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

a reply to: Arbitrageur

In theory quantum mechanics and particle entanglement could be a revolutionary step forward in computational processing. The telecommunications industry of the future wants their software faster and more secure, not Matrix style reality bending sorcery.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Arbitrageur

In theory quantum mechanics and particle entanglement could be a revolutionary step forward in computational processing. The telecommunications industry of the future wants their software faster and more secure, not Matrix style reality bending sorcery.

I don't know if it will have any speed advantage, but the potential security advantages are very real. The security system using entanglement still wouldn't be technically "unhackable", but what would make it more secure than any previous system is that any such hacks could immediately be detected, and you could if you wanted to, configure the communication to immediately shut down as soon as a hack was detected. I know of nothing in the classical world that would be anywhere near as secure.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So now you want to disparage all theoretical physicist and others that you don't agree with as crackpots? LOL

Wow, it's the same thing pseudoskeptics have done on the UFO forum. When they can't refute something they try to attack the person's credibility. I remember when Edgar Mitchell started talking about UFO's he went from a hero to crackpot in 60 seconds!

This is a joke. Don't make blanket statements. I posted links, so point out the scientist that's a crackpot. It's more pseudoskeptic nonsense. You said:

I don't know if it's really a majority of theoretical physicists or not, but there are a fair number who write some "out there" stuff and you shouldn't get too excited about the out there ideas, especially when they can't be proven.

Of course you don't know. You can't refute what's being posted so you try to make some blanket, asinine statement about Theoretical Physicist. Point out the crackpot scientist that I quoted on the OP. That's the debate, not some general, asinine statement about Theoretical Physicist.

Lubos Motl has zero standing here unless you can show that Motl was talking about the scientist I quoted and then explain which scientist he's talking about that I posted.

This is important because this is a typical pseudoskeptic tactic. You can't refute what's being said so make a blanket statement that doesn't mean anything.

I do like what Motl said about Many Worlds though

They're just thinking (more precisely, they are victims of a wishful thinking) that all these expressions could be employed by some other philosophy – supplemented by different conceptual words – in which the observer wouldn't be needed, wave functions wouldn't collapse in any sense, the wave functions could be split into sums of many parts that behave as "many worlds", and the probabilities could be interpreted as some subjective belief about "where we are".

There exists no consistent way to satisfy these conditions and the many worlds approach therefore fails as soon as an intelligent person looks carefully. But at least, the many-worldists aren't in the full denial of the change of the spirit of calculations that was forced upon the people by the quantum revolution.

motls.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So now you want to disparage all theoretical physicist and others that you don't agree with as crackpots? LOL

I posted motl's comments and questioned the "majority" claim, and even that was not "all" so your strawman mania continues unabated when you say "all"

I posted links, so point out the scientist that's a crackpot. It's more pseudoskeptic nonsense. You said:

I don't know if it's really a majority of theoretical physicists or not, but there are a fair number who write some "out there" stuff and you shouldn't get too excited about the out there ideas, especially when they can't be proven.

You can't refute what's being posted

I can, but it's a waste of time with you when you ignore every argument
However I will give you a link to Sabine Hossenfelder's explanation of why she thinks this point in your OP is pseudoscience:

"4. The universe is a simulation"

The Simulation Hypothesis is Pseudoscience

I quite like the idea that we live in a computer simulation. It gives me hope that things will be better on the next level. Unfortunately, the idea is unscientific. But why do some people believe in the simulation hypothesis? And just exactly what’s the problem with it? That’s what we’ll talk about today...

Those who believe (simulation hypothesis) make, maybe unknowingly, really big assumptions about what natural laws can be reproduced with computer simulations, and they don’t explain how this is supposed to work. But finding alternative explanations that match all our observations to high precision is really difficult. The simulation hypothesis, therefore, just isn’t a serious scientific argument. This doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but it means you’d have to believe it because you have faith, not because you have logic on your side.

