There are many theories that call for multiple dimensions in physics.
Could it be possible that there is a dimension that contains, like a “life giving” force or pure consciousness?
Like when we die our bodies IMMEDIATELY start to decompose. It seems as if there is some type of “force” that hold together our bodies and consciousness; then vacates the body leading to the immediate breakdown of our physical bodies. Even if kept “alive” from a respirator or other artificial means, there is no “mind” function. And w/o the mind we are not really different than a machine powered by electricity, IMO.
(If you are thinking computers, I would say they have no awareness and as of yet there are no quantum computers or anything that can even compare to the complex thought process that our brain is capable of. Plus our mind seems more than just a “thinking machine”)
I am not religious or even necessarily believe in an afterlife. But “life” does seem so……”different” than everything else in the known universe.
I know that ANYTHING is “possible” in an infinite universe with multiple dimensions. I suppose what I am asking is, “Do YOU believe this is plausible?”
And, do you know of any credible physicist/scientist who has made such a suggestion?

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.” (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming”. (4)
Paul Davies: “The laws [of physics] … seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose”. (5)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” (6)
John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA): “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency – or, rather, Agency – must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” (8)
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.” (9)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): “I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.” (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.” (12)
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.” (13)
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (14)
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): “Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.” (15)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” (16)
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”(17)
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one…. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.” (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): “As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].” (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): “Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.” (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): “This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.” (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” (22)
Henry “Fritz” Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): “The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) “Life in Universe – rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique.” (25)
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” (26)

What does this mean in simple terms?
(1) How can freedom and necessity coexist in the same action? By freedom Kant means the power to spontaneously initiate causal series or to be independent of natural (psychological, physiological, environmental) causes or laws. Necessity means being subject to the uniformity of cause and effect, of acting according to natural laws. All effects in nature (as phenomena) precede necessarily (a requirement of the understanding) from causes, and all causes are the effects of preceding causes. Thus, the ideas of freedom and necessity appear to be true opposites, and it seems an impossible task to bring them together in the same action.
So this would appear, especially with regard to the dynamic psychological field previously described. We lie within a field of forces and causal relations following psychophysical laws, the uniformity of which16 has been a basic presupposition of The Dynamic Psychological Field. It would appear then, that our perspectives and actions are necessary, that they are the effects or dependencies of our motives, sentiments, roles, temperaments, abilities, moods, states, expectations, and our situation–in short, that our behavior follows from our character or personality, our bodily conditions, and our natural environment. Even posing a superego, whose content springs from our culture, and a self-sentiment, seems not to relieve us of this necessity, for the superego’s moral dictates and the self’s future-oriented, superordinate striving for increasing self-actualization or esteem seems to place us under masters no less dictatorial than the natural laws governing the flight of an airplane.17
Although I may be emphasizing the necessity of our actions beyond contemporary tastes, our bondage to psychophysical. laws, causes, influences, relationships, agents, determinants, antecedents, and the like is a basic presupposition of much contemporary social science, psychology, and political thought. Need I mention behaviorism, Freudianism, or Marxism? At any rate, there is certainly a problem here. If our actions are as determined as many presuppose, then is freedom impossible? If, as I describe it, the self is part of a dynamic field, can we really create our future? Kant’s question is clearly mine as well.
(2) Causality belongs to appearances. The world of experience, of empirical knowledge, is of appearances (phenomena). This is a plane of knowing which, at best, can give us only sensual representations of things-in-themselves. Now causality is of this empirical world, as a presupposition of and a rule for understanding phenomena, and uniformity (same cause, same effect) is the embodiment of these observed causal relationships in natural laws. All that happens as phenomena, all that we are sensually aware of, are but continuations of causal series in time.
Kant’s notions of causality and natural laws were written at a time when the Newtonian system of nature had captured philosopher’s minds, including Kant’s. Newton’s success in subsuming so much of physical nature under uniform causal laws provided the paradigm for understanding empirical necessity. The existence and status of causal laws is a controversial question in contemporary science, however. With the growth of a statistical view of nature, the development of positivism in some of its more extreme philosophical schools, the relativization of time and space by Einstein,18 and the discovery of quantum indeterminism, philosophers have come to seriously question causal interpretations Of nature and assumptions of any necessity.
In the light of such developments and consonant with the view of The Dynamic Psychological Field, Kant can be revised in the following way without seriously weakening his argument. Causality is of the world of appearances, but the world of appearances contains relationships other than causal ones. Cause and effect do help to order phenomena and constitute some laws. Sensual nature also includes, however, dependencies of a kind different from causality;19 the uniformity of nature under laws involves more varied kinds of relationships than Kant thought possible.
(3) Underlying all phenomena are things-in-themselves. Phenomena are but empirical representations of a reality unknowable to our understanding. This view is close to my position here. In my terms, empirical reality comprises the actualization of underlying potentialities, the transformation of these potentials of things-in-themselves into determinables, dispositions, powers, and manifestations. There are the planes of perceivable actuality and of indeterminate potentiality. In Kant’s perspective and my own, then, empirical causality is confined to sensual actuality; our scientific laws and empirical knowledge apply to this plane and not to the underlying reality.
(4) Things-in-themselves may produce empirical causality as effects.20 Although things-in-themselves are empirically unknowable to our under

I’ve read enough that I’m intrigued. And I do think it’s possible. Could be he mastered the power of the mind or something. Maybe i’ve been reading too many quantum physics books lately..

