The Universe As A Hologram?

[aener]

I am a StumbleUpon user. It's great.

I've got quite a broad range of interest boxes ticked, so I get quite a variety of things come up.

Over time, I've mostly clicked "like" on funny pictures, flash games and little music applications people made for Google's Summer of Code, so that's most often what I get back.

It was quite unusual when this came up: http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html

Or, more accurately, when THIS came up: http://www.globalone.tv/group/quantumquest/forum/topics/is-the-universe-a-holographic - though the top link is the original source.

(Well, no... but it's more original )

It's quite a read - be warned.

I'm not too sure how I feel about all that was said, though I found it thoroughly fascinating. I'd LOVE to believe it, but it just seems too far out, I think.

Would anyone care to express their thoughts/opinions?

Top link also has links within the article that link to other big reads, that back up, extend, and further confuse.

[Matt Vandart]

I would love to get into a deep and meaningful conversation about this as it is something I have been studying and theorizing about for many years since I studied quantum mechanics in university (I never finished it by the way .

However I think people may already have the perception that I am weird and I do not want to fuel their fires.

PM me if you are interested in my take on this stuff dude.

[N.Wood]

However I think people may already have the perception that I am weird and I do not want to fuel their fires.

f**k 'em.

[aener]

I would love to get into a deep and meaningful conversation about this as it is something I have been studying and theorizing about for many years since I studied quantum mechanics in university (I never finished it by the way .

However I think people may already have the perception that I am weird and I do not want to fuel their fires.

PM me if you are interested in my take on this stuff dude.

I am interested in them. It would be great if you'd post it here though, so anyone that's passively interested can also read it, but whatever if you're reluctant. PM in that case Hopefully you can inform me of further thoughts if you've studied it even a bit. Very interested, but I don't think I'd be smart enough to properly understand it. Especially when people explaining it on the net assume you have some prior advanced education in the area

[Revolver]

I predict that this thread may at some point become a science vs religion debate.

[Luke Dunstan]

I predict that this thread may at some point become a science vs religion debate.

It looks like it could evolve into that.

[1a2bcio8]

I don't really have the motivation to read much of that article today. However, I have previously read Bohm and other pieces that refer to Talbot's work.

It's certainly an interesting theory. Not least, for myself anyway, because of the parallels between it and what various mystical systems have been saying for several thousand years. The monistic principle of Brahman, or the ground of all things, from Hinduism is basically the same as what Bohm says in his "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" (a book well worth reading) which asserts duality (the condition of separately existing entities within the world) as a falsity deeply maintained through the way we conceptually or intellectually divide the world with language. Language can only function by creating imaginary dividing lines between the field of existence. The difference though between the theory of science and the assertions of mysticism is that the latter claims you can directly experience this undivided reality; you can learn to see how things as they are rather than just think about how the might be.

These mystics also often talk about of experiences of times prior to their current life alongside other very trippy powers. If this theory is true, it really does open up the possibility of things like levitation, mind reading, etc. Because if the limiting factors which inhibit those powers are realised to not actually be limiting factors but illusions and that the 'divide' which blocks access to other peoples thoughts doesn't exist, that the space between which gravity acts through isn't really there for gravity to act upon, then the possibilities for what we can do change. Not that I definitely suscribe to this theory or to such powers but I'm open to them.

And Matt, as said, f**k anyone who judges you for considering less conventional ways of thinking about the world. Anyone who does that is simply a confused fool, ignorant of the reasons for why they feel the need to judge.

[Krisboats]

You never watched starwars? It's called 'the force'

Makes sense, but at the same time it references very little in the way of evidence or supportive persons and everything it links to is contained within its own site. Also, I wish they'd stop calling it a hologram, sounds gay as f**k.

Also, it says we're all able to link into other memories, past present and future of not only our own species but other species too. Is that not effectively saying the universe is a singular event and that everyone on the planet is actually the same 'being'.

[1a2bcio8]

You never watched starwars? It's called 'the force'

Makes sense, but at the same time it references very little in the way of evidence or supportive persons and everything it links to is contained within its own site. Also, I wish they'd stop calling it a hologram, sounds gay as f**k.

Also, it says we're all able to link into other memories, past present and future of not only our own species but other species too. Is that not effectively saying the universe is a singular event and that everyone on the planet is actually the same 'being'.

It makes plenty of references? Aspect, Bohm, etc. And that's only at the top bit that I read.

What it's saying is that the universe has a sameness throughout. Everything is existing after all; therefore everything is existence whilst also having difference.

[Little Yoshi]

Also explains Da-ja-vu(sp). Intresting read. Only got about half way though. Explains how sometimes someone says something and you were thinking of the same thing.

[Krisboats]

It makes plenty of references? Aspect, Bohm, etc. And that's only at the top bit that I read.

What it's saying is that the universe has a sameness throughout. Everything is existing after all; therefore everything is existence whilst also having difference.

