Holographic Speculation is Cringe

Is the universe a 3d expression of some 2d artifacts? Maybe so, cool stuff. But damn if every time I hear about holographic theory its tied to some matrix style view of reality that this is some kind of illusion. You may as well be talking about god at that point. The entire subject beyond the math is so cringe worthy I can barely stand to read it. and if it is proven that it is 100% holographic, does that still even mean anything? its like saying scientists discover reality is really unreality. if it is unreality, how do we know our observations are even reliable if this is unreality or an illusion or computer simulation.

So yeah holographic speculation without math is as cringey as posting a bunch of bible quotes to describe the true nature of reality.

originally posted by: SpergLord
Is the universe a 3d expression of some 2d artifacts? Maybe so, cool stuff. But damn if every time I hear about holographic theory its tied to some matrix style view of reality that this is some kind of illusion. You may as well be talking about god at that point. The entire subject beyond the math is so cringe worthy I can barely stand to read it. and if it is proven that it is 100% holographic, does that still even mean anything? its like saying scientists discover reality is really unreality. if it is unreality, how do we know our observations are even reliable if this is unreality or an illusion or computer simulation.

So yeah holographic speculation without math is as cringey as posting a bunch of bible quotes to describe the true nature of reality.

Agreed. However i actually like my own idea that simulation theory is wrong and right. The universe isn't a hologram but our reality is somehow controlled by a program probably ai that has run simulations to find the best possible outcome for humanity.it makes course corrections based off probabilities. It would make people feel like they are living in a simulation simply by influencing the global population.

originally posted by: SpergLord

So yeah holographic speculation without math is as cringey as posting a bunch of bible quotes to describe the true nature of reality.

There's plenty of math to support the idea. It's just that you don't see it because you wouldn't understand it anyway. Producing equations in an ASCII world is virtually impossible anyway--kind of an analog to the whole issue. "Holographic" does not imply a "Matrix-type" universe at all. That's a "simulation hypothesis" which is much different, the idea that we are in a computer-produced MMORPG. It also does not imply "God" at all. It could simply be the nature of reality that is holographic. Conflating these three very distinct ideas is, I think, a mistake. Not that more than one can't be true, but it isn't necessary as an explanation. One does not imply the other. We could have a holographic universe that is NOT a simulation. Also, "Cringy" is an emotional reaction. It's not what you would call "scientific," is it? So invoking a bible quote analogy is like the pot calling the kettle black.

originally posted by: SpergLord
You may as well be talking about god at that point.

Long ago I reckoned that if there is any validity to the whole afterlife stuff, then one day there will be science that explains it.
We may be seeing the first hints of the science

Not sure how that's cringey. Its always inadvisable to take a brand new field of research and try to have it conform to religion of course, but its a interesting thing to hypothesize about in reference to our history of understanding and observations that may align with it for simple consideration.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: SpergLord

So yeah holographic speculation without math is as cringey as posting a bunch of bible quotes to describe the true nature of reality.

There's plenty of math to support the idea. It's just that you don't see it because you wouldn't understand it anyway. Producing equations in an ASCII world is virtually impossible anyway--kind of an analog to the whole issue. "Holographic" does not imply a "Matrix-type" universe at all. That's a "simulation hypothesis" which is much different, the idea that we are in a computer-produced MMORPG. It also does not imply "God" at all. It could simply be the nature of reality that is holographic. Conflating these three very distinct ideas is, I think, a mistake. Not that more than one can't be true, but it isn't necessary as an explanation. One does not imply the other. We could have a holographic universe that is NOT a simulation. Also, "Cringy" is an emotional reaction. It's not what you would call "scientific," is it? So invoking a bible quote analogy is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Producing equations in an ASCII world is virtually impossible anyway--kind of an analog to the whole issue.

Lost you here? how would american standard code have anything to do with this? Simply put all ASCII does is convert binary code into english.

a reply to: SpergLord

Well considering 96 Percent of the Universe is made of stuff astronomers don't exactly understand, aka dark energy/dark matter, this reality could very well be interpreted as "unreality".

As to whether or not its a simulation, or even more probable a simulation of simulation, once we are able to measure/resolve at the individual Planck unit, we may be able to determine a more definitive answer.

a reply to: SpergLord

and if it is proven that it is 100% holographic, does that still even mean anything?

It wouldn't then mean we are inside a Matrix controlled by aliens or god(s), no. Not without further evidence for that. Won't stop people from reaching that conclusion without good reason. Just like people look outside, decide things look designed, and that somehow affirms their particular religious god.

I found this interesting.

originally posted by: digital01anarchy

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: SpergLord

So yeah holographic speculation without math is as cringey as posting a bunch of bible quotes to describe the true nature of reality.

There's plenty of math to support the idea. It's just that you don't see it because you wouldn't understand it anyway. Producing equations in an ASCII world is virtually impossible anyway--kind of an analog to the whole issue. "Holographic" does not imply a "Matrix-type" universe at all. That's a "simulation hypothesis" which is much different, the idea that we are in a computer-produced MMORPG. It also does not imply "God" at all. It could simply be the nature of reality that is holographic. Conflating these three very distinct ideas is, I think, a mistake. Not that more than one can't be true, but it isn't necessary as an explanation. One does not imply the other. We could have a holographic universe that is NOT a simulation. Also, "Cringy" is an emotional reaction. It's not what you would call "scientific," is it? So invoking a bible quote analogy is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Producing equations in an ASCII world is virtually impossible anyway--kind of an analog to the whole issue.

Lost you here? how would american standard code have anything to do with this? Simply put all ASCII does is convert binary code into english.

