Time, death and the universe

[thir]

Not sure what kind of impact you're talking about here. Basically, homeopathic medicines consist of water and sugar. Unless you're a diabetic, there should be no impact at all. There's a group in England, the 10:23 group or campaign, which periodically performs a mass "suicide", in public, by overdosing on homeopathic poisons/sleeping pills. To date, every attempt has resulted in failure to suicide.

I got quite seriously ill. Stopped. After getting better, tried again, because I could not believe it could be that stuff. And it happened again. And rather later, again.

Go figure.

[thir]

What about them? They have no physical, measurable, reproducible evidence for creation. Only their holy books and wishful thinking. And even their books are contradictory and completely at odds with observable evidence. They rely on the supernatural explanation, without evidence.

Well, that was what I meant. Science aside, they still have their own version, meaning proof does not make any difference.

Or are we at cross purposes here??

[Thorne]

As I understood the theory, they meant no energy left. This is what is so weird.

That doesn't sound right. There would be no FREE (as in usable) energy left. All energy would be bound up in small particles of matter, which would require an input of energy to release, or spread out so thinly throughout the universe so as to be useless. A homeopathic universe, if you will!

[Thorne]

I got quite seriously ill. Stopped. After getting better, tried again, because I could not believe it could be that stuff. And it happened again. And rather later, again.

Go figure.

Were they pills? It could be a reaction to the filler materials. My mother-in-law couldn't take generic meds supposedly because they used lower quality filler materials, and she would have an adverse reaction. Personally, I think it was psychosomatic, but I never tried to prove that.

Since homeopathic medications are diluted to the point where there is a near zero probability of their being a single molecule of the medication remaining in the pill, there would be nothing of the active ingredient for you to react to.

[Thorne]

Well, that was what I meant. Science aside, they still have their own version, meaning proof does not make any difference.

It doesn't make any difference to them, certainly. It does make a difference to science.

The group Answers in Genesis specifically states:
"The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account."

And in their Statement of Faith they specifically state:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
So any information which contradicts the biblical account must be wrong, because the "fallible people" at AiG have declared it to be so?

[IAN 2411]

Okay I have had time to think about a few things. Now take it that I was never the brightest boy in the school and somewhere about post [20] I got lost. I am trying to figure out what homeopathy has to do with [Time Death and the Universe]. I know what homeopathy is and I cannot see where it fits with the heading, maybe I am a little thicker than I thought.

Time goes forward, IE: - an annual plant buds, an annual plant blooms, an annual plant wilts, an annual plant dies, The End. The dead plant gives energy and life to the soil, so where’s the end? Weeds grow. Reincarnation?

Time waits for no man? Is that right, or is man moving faster than time which causes him to age, deteriorate and die. The universe gets bigger by the moment, is that time moving or is it standing still and the universe is moving?

Death; if during our lives we learn as much as we can, and at the end we die. Then to realise that unless our names are linked kin to Einstein, then what is the point of it all? Am I to believe that it takes 100,000 people to be born just to find one Albert Einstein? Are the other 99,999 just bad seeds, and again what would be the point of the one good seed? I have to believe that there is a reason everyone has a brain and a mind of their own in the broader view of the universe. The universe is here, I am here and there as to be a better reason than just being one of the 99,999 that are not the super brain of the world. I have to believe that the mind and thought are there for a reason and because it is an essence it will live until it finds a young host to manipulate. Reincarnation?

Am I crazy? Possibly, but no more than those that say death is the end, and until we get there no one knows the truth.

The universe, it is expanding as we speak, maybe it is no better than a balloon and one day it will pop. But until then....

Be well IAN 2411

[ksst]

I think it would be a pretty boring world, and not functional, if we were all Albert Einstein. I mean, he was good at certain things, but there are millions of other people that are good at what they do and just as important for different reasons.

[Thorne]

I am trying to figure out what homeopathy has to do with [Time Death and the Universe]. I know what homeopathy is and I cannot see where it fits with the heading, maybe I am a little thicker than I thought.

No, it really doesn't have anything to do with it. Just another way for some people to accept what feels good rather than what's real.

