You are a hologram projected from the edge of the universe

[Meatplow]

Article stolen from The New Scientist, scans -

http://i44.tinypic.com/33tkkye.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/t8u9fq.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/2hnmf5y.jpg

So when I made this universally panned thread a long while back I may have been more on the money then I once thought :chug:

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=527373

Or not. Discuss (the article, or my thread).

[siva_chair]

I've supported and argued for the Holographic Universe for a long time.

Of course when I argued for it, everyone thought I was some fringe nutjob advancing pseudoscience.....

[K oko]

fringe nutjobs are always fun to be around tho

[Meatplow]

i'm waiting for chu's epic criticism he has promised me over msn

[K oko]

i too will wait for this epic criticism

[siva_chair]

Here is an easier to read link of the same article.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?full=true

Also this book is worth reading for those interested in the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Holographic-Universe-Michael-Talbot/dp/0060922583

[sweboy]

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=527373



I remember this thread - a classic.

[peeted]

Sounds a bit implausable tbh.

[McP3000]

sounds like something michael crichton wrote

[siva_chair]

Sounds a bit implausable tbh.

So does string theory.

So did Quantum Mechanics when it was first proposed.

etc.

[PerpetualBurn]

That's the biggest red-herring in a long time, Siva.

[siva_chair]

That's the biggest red-herring in a long time, Siva.

Not really, as it illustrates that just because something seems implausable, it doesn't follow that it really is. Science continually confirms things that were once not even dreamed of.

[PerpetualBurn]

That some things that were doubted are now held to be true is completely unrelated to the validity of this particular theory.

[siva_chair]

That some things that were doubted are now held to be true is completely unrelated to the validity of this particular theory.

Well no ****, but that wasn't even the point of what I said. Good try though.

[PerpetualBurn]

There was no point to what you said.

[siva_chair]

There was no point to what you said.

There is plenty of a point, you are just being far too thickheaded to see it.

The point was clearly that just because something seems implausable to someone, doesn't mean that it is in fact wrong or incorrect.

But no, you decided to take it as "because x was implausable and turned out to be correct, therefore y is correct." Which no one ever claimed.

[McP3000]

okay red the article

scientist is a stoner

[siva_chair]

okay red the article

scientist is a stoner

Okay "read" this post.

poster isn't an English major.

:p

[hismajestythepope]

hahaha backed hard harrsion
That some things that were doubted are now held to be true is completely unrelated to the validity of this particular theory.

perpetual burn asserting a point that doesnt work, whoa.

[Shell]

I've supported and argued for the Holographic Universe for a long time.

Of course when I argued for it, everyone thought I was some fringe nutjob advancing pseudoscience.....

everyone still thinks you're a nutjob, for one reason or another

[siva_chair]

everyone still thinks you're a nutjob, for one reason or another

Hey that's fine, but now it's much harder for them to legitimately call me a nutjob for this specifically. :thumb:

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." :)

[sweboy]

Not really, as it illustrates that just because something seems implausable, it doesn't follow that it really is. Science continually confirms things that were once not even dreamed of.

Actually yes, if something "seems implausible" then it "is implausible", because those two things mean the same thing. "Plausibility" is not a property of the world (either the universe is a hologram or it isn't), it refers to something in your mind. The extent to which something "seems implausible" to you, after taking all available evidence into consideration, is the only measure you can use to determine what "is implausible". It's not like you can reach past the probability you subjectively assign to something ("seems") and grab onto the "actual" or "real" probability of it ("is").

[siva_chair]

Actually yes, if something "seems implausible" then it "is implausible", because those two things mean the same thing. "Plausibility" is not a property of the world (either the universe is a hologram or it isn't), it refers to something in your mind. The extent to which something "seems implausible" to you, after taking all available evidence into consideration, is the only measure you can use to determine what "is implausible". It's not like you can reach past the probability you subjectively assign to something ("seems") and grab onto the "actual" or "real" probability of it ("is").

I meant just because you see something as implausable, doesn't mean that it isn't so or doesn't exist.

[sweboy]

Yeah I kinda figured that, I just wanted to rail a little.

[siva_chair]

Yeah I kinda figured that, I just wanted to rail a little.

Well thanks. I honestly didn't realize that I left out the word "nonexistent."

[AA-12]

as mindblowing as this theory is, there's no proof and it's pretty much just cool dude scientists going "hey check this out".

[siva_chair]

as mindblowing as this theory is, there's no proof and it's pretty much just cool dude scientists going "hey check this out".

What do you mean by "proof?"

There is evidence to support this theory.

[AA-12]

What do you mean by "proof?"

There is evidence to support this theory.

It's closest to the allegory of the cave.

there's no way to ever test it and find out if it's true because it's a metaphysical idea.

[siva_chair]

Idk maybe you should check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_universe

[Futue te Ipsum]

you can be pseudoscientific and correct. The issue is that you were arguing through conjecture and had no solid base of fact from which to ground it on.

New scientist is gash. I'll read it when a decent journal picks it up, if a decent journal pics it up.

[siva_chair]

you can be pseudoscientific and correct. The issue is that you were arguing through conjecture and had no solid base of fact from which to ground it on.

