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.

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.

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?

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

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

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?

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. 

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.

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

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.

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!?!!?