Ok I asked a question about the universe & the secret & I didn’t get to pick a best answer because I no longer have yahoo at work & don’t yet have internet at home so I rarely get to use answers anymore… Anyway, I am disappointed with the best answer that was chosen since it went on at length about atheism, satanism & God knows what & I disagree with it completely!!!
For the record, I’m a Catholic. I believe in God & Jesus and I love them. I don’t think that spirituality has to be narrow-minded and limiting. If I refer to the universe, the secret, quantum physics or our own personal power it doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in God!
The bottom line is that there is something greater than us. There is a powerful force, an energy from which we came, an energy that is within us & when we tap into it, miracles happen. God is a word that represents a divine being, you could substitute the word nature, energy, universe, love & I don’t think God would be offended! Just my opinion!

Are there any know studies about true (and measurable) psychic powers…ei fortune telling, palm reading, etc and how they may enlighten us about time travel?
If our minds are fundamental quantum machines…..and there really isn’t any reason time should have a forward, linear direction (no known laws confining it as such), what can glean from those with ESP?

This is an amazing movie about quantum physics and the power of people’s minds. It may sound boring but its really not. I INSIST you watch this movie. you’ll be glad you did! they call this movie the Secret because not many people know but its basically the secret to being happy and having the life that you want…..and if you have seen it, well tell everyone! if you guys think its impossible, watch the movie, i guarentee it’ll change your mind
here’s the linkhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=…

This is an amazing movie about quantum physics and the power of people’s minds. It may sound boring but its really not. I INSIST you watch this movie. you’ll be glad you did! they call this movie the Secret because not many people know but its basically the secret to being happy and having the life that you want…..and if you have seen it, well tell everyone! if you guys think its impossible, watch the movie, i guarentee it’ll change your mind
here’s the linkhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=…

This is an amazing movie about quantum physics and the power of people’s minds. It may sound boring but its really not. I INSIST you watch this movie. you’ll be glad you did! they call this movie the Secret because not many people know but its basically the secret to being happy and having the life that you want…..and if you have seen it, well tell everyone! if you guys think its impossible, watch the movie, i guarentee it’ll change your mind
here’s the linkhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=…

Is your mind more powerful than the laws of physics?
If not, then you have no free will.
Asserting that one’s brain has independent power over one’s actions is asserting that the brain is more powerful than the fundamental laws of physics that govern it. Everything that occurs in the universe is determined by the fundamental interactions between subatomic particles; your mind as a whole does not actually have any independent control over anything at all.
Free will does not exist.
Therefore, one has no personal control over whether one gets into heaven or hell. For God to create your body and soul and then to punish your soul for the actions of your body is like an engineer building a straight train track, putting a train on it, telling the train to turn, and when it doesn’t, getting infuriated and dropping a nuclear bomb on it.
That doesn’t sound very benevolent, or even rational.
Discuss.
————————————–…
At the same time, you have no free will to come here or leave here. I have no free will to choose to be Christian, I just am. It was determined before the world began. This means you own effort in trying to undermine my faith is futile. Now who is the irrational one who tries to convince people who have no choice as to what they believe (by your own argument) that they should believe something else. Aren’t you being irrational?
Me: My mind is not being irrational, in that it is attempting to spread its beliefs, which is perfectly natural and rational. However, what my mind does is not really under my control; it’s under the control of the laws of physics.
————————————–…
Free will is not an all nothing situation. While we may not over-ride the laws of physics, we do have the power to make decisions and choices each and every day that affect our lives and the lives of others. Decisions that interact with the laws of physics and influence outcomes.
We have some free will, so to speak.
Me: But the decisions that your brain ultimately makes are ultimately determined not by your soul or anything you have control over; your decisions are controlled ultimately just by the laws of physics, just as your brain has to completely obey the laws of physics.
————————————-
The laws of physics do NOT affect every action and thought of a person. Those laws are limited to physics. They have no say over a person’s thoughts, feelings, or actions arising from said thoughts or feelings, provided that said actions themselves don’t violate the laws of physics.
Me: Wow, so you are asserting that your brain actually DOES have superiority over the laws of physics. That is impossible. The laws of reality control reality; your brain is a part of reality; what your brain does is governed by the laws of reality, and not by any independent internal mechanism. Why don’t you go study some philosophy and science yourself?
————————————–…
How many times has science changed it’s mind about the nature of existence and how we should live our lives? How many times have our scientific pronouncements been found faulty. Science, like all religions (and I use the word religion to mean a basis for a way of life), provides great tools for getting through this life and is an interesting way of looking at the world, but even they can not truly know the Unknowable.
Me: Science does not say how one should live one’s life. That is the realm of ethics. But science has NOT changed its mind that there are laws that govern reality; that is what the science studies. Again, please show me how your mind is stronger than the laws of reality.
——————–
According to developments in Quantum Mechanics, not only do the Laws of Physics give the human consciousness the greatest power of all (See Schroedinger’s Cat, the EPN Thought-experiments, and Airey Pattern Tests), but this greatest power of all is the trumpcard against Reality. The Laws don’t govern your world FOR you, they govern the fact that the world submits to YOUR governance of it.
Me: Go read what I said about the many-worlds hypothesis again. I already refuted your argument.
———————————–
What we do know about emergent functions, however, is that they’re generally unpredictable by anything other than direct observation (as in, you can only see what they’re going to do by letting them do it, you can’t predict anything accurately beforehand). In other words, claiming determinism by invoking the laws of physics is unproven and still very much up for debate.
Me: I did not claim determinism. Read what I said about the many-worlds hypothesis. Reality may not be determinable; it may very well be random. But that still means that your mind does not ultimately have control over anything.