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.

 

Scientists Discover "Universe is Giant 3D Hologram"

page: 13
128
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 

Sorry, scientists have a bad knack for ignoring the morality of their research & development aspects.

Yes, at 58, I happen to be aware of heat, housing, and oh yeah, electric. You just getting out of grade school? Kinda sounds like it.

Scientist's are not just deluded, they are eluded, by what they are delving into the essence of. I would hate to be stuck at this level: of course, they may be slightly up from the Base of Consciousness (of the pyramid of consciousness), but you, apparently, are not. It is called the Maze of the Many, and it is dark, and ignorant down there.

You touted scientists as laughing at lay members ideas (of ATS & other such forums): talk about being narrow minded.

Could you repeat that, please?

Originally posted by Lasheic
There's a reason why real physicists working on stuff like this rarely ever come here or take part in these threads. They'd spend so much time either laughing or refuting bogus assumptions that they'd never get any work done!


Oh yeah, just so you know, there IS a Light UP here. We'll leave it on for ya.

I see why they call it, "Through a Glass Darkly." Suprisingly, Consciousness Evolves: most know this. Yes, there is an aspect of devolution, also, but thankfully, it generally ends at death, and new opportunity may arise once again.




posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SS,Naga
 


Wow, you really do have issues don't you friend. You sat in something alright and I know exactly what it was.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
I didn't mean to appear to sound condescending, and my apologies if I did.

There are no current systems which are built from an architectural level to learn intrinsically. Such systems have been theorized for awhile now, and some believe that the enabling factors for such a computer are now in place both on the hardware and software side. Indeed, the creation of just such a machine is the goal of the DARPA funded SyNAPSE project.

Science Daily: Building a machine that can learn from experience.
Project SyNAPSE homepage


Such an invention would be revolutionary to say the least. It would open up new possibilities both in computer technology and robotics.


Insofar as brain scanning, I don't recall what the latest resolution they have is. However, we have a high enough resolution to scan whole regions of the brain and draw up simple block diagrams on how they function and interact. For example, I believe we've already accurately modeled portions of the Neo-Cortex. Further, claiming that they have a long way to go based on relatively little progress is a bit presumptuous I think. The human Genome project was scheduled to be a 15 year project, and 7 years into the project they had only completed roughly 1% of the Genome. However, as new and more powerful technology came out it sped the process incredibly. The vast majority of the work happened in the last few years merely because of the greater horsepower provided by Moore's Law. Indeed, despite a very disparaging start, the project finished ahead of schedule.

So just because there's still a long way to go, I wouldn't necessarily expect it to take a very long time.


If you are referring to the Blue Brain project, I am just giving a logical guess on their completion date based on what they've already accomplished. The brain has a ridiculous amount of neurons. I don't think it's impossible, but I'm very curious as to how they'll accomplish this feat.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Lordy... This is funny as hell.

I apologise if this has already been pointed out but honestly I lost my patience at around page 10 and just gave up...

Some people really miss the obvious.

No...to reiterate as many have said and that more have missed, David Icke is not the originator of the holographic paradigm and has quite frankly bugger all to do with the concept.

Even Einstein was open to the idea when it was postulated by Bohm waaaaaayyy before he wrote the book crystallising the concept in 1980 (sometime around 53-54 I believe).

If you are really interested and from the UK you can even buy it (and hopefully understand) by following the handy link here: Wholeness and the Implicate Order , US guys can grab it from the link here BTW.

Entertainingly it is more than probable that Icke got his idea from Talbot.

Now... to clarify in a jumble of concepts presented in a completely disjointed way.
----------------------------

0.1, Hologram doesn't necessarily mean light. Material does not mean solid.

Get that out of your heads right now.

Even Neils model of the atom defines the falsity of that concept though he never looked into the reasons why. (Yes the one you learned in school, go back and look over your notes, bet you missed it).
----------------------------

1. 2d /3d substrate as originator...

(as in the source of everything is 2 dimensional in whatever way )

This as a concept is deceptive since the idea of Dimensions is a human construct.

What is actually meant is that there is an underlying substrate to human perceived 3.5 dimensional reality responsible for sourcing that constructed reality.

Nothing more.

Dimensions have nothing to do with the concept and only come into play when someone attempts to quantify the possible characteristics of that substrate.

Clearly the situation is not helped with the 'conventional' understanding of a hologram. (a seemingly 3 dimensional PERSPECT arising from the nature of a humans visual perception interacting with the interference pattern exhibited by a 2 dimensional recording medium)
----------------------------

2. The source of that projected reality can be whatever you want it to be since it's a theory and nothing is known about that substrate.

If you are a Christian its god.

If you are a Jungian mystic it's the universal subconscious.

If you subscribe to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin its the universe itself with the universe as god or something.

If you are Talbot or a Buddhist, Its US (yes, you...)

----------------------------

Quick question: If the universe is infinite how much information contained within the universe is represented by half of that?

Well?

Bummer..... so now, given that concept what is a centimeter?

