But since the stuff out of which the apparent material universe is made isn't material, it's not really a material universe that we inhabit, it just looks like that from our point of view (mostly).
Quantum holographics.
- Thread starter xes
- Start date
But since the stuff out of which the apparent material universe is made isn't material, it's not really a material universe that we inhabit, it just looks like that from our point of view (mostly).
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Tedious semantics. If something can act on the physiology of the human body - by blocking pain, by altering the reproduction cycle of cancer cells or stopping T-cell counts going down - it will be measurable, testable and repeatable. I would put money on every one of these case studies being unrepeatable, unverfiable and untestable.
It's like reiki or faith healing. For those it works on great, but I've had reiki done and it did nothing, so a process that requires the unquestioning faith of belief of the subject to make it work is, AFAIC, the stuff of fairy tales and sci-fi.
Why is it surprising that mechanical processes are more predictable than the non-mechanical processes that underlie them, and therefore easier to find experimental confirmation for?
Maybe it is tedious of me to point out again that the universe isn't made of matter, but, I guess it's the effect of you using the word "material" three times in post 60.
This pushes my buttons, a mechanical response I guess.
Maybe it is tedious of me to point out again that the universe isn't made of matter, but, I guess it's the effect of you using the word "material" three times in post 60.
This pushes my buttons, a mechanical response I guess.
MadDruminFerret
At best at rest
The theory actually suggests that 'material' is illusion: created by conciousness, based on something we cannot detect in terms of waves and particles. No causes for the odd things we see happening at the quantum level have been found either, and these problems have been a brick wall for 80-odd years. Until we find these causes, we cannot be sure they CAN be found in the material terms in which science is usually conducted.
I should say, i'm not arguing holo theory is correct; i'm just describing it for the sake of the thread
I should say, i'm not arguing holo theory is correct; i'm just describing it for the sake of the thread
MadDruminFerret
At best at rest
Many of them are mass sightings of religious figures and ufo's, lots of medical cases involving peoples beleifs and the placebo effect and so on. I may be able to grab the book tomorrow and quote some of them. Whats impressive is the quantity of cases and the ease with which they, along with many more fundamental questions about conciousness, can be explained holographically.
UNBELEIVER!!!11!!!
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
I'm not sure but I think that Peter Hamilton fella was responsable for that every message ever sent idea. I'm aware of some of his work.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
The theory actually suggests that 'material' is illusion: created by conciousness, based on something we cannot detect in terms of waves and particles. No causes for the odd things we see happening at the quantum level have been found either, and these problems have been a brick wall for 80-odd years. Until we find these causes, we cannot be sure they CAN be found in the material terms in which science is usually conducted.
I should say, i'm not arguing holo theory is correct; i'm just describing it for the sake of the thread
I keep thinking that the brick wall should come tumbling down some time quite soon but it just stubbornly stays up there. I've concluded one trouble is that people can't appreciate or believe what's on the other side until they see it. The situation really is very much like .
There's one crucial difference, though, what's found outside the cave is not a system of beliefs deduced by philosophers but the real thing, as justified and unambiguously described just from the observable natural evidence that has been consistently confirmed.
MadDruminFerret
At best at rest
The reason i don't just dismiss this kind of idea out of hand is that we have a terrible track record of assuming things are the way they seem...
flat earth,
earth as the center of the universe,
the sun as the center of the universe,
creationism/evolution,
and now even more fundamental things like non-locality... which i don't think is much more mind bending than the other changes of perspective i've just mentioned. Some people say science is the new religion, which IMO is quite evident in how militantly physicists will defend their beliefs.
I think Darwin is the best example of someone who researched something even in spite of his OWN beleifs (in god).. he didn't want to accept his own theory but went and proved it anyway because he couldn't ignore the evidence. The same applies here, few people will accept new models of reality because we're so used to the one we already have, and because we cannot SEE these things happen. The evidence is all around us, its just that nobody with a good method and reputation will take a proper look. I think Talbot is trying to remedy this problem; and even though he's lacking in reputation (and method to an extent), he makes some good cases and i can only admire his bravery for trying.
Something i feel is worth mentioning, Talbot died in 1992 in his early 40's... which must have been a kick in the teeth, since one of the principles posed by holo theory is that we have concious control over our own health and wellbeing!
flat earth,
earth as the center of the universe,
the sun as the center of the universe,
creationism/evolution,
and now even more fundamental things like non-locality... which i don't think is much more mind bending than the other changes of perspective i've just mentioned. Some people say science is the new religion, which IMO is quite evident in how militantly physicists will defend their beliefs.