Motl didn't name names so I can't tell you any more about who he had in mind, but, clearly Dr Hossenfelder thinks the simulation idea is unscientific for the reasons explained in that video.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What does Sabine's opinion on the Simulation Hypothesis have to do with this thread? It's utter nonsense. I never said this thread is about the simulation hypothesis. I said scientist come up with these theories because there's no evidence of an objective material reality. Do you not understand this?

What does Sabine's opinion on the simulation hypothesis have to do with the price of tea in China? It makes no sense.

I can show people that support it, so are they idiots because Sabine has a different opinion?

Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50 Gauging whether or not we dwell inside someone else’s computer may come down to advanced AI research—or measurements at the frontiers of cosmology

www.scientificamerican.com...





It's hard to argue against it because it's basic common sense.

Look at the graphics in video games today. The other day, my Nephew was playing a game when he came over. I didn't know and I walked into the room and I thought he was watching real TV.

So it's not hard to imagine, that in the future, if we get there, that a civilization using Artificial Intelligence and Quantum Computers would create realistic simulations and the beings in that simulated universe would think they're real. You don't have to create an exact simulation, just one that's good enough where the simulated beings will never know they're not in a simulation.

Here's a recent article:

The Largest And Most Realistic Simulated Universe Yet Is Free To Download

Astronomers have created the largest and most realistic simulated version of the universe yet. The simulation provides a new look at the past and present of the cosmos on a scale and in detail impossible until now, and if you feel like it, they have made it freely available for anyone to download.

www.iflscience.com...



But again, this isn't about the simulation hypothesis, this is saying that if there was evidence of an objective material reality that gives us our existence, then you wouldn't need to have all of these theories.

I wish you would stick to the point of the OP instead of debating things that have nothing to do with the OP like Sabine's opinion about the simulation hypothesis.

originally posted by: neoholographic
But again, this isn't about the simulation hypothesis, this is saying that if there was evidence of an objective material reality that gives us our existence, then you wouldn't need to have all of these theories.

Like I said earlier, isn't the world around you that evidence?

Seems to me all these theories are looking to prove something other than that because objective material reality is a done deal.

originally posted by: neoholographic
I can show people that support it, so are they idiots because Sabine has a different opinion?

Sabine's argument is that they haven't really presented scientific arguments about how the simulations would work. So she's not calling them idiots, but rather she thinks they haven't really thought it through thoroughly, nor have they presented any convincing evidence of how the simulation could simulate the finer points of the physics measurements we make.

It certainly is relevant to the thread when a scientist points out your #4 point doesn't have a solid scientific foundation, which means it doesn't really threaten the objective material reality view of the universe to the extent you seem to suggest it does. You're free to disagree, but Hossenfelder is a rather competent physicist so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss her ideas. Perhaps if she discussed her thoughts with Neil Tyson, he might lower his probability of the possibility, which already is not too high. Even Sabine doesn't think the chances are zero, but the scientific basis is surely lacking for the points she discussed.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

How does Sabine's opinions about the simulation hypothesis refute anything I'm saying? Her opinion is no more or less valid than Neil deGrasse Tyson or Nick Bostrom. So her opinion isn't relevant at all because the thread is not arguing for or against the simulation hypothesis. I'm saying scientist wouldn't need a simulation hypothesis, is the universe conscious, the case against reality, is the universe a neural network and more if there was evidence of an objective material reality.

I keep saying this and I don't understand what you're not comprehending. How does Sabine's opinion refute the subject of the OP when her opinion or Neil deGrasse Tyson's opinion on the simulation hypothesis isn't the point of the thread?

originally posted by: neoholographic

If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned it. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

But nothing has changed in the universe whether the cat was alive or dead. Same amount of matter, same amount of energy either way. This is why I suggest the term "life" is misleading since it is us humans that have created that term out of our imagination. Life, alive, dead are just human constructs, not something the universe created or is aware of from any other matter or energy.

originally posted by: Romeopsi

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TzarChasm

Sadly for you, there's no evidence to support what you're saying. You said:

There's no actual prize or achievement in convincing you to acknowledge basic science so there's no motivation to give you what you demand. If the evidence under your feet and in your fridge and under your butt when you use the bathroom doesn't convince you, then realistically I don't have a chance.

