Parallel worlds exist and interact with our world, say physicists

[Christopher O'Brien]

[Here you go Randell: Obviously your your narrow reality view requires more than just evidence to possible nudge you off you reductive, narrow-minded, blundered, materialistic perch, so here goes, Part 1 of my assault on your self-imposed 'ivory-tower' and hole-y grail: simplistic, outmoded, conventional scientific thinking. —chris]

Parallel worlds exist and interact with our world, say physicists

Quantum mechanics, though firmly tested, is so weird and anti-intuitive that famed physicist Richard Feynman once remarked, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." Attempts to explain some of the bizarre consequences of quantum theory have led to some mind-bending ideas, such as the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation.

Now there's a new theory on the block, called the "many interacting worlds" hypothesis (MIW), and the idea is just as profound as it sounds. The theory suggests not only that parallel worlds exist, but that they interact with our world on the quantum level and are thus detectable. Though still speculative, the theory may help to finally explain some of the bizarre consequences inherent in quantum mechanics, reports RT.com.

The theory is a spinoff of the many-worlds interpretation in quantum mechanics — an idea that posits that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual, though parallel, world. One problem with the many-worlds interpretation, however, has been that it is fundamentally untestable, since observations can only be made in our world. Happenings in these proposed "parallel" worlds can thus only be imagined.

MIW, however, says otherwise. It suggests that parallel worlds can interact on the quantum level, and in fact that they do.

"The idea of parallel universes in quantum mechanics has been around since 1957," explained Howard Wiseman, a physicist at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, and one of the physicists to come up with MIW. "In the well-known ‘Many-Worlds Interpretation’, each universe branches into a bunch of new universes every time a quantum measurement is made. All possibilities are therefore realised – in some universes the dinosaur-killing asteroid missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonised by the Portuguese."

"But critics [like Randell] question the reality of these other universes, since they do not influence our universe at all," he added. "On this score, our "Many Interacting Worlds" approach is completely different, as its name implies."

Wiseman and colleagues have proposed that there exists "a universal force of repulsion between ‘nearby’ (i.e. similar) worlds, which tends to make them more dissimilar." Quantum effects can be explained by factoring in this force, they propose.

Whether or not the math holds true will be the ultimate test for this theory. Does it or does it not properly predict quantum effects mathematically? But the theory is certain to provide plenty of fodder for the imagination.

For instance, when asked about whether their theory might entail the possibility that humans could someday interact with other worlds, Wiseman said: "It's not part of our theory. But the idea of [human] interactions with other universes is no longer pure fantasy" [like Randell likes to believe]

What might your life look like if you made different choices? Maybe one day you'll be able to look into one of these alternative worlds and find out. [or summon up a UFO, or interact w/ alien intelligences that are right beside us, but I can't say this because it may get Randell's panties twisted in a wad which would lead to longwinded refutations and all the air being sucked out of another highjacked thread.] ARTICLE HERE

 

[Wade]

An interesting principle to contemplate but there is an element that i have to question. In the article Mr. Wiseman himself seems to acknowledge the skepticism out there because these universes do not influence ours at all

"But critics question the reality of these other universes, since they do not influence our universe at all," he added. "On this score, our "Many Interacting Worlds" approach is completely different, as its name implies."

Wiseman and colleagues have proposed that there exists "a universal force of repulsion between ‘nearby’ (i.e. similar) worlds, which tends to make them more dissimilar." Quantum effects can be explained by factoring in this force, they propose...."

I have to admit that i'm not quite sure what is entailed by the capacity of these universes of interacting but not inflencing with our own but if this was the case would this not be in conflict with what is called the observer efffect ( i don't think this means the heisenberg principal) which seems to be a generally accepted principal.

What i'm saying/asking is that if one were to use this as a hypothesis to explain high strangeness events as Linda did suggest a couple of weeks ago and in any high strangeness event there is usually an observation (two way) involved where the observer can influence the outcome of an event) wouldn't this in itself point out the inconsistancy of a interacting but not influencing merging of two universes ?