I think Darwin is the best example of someone who researched something even in spite of his OWN beleifs (in god).. he didn't want to accept his own theory but went and proved it anyway because he couldn't ignore the evidence. The same applies here, few people will accept new models of reality because we're so used to the one we already have, and because we cannot SEE these things happen. The evidence is all around us, its just that nobody with a good method and reputation will take a proper look. I think Talbot is trying to remedy this problem; and even though he's lacking in reputation (and method to an extent), he makes some good cases and i can only admire his bravery for trying.
Something i feel is worth mentioning, Talbot died in 1992 in his early 40's... which must have been a kick in the teeth, since one of the principles posed by holo theory is that we have concious control over our own health and wellbeing!
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
I claim that the detailed enough discovery and description of a nonlocal cause and from its effects in the natural world will be far more world changing than any previous scientific dicovery. But, as I say, it's difficult to believe or appreciate that or how this is so without a sufficient knowledge and understanding of an account of this discovery itself.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
But then I say there is a crucial and most intriguing similarity with Plato's cave story in the aspect of spatial dimensions. So the prisoners chained up in the cave only see a two dimensional world of shadows whereas outside the cave is the extra-dimensional reality.
Now think of a form and organisation maintaining cause of quantum entanglement, wth nonlocal effects that don't vary in any way at any distance between photons and the subatomic components of matter. Then ask where in the world could such a cause act given that it wouldn't surround objects like the forces? Would this cause not need to act from extra dimensions of space?
I also find it interesting that in Plato there is a theory of the Forms and mention of the mind as a cause...
Perhaps the ancient greek philosophers were closer to reality than Standard Model particle physicists are now.
Nor, with Peter Woit and Lee Smolin revealing the hard facts about string theory, which has nothing to do with any cause of quantum entanglement, need anyone accept any bollocks about curled up small scale extra dimensions of space either.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Ah, that's not quite right.
Yes, you can take a holograph, cut in in two, and still see the whole of the original image. That's well neat, and something of a surprise.
But the image you get from half-a-holograph doesn't actually contain "all the information possessed by the whole". It isn't as detailed, not as clear and sharp as was the image from the original whole holograph.
/pedantry
xes
F.O.A.D
maybe it contains all the information,but our eyes,as it has been made smaller,can't see it as such,and blur it. (this is based on a half drunken guess that I just maded)
incidently,still reading the book,and still every page teaches me something new.
I *heart* the holographic theory I know for a fact,that some of the stuff I've read in that book,would be laughed urban. But then I am of a different mindset.
incidently,still reading the book,and still every page teaches me something new.
I *heart* the holographic theory I know for a fact,that some of the stuff I've read in that book,would be laughed urban. But then I am of a different mindset.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
maybe it contains all the information,but our eyes,as it has been made smaller,can't see it as such,and blur it. (this is based on a half drunken guess that I just maded)
incidently,still reading the book,and still every page teaches me something new.
Do aliens eat biscuits too?
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Ah, there's a lot of misunderstanding about this. Many web-pages repeat the claim that a shard of a holograph contains all the information of the whole holograph. I guess it's easier to learn how to put up a webpage than it is to gain an understanding of holography!
It's fairly easy to understand why the claim cannot be true. Just imagine we have a holographic plate that we cut up into smaller and smaller pieces. If the is any limit on the information density the material of the plate can achieve (and there always is) then sooner or later we are going to have a piece of material that is physically too small to contain all the info in the original.
As this article "The Brain Contains the Sky...and the Whole Universe" puts it
It's fairly easy to understand why the claim cannot be true. Just imagine we have a holographic plate that we cut up into smaller and smaller pieces. If the is any limit on the information density the material of the plate can achieve (and there always is) then sooner or later we are going to have a piece of material that is physically too small to contain all the info in the original.
As this article "The Brain Contains the Sky...and the Whole Universe" puts it
scallyfanboy
The Prisoner
I dont know.
You could make something massless and then accelerate that.
Or locally modify time.
xes
F.O.A.D
Do aliens eat biscuits too?
yes,but they call them cakes
(and they're made from the crushed pelvic bones of children)Similar threads
- Poll
