Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram

reply to post by Serdgiam

There is no question about x existing as per what I said.

When that statement can be proven and verified then we can talk about what it means but until then its opinion not fact.

You call it x in the vids I posted its called a fifth force as I am sure you had already seen them and that's why you didn't watch them again before posting you know that there isn't any evidence for that fifth force yet.

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?

reply to post by Bone75


Nope, because the Universe is not a hologram or a simulation.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Its not about anything that has yet to be proven, it is defined by what we "currently know." Whether the fifth force exists or doesnt isnt relevant to it at all, it would just be added to the equation.

When we view it in the form of this universe as singular, we can define the universe as x. There is nothing more powerful than the universe in the universe. All knowledge of the universe is contained within the universe. All things within the universe are part of the universe, etc.

All life pursuits could be considered "solving for x." We come up with equations that explain the relationships on the right side of the equation, but the left side (the x) doesnt change. All of the patterns we are exploring (thermodynamics, relativity, etc) happen on the right side of the equation. X is the totality of everything and everyone doing that everywhere. How it occurs is on the right side of the equation.

reply to post by Serdgiam


Oh well when you posted this representing X

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

It certainly didn't give the impression of the totality of the universe including you and I it gave the impression of something biblical.

Anyway I know that we are here and that the universe exists its breaking down into smaller more definable portions such as (thermodynamics, relativity, etc) as you stated that's the fun part.

Even though I will never be one of the ones contributing to solving these questions I can and will be paying attention to those that lead in that field.

Until recently I never had much reason to do so however the fact that they got a simulation to match up has sparked my interest.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

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

If anything, I would believe in the Bible's validity even less if I took higher level mathematics and physics. Okay that's a lie I couldn't believe in it any less than I do. I am highly skeptic me returning to college for those courses would be a catalyst to 'seeing the light'.

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by 'easily relatable'. I have no doubt one could relate it. Mind is funny like that. It finds the connections it's looking for even if they are not really there.

reply to post by BlueMule

You're failing to […..]

Wow. You listed a whole bunch of things I am failing at Does this mean I get an F in spirituality professor?

You made a lot of assumptions about what I know, what I have studied, practiced, etc. All because I disagreed that particular Biblical passage is relatable to String Theory. I don't know if your mastered form of spirituality includes humility, but it should.

reply to post by Phage



Well Holograms could explain how every thing in existence came out of nowhere. But then where did the light come from? Was it the original big bang? It seems to me that there never really was a big bang. Is light perhaps actually a perception of light generated by gravity?

Can extra dimensions be different intensities of multiple interference patterns overlapping? (Overlap on top of overlap) It almost seems like they would have to co-exist.

So then black holes could possibly have too dense of gravity for the interference patterns? So the Hologram theory makes sense when you consider black holes. Perhaps they are even caused by the intersection of too many interference patterns in an area? Thus the patterns are all absorbed? Would that then be called dimensional collapse? But perhaps a limited area around a black hole would be a portal between dimensions?

Maybe black holes are the origin of life itself?

I am one of the few people who believe physics in general has been off the track for a long time. It is almost taboo to say I suppose, but I think even Einstein's theories need modification. Just like Newton's theories were improved upon by Einstein, I think the latter's ideas are only partially correct, or are only correct in certain situations. Where I believe the problem lies is in a lack of understanding of magnetics and gravity. I think that is where the key lies in unlocking the more elusive mysteries of the universe.

Then there are also ideas that could theoretically explain things just as well as modern physics, albeit in a slightly different, though sometimes very close, manner. For instance, if we made a single assumption, based on what we see, we could say the following...Because we see three spatial dimensions, we could conclude that time also possesses three dimensions. And if such is the case, the implications that naturally arise are astounding. Suddenly many things begin to fall into place. Many of the problems that we perceive have explanations can be explained in a simpler manner, and some of the elusive problems could theoretically be solved. Although there may have to be a couple of other assumptions. The universe would have to conform to a certain type of geometry. There are many types, and finding the correct one is just a matter of mathematics and logic.

But an idea of this nature will instantly ignite criticism in many, despite the fact that they have not actually given the idea a chance. I am not saying an idea like this is correct. The truth is that there were other ways certain data could have been interpreted in the past, ways that differ from what was actually decided upon. Physics could have made many turns over the course of decades that it has supposedly been advancing, and different results could have been obtained, although these different results or theories could have potentially explained what we see around us just as well. I mean are there not ideas in physics, especially in quantum physics, that just seem preposterous? I believe that the universe is rather simple, and we have just not yet found the underlying structure.

