It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: neoholographic
I just watched this yesterday.
It's a Ted Talks with Jacques Vallee talking about a similar thing? I will be back for the videos and more reading. Thanks for the thread, I appreciate it.
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Kashai
Good points and if we could perceive it as a whole, we wouldn't have to talk about it in terms of probability. Some people think the wave function is statistical others think it real and there's just an apparent collapse.
Here's another good video to check out:
As he says in the video, the world we think we know turns out to be a slither of a larger reality.
Holographic quantum error-correcting codes: Toy models for the bulk/boundary correspondence
We propose a family of exactly solvable toy models for the AdS/CFT correspondence based on a novel construction of quantum error-correcting codes with a tensor network structure. Our building block is a special type of tensor with maximal entanglement along any bipartition, which gives rise to an isometry from the bulk Hilbert space to the boundary Hilbert space. The entire tensor network is an encoder for a quantum error-correcting code, where the bulk and boundary degrees of freedom may be identified as logical and physical degrees of freedom respectively. These models capture key features of entanglement in the AdS/CFT correspondence; in particular, the Ryu-Takayanagi formula and the negativity of tripartite information are obeyed exactly in many cases. That bulk logical operators can be represented on multiple boundary regions mimics the Rindler-wedge reconstruction of boundary operators from bulk operators, realizing explicitly the quantum error-correcting features of AdS/CFT recently proposed by Almheiri et. al in arXiv:1411.7041.
arxiv.org...
It's very important as they talk about a bulk/boundary correspondence as it relates to entanglement. Entanglement on the boundary(horizon) will be simulated in the bulk(bubble),
This is why I say the only thing that makes sense is that particles are like pixels and the spacetime screen is our bubble universe. If spacetime is one whole then anywhere on the whole, the pixels can obey the program and you can have things like "spooky action at a distance" if you look at these things in a classical sense.
The key empirical difference comes down to the question of whether consciousness might sometimes exist without having its normal role or whether something else might in some circumstances play that role. There is some evidence for the first possibility. There are unusual circumstances in which the occipeto-temporal stream is activated at the level that is correlated with experience but in which the subject says he sees nothing. For example, there is a kind of brain-damage in which if objects are presented on both sides, the subject claims not to see one side, but the part of the occipeto-temporal stream stimulated by the “invisible” object is just as active as when it is seen. (See the articles by Kanwisher and by Driver and Vuillemer, in Dehaene, 2001). It seems possible that these patients have a phenomenal representation that they cannot properly access. If so, a phenomenal state needn’t always have its characteristic behavior, and consciousness in one sense of the term—phenomenality--would not be captured by the functionalist theory.
originally posted by: mrMasterJoe
a reply to: Greggers
But just for a second just imagine being It / God at the very first stage of awareness not knowing ANYTHING, not having any concept or direction at all!!
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Greggers
Another way of looking at it is in relation to Chaos theory in that what seems to us random is a reflection of order upon some other scale.
originally posted by: centrifugal
On the topic of randomness there is one thought that has me intrigued.
All matter in the universe came from the same origin in the big bang theory. A reasonable and natural assumption would be that all matter in the universe was condensed into a finite size. It would have a uniform distribution of particles, atoms, quarks, or whatever might be smaller.
One would also assume that in a big bang scenario that the explosion is also uniform. All particles distributed equally throughout the universe. After all why would a perfect and uniform sphere(or maybe singularity) of matter have a different output on opposite sides of the explosion. There should be a symmetrical pattern of particles in every direction from the origin of the big bang. If we have one earth, we should actually have multiple identical earths. Evolution occurring at the same rate and many identical versions of me typing this same message on ATS.
However, we have no evidence of a symmetrical universe. In fact it appears to be extremely diverse. Either the light from the symmetrical universe has not reached us yet, or the big bang was not uniform in nature. If it wasn't a uniform and equally proportioned explosion in all directions, does that mean it wasn't random?
I've got no theory here, just leaves me thinking WTF.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Greggers
A truly random universe would remain random as long as nothing acted upon it resulting in a change.
Just my two cents.
The fact that space is, by its very nature, not uniform at the smallest scales has profound implications for the Big Bang. The current leading theory for how space expanded after the Big Bang is Inflation, which basically says that in the early universe, the tiny speck of spacetime that was created in the first instant of the Big Bang stretched out very, very quickly. That tiny speck of space ultimately expanded into our universe, which is still expanding.
Now, the thing is, in the first moments after creation, the space expanded so fast that the normally invisible "quantum ripples" were magnified to the point of creating large-scale differences in temperature and density. These tiny but vital differences can be seen through a radio map of the sky, such as WMAP (which I'll link to in my sources). So it seems that the massive stretching of space, combined with quantum ripples, created the tiny differences in temperature and density that allowed our universe to form the way it is today!