Can a materialist provide scientific evidence that the material world has an objective existence?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You said:

the vast majority of scientists don't need it at all since it offers literally no advantages over the mainstream models, at the present time.

You didn't provide a shred of evidence to support this statement. I asked:

Show me this vast majority of scientist and how they explain the Page Curve, quantum gravity, the bekenstein bound and black hole thermodynamics.

I don't think you understand what's being said. You just provided someone's opinion. Show me the list of scientist that reject the holographic model of spacetime. You made this blanket statement so support it.

One of your quotes says this:

“It’s holographic in the sense that there’s a description of the universe based on a lower dimensional system consistent with everything we see from the Big Bang,” Niayesh Afshordi, the study’s first author from the University of Waterloo and the Perimeter Institute in Canada, told Gizmodo.

If there's a 2D description of the universe on it's boundary how is its volume filled with real stuff(matter) without exceeding this description?

Let me repeat:

If there's a 2D description of the universe on it's boundary how is its volume filled with real stuff(matter) without exceeding this description?



Here's a video of Susskind talking about the holographic principle and his black hole war with Hawking and he says just the opposite from your minority of scientist claim.

I suggest watching the whole thing but if you want start at 5:00.

Again I ask, where is your list of most scientist that reject the holographic model of spacetime? You quoted this:

Other researchers were intrigued by the results, but pointed out that the holographic model isn’t preferred over the standard models of cosmology that scientists currently use to study both the present universe and the universe around the time of the Big Bang. “In that sense, the result is inconclusive in that it does not allow you to rule out their holographic model,” Daniel Grumiller, physicist at the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the Vienna University of Technology, told Gizmodo, but “neither does it allow to make a statement that the data would prefer their holographic model over standard cosmology.”

What other researchers weren't intrigued. Where's the evidence that other researchers = most scientist as you claim? You said:

the vast majority of scientists don't need it at all since it offers literally no advantages over the mainstream models, at the present time.

Where are all of these scientist saying they don't need the holographic model of spacetime at all? Explain this:

If there's a 2D description of the universe on it's boundary how is its volume filled with real stuff(matter) without exceeding this description?

originally posted by: neoholographic
I don't think you understand what's being said. You just provided someone's opinion.

dragonridr is a PhD physicist and he said something similar, but you just won't accept that from any source. There are some researchers still researching it as already discussed, but, that in no way means it's been adopted by most scientists.

You said:

originally posted by: neoholographic
www.express.co.uk...

Was Hawking an idiot because of Sabine's ridiculous opinion?

I replied:

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So I can figure out who the idiot was, please explain exactly what contradiction exists between Sabine Hossenfelder and Stephen Hawking.

I'm still puzzled about what you were talking about between Hossenfelder and Hawking, can you give the contradictory quotes or something?

a reply to: neoholographic

Siskind admits during his interview that physicists don't want to try to determine what is reality hes just interested in math you can see this at 7 min 40 sec .

They don't care about reality What they care about is if the math leads them in a new direction.

I strongly suggest you go to your local college and talk to the physics department ask them if the universe exists.

a reply to: dragonridr

If you watched and understood the video, Susskind was talking about whether the version on the boundary is real or the version in the bulk is real. Arbitrageur said you had a PhD in Physics but you don't understand what he was talking about?

Here's a video where he was asked if the 3rd dimension is an illusion.



It starts at 4:08.

If you say the the 3rd dimension is an illusion, you're not saying it isn't real, you're saying it's not an objective material universe with matter filling up it's volume. This is why I asked Arbitrageur the question he didn't answer along with the other questions he just doesn't answer like you. You guys make these blanket absolute statements without a shred of evidence. I asked:

If there's a 2D description of the universe on it's boundary how is its volume filled with real stuff(matter) without exceeding this description?

Maybe you will understand what I'm asking Mr. PhD.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dragonridr

If you watched and understood the video, Susskind was talking about whether the version on the boundary is real or the version in the bulk is real. Arbitrageur said you had a PhD in Physics but you don't understand what he was talking about?

That's a misrepresentation of what Susskind said which was that "The mathematics doesn't care which way you think about it, it says there's an equivalence, that's about all we can say. Physicists do not like the word "reality". We may talk about it all the time, but when it comes down to it, we really don't want to say "this is reality and that's not reality". So instead of him talking about which is real as you claim, I think it would be more accurate to say he's avoiding talking about which is real, and he prefers to talk about the mathematical equivalence.


