Tormod Posted April 25, 2003 Report Share Posted April 25, 2003 This is something we have discussed before in these forums. At the Scientific American website they have a feature story from their print magazine about parallell universes. Makes for great reading. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deamonstar Posted April 26, 2003 Report Share Posted April 26, 2003 that was a very good article, Tormod. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oracle Posted May 20, 2003 Report Share Posted May 20, 2003 Great article but I got a question ... Could it be possible the individual to be you yourself. For example we use how much max of 6% of our brain...where's the rest? What if the rest contains duplicates of those 6 % and you are you at the same time in a different time place maybe even the same place but like a mirror world and all of "you" are connected to the mother brain. :-(Is this too much of immature imagination ... or could I, in some insane way, be making sense to you?? The Oracle of history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted May 20, 2003 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2003 That we use just a limited amount of our brain capacity is a myth and is based on a misunderstanding. Here's a great (albeit not beautiful ) page on the subject: Do We Use Only 10% of Our Brain? The real test is of course to ask, "10% in comparison to what?". Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
administrator Posted May 21, 2003 Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 Thanks for opening my eyes, Tormod ;-) That was a very nice Article. The explanation was great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deamonstar Posted May 24, 2003 Report Share Posted May 24, 2003 we only use a small percentage of our brains for conscience thoughts. the rest is for subconscience thought and for the functions our our inner workings like heart-rate, digestion, breathing, skin growth, etc... etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oracle Posted May 24, 2003 Report Share Posted May 24, 2003 Yes, well don't they mean we use 10/100 out of our thinking capacity then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted May 25, 2003 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2003 Eva, I don't think you can look at it that way. How far can you throw a plastic football? It depends on a lot of factors, like planning, preparing the throw, throwing the ball, putting your arm down. Some of this is conscious thinking, some of it is subconscious. I would argue that it is near impossible to determine what percentage of each is involved. One reason is that there is no clear limit between what is conscious and what is not. All the time while you throw the ball you brain is doing other things. Just close your eyes for a moment, and you'll probably notice a lot of thoughts going through your head which you weren't aware of. So it's not right to say 10% of anything is used for this or that. We use all of our brain, but we use it for many different things in many different ways. I'm not saying it is absolutely wrong to think in those terms, but I would be catious when it comes to accepting "brain usage" dogmas - there are a lot of misunderstandings involved. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oracle Posted May 25, 2003 Report Share Posted May 25, 2003 The Myth Yes, I see and I also found this nice site ;-) Thanks alot, Tormod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scientist03 Posted May 31, 2003 Report Share Posted May 31, 2003 Yes, thank you Tormod that is quite interesting. I think I am going to start a topic here about th "daughter universe theory" I read about it in Discover magazine and I searched it a while ago and found an article on another forums about it... anyways from what I got from the article it is quite interesting and may be related to this topic but I think it should have it's own thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vlad tepes Posted October 15, 2003 Report Share Posted October 15, 2003 what are this parallel universeses made of? anti matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted October 15, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2003 Vlad, I think one of the consequenses of the article's view would be to assume that the parallell universes are made of the same kind of matter as our own. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 or every physical actions/choices that we take creates other "parallel dimensions". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aki Posted January 11, 2004 Report Share Posted January 11, 2004 I don't really understand the Everett's theory. Could somebody explain that to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roberto Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 In fact, Everett´s Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is not really a physical theory, it is an interpretation of QM and not the most popular. In QM, the mathematics is perfect and all the predictions based on the mathematical theory are confirmed by the experiments, but the interpretation of the mathematics is difficult. The most used interpretation is known as the Copenhagen interpretation, a probabilistic interpretation.In this interpretation, it is assumed that a system is in a state that is a combination of all possible states it can assume untill someone do a measurement, after what the system choses a state according to certain probabilities. The point is that the system wasn´t in a specific state, it really was in a mixture before the measurement. Everett´s interpretation says that the system does not chose a state, somehow all the possibilities exist in parallel universes and it just happens that we are following one of the possibilities while copies of us follow ALL the others. Well, first, it is not a real physical theory at the moment because it cannot be tested. A physical theory needs to make predictions to be tested or else it´s just an idea, not a theory. Second, the cause that it is not so popular is that it generates more problems than solves (if it really solves any): why we are following exactly this universe? Can we really accept that some choice we make creates whole universes? If there are infinite choices, infinite universes are created instantaneously. Does it make sense? You must be aware that there are a lot of alternative interpretations of QM. I can cite two at least: Bohmian Mechanics and Sum Over Histories. The only way to decide between them is to work more on it´s differences and try to make experiments to chose among them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindsmog Posted March 20, 2004 Report Share Posted March 20, 2004 Hello all thought i would just add my 2 penneth, just because we do use all our brains doesnt necessarily mean we harness the full potential of our brain! and is the brain and the mind the same? we could be using the 100% of the physical brain but using only a fraction of our minds ...probably get shot down in flames but i hate typing what i think ..lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted March 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2004 Mindsmog - welcome. And yes, you are right - when talking about the brain there is a difference between capacity and potential. Good point. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts