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

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TzarChasm

Again, a response devoid of any coherency about the topic of the thread. I will ask you the question I asked the other guy.

So tell me, how do you know a state has been measured without consciousness?

Let's be clear on this point: the act of measuring does not create the measurement. It's a translation process, aka converting natural data into artificial data that is compatible with technology we use to study the causality of that natural data. The data itself exists whether we look at it or not. Consider the many thousands of fossils excavated in the last century. According to your logic, those fossils didn't exist until we exposed the sediment they were buried in. We essentially conjured those results. Is that correct?

You didn't answer the question.

So tell me, how do you know a state has been measured without consciousness?

It's a simple question. Stop obfuscating and answer the question. You said the data exists whether we look at it or not, how do you know this without consciousness?

How do you know anything with consciousness? How do you know this isn't a dream you're having while in a coma? You're technically aware but only inside your head and you can't tell the difference. How do you know this is genuine reality and not your subconscious fabricating your experiences?

I don't think he realizes he is making a philosophical debate and not a scientific one. However you're right we don't know if we are conscious and honestly would have no way to tell.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Then the OP's question is a moot point.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

You said:

The laws of nature are inherent.

Okay, show me the evidence. Were they inherent before the big bang or after? Were they inherent in the quantum vacuum? Where they inherent before or after inflation? Were they inherent in the Planck Epoch?

Were they inherent before consciousness defined the word inherent?

It's amazing you don't see the catch 22 you're in but keep going.

You need to make up your mind about what you want to discuss. The Standard Model is missing a few puzzle pieces (conspicuously absent are the particles that make up dark matter, those that convey the force of gravity, and an explanation for the mass of neutrinos), but it provides an extremely accurate picture of almost all other observed phenomena.

So you can argue this is the fundamental part of the universe as proof the monitor you are using was created from our understanding of the standard model.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TzarChasm

And you have no evidence the universe operated at all without consciousness. If it did, explain to me the exact point the universe evolved this value of the gravitational constant and exactly how do you know this without consciousness.

So tell me, how do you know a state has been measured without consciousness?

This is just silly measurements are done all the time without consciousness. Anytime two particles interact a measurement is taken and information exchanged. Any interaction conveys "information" from one particle to another about its state. That doesn't require anything as involved as consciousness: if a photon interacts with an electron, and that electron is knocked out, the remaining electrons will rearrange themselves to lower their energy.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Blue Shift

Then the OP's question is a moot point.

It was an opportunity to prove how clever they are. One of many such attempts.

a reply to: dragonridr

You said:

So, physicists, today have excluded the holographic principle.

This is just a lie!

[Submitted on 19 Oct 2016]

Holographic Theory of Gravity and Cosmology

Y. Jack Ng

According to the holographic principle, the maximum amount of information stored in a region of space scales as the area of its two-dimensional surface, like a hologram. We show that the holographic principle can be understood heuristically as originated from quantum fluctuations of spacetime. Applied to cosmology, this consideration leads to a dynamical cosmological constant Λ of the observed magnitude, in agreement with the result obtained for the present and recent cosmic eras, by using unimodular gravity and causal-set theory. By generalizing the concept of entropic gravity, we find a critical acceleration parameter related to Λ in galactic dynamics, and we construct a phenomenological model of dark matter which we call "modified dark matter" (MDM). We provide successful observational tests of MDM at both the galactic and cluster scales. We also discuss the possibility that the quanta of both dark energy and dark matter obey the quantum Boltzmann statistics or infinite statistics as described by a curious average of the bosonic and fermionic algebras.

SUBMITTED 2016!

[Submitted on 16 Sep 2011]

Quantum entanglement from the holographic principle

Jae-Weon Lee

It is suggested that quantum entanglement emerges from the holographic principle stating that all of the information of a region (bulk bits) can be described by the bits on its boundary surface. There are redundancy and information loss in the bulk bits that lead to the nonlocal correlation among the bulk bits. Quantum field theory overestimates the independent degrees of freedom in the bulk. The maximum entanglement in the universe increases as the size of the cosmic horizon and this could be related with the arrow of time and dark energy.

arxiv.org...