7:18
Hosts: "Which is reality?" (referring to 3-D- or 2-D surface projection)...
Susskind: "That's your choice, you decide what you, uh, but the mathematics says they're equivalent...The mathematics doesn't care which way you think about it, it says there's an equivalence, that's about all we can say. Physicists do not like the word "reality". We may talk about it all the time, but when it comes down to it, we really don't want to say "this is reality and that's not reality". There are mathematical connections between things and that's got to be it because we don't have enough insight to tell which is reality."

To me that sounds very similar to what dragonridr has been telling you during the entire thread about it being a mathematical equivalence, and also his recent post saying "physicists don't want to try to determine what is reality hes just interested in math" that's practically a quote of what Susskind said, if you add the word "equivalence" to "math".

So when you read dragonridr's post that's almost a quote of what Susskind said, and reply that dragonridr doen't know what he's talking about, I can only draw one conclusion, it's you who doesn't get it despite all of dragonridr's efforts to explain it to you, and Susskind confirms dragonridr's explanation.

So you're firmly stuck in the "I know everything" position on this graph;


I don't know why you don't get it, but if I had to guess, maybe it's some kind of bias on your part; you know what you want the answer to be and you let that color your interpretation of what people say even if you end up distorting what they say to try to make it fit your bias. Or else you have some kind of cognitive impairment which leads you to think dragonridr doesn't get what Susskind is saying, even though his words are almost exactly the same.

Either way, I think Phantom had a point earlier that interpreting science is not your forte, so it would be better if you chose another hobby for which your skills are better suited.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Again, you fail to answer questions and you have no idea what you're talking about. I asked you to list most of these scientist you talked about and not a shred of evidence to support your claim. You said:

the vast majority of scientists don't need it at all since it offers literally no advantages over the mainstream models, at the present time.

Then you went on a tangent about Decoherence, I asked you questions you never answered.

If Decoherence is the answer to Schrodinger's cat, when exactly does the cat decohere? How can the cat decohere into a live state or a dead state prior to a quantum event occuring?

If the cat can't be alive or dead for any measurable instance, when does Decoherence decide which state the cat will be in? If you're correct, Decoherence must decide the cat is dead or alive before the poison is triggered. So, how does decoherence decide the cat will be dead in universe A and alive in universe B prior to the event of decay which triggers the poison? If you're not talking about MWI, how does decoherence decide the cat will be dead or alive in a single universe before the poison is triggered by decay?

No answer after you went on and on about Decoherence.

I just asked you.

If there's a 2D description of the universe on it's boundary how is its volume filled with real stuff(matter) without exceeding this description?

Again, NOTHING!

You don't understand what Susskind is saying because you don't understand The Holographic Principle. It's about information. Let me educate you.

In the video around 2:00, Susskind starts to talk about information, why? It's because of his back and forth with Hawking over what happens to information when an object falls into a black hole. Susskind said information can never be lost and Hawking eventually agreed with him.

When they asked Susskind what's real the you on the boundary or you in the bulk, he talked about a mathematical equivalence between the two. What's equivalent that the math is describing? INFORMATION. This is why when he was asked directly is the 3rd dimension an illusion he said yes, it's kind of an illusion.

I noticed you didn't post that video. You guys either don't answer questions or omit relevant information.



Starting at 4:08.

It's not just about mathematical equivalence, it's about information.

Stephen Hawking's final theory published after death suggests universe is a hologram

Put simply, Professors Hawking and Hertog speculated that all information in the universe is stored on a flat 2D surface and our so-called “solid” world around us is then projected from that information.

www.express.co.uk...

Information in the Holographic Universe

Theoretical results about black holes suggest that the universe could be like a gigantic hologram

www.scientificamerican.com...

INFORMATION IN THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE

This is why I asked you this:

If there's a 2D description of the universe on it's boundary how is its volume filled with real stuff(matter) without exceeding this description?

Of course you didn't answer because you don't understand what the Holographic Principle is. If You did, you would answer my question that I have asked you several times now.

The third dimension is an illusion because it only exists due to EM Gravity. The creator created a 2 dimensional space of time and space and out of that space EM Gravity was created which stretched out the 2 dimensions into 3 dimensions. Now out of those three dimensions 4th and 5th dimensions were created. See cosmic consciousness. Once the 4th dimension of cosmic consciousness was created it gave an additional dimension of space which is now used to time travel and to receive messages from the past and future. Our time is not linear it's cyclical, possibly a closed time loop, so time travel became a thing now. See Baal. See Asherah.