Boy i hope i put that in a coherent context because i am pretty sure i short circuted a couple of synopases thinking this out and i am going to have to take some time off the forum to mend.

 

[Randall]

[Here you go Randell: Obviously your your narrow reality view requires more than just evidence to possible nudge you off you reductive, narrow-minded, blundered, materialistic perch, so here goes, Part 1 of my assault on your self-imposed 'ivory-tower' and hole-y grail: simplistic, outmoded, conventional scientific thinking. —chris]

LOL One of these days you'll spell my name right. In the meantime, let's have a look at Part One:

Parallel worlds exist and interact with our world, say physicists ...

The same article also says that the theory is based on Quantum Mechanics which they claim nobody really understands and that it is highly speculative, so the theory isn't convincing as proof even for them, let alone me. However unlike afterlives, I do think that the existence of alternate universes is a logical possibility and that if the universe in the grandest sense has unlimited power and resources it could conceivably spawn unlimited alternate sub-universes, and it might be possible for bits and pieces of those universes to interact. Therefore because we're bits and pieces of the universe ourselves, it might be possible, assuming other universes actually exist, for us to interact with them whether we're high on psychedelics or not.

NOTE: Contrary to your assumption, this is not a new revelation for me. I've had this view for a long time. So it doesn't score any points in terms of changing my viewpoint, which is that even if this happens to be the case, hallucinogenic evidence isn't exactly the kind of evidence that many people ( myself included ), are going to assign much weight to unless it is accompanied by some serious objective evidence, in which case the hallucinogenic evidence isn't needed.

What might your life look like if you made different choices? Maybe one day you'll be able to look into one of these alternative worlds and find out. [or summon up a UFO, or interact w/ alien intelligences that are right beside us, but I can't say this because it may get Randell's panties twisted in a wad which would lead to longwinded refutations and all the air being sucked out of another highjacked thread.]

Actually, because alternate universes are logical possibilities, it is possible that some UFOs might originate in such a realm. You might even be surprised to learn that I started writing a sci-fi novel based on this concept some years ago. So again, your assumption is incorrect. You could avoid that by sticking to the issues rather than making assumptions about me without having sufficient information.

 

[Randall]

An interesting principle to contemplate but there is an element that i have to question. In the article Mr. Wiseman himself seems to acknowledge the skepticism out there because these universes do not influence ours at all

"But critics question the reality of these other universes, since they do not influence our universe at all," he added. "On this score, our "Many Interacting Worlds" approach is completely different, as its name implies."

Wiseman and colleagues have proposed that there exists "a universal force of repulsion between ‘nearby’ (i.e. similar) worlds, which tends to make them more dissimilar." Quantum effects can be explained by factoring in this force, they propose...."

I have to admit that i'm not quite sure what is entailed by the capacity of these universes of interacting but not inflencing with our own but if this was the case would this not be in conflict with what is called the observer efffect ( i don't think this means the heisenberg principal) which seems to be a generally accepted principal.

What i'm saying/asking is that if one were to use this as a hypothesis to explain high strangeness events as Linda did suggest a couple of weeks ago and in any high strangeness event there is usually an observation (two way) involved where the observer can influence the outcome of an event) wouldn't this in itself point out the inconsistancy of a interacting but not influencing merging of two universes ?

Boy i hope i put that in a coherent context because i am pretty sure i short circuted a couple of synopases thinking this out and i am going to have to take some time off the forum to mend.

I like the way you approach the issue. You're looking for inconsistencies that would pose a logical challenge to the validity of the theory. The observer effect is an often misunderstood concept that has been used by purveyors of consciousness woo to imply that it is consciousness itself that changes the outcome, but the actual case is that the context of the word "observation" is synonymous with the word "measure" and in many cases the measurement is done without the presence of any direct conscious observation. The other thing is that the word "quantum" is often used by purveyors of quantum woo in an attempt to give their nonsense an air of scientific legitimacy.

