Reality from the view point of theists

You don't get it Frank and probably never will.
Your space exploration is a construction. What you "find there" is satisfying another construction. A frog's perceptual system only recognizes live food. It will starve to dearth when surrounded by what we see as dead insects, because the frog does not have the ability to construct the perceptual category of dead insect =food. We (frogs) may already be surrounded by aliens but will never "know" it!

I don't pretend to understand the science, but I like to think I understand the concepts, maybe Fresco can back me up on this. As I understand it, there are lots of interweaving dimensions that each occupy the same time and space. Assuming that were true, it's possible for sentient life to exist in one dimension but not the other, so therefore it should be possible for sentient life to exist, and to not exist, in the same time and place, depending on which dimension you're in.

That's part of it Izzy. After all. physicists tell us we are surrounded by "dark matter" which hypothetically could involve "dark lifeforms", but interaction between realms is ruled out.

Well I didn't imagine for a second I'd get all of it.

Beam him up Scotty he is done.

So now you're ridiculing science as well as myth, how reasoned and logical of you.

How much of the science that you were talking about are we able to use?

What difference does that make?

I would think that when you understand something very well you should be able implement it.
Are we able to use it with accuracy within any fields of study?
Is all of this scientific theory or is it fact?

To be fair to RL, a physicist's "reality" can be a layman's gobbledegook, but that's exactly what we mean by reality being contextual with "utility" as the arbiter for agreement.

NB the distnction between "working hypothesis" and "fact" is somewhat nebulous. Hence the pragmatists adage "truth is what works".

So your definition of science is something you can use? Why don't you ask a scientist? That being said, you won't understand the answer This particular problem, like a lot of things you have problems with, comes down to your limited understanding. If you were just a tiny bit smarter you'd realise how dim you really are, and not talk such rubbish.

Yes, but where I accept there are things I will never understand, he refuses to do so. It's very hard dealing with someone like that.

Aren't you meaning to use the word understand in the place of reality?

to be fair to RL, a physicist's "understanding" can be a layman's gobbledegook, but that's exactly what we mean by understanding being contextual with "utility" as the arbiter for agreement.

Not "understanding". Remember "reality" is about what to do next. The guy who knows not to stir a hot cup just out of the micro wave (his context) is only involved in the reality that "it might re-boil over". The physicist knows the more general context involving the concept of "super heated liquids" That could be his reality.

Good luck.

I do not know why the two of you are trying so hard to make reality whatever you want it to be.
It is what it is and no matter how hard we try, I do not see how we can change it. You can say that there is more than one objective reality and you can even show me some math that you think helps support your position but just as fresco pointed out earlier, "even though math can still be useful, "sometimes it's initial usage was determined incorrect.

Are you being paid by theist institutions or just what is it? What have the two of you personally encountered in your life that has demonstrated more than one reality. Have you seen God, UFO's or something concrete that makes you understand that there are other realities?

No, what's at issue here is that you don't understand something, and you do what you always do in these situations, put some weird interpretation on things that supports your own preconceptions.

I admit to not understanding the science, but at least I understand the concepts. Fresco understands the science.

You think you're so smart, because everything seems so simple, you could solve the world's problems in an instant. The reason that everything seems so simple, isn't because you're really smart, it's because you don't understand how complicated everything is.

Your question just reiterates Franks's lay concept of a fixed objective "reality".
That's fine for mundane living, but breaks down when cross contextual boundaries of culture, field of inquiry or species.

Moe's wife was a simple soul who only understood " being paid good wages".
Moe was a cutter in a clothes factory and when his friend Henry got some capital from an inheritance he approached Moe to set up on their own.
Moe discussed it with his wife who could not understand it.
"Moe" she kept saying, "who is going to pay the wages?"

Izzy I do not mean any harm at all, and I do not mean to come across as mean, but are you hoping that there is a god and that your wife went to a better place where the two of you might reunite or anything close to that?

What has that got to do with anything, other than you changing the subject?

Bringing up my dead wife is a new low for you.