You're all over the place but I will point out this statement.

If basic science is so clear, why are scientist trying to explain the universe as a hologram, conscious, a simulation, a self replicating AI, a neural network, and error correcting code and more.

Why aren't all of these scientist screaming that basic science is all we need to explain existence?

This is because there's no evidence that what we call material gives us our existence in any way outside of being like pixels that illuminate a code that emanates from an intelligent mind.

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind

In his 2014 book, Our Mathematical Universe, physicist Max Tegmark boldly claims that “protons, atoms, molecules, cells and stars” are all redundant “baggage.” Only the mathematical apparatus used to describe the behavior of matter is supposedly real, not matter itself. For Tegmark, the universe is a “set of abstract entities with relations between them,” which “can be described in a baggage-independent way”—i.e., without matter. He attributes existence solely to descriptions, while incongruously denying the very thing that is described in the first place. Matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

The mental Universe

The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.

Discussing the play, John H. Marburger III, President George W. Bush's science adviser, observes that “in the Copenhagen interpretation of microscopic nature, there are neither waves nor particles”, but then frames his remarks in terms of a non-existent “underlying stuff”. He points out that it is not true that matter “sometimes behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle... The wave is not in the underlying stuff; it is in the spatial pattern of detector clicks... We cannot help but think of the clicks as caused by little localized pieces of stuff that we might as well call particles. This is where the particle language comes from. It does not come from the underlying stuff, but from our psychological predisposition to associate localized phenomena with particles.”

In place of “underlying stuff” there have been serious attempts to preserve a material world — but they produce no new physics, and serve only to preserve an illusion. Scientists have sadly left it to non-physicist Frayn to note the Emperor's lack of clothes: “it seems to me that the view which [Murray] Gell-Mann favours, and which involves what he calls alternative ‘histories’ or ‘narratives’, is precisely as anthropocentric as Bohr's, since histories and narratives are not freestanding elements of the Universe, but human constructs, as subjective and as restricted in their viewpoint as the act of observation.”

www.nature.com...

This is my point number 7. Subatomic particles are not particles in the material sense. Ask Heisenberg:

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” ― Werner Heisenberg

“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” ― Werner Heisenberg

There's not a shred of evidence that there's an objective material reality. What we call matter can be no more than pixels on the screen that illumate the thoughts of an intelligent mind!

Excellent post!

I agree with your point. I recently saw a scientist talking about Panpsychism because the universe behaves like it's conscious.

Good points and here's an article talking about this:

Minds Everywhere: 'Panpsychism' Takes Hold in Science

www.livescience.com...

Are you suggesting only God is capable of creating a universe and life therein? The present exists because of gravity and gravity exists because we ourselves are not stagnant and are moving at near the speed of light. We think the photons are moving but in fact we are moving and that effect has tremendous implications to understanding time and space and this understanding is fundamental to understanding how to time travel.

This instance that you're sitting here reading this sentence is now 899,377,374 miles away in the 3 seconds you've read this sentence and moves 299,792,458 miles farther ever second, so if you wanted to go back to 3 seconds ago you would need to go to a specific place that it 899,377,374 miles away. Light is never destroyed and only fades as you move away from it. Think of it like this. The photon already exists and as we move through the photons at the speed of light they bind with atom in the present state because of the existence of gravity. The sun is literally our future in time and space but it's undefined so it presents itself in the material world as a photon. The photon holding the information of the future binds in the present state with the electron in the nucleus and manifests what we see in our material world. Einstein saw the way time and space worked and was determined to see what happens when he breaks the bonds of the present state. He tore the present state open flooding the present material world with a rip in time and space which results in fire. This is the same reason our sun is like a nuclear reaction because it's the line where the future and present meet.

So the further question is asked. If you decided to play with time and space and time traveled back in time and manipulated the past extensively, what would happen when these paradoxical events finally met up to the point where you went back in time? If you didn't go back in time at the time you originally went back in time would things fade and vanish like the back to the future photograph? Or would the world suffer some type of calamity as the universe tries to correct the timeline to the way it should be?

