How does a logical, relatively explainable world deal with membrane theory?

**George B** · October 11th, 2012, 04:45 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc&sns=em
This video shows issues related to quantum behavior of light energy . . .

How does a logical, relatively explainable world deal with membrane theory, string and super string theory . . . collision of parallel or multiple universes, hyper dimensional interactions . . . seems there is plenty of room in theoretical physics for unexplained phenomena and rules we have no concepts for . . .
----------

Content from external source:

In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified. Because the dimensionality exceeds that of superstring theories in 10 dimensions, proponents believe that the 11-dimensional theory unites all five string theories (and supersedes them). Though a full description of the theory is not known, the low-entropy dynamics are known to be supergravity interacting with 2- and 5-dimensional membranes.

M-theory (and string theory) has been criticized for lacking predictive power or being untestable. Further work continues to find mathematical constructs that join various surrounding theories. However, the tangible success of M-theory can be questioned, given its current incompleteness and limited predictive power.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
-----------

Before many-worlds, reality had always been viewed as a single unfolding history. Many-worlds, however, views reality as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realised.[11] Many-worlds claims to reconcile the observation of non-deterministic events, such as the random radioactive decay, with the fully deterministic equations of quantum physics.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-...interpretation

**George B** · October 11th, 2012, 05:58 AM

Things to ponder . . .

Content from external source:

In quantum language, the materialists’ upward causation model translates like this. Possible movements of elementary particle make up possible movements of atoms, make up possible movements of molecules, make up possible movements of cells, make up possible brain states, make up consciousness. Consciousness itself then is a conglomerate of possibilities, called a wave of possibility. How can a wave of possibility collapse another wave of possibility by looking or interacting with it? If you couple possibility with possibility, all you get is a bigger possibility, not actuality.
http://www.amitgoswami.org/conscious...antum-physics/

**George B** · October 11th, 2012, 06:07 AM

Can quantum physics explain consciousness and the paranormal. . . . ???

Content from external source:

While this may be attractive -- after all, quantum mechanics brought us Schrodinger's-very-confused-dead-or-alive-(or both)-Cat -- there is a fundamental flaw in this logic. And as Brooks mentions in his article, "strange quantum effects don't fit in with our everyday experience of the world, they have been invoked to resolve myriad things we don't yet understand, such as supernatural phenomena."

Although consciousness is not a supernatural phenomenon, science has yet to explain it. In this world of high technology, where we seem to have an answer for everything, it seems odd that we don't yet have an answer for what makes us, us. Why shouldn't quantum theory explain consciousness?

Brooks mentions Deepak Chopra's book "Quantum Healing," in which Chopra jumped to the conclusion that quantum entanglement links everything in the Universe, and therefore it must create consciousness. However, even respected scientists aren't immune to the pull of the mystery of quantum mechanics.
http://news.discovery.com/space/does...ss-110526.html

**George B** · October 11th, 2012, 06:28 AM

The human observer is the conscious participant that is difficult to explain in quantum theory . . . but is critical in its realization . . .

Content from external source:

The human observer, endowed with awareness, is a vital component in a quantum experiment and must not be ignored. Until a human being observes the system being measured, it remains the blurred quantum mixture of all the possible outcomes. When a conscious observation is made, all of these potential results collapse into the one that actualizes. Physics, the science which deals with the material world, had happened upon the non-material world of consciousness and had provided the link between these seemingly disparate realms.
http://www.metta-physics.com/2011/08...consciousness/

**Mick** · October 11th, 2012, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by George B

Can quantum physics explain consciousness and the paranormal. . . . ???

Content from external source:

While this may be attractive -- after all, quantum mechanics brought us Schrodinger's-very-confused-dead-or-alive-(or both)-Cat -- there is a fundamental flaw in this logic. And as Brooks mentions in his article, "strange quantum effects don't fit in with our everyday experience of the world, they have been invoked to resolve myriad things we don't yet understand, such as supernatural phenomena."

Although consciousness is not a supernatural phenomenon, science has yet to explain it. In this world of high technology, where we seem to have an answer for everything, it seems odd that we don't yet have an answer for what makes us, us. Why shouldn't quantum theory explain consciousness?