Absence.

P.s.
In a recent ATS Mix Edgar Mitchell stated that the institute for Noetic Sciences was investigating Quantum holography... What exactly did you understand by that?



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Absence of Self
 


well said

but you could have just said its bull#

would have took you less time


There aint no thing as a holographic universe END OF STORY...



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by rocksarerocks
 


try adding to the debate and not slaging naga off for his/her take on things

atleast he/she is giving a view

you are just slagging off and not adding anything new..

stay on topic please


is it or aint it...

to me its NOT shall we continue?



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by rocksarerocks
 


I have issues, because I defend ATS'ers against 'the scientist's laugh at their comments???"

How about YOU? You might curb the endless insults.
www.abovetopsecret.com... (called liar)
www.abovetopsecret.com... (called liar)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
"This morning on the way to work some stupid chick was driving 25 in a 35 zone and I wanted to get out and beat her to a pulp, and I'm driving a Smart car for christs sake."
www.abovetopsecret.com... (called delusional)
www.abovetopsecret.com... (porn enthusiast)
www.abovetopsecret.com... (calls idiot)

And yes, light is indeed part of the multidimensional holographic atomic plane.

And yes, matter IS NOT Solid, period. Nothing is solid on the matter plane; not even your concrete driveways.

Scientist's don't know everything. C'mon, think a little. They are just like you, wondering, only they've got your money (govt.). Talk about wasting resources.

We could have a theory of the Universe, if they didn't spend so much time fighting amoungst one another: they still don't accept Einstein's theories, and Hawkin's theories are no longer considered sound either (by the scientific community). Just concepts and cash.

And about all the wonders they've developed for society: tell that to the Third World cultures. Cash n carry. What they do best is presume their 'smarter.' Uh-huh.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by SS,Naga]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by super70
 


WOWSA! what a truly amazing article. S&F for sure! Who really knows but this is simply incredible to read through this article on newscientist. A wonderful post and I am going to be thinking about this all day long .GEEEEEZZAHH!!

Truly intriguing my friend, truly!



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


"In other words, what the scientists are now trying to discover was known to Indian sages thousands of years ago! So the need of the hour is to figure out some formula for combining philosophy with science! In other words, a real theory of everything!"

Good post, Mike.
I have been coming to an understanding over the last few years that Science and Religion shouldn't be fighting. The fueding is for naught. When a scientist and a sage sit down and talk long enough, they often times realize that they are talking about the same stuff, just from different angles. A good book on this sort of stuff was written by Fritjof Capra titled "The Tao of Physics". Quote from Page 25: "The two basic themes of this conception are the unity and interrelation of all phenomena and the intrinsically dynamic nature of the universe. The further we penetrate into the submicroscopic world, the more we shall realize how the modern physicist, like the Eastern mystic, has come to see the world as a system of inseparable, interacting and ever-moving components with the observer being an integral part of this system."

Good stuff. I highly suggest it. Near the beginning of the book there is also a commentary on a discussion between Albert Einstein and an unknown Buddhist Monk.

All that aside, we must realize that our "scientific method" is nothing more than its own philisophical construct.

The Tao of Physics page 20: "The roots of physics, as of all Western science, are to be found in the first period of Greek philosophy in the sixth century B.C., in a culture where science, philosophy and religion were not separated. The sages of the Milesian school of Ionia were not concerned with such distinctions. Their aim was to discover the essential nature, or real constitution, of things which they called 'physis'. The term 'physics' is derived from this Greek word and meant therefore, originally, the endeavour of seeing the essential nature of all things."

We are coming full circle. I guess it is time for a reload. Less enlightened folks, I suppose, will have to learn this next time around. Not to worry though, it will recycle yet again.



[edit on 16-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GeeGee
 


"As far as I know, current computers can only be programmed to understand something from experience. I'd be interested if you have anything that suggests otherwise."

YOU only learn through experience. Nobody absorbs knowledge through osmosis. But it would be cool if we could.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I have no choice but to add something here. First of all if the Universe is pixelated (aka showing holographic properties) it doesn't mean that it is a holograph. If we are a mass if giant coded quantum information that i suppose it would be possible to exede the speed of light after all. We know that the theory of relativity states E=mc2. In laymans terms it means that when we approach the speed of light our mass would become infinite therefore converting our physical form into energy (which would be fine because we would be traveling as information) and we would no longer have a mass. However what if we applied this theory to teleportation. If we are quantum information stored in a mass then wouldn't that mean that we could send our information and become reconstructed on the other side without destroying the original (the current problem with teleportation) If that where so then when applied to the use of gravity to rip through space time in order to fold the fabric of the universe (via a wormhole) would not have to be large enough to fit a ship. In fact if you think about it the wormhole could be microscopic. Just big enough to send the information to be reconstructed on the other side. Therefore we would not need as much energy for gravity manipulation nor would we need as much gravity, just enough to rip a very very small hole in the fabric of space. We could do it on a very very small scale. I dont know just a hypothosis. But an interesting one. Then again if we are just projected beings (theory number 2 in this thread) then would we not be able to find a way to harness the projection and instantaneously reproject our lower selves to a distant location. I would also like to say to the nay sayers that we as a race know virtually nothing about quantum physics or anything at the atomic level for that matter. We can split an atom and make synthetic elements that is it. Oh we can do fusion under extreme energy whoretastic conditions.

