Broadly speaking when scientists speculate on the existence of other dimensions then no one shouts them down and says it isn't possible just that at this stage that you can't test for it and prove it.
Well, again generally speaking then these theories often turn out to be true and if so then quite clearly other dimensions will be absolutely teeming with life, just as this one is.
It's not much more than common sense, really.
Yes they are all around you, on another level.
>>17572227
Agreed. So hard, or rather more or less impossible to visualise what the actuality of it and their lives must be like though; which is something I am just interested in out of basic curiosity.
There are so many things wrong with what you just said.
>scientists speculate
>no one says it isn't possible
Of course not, as long as it can be used to simplify what's observed here and fits what they want to happen.
>these theories turn out to be true
Only because they all circle jerk and agree with each other. But when you go back and compare it with reality, it breaks down:
http://www.space.com/4554-scientists-dark-matter-exist.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
Just to start on.
Finally, the other dimensions are places where material for this reality are "made" so it's unlikely it has its own life since it's just a component of life here.
>>17572310
>But when you go back and compare it with reality
But no one has figured out how to test the theory of there being other dimensions so you can't do that.
>Finally, the other dimensions are places where material for this reality are "made" so it's unlikely it has its own life since it's just a component of life here.
On what basis do you make this claim?
>>17572327
This is the basic stuff behind kaluzza-klein theory and the resulting superstring theory. Not a physicist, I've read the book years ago.
>>17572339
>theory
You constructed this sentence,
>Finally, the other dimensions are places where material for this reality are "made" so it's unlikely it has its own life since it's just a component of life here.
-essentially as if it were a fact.
what if right now you exist in all dimentions, split apart, performing actions indepenant from eachother, you just cant see it because right now your dialed into this existence and this dimention
>>17572353
I think it is something like that, there is something like a Higher Self. But with most people that integration with the Higher Self is limited; however certain Spiritual Masters have through various means attained integration with this Higher Self with this contributing to their wisdom and deeper understanding of the Universe. It also hints at how they are, for example,able to heal people and perform other feats (telepathy, clairvoyance etc.) which are not readily explainable.
>>17572212
You can see other dimensions with deep meditation and [spoiler] strong weed[/spoiler] or at least a peek of it.
In essence every dimensions are part of one thing, witch is ''all'' .
Basically what i saw was that the universe (?) was like a carpet or a net. Everything is small in compassion.
Life, planets, dimensions or galaxies none of that matters. Because ''all'' will always be there.
I dont know if i am making sense. English is not my main language.
>>17572399
>Everything is small in compassion.
My mistake, there is no everything, only all. We are just a part of all.
>>17572399
It may also be the case that the various seemingly discarnate entities which people often report seeing on DMT trips are extra dimensional.
>>17572439
Admittedly i havent got too much into this subject (yet) so i might be speaking out of belief more than anything substantial.
I think consciousness goes beyond dimensions. Its like an universe on itself. If there indeed exist extra dimensional entities, they probably have mastered consciousness or they might be from there all together
What i am trying to explain is that everything is connected. Because everything is a thing, not various things.
>it's a fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of dimensions episode
>>17572475
Please feel free to fire away on the whole explanation front then guv. Do extra dimensional entities exist? And if so do they go on holiday? Are they into sport in their dimension? Thnx.
>>17572489
a dimension isn't like another world. it's an axis of measurement. there aren't any "extra-dimensional entities," because if dimensions outside of the three spatial ones exist as more than a construct of mathematics, then we exist in them too, though we have no knowledge of or control over our position on the axis.
>>17572522
But sliders kept talking about going to another dimension. Checkmate.
>>17572310
don't forget
>absolutely teeming with life, just as this one is
as far as we know at the current time there is no life anywhere but earth. i wouldn't call that a universe teeming with life.
>>17572522
It seems to me that you are working on the assumption that the nature of these dimensions is fully understood, where the opposite is actually the case, i.e. there is essentially minimal understanding.
>>17572539
The earth is teeming with life and also the earth itself may be conscious of itself as an entity; the sun may also be conscious of itself as an entity.
>>17572551
>>17572525
Oooh, is that the acrid stench of searing flesh I smell? 'Cause somebody just got BURNED.
