Uh... I dunno, but I seriously doubt it.



I think it is completely illogical when one rejects many knowns in science which happen to lend direct support to other new ideas and hypothesis which are subsequently believed...

The multiple universe is impossible... it defies simple math. Seeing how so much of what we do know does not defy this, I believe it is safe to say that the multiple universe/worlds interpretation is wrong especially when considering large scales.

Well I wouldn't know about how you think it defies simple math. Would you care to demonstrate how?

And yes, I believe Einstein said there were at least 10 dimensions. I believe there are more.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/dimensions.html

Uh... I do not believe that Einstein promoted string theory!

Gimme a minute for the math issue...

The many worlds interpretation says that there exists an infinite amount of everything. Infinite 'clones' of me who do something different than what I do here in this world every time there exists a possibility for another outcome either by a choice and or act of random chance.

This is just one interpretation of QM that has caught the imagination of many who like this parallel thinking. It is impossible for several reasons...

The universe is not infinitely divisible(small)... nothing is. Therefore, nothing can be infinitely multiplied(large) either.

What scientific proof do you have of that statement?

Since scientists have never actually found any measurable structure (like a particle,) I don't know how you can make a statement like that.

Also, science has been ignoring infinity forever because it just does not work with their math.

I think you are wrong. I think existence itself is both infinitely small and large.

Ok...



What is the answer to any number divided an infinite amount of times?

You call that scientific proof?

Numbers are not things and zero does not exist.

I will create abundance this week!

Good morning Sal!

Because of the flaw in our numeric system, scientists have to simply ignore the fact of infinity because it does not compute. Therefore they have forever quantified everything. They have drawn their own lines in the sand around their finite universe so their mathematic equations would work better. Still, there are problems. Still they ignore the infinite nature of the universe.

Do you always measure the relevence of information which contradicts your belief construct in a completely different fashion than that which supports it?



Where is scientific proof, or logical for that matter, for anything that you claim, because if that is the only thing which constitutes warrant to believe you are acting on that which you cannot offer yourself.You are on of the guiltiest people that I have ever met for projecting your own argument's weaknesses onto another's argument.

Do you realize that I often ignore the opportunity to reflect your own inherent mental dilemmas back to you? You accuse others of what you, yourself are guilty of, in argumental substance and personal assumption. Clear as glass.

I want to say that I am going to continue to create a beautiful piece
of furniture today!

What I say is perfectly logical. These are not strictly my ideas. Like you or anyone, I can find hundreds of experts and authorities to back up the things I say and believe. But I am not here to educate or convince you of anything, I am just expressing myself and what I believe.

Zero does not exist. Nothing does not exist. I don't think I need scientific proof of that statement.

That science quantifies everything, setting their own limits need not be backed up either. It is obvious fact. That is what they do.

They define boundaries, they measure things. They put everything into their finite little box so they can study it. They reject and totally ignore the infinite nature of the universe, just as you do.

It is because the human mind can't easily grasp the concept of infinity and you can't put infinity inside of a finite universe.

What is so funny, like a scientist, you demand measurable finite proof of a statement that does not fit inside of a finite universe. That is illogical.

Here is a claim...



Can this be demonstrated?

This is a problem, you think authority somehow makes a stance logical.

It does not, this is called Fallacy from authority.

You use authorities too, so that does not make you any different.

I suppose you think your authorities are bigger and better than mine.

Are we going to get into another long drawn out subject on logic?

I don't think I care to do that.

Wrong. I do not use authorities, I use sources.

These sources can be tested and you can do that yourself. They list there methods for you to do just that.

This distinction is important if you are ever to understand what science is . . .

Billy, there are no "sources" that do not have authorities behind them. The bottom line is, they can all be traced to universities, or people who agree on the evidence and data.

Yes, some of it can be tested, some of it cannot because it is beyond the average person.

But even if the average person tested it, and found it inaccurate or wrong, they could be ignored by the "authorities" who would just believe that the test was not done properly.

But I do know what you are talking about and each case has to be taken individually or you are left with trusting the testers or authorities.

The difference is in stopping the inquiry at well becuase so and so said so.

As long as you do not stop there its not fallacy.