So dont nay say, for all we know we might be an alien's video game. If thats the case I must say the lighting effects are awesome and so is the physics engine but the gameplay could use some work.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR

YOU only learn through experience. Nobody absorbs knowledge through osmosis. But it would be cool if we could.



I agree. What are you objecting to in my post?

Sorry for the one liner.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by GeeGee
 


What I was trying to clarify is that by saying computers can only learn through experience, you are in essence saying that they learn the same way that humans do...
AI. Albeit on a smaller scale, at this point.

Or I suppose that can be argued. Remember the thread about the "creativity machine"... If you didn't catch it, you can google that and it should lead you straight to it. Fascinating idea.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
The title to this thread is misleading. It states that scientists have discovered that the universe is 3d hologram as fact. When actually it is only a theory.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by riggs2099
 


That is a tricky play on words, as theories are composed of facts.

I see your point, though. It IS a little misleading, but only from the journalist's choice of words.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


There really isn't a ton of evidence so it would be better to say Scientists might have discovered or something similar. They haven't found anything out yet. I really do like this theory though. It matches exactly, I would say, Kabbalah and gnosticism. If this is true, free will sort of goes down the drain. Evolution sort of does also.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
this was prooven thousands of years ago, y are you posting it now? a bit late mate.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by theresult
 


Ummm.... No.

Thats not what i said at all.

I was attempting to clarify common misunderstandings to what is considered to be a complex concept by many people.
Albeit in a somewhat inebriated way...

If you take a look at the concept objectively with regards to our current understanding of subjective reality you will see the holographic paradigm is no more nor less valid than any other concept.

It is in fact slightly more valid in that it provides understanding for a subjective awareness of a phenomena in retrospect.
(Something other postulates cannot do which is interesting, eg describe the mechanism which is consequential to Pribrams results).

Admittedly there are things which any current theory cannot quantify such as gravitation or time, so in that way no theory or postulate can be complete, but to describe my previous statement as an invalidation of the hypothesis would be grossly inaccurate.

Yet is it with some entertainment that I note that no one has yet to answer my very simple question.

Again.

Beginning with the presumption that the universe is infinite what quantity of information is contained within half of that and from there what is a centimeter?

Really its not complex.

Kudos.
Absence.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SS,Naga
 





Yes, at 58, I happen to be aware of heat, housing, and oh yeah, electric. You just getting out of grade school? Kinda sounds like it.


No, but I do seem to have possibly discovered the source of your vast repository of knowledge on what's beyond the physical realm. You do seem have one foot in the grave after all! You're practically a cosmic zombie dancing the border between life and death!




It is called the Maze of the Many, and it is dark, and ignorant down there.


Yes, it is quite the labyrinth isn't it. Unfortunately, you are not Ariadne. Your fellow posters are not Theseus, and there is no Minotaur to gleefully gobble up your perceived enemies. However, I do agree that both your "Maze" and the Cretian Labyrinth - no matter how far along towards the exit you perceive to be - are both fallacious myths.




You touted scientists as laughing at lay members ideas (of ATS & other such forums): talk about being narrow minded.


BZZZT: Wrong. I said they laugh or are disparaged at people's misinformed ideas about the theories they posit. Not that their theories are necessarily right, that they know it all, and laugh at your general ignorance.




Suprisingly, Consciousness Evolves: most know this. Yes, there is an aspect of devolution, also


Whether this could be substantiated or not matters little. It still shows a crass understanding of what evolution in and of itself really means. You're still displaying what appears to an understanding of evolution that resembles a ladder or an inclined plane that can be ascended or descended. This isn't the case. Never has been. There is only differently adapted, changed. "Superior" and "Inferior" are meaningless - as they are subjective terms and the "superiority" of adaptation is conditional based on the environment and circumstances.



However, you are actually spot on in one statement at least:




scientists have a bad knack for ignoring the morality of their research & development aspects.


Science, as a methodology, is designed to be as objective as possible. This means that imposing cultural or religious morals on the process is generally prohibited. Science is merely a method of discovery, for weeding out evidence backed truth from baseless speculation. By itself it is inert - being neither moral or immoral. The application of technology derived from Science, even if reflected back at the scientific method however, is another matter altogether.

Unfortunately you shallowly don't seem to notice a distinction understanding and application.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by riggs2099
 


some parts are fact some are not..

It infact says we are in a loop>.. read my other posts

as it for being REAL then wtf is real if we are a projection??

lol its very stupid and correct its not FACT why? becouse we dont know wtf we are in.

hence the word "theory" = we are guessing "kinda" lol



new topics

top topics



 
128
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join