For example, you want to believe science takes a holographic universe seriously. The reality is they can't tell you how the information is displayed they also require our entire universe to be inside a black hole. This doesn't yield any useful information. However, in their quest to prove it as possible they came up with an effective way to simplify the math. Theoretical physics is math For instance; in view of all the sophisticated mathematics such as; Hilbert space, Banach space, Riemann surface, topological spaces, group theory and others have been used by theoretical physicists, but without any physical evidence to support the solutions are physically real. Besides all those fancy mathematics were not originated by theoretical physicists but by a group of abstract mathematicians, in which we see that theoretical physics is actually an “applied” mathematics or simply mathematics.

What about the concept of a manifold? It's a mathematical model, however, the math translates into a real “thing”. For instance, the gravitational force in general relativity is the geometry of spacetime. That geometry is a real thing. Misner used the example of an ant crawling on an apple. The ant's path is determined by the geometry of the apple, even though it may perceive a flat line.

In “Gravitation”, Misner, Thorne, Wheeler, page 10, last paragraph, it says about four dimensional manifolds: “This kind of mathematical reasoning about dimensionality (i.e. four-dimensional manifolds) makes sense at the everyday scale of distances, at atomic distances, at nuclear dimensions and even at lengths smaller by several powers of ten”.

My point is that theoretical physics very often translates into real things. I remember L. Susskind saying in one of his lectures that our theories mean nothing until the guys in the lab prove them correct. Theoretical physics is like any other scientific research. The first day in graduate school my mentor said: “99% of what you do here will go into file 13 (i.e. trash). You're looking for the 1%. That's your job”. Without the idea and the model, nothing happens.

But I understand where you're coming from. My own pet peeve with the math is how often they use a normalization technique. I've often thought it's just an easy way to jump over the real data and not deal with it. Anyway, just a few thoughts on your post.

a reply to: neoholographic

BINGO!

If you look into my posts and replies you'll find I have always supported this idea....

"The fall of every Sparrow, Tree or drop of rain is witnessed. There is Nothing He is not aware of..."

originally posted by: libertytoall
The third dimension is an illusion because it only exists due to EM Gravity. The creator created a 2 dimensional space of time and space and out of that space EM Gravity was created which stretched out the 2 dimensions into 3 dimensions. Now out of those three dimensions 4th and 5th dimensions were created. See cosmic consciousness. Once the 4th dimension of cosmic consciousness was created it gave an additional dimension of space which is now used to time travel and to receive messages from the past and future. Our time is not linear it's cyclical, possibly a closed time loop, so time travel became a thing now. See Baal. See Asherah.

Wow! That's....That is ....That feels awesomely Correct!

You Must be a Traveller!?

a reply to: neoholographic

the vast majority of scientists don't need it at all since it offers literally no advantages over the mainstream models, at the present time.

first, this tells me you don't understand science and modelling. The question “Is it real?” is a slippery one. Possible answers depend on the level at which something is modelled. Consider this: “How do your glasses work?” There are at least four answers, corresponding to the hierarchy of concepts with which we understand light. The first describes the rays from whatever you're looking at and how the lens deflects the rays to form the focused image we see. The second describes the focus in terms of the coherent interference of light waves. The third considers the electric and magnetic fields, propagating according to Maxwell’s equations. The fourth is in terms of the photons: the quantum excitations of the modes corresponding to the Maxwell fields.

Which answer explains what is “really” happening? None of them. Each is useful to us at a different level and for different reasons. Though each is accurate they fail to take everything into account. Now when modelling you only use concepts that are useful to your work. What Arbitrageur was attempting to explain is there would be no advantage to trying to use this concept.

In fact, you're attempting to make him prove a negative if I decide a particular tool is not right for a job that doesn't mean I hate the tool it is just not useful to my work.

a reply to: dragonridr

LOL, what you're doing is just illogical. Because you can't refute the OP or provide any evidence, you want to claim all Theoretical Physicist are basically idiots! Many of them are working on the cutting edge of Physics and working on problems you can't begin to understand. You can't even answer simple questions. I have asked you several times.

If there's a 2D description of the universe on it's boundary how is its volume filled with real stuff(matter) without exceeding this description?

You or the other guy don't understand the Holographic Model or you would understand this simple question. This model is used by Cosmologist and Physicist alike. Susskind says it's a tool of everyday Physics.



It starts at 8:27

Go to arXiv and type in Holographic and the whole first page of results are from papers from 2021 not the 90's as you claimed when you said:

Well, you are stuck in the 90s holographic universe was an idea that has now for the most part dismissed.

How can't you not know this is a false statement?

arxiv.org...