Sorry, i meant external references. It's going to take ages to check up on each mentioned person and read their theories etc. and i can't really be bothered. If it wasn't so self contained within it's own domain space i'd look at it a little less sceptically.

But if everything can divulge into itself like the text suggested by recalling other peoples/animals memories how can we say that we have difference if the underlying theory is we could potentially access anything/everything along any timeline? If you can access every single memory you cease to be different and in fact are a collective entity existing of one 'vision event' and several terminals (though it also says people may not exist aside from being a creation of the mind, so again in itself, singular).

[Matt Vandart]

You never watched starwars? It's called 'the force'

Makes sense, but at the same time it references very little in the way of evidence or supportive persons and everything it links to is contained within its own site. Also, I wish they'd stop calling it a hologram, sounds gay as f**k.

Also, it says we're all able to link into other memories, past present and future of not only our own species but other species too. Is that not effectively saying the universe is a singular event and that everyone on the planet is actually the same 'being'.

That is exactly it.

For instance at an atomic level we are made up of particles which are all the same.

The particles within your 'body' are the same particles that are in the air/walls/air/wall between us right now.

So even on a simple level such as that, we are all interconnected, as in we are part of a mass of 'particles' which are gathered together into what we perceive as objects.

On an even smaller level, it is pretty much established that mass and energy are the same not similar but the same thing.

Energy is essentially vibration so effectively we are vibrations in a bigger process of vibrations.

The idea of 'self' is itself a farce.

Looking up at the universe one may wonder to oneself what the f**k is 'it' all? Where does 'it' go, what is 'it' all about?

One would like to understand the universe, but to understand the universe completely is only possible if one is outside the universe looking in.

It's like phoning up work and saying that you are stuck in traffic, you are not stuck in traffic you are traffic.

You are not 'in' the universe but part of that universe, a frequency within the bigger picture of vibration.

We have a perception of vision but this too is vibration.

The biggest puzzle of it all is that considering the, space, between the particles in comparison to the size of the particles themselves which are energy at a certain frequency, it is a wonder that one does not fall through the floor which is itself very much made up of 'nothingness' also.

On Bens note about levitation. We are effectively 'levitating' anyway as the ground beneath you is part of the greater 'universe' of vibration (energy).

That isn't even half of what the potential is, there is more 'energy' holding together one of the cells in your body than many power stations out put put together, yet all it is, is a subtle difference in vibration.

This thread did not take long to turn into a religion thread because it is intrinsically involved with the whole idea.

Is that not effectively saying the universe is a singular event and that everyone on the planet is actually the same 'being'.

That being, is known as God.

[casualjoe]

I read a while ago about a theory that was quite interesting..

With God being infinitely amazing at everything, there was no point in doing anything. The only thing that seemed challenging for almighty God was.. 'To destroy Himself!'

So he took on this challenge and the result was the big bang.

Turns out it is impossible to destroy God, even by God himself, so his shattered remains are our universe. (Replace God with energy?)

Now this theory predicts that the universe and everything that makes it is turning back into one God again over the entirety of time.

With the way networking and discoveries are advancing, this story fits quite nicely and is simple enough to tell the children.

Edited December 2, 2010 by casualjoe

[1a2bcio8]

But if everything can divulge into itself like the text suggested by recalling other peoples/animals memories how can we say that we have difference if the underlying theory is we could potentially access anything/everything along any timeline? If you can access every single memory you cease to be different and in fact are a collective entity existing of one 'vision event' and several terminals (though it also says people may not exist aside from being a creation of the mind, so again in itself, singular).

It's an interesting point you make and quite valid I think. Hinduism differentiates between the ultimate being/consciousness (Brahman) and the 'individual' manifestations of that into selfs like yourself and I (Atman/s). With this position, it's like differentiating between waves of the sea as separate entities or even separate to the sea. It can be done and has utility for indicating difference but ultimately those waves aren't separate entities; they are all the same sea. Denominations of Hinduism want to say that the sea is what's really real. But difference does still exist. So there's basically a problem here.

A strain of Buddhist thought was quite critical of the Hindu stance and I think this is most pertinent to what you're saying. The Madhyamika of Nagarjuna showed that trying to conceive of absolute sameness (the monism of Hinduism) or absolute difference (duality) was, at best, very illogical. In fact he used what's called a dialectical method to show the limited ability of all conception (ideas dependent on language) to reflect the nature of reality. This involves taking extremes, in addition to monism and dualism, such as absolute free will and absolute determinism and attempting to take them to their logical closure. This leads to some silly illogical consequences that basically shows the inability of our ideas to properly grasp the condition of reality. What's especially interesting is that this philosophy doesn't take up its own position, it just knocks down any and all attempts to really understand reality in terms of ideas. What is implied though is that the condition is somewhere inbetween extremes. The label that is applied to the condition of reality is that it is empty - not to be mistaken as nihilism. What this means is that everything is devoid of essence or independent nature and, instead, everything is dependently arising; much like the waves in the sea. But they would always note that this is still saying too much and risks distorting the way we look at reality. To really understand this type of nature that we are trying to refer to requires an untainted experience of it rather than a conversation about it.