SUBMITTED IN 2011

Submitted on 12 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 29 Jun 2002 (this version, v2)]

The holographic principle

Raphael Bousso

There is strong evidence that the area of any surface limits the information content of adjacent spacetime regions, at 10^(69) bits per square meter. We review the developments that have led to the recognition of this entropy bound, placing special emphasis on the quantum properties of black holes. The construction of light-sheets, which associate relevant spacetime regions to any given surface, is discussed in detail. We explain how the bound is tested and demonstrate its validity in a wide range of examples.
A universal relation between geometry and information is thus uncovered. It has yet to be explained. The holographic principle asserts that its origin must lie in the number of fundamental degrees of freedom involved in a unified description of spacetime and matter. It must be manifest in an underlying quantum theory of gravity. We survey some successes and challenges in implementing the holographic principle.

arxiv.org...

SUBMITTED 2002!

[Submitted on 16 May 2017 (v1), last revised 27 May 2017 (this version, v2)]

Holography as deep learning

Wen-Cong Gan, Fu-Wen Shu

Quantum many-body problem with exponentially large degrees of freedom can be reduced to a tractable computational form by neural network method cite[CT]. The power of deep neural network (DNN) based on deep learning is clarified by mapping it to renormalization group (RG), which may shed lights on holographic principle by identifying a sequence of RG transformations to the AdS geometry. In this essay, we show that any network which reflects RG process has intrinsic hyperbolic geometry, and discuss the structure of entanglement encoded in the graph of DNN. We find the entanglement structure of deep neural network is of Ryu-Takayanagi form. Based on these facts, we argue that the emergence of holographic gravitational theory is related to deep learning process of the quantum field theory.

arxiv.org...

Submitted on 18 Jul 2011 (v1), last revised 1 Aug 2011 (this version, v2)]

On the origin of the holographic principle

Jae-Weon Lee

It was recently suggested that quantum mechanics and gravity are not fundamental but emerge from information loss at causal horizons. On the basis of the formalism the holographic principle is also shown to arise naturally from the loss of information about bulk fields observed by an outside observer. As an application, Witten's prescription is derived.

arxiv.org...

SUBMITTED 2011!

[Submitted on 6 Nov 2017 (v1), last revised 20 Mar 2018 (this version, v2)]

Topological Origin of Holographic Principle: Application to wormholes

Nasr Ahmed, Hisham Rafat

In this paper, we suggest a mathematical representation to the holographic principle through the theory topological retracts. We found that the topological retraction is the mathematical analogs of the hologram idea in modern quantum gravity and it can be used to explore the geometry of the hologram boundary. An example has been given on the five dimensional (5D) wormhole space-time W which we found it can retract to lower dimensional circles Si⊂W. In terms of the holographic principle, the description of this volume of space-time W is encoded on the lower-dimensional circle which is the region boundary.

arxiv.org...

SUBMITTED 2017!

First off, this thread isn't about the Holographic Principle. This is just more obfuscation and lies on your part. This thread is saying that scientist have to come up with things like the Holographic Universe because there's no evidence that an objective material universe exists.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic

Were they inherent before consciousness defined the word inherent?

Yes. Apparently you don't grasp the idea that stuff was happening naturally eons before language was invented.

Again, show me the evidence that these things existed before consciousness. Again, you're in a hopeless situation because you can't just admit you have no evidence. This is why your posts are devoid of any evidence about anything.

You have to take it on faith that a universe existed without consciousness. The only way you can say it existed is because consciousness told you it did. Anything beyond that is just speculation on your part unless you have some evidence.

originally posted by: neoholographic

If the cat can't be alive or dead for any measurable instance, when does Decoherence decide which state the cat will be in?

One problem is that the term "life" is a human construct. The universe didn't create life only humans have...

a reply to: neoholographic

Ok once again this paper is using a holographic principle to make a model of dark matter. It is not saying the universe is a hologram this seems to be a difficult problem for you. I suggest you go back and read my previous reply where I explained how the holographic principle is used as a shortcut so you don't have to be overwhelmed by measurements. I'm not going to keep trying to explain this to you when you don't have the physics background to understand it.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic

Were they inherent before consciousness defined the word inherent?

Yes. Apparently you don't grasp the idea that stuff was happening naturally eons before language was invented.

Again, show me the evidence that these things existed before consciousness. Again, you're in a hopeless situation because you can't just admit you have no evidence. This is why your posts are devoid of any evidence about anything.

You have to take it on faith that a universe existed without consciousness. The only way you can say it existed is because consciousness told you it did. Anything beyond that is just speculation on your part unless you have some evidence.

Easy if stuff didn't exist before consciousness then consciousness couldn't exist. The universe had to be created so consciousness had a place to live.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic

Were they inherent before consciousness defined the word inherent?

Yes. Apparently you don't grasp the idea that stuff was happening naturally eons before language was invented.

Again, show me the evidence that these things existed before consciousness. Again, you're in a hopeless situation because you can't just admit you have no evidence. This is why your posts are devoid of any evidence about anything.

You have to take it on faith that a universe existed without consciousness. The only way you can say it existed is because consciousness told you it did. Anything beyond that is just speculation on your part unless you have some evidence.

You already admitted you have no evidence that fundamental astrophysics and chemistry were altered from their behavioral patterns before the human race was born, ergo what we observe today has always been there functioning independently and apathetically of our influences. Any claims beyond that are yours to substantiate.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: neoholographic

Ok once again this paper is using a holographic principle to make a model of dark matter. It is not saying the universe is a hologram this seems to be a difficult problem for you. I suggest you go back and read my previous reply where I explained how the holographic principle is used as a shortcut so you don't have to be overwhelmed by measurements. I'm not going to keep trying to explain this to you when you don't have the physics background to understand it.

You lied before in a post and you're lying now.

Here's some recent interview from an Associate Professor working in this area:

I'm Lawrence Goodman with the Office of Communications. With me today is Brandeis University associate professor of physics Matthew Headrick, who is here to explain what is really a mind-blowing theory in physics, the idea that the universe is a hologram. It's also called the holographic principle.

HEADRICK: Well, as you said, the holographic principle is the idea that the universe around us, which we are used to thinking of as being three dimensional — we have three dimensions of space — is actually at a more fundamental level two dimensional and that everything we see that's going on around us in three dimensions is actually happening in a two-dimensional space.

HEADRICK: Right. So similarly to the bits and bytes that live on a compact disc, which encode, for example, a piece of music — on this plane, that's where the bits that fundamentally make up our universe live. That's where they're encoded and what they're encoding is what we see going on around us in three dimensions.

HOST: And so you're saying that this information on a two-dimensional plane encodes for our three-dimensional universe?

HEADRICK: Exactly. Like in the compact disc example, it encodes some piece of music. In this case, it encodes what's going on in our universe.

www.brandeis.edu...

Again, I'm not talking about the Holographic Principle but I have to address the lies. I remember the last time I debated you and you just told lies without evidence.

The point is, scientist have to come up with these type of theories because there's no evidence an objective material universe exists.

originally posted by: neoholographic
First off, this thread isn't about the Holographic Principle. This is just more obfuscation and lies on your part. This thread is saying that scientist have to come up with things like the Holographic Universe because there's no evidence that an objective material universe exists.

You made the holographic principle the #1 argument in your OP, and Dragonridr is correct in saying it is not about an immaterial universe, it's an attempted mathematical approach to solve some mathematical issues.

originally posted by: neoholographic
1. The universe is a hologram
...If there were an objective material universe, why talk about the universe as a hologram?

Dragonridr explained it very simply but you still don't seem to get it:

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: neoholographic

You proved my point in each paper you cite they are using the holographic principle to create a model. Its used to simplify the math involved. None of these are claiming the universe is a hologram or there is no reality.

I don't know how to explain it any more simply that what Dragonridr said, the effort is basically a mathematical approach, which is not implying anything about objective reality. The OP commonly misunderstands the sources cited, and that's the case with the holographic principle which doesn't imply what the OP claims it implies, according to the sources posted.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic

Were they inherent before consciousness defined the word inherent?

Yes. Apparently you don't grasp the idea that stuff was happening naturally eons before language was invented.

Again, show me the evidence that these things existed before consciousness. Again, you're in a hopeless situation because you can't just admit you have no evidence. This is why your posts are devoid of any evidence about anything.

You have to take it on faith that a universe existed without consciousness. The only way you can say it existed is because consciousness told you it did. Anything beyond that is just speculation on your part unless you have some evidence.

You already admitted you have no evidence that fundamental astrophysics and chemistry were altered from their behavioral patterns before the human race was born, ergo what we observe today has always been there functioning independently and apathetically of our influences. Any claims beyond that are yours to substantiate.

How do you know they weren't altered?

CONSCIOUSNESS!

Provide some evidence of these behavioral patterns before the human race existed without consciousness saying they existed.

a reply to: neoholographic

No you just fail to understand how physics works as for debating me that didn't happen I'm simply informing you that times have changed string theory is no longer in favor and 90 percent of physicists have dismissed the idea of one-dimensional strings. That's why I originally said you were stuck in the 90s and you want to use that science to somehow show the universe doesn't exist.

a reply to: TzarChasm

As per usual, he doesn't have a clue how to interpret the real science. It's all about ego and narcissism. He's the most important person in the room regardless what logical challenges are presented. The ignorance of arrogance.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: neoholographic

No you just fail to understand how physics works as for debating me that didn't happen I'm simply informing you that times have changed string theory is no longer in favor and 90 percent of physicists have dismissed the idea of one-dimensional strings. That's why I originally said you were stuck in the 90s and you want to use that science to somehow show the universe doesn't exist.

WRONG!!

Read the thread!

I listed 9 theories that show that scientist have to come up with these theories because they have no evidence that an objective material reality exists.

Where did I say the universe doesn't exist? This shows your dishonesty. The thread isn't about the Holographic Principle, it's titled:

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

a reply to: Phantom423

You or none of your friends have provided any evidence to refute the premis of the thread:

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

One person is talking about decoherence and another lying about the holographic principle.

So, I'm arrogant because I ask for evidence that an objective material universe exists?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

You said:

The laws of nature are inherent.

Okay, show me the evidence. Were they inherent before the big bang or after? Were they inherent in the quantum vacuum? Where they inherent before or after inflation? Were they inherent in the Planck Epoch?

Were they inherent before consciousness defined the word inherent?

It's amazing you don't see the catch 22 you're in but keep going.

You deliberately ignored the age-redshift analysis comment - why? Because you don't understand it?

For your enlightenment:

Although stars in our galaxy are effectively at cosmological redshift zero, the most distant supernovae seen occur out past redshift one, which the above chart shows occurred when the universe was approximately half its present age. By contrast, the most distant gamma-ray bursts yet observed occur out past redshift six, occurring when the universe was younger than one billion years old, less than 10 percent of its present age.

apod.nasa.gov...

Question: Was a "conscious" being around at that time? Do you have proof? Are you so arrogant that you skip over the real science and expect everyone else to fall into place?

Age-redshift analysis proves objective existence - unless, of course, you can demonstrate that there was a conscious entity in existence at that point in time. You can't, regardless how many cut-and-paste articles and videos you post.

a reply to: neoholographic

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

Beat you to it. Answer above. Prove the existence of some guy in sky billions of years ago.