I guess all of these Scientist from different fields using Holography in their papers in 2021 are stuck in the 90's also?

Here's a great book from a Cognitive Scientist called The Case Against Reality. He was interviewed here:

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality

The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.

www.quantamagazine.org...

Are all Cognitive Scientist idiots also!!

At the end of the day, this thread isn't about the Holographic Model but the need for these theories and others I listed in the OP because there's no evidence that an objective material reality exists.

Also, could you and the other guy start answering questions? I've answered all questions backed up with links. Most of your posts is just your opinion masquerading as facts like when you said:

Well, you are stuck in the 90s holographic universe was an idea that has now for the most part dismissed.

Which is false.

So answer the question:

If there's a 2D description of the universe on it's boundary how is its volume filled with real stuff(matter) without exceeding this description?

originally posted by: Khurzon

originally posted by: libertytoall
The third dimension is an illusion because it only exists due to EM Gravity. The creator created a 2 dimensional space of time and space and out of that space EM Gravity was created which stretched out the 2 dimensions into 3 dimensions. Now out of those three dimensions 4th and 5th dimensions were created. See cosmic consciousness. Once the 4th dimension of cosmic consciousness was created it gave an additional dimension of space which is now used to time travel and to receive messages from the past and future. Our time is not linear it's cyclical, possibly a closed time loop, so time travel became a thing now. See Baal. See Asherah.

Wow! That's....That is ....That feels awesomely Correct!

You Must be a Traveller!?

I was brought here by Asherah. I was not born in this world.

originally posted by: dragonridr
I strongly suggest you go to your local college and talk to the physics department ask them if the universe exists.

That's a good suggestion. Another PhD physicist, mbkennel, responded in this thread, but it looks like neoholographic just ignored him.

originally posted by: neoholographic
The point is, Scientist are just trying to find explanations where the Bible already tells us the answer...God. If there were evidence that an objective material reality exists, why do scientist behave like there isn't one?

I'll wait ...........

originally posted by: mbkennel
Huh? Bible hasn't been useful at all for physics. And scientists do behave like objective material reality exists, because that makes things work.

That's what I see too, when we talk about classical sized object like cats, but neoholographic prefers to misinterpret their science to support his bias.

neoholographic, you don't seem to be getting much support for your physics claims from the PhD physicists here, but I think libertytoall seems to support you to some extent.

originally posted by: libertytoall
I was brought here by Asherah. I was not born in this world.

a reply to: neoholographic

LOL, what you're doing is just illogical. Because you can't refute the OP or provide any evidence, you want to claim all Theoretical Physicist are basically idiots!

Please show me where we said this your making things up

If there's a 2D description of the universe on it's boundary how is its volume filled with real stuff(matter) without exceeding this description?

Your question doesn't actually make sense I assume you mean how is it constructed? A hologram of dS space is made by taking two AdS universes, cutting them, warping them, and gluing their boundaries together. They had to cut it to deal with infinity if the boundary was infinitely far away it could not interact. Next, you need theoretical Randall-Sundrum throats to energize them and give them positive curvature. The problem is these only exist in math. So once we have what's called uplifting have turned the two saddle-shaped AdS spaces into bowl-shaped dS spaces. Then they glue them together to form a sphere and tada holographic universe. Never mind that none of this can be proved along with no explanation of how this could even happen.

Well, you are stuck in the 90s holographic universe was an idea that has now for the most part dismissed.

I stand by this since science stopped trying to find out if the universe is a hologram because the theory did not follow observations.

arxiv.org...

I guess all of these Scientists from different fields using Holography in their papers in 2021 are stuck in the 90's also?

Here's your challenge find one of these that says the universe is a hologram and not just using the holographic principle for modeling. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall the mathematics is not the same as reality but can be used to model a specific interaction. When you find one we can discuss it.

Are all Cognitive Scientist idiots also!!

I don't know I've never met a Cognitive Scientist I assume they are psychologists and that's not my field.

At the end of the day, this thread isn't about the Holographic Model but the need for these theories and others I listed in the OP because there's no evidence that an objective material reality exists.

Ad this is your biggest problem you're claiming this somehow proves you correct it doesn't.

a reply to: neoholographic

Looks like the cut-and-paste frenzy didn't work. I suggest you either go back to the drawing board or find a local community college where you can start with Physics 101.

The alternative to the above is to pay attention to what physicists are describing. If you want to challenge their opinions, then do it like a scientist and not a blabbering idiot. You can start with this question: According to your theory, nothing is real, it's some fake construct where matter doesn't exist. If that's the case, what did the universe look like one second after the Big Bang (or whatever created it)? How does the first law of thermodynamics fit with your theory?

