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.

 

Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


You honestly didn't get it did you. It went right over your head.LOL


That's funny.

All the Guru's here claiming it means god can't tell when the vid is describing them. Priceless.



Oh I got that part.

If you think I am just making up terms ask Phage to explain them to you, or you could hurry up and finish khanacademy through at least vector calc, differential equations, linear algebra, electromagnetism, and nuclear physics.

Sorry to burst your bubble but speech is generated by vibration of the vocal chords and the mathematics of string theory on the most basic level is similar. I choose to mock you for hating Christians so openly because you clearly don't know science and claim it to be the be all end all of reality.

The irony of how hologram theory and string theory are explained is that they are easily related to the creation story of the Bible. In the beginning there was darkness and God said let there be light ( hologram and the vibration of chords).

You just have yourself wound up so tight you can not even appreciate the irony.

-FBB




posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Sooo to be clear you do not have anything to add to the conversation when it comes to the science aspect.


Actually it sounds like he has a much better grasp on the science aspect of this than you do.


University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser.

To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film.

When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.

The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose.

Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts.

A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.

Read more...



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Bone75
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

I think the implications are pretty obvious. If this is all just one big hologram or simulation, then there is indeed a creator behind it all. It also makes the existence of a Heaven and a Hell far more likely... does it not?


It does not necessarily mean there is a creator in the sense of some separate entity. Simulations are a human invention, and we can only invent things within the parameters that nature has given us, because we are nature ourselves. So then would it not make sense that our simulations mimic the existence of the universe itself? think of it in terms of a hologram. All things creating and mimicing within themselves.

Does that make sense?
edit on 12-20-13 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 

That's a fair description of how a hologram works but Talbot has added a bunch of metaphysical bullcrap to Bohm's speculation about implications of quantum field theory. It doesn't have much to do with string theory.

Bohm,btw, did not seem to be sold on the existence of God.

If he identified Jewish lore and customs with his father, then this was a way he would distance himself from Samuel. By the time he reached his late teens, he had become firmly agnostic.
source
edit on 12/20/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Sure you got it. LOL




I would strongly recommend avoiding trying to learn much of anything from a group called the CON academy, especially if they were serious about thanking you for purchasing their product


So you were not serious about that huh??
So you understood the entire vid was an example of conmen using just this type of subject throwing out terms most people don't understand making asumptions (i.e. God) and even using terms incorrectly.

Never mind you said you got it...sure OK. Talk about wound up tight.

I get it you think GOD did it that's fine oh and FYI just to be clear there is no such thing as Con academy.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


what about the multiverse & brane cosmology hypotheses related to string theory?



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by reject
 

What about it?
How do they relate? Or do they?
Conflicting hypotheses are not unusual.

edit on 12/21/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Grimpachi




A team of physicists has provided some of the clearest evidence yet that our Universe could be just one big projection.

In 1997, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena proposed1 that an audacious model of the Universe in which gravity arises from infinitesimally thin, vibrating strings could be reinterpreted in terms of well-established physics. The mathematically intricate world of strings, which exist in nine dimensions of space plus one of time, would be merely a hologram: the real action would play out in a simpler, flatter cosmos where there is no gravity.

Maldacena's idea thrilled physicists because it offered a way to put the popular but still unproven theory of strings on solid footing — and because it solved apparent inconsistencies between quantum physics and Einstein's theory of gravity. It provided physicists with a mathematical Rosetta stone, a 'duality', that allowed them to translate back and forth between the two languages, and solve problems in one model that seemed intractable in the other and vice versa (see 'Collaborative physics: String theory finds a bench mate'). But although the validity of Maldacena's ideas has pretty much been taken for granted ever since, a rigorous proof has been elusive.


continue to source article at nature.com

I find this all pretty interesting however I am not going to claim I understand it. I have the very basic premise of the theory but that's it. If it is proven I'm not even sure what that means but it's still pretty interesting. Up until now I have to admit I thought the entire premise was just a bit of quackery but according to this article they are saying that they have their computer models pretty much verifying it.

All in all it just raises more questions in my mind. Perhaps it's time for me to actually try to understand the theory to where I can speak more in depth on the subject. Anyway for those of you that do understand this and its implications feel free to comment and maybe give us a little bit of an explanation as to the implications if proven.