To secure their quantum mysticism so that nobody can question them, there is often the claim made that nobody really understands quantum theory. That might be true when all the details are factored in, but the fact is, we don't always have to know all the details to have enough information from which to form an accurate assessment of a claim, and one of the ways to demystify quantum mechanics is to just remember the underlying theme ( quanta ). Everything is about the behavior of individual bits and pieces of stuff we can detect at the subatomic level.

So turning to your post, what is being suggested is that there is some force of repulsion between non-interacting quanta, and this does seem to be self contradictory, making the concept logically inconsistent. What I suspect is being proposed is that although the quanta from other universes is not directly interacting with ours at the quantum level, it is still subject to a mysterious non-quantum force of some kind. This might be similar to the idea of gravity or magnetism. In quantum theory gravitons and virtual photons have been proposed to explain the phenomena, but neither have been objectively detected.

So on one hand, if the theory is going to be a 100% quantum, then it must assume that this mysterious force is also quantum in nature and therefore the observer effect should apply, thereby necessitating interaction on that level. On the other, if this mysterious force is not attributed to quanta, then it can do it's job meditating the separation between universes. So the question then becomes: "Well then, if it's not quanta, what the Hell is it and where does it come from?" The most logical assumption is that there is yet another universe that mediates the space that all others reside in. This is easier to imagine than it sounds if you know a but about computing.

Just think of our universe as its own separate folder, and other universes residing in their own separate folders, and quanta as the ones and zeroes tat make up the code. Normally these folders do not interact, but they can interact if the operating system facilitates that interaction. Things could conceivably be cut and pasted between universes and certain applications can be made to see the content of multiple folders without violating any logical rules or changing the content or behavior of what's going on in other universes.

Solving these types of problems using analogies to computing is one of the reasons that theories about our universe being computational constructs have become so appealing to many ( including myself ). It makes it easier to see how other universes could logically exist, and how things such as alien craft might be able to travel between them. This was the basis for the sci-fi novel I started a few years ago that I mentioned to Chris in an earlier post. To keep it all within the realm of classic sci-fi possibility I did a lot of digging around in an effort to make sense of these types of issues, so I can relate to how it can be quite a challenge to wrap ones head around it at first.

 

[Sand]

A few thoughts on Quantum Mechanics and the “Many Worlds” interpretation:

- Quantum Mechanics is the most accurate theory we have ever devised. When predictions of Quantum Mechanics are compared to observations on how the universe is actually behaving, Quantum Mechanics has proved to be flawlessly accurate. Quantum behavior at the micro level seems foreign and counter to the way we experience the world at our macro level. When Feynman says “"nobody understands quantum mechanics” he’s saying no one can understand it viewing it through the lens of our common everyday experience.

- The strangeness of Quantum behavior, as you likely know, becomes apparent at the micro level, electrons, quarks, photons, etc. As I recall, the largest observed object showing the “unusual" quantum behavior was a molecule (in a double slit experiment). As Ufology mentioned, New Age proponents often throw around the term “quantum”, lift vague concepts from Quantum Mechanics and say things like paranormal events are being initiated by an observer causing modifications in reality. Quantum theory does not prohibit a large macro object from behaving in a strange Quantum way, but it predicts that the probability of such event happening is so low that if you had been able to observe the entire Universe for the last several billion years there is little likelihood you would have seen a single such event occur anywhere in the Universe. If a person is saying that paranormal events are regularly occurring as a result of the observer, it’s not Quantum physics that is supporting this idea.

- The “Many Worlds” interpretation of Quantum theory developed out of a significant logical hole in the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. At the core of Quantum theory is the Schrodinger equation and the idea that a particle exists as a probability wave. A particle does not have a location for example, it exists only as a wave that provides the probability of being at a particular location. But if a particle is measured, it is at a certain location. The Copenhagen interpretation says that at the moment of measurement the probability wave collapses, and after the measurement it reforms and continues on. The problem is that there is no mechanism to cause the collapse of the wave, and the idea of this momentary collapse of the wave when it comes in contact with the particles of the measuring device is in direct conflict with the workings of the Schrodinger equation. So in the 1950s a physicist (Hugh Everett) worked an interpretation that dispensed with this force-fit contrivance of the wave momentarily collapsing and reforming, and took the cleaner approach of the wave not collapsing. When he worked out the details of the approach it resulted in the “Many Worlds” interpretation in which every possibility in the probability wave is realized in a different universe.

