I don't even know what this board is for, but I signed up just to reply to this post. A lot of people are scoffing at this this idea without any thought or good argument. The original author presents a hypothesis that is worded in a new agey way, but for all intensive purposes is quite correct. While scientifically it has not been proven that dreams are more than random brain activity, there are plenty of cultures and religions that do propose that dreams are not only significant but are in fact extensions of reality, or a gateway to the spiritual world. That's not my argument however. I am not a religious person, yet I have always believed that dreams were real. However, that is purely because there is no effective difference whether the contents of dreams are "real" (to science) or not; because we perceive them. The practicality of it is that as you dream you receive sensory data from the same sensory areas that you interpret the waking world with. If you experience a dream that is real feeling, how is that not your realty at that time? Just because there is no quantifiable physical travel during sleep, does not mean that the mental construct that is yourself is not traveling. I will even take this a step further and argue that since the experience is real for the individual, and in dreams there is typically a different setting than your bedroom, then those places may be best described as other dimensions. To me dreams are exactly what the original author states. Science is great at explaining physical properties and functions in the universe, but notoriously bad at defining the human experience. It's the wrong tool for the job, and in this case is irrelevant. Hate away, I'm sure I'll never check this again!