Brooks mentions Deepak Chopra's book "Quantum Healing," in which Chopra jumped to the conclusion that quantum entanglement links everything in the Universe, and therefore it must create consciousness. However, even respected scientists aren't immune to the pull of the mystery of quantum mechanics.
http://news.discovery.com/space/does...ss-110526.html

You should dig down into the actual Brooks article:

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/...-consciousness

There's no need to explain things that have not been shown to exist.

**George B** · October 11th, 2012, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by Mick

You should dig down into the actual Brooks article:

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/...-consciousness

There's no need to explain things that have not been shown to exist.

I see . . . do you not wonder how you are self aware . . . ??

How multiple dimensions work and could they be interacting with our reality in ways we don't understand?

**Mick** · October 11th, 2012, 07:15 AM

It's one of my favorite topics. But I suspect self-awareness might be an illusion. I've never found the question of consciousness to be a compelling question, and certainly not a well formed one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscio...lid_concept.3F

Content from external source:

Philosophers and non-philosophers differ in their intuitions about what consciousness is.^[9] While most people have a strong intuition for the existence of what they refer to as consciousness,^{[citation needed]} skeptics argue that this intuition is false, either because the concept of consciousness is intrinsically incoherent, or because our intuitions about it are based in illusions. Gilbert Ryle, for example, argued that traditional understanding of consciousness depends on a Cartesian dualist outlook that improperly distinguishes between mind and body, or between mind and world. He proposed that we speak not of minds, bodies, and the world, but of individuals, or persons, acting in the world. Thus, by speaking of 'consciousness' we end up misleading ourselves by thinking that there is any sort of thing as consciousness separated from behavioral and linguistic understandings.^[10] More generally, many philosophers and scientists have been unhappy about the difficulty of producing a definition that does not involve circularity or fuzziness.^[8]

Have you read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind? That's one of my favorite theories of consciousness.

I'm also generally against the conclusions of Roger Penrose.

**George B** · October 11th, 2012, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Mick

It's one of my favorite topics. But I suspect self-awareness might be an illusion. I've never found the question of consciousness to be a compelling question, and certainly not a well formed one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscio...lid_concept.3F

Content from external source:

Philosophers and non-philosophers differ in their intuitions about what consciousness is.^[9] While most people have a strong intuition for the existence of what they refer to as consciousness,^{[citation needed]} skeptics argue that this intuition is false, either because the concept of consciousness is intrinsically incoherent, or because our intuitions about it are based in illusions. Gilbert Ryle, for example, argued that traditional understanding of consciousness depends on a Cartesian dualist outlook that improperly distinguishes between mind and body, or between mind and world. He proposed that we speak not of minds, bodies, and the world, but of individuals, or persons, acting in the world. Thus, by speaking of 'consciousness' we end up misleading ourselves by thinking that there is any sort of thing as consciousness separated from behavioral and linguistic understandings.^[10] More generally, many philosophers and scientists have been unhappy about the difficulty of producing a definition that does not involve circularity or fuzziness.^[8]

Have you read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind? That's one of my favorite theories of consciousness.

I'm also generally against the conclusions of Roger Penrose.

I am not aware of your favorite book but am aware of Penrose . . . I will take a look . . .

**MikeC** · October 11th, 2012, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by George B

How does a logical, relatively explainable world deal with membrane theory, string and super string theory . . . collision of parallel or multiple universes, hyper dimensional interactions . . . seems there is plenty of room in theoretical physics for unexplained phenomena and rules we have no concepts for . . .

Clearly we have concepts for all of these, and "many worlds" - we may not have good understanding of them yet, but that is quite a different thing from having no concept.

**George B** · October 11th, 2012, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by MikeC

Clearly we have concepts for all of these, and "many worlds" - we may not have good understanding of them yet, but that is quite a different thing from having no concept.

I indicated we had lack of any rules on how we interact with these worlds not that we did not have concepts . . . if you have knowledge of any rules please share with us . . .

**MikeC** · October 11th, 2012, 12:49 PM

I'm sorry - which part of your post that I quoted did I misunderstand??

**George B** · October 11th, 2012, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by MikeC

I'm sorry - which part of your post that I quoted did I misunderstand??

There is nothing to apologize for . . . I was just clarifying it was the "rules" we don't know not the concepts . . .

Content from external source:

seems there is plenty of room in theoretical physics for unexplained phenomena and rules we have no concepts for . . .