>>17572540
i'm just working within the confines of what math and physics consider a dimension.
>>17572552
Yup it's a big idea but posting a memey gif doesn't discredit it. Can you for example say with any degree of certainty whether a tree is conscious of itself as an entity or not?
>>17572575
>i'm just working within the confines of what math and physics consider a dimension.
Fair enough but at the moment within the disciplines of maths and physics then their understanding and exploration of potential other dimensions are very much at the fledgling stage.
>>17572581
a tree is a biological entity. a planet is a hunk of rock, and a star is a ball of gas. you can make an argument for a rudimentary consciousness in a tree, but how about you show me some evidence the earth is conscious, or the sun? until then we'd just be spouting nuh-uh and uh-huh at each other.
>>17572597
I first had the idea about the sun being conscious intuitively but then read a similar idea in Greg Sams book, `The Sun of God. `
So, your ego mind only has experience of life on earth and is bound to have trouble assimilating the fact that something so radically different as the sun could also be conscious. But the sun is not just a ball of gas it is fantastically complex and by no means fully understood. Where is the rule book which states that life can only come in the form of carbon based life forms? It doesn't exist. Many ideas which once seemed ridiculous are now common currency.
>>17572597
Another way of looking at is is that you are already the sun. You don't live without the oxygen in your body, the oxygen in your body is produced by the earth as a whole, the earth in this state doesn't exist without the sun. Just because there is a pretty small gap by cosmological standards between us and the sun doesn't mean that we are separate from it.
You, me, everything you can see around you, it's the sun.
>quite clearly other dimensions will be absolutely teeming with life, just as this one is.
We don't live in one dimension. We live in 4. Length, breadth, height and time. You're veiw of dimensions is skewd by sci fi movies, novels and probably /x/. There is no life in existence that lives in just 1 dimension. So is the life in this universe, living in 4 dimensions, the lowest form and others live in 5,6,10? Higher dimensions exist within the same universe as the one we are in. They are inconceivable to us but they exist in mathematical theory so they are here but we can't see them. So actually, there are higher dimensions, we are the life living in them. If you are looking for other life forms living side by side with us look at alternate or parallel universes
>>17572654
>You, me, everything you can see around you, it's the sun.
Did you mean it's the universe? If so then sure. If you actually meant the sun then you have no hope of functioning in society Timmy.
>>17572687
Correct Nigel. Everything is one.
>>17572654
You literally are star dust and star energy.
The earth formed from dust and gases from an ancient star supernova. Every element on earth today was formed in that supernova. Your formed in your mothers uterus using energy from food she ate. Plants use photosynthesis to turn sunlight into energy. Animal eats plants, animal eats animal. Your mother ate plants and animals to form you
>>17572702
Glad we came to an agreement Shlomo
>>17572654
Everything is made of Energy, the Energy the sun emits. Energy can change forms and even become Matter. I believe the sun is conscious and we are all apart of that consciousness, just a fragment meant to be viewed from the perspective of time and space. That way you can have a better understanding of how important and simultaneously useless all life is. As far as dimension, i think its about actual size dimensions in relations to one another. Our sun functions as the atoms that make up larger entities then we can comprehend. we are just very close to the small size of the scale. Something our size could never see what we are apart of just as bacteria in your stomach could never grasp your true dimensions.
>>17572581
A tree is not electrochemically complex enough to be considered a conscious being. The sun might, as it's a large, self-sustained electric system, but the earth is not.
>>17574146
How is this not some arbitrary designation?
when you smoke DMT you can talk to them
>>17572339
I'm a graduate in mathematics and I'm pretty sure you're not likely to have read a book on superstring theory.
>inb4 nobody smart comes on this board
Hush, I like my spooky greentexts
Can someone (anyone) please explain to me what ya'll mean when you say "dimension" and why you so firmly believe in such things as higher dimensions?
>>17574209
You studied someone elses theory on how numbers should work, the only person who is smart is who created that system.
Create your own numerical system then you can call yourself smart bud.
>>17574229
>numbers
>someone else's
Breh I'm doing research in measure and category theory. I don't just sit around and read all day. I have to come up with "my own things" all the time.
>>17574244
So what have you came up with smartie pants?