Simple may not be the best term, but I believe it is much more appealing than string theory, M-theory, and other wacky ideas that are only a single explanation in a sea of other explanations, although most physicists don't see the other ideas, because it would take a reworking of physics, all the way back to Einsten, or even further back most likely.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus

It's been obvious since quantum mechanics showed up that there are problems with relativity, or vice versa. Still, the predictions of relativity continue to be confirmed and no evidence that it isn't valid has arisen.

Because we see three spatial dimensions, we could conclude that time also possesses three dimensions. And if such is the case, the implications that naturally arise are astounding. Suddenly many things begin to fall into place. Many of the problems that we perceive have explanations can be explained in a simpler manner, and some of the elusive problems could theoretically be solved.

You could conclude that. You can conclude a lot of things. But if you want to verify it (assuming you would want to do so) you would also want to come up with the ramifications of that conclusion, as you said. You would want to make predictions about observations that could be made and experiments that could be conducted.

By looking at the sky you can conclude that the Earth is the center of the Universe. What could be more simple than that? However, that model falls apart quite quickly when closely examined.


But really, that is exactly what this is about. A fairly simple concept (strings) that really isn't so simple when it gets down to determining if it's a valid model to use.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Way back before I knew of this theory I played the game The Sims, and then I had a philosophical problem, what if we are a simulation ourselves? That made me actually stop playing for a time because my characters always died (before their time) This was Sims 1 and it was way too easy to have them die then, the newer versions make it a bit more difficult. The point is...I actually worried that if we're simulated, then whose to say The Sims aren't self aware to some degree like us. Now I hope it all is a simulation, because reality sucks.

reply to post by ldyserenity

This thread is not really about the Universe being a simulation (though you aren't the first to think so).
It is about simulations which show there may be validity to at least some aspects of string theory.

reply to post by Phage


Oh I see, title's misleading then.

reply to post by ldyserenity

Nope. It's exactly what it says.
Maybe the problem is with your understanding of what a hologram is. It has nothing to do with simulation. Nor, in this case, does it have anything to do with illusion.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Holograms are almost exactly the same as simulations weren't they???
I believe that it is a hologram because of theories by other physicists that say the black holes carry all the information of the universes on their event horizon (Two dimensional) Object which plays out [in] three dimensional physical reality. Don't know who the physicists were though right now.

reply to post by ldyserenity

Holograms are almost exactly the same as simulations weren't they???

No. They aren't. They are a collection of interference patterns. They have nothing to do with simulation. www.holography.ru...

I believe that it is a hologram because of theories by other physicists that say the black holes carry all the information of the universes on their event horizon (Two dimensional) Object which plays out [in] three dimensional physical reality.

Actually, what some other physicists say is that information is not lost in a black hole. That's not the same thing as saying that all the information of the "universes" are on their event horizon. The event horizon is not a thing. It is the distance from the black hole at which the gravity is so great that light cannot escape.

reply to post by Phage


hol•o•gram (ˈhɒl əˌgræm, ˈhoʊ lə-)

n.
a three-dimensional image of an object produced by recording on a photographic plate or film the patterns of interference formed by a split laser beam and then illuminating the pattern with usu. coherent light.The Free Dictionary

Full Definition of SIMULATION

1
: the act or process of simulating
2
: a sham object : counterfeit
3
a : the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another
b : examination of a problem often not subject to direct experimentation by means of a simulating device
Merriam Webster

So a hologram can be the process of such simulating device, can't it?

If I'm wrong than I have no idea why they'd call the Holodeck (A SIMULATION) A Holodeck.

reply to post by ldyserenity

If I'm wrong than I have no idea why they'd call the Holodeck (A SIMULATION) A Holodeck.

Because it's a TV show?

reply to post by ldyserenity


The way I like to think of it is that they are, first off, not mutually exclusive. But, they are speaking to different things.

In the case of a Holodeck (which I am waiting for, btw), it is a simulation using holograms.

So, the overall "cause" is referred to by the "simulation theories" while the pattern of the "effect" is described by "hologram theories."

reply to post by Phage


Inherently the Hologram is a simulation of a three dimensional object it says it right up there in the definition. In other terms of course, but it's still basically is not an actual object. It's a photograph of an object, which is clearly a simulation of three dimensions.

But I am not going to argue anymore, and let you make me out to be some stupid ignorant person when I am clearly not...but thanks for that.

reply to post by ldyserenity


So an image is a simulation.
Got it. I've got some nice simulations hanging on my wall.
Is a statue a simulation too?