Well, no, it does not, first of all. But let's not get away from the main issue. You cannot express many notations used in equations in ASCII because ASCII does not have the symbols available. Look at these mathematical symbols, for example. A few of them can be converted to ASCII, but most of them cannot. You get a few Greek letters in extended ASCII (128-255), but that doesn't cover everything. Most of extended ASCII is for forms as well as a few non-English letters with diacritics used in other Roman-alphabet languages. You need a different "symbol font" for that. Adobe has an elementary set, for example.

But ATS right here is strictly ASCII, just like MS-DOS. If you want to use the full range of symbols used in advanced equations, you need to get to Windows and use one of those specialized fonts. We cannot do that in the context of an ATS post. And THAT'S what I was talking about. Attempting to discuss holography and a holographic universe in conventional language is difficult IN THE SAME WAY, i.e.: an analog of the problem, it is difficult to express advanced mathematical concepts when all you have at your disposal is a very limited (from a mathematical point of view) ASCII character set.

Describing Holographic Principle with precision is kind of like the parable of the four blind men trying to describe an elephant, when only having access to one aspect of it.

Cosmological holography has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the particle horizon has a non-zero area and grows with time.

en.wikipedia.org...

The particle horizon (also called the cosmological horizon, the comoving horizon (in Dodelson's text), or the cosmic light horizon) is the maximum distance from which particles could have traveled to the observer in the age of the universe. Much like the concept of a terrestrial horizon, it represents the boundary between the observable and the unobservable regions of the universe,[1] so its distance at the present epoch defines the size of the observable universe.[2] Due to the expansion of the universe it is not simply the age of the universe times the speed of light (approximately 13.8 billion years), but rather the speed of light times the conformal time.The existence, properties, and significance of a cosmological horizon depend on the particular cosmological model.

en.wikipedia.org...

So the issue in general is debatable but there is also the matter of Cosmic Inflation to take into consideration as it is related at least theoretically.

Its not really about Religion but structure and while one could relate it to a Deity that not really prioritized by scientist who are looking into this.

As mentioned earlier, "once we are able to measure/resolve at the individual Planck unit, we may be able to determine a more definitive answer."

In particle physics and physical cosmology, Planck units are a set of units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants, in such a manner that these five physical constants take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of these units.

Originally proposed in 1899 by German physicist Max Planck, these units are also known as natural units because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct. Planck units are only one system of several systems of natural units, but Planck units are not based on properties of any prototype object or particle (that would be arbitrarily chosen), but rather on only the properties of free space.

en.wikipedia.org...

So what is being presented is that we are trying to understand how Space and Time are structurally organized.

If it IS holographic WHAT is the PROJECTOR?
Feels like "42" to me...

n

The world, in a sense, may be a hologram. The idea comes from black hole physics. In the 1970s researchers knew that when an object becomes part of a black hole, two things happen. One, all the detailed information about that object is lost. And two, the surface area of the black hole's event horizon (the point of no return for infalling matter and energy) grows. The first fact seemed to violate the second law of thermodynamics, because one of the lost details was the object's entropy, or the information describing its microscopic parts. But the second fact offered a way out: if entropy must always grow, and a black hole's surface area must too, perhaps for the black hole they are one and the same, and information is somehow stored on the horizon.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Does not necessarily mean there is an absolute as we can comprehend it. Rather in no different a way than matter is organized information is never destroyed just changed when take to the next level in general.

a reply to: cavtrooper7


Go to a beach before sunrise and have a seat until Sol rises and notice the difference in so far as you can see.

This is the extent of our comprehension scientifically of what it is we are talking about.

Myself I consider the idea of the Present as a Surface.

a reply to: Kashai

If it's reality,wouldn't OUR own brains project it?

a reply to: cavtrooper7


Potentially but in relation to our interpretation that would be like the first humans looking at a sunrise and contemplating its purpose.

The human brain relates to a small percentage of reality as it is understood.

What would it be like to perceive reality from the perspective of a quantum state is a sensorial way?

In consideration how things are differentiated at the common scale of perception would be significantly blurred.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: digital01anarchy

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: SpergLord


Intersting idea here write out equation then take a photograph of said equation then upload and embed the photo of equation into your post. Simply bypassing the ascii restrictions.

edit on 20-11-2016 by digital01anarchy because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2016 by digital01anarchy because: (no reason given)

a reply to: schuyler

Simply write out the equation on paper then upload and embed into your post. Ascii isnt a restriction unless you make it one

A savvy person, should be able to realize the distinctions between virtual reality and laser holographic projected images.

a reply to: schuyler

Computers don't know what those symbols mean, some of them don't even mean the same things. To a computer != is not equal, and > are bit level operations rather than referring to continuity, || is typically a logical or rather than referring to being parallel, summation rather than being a sigma is typically accomplished with for loops instead.

Most of math is about operations and within the ASCII character set, and computer language syntax you can replicate all mathematical operations. You just don't write them down the same way.

Anyways, on the subject of getting a 3d representation from a 2d world. The matricies that computers use are 2d objects, both figuratively and physically. They reside in a physical location on a hard disk which has a width and depth. The information they convey is along an x/y axis. From those points, verticies are connected and polygons are formed. If you've ever used virtual reality, or a hololens you actually get to interact with this 2d data in 3d form. 3d data displayed on a screen is slightly different, that's a 3d representation of 2 dimensional data, projected onto a 2d surface, which is how your eyes work.

If you get right down to it, the 2d data could then be broken down into 1d data as a bitstring when it's being processed.

a reply to: schuyler

try actually reading the OP, my gripe is with the conflating of those ideas. and wow dude " It's just that you don't see it because you wouldn't understand it anyway." sounds like a bible quote if i ever heard one