- While the “Many Worlds” interpretation avoids the contrivance of the wave collapse, it presents a new significant problem of its own. If every possibility in the probability wave is realized, what does “probability” mean? How can some outcomes be more probable and others less probable (as shown in Quantum experiments) when all take place? This is a problem that physicists have been trying to address since as far back as the “Many Worlds” originator Hugh Everett. While several possible solutions have been proposed, as far as I know there has been no consensus acceptance of any of them. The “Many Worlds” idea might seem far out and mind-boggling, but it is the probability problem that has caused the greatest reservations among physicists, along with the inability to test the theory. It will be interesting to see if the “Many Interacting Worlds” theory addresses both of these issues.

- Wade, I’m not sure I fully understand your question, but I read the article to say that in the original “Many Worlds” interpretation there was no influence between the parallel universes, so not open to be proved experimentally. But in the new “Many Interacting Worlds” theory there is an interaction between universes at the quantum level, so they could be detectable. I did not hear the Linda show. But if she was saying high strangeness events are being affected by the observer at a scale larger than the particle level, it’s not Quantum Mechanics that is supporting what she is saying.

There is a nice explanation for much of the above in the Quantum Multiverse chapter of Columbia University physicist Brian Greene’s book The Hidden Reality.

 

[Randall]

A few thoughts on Quantum Mechanics and the “Many Worlds” interpretation:

- Quantum Mechanics is the most accurate theory we have ever devised. When predictions of Quantum Mechanics are compared to observations on how the universe is actually behaving, Quantum Mechanics has proved to be flawlessly accurate. Quantum behavior at the micro level seems foreign and counter to the way we experience the world at our macro level. When Feynman says “"nobody understands quantum mechanics” he’s saying no one can understand it viewing it through the lens of our common everyday experience.

- The strangeness of Quantum behavior, as you likely know, becomes apparent at the micro level, electrons, quarks, photons, etc. As I recall, the largest observed object showing the “unusual" quantum behavior was a molecule (in a double slit experiment). As Ufology mentioned, New Age proponents often throw around the term “quantum”, lift vague concepts from Quantum Mechanics and say things like paranormal events are being initiated by an observer causing modifications in reality. Quantum theory does not prohibit a large macro object from behaving in a strange Quantum way, but it predicts that the probability of such event happening is so low that if you had been able to observe the entire Universe for the last several billion years there is little likelihood you would have seen a single such event occur anywhere in the Universe. If a person is saying that paranormal events are regularly occurring as a result of the observer, it’s not Quantum physics that is supporting this idea.

- The “Many Worlds” interpretation of Quantum theory developed out of a significant logical hole in the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. At the core of Quantum theory is the Schrodinger equation and the idea that a particle exists as a probability wave. A particle does not have a location for example, it exists only as a wave that provides the probability of being at a particular location. But if a particle is measured, it is at a certain location. The Copenhagen interpretation says that at the moment of measurement the probability wave collapses, and after the measurement it reforms and continues on. The problem is that there is no mechanism to cause the collapse of the wave, and the idea of this momentary collapse of the wave when it comes in contact with the particles of the measuring device is in direct conflict with the workings of the Schrodinger equation. So in the 1950s a physicist (Hugh Everett) worked an interpretation that dispensed with this force-fit contrivance of the wave momentarily collapsing and reforming, and took the cleaner approach of the wave not collapsing. When he worked out the details of the approach it resulted in the “Many Worlds” interpretation in which every possibility in the probability wave is realized in a different universe.