I cringe when I read these threads. You all are grossly misunderstanding what "dimensions" are.
I believe someone pointed it out above, that you all are mistaking dimensions with parallel/alternate universes. Hopefully it's just a matter of semantics and not everyone in this thread having absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I'm just as curious about this stuff as the next guy, but please at least make sure you actually understand the things you're saying if you want to have a discussion of any substance.
>>17574254
I'm clearly not going to post anything verifiable. I don't want any of you fuckers knowing who I am.
The point of my original post is that someone doesn't just study superstring theory casually.
>>17574209
>graduate in mathematics
You don't have to major in math in order to understand how the universe works. Ive been studying physics and quantum physics and so far it's been a hell of a ride down a spiral staircase that never ends.
You'd be asking for a red pill combining mathematics with religion i.e sacred mathematics
>>17574267
Well if everything you've learnt previous to your ideas turns out to be bullshit, then your ideas will be bullshit too.
That's the problem with not building your theories from the ground up.
There's so many holes in Physics it's laughable.
I never bothered to study maths in great detail but I'm sure it's the same.
>>17574282
How do you begin to understand quantum mechanics without knowing fourier analysis and group theory?
>>17574284
Are you kidding? Once you get through babby's first calculus three, they tell you to throw all your mathematical knowledge out the window. You have your first proofs/logic class and then analysis. Do you know what happens there? Well they finally let you assume a few things:
1. There exists an empty set
2. A set can be constructed from a rule
3. There exists a union of two sets that contains all elements from the two sets.
4. Two sets are equal if and only if they are subsets of each other.
They also define a set and the sunset relation. That's it. How much more "ground up" could math be? There are a few more simple axioms (see the ZFC, for example) from which all of modern math is constructed, but that's it for undergraduate maths.
>>17574209
You idiots think lower IQ points mean stupid. I can understand all of it, but it takes me forever.
>>17574263
Jerry O'Connell clearly said "parallel dimension."
>>17574312
>IQ
I didn't even mention that, friend
>>17574304
I'm just bsin eh I really have no idea about maths my main quarrel is with Physics
Still though how do they know their axioms are valid? Why can't you create your own truths?
Science and Maths are just universal systems that instead of making people smarter they make them arrogant.
Just an elite way of discussing ideas. If you were all so smart the universe would be explained by now.
>>17574322
>I'm a graduate in mathematics and I'm pretty sure you're not likely to have read a book on superstring theory.
Why would you assume we hadn't read a superstring theory book? Your comment came across the Internet's as condescending.
>>17574334
It's a religion.
>"Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, mythologies, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".
Sounds like science to me.
>>17574334
I don't make new axioms because I don't don't think it's reasonable to say that two sets are not equal if they contain the same elements, for example. {1} and {1} clearly refer to the same object, at least to me.
Besides, the beauty in math isn't just its applicability to the world and it's not based on who came up with what. Logically consistent systems are worth thinking about in their own right.
>>17574338
Because I don't think people casually study deep and complex theories to the point of understanding them without being able to remember a good amount of the content
>>17574357
What if there is unobservable differences in your sets, then they would not be equal?
Or does anything you can't sense not count as an element?
>>17574372
A set is a mathematical object for which, given another object, we can decide whether that object is a member of the set.
So when we write "{1}" we are referring to an object whose properties are explicitly stated. There is not any observation in set theory.
>>17574383
What if there is properties that are present but we can not detect and these properties are different on objects which are the same?
>>17574361
Don't know what to say. I recall Maxwell's equations, Einstein's theories, and a lot about trying to unify the four forces.
I became interested in it after a required freshman course "scientific literacy" at bible college. I do wish I understood more about it.
>>17574389
To me, saying two mathematical objects are the same means they share all properties exactly. If this is not the case, then I can't answer your question without you providing a definition of things being "the same" and what a "property" is.
>>17574395
Nah I dno I lost myself desu
I've got another one though,
What if in our universe the two sets (1) : (1) are the same but then we transport these sets to another universe and suddenly they are different
(1) : (2)
Could you explain that?
>>17574392
I could just be a meanie head tbqhwyfam? I just don't think someone would understand something so complex and just forget.
