Study Reveals Substantial Evidence of Holographic Universe

a reply to: wildespace

No matter how I look at the universe or how it might work, all I see is the physical reality that happens right here and right now, with countless possibilities and random factors or choices. Nothing predetermined. No information projected from somewhere else.

"Information" doesn't mean that things are predetermined.

The way I see it there is a program running in the background that is processing information, nothing is predetermined within the programmed boundaries of the software.

originally posted by: AttentionGrabber
a reply to: Box of Rain

Seriously, this hypothetical idea of all the stuff in our universe being really 2 dimensions is such a foreign concept to us (like the 2D denizens of Edwin Abbott's "Flatland" trying to understand the concept of 3D) that i'm not sure if we could adequately describe how 2 dimensions of information could result in an apparent 3D me running into and apparent 3D street to get hit by an apparent 3D car.

Think of 3d reality as a rendering of information that is located outside of the rendering, like in a video game, you could say that the information exists in 2d on the surface of computerchips or discs.

Maybe, but the hypothesis posited by proponents of the holographic universe idea does not necessarily rely on the idea that the universe is like a video game or any other kind of simulation.

Maybe the universe is holographic in nature or maybe it isn't. Maybe it really does have 3 spatial dimensions or maybe it doesn't. Maybe Quantum uncertainty is intrinsic to the nature of things, or maybe uncertainty is just an illusion. Maybe the universe is a simulation similar to a video game or "The Matrix" being run by some beings outside of what we think is our reality (and our reality is an illusion) or maybe not.

If I knew the answers to any of those and could prove it, then I'd be getting a call from Stockholm telling me my Nobel Prize is ready to pick up. But speculation about things we can't understand about the nature of the universe is always fun -- although speculation is better when there is some sort of evidence, even slight evidence, to back up that speculation.

originally posted by: Wolfenz

originally posted by: s3cz0ne

originally posted by: The GUT
How utterly cool and durn fascinating. Any idea on who's running the projector?

Howdy, Brudda.

The Annunaki of course.... Or wait.. Maybe the Illuminati. Or are they also part of the hologram?
Meh, this makes my brain hurt and feel mushy.

On a more serious note; very interesting hypothesis. Quantum physics never ceases to amaze, though that may be largely due to my utter lack of comprehension.

Read about Quantum Entanglement - That will Blow your Mind!! The Workings

Laymans Terms :

you take to Two Synchronized particles

you Turn one ! and the other Does the Same , Usually the Opposite Direction

The Space Between them can be a Micro meters to Light Years !

it doesnt matter they will turn just as the one being forced to turn !

to make this Simpler ever seen Cheech and Chong's Corsican Brothers ??

one bops his head ther other feels it in the same place! and doesn't matter where they are!
next to each other or miles apart ...
" pretty much Same thing as Quantum Entanglement "

Hope this Helps!


For every Action there is a Reaction
The Universe and Cosmos is a Strange Place ...


to get back on track ot the Main Subject

as I said before Professor Neil Degrasser Tyson
is starting to believe that a Hologram universe Could be Possible ..

He thought it was laughable of just the Thought of it !

well.. not Now ...

Neil deGrasse Tyson says it’s ‘very likely’ the universe is a simulation
By Graham Templeton on April 22, 2016 at 4:23 pm
www.extremetech.com...

I have... And it does indeed blow my mind. I seem to recall reading somewhere that this has been recently demonstrated experimentally. Einstein's spooky action at a distance no?

While I understand the effect, the how and why are still a mystery to me. I assume it largely also a mystery to quantum physicists as well. Except they have all of that fancy math to explain some of it.

a reply to: Box of Rain

I was just commenting on the "3d reality from 2d info located elsewhere" thing. I wouldn't call it holographic myself.

If I knew the answers to any of those and could prove it, then I'd be getting a call from Stockholm telling me my Nobel Prize is ready to pick up. But speculation about things we can't understand about the nature of the universe is always fun -- although speculation is better when there is some sort of evidence, even slight evidence, to back up that speculation.

I think that the results of Quantum Physics experiments point towards some sort of program running behind the scenes, rather than everything happening because of circumstances during the Big Bang......

originally posted by: AttentionGrabber
a reply to: Box of Rain

I think that the results of Quantum Physics experiments point towards some sort of program running behind the scenes, rather than everything happening because of circumstances during the Big Bang......