Untrue.

I specifically pointed to evidence that supported the theory.

New scientist is gash. I'll read it when a decent journal picks it up, if a decent journal pics it up.

Do you like Scientific American or Reviews of Modern Physics?

This journal is hardly the only one that has proposed this idea, or pointed out the potential and probability of it.

[peeted]

Hey that's fine, but now it's much harder for them to legitimately call me a nutjob for this specifically. :thumb:

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." :)
If before the discovery of the speed of light someone picked a speed at random, say 299 792 458 m / s, and proceded to believe it was the speed of light because when he asked a magic 8 ball if it was the speed of light the 8 ball said "yes", we wouldd still call that guy a moron after it was discoverd that the speed of light is infact 299 792 458 m / s

Any way heres one piece of evidence for it, a large lart of the theory is un falsifiable, and its already been admited that the background noise could have been caused by any number of things. Pluss theres plenty of evidence for plenty of bunk theory, look at psychoanalysis, it quite often makes corect empirical predictions, its still bunk.

[siva_chair]

If before the discovery of the speed of light someone picked a speed at random, say 299 792 458 m / s, and proceded to believe it was the speed of light because when he asked a magic 8 ball if it was the speed of light the 8 ball said "yes", we wouldd still call that guy a moron after it was discoverd that the speed of light is infact 299 792 458 m / s

Any way heres one piece of evidence for it, a large lart of the theory is un falsifiable, and its already been admited that the background noise could have been caused by any number of things. Pluss theres plenty of evidence for plenty of bunk theory, look at psychoanalysis, it quite often makes corect empirical predictions, its still bunk.

Ok that's fine you can dismiss it if you want, I don't care.

[ashman]

I've never ever been able to get my head around this :upset:

[siva_chair]

What troubles you with it?

[Moon Flavor]

I don't understand... space-time (something with no physical bearing) is thought to move like little grains or something so therefore we're holographic projections from the edge of the universe?

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

It could be true in a sense that it is a language trap, and an articale in a magazine designed to make you think of things to keep reading, but even in a physical sort of sense it may be true, or at least an accurate perspective of an axiomatic truth about nature, but the problem is when you ascribe meaning to it or some signifigance, conisder it as only a way of thinking for a different person, ideas that will revolutionize culture and science will do so for the environment they appear in or come to effect unexpectedly, but when they do everyone experiencing it will understand

anyways im gonna read this first before actually saying anything on the article, i was just responding to you peronsally considering how dumb your other thread seemed

[gregulus]

Idk maybe you should check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_universe

I'm (very slowly) reading Susskind's book The Black Hole War right now where he will talk about the holographic principle in later chapters. I should read faster.

[spitfirejunky]

Holographic theory is both an extension and a reinforcing of string theory, and while it provides solutions to many age-old conundrums in science it's still unfalsifiable with our current methods. For better or for worse we'll have to stick with classical mechanics, quantum theory and relativity until we figure out some way to thoroughly test its ideas.

[P13]

I read Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot and it started out reasonable and plausible and then it got into mysticism and supernaturalism and I threw it out.
When ever a book about science tries to explain religion, prove supernatural phenomenon (magic), or mysticism I just get rid of it because there isn't really a point of trying to prove them.

[siva_chair]

I'm (very slowly) reading Susskind's book The Black Hole War right now where he will talk about the holographic principle in later chapters. I should read faster.

Yeah he's a smart dude. He definitely makes convincing cases for what he talks about.

Holographic theory is both an extension and a reinforcing of string theory.

Well, yes and no. It is true that it reinforces it, but the Holographic theory was around before String Theory came about, I believe.

I read Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot and it started out reasonable and plausible and then it got into mysticism and supernaturalism and I threw it out.
When ever a book about science tries to explain religion, prove supernatural phenomenon (magic), or mysticism I just get rid of it because there isn't really a point of trying to prove them.

It really doesn't try to "prove" them as such, it simply explains how those phenomenon can "fit" or be apparent within such a universe.

Would you say there is a point to a book about science that tries to disprove the above things? Do you throw those books out as well?

[spitfirejunky]

Well, yes and no. It is true that it reinforces it, but the Holographic theory was around before String Theory came about, I believe.

As a coherent scientific theory? Actually that could be true now that I think about it. I can't recall how recent string theory is given that many of its ideas originated at around the same time.

[siva_chair]

As a coherent scientific theory? Actually that could be true now that I think about it. I can't recall how recent string theory is given that many of its ideas originated at around the same time.

Well string theory itself is older, but the holographic principle wasn't really tied with the holographic paradigm until relatively recently (with Susskind, who has elaborated on it very well and applied the insight to string theory).

Bohm proposed a holographic model of the universe in the early 80's I believe (maybe even a bit earlier), and I would say it is quite coherent and scientific. I can't recommend Wholeness and the Implicate Order enough to anyone interested in this stuff.

[gregulus]

As it currently stands, the predominant model for such a theory is a direct effect of a theory of quantum gravity that is explained via string theory.

[siva_chair]

Yes sir.

Hey where are those Susskind lectures on iTunes? What are they titled?