I actually agree in principle that it''s likely we can't bring "stuff" from "there" to "here"--physically, in a native state.

But you run into some interesting scenarios when you look at some suggestions within areas of M-theory that seem to be explained by overlapping branes from multiple universes.  One of the theories suggests that one universe's area overlapping or colliding with our own at a shared dimensional nexus is what creates gravity in this universe--either a a leakage of exotic particles from that universe into our own or as a result of the effect on exotic particles already in our universe.

So this would be a case where the merging points of two universes can actually create unique effects not normal in one or the other or both.

Makes you think.

That relies on the the assumption that there is a space-like quality in the multi-verse itself, such that something can exist in one 'place' and something else exists in another 'place'. I find that to be a big assumption, and then there's the assumption that this other universe is similar enough to interact with ours that just happens to be close enough for such an effect? I suppose you can Anthropic all your problems away, but seeing as how the point of multiverse theory was to explain the Anthropic principle, I don't think it's likely.

Well consider it's for mod content--it has to be something we can work with.

As to dimensions and their properties--for the most part, they seem to be things unto themselves--unique with their own features.

As to universes...the sky's the limit.  Anything is possible.  Dimensions might act like a random seed generator does for fractals--producing all sorts of effects in differing universes.  Maybe even having combinational effects. The universes themselves might effect dimensions--we're all guessing.

We don't have the sensory and conceptual ability to really know what other sorts of realities there are so we have to speculate based on this one.

As to any anthropic reasoning...who's to say there aren't multiple observers in multiple realities?  Perhaps we haven't found aliens because each truly alien species lives in a self-defined reality that other observers are incapable of perceiving or interacting with.  It may also be possible in a multiple reality scenario that in the infinity of possible realities, some are capable of some cross interaction.

Nobody has the patent on knowing the right answer on this right now.  It's pretty much philosophy--which makes it great SciFi material.

like none of that makes sense. But I'm dropping it.

It's just fanciful speculations up there.

My only actual point is we aren't certain enough of our theories in these areas (the nature of realities outside our own) to really define or even limit them.  We don't know how it all works.  Just bits and pieces and guesses.

As to the perceiving and conceptualizing properties in other universes--we aren't mentally equipped for it.  It's a color we can't see.  That doesn't mean that these things don't exist and aren't directly affecting us--we would just be oblivious to the agent causing such effects.

And the anthropic speculations are just that--speculations--and they are as much akin to philosophical theories as scientific ones.

Aside from my throwing out wild ideas at the first there, what's nonsensical?

OMG teleport also in real life!! NOOOOOOOOOOO!!

Dude, man....like, try a hit of this, man, and you will see the light...

is it green light from the green star?! 

Ironically I had a dream as I woke up the other day as to how it all works.  I am afraid...very afraid.

did you turn into a fly?

Not yet--but suddenly I crave large amounts of sugar.

Here's the pseudo-science description (pardon the run on grammar--it was late).  You giving mention to anthropic theories made me put more emphasis there.

The entangled virus is sent through the rift into higher dimensional space and upon arriving is immediately transformed by the effects of the new dimension.

The extra-dimensional nature of these changes can not be duplicated in the originating dimension but the changes express effects through the entangled viri into normal space.

Such effects include the controlled distortion of gravity, space and time along with exponentially increased size and the ability to metabolize matter and antimatter as well as to direct focused bursts of energy.

While not fully understood, it appears a variety of the functions of the original virus manifest specific effects that correlate with their normal physical and biological activity. Somehow, each active function of the organism is translated into a specific function within its original universe and it suggests that the actions of it’s duplicate in the other universe are mirrored in our own while being expressed in different ways that are allowable within our own universe.

It is unclear if this is some form of resulting from an anthropic principle tied to the virus’s own perception (unlikely), a similar effect created by the perceptions of those observing it or simply the nature of the “other space”. Some circumstantial evidence suggests this possibility due to severe and bizarre psychological effects to the transformed virus in our own space--though this might also result from being perceptually exposed to properties of another dimension.

So the question is, "Who's perception" is manifesting the virus's reality? The observers in our universe, something in the other or the virus itself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

I'm actually aware of those things.  In and of itself, the theory of an underlying anthropic principle is pretty close to fringe science already and a lot of physicists really abhor the speculations within it.  It's akin to discussion of the "aether" and "planes" before the turn of the century (excluding the last one).

There are some really compelling arguments to consider such principle(s) might exist.  I think dark matter may be one of those redefining of reality moments too for us one day.

I am of course taking that near-fringe speculation and twisting it wickedly with no regard to fact to suit my own ends.  It amuses me. Your resistance is futile. 

Are you reading the same thing I am? Or are you just trying to egg me on. I do have to sleep every few weeks or so...

What the Anthropic principle is about is random laws of physics.

Let's say we build a machine that makes universes and each one it makes has completely random laws of physics. And we're interested in which ones have life in them. Well, only a very small fraction of universes can support life. Why? Well, with random laws of physics, you're sure to have ones that do all kinds of wacky things that make such things impossible. Like a universe that is nothing but a giant black hole, or cant form atoms. So, we count up those universes and it's a pretty low number.