That's just some people purely speculating about results that they cannot understand. Quantum theory can certainly lead to bizarre conclusions, but bizarre does not necessarily mean someone/something is running a simulation.

That idea is akin to (but not exactly) the "God in the Gaps". When we come upon something we cannot understand, some people naturally want to assign some supernatural or extra-normal explanation -- such as "the quantum world seems so bizarre and beyond our understanding of reality, so it must be outside of reality and is instead a simulation".

The idea behind "God in the gaps" is that we are a bit arrogant, and say to ourselves "if we can't understand something, then that must mean that it is not natural/outside of nature" rather than simply acknowledging that we may not know everything about nature. I'm not saying that some of the hypotheses about our universe being in a simulation is strictly "God in the Gaps", because there is some testable yet inconclusive science behind it. However, God in the Gaps plays a part in that idea.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: AttentionGrabber
a reply to: Box of Rain

I think that the results of Quantum Physics experiments point towards some sort of program running behind the scenes, rather than everything happening because of circumstances during the Big Bang......

That's just some people purely speculating about results that they cannot understand. Quantum theory can certainly lead to bizarre conclusions, but bizarre does not necessarily mean someone/something is running a simulation.

That idea is akin to (but not exactly) the "God in the Gaps". When we come upon something we cannot understand, some people naturally want to assign some supernatural or extra-normal explanation -- such as "the quantum world seems so bizarre and beyond our understanding of reality, so it must be outside of reality and is instead a simulation".

You are really missing the point in trying to dismiss the "God in the gaps" argument. It is irrelevant in this context. Some theoretical physicists have discovered that Einstein's theory of gravitation in (N+1) dimensions is equivalent to quantum field theory in a space of N dimensions. This - and only this - led them to make the analogy with holograms. The weakness of taking this analogy literally is that no one can, plausibly, identify what the holographic space of one less dimension is. That's why I do not yet take the idea seriously. Experimental evidence supporting it is not proof because the observational data can be interpreted in other ways.

a reply to: ausername

'If you go down to the molecular, atomic and subatomic structure, you'd wonder how anything can be "solid" '

So there are two dimensions, a two dimensional and a three dimensional dimensions? Sounds like democracy.

a reply to: Box of Rain

That's just some people purely speculating about results that they cannot understand.

The results point towards a program that governs reality, wether we understand the how and why exactly, or not. Or maybe you just don't understand the implications of those experiments, this is very common.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: AttentionGrabber
a reply to: Box of Rain

I think that the results of Quantum Physics experiments point towards some sort of program running behind the scenes, rather than everything happening because of circumstances during the Big Bang......

That's just some people purely speculating about results that they cannot understand. Quantum theory can certainly lead to bizarre conclusions, but bizarre does not necessarily mean someone/something is running a simulation.

That idea is akin to (but not exactly) the "God in the Gaps". When we come upon something we cannot understand, some people naturally want to assign some supernatural or extra-normal explanation -- such as "the quantum world seems so bizarre and beyond our understanding of reality, so it must be outside of reality and is instead a simulation".

You are really missing the point in trying to dismiss the "God in the gaps" argument. It is irrelevant in this context. Some theoretical physicists have discovered that Einstein's theory of gravitation in (N+1) dimensions is equivalent to quantum field theory in a space of N dimensions. This - and only this - led them to make the analogy with holograms. The weakness of taking this analogy literally is that no one can, plausibly, identify what the holographic space of one less dimension is. That's why I do not yet take the idea seriously. Experimental evidence supporting it is not proof because the observational data can be interpreted in other ways.

That's why I said "it was akin to, but not exactly" like God in the Gaps. Plus, I was referring to the idea that the universe is a simulation, NOT the idea that the universe is holographic in nature. A holographic Universe need not be a simulated universe; it could still be natural.

The point I was making is that there are some people who, when they come across anomalous results when studying something, feel that the anomaly must point to some outside-the-realm-of nature explanation for the anomalous result, rather than considering that their understanding of nature might be a bit lacking. For example, people think they understand the quantum world, but when the quantum world gets unexpectedly strange (even stranger than the quantum world can usually be), some people equate that unexpected strangeness to ideas that nature must be a simulation...

