It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The verdict is in objective physical reality doesn't exist

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 01:18 AM

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

...(if "projects" is even the right word)...

No, it isn't, just like the words hologram and holographic are inappropiate to describe the universe. That's not what those words were meant for when they were introduced into the English language for the purpose of having rational coherent communication where words are used properly and appropiately.

A hologram is "a three-dimensional image reproduced from a pattern of interference produced by a split coherent beam of radiation (such as a laser)". That definition is from Merriam-Webster. That's what the word is supposed to be used for. This is not the case with the universe.

Here's what our best holograms look like:

Quite a bit different from physical objects in the universe.
edit on 15-2-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:12 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

Why Our Universe Is Not a Hologram

There’s a web post from the Nature website going around entitled “Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram.” It’s an interesting concept, but suffice it to say, the universe is not a hologram, certainly not in the way people think of holograms. So what is this “holographic universe” thing?

It all has to do with string theory. Although there currently isn’t any experimental evidence to support string theory, and some evidence pointing against it, it still garners a great deal of attention because of its perceived theoretical potential. One of the theoretical challenges of string theory is that it requires all these higher dimensions, which makes it difficult to work with.

In 1993, Gerard t’Hooft proposed what is now known as the holographic principle, which argued that the information contained within a region of space can be determined by the information at the surface that contains it. Mathematically, the space can be represented as a hologram of the surface that contains it.

That idea is not as wild as it sounds. For example, suppose there is a road 10 miles long, and its is “contained” by a start line and a finish line. Suppose the speed limit on this road is 60 mph, and I want to determine if a car has been speeding. One way I could do this is to watch a car the whole length of the road, measuring its speed the whole time. But another way is to simply measure when a car crosses the start line and finish line. At a speed of 60 mph, a car travels a mile a minute, so if the time between start and finish is less than 10 minutes, I know the car was speeding.

The holographic principle applies that idea to string theory. Just as its much easier to measure the start and finish times than constantly measure the speed of the car, it is much easier to do physics on the surface hologram than it is to do physics in the whole volume. The idea really took off when Juan Martín Maldacena derived what is known as the AdS/CFT correspondence (an arxiv version of his paper is here ), which uses the holographic principle to connect the strings of particle physics string theory with the geometry of general relativity.

While Maldacena made a compelling argument, it was a conjecture, not a formal proof. So there has been a lot of theoretical work trying to find such a proof. Now, two papers have come out (here and here) demonstrating that the conjecture works for a particular theoretical case. Of course the situation they examined was for a hypothetical universe, not a universe like ours. So this new work is really a mathematical test that proves the AdS/CFT correspondence for a particular situation.

From this you get a headline implying that we live in a hologram. On twitter, Ethan Siegel proposed a more sensible headline: “Important idea of string theory shown not to be mathematically inconsistent in one particular way”.

Of course that would probably get less attention.

I apologize, it hasn't been debunked, I was thinking of electric universe. But holographic universe is not supported by any evidence, it's entirely theoretical based on math.

edit on 2 15 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:23 AM

originally posted by: CryHavoc
It's interesting that nobody ever questions the tree itself falling, tho. Only the sound of it.

Physics doesn't stop happening just because humans aren't looking.

That is interesting and peculiar or funny indeed (although I doubt the term "nobody ever" applies, let's change that to "quite often people don't"). Perhaps it has to do with that thought not being included whenever they first heard the scenario being brought up in this context and at the time thought it all sounded rather clever and insightful and it would help them impress people in likewise manner as the sources they heard it from and they were impressed with.

2 Timothy 4:3,4

3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.

Knowledge (gnoʹsis) is put in a very favorable light in the Christian Greek Scriptures. However, not all that men may call “knowledge” is to be sought, because philosophies and views exist that are “falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1Ti 6:20)

20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”

A synonym for "contradictions" is "paradoxes" (and as earlier mentioned in one of my comments, the words "errors", "mistakes" and "nonsense" are also related, similarly, the word "falsehood" is related to "error" and "lie" is related to "falsehood"). "Knowledge" is a synonym for "science", which comes from the Latin "scientia" which means "knowledge". Knowledge is a familarity with facts/certainties/truths/realities, or things that are factual/absolute/true/certain/conclusive/correct, without error. Where you see a / I'm using synonyms. I'm hoping this information will shed some further light on the earlier quoted texts in Paul's letters to Timothy, and alternate ways of rendering it. For example the KJV says at the end of 1 Timothy 6:20: "science" instead of "knowledge", likewise "myths" is a synonym for "false stories", which is of course related to the concept of using your imagination and entertaining or contemplating fantasies in your mind.