Time goes forward, IE: - an annual plant buds, an annual plant blooms, an annual plant wilts, an annual plant dies, The End. The dead plant gives energy and life to the soil, so where’s the end? Weeds grow. Reincarnation?

The dead plant returns nutrients to the soil, and some stored energy, but not life. Life is made (in the form of seeds) before the death of the organism.

Time waits for no man? Is that right, or is man moving faster than time which causes him to age, deteriorate and die. The universe gets bigger by the moment, is that time moving or is it standing still and the universe is moving?

I suppose we should view time as a construct of man, a way to explain why things happen in a linear manner. Why are we born, live our lives, then die, and not the reverse? Because "time" flows in one direction only.

I have to believe that the mind and thought are there for a reason and because it is an essence it will live until it finds a young host to manipulate. Reincarnation?

As soon as you say, "I have to believe", you've stepped away from reality. What we believe may have absolutely nothing to do with how things are. People WANT to believe there's a reason for their existence, a reason that's bigger than themselves. Unfortunately, there's nothing to show that such a belief is true. Einstein was a great mind, no question. He advanced our knowledge of the universe immensely. That doesn't make him any better or worse as far as the universe is concerned. And it doesn't mean that we all have that kind of potential.

Am I crazy? Possibly, but no more than those that say death is the end, and until we get there no one knows the truth.

Crazy? No, not at all. Deluded? Not unless you allow your beliefs to interfere with your understanding of reality. And yes, until we get there, no one knows the truth. But there are a lot of conmen and shamans who want you to believe that THEY know! And what they have to say may make you FEEL better, but that doesn't make what they say true. The universe, as far as we can tell, is supremely indifferent to our existence, whether as individuals or as a species.

The universe, it is expanding as we speak, maybe it is no better than a balloon and one day it will pop. But until then....

There are billions of stars in our galaxy, and we are just starting to find out that many of them have planets. There could be thousands, even millions, of life-bearing planets in our galaxy alone. And there are billions of galaxies out there! To believe that all of this was made just to achieve us is the ultimate egoism. Humanity is a minor waypoint in the long process of evolution, and one day we will be as extinct as the dinosaurs. But the universe doesn't care. When we are gone, the universe will not miss us.

[IAN 2411]

As soon as you say, "I have to believe", you've stepped away from reality. What we believe may have absolutely nothing to do with how things are. People WANT to believe there's a reason for their existence, a reason that's bigger than themselves. Unfortunately, there's nothing to show that such a belief is true. Einstein was a great mind, no question. He advanced our knowledge of the universe immensely. That doesn't make him any better or worse as far as the universe is concerned. And it doesn't mean that we all have that kind of potential.

I have to believe that the mind and thought are there for a reason and because it is an essence it will live until it finds a young host to manipulate.

Okay, try this, we know that there are possibly things programmed in the brain at birth, IE: -breathe or die the same with all animals I would think. At that moment the brain is kick started into life with a slap on the ass, or I think these days a blast of clean air, but it is fully functioning and running. Are you trying to tell me that we are born with a thinking mind and it’s laying dormant. When a child starts to say words like dad, mum, that is not thought it is copying. When a child starts to put words together like, I want food, that is thought and the mind starting to work. We have no idea why or how that takes place, there are theories but not all theories are fact. Theories are just someone else’s thoughts, and yes some of the obvious are realised as fact. I have yet to hear a theory about how the mind and thought generate or what kick starts that.

My quote [I have to believe]. My belief is my theory, and it will remain a theory until proved fact or fiction. Fact; is the accumulation of several theories of the same content being proved correct after repeated experiments.

There are billions of stars in our galaxy, and we are just starting to find out that many of them have planets. There could be thousands, even millions, of life-bearing planets in our galaxy alone. And there are billions of galaxies out there! To believe that all of this was made just to achieve us is the ultimate egoism. Humanity is a minor waypoint in the long process of evolution, and one day we will be as extinct as the dinosaurs. But the universe doesn't care. When we are gone, the universe will not miss us.