...Because if THEY can't understand it, then there might be some intelligence, or super-intelligence, or supreme being out their (outside of our reality) pulling on the puppet strings of our reality in such a way to cause this unexpected strangeness. However, the answer could simply be that the seemingly anomalous result isn't really anomalous at all, and is simply not understood because that aspect of nature is not understood properly.

originally posted by: AttentionGrabber
a reply to: Box of Rain

That's just some people purely speculating about results that they cannot understand.

The results point towards a program that governs reality, wether we understand the how and why exactly, or not. Or maybe you just don't understand the implications of those experiments, this is very common.

I'm familiar with a few different ideas on the subject of attempting to determine if we live in a simulated reality or not. I'm not sure to which you are specifically referring.

I know of the idea by Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage in their paper Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation discuss the idea that since we humans sometimes run mathematical simulations of physical systems in computers, AND sometimes certain asymmetries in the simulated "rules of physics" sometimes manifest themselves out of those simulations that we run, then we ourselves could potentially look for similar asymmetries in OUR universe. If we find such an asymmetry in our universe that may indicate that our universe, too, is a simulation.

Again, while I think that sort of speculation is certainly worth pursuing from a purely intellectual argument standpoint, I still contend that just because we find apparent asymmetries in nature, those asymmetries may not be due to a glitch in the simulated universe, but rather just be a result of not understanding nature enough to be able to understand why a system appears to have asymmetries.

It may simply be a case that what we think is an unexpected aspect of nature (the asymmetry) is simply due to not understanding nature enough to "expect" that unexpected aspect.

a reply to: Box of Rain

The point I was making is that there are some people who, when they come across anomalous results when studying something, feel that the anomaly must point to some outside-the-realm-of nature explanation for the anomalous result, rather than considering that their understanding of nature might be a bit lacking. For example, people think they understand the quantum world, but when the quantum world gets unexpectedly strange (even stranger than the quantum world can usually be), some people equate that unexpected strangeness to ideas that nature must be a simulation...

You make it sound like this is an impossibility or somehow more bizar than any of the views of reality you might subscribe to.

You are saying that you don't have the answer but that every answer that even hints at a "higher power" is somehow not valid?

What do you base this on?

a reply to: Box of Rain

I am refering to (Delayed Choice)Quantum Eraser experiments in which information seemingly travels at light speed between particles and locations without there being a connection that would allow for this travel.

Results that should have materialised in the past, because of the setup of the path in the exp., depend on the state of a detected particle in the future, and they always match up, when statiscally they shouldn't if there is no causal relation.

This points towards some force that is making sure that this specific "reality" adds up with the observer's knowledge of one part of it. A program that becomes apparent when you are trying to hack the system with sub atomic particle experiments.

If you have an explanation for this apparent retrocausality that doesn't involve the woo you dread so much, let me know.

If you are going to explain this away as some inherent flaw in these experiments like "skeptics" will often resort to, then don't even bother. If you are going to say my interpretation of the results is wrong, then provide the correct interpretation.

originally posted by: 0bserver1

Thanks for clearing that out for me

They should stop those MSM reporters to tell half the story instead of a more grounded and well-explained version then.

Agh. I would suspect the original came from the Mirror, Mail or BBC. They tend to take a phrase and extrapolate it to insanity. You'd expect more from the Beeb, but in my experience, they rarely get any part of a physics based paper correct. I've yet to see the Beeb post a single cogent description of GPS, for example. It's fairly old tech. But invariably, their description of it involves satellites tracking you on the ground.

In this case, the 'holographic principle' is pretty esoteric physics. It sounds more commonplace than it is, because of Star Trek et al's use of 'holodecks' and the like as script tools. But the actual thing is one of those angels dancing on pins things that came out of string theory and the question of 'where does the information contained by objects passing into singularities end up?', and went off on a tangent from there.

originally posted by: gortex

Played on the surface of a Black Hole perhaps ?

That might suck, if everything just goes down the drain in the end.

Btw, Thanks for this. S&F.

It's certainly not an "illusion", so to think of it as a projection, hmmm that's interesting.

I don't think it's bottom up however, but top down, like a nested hierarchy involving an intelligence subtraction from, the absolute, undifferentiated, formless potential, like some sort of filtering mechanism to in some ways limit the unlimited or serve as a differentiated reduction from and even by the absolute aka the Godhead in order so that this experience, including our own might be made possible. Kinda like rays from an all-seeing eye which is a type of holographic projector with infinite intelligence (although I don't think there was ever anything devilish in mind by the original eye).