- While the “Many Worlds” interpretation avoids the contrivance of the wave collapse, it presents a new significant problem of its own. If every possibility in the probability wave is realized, what does “probability” mean? How can some outcomes be more probable and others less probable (as shown in Quantum experiments) when all take place? This is a problem that physicists have been trying to address since as far back as the “Many Worlds” originator Hugh Everett. While several possible solutions have been proposed, as far as I know there has been no consensus acceptance of any of them. The “Many Worlds” idea might seem far out and mind-boggling, but it is the probability problem that has caused the greatest reservations among physicists, along with the inability to test the theory. It will be interesting to see if the “Many Interacting Worlds” theory addresses both of these issues.

- Wade, I’m not sure I fully understand your question, but I read the article to say that in the original “Many Worlds” interpretation there was no influence between the parallel universes, so not open to be proved experimentally. But in the new “Many Interacting Worlds” theory there is an interaction between universes at the quantum level, so they could be detectable. I did not hear the Linda show. But if she was saying high strangeness events are being affected by the observer at a scale larger than the particle level, it’s not Quantum Mechanics that is supporting what she is saying.

There is a nice explanation for much of the above in the Quantum Multiverse chapter of Columbia University physicist Brian Greene’s book The Hidden Reality.

Here's something that will probably twist your brain:

Beyond the Double Slit - Quantum Eraser

Personally, I think there's something wrong with the premise behind it all, which goes back to the initial double slit experiment, but I'd need a lab and a bunch of stuff to test things out, and nobody is going to fund a non-credentialed armchair sciencey UFO buff ... ... not that I can imagine why any of that should matter in this case ... LOL.

 

[victimized]

We live in 1 world....Planet Earth as a naturally fused condition, with a naturally amassing atmosphere.

Nature exists on Earth as a self procreating species....1 world with many species living/existing in their own natural state/life in the same moment with all other information.

The human species self procreating, we only exist by adult male and female parents having sex....we live and die as a human being. We are aware that animals exist in their own Nature, their own parents exist having sex, procreating the species. All species and information exists in the same moment.

The human occultist......a human egotistical arrogant presence, unnaturally changes the natural atmospheric irradiation condition and the natural fusion of the stone of Earth.

He did so by and because of his spiritual psyche condition and his personal wants to be inventor/creator, when he lived naturally on Earth in a natural life, with a natural mind....He changed his natural mind condition by introducing the conversion of the nuclear of stone fusion.

Earth life then became irradiated as a natural cell condition, mind condition and caused the brain to believe in irradiation formed nuclear sounds that artificially manifested in a changed wavelength condition in natural life. The mind began to hallucinate in the introduced brain/mind condition attack.

Stone is naturally fused in its Nature and the atmosphere a condition naturally allowed to amass if no change is applied.

Both conditions changed on Earth and the introduction of "stone's levitation" as the ancient occult building practice used by pyramid/temple to alter the natural fused nuclear of stone to lighten the stone and lift it....then attacked natural life and irradiated the atmosphere and the atmosphere changed into the formed artificial UFO nuclear orbital condition wavelength and it attacked life.

The nuclear sound as different UFO O bodies sends images/sounds to the human mind through the introduced and received psyche condition of being chemically attacked and mind psyche changed by the differing sounds in the wavelengths. The wavelengths come to the ground to interact in the occult condition (power plants...the ancients had temples/pyramids).

The world theory imposed upon the human psyche because of and due to the actual UFO signal received by the human chemical mind as a transmitted message....hence the UFO condition is contradictory, and the human mind receiving the information is only having a personal experience with whatever UFO signal attacking their natural life as the ground receipt (nuclear power plants are at ground state).

This condition causes the human mind to believe in the imagery received by the attack to infer different worlds exist O due to the radiating signal attack, when it is an artificial cause and effect mind condition (manifested imagery and chemical changes to the mind and physical state) due to the fall out and artificial UFO signals converting the nuclear of Earth's stone.

As the ancients by historical evidence caused a huge stone "melt".....and other considerations of the fallout UFO condition such as nuking above ground (such as in India) via the ancient occult uses of levitation building practices, Earth nature had not evolved back into the natural condition it once owned as a natural spiritual life/mind/health and natural mind/brain awareness. This is a Nature healthy, without any form of disease or mutations. Due to the amount of introduced radiation due to fall out conditions the human mind has been given an unnatural mind condition and an unnatural belief.