No, you misunderstand me; I agree that the universe never evolved just to produce man or beast. Evolution will eventually take over and the human race as we know it now will disappear. There will be an intelligence of sort on earth unless man destroys himself. I was merely pointing out that with each birth the amount of learning and information stored in the brain is greater, and the question I asked was what is the point if we die and that thought and knowledge is wasted? Yes i agree that what we write down is passed on, or rather some of it that complies with the thinking of the minority of would be geniuses'.

When we are gone, the universe will not miss us.

That is your belief, or is that fact and proved to be true?

Be well IAN 2411

[ksst]

Babies are thinking way before they can make words and express thoughts that way. They communicate through eye movements and gestures. I taught both my kids sign language (baby signs) for simple things before they were able to talk. For that matter, animals are thinking although we don't always know what they are thinking.

My thought was the reason none of us remember being babies and thinking baby thoughts is that there is no language ability to hang memory hooks on. That is, as adults, part of remembering things is the ability to rehearse them in your mind using language. And since babies don't have that ability yet they don't remember things in a clear manner, just possibly as sensation and emotion.

[Thorne]

We have no idea why or how that takes place, there are theories but not all theories are fact.

If you want to be scientific about it, then there are many hypotheses about it, but none of them have accumulated enough evidence to actually qualify as a theory. Any scientific theory has been tested and tested and tested again until it has become the next best thing to fact. But scientists know that it would only take one new piece of evidence to overturn their theory, so they do not claim it to be fact.

There are many different hypotheses about how the mind works, but no really definitive theories as yet. That does not make it all right to just insert any wishful thinking you want and claim it to be just as valid as any other hypothesis. You have to have data, evidence, that what you are saying is likely. So far, I've not heard of any that supports the continuation of the mind after death.

My quote [I have to believe]. My belief is my theory, and it will remain a theory until proved fact or fiction.

Unless you can provide evidence for it, it must remain at best an unproven hypothesis, at worst a fiction.

Fact; is the accumulation of several theories of the same content being proved correct after repeated experiments.

Sorry, no. A fact is an observed phenomenon, recordable and measurable by independent sources. A fact is a data point which is used to determine the validity (or not) of an hypothesis. When an hypothesis accounts for ALL of the facts, and predicts new facts previously not known, only then does it graduate to the level of theory. One of the beauties of Newton's Theory of Gravity, for example, was that it accounted for all of the known motions of the planets, and was used to determine the existence of Neptune before it was actually observed. One of the beauties of Einstein's Theory of Relativity is that it exactly explained the one fact which, it was found, Newton's theory could NOT explain: the advance of Mercury's perihelion.

I was merely pointing out that with each birth the amount of learning and information stored in the brain is greater, and the question I asked was what is the point if we die and that thought and knowledge is wasted?

I don't understand this point. How do you mean, the stored information is greater? As near as I can find, when we are born we all have about the same information stored, and much of that is autonomic reflexes, things which are 'hard-wired' to keep us alive. Yes, there is more and more information that is available, after we are born, to fill up our brains, but we don't generally accumulate all of that information. A 17th century man, for example, would likely know how to care for a horse, how to hunt for food, how to do a myriad of things that the average man no longer does. We don't, as a rule, learn all of that information. We learn how to put gas in our cars, where to find the grocery stores, and the myriad of things we need to know to function in our world. Sure, some people will learn archaic skills, by choice. But none of that knowledge is present when we are born. And you still ask the question, "What is the point?" without showing any reason why there SHOULD be a point, other than your wishes.

That is your belief, or is that fact and proved to be true?

Let's call it an observation, based on the lack of any evidence for the universe, as an entity, having any kind of demonstrable intelligence. There's just no evidence that the death of any individual, or group, seems to have any measurable effect on the universe as a whole.

[IAN 2411]

There's just no evidence that the death of any individual, or group, seems to have any measurable effect on the universe as a whole.

To take that a little further if you like, the universe is a beautiful growing [for want of a better word] item. Human life could be compared to the bacteria on an out of date boiled egg that has been exposed to the atmosphere too long. Throw the boiled egg away, and you’ll never miss the egg and you won't think of the bacteria. The bacteria will grow somewhere else but it won't be the same. Meaning we are a by-product of the expanding universe and of no importance.