Of course the Universe is a simulation. it's all simulated in your mind. You think anything you are experiencing is actually whats going on outside you? hahahaha



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Bone75
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

I think the implications are pretty obvious. If this is all just one big hologram or simulation, then there is indeed a creator behind it all. It also makes the existence of a Heaven and a Hell far more likely... does it not?


Well no...it doesn't. In fact, it makes it much, much more unlikely as it goes.

And also, science may be suffering under a misconception if they are stating the 'Universe may be one 'gigantic' simulation.

It may be nothing more than a teeny-tiny simulation...one of many such tiny simulations. Maybe to test a theory, or a practice or a design template even.

The thing about a simulation is that it isn't real, it's a simulation in preparation perhaps for an actual Universe.

We and everything we think we can see and touch may be just a kind of advanced blueprint..a sort of trial run to see if the design works out as intended..i wonder what the designer is thinking about how our particular simulation is working out?

When we run sims, we can compress time using the computers...we can make a Billion years run in the sim but in our real world only a day has passed.

Maybe this is what is meant by 'gods' days are not the same as our days.

It may turn out then, that god is in fact an underpaid and overworked lab tech or programmer...about to leave for a hot night out, after watching a sim of a new model Universe run about 14 Billion years worth of accelerated time.

So no...it wouldn't mean there's likely to be an afterlife, quite the opposite. Anymore than we create an afterlife for the characters in the simulations we routinely create ourselves...when we erase the sim, we erase the characters...they are simply gone.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Bone75
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

I think the implications are pretty obvious. If this is all just one big hologram or simulation, then there is indeed a creator behind it all. It also makes the existence of a Heaven and a Hell far more likely... does it not?


Quite the contrary; if this is all a hologram, then we are no more than an artificial intelligence in said hologram. There can be no afterlife for us in the same way that there is no afterlife for a computer program.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


hol·o·gram
ˈhäləˌgram,ˈhōlə-/Submit
noun
noun: hologram; plural noun: holograms
1.
a three-dimensional image formed by the interference of light beams from a laser or other coherent light source.
a photograph of an interference pattern that, when suitably illuminated, produces a three-dimensional image.

Thought this would be relevant to know considering the OP.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   
I find it mind boggling that using a simulation to prove we live in a simulation is possible.

How are they able to prove this with a simulation? What tests are done as verification?

I cannot help but think of the phrase "God made man in his image, in his image he created man.". How can we not stop and think for a second that this is not just some crazy coincidence, and that these were carefully chosen words?

Anyway, this simulation is surely an exceptional one, creating consciousness that can figure out it is in a simulation. Why? Still back to the same question, why?



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   

The irony of how hologram theory and string theory are explained is that they are easily related to the creation story of the Bible. In the beginning there was darkness and God said let there be light ( hologram and the vibration of chords).


Easily related??

That's it?

"In the beginning there was darkness and God said let there be light"

??

Really? That's it? That's all it takes to relate it directly to the science discussed in this thread?

Well I wouldn't call that irony as you said. I'd call that stupid.
edit on 21-12-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by Bone75
 


I thought most people realized religion isn't scientific. Of course I knew there are some that think it is. Guess I should have written it so those few knew better.


Acknowledging a creator isn't religion. The nature of reality itself and the fact that there are parameters by which our universe is governed are what gives rise to the possibility of a creator.

Of all the knowledge in the universe, how much of it would you say you possess? Until you or anyone else possesses 100% of it, God is just as possible and scientific as anything else.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy

The irony of how hologram theory and string theory are explained is that they are easily related to the creation story of the Bible. In the beginning there was darkness and God said let there be light ( hologram and the vibration of chords).


Easily related??

That's it?

"In the beginning there was darkness and God said let there be light"

??

Really? That's it? That's all it takes to relate it directly to the science discussed in this thread?

Well I wouldn't call that irony as you said. I'd call that stupid.


You're failing to give leeway for the transformation of myth and culture over time. You're failing to trace mystical perceptions during altered states of consciousness from age to age, religion to religion, costume to costume. You're failing to penetrate the crunchy exoteric surface layer of religion to reach the creamy esoteric, psychical, mystical filling.