>do wish I understood more about it
A really accessible way to understand the four fundamental forces is to study fluid dynamics if you really want to get into it.
>>17572581
Trees are not sentient creatures with a central nervous system. There are different modes of consciousness. Just because you feel aware, doesn't mean other living things are aware.
The sun is no more concious than a boulder, because it's no where near biological.
>>17574406
I'll go along with it..
You have to be careful when you say "take the two sets to a different universe." I'm interpreting this as a mapping between two systems of symbols (woooo, functors almost!)
I would honestly just say such a mapping isn't well-defined. Saying {1} is mapped to {1} but also {1} is mapped to {2} means that {1}={2} in this new universe. Or it could mean that {1} is mapped to a different set, say {{1},{2}} if you insist on {1} and {2} being distinct. Then we can run into problems depending on if you want the mapping to be structure preserving. Say a function f is maps an intersection of elements to the the intersections of the images of elements. Then the we have that f({1})=f({1}^{1})=f({1})^f({1})={1}^{2}, but we know this "function" carries {1} to {1}, and so {1}={1}^{2}={} if "1" and "2" are distinct, but this is clearly not the case in our own system. It's an issue.
>>17574440
I don't understand but wp
>>17574459
Tldr; you run into logical inconsistencies in this new universe
>>17574435
Derp
>>17574289
Well you obviously do go through algebra and calculus studying physics. I mean, I do computer science and still had groups and graphs and the fourier analysis of signals transmitted and shit. Imo you just skip the parts unrelated to your field, i.e. to this world in this case. Like, shit, I dunno, miltidimensional topology?
>>17572540
>assumption that the nature of these dimensions fully understood
They are you fucking idiot. That's the DEFINITION of a dimension. Dimensions are a man-made concept they weren't discovered what do you mean they aren't fully understood.
>>17572644
Consciousness is a trait animals evolve with. The sun doesn't have a brain or any neurons.
>>17574284
>unemployed loser on 4chan
>physics is all wrong I know more
Holy kekold
>>17579805
I'm not saying it's all wrong I'm saying there are some things it can not explain.
Science is a load of shit mate fucking worse than bible bashers you lot are.
>>17572212
>Well, again generally speaking then these theories often turn out to be true
Proofs?
>>17578209
Ok, well if dimensions beyond the 4th exist, what exactly are they like? What do they look like? Could anyone do an artists impression of one? Could life of some order exist there?
>>17580309
You're misunderstanding what a dimension is kinda.
Time can be considered a dimension, so to go to the fourth dimension is to be able to travel forward and backwards in time.
At least that's my half assed understanding of it.
I don't think it'd be possible to explain what 4d shapes look like, they'd just be illogical messes.
Sure people that have tripped claim to have seen them but as 3d beings we can't visualize 4d so they're probably lying.
>>17574334
You're a fucking idiot
>>17580335
No in that dimension time will cease to be as it will be infinite and null at the same time, there is no distinction.
>>17580335
To expand on this to go to the 5th dimension would be being able to go upwards and downwards in time, which as a concept doesn't make sense.
It's unexplained mayne all there is is theories
>>17580336
Yeah. Well at least I'm figuring out the world for myself rather than standing on the shoulders of a bunch of twats that think complex language = intelligence
>>17580354
Science is a big circle jerk, anon. Don't give up the fight. And don't be fooled that not being quick to figure things out is a detriment. Intelligence is just another illusion, like power and wealth and prestige.
>>17580386
That dog looks so happy
ITT: People not knowing the difference between dimensions and multiple universes
>>17572344
Are you really that dumb
>>17581163
The multiverse theory is part of string theory, which involves 11 dimensions. Those two things are very connected
>>17579815
Because psychologically, materialistic science is pretty much just the polar opposite. Enforcing an outer view point that claims the ultimate reality. Goes back to the days of the early Catholic Church. Maybe even beyond.
It's worse because Religion is about belief, now I'm not someone to argue with beliefs.
A religious person will not claim to be smarter than you because you don't follow their religion.
A scientific person on the other hand will, and all they do is repeat what they've been told. There's no room for abstract creativity at all, just boring facts that can be changed once the hive mind decides one theory is wrong or another is right.