Good reasoning on your part there

Edited December 2, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[aener]

Ben and Matt, thank you.

It's nice to hear views from people who don't simply scoff at the idea.

I spoke to my tutor (Recording Technologies... Totally unrelated, but he's in to this sort of thing too) and he mentioned it's all linked in with string theory.

This was news to me - I never really looked in to string theory either, but when he explained it I guess it can't not be.

Then I got thinking... If everything we detect is an electrical signal, or vibration, and everything that we detect has a mass, which is energy, which is another vibration - can we cut out the middleman?

It'd be cool... Basically - we've currently got a circuit with a signal at one end, a transducer, through the air in it's new form, then another transducer and back in to electrical signals in the brain. I dunno, ionise all the air in the world or something I bet it'd be like Neo's vision in The Matrix.

I like the idea of the God killing himself and us being the result. That'd make us all his direct descendants. Perhaps the Big Crunch will bring about the re-birth of God!

What's the 2D surface that we are projected from on? Is it a bigger universe, and we're just a moving hologram on a billboard in their universe, and they're the same for an even deeper level universe?

Being that this universe has fractals written all over it, it seems crazy that it shouldn't extend out that way too.

I guess I just said we've made millions of teeny little static universes. Think of all those holograms on the side of old Disney movie cases. I guess our's is a bit more of a sophisticated one than those.

[Matt Vandart]

The Mass and Energy are the same vibration.

[Maladie]

Is that not effectively saying the universe is a singular event and that everyone on the planet is actually the same 'being'.

The Mass and Energy are the same vibration.

Pretty much what Bill Hicks was trying to put across when he said what is quoted in my signature.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Horndean Trials

[Matt Vandart]

Lol, Bill Hicks was a star he said many things that although put across as comedy were in fact very valid points indeed.

[Matt Vandart]

It just occurred to me that if the universe is a singularity or being that is experiencing one big event subjectively, how f**ked up is it's 'head'

[Krisboats]

It's fine, its all a load of shit.

[hI-OOPS-CAPS]

They coulda used some images for the more visual person . I've heard about the EPR paradox and maybe this experiment seems to be about it or confirm it. It's interesting to see they've used a holographic universe to come up with a solution to the problem. There must be a reason why it hasn't caught on.

[club_card]

They coulda used some images for the more visual person . I've heard about the EPR paradox and maybe this experiment seems to be about it or confirm it. It's interesting to see they've used a holographic universe to come up with a solution to the problem. There must be a reason why it hasn't caught on.

[Krisboats]

There must be a reason why it hasn't caught on.

its all a load of shit.

[1a2bcio8]

Good or potentially accurate ideas often take decades and sometimes centuries to catch on in the sense of becoming popular or common. The significance of relativity in a philosophical sense, which arose in the west early in the 20th century*, still hasn't been totally absorbed or accepted by people. Consequently we often hear arguments about what (song for example) is completely "better", "worse", etc.; ignorant of the subjectivity/contextuality (relativity) involved with using that sort of word meaningfully. We're often stuck with ideas/models that are several thousand years old which are entrenched and difficult to let go of, in place of something more accurate/helpful, for a variety of political, emotive, habitual, etc. reasons. The philosophical model that currently stops us from properly adopting relativity is Aristotilian which is a couple of thousand years old and posits essences ("good", "bad", etc.) to things (like songs) rather than recognising that those sort of values arise from the relationship between us and something else. Basically, having been used for so long, our relationship to that model is like a fish in water. It's difficult to be aware of, in the sense of reflecting on its inaccuracies and/or problems it causes, because it's so pervasive. Another example worth considering here is from the arising of the idea of "invisible lifeforms" (micro-organisms) as a cause of disease, especially with regards to infection from surgery. This idea was laughed at initially, with the doctor who suggested it losing his standing in the medical profession. This is a very common theme with new ideas that are later considered to 'accurately' describe the world or have some utility within it. I don't think it's very fair the way in which you're calling this model "shit". It makes me want to highlight these points anyway. Modesty in our views of the various ideas within the world seems to me the only sane choice once we've looked at the history of ideas. Obviously though this relates to ideas that have some coherency and intelligence behind them which the holographic universe model does.

That being said it's not exactly my favourite model for describing the nature of existence. But I still wouldn't call it "shit". I think it definitely has a merit and certainly a merit beyond anything either you or I can come up with. I prefer Nagarjuna's view that we simply can't capture the nature of reality into any conceptual scheme. Kind've makes all philosophy seem kind've pointless though

*Interestingly aspects of relativity was understood by Indian philsophers several thousand years ago.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[Krisboats]

Well i'm certainly not wrong.

Either it's completely wrong and it's a load of shit, or i'm the being that created everything and everyone, in essence what i say goes, so i'm still right