It is a very hard way of looking at life and mankind. That theory would make all that we do of no importance. The computer is an aid, it’s solid and manmade, but it is an aid for us to do what? Find the end? There has to be more to it than that, but just maybe that is what life is all about.... Believing; believing in something, believing in anything, because there is no way of knowing for certain what is ahead only death.... and we all cling on to life because of the uncertainty of what death is.

Be well Ian 2411

[ksst]

The universe is a big damn scary place. We are a bunch of bacteria clinging to an egg. I think I'll go hug a puppy.

[ksst]

And all better now, whew. You know what Cinder says (she's my old puppy)? Work hard, play hard, and enjoy your tummy rubs because tomorrow we may all die.

[MMI]

Best thread in a long time! I was gonna give up and take up an interest in bdsm or something ... but, hey, this brings me back.

So many questions, and not a single answer (except that homeopathy is bunkum). Not that anyone can really expect any, but we do, Ian, get the chance to air our views and to pick up ideas from others.

I don't have much to contribute at this stage other than to offer a few observations.

While there is no reason in physics why time cannot run in any direction, I suggest that once it starts, it can only run in one, and cannot change. But that's just an idea. It might help explain why things never grow younger, or why coffee goes cold, but does not heat up.

The ice block falling back up into the glacier ... surely gravity trumps time here? (As I make this glib suggestion, I am struck by the thought that, in order to reverse time, maybe we have to reverse physics entirely!)

The arrow of time tends towards entropy (chaos, waste). Does it? Throughout all of elapsed time so far, it seems to me the universe has evolved, not disintegrated. Maybe that will change, but will it affect the direction of time?

"Death" (and "life") is frequently, and I believe was in Brian Cox's programme, used as a metaphor for the stages of a star's existence, or that of the universe: while active, the star was passing through its lifetime, and after it ceased to exist, or became a brown dwarf/pulsar/black hole or whatever, it had "died". We all know that stars do not live, and only living things can die. On that assumption, I believe it is a mistake to link the end of life too closely with physical disintegration. It is taking the comparison (which is useful) too far.

The cause of the Big Bang/Nature abhors a vacuum: Nature is part of the physical universe and there is nothing to suggest it "predated" the Big Bang. Whatever caused the universe to come into being is/was not bound by the laws of physics - and as such is/was not prevented from being an uncaused cause, nor is/was it bound to leave demonstrable evidence of its precise nature behind in its new creation. (I say this as an atheist.)

Nothing escapes a black hole: Thorne suggests gravity can. I also seem to think that black holes can be identified by the material they eject back into space in their polar streams.

Will the universe dissipate into (virtual) cold nothingness, or can it be brought back into being somehow (e.g., by another Big Bang?). I think the current theory is that it will spread out so far that it will almost cease to exist. As I understand space and time (which might be not at all well) both would continue to expand (or elapse) indefinitely. If there were to be a second Big Bang in the space created by the first one, would there now be two times running? Would they both be bound to run in the same direction.

Will I live again? I think not. Maybe some of the atoms making up my body at the moment will be incorporated into another living being sometime, but I suspect the chances are small. If it will happen, then it will most likely happen here on Earth before our sun goes supernova (will it do that?). After that, those atoms are most likely to become part of some other star, and then another, and so on. The likelihood of any of them becoming part of another living creature is too remote to contemplate.

Why do we ask these questions? For the same reason we asked that one!

[ksst]

Best thread in a long time! I was gonna give up and take up an interest in bdsm or something ... but, hey, this brings me back.

Hey, you have to take a break from the beatings sometimes, right?

[ksst]

At dinner tonight Master postulated a new theory, new to me at least. The universe actually gets created tomorrow, and all of this stuff that we think happened will be implanted as false memories then. It's a good thing I was drinking sake or my head would hurt.


I also heard someone say that eventually the universe will start to contract again and it will all end in a Big Crunch. And not Nestles either.

[Thorne]

Meaning we are a by-product of the expanding universe and of no importance.

Meaning we have to devise our own meanings for what we do. We are important to others in our lives. I have a wife, two children, and two grandchildren. Plus a large family. Plenty of meaning for me.