**MikeC** · October 11th, 2012, 01:05 PM

You said we have no concepts for the rules - IMO that is a different thing from not knowing that ther are any rules at all.

Eg if we know that there are "other worlds" then clearly we have a concept of them, and therefore we have aconcept that htere will be rules that govern our interaction with them - we just don't know what the rules are.

If we don't have any inlking that something exists then sure - we won't have any concept of rules arouod whatever that is.

But IMO thats just trivial. As is saying physics doesn't "know" everything yet - yeah, and so what?

**George B** · October 11th, 2012, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by MikeC

You said we have no concepts for the rules - IMO that is a different thing from not knowing that ther are any rules at all.

Eg if we know that there are "other worlds" then clearly we have a concept of them, and therefore we have aconcept that htere will be rules that govern our interaction with them - we just don't know what the rules are.

If we don't have any inlking that something exists then sure - we won't have any concept of rules arouod whatever that is.

But IMO thats just trivial. As is saying physics doesn't "know" everything yet - yeah, and so what?

I disagree . . . the interaction between dimensions, parallel and/or multi-universes may be the key to much of the unexplained issues we face . . . it could be critical for our progress and survival . . . so if there are undiscovered rules of interaction IMO it is important to define them . . .

**MikeC** · October 11th, 2012, 01:35 PM

Sure. but irrelevant to what you were saying about how do we deal with "things" and rules for which we have no concepts.

Clearly you do have a concept for all those possibilitiesm and also concepts for the undiscovered rules that go woth them.

and the way we deal with undiscovered rules is to see if we can discover them - we are bound by them whether we know what they are or not - ancient man was bound by gravity without knowing what gravity was, and we are in exactly the same position wrt any rules we do not know about. shrug - so what?

**Mick** · October 11th, 2012, 01:41 PM

George, all you seem to be saying is that science does not yet have a perfect model of the universe. The "so what" is just that that's a given, everyone knows this. It's not "so what" as in that unknown part of science is uninteresting, in fact it's the most interesting thing possible, and discovering it all would be stupendously awesome.

**MikeC** · October 11th, 2012, 05:54 PM

Serendipitously (???) I found this today:

Content from external source:

Q And could there be natural laws which would be utilized in looking at that aspect of the definition? (the question related to whether or not natural selection and mutation are sufficient for evolution...more or less)

A: I would have thought so, yes. Of course, it doesn't necessarily— I mean, part of the excitement is we don't know all of the laws. And if we knew all of the laws, there would be no jobs for evolutionists.

The excitement of being a scientist is that a lot of the laws we don't know at the moment, but we are working towards them.

this is from page 328 or a transcript of the testimony of Dr. Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy, University of Guelph, Ontario Canada (Plaintiffs Witness) in McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project

**George B** · October 12th, 2012, 04:47 AM

Seems we deal with the unknown by speculation, theorizing, formulation, and investigation . . . expected behaviors by rational people . . . Yawn . . . my point is these speculations are extremely bizarre in concept and implication . . . when compared to other areas of investigation . . .

They are in my opinion mystical in tone and scope . . .

Content from external source:

http://www.integralscience.org/mater...terialism.html
This testimony of modern physics has striking resemblance to the testimony of the mystics. Consider, for example, the words of the Buddha:
I teach the non-existence of things because they carry no signs of inherent self-nature. It is true that in one sense they are seen and discriminated by the senses as individualized objects; but in another sense, because of the absence of any characteristic marks of self-nature, they are not seen but are only imagined. In one sense they are graspable, but in another sense, they are not graspable.11
Remarkably, both physics and mysticism teach us that the appearance of an objectively existing world independent of observation is an illusion. Moreover, they both say that even the observed world does not exist objectively with anything like the definiteness that we imagine. And this illusion of definite objective existence, they tell us, arises from our ignorance of the true nature of phenomena. Far from being incompatible with the testimony of the mystics, therefore, modern science seems to make many of the same claims as the great mystical traditions about the nature of phenomena.

**Mick** · October 12th, 2012, 05:24 AM

The difference being that physics has math to back it up

**George B** · October 12th, 2012, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by Mick

The difference being that physics has math to back it up

That is not argued . . . that math exists which models concepts and worlds unimaginable (viewable) to the average person or scientist . . . my thesis is theoretical physics with its MATH and investigative capabilities has brought science and mysticis closer than ever before and this is fascinating . . . a perplexing paradox to people like myself . . . always feeling there was a impossible divide between the two. . .