You're failing to be a comparativist. Most scientistic types do. That's why they are completely out of their element when they try look at religion through their scientistic glasses. They don't take years to study comparative mysticism, comparative mythology, comparative religion. They generally just focus on science and figure that science, and being born and raised in a post-Christian society, tells them everything they need to know to connect the dots.
Nope.

Consciousness is not trapped in the skull like most scientistic types figure. It can penetrate space-time to make mystical observations. Since scientistic types figure wrongly about consciousness and ignore the comparative fields and parapsychology, they don't have the tools to trace the transformation of myth through time; to connect the cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary dots. So they resort to easier tools like scoffing and snarky attitudes and calling things they don't understand stupid and so forth.




edit on 21-12-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Bone75

Grimpachi
reply to post by Bone75
 


I thought most people realized religion isn't scientific. Of course I knew there are some that think it is. Guess I should have written it so those few knew better.


Acknowledging a creator isn't religion. The nature of reality itself and the fact that there are parameters by which our universe is governed are what gives rise to the possibility of a creator.



Well to be fair I have not once stated it was impossible that there is a creator now whether or not its likely well that's another story but one thing I am sure of is if there is some deity responsible for the universe it certainly isn't described in any religious book on earth.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 


Really? It seems to me that the "afterlife" might just be an expansion-pack. It's simply a matter of design.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Bone75
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

I think the implications are pretty obvious. If this is all just one big hologram or simulation, then there is indeed a creator behind it all. It also makes the existence of a Heaven and a Hell far more likely... does it not?





Regarding your last statement / question: I do not see how one logically follows from the other, and therefore can't agree with that statement. No.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy

The irony of how hologram theory and string theory are explained is that they are easily related to the creation story of the Bible. In the beginning there was darkness and God said let there be light ( hologram and the vibration of chords).

Easily related??
That's it?
"In the beginning there was darkness and God said let there be light"
??
Really? That's it? That's all it takes to relate it directly to the science discussed in this thread?
Well I wouldn't call that irony as you said. I'd call that stupid.
edit on 21-12-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


The math child, its all in the math . . .

You obviously wont understand it if you don't understand the math. Go back and read my previous posts and understand that the only courses on that list which I have not yet completed are nuclear physics and linear algebra.

Learn the physics and mathematics which describes it and then applying it to the Biblical creation story is indeed ironically similar.

The best part is the insistence of folks like you on mocking a specific belief with accusations of an imaginary wizard in the sky

. . . when all the while your models of physics are literally based on functions dependent on imaginary numbers which often manifest on a new axis once squared. (IE Particles and Anti Particles).

But if you want to make yourself feel better by calling me a dumb dumb for appreciating the irony of the theories being so similar then do go right ahead.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Grimpachi
Well to be fair I have not once stated it was impossible that there is a creator now whether or not its likely well that's another story but one thing I am sure of is if there is some deity responsible for the universe it certainly isn't described in any religious book on earth.


Who knows though, ya know?

They might be describing it exactly how they understood it through their cultural lense. When you look at the unifying factors between all religions (commonalities), some might say they are all talking about the same thing from different perspectives.

Looking at it in a simple mathematic way allowed myself to get beyond the confines of religion (which I struggled to reconcile with reality);

x = omnipotent + omniscient + omnipresent,...omni-n

Is there anything which can satisfy these requirements that we are aware of? Is there an answer we can use to define x so that it includes all known power, all known knowledge, is present everywhere that we know, and so on? If the universe is able to satisfy these requirements, then it might be said that x most certainly "exists," but will simply be seen through whatever individual perspective is sharing at the moment.

Basically, a small glimpse into how someone else views the exact same thing as you, like small pieces of a much larger puzzle. Some do it through science, some through religion, some through esoteric practices, and so on.

You will find plenty who feel their perspective on "x" is the correct one, and you should adhere to what they are saying. Its your own personal search though, and one which you must find your own answers. Those who do not encourage you in your own journey are simply taking part in the ages old cultural phenomena of a "battle of perspectives." This type of battle holds all of us back...

All the best in your journey, I look forward to what your first big "catch" might be. A salmon? Tuna? Surely, there will be some Flounders along the way, but they can be used as bait to catch bigger fish.




top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join