It is a very hard way of looking at life and mankind. That theory would make all that we do of no importance.

No importance to whom? Some nebulous being in another plain? Who cares? All that we do is important to US! That should be enough.

The computer is an aid, it’s solid and manmade, but it is an aid for us to do what? Find the end?

Or perhaps to find the beginning. Or the middle. For whatever WE decide is important to us, in the here and now. It's all we have! Let's make sure we use it well.

There has to be more to it than that,

Why? Because you want it to be? Then use that computer, use that brain, and find the proof that there IS more to it than that. But don't just guess at it.

but just maybe that is what life is all about.... Believing; believing in something, believing in anything, because there is no way of knowing for certain what is ahead only death....

Yes, believing in something can be important. Believing in just anything sounds desperate. As for knowing what's ahead, find out. Study. Learn. Experiment. Find the truth, whatever it may be. But make sure you're prepared to learn the truth. It may not be what you expect.

and we all cling on to life because of the uncertainty of what death is.

I have found (and from many things I've read, I'm not alone in this) that shedding the religious claptrap that I was indoctrinated with has removed that fear, for the most part. Oh, sure, I sometimes wonder, I sometimes question, but I no longer have that fear that saying the wrong word, or doing the wrong thing is going to send me to some horrific punishment. I know nothing of an existence before my birth. I fully expect that I will know nothing of an existence after my death. I'll simply cease to exist. I still fear the process of dying, but the idea of death is no longer frightening.

[Thorne]

And all better now, whew. You know what Cinder says (she's my old puppy)? Work hard, play hard, and enjoy your tummy rubs because tomorrow we may all die.

Quite the doggy philosopher, your Cinder.

[Thorne]

Best thread in a long time!

I have to agree with you there.

It might help explain why things never grow younger, or why coffee goes cold, but does not heat up.

But coffee does heat up! You just have to add energy to it. Perhaps time can be reversed by the proper application of energy?

The ice block falling back up into the glacier ... surely gravity trumps time here?

Same problem as the coffee. If you apply enough energy, at the right time, you can push that ice block back onto the glacier.

The arrow of time tends towards entropy (chaos, waste). Does it? Throughout all of elapsed time so far, it seems to me the universe has evolved, not disintegrated. Maybe that will change, but will it affect the direction of time?

The law of entropy only applies in a closed system. The universe as a whole is a closed system, since it contains everything in existence. Parts of the universe temporarily reverse entropy, which is why we have life on Earth, for example, but overall, entropy rules.

Whatever caused the universe to come into being is/was not bound by the laws of physics

We don't know that, though. There could be (and probably are) physical properties which we have yet to unravel. There are many cosmologists who are speculating about how the universe could have formed, using what we know about the current universe. One, or more, of these speculations could prove to be right.

Nothing escapes a black hole: Thorne suggests gravity can. I also seem to think that black holes can be identified by the material they eject back into space in their polar streams.

That material is taken from the accretion disk of material whirling around the black hole, not from the black hole itself. But Hawking hypothesized that the black hole would give off radiation on it's own, and I believe this radiation has been detected. This is what would cause the black hole to evaporate.

Will I live again? I think not. Maybe some of the atoms making up my body at the moment will be incorporated into another living being sometime, but I suspect the chances are small.

Actually, the chances are quite large. Most of the decay of your body will be caused by the organisms both inside of you and in the ground in which you are buried. If you go the cremation route, some of your molecules will be distributed into the atmosphere, and be breathed in by many creatures. All of your waste products eventually wind up in the gut of some form of bacterial life. One thing life is good at is recycling.

If it will happen, then it will most likely happen here on Earth before our sun goes supernova (will it do that?).

No, it won't. It will eventually expand into a red giant, probably encompassing the Earth itself, before collapsing down into a white dwarf.

[Thorne]

At dinner tonight Master postulated a new theory, new to me at least. The universe actually gets created tomorrow, and all of this stuff that we think happened will be implanted as false memories then. It's a good thing I was drinking sake or my head would hurt.

Sounds a lot like Last Thursdayism

I also heard someone say that eventually the universe will start to contract again and it will all end in a Big Crunch. And not Nestles either.