Sort of like Alice in Wonderland. Wandering around in La La Land. Such as the notion that the universe is a hologram or that the universe is appropiately described as such or that the term "holographic" applies to the universe (regardless as to how one wants to twist the meaning of that term, which is "of, relating to, or being a hologram", Merriam Webster; so that's what you're automatically arguing for when using the term "holographic" even if you want to argue a different meaning later, usually one that doesn't apply in these types of conversations with believers in the so-called "holographic universe", see the proper definition for a hologram in my previous comment).
edit on 15-2-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 06:15 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

Question: How does any of this relate to "physical reality"? The citations you're using are totally disjointed. What does the holographic principle have to do with evolution? The holographic principle was derived from black hole thermodynamics, in particular entropy. Maybe it's over my head, but I don't see one iota of evidence that any of these theoretical/experimental citations prove anything about physical reality.

Maybe you could explain?

Remember: Cognito, ergo sum.

edit on 15-2-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 06:53 AM
a reply to: Phantom423

It's self explanatory and I said this in the very firs lines of the post.

I think it's time for science to bite the bullet of materialism. The evidence is overwhelming that an objective physical universe doesn't exist as we perceive it to be and consciousness may be more fundamental than what we call matter. I will lay out the evidence below.

All of these different scientific disciplines are reaching the same conclusion independently and that's why I laid the evidence out in this fashion.

If you want to refute this, I don't want to hear hyperbole, If there's a physical objective reality filling up boxes in a closest, you have to explain how this is possible without exceeding the Bekenstein bound and collapsing into a black hole. You have to explain how information is really proportional to it's volume and not a 2D surface area on the boundary.

You have to show that organisms are really tuned to W(world) and not fitness without knowing any truth of W(world).

You also have to show how an objective physical reality exist when what we call matter is mostly empty space.

99.9999999% of Your Body Is Empty Space

Some days, you might feel like a pretty substantial person. Maybe you have a lot of friends, or an important job, or a really big car.

But it might humble you to know that all of those things – your friends, your office, your really big car, you yourself, and even everything in this incredible, vast Universe – are almost entirely, 99.9999999 percent empty space.

Here’s the deal. As I previously wrote in a story for the particle physics publication Symmetry, the size of an atom is governed by the average location of its electrons: how much space there is between the nucleus and the atom’s amorphous outer shell.

Nuclei are around 100,000 times smaller than the atoms they’re housed in.

If the nucleus were the size of a peanut, the atom would be about the size of a baseball stadium. If we lost all the dead space inside our atoms, we would each be able to fit into a particle of dust, and the entire human species would fit into the volume of a sugar cube.

So if all of the atoms in the Universe are almost entirely empty space, why does anything feel solid?

Technically electrons are point sources, which means they have no volume. But they do have something called a wave function occupying a nice chunk of the atom.

And because quantum mechanics likes to be weird and confusing, the volume-less electron is somehow simultaneously everywhere in that chunk of space.

Technically electrons are point sources, which means they have no volume. But they do have something called a wave function occupying a nice chunk of the atom.

This makes what David Bohm said even ring more true. We create a concrete objective reality out of different frequencies and probable states.

“Our brain mathematically constructs objective reality by interpreting frequencies that are ultimately from another dimension, a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time” says David Bohm.

I can go on because like I said, different disciplines in Science are reaching the same conclusion and there's zero evidence that the physical reality we see actually has an objective existence.
edit on 18-2-2019 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 07:15 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

Ok if that were the case then , what was observing reality to allow the big bang to manifest ?

who was around observing manifesting before the human species came into play ?

posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 10:06 AM

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: neoholographic

Ok if that were the case then , what was observing reality to allow the big bang to manifest ?

who was around observing manifesting before the human species came into play ?

Fundamental consciousness or conscious agents. This is why I talked about more Scientist turning to Panpsychism.

Minds Everywhere: 'Panpsychism' Takes Hold in Science

We would be this fundamental consciousness having many "me" experiences.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in