 

[Polterwurst]

I hate to say it, but I'm actually with Ufology here, in that I think the many worlds theory is pure speculation and far from being proven (especially the interaction part). Like dark matter and dark energy it feels like a fallback position for scientists who don't want to admit that there's actually a lot of things that we don't understand and they can't explain yet. Rupert Sheldrake sums it up best for me in saying it's probably the ultimate violation of "Occam's Razor" and mainly embraced by some scientists because it takes god out of the equasion (= they don't have to think about immaterial things or "invisible forces" influencing the universe).
Of course, that's just my opinion.

 

[Waller]

Parallel worlds exist.

Duh.

 

[Polterwurst]

Duh.

Are you writing this from one or how should I interpret the interjection?

 

[Waller]

Are you writing this from one

What dimension are you in? We might be in the same one.

or how should I interpret the interjection?

Anyway that suits.

Duh.

 

[Polterwurst]

Man I love internet discussion culture. Why get into complicated explanations and compelling arguments to substantiate one's opinion when you can say it all with a simple "duh".

 

[Jeff Davis]

This subject fascinates me to no end because of the thousands of intersecting curiosities that it inspires. The actual truth is that there is ample evidence for a tremendous amount of experimentation with respect to affirming quantum principles and behaviors in macro objects. The bizarre quantum mechanical behavior of the extremely tiny building blocks of reality is only as certain, or as uncertain, as is our understanding of so much of reality's central ingredients that we use to measure it with. The understanding of time for instance is under constant revision and the manner it relates to quantum principles like superposition is so key that much of our current understanding of quantum theory is subject to almost certain even stranger degrees of revision. The age of materialism someday will be no different than the bronze age is today. A mere relic of times when the savagery of institutional ignorance was indeed the fuel of the dogmatically obstinate.

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

Man I love internet discussion culture. Why get into complicated explanations and compelling arguments to substantiate one's opinion when you can say it all with a simple "duh".

You could do that IRL, though..

 

[Jeff Davis]

I hate to say it, but I'm actually with Ufology here, in that I think the many worlds theory is pure speculation and far from being proven (especially the interaction part). Like dark matter and dark energy it feels like a fallback position for scientists who don't want to admit that there's actually a lot of things that we don't understand and they can't explain yet. Rupert Sheldrake sums it up best for me in saying it's probably the ultimate violation of "Occam's Razor" and mainly embraced by some scientists because it takes god out of the equasion (= they don't have to think about immaterial things or "invisible forces" influencing the universe).
Of course, that's just my opinion.

Pure speculation is inaccurate because there is solid science behind the theory, but "proved", no way, not in the least. But here's the thing, so what? Whether a person believes in a God being or not, how does that in any way disavow such a belief, or rather, how does that "take God out of the equation"? Sheldrake is a serious fringe scientific speculator if ever there were one. I can't state that I find his ideas any less fantastic really, just different. The inclusion of God within any nature of existence or reality would seem to be a personal matter of free will with respect to one's choice of ideologies and definitions.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Would this be part of the answer to the sleep paralysis event does our minds able to move in and out of this reality?

Also what happens when they travel through space are they really seeing what they believe?

 

[victimized]

What about the obvious condition of considering information in a factual state.

Matter/nuclear and all conditions existed in a burnt light state, with no organic life present, and nor organic life living.

How are their altered states.....they exist naturally in the natural evolution of their own processes.

The human being who believes it is the all knowing being makes ludicrous conclusions from information that they do not exist with, in or involve.

If you consider how a human mind might receive information in conditions where no organic life form exists is to understand the reality of what our life involves....an atmospheric condition that demonstrates to us all that it can record data......sound, image and transmit the information.

Therefore information pre-exists in recorded statuses that were received by the human mind, in the condition of a human mind pursuing the information.