I doubt you'll respond, but that's to be expected for a person who's too arrogant to learn rather than preach.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You said:

That's a good suggestion. Another PhD physicist, mbkennel, responded in this thread, but it looks like neoholographic just ignored him.

This is just you riding the coat tails of some message board Physicist because you can't answer the questions I posed and neither did they. The answer isn't "go to your local college", that's just trying to say I know science so trust me you're wrong because they can't answer questions and neither can you so I'll repost them.

the vast majority of scientists don't need it at all since it offers literally no advantages over the mainstream models, at the present time.

Not a shred of evidence this is true.

I asked:

If Decoherence is the answer to Schrodinger's cat, when exactly does the cat decohere? How can the cat decohere into a live state or a dead state prior to a quantum event occuring?

If the cat can't be alive or dead for any measurable instance, when does Decoherence decide which state the cat will be in? If you're correct, Decoherence must decide the cat is dead or alive before the poison is triggered. So, how does decoherence decide the cat will be dead in universe A and alive in universe B prior to the event of decay which triggers the poison? If you're not talking about MWI, how does decoherence decide the cat will be dead or alive in a single universe before the poison is triggered by decay?

You spent 2 pages talking about Decoherence and I ask you one question and you jump to the holographic universe which you don't understand either.

I then asked you:

If there's a 2D description of the universe on it's boundary how is its volume filled with real stuff(matter) without exceeding this description?

Again, nothing. You run to others and they're supposed to have PhD's and can't answer simple questions. If these guys have all of this education, why can't you or your friends answer basic questions.

If Decoherence solves Schrodinger's cat, when does the cat decide which state it will be in? Does the cat die before the poison is triggered? Let me break it down to you because you and your educated friends lack simple understanding.

The cat is in the box. You have your radioactive decay and poison isolated from the cat. The wavefunction evolves and you have decay/not decay, poison released/no poison released, dead cat/live cat. How does decoherence collapse the wavefunction before decay/no decay occurs? How can the cat be in a dead state before the posion is triggered?

Please answer the question with some coherency instead of running to your message board friends who also can't answer.

a reply to: dragonridr

I asked:

If there's a 2D description of the universe on it's boundary how is its volume filled with real stuff(matter) without exceeding this description?

You answered:

Your question doesn't actually make sense I assume you mean how is it constructed? A hologram of dS space is made by taking two AdS universes, cutting them, warping them, and gluing their boundaries together. They had to cut it to deal with infinity if the boundary was infinitely far away it could not interact. Next, you need theoretical Randall-Sundrum throats to energize them and give them positive curvature. The problem is these only exist in math. So once we have what's called uplifting have turned the two saddle-shaped AdS spaces into bowl-shaped dS spaces. Then they glue them together to form a sphere and tada holographic universe. Never mind that none of this can be proved along with no explanation of how this could even happen.

This is pure GOBBLEDY GOOK!!

You're supposed to have a PhD? From where, a gumball machine?

I have read clearer responses from Ted Kaczynski!

This shows me you don't have any clue as to what I'm talking about. You were probably fishing on Google all night trying to figure it out LOL!

You said:

Well, you are stuck in the 90s holographic universe was an idea that has now for the most part dismissed.

You lied then, so I should have known you couldn't just say I don't know to my question. You had to act like the big PhD man for Arbitrageur because he can't answer questions.

a reply to: neoholographic

As I stated earlier there are many levels of understanding in science. Kowing you know nothing about the math involved I purposefully took this over your head knowing you had no understanding of 5th dimensional de sitter space. And I suspect you don't know the difference between anti-de sitter space either.

I'll concede it wasn't fair but you don't listen any way you're stuck in reading science wu on the internet. Your understanding is well let's say misguided. Again go talk to some physics professors give me an area I will set up an appointment for you with them.

a reply to: neoholographic

This shows me you don't have any clue as to what I'm talking about.

And neither do you. That's the problem. Going back to what Richard Feynman said: "If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it". That's you in a nutshell - you can't describe your theory without blabbering about holograms and fictitious cats. You go off topic deliberately to confuse the conversation to a point that it's not worthwhile pursuing.

Why don't you present a mathematical model of your theory, including the theory in mathematical format, matrices and tensors? How else can you expect anyone to understand what the hell you're talking about unless you speak the language???

And understand that I understand that no response from you says volumes about YOU. You simply can't answer the questions.