**Mick** · October 12th, 2012, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by George B

That is not argued . . . that math exists which models concepts and worlds unimaginable (viewable) to the average person or scientist . . . my thesis is theoretical physics with its MATH and investigative capabilities has brought science and mysticis closer than ever before and this is fascinating . . . a perplexing paradox to people like myself . . . always feeling there was a impossible divide between the two. . .

I strongly disagree. Mysticism is not math based at all. It's meaningless linguistically dancing. There's no comparison except at the adjective level.

**George B** · October 12th, 2012, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Mick

I strongly disagree. Mysticism is not math based at all. It's meaningless linguistically dancing. There's no comparison except at the adjective level.

If You surmised I linked math with mysticism that was not my thought at all . . . very much the opposite . . .

**George B** · October 12th, 2012, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by George B

If You surmised I linked math with mysticism that was not my thought at all . . . very much the opposite . . .

Call it coincidence, call it serendipity . . . the similarity between parallel universes, possible multi - dimensional interactions, membrane collisions, etc and alleged paranormal events is very interesting . . . the possibilities seem endless . . . it could also explain the unpredictability and lack of reproducibility of mystical experiences . . .

**Mick** · October 12th, 2012, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by George B

Call it coincidence, call it serendipity . . . the similarity between parallel universes, possible multi - dimensional interactions, membrane collisions, etc and alleged paranormal events is very interesting . . . the possibilities seem endless . . . it could also explain the unpredictability and lack of reproducibility of mystical experiences . . .

But that's like saying psychokinesis is like magnetism. It's only the same at the adjective level. It's linguistics. It's not actually the same thing at all.

**George B** · October 12th, 2012, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Mick

But that's like saying psychokinesis is like magnetism. It's only the same at the adjective level. It's linguistics. It's not actually the same thing at all.

I don't think we are disagreeing . . . I am saying theoretical physics has given scientific plausibility to some mystical imagery or scenarios (possibly misinterpretations of unfamiliar realities) . . . it does not; however, prove mysticism . . .

**Mick** · October 12th, 2012, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by George B

I don't think we are disagreeing . . . I am saying theoretical physics has given scientific plausibility to some mystical imagery or scenarios (possibly misinterpretations of unfamiliar realities) . . . it does not; however, prove mysticism . . .

Which specific mystical thing has theoretical physics given plausibility to (in some way other than sounds like a similar description, like "spooky action at a distance")?

**George B** · October 12th, 2012, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Mick

Which specific mystical thing has theoretical physics given plausibility to (in some way other than sounds like a similar description, like "spooky action at a distance")?

Since there is no proven observations of parallel universes, colliding membranes, etc. though mathematics has supported the existence of multiple dimensions . . . how they might manifest to our senses is pure speculation . . . so either we cannot detect interaction or we observe it but don't understand or misrepresent what we are experiencing . . . fertile ground for misunderstandings . . .

**George B** · October 12th, 2012, 12:36 PM

A practical question . . . since mathematics supports the existence of . . . at least 11 dimensions I believe . . . can they occupy the same space time coordinates simultaneously? If so, what would we experience if this happened?

**Mick** · October 12th, 2012, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by George B

A practical question . . . since mathematics supports the existence of . . . at least 11 dimensions I believe . . . can they occupy the same space time coordinates simultaneously? If so, what would we experience if this happened?

Mathematics places no limit on the number of dimensions, physics does. The 11 dimensions of superstring (et al) theory are rather specific, wrap your head around this:

**Jazzy** · October 12th, 2012, 03:23 PM

I'm not sure I want to imagine all that.

ALL the extra dimensions (and the quantum world itself) is behind a barrier and outside the world we experience. I really mean OUTSIDE it. Everything we experience (or imagine) is within our MEDIAN world. By its translation to our experience it has lost its quantum (and/or mystical) properties.
There is no point in ascribing some gap in our experience to either. Those gaps are going to be filled by hard research one day, when we discover the right questions to ask. So far we haven't, but that's so far.