They act like the bastions of knowledge just because they memorized a bunch of shit. Good job, but do they remember what it was like to think for themselves?
>>17580386
It's not that there is anything wrong with "science" or "religion" in terms of labels. There are good-willed people who can be a scientist or in a religion. Sometimes they need that experience. Sometimes they could be the open door for a new idea. Do not be ignorant. Intelligence is what drives the universe, however it is an Intelligence our brains will not be able to understand fully, and thus the need to also use the heart in balance and learn by experience. And so we just go on..Luckily in an age with 2d girls. Before science was a big circle jerk to you, you were only trying to find the circle jerk in yourself.Or so is just my advice.
>>17581660
"intelligence drives the universe"
Chaos drives the Universe I think you will find
>>17581676
Correct... Sometimes people must learn by going through chaos and having enough before calling out for help. I prefer the name The School of Hard Knocks. If humans wouldn't prefer that then why search into the emptiness of space when it is actually an emptiness in your heart?
>>17581660
I agree...a little bit. It's all internal and these are tools for working with what's inside. But we become fixated on what's outside. Those things are illusionary.
People falsely equate science with reason. It's another religion, or to be more fair, a belief system, a faith; the faith being that your own observations can uncover truth. Science claiming it's the only way to wisdom is no different than any other belief.
>>17572237
i wonder how many celebrities are extradimensional
The problem is when one is a slave to a belief. Belief is a strong tool but you have to have a stronger willpower than the entity you are worshipping, lest you become a servant of a thoughtform.
Science is the best common guideline for how "shared reality" looks like. I mean, it's given us fucking GPS ffs.
>2016
>Not knowing the difference between wisdom and knowledge
>Bashing on science for not relying on your subjective viewpoint as a teachable model of fact
>Projecting personal truths of consciousness onto theories concerning physics
>Letting altered mind states influence you with so little skepticism
Shiggy diggy
>>17582525
>Saying nothing at all in a condescending way
>>17582536
Rather, publicly shaming people here for the stupid things they allow themselves to believe. /x/ has become a navel-gazing echo chamber full of sensitive pricks unwilling to make an actual case for their beliefs. It spooks me that this community attracts so many people who fail to critically think, and who defend it by hiding behind the idea of a classist academia to blame for your lack of insight.
>>17582558
Lol well keep on crusading buddy
Belief in Science is an altered state itself. So you should be ashamed of yourself for your failure to critically think, and defending it by hiding behind the idea of a classist academia for your lack of insight.
>>17574357
Being a pitiable poli-sci major/law student, I can't help but lie in bed at night and start thinking about uniform systems and the beauty of their existence in such a chaotic universe.
Conformity, symmetry, all that shit, it's really something else. Wish I could get a better understanding of all this shit in my free time but time isn't something I have a lot of. I kind of envy you sciency types for that. Your education is about figuring out the sort of shit that makes existence possible, everything else is grounded on the basis of our lives and what we make alongside them.
>>17572212
I use to work at "Area 51" military systems and testing airbase.
What you think of as extraterrestrials or off world aliens are actually extra dimensional alien beings. An earlier version of Nasa made prior to any actual missile or satellite launching came into contact with them using some kind of device based off of one of Nicola Tesla's unreleased machines.
They're not what people think or what they claim to be to other government organisations permitted to know about them, they've infiltrated pretty much all the military particularly the Area 51 base of operations.
The government knows about them. The biggest point of information I need to share is hat they want the major population wiped out so that the very few that are left can be easily controlled by them.
>>17583438
Except I'm not hiding behind the idea of classism in academia. On the internet, where resources are widely available, that's a very bad excuse that people in this thread have used to explain their ignorance.
Also, stating that belief in science is an altered state just makes you sound contrarian. The same could be said about belief in the physical realm we're interacting with right now, but both are pragmatic tools, necessary axioms in understanding. There are much stronger altered states like those induced by drugs, meditation, trance, ritual, etc. which I am arguing require the same skepticism that you or I hold science to, lest people become easily convinced that they've actually contacted a "Higher" being, rather than just a facet of their own consciousness.
>>17584614
>>17584614
So you're the caller on Art Bell? Faggot
>>17572590
Incorrect.
