The Spiritual Dimension

[Theland]

We live in a three dimensional universe, at least, that is all we can detect with our five senses.
Mathematicians and physicists however, regard additional dimensions as a reality that we simply cannot detect in our day to day life, but to them, these additional dimensions are real.
So, if you cannot experience a spiritual dimension with the usual five windows on the world, how can you conclusively deny its existence, when you cannot experience the reality of the world of physics and mathematics?
And, is this a reasonable question?

[Whickerman]

of course it's reasonable!

Personally, i have no problem with the theory of alternate universes. In fact, there's a growing body of thought within scientific circles that they exist.

Who's denying they exist btw?

[Theland]

... but they cannot be proven. That is the excuse for denying God.

[Whickerman]

It may be some people's reason for not believing in God, but it's not the primary reason.

There are more non-christians in the world than christians. Maybe the buddhists are right? Who knows? That's where your faith comes in. It's not for me, but hey, you could be right too!

[Theland]

Hey Whickerman - You are a very reasonable person.
It has been a delight to read your posts.
You have an open mind and are courteous, I thank you.
Must go to bed now. Thank you.

[Whickerman]

Night Theland.

[jake-the-peg]

Frankly these "extra" dimensions only come out of theory.

They provide elegant solutions to problems but there is no actual evidence for them that I'm aware of.

It'd be more accurate to say many theorhetical physicists believe these to be a reality and most experimentalists say "give us a ring when you've come up with something testable".

Actually it's a very good question because it illustrates how Science really works.

Rather than the dogged carefull study of the world theoreticians often take leaps of faith all over the place and defend their position to the death whilst waiting for experimentalists to justify them or consighn their theories to oblivion.

I wonder if you can tell which side of the scientific tradition I'm on :c)

[jojojojoanne]

what if, in a hypothetical sense, you took 'away' the reality: (the additional dimensions) in the world/s of physics and mathematics, for example the two subjects existed independently without additional dimensions?

[China Doll]

What a good question!

Personally I don't know enough about the scientific side of all this alternate dimensions stuff, (I did have it explained to me once but the guy had the most monotone voice and in the end I had to go to the 'happy place' in my head so alas not a word he said sunk in). I give it as much credit as I give the idea of God. I struggle with the concept of God too.

[jojojojoanne]

what concepts are believable in any area except obvious reality if you 'take away' additional dimensions?again in physics to take the example given, if you 'take away' the additional dimensions is it just obvious reality that is left and is this basic? are the additional dimensions vital for physics?

[China Doll]

Jojo... I'd love to respond to that but I'm not entirely sure I understood it all... so please bear with me...

Are you saying that the reality we live in is the basic so anything that is a concept outside of that? (As in we can't see it, touch it, hear it etc... but believe it could exist). That being the case does the study of physics need to be a leap of faith?

If that's kind of what you're getting at then from my limited understanding of physics I would say it depends which area you're studying. I work with some physicists (strange, lovely lot!) but I'm pretty sure that their specialty isn't to do with alternate universes.

I think like God, the concept of alternate universes is just something that we can't prove. Some can talk very elegantly on either subject and can even put persuasive arguements forwards but there is no proof on either side.

I think the idea of any God is very unlikely. I also think the same of alternate universes.

[jojojojoanne]

god and 'alternate universes' are down to the individual obviously.
in a way physics could be seen as a leap of faith as you mentioned, so therefore if scientific theories are context dependant and differ and prove inconsistent or inconclusive within 'themselves' ultimately it is arguable that physics could be a leap of faith, and inconclusive too.

[Octavius]

Who is to say we are not living in a compactified spatial dimension and that if we travelled far enough out to space, that we would end up back at earth where we started? Would this mean that the spiritual and the divine is here? Maybe within us?

[China Doll]

Again, it depends on the area in physics you're studying.

Somethings like neutrons, electrons, photons etc... are so diddy (proper scientific term) that obviously we can't perceive them but we do know they exist; well I believe they do as we use them here on a daily basis. But I see what you're saying, how did we get to understand them in the first place?

I think back in the day a lot of Scientists started out as phillosophers really. Just asking the question 'why?' And I've asked in Science before as to when does something go from an idea to a fact.

Anyway, hopefully Jake will come back as he's alot more savvy on the whole physics thing than myself and can probably give you a much better answer... I seem to have just come up with more questions! ;0)

[jojojojoanne]

what about being spiritual in context?

[beryllium]

Hello.
This is an interesting piece on three and four dimensions.
Have a look at the chart of evolutional correspondence.

The fifth dimension.

http://www.sria.org/dim_evolution.htm

[jojojojoanne]

if something an area (take physics) is proven to be inconsistent and inconclusive or contradictory in ultimate question/s, then how can it be said to be conclusive and valid in other areas?(it applies in certain contexts?)

[China Doll]

Depends on what you mean by spritual I guess.

I don't believe in God and I have fairly negative thoughts on organised religion.

However I think I could probably still be called a spiritual person as I do believe in the beauty and wonder of nature and appreciate this world for what it is. I believe that we can bend our own world to what we want it to be. I guess my beliefs are sort of wiccanish (though not quite from what I understand).

I don't think you have to believe in God or be part of some religious group to be spiritual. That comes from within.

[Octavius]

That�s what I said! You can choose to believe in God, and belong to Religion, but still the spiritual comes from within. I can also appreciate the natural world and the universe. There is an inert belief on AB that as a Catholic I shouldn�t see the world in this way, as it just confounds their views and contradicts their stereotypical opinion. So they argue I am not a �true� Christian to make themselves feel redressed.

Does it matter what I call myself? It seems so in some factions. But then isn�t that kinda one-dimensional�.?

[China Doll]

Yes but you said it in twilight zone language, I had to translate!

I was raised a catholic, (refused to make my confirmation, don't want to be part of organised religion) so I see what you're saying.

As I've said before, it's choice. I don't believe in God, I think it's a load of bunkum. However, I will always defend your (and others right) to believe in whatever you choose because that's what you take comfort and peace from.

When religion spills over in to politics, my front doorstep or any form of extremism, then I'll get shirty. Other than that, live and let live says I.

[jake-the-peg]

There are about 4 different issues to the multiple dimensions thing:

1/ General Relativity : Matter warps space this is well established wonderful proofs of stars appearing to move as their light grazes the sun during a total eclipse
http://www.esa.int/images/gravitational_bendin g_l.jpg

2/ String theory : lots of different fundamental particles - where do they all come from? Some theorists explain this as tiny vibrating strings but the theory needs 11 dimensions to work? where are they? Possibly very small no experimental proof.

Multi Universes

3/ Quantum mechanics: Quite a large number of people now think that one of the better explanations of QM is the Many worlds interpretation one variety of which sees the universe constantly subdividing - No experimental proof

4/ Goldilocks problem: Why are things like the strength of gravity and the charge on an electron set the way they are? - Small changes make universes in which there'd be no matter at all - One explanation is multiple universes with random settings. Could be seen as a circular argument: No experimental proof.

So it's no wonder people get all mixed up with these because there's a lot of different ideas floating about but as yet not much scope for experiment which puts it out of the range of science and into philosophy.