If you consider how a human male first gained advice about science/conver SION was to ask yourselves why a human being would want to gain power when he was living a natural life.

The ancient studies of how a human male gained conscious awareness regarding sciences came from spiritual advice as Shamanic practices, being the condition of placing the mind chemicals in unnatural transmitted received information/wavelengths, by the taking of drugs.

Ancient drugs came from plant matter and plant matter precedes organic life as Nature.

When you realize how a human male first gained information for scientific evidence is to understand that he considered information in an unnatural condition, which is why the application of the sciences attacked his organic life.

Plant matter a higher irradiated condition then caused the natural spiritual human mind to gain a greater amount of irradiation and it has existed in an unnatural mind state ever since, making very incorrect reviews in the use of its unnatural conscious awareness.

 

[Randall]

I hate to say it, but I'm actually with Ufology here, in that I think the many worlds theory is pure speculation and far from being proven (especially the interaction part). Like dark matter and dark energy it feels like a fallback position for scientists who don't want to admit that there's actually a lot of things that we don't understand and they can't explain yet. Rupert Sheldrake sums it up best for me in saying it's probably the ultimate violation of "Occam's Razor" and mainly embraced by some scientists because it takes god out of the equasion (= they don't have to think about immaterial things or "invisible forces" influencing the universe).
Of course, that's just my opinion.

Actually, I think that both you and @Jeff Davis have good points. I agree with you that the many worlds model is pure speculation, but at the same time, science and speculation aren't mutually exclusive and because the Many Worlds model is based on scientific reasoning, at least it's not totally nonsensical. Jeff's comment on how God affects things depends a lot on personal ideologies and definitions is reasonable too. At the same time, there's little doubt that secular humanists in concert with science would like to see God taken out of the equation, and personally, I think they have good reason.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Would this be part of the answer to the sleep paralysis event does our minds able to move in and out of this reality?

Also what happens when they travel through space are they really seeing what they believe?

Blowfish,
Without a doubt, IMO, this is one of *thee* most critical issues in question. In fact, some of my own most potential speculations spring from this specific curiosity. I believe I understand what you are stating in the first sentence. If I am correct, you are equating the sleep paralysis state with various paranormal states or situations like alien abduction and other possible out of body states of being. Is that correct?

The answer to the second sentence's posed question is, again if I understand your line of curiosity correctly and you're not referring to dreaming in one form or another, I believe it is "real" and not the type of real associated with hypnotic confabulations. (the altered state of mind's ability to fuse it's subconscious information in a predominant ego state of external or internal self directed random suggestion)

In fact I believe it to represent an experiential state of awareness in which a unique or individual ego driven self can experience a realm of environment that is purely informational in nature. This is the realm of what I believe to be primary consciousness and it is completely without temporality. The mystics refer to this as a the akashic record. It is a hypothetical environmental negative that is parallel or equally relative to what is the positive state of existence that we experience in the material, or physical environment via secondary temporal, or cognitively relative, consciousness. There is so much more to this speculative theory that it is impossible to even begin to elucidate the hypothetically strung together nature of what I am proposing without writing a literal book.

I do feel however that it is this informational realm that will provide answers to many a paranormal pondering.

 

[Wade]

I hate to say it, but I'm actually with Ufology here, in that I think the many worlds theory is pure speculation and far from being proven (especially the interaction part). Like dark matter and dark energy it feels like a fallback position for scientists who don't want to admit that there's actually a lot of things that we don't understand and they can't explain yet. Rupert Sheldrake sums it up best for me in saying it's probably the ultimate violation of "Occam's Razor" and mainly embraced by some scientists because it takes god out of the equasion (= they don't have to think about immaterial things or "invisible forces" influencing the universe).
Of course, that's just my opinion.

Polter I know a lot of your interests tends to lean towards ghosts and hauntings and such but would you not think that a parallel world/dimension would be a good "source" for what we percieve as ghosts as opposed to our own disembodied souls (or whichever term is accepted) i think this possibility is a favored answer of Paul Eno is it not?