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.
originally posted by: WorShip
a reply to: neoholographic
"could explain nearly all"
*Human lights small candle in infinite universe* "Look, this is the truth!"
Maybe your data-points don't exist nor something called 4d-spacetime, it's just something we made up.
Nothing we formulate will be "ultimate truth" So it's somewhat paradoxical what you're arguing here. "There is no objective truth, but here, look at my objective new and improved objective truth".
Ok, use data to describe the phenomenon of consciousness/presence/awareness.
This strange quality give black holes something that physicists call maximal entropy. Entropy describes the number of different ways you can rearrange the components of something—“a system”—and still have it look essentially the same. The pages of a novel, as Brian Greene points out, have very low entropy, because as soon as one page is out of place, you have a different book. The alphabet has low entropy, too: Move one letter and any four-year-old can tell something is wrong. A bucket of sand, on the other hand, has high entropy. Switch this grain for that grain and no one would ever know the difference. Black holes, which look the same no matter what you put in them or how you move it about, have the highest entropy of all.
Entropy is also a measure of the amount of information it would take to describe a system completely. The entropy of ordinary objects—people, sand buckets, containers of gas—is proportional to their volume. Double the volume of a helium balloon, for instance, and its entropy will increase by a factor of eight. But in the 1970s, Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein discovered that the entropy of a black hole obeys a different scaling rule. It is proportional not to the black hole’s three-dimensional volume but to its two-dimensional surface area, defined here as the area of the invisible boundary called the event horizon. Therefore, while the actual entropy of an ordinary object—say, a hamburger—scales with its volume, the maximum entropy that could theoretically be contained in the space occupied by the hamburger depends not on the volume of the hamburger but on the size of its surface area. Physics prevents the entropy of the hamburger from ever exceeding that maximum: If one somehow tried to pack so much entropy into the hamburger that it reached that limit, the hamburger would collapse into a black hole.
The inescapable conclusion is that all the information it takes to describe a three-dimensional object—a black hole, a hamburger, or a whole universe—can be expressed in two dimensions. This suggests to physicists that the deepest description of our universe and its parts—the ultimate theory of physics—must be crafted in two spatial dimensions, not three. Which brings us back to the hologram.
originally posted by: neoholographic
First off, the holograms wouldn't be made of matter because they have no volume. They would be projections of light and light isn't matter. Light has no rest mass or doesn't take up any volume.
Secondly, of course he used the term matter, why wouldn't he? Matter is a description that we use to identify an underlying reality. There's no evidence that anything called matter exists and the fact that you're equating the use of the word matter as meaning that there's some quantifiable substance called matter shows the fallacy of your post.
Just using the word matter doesn't mean that matter exists. You can tell me how much matter is in my cup or how much matter is in a car.
This is because there's no such thing.
originally posted by: neoholographic
Can scientists show that surface area exists, any more than they can show that volume exists?
Yes, if they couldn't there wouldn't even be this debate. This is because the surface area is defined by information that can be contained in a volume of space. This is just simple physics of thermodynamics.
originally posted by: neoholographic
The entropy that can occupy any volume of space is proportional to it's surface area. Do you understand what this means?
originally posted by: neoholographic
The laws of physics limits what can occupy a volume of space and this limit is defined by information on a 2D surface area. This can be quantified but matter can't be. Here's a good article from 2011 that explains this. We know even more today like the recent article I posted in the OP.
originally posted by: neoholographic
I have to say that last part again.
The inescapable conclusion is that all the information it takes to describe a three-dimensional object—a black hole, a hamburger, or a whole universe—can be expressed in two dimensions. This suggests to physicists that the deepest description of our universe and its parts—the ultimate theory of physics—must be crafted in two spatial dimensions, not three. Which brings us back to the hologram.
If you can't grasp this then I don't know what to tell you.
originally posted by: neoholographic
Again, the maximal entropy that can fit into any volume of space isn't proportional to that volume. So the cup sitting on my desk can't be an actual cup made of something called matter occupying the space because if it was it would collapse into a black hole. The laws of physics won't allow it.
originally posted by: neoholographic
You said:
I am assuming that matter and volume do exist
Yes, you're making these assumptions without a shred of evidence to support anything that you're saying. Why do you make this assumption? Is it because you heard someone say the word matter and now you believe it exists? If I saying flying pink unicorns, will you blindly believe they exist?
originally posted by: neoholographic
If there's no matter occupying a volume of space then what's projecting the reality we perceive and why? You may want to stay blind to these issues but most people don't.
"We already know that the universe is a hologram," Bousso says. "It applies not only to the observed universe but to your room, the interior of a black hole, and any other realistic situation we can imagine."
He refers to the surprising fact that information capacity depends on the flat surface area surrounding a volume, rather than the volume itself. Put another way, doubling the side length of a cube only increases the maximum information inside by 4, rather than the logical 8.
Say you're allowed to bring a notecard of information into an exam with you. Wanting to maximize your advantage, you'd logically use a sharp pencil and write as small as possible. Even better, if the rule specified only the size of your learning aid, you could bring an SD card loaded with digital textbooks instead. In daily life, how much information we can store depends heavily on the medium we use to store it.
But the holographic principle establishes a natural limit to our information packing games. Eventually, if we cram enough SD cards into our exam room, the pile will collapse under its own weight and form a black hole. Calculating this limit – the maximum amount of information you can gather in one place – turns out to depend not on the volume of the room, as one might logically expect, but somehow the surface area of the classroom.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: dashen
It's what makes up/govern atoms and is below the protons, neutrons, and electrons that really interesting.
Probably Turtles all the way down really.
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: neoholographic
You know. I have given a lot of thought to this and it does not matter(no pun intended) what we are it does not change the fact that whatever we are or what ever this all is , it is still our reality. If you found out tomorrow we really were a hologram or a simulation would it truly change the way you live? This is still our reality.
originally posted by: neoholographic
Materialism is a belief and matter is the chief diety but there's no evidence that something called matter exists. It's just a description of a collection of data points that we perceive as objects. We define those objects as matter but that's just a description of something we perceive not something that has any objective existence.