funkyderek,
How would you know that it is not likely? Would you care to put a probablity on it?
I certainly can't put a numerical probability on the existence of "hyper-dimensional life". However, the probability... is vanishingly small.
It was not my intention to sound dogmatic. In an infinite universe (or multiverse) anything that can be imagined and can't be disproved must be assigned a non-zero probability. But the theories being discussed don't easily lead to the conclusions postulated.
Actually, what has been discussed has not even been theory but imaginative speculation. Progress in knowledge starts when we brainstorm the possibilities, even if they are "far out." To automatically dismiss unusual ideas is a sure way to stay mired in our current understanding of things. Sometimes we have to temporarily suspend our disbelief and preconceived ideas so as to recognize the possible. Groupthink pervades some scientific circles as well as religious ones.
If you are refferring to biological life your statement would make sense, since these dimensions are far smaller than organic molecules. But what if life can also be arranged in a completely different manner, one that is wholly unlike anything that we can presently imagine.
I thought the term "life" was being used in some real sense. If you're expanding it to include things "unlike anything that we can presently imagine" then, of course, all bets are off. If your definitions are suitably vague, anything you want can be true.
And if your conclusions are already formed anything you don't want to be true won't be possible.
OK, what I should have said is that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no reason to believe this to be the case, nor is there any evidence for it, nor is it possible under the rules of any useful theory nor is it considered likely by experts in the field. Perhaps I should add this caveat to everything I say.
No, just to unsubstantiated dogmatic claims.
The fact of the matter is that there is so much we simply to not understand and it would be the height of arrogance to proclaim as reality that which is only speculation as well as dismiss as unreal what is only imaginatively hypothetical.
Agreed, but that does not mean giving the same weight to completely fanciful constructs as to theoretically plausible scenarios
Who said I, or anyone else, gives the "angels in other dimensions" idea the same weight as established scientific fact? Nonetheless, to automatically discount the idea, or even a small part of the idea, as silly or dumb, which you insinuate, is not good.
Science is, and should be, a conservative enterprise, but it is interesting to note that many of the great advances in our knowledge have come from those who pushed the boundaries of what is "proper" science. Not too long ago anyone who might have described subatomic reality the way modern quantum physicists do would have been laughed at with derision and been proclaimed a believer in the occult.
It is, of course, important to remember that nobody just woke up one day and decided to invent quantum physics. There were leaps of imagination, certainly, but anything without a strong theoretical basis would have been given short shrift; and without evidence would have been rejected. The evidence supporting quantum theory is so strong, however, that despite its apparent paradoxes and the difficulties the human brain has grasping it, it is universally accepted.
And it is important to remember that some scientific ideas have been bitterly opposed, even with full knowledge of the data supporting the idea. Einstein never liked, or believed in, quantum physics; his famous phrase, "God does not play dice" comes from this fact. Lynn Margulis's endosymbiotic theory in biology was laughed at by numerous people, and only years later was accepted by the scientific establishment. There are countless other examples that could be given. For an excellent essay on some of the inherent difficulties in the scientific establishment see Thomas Kuhn's
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
A hundred years from now people will be rather amused at what we believe is not possible.
And most likely, at what we believe is possible. They will probably laugh heartily at those who tried to combine quantum physics with eastern mysticism and those who misuse words like "force" "energy" and "dimension" to lend support to their pet theories.
So we're at a toss up then. They'll laugh at Deepak Chopra and Richard Dawkins. Wonderful! Bradley