There was some speculation about that during the early days of the Big Bang Theory, but current measurements show that the speed at which the universe is expanding is actually increasing, which would indicate that there will be no Big Crunch.

[ksst]

An extreme case of Last Thursdayism.

What I wonder is how can the universe actually be expanding. Like a lot of physics, this makes no sense to me. Our data comes from the red shift of distant objects, right? So what if there is some other explanation for this apparent red shift that we just haven't discovered yet? The universe may not be expanding at all.

[Thorne]

What I wonder is how can the universe actually be expanding. Like a lot of physics, this makes no sense to me. Our data comes from the red shift of distant objects, right? So what if there is some other explanation for this apparent red shift that we just haven't discovered yet? The universe may not be expanding at all.

Believe me, there's a lot of physics that doesn't make sense to me, either. There's a lot of physics that doesn't always make sense to physicists, too, which is why they keep studying it. But as for the red shift, scientists have searched for any and all possible causes of it, including gravity and dust, and they try to take all of that into account, but there is still shifting which occurs. There may, of course, be something which they haven't discovered yet, which may change their measurements, and it could show that the expansion of the universe is slowing rather than speeding up, but the expansion itself, as of right now, is pretty much solid science. A lot of the doubt comes from the discovery of "dark matter" and "dark energy", horribly named by some publicist no doubt. All it means is matter and energy which has been detected but which they have yet to learn anything about.

Even the term "Big Bang" is misleading, since it really wasn't an explosion so much as an expansion. Which is still going on.

[IAN 2411]

Now a few years back I think it was before my wife passed away, I watched a TV program, it was a documentary about time and space in the universe. One of the many things they spoke of is another dimension to the ones that we know. This was an almost double of our own universe that ran parallel to the one we are in. it was very interesting and I remember there was a great deal of well known mathematicians and scientists. The theory was that this doppelganger world was identical to a point but with things added or missing, not big things but say a difference of one person in a crow. Say you would be stood in the street with you wife and two sons, but in the doppelganger world you would still be that street but with only one son and your wife. There were a lot of reasons why they said this would be so, but at the time it was well above my head.

One of the things that stuck in my mind was that these professors of science, physics, and maths all agreed on one thing. “Ghosts” This dimension had a flaw that things seeped out into the real world [our world] as we know it. They were not specific in what seeped out but they were very sure that it did because they had done tests and found this new dimension to be very unstable. It was very interesting as I have said but as time went by I had forgotten it until now.

About twenty five years ago I was driving home from a relations, it was about 7 pm and dark. The wife was with me in the car and the headlights were on full, neither of had been drinking and nor were we tired. I came around the corner on a back lane, [This is a UK back lane about 15 feet wide]. There was a man in his forties riding a bicycle with his rear red light down near the rear wheel. He was all over the road and riding in long straight lines from the left side of the roar to the right and then he ended up in the middle of the road. I remember the wife saying “You had better slow down he’s drunk.” I did and followed him for about 200 yards, and tooted my horn but he never took any notice. Then the strangest thing happened, he disappeared right before our eyes.

Now going back to my second paragraph I am starting to think. Was this guy from that other dimension and following his own road? I am not a great believer in ghosts but I have to admit what took place that night was as real as me sitting here now.

Your thoughts

Be well Ian 2411

[Thorne]

I am not a great believer in ghosts but I have to admit what took place that night was as real as me sitting here now.

Late at night, a dark road (and if they're anything like the back roads around here it was DARK), he's riding all over the road, and you're staying back to make sure you don't hit him. Many different things could have happened, without resorting to alternate universes bleeding over into this one. Perhaps he swerved to the left while you moved to the right, and he drove off the road into a culvert without you noticing. Or he went to the side and stopped, while you weren't looking right at him. Almost anything could have happened to cause him to seem to disappear.

One thing we have to remember is that, if this other universe is mingling with ours it would have physical, measurable effects on our universe. People have been seeing ghosts from the beginning of human history, yet no one has ever been able to actually measure one. Or even capture one! I went on a "ghost" hunt once. Middle of the night, a dark field, half a dozen of us looking for ghosts. Everyone else saw them, or claimed to. All I saw was patches of mist drifting over the field. Because the weather was cold, and the air was damp. Water vapor, not ghosts.

People have a tendency to see patterns in random images, like seeing a face in the swirls of paint on a wall. When they see a vague shape, their brains tend to equate that shape with something familiar. Doesn't make what they see any less real, only brings into question their interpretation of what they saw.

[ksst]

I had a ghost experience once. Of course, it was a dog ghost. We had this dog, Baron, who used to follow me around the house and stick his nose on the back of my leg (dog my steps) as I walked. He got cancer at 3 years old and we put him down. The week after that I was walking through the basement and felt a cold wet nose on my leg, turned around and there was nothing there, my leg was not wet, just nothing. Of course, I don't believe in ghosts, but it was some trick of the brain to make me think he was there.

[IAN 2411]

Late at night, a dark road (and if they're anything like the back roads around here it was DARK), he's riding all over the road, and you're staying back to make sure you don't hit him. Many different things could have happened, without resorting to alternate universes bleeding over into this one. Perhaps he swerved to the left while you moved to the right, and he drove off the road into a culvert without you noticing. Or he went to the side and stopped, while you weren't looking right at him. Almost anything could have happened to cause him to seem to disappear.

1/ that road was dead straight with a twelve foot laurel hedge either side running for about three miles. No gates, no houses, no roads. I am talking of a country road not the back streets of New York. I drove that road the following morning and I know the latter to be true. I have driven that road three times a week for 30 years and it has never changed.
2/ the man was no more than ten feet in front of me.
3/ I was travelling 3-5 mph...I could have walked faster. I stopped the car an got out, nothing and with the car headlights I could see nothing ahead.
4/ 7pm is not late at night, its early evening and been dark for about two hours.

One thing we have to remember is that, if this other universe is mingling with ours it would have physical, measurable effects on our universe.

Why, because you say that or you don’t believe it could be so. You have no knowledge of tests that have been done or what they were about, but you can rubbish their findings out of hand? I would also like to point out that if a phantom of another universe mingled with ours and you saw the phantom, then I would think that it is affecting our universe. You amaze me Thorne, you can believe a load of theories that you read about, but something that you have not or it does not comply with your thinking, then you rubbish out of hand as a load of twaddle.

People have been seeing ghosts from the beginning of human history, yet no one has ever been able to actually measure one. Or even capture one! I went on a "ghost" hunt once. Middle of the night, a dark field, half a dozen of us looking for ghosts. Everyone else saw them, or claimed to. All I saw was patches of mist drifting over the field. Because the weather was cold, and the air was damp. Water vapor, not ghosts.

People have a tendency to see patterns in random images, like seeing a face in the swirls of paint on a wall. When they see a vague shape, their brains tend to equate that shape with something familiar. Doesn't make what they see any less real, only brings into question their interpretation of what they saw.

I never said I saw a ghost, I said my wife and I saw something that we could not explain. We never told anyone about that night although years later while sitting in the lounge I brought it up a few times.

Just because you went on a ghost hunt and got cold and saw a few vapours you assume that seeing something like the wife and I saw is not possible. I was not looking for ghosts and it is you that is saying I saw a ghost. To go on a ghost hunt is in my mind lunacy anyway, what the hell were you looking for in a field? Ghost rabbits...whooo spooki, Brings to mind the start of Watership Down.

I have just thought of something else these guys said, not a sound echo but a visual echo. Yes, it’s even harder to believe than ghosts, but we know very little about the world we live in and even less about the makeup of the universe. I have an open mind and until a thing is proved with no shadow of a doubt I will remain sceptical.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

I would also like to point out that if a phantom of another universe mingled with ours and you saw the phantom, then I would think that it is affecting our universe.

That was my point as well. If you can actually see it, you should be able to photograph, or measure, or get some kind of data from it, since it's interacting with our reality.

I'm not denying that you saw something, and I obviously cannot explain what you saw or how you saw it. I'm only saying that jumping to the conclusion that was some kind of supernatural event or strange mingling of parallel universes or something should probably be at the very bottom of your list of explanations, barring any real evidence.

