouldnt be able to build.

I see what your both saying about thinking something and willing it to come through. maybe im limited to thinking inside the box on this one. I dont see how something can be pulled from nothing. That would go against every math or science concept. After all anything x 0 = 0? right?

reply to post by Alphadog


I think an important aspect of this particular field of speculation is considering the possibility that the laws that govern our world do not apply across the board. If they did, how limited would it all be? A portal seems necessary only if you restrict these dimensions or universes to our own understanding of the mechanics of existence. If they exist, they would likely operate through different laws. A portal or tunnel in time is not a necessity if you consider that these realities operate outside of our understanding, our concept of reality, and it may not even be necessary for our own universe. We know little about the reality we occupy.

[edit on 5/4/09 by paperplanes]

Originally posted by Alphadog
reply to post by paperplanes

 

I understand the concept but how would you get it from that dimension to this one? There would have to be some sort of portal, no? Like the magician would will it and the hat would be the portal. He would put his arm in the hat and pull the rabbit.

no need for a portal. the entire universe is information, ideas which combine into being every law of physics and eventually us.

so it could be true that our thoughts (which are information) exist somewhere just as we exist "here". information does not need to have any spacial dimensions so it exists in zero dimensions... however we exist in 3+1 because of the information that sets up the framework of our existence. a simplistic view would be that of a computer game which is really bits in an electronic device but materializes into a 3D world on your screens based on a rendering algorithm.

the only thing we need to learn is how to hack the universe in order to make dreams "material" in our informational framework...

Originally posted by Alphadog
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

Ok maybe im looking at this from a different angle. Henry ford did have a dream and made his dream come true. Though he made his dream tangible from tangible items. The dream was intangible but it was restricted to items that were tangible. Same goes for edison. The rabbit you wouldnt be able to build.

I see what your both saying about thinking something and willing it to come through. maybe im limited to thinking inside the box on this one. I dont see how something can be pulled from nothing. That would go against every math or science concept. After all anything x 0 = 0? right?

The assuption being that there is nothing to begin with, what if you worked under the assuption that there was EVERYTHING and that you only pulled out what you wanted/needed/perceived?

Well im understanding the concept now. If everything is right here then how can we get to it. We need to get to work. I cant wait to start pulling things out of my dreams. lolol..

I do understand what you mean now. Its a very interesting concept and one that we may never see. unfortunatley. Unless any of you know otherwise. Please share if so..

www.abovetopsecret.com...'


"AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts .... Please provide your own opinions when posting links or videos."

[edit on Sun Apr 5 2009 by Jbird]

Originally posted by Alphadog
Well im understanding the concept now. If everything is right here then how can we get to it. We need to get to work. I cant wait to start pulling things out of my dreams. lolol..

I do understand what you mean now. Its a very interesting concept and one that we may never see. unfortunatley. Unless any of you know otherwise. Please share if so..

The only limits that we have are those that we place upon ourselves. I wish i could remember who said that but I don't, and won't steal it from whomever...
We have nothing to inhibit us but our imagination.

reply to post by mikerussellus


So can this theory also work in reverse? Meaning if we can visualize something coming here, can we visualize ourselves somehwere else?

Originally posted by Alphadog
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

So can this theory also work in reverse? Meaning if we can visualize something coming here, can we visualize ourselves somehwere else?

Of course, you've heard of out of body experiences, ghosts, prophesies...
time may be linear but that means in either direction.

Why would you think that it is just a one way street?