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: 0bserver1

Thanks for clearing that out for me

They should stop those MSM reporters to tell half the story instead of a more grounded and well-explained version then.

But the actual thing is one of those angels dancing on pins things that came out of string theory and the question of 'where does the information contained by objects passing into singularities end up?', and went off on a tangent from there.

..and then where are ya? What a predicament! Unless angels really can dance on pins (of another dimension).

originally posted by: AttentionGrabber
a reply to: Box of Rain

I am refering to (Delayed Choice)Quantum Eraser experiments in which information seemingly travels at light speed between particles and locations without there being a connection that would allow for this travel.

Results that should have materialised in the past, because of the setup of the path in the exp., depend on the state of a detected particle in the future, and they always match up, when statiscally they shouldn't if there is no causal relation.

This points towards some force that is making sure that this specific "reality" adds up with the observer's knowledge of one part of it. A program that becomes apparent when you are trying to hack the system with sub atomic particle experiments.

If you have an explanation for this apparent retrocausality that doesn't involve the woo you dread so much, let me know.

If you are going to explain this away as some inherent flaw in these experiments like "skeptics" will often resort to, then don't even bother. If you are going to say my interpretation of the results is wrong, then provide the correct interpretation.

Your "program" idea sounds very much like a variant of the good old hidden variables.

Also Delayed Choice Experiments do not imply retrocausality, the problem is not the experiment but the interpretation: jamesowenweatherall.com...

a reply to: gortex

I could never get my head around the big bang but this is also as confusing.
I do believe we as humans are only here for the "experience" and go back to being a spirit once we die.
Time will tell us all i guess.

a reply to: Redback

i think the big bang is the result of the creation of a black hole in another universe, possibly!!

a reply to: Redback

If there was a Big Bang I like the theory that it was as a result of a Big Crunch , which was itself the result of a Big Bang.
The problem I have with the Big Bang theory is inflation , there's no single point of a Bang.

I agree it is confusing just as a TV would be confusing to a caveman , do we have the capacity to truly understand the creation of the Universe anymore than the caveman could understand the workings of the television.

I too believe there is more to this than meets the eye.

originally posted by: AttentionGrabber
a reply to: Box of Rain

If you are going to explain this away as some inherent flaw in these experiments like "skeptics" will often resort to, then don't even bother. If you are going to say my interpretation of the results is wrong, then provide the correct interpretation.

I'm not trying to explain away anything; I'm not just ready to rule anything out.

When talking about whether or not we live in a simulated universe, I'm not going to run with "some experiments have yield strange results that suggest we live in a computer simulation..." and jump directly to "...Therefore, we must live in a computer simulation".

We do not have a good enough understanding of the quantum world for us to claim that certain strange results exist that cannot be explained using our current knowledge of the universe should instead be explained by claiming the universe is a simulation.

Maybe the experimental results from the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment ARE because the universe IS a simulation...
...Or maybe not, and instead the universe is natural (i.e., not a simulation created by some other beings/supreme being on outside the universe, but instead created through natural processes) and the strange results seemed strange only because our understanding of that natural universe is lacking.

originally posted by: Box of Rain
it is entirely possible that every particle in our universe is simply following a predetermined course that is the result of the initial conditions imparted onto those particles at the point of the creation of the universe (e.g., the Big Bang).

I strongly disagree. And again, you mentioned the words "possible" and "could", which points to many possibilities of how things can and will transpire in my own life, in yours, and other sentient beings. Even animals make random or unpredictable choices sometimes. It's NOT the result of what elementary particles have been up to since the Big Bang, although I'll agree that, at fundamental level, the non-sentient physical reality in the universe (such as star formation) is indeed the direct result of all those particles interacting.

Have you watched that documentary I linked? There's plenty of unpredictable chaos in the universe.

There is NO information embedded somewhere about what I'm gonna do this evening. I might just spend it chilling out and getting drunk, OR I might travel to London and go to a gig. Either way, it would be a conscious decision that no one (even me) can predict with certainty.

~~~

Speaking of dimensions, the idea of a 2D plane "projecting" 3D reality seems topsy-turvy. From what I've learned, it works in a completely opposite way, with 3D objects casting 2D shadow (or projection), and 2D surfaces (and virtual flatlanders) existing in 3D space. So, if there is any projection of reality at all, it would come from 4-dimensional space. Now, that is quite a mind-bender.