Now, the Anthropic principle is something used to explain questions like "how did we luck out? if there's an infinite variety of ways universes can be built, how could we be lucky enough to be in one where we have all these laws that are 'just right'?". Well, that's a meaningless question. You can't exist in the universes that don't allow you to evolve there or ask such a question.

It can be extended to other things too. Such as, "Why aren't we in a solar system with a pulsar? that would suck! why did we get so lucky?!"

The law that is often brought up is electromagnetism. If it were a tiny bit stronger, atoms would be unstable. If it were a tiny bit weaker, atoms could not form. Yet, we're right in the middle. Well, clearly. Without atoms, we aren't here wondering about the strength of electromagnetism. Therefore, the question is from a flawed perspective.

This is not fringe science. It is basic reasoning. The trouble is, you can end up not asking any questions if you take it too far. "well, that's just the way it is..." is basically a summation of the principle, that's why it is distrusted. It's something like a wall science has run into, an actual limitation.

This here makes me think that you think the principle is some sort of "reality is what you create" type of comment, which is not what the principle is about. My original comment on the subject was that a multiverse makes makes such reasoning make sense: you have a ton of universes, one is bound to have the conditions for us in it.
Without a multiverse, the Anthropic principle still holds, but you just have to settle for "well we won the lottery" rather than "someone won the lottery".

I'm talking along the line of thought where some quantum physicists are theorizing that one of the prime reasons "we" are "here" is that we define what here is. This is the side of the fence that debates the observer or an observer is the reason things are the way they are.

I never sleep so maybe I crossed signals but it is fun messing with you too.

When I am coherent (I've been up 36hrs now) I'll try to provide some references.

Oh here's an easy one--right on the wikipedia.  Here's the opening line:

Note the use of the word "philosophical"--this is what rankles a lot of pure science types--even though science types are the ones proposing it.

This is one of my main science fixes each day and just happened to see this.

Pretty interesting in light of the idea of the "monster virus" I am making being in two places simultaneously.  Read it if you get a chance.

Man...I'm on a roll.  I went to shut the page and happened to catch this--which  is an experiment proposal to measure quantum effects in viruses and look for evidence of the effect of consciousness on them.  LOL--I'm so ahead of my time.

Here's a quote from the article:

You have misread the quote. The words are not in error, but your interpretation is.

Actually--you are looking at one application and side of it and I at the other.  It is incorrect in your view as you feel your side has more relevance.

This is exactly the argument going on right now between many prominent quantum physicists. I stand in good company.

Do me a favor: define philosophical.

without looking up an official definition somewhere (which i don't normally do, but figured you wanted my definition), what jumps to mind is: idea or mindset.

However, that aside, that's not the interpretation that I'm taking issue with. the word 'philosophical' in that sentence in not necessary. What I take issue with is the interpretation "conscious life causes the physical universe". The way I read it, and have understood the Anthropic Principle from numerous authors, is "conscious life can only exist/be in a compatible physical universe. if there exists conscious life, then the physical universe must be compatible with it".

As for the debates that go on about the principle, well, my view is:

And so, the debates are about the level with which you can take the principle. This is probably why the word 'philosophical' made it into the wiki entry; The principle says some questions are meaningless. Well, science doesn't like to be told that. It wants to ask whatever it wants, then come back and decide if it was relevant or not. A similar question might be "how does something look if we could see in infrared?" 

However, I digress. I originally brought up the topic of the Anthropic Principle in relation to something you had mentioned about a universe collision theory. I pointed out that the multiverse theory was put forward to explain things like the Anthropic Principle, and then it gets used in a multiverse theory. I found that kinda funny, that's all.

I understand--you just happened onto a really intersting topic (to some) in the process is all.

Philosophical in the description is quite necessary as some physicists have almost come to blows and character assassination over this.  The objection of those not liking speculations about specific anthropic principles is because they consider them pure philosophy and rather than being "science" feel that some other theorists are tacking philosophy onto theory and shouldn't be.

The more philosophical theorists claim that it isn't "just philosophy" but is a clear principle by necessity and that ignoring it is true science intimidated.

The origin theories of a multiverse have more to do with multidimensionality and principles than with the anthropic speculations which were more needed once a multiverse was allowed for to explain how such a creature could coexist with us.

well, i never said it wasn't a philosophy. I said the word was not necessary in the description. Take that word out and read it again. It doesn't really change anything. It merely points out that it is an idea or reasoning that is logical but not proven by facts (in which case it would be a 'theory', not a philosophy).

  sigh... Do you have to make a habit of writing paragraphs and then at the last second throw a couple words in to make me say WTF  was THAT!?!!?

I admit, I enjoy doing it.  However, you don't have to say that. 

The real question is, "What is my motivation for doing it?  Find the answer to that and you will have unraveled a mystery of the universe.