It occurs to me to answer the post:

With great difficulty. Before something is discovered it is abstract and pretty intangible. After the discovery is made it seems ridiculous to believe that one couldn't see such an obvious thing. But in the interim confusion reigns. I don't see why this should be any different from that. We are in the interim.

**MikeC** · October 12th, 2012, 03:34 PM

Mystics have seized upon various scientific concepts such as multiple dimensions and universes. At one end of this claim is the idea that "mysticism" might act through unknown dimensions/universes/whatever. At the other end is the claim that the possible existence of all these theoretic constructs shows that "mysticism" is "real".

Both are possible I guess - but the later is not actually an argument that can be supported by fact.

And of course there is the small matter of showing that any given "mysticism" exists in the first place, and that still seems to be a hurdle too far.

So IMO mysticism and science are only being drawn closer together in the minds of mystics and their believers who desperately want their particular brand of magic or whatever to be taken seriously - and if they can link to science then they get that. Sort of like creationists really - both groups realise that science is strong and powerful and does actually achieve stuff, so they want a part of it.

Geoge I am bemused that you find "speculation, theorizing, formulation, and investigation . . . expected behaviors by rational people . . . " yawn inducing - since that is what science is, and you seem quite keen to attach mysticism to it - if it is boring then why bother?

**Jazzy** · October 12th, 2012, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by MikeC

Mystics have seized upon various scientific concepts such as multiple dimensions and universes. At one end of this claim is the idea that "mysticism" might act through unknown dimensions/universes/whatever. At the other end is the claim that the possible existence of all these theoretic constructs shows that "mysticism" is "real".
Both are possible I guess - but the latter is not actually an argument that can be supported by fact.
And of course there is the small matter of showing that any given "mysticism" exists in the first place, and that still seems to be a hurdle too far.
So IMO mysticism and science are only being drawn closer together in the minds of mystics and their believers who desperately want their particular brand of magic or whatever to be taken seriously - and if they can link to science then they get that. Sort of like creationists really - both groups realise that science is strong and powerful and does actually achieve stuff, so they want a part of it.

Exactly.

**George B** · October 13th, 2012, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by Mick

Mathematics places no limit on the number of dimensions, physics does. The 11 dimensions of superstring (et al) theory are rather specific, wrap your head around this:

Mind bending . . .

**George B** · October 13th, 2012, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Jazzy

I'm not sure I want to imagine all that.

ALL the extra dimensions (and the quantum world itself) is behind a barrier and outside the world we experience. I really mean OUTSIDE it. Everything we experience (or imagine) is within our MEDIAN world. By its translation to our experience it has lost its quantum (and/or mystical) properties.
There is no point in ascribing some gap in our experience to either. Those gaps are going to be filled by hard research one day, when we discover the right questions to ask. So far we haven't, but that's so far.

It occurs to me to answer the post:

With great difficulty. Before something is discovered it is abstract and pretty intangible. After the discovery is made it seems ridiculous to believe that one couldn't see such an obvious thing. But in the interim confusion reigns. I don't see why this should be any different from that. We are in the interim.

The interim is the issue . . . fact is stranger than fiction . . . almost anything one can imagine can be reality somewhere . . .

**George B** · October 13th, 2012, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by MikeC

Mystics have seized upon various scientific concepts such as multiple dimensions and universes. At one end of this claim is the idea that "mysticism" might act through unknown dimensions/universes/whatever. At the other end is the claim that the possible existence of all these theoretic constructs shows that "mysticism" is "real".

Both are possible I guess - but the later is not actually an argument that can be supported by fact.

And of course there is the small matter of showing that any given "mysticism" exists in the first place, and that still seems to be a hurdle too far.

So IMO mysticism and science are only being drawn closer together in the minds of mystics and their believers who desperately want their particular brand of magic or whatever to be taken seriously - and if they can link to science then they get that. Sort of like creationists really - both groups realise that science is strong and powerful and does actually achieve stuff, so they want a part of it.

Geoge I am bemused that you find "speculation, theorizing, formulation, and investigation . . . expected behaviors by rational people . . . " yawn inducing - since that is what science is, and you seem quite keen to attach mysticism to it - if it is boring then why bother?

I find it fascinating . . . there is an infinite number of scenarios . . . an infinite number of direction to speculate about . . . all types of potential life forms interacting in ways we can only imagine . . . mysticism is just one form of speculation using usually ancient forms of thinking . . . at one time it may have been the science of its day . . .

**Mick** · October 13th, 2012, 07:00 AM

The "many worlds" interpretation of quantum physics is a phrase that causes a lot of mystics to go "OMB - there are other parallel universes". The "11 dimensions" caused them to go "there are parallel dimensions".

But the "many worlds" is not just referring to a large number of worlds, like several worlds, like one where I'm president, and one where I'm superman. It's referring to all possible universes, with nothing really distinguishing them. The actual number of these "worlds" is bigger than the human mind can comprehend. Ever time a sub-atomic particle does (or has done, or will do) something then a new universe is created, and there are lot of sub-atomic particles, and they do things a lot, and there's a lot of time.

And the "11 dimensions" are not parallel universes. There are not 11 more parallel universes. That's entirely unlike what's going on.

The reality of the theory is quite complex, and very difficult for just about everyone to comprehend - so they stop at a vague model of something they to get by rolling around some of the key words in the brains - like they roll around "vibrations" and "energy".

They should really just admit they don't understanding it. But that would be no fun.

**George B** · October 13th, 2012, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Mick

The "many worlds" interpretation of quantum physics is a phrase that causes a lot of mystics to go "OMB - there are other parallel universes". The "11 dimensions" caused them to go "there are parallel dimensions".

But the "many worlds" is not just referring to a large number of worlds, like several worlds, like one where I'm president, and one where I'm superman. It's referring to all possible universes, with nothing really distinguishing them. The actual number of these "worlds" is bigger than the human mind can comprehend. Ever time a sub-atomic particle does (or has done, or will do) something then a new universe is created, and there are lot of sub-atomic particles, and they do things a lot, and there's a lot of time.

And the "11 dimensions" are not parallel universes. There are not 11 more parallel universes. That's entirely unlike what's going on.

The reality of the theory is quite complex, and very difficult for just about everyone to comprehend - so they stop at a vague model of something they to get by rolling around some of the key words in the brains - like they roll around "vibrations" and "energy".

They should really just admit they don't understanding it. But that would be no fun.

A significant question to me is . . . can we experience or observe any of these worlds or can life forms from other worlds interact with us in our universe or operational dimensions . . . ????

**Mick** · October 13th, 2012, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by George B

A significant question to me is . . . can we experience or observe any of theses worlds or can life forms from other worlds interact with us in our universe or operational dimensions . . . ????

That's basically like asking if time travel is possible. Sure it's an INTERESTING question. And it would be AMAZING if true. But there's nothing at all to indicate that it's possible.

It's really far out speculation. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not "significant" to me because it has no impact on practical reality. Far more significant is how cold my coffee is getting while I type this.

**George B** · October 13th, 2012, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Mick

That's basically like asking if time travel is possible. Sure it's an INTERESTING question. And it would be AMAZING if true. But there's nothing at all to indicate that it's possible.

It's really far out speculation. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not "significant" to me because it has no impact on practical reality. Far more significant is how cold my coffee is getting while I type this.

OK . . . Mick . . . paranormal experiences are either fantasy, deceit, or caused by explainable physical manifestations. . . I know people I trust who have experienced (visualized what people call ghosts or spirits) such . . . I tend to believe their testimony . . . dimensional interaction would be a possible explanation . . . and I think the issue is more interesting than cold coffee . . . LoL!!

**Mick** · October 13th, 2012, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by George B

OK . . . Mick . . . paranormal experiences are either fantasy, deceit, or caused by explainable physical manifestations. . . I know people I trust who have experienced (visualized what people call ghosts or spirits) such . . . I tend to believe their testimony . . . dimensional interaction would be a possible explanation . . . and I think the issue is more interesting than cold coffee . . . LoL!!

There are plenty of reasons why people might think they see ghosts, but not actually see them. Sure, trust their testimony, but consider alternative explanations.

It's like with the "orbs". Just because you can't identify something, it does not mean you should leap to the most incredible explanation.

Sleep paralysis is one example. A perfectly normal physiological phenomena (that I and my wife both occasionally suffer from, with giant spiders instead of ghosts). Yet people like to put a ghostly/demonic spin on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

This video sensationalizes it, and only starts going into the actual explanation in the last 20 seconds.