You amaze me Thorne, you can believe a load of theories that you read about, but something that you have not or it does not comply with your thinking, then you rubbish out of hand as a load of twaddle.

Not my intention at all. True, I probably didn't see the program you mentioned, but I have read about alternate/parallel universes, and while there may not be any laws of physics that prohibit them from existing, there is also no evidence that they do in fact exist. Speculation, even when done by reputable scientists, is still nothing more than guesswork.

Just because you went on a ghost hunt and got cold and saw a few vapours you assume that seeing something like the wife and I saw is not possible. I was not looking for ghosts and it is you that is saying I saw a ghost.

Sorry, just using the term "ghost" as shorthand. And I'm not assuming what you saw isn't possible, just that it's not likely to be explainable by invoking the idea of a parallel universe, at least until other, more mundane, explanations have been exhausted. I believe that you saw what you say you saw, I'm just not willing to accept the idea that it was some kind of mingling of universes without exhausting all other explanations first.

To go on a ghost hunt is in my mind lunacy anyway, what the hell were you looking for in a field?

LOL. We were young, at a party with family, someone said they had seen ghosts at this old field before, so we bundled up and went. Walking through a dark field, moonlight reflecting off of the dew, keeping my girl warm. Best ghost hunt I ever had.

I have just thought of something else these guys said, not a sound echo but a visual echo. Yes, it’s even harder to believe than ghosts,

Actually, that's easier to believe. I have heard of some weird reflection events where lights seem to appear where there should not be any lights. A visual echo, if you will. I don't recall ever hearing of an echo like what you described, but I suppose it might be possible. Again, I would find that easier to accept, given our current knowledge of this universe, than that we are bumping uglies with some other universe.

I have an open mind and until a thing is proved with no shadow of a doubt I will remain sceptical.

Then you must remain skeptical. NOTHING can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. We can only accumulate evidence to show that something is very likely to be true, or not. And it is impossible to prove that something does NOT exist. You can show all the negative evidence that, for example, there are no unicorns, but all that evidence wouldn't mean a thing if you turned the next corner and bumped into one. But if you don't get some hair samples, or capture the thing, or maybe get some pictures, along with a lot of corroborating evidence, I'm still going to question whether you actually saw what you think you saw.

I try to keep an open mind as well. I just don't let any old explanation fall in unless there's good evidence for it.

[denuseri]

One thing we have to remember is that, if this other universe is mingling with ours it would have physical, measurable effects on our universe. People have been seeing ghosts from the beginning of human history, yet no one has ever been able to actually measure one. Or even capture one! I went on a "ghost" hunt once. Middle of the night, a dark field, half a dozen of us looking for ghosts. Everyone else saw them, or claimed to. All I saw was patches of mist drifting over the field. Because the weather was cold, and the air was damp. Water vapor, not ghosts.

Actually seeing these things is a form of measurement.

If what's being seen is from some weird kind of quantum entanglement between so called potentially parallel universes (which as I understand the main related theory means it's not so much "parallel" as dimensions warped up inside the space in between our own on the Plank scale) ...then it makes sense that the phenomena isn't fully recordable via normal means.

Furthermore: If it's been happening through out human history...then one can conclude that:

A) It is just what people seem to think it is IE the supernatural etc (which also means our understanding of physics is still a lil off since it needs to include the study of such things in more than just a fringe way..

B) It's a naturally occurring phenomena of the physical world and we humans are categorically misinterpreting what we are seeing or hearing etc and we just haven't figured out a way to substantially "measure" events....(or the act of attempted measurement is changing the results just like it does in the famous split screen experiments).

C) It's a relatively uncommon yet natural occurring element of human experience to "see ghosts" or at least "think one has" on occasion.

D) Some combination of the above with or without adding other unknown factors or postulations.

[ksst]

Actually seeing is not always reliable, or feeling. Hallucinations, for example. Reading a book on the brain, some of those by Oliver Sacks are really good, can make you doubt your ability to experience reality as something really real. Everything passes through our brain filter, and sometimes gets a little distorted, even for people who entirely sane and with normal brains.