Let's say hypothetically speaking with possibly some merit to it
The elite figure out a way to time travel / create wormholes
Knowing the elite create disaster in order to manipulate the directions of affairs one would wonder if the elite wanted to, would they create an infinite loop in time and space with a horned god to carry out judgement and terror in order to scare everyone into needing to be saved only the ones doing the saving are the same ones who created the horned deity? So they scare the crap out of you with baal/baphomet and then come to your rescue as jesus / asherah and are willing to create a massive wormhole in time and space that would cause the universe to fold in on itself and your only out is to give yourself to jesus / asherah to save your soul but will lose your free will in the end and be enslaved.

Every major religion on Earth today is worshiping either Baal or Asherah and I'm guessing both are time traveling deity of the NWO looking to enslave mankind and create a new kingdom of bondage with no free will and no more control over your own actions. They will live like Gods. You can be saved but you will be a slave.

If you believe this narrative could be true then you have to believe they also cannot be the actual creator of the universe. See Gnosticism.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TzarChasm
This topic really should have concluded after a dozen examples of objective reality being quite visceral and evident. Starting to think OP just enjoys the attention.

What examples?

List them and the published papers that support them.

I want to see the evidence that shows an objective material universe exist. Where's the evidence that the material universe gives us our existence and not some information on a 2D surface, Consciousness, a self replicating AI, a quantum error correcting code or any of the other things I mentioned in the OP?

So, what's the implementation substrate of the self-replicating AI? I mean, how exactly does *that* hypervisor work?

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 ...........

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

We are like the needle on a record player. Our lives are already recorded on the record and the player spins at the speed of time but we only experience the instances of when the needle is touching/moving along it's point on the record.

originally posted by: libertytoall
Let's say hypothetically speaking with possibly some merit to it
The elite figure out a way to time travel / create wormholes
Knowing the elite create disaster in order to manipulate the directions of affairs one would wonder if the elite wanted to, would they create an infinite loop in time and space with a horned god to carry out judgement and terror in order to scare everyone into needing to be saved only the ones doing the saving are the same ones who created the horned deity? So they scare the crap out of you with baal/baphomet and then come to your rescue as jesus / asherah and are willing to create a massive wormhole in time and space that would cause the universe to fold in on itself and your only out is to give yourself to jesus / asherah to save your soul but will lose your free will in the end and be enslaved.

Every major religion on Earth today is worshiping either Baal or Asherah and I'm guessing both are time traveling deity of the NWO looking to enslave mankind and create a new kingdom of bondage with no free will and no more control over your own actions. They will live like Gods. You can be saved but you will be a slave.

If you believe this narrative could be true then you have to believe they also cannot be the actual creator of the universe. See Gnosticism.

It is hard to compare a religious God with an intelligent design style creator of universes. They don't blend together very well when they have basically two different storylines. People want to debate whether a universe needs intelligent design to happen or can it just happen in an infinite model loop of universes that pop in and out of existence. When you then suggest the roll of a religious God then things just do not align very well as to why would an intelligence design play the roll of directing the affairs of humans too.

originally posted by: neoholographic

Where's the evidence that the material that makes up the fridge or the bathroom gives us our existence and not a mind that can create a fridge or a bathroom?

You don't have any evidence to support an objective material reality so you can't provide any evidence.

Both would be the same, so it really doesn't matter. We would also be a part of that simulation as much as the fridge would be, so not alive and just playing out the role the simulator has us do. Everything 0s and 1s so to speak... Not sure if that is a worthwhile question to even ask and though you keep pushing for proof of a material universe there is also no way to prove we are in a simulation as the simulation would control everything including all our thoughts that would playout exactly as it was programmed. In the game The Sims there are human avatars and the chances of us knowing the anything about our simulation would be the same as a mindless avatar in that game would know anything about the game being played, so zero.

a reply to: neoholographic

But again, this isn't about the simulation hypothesis, this is saying that if there was evidence of an objective material reality that gives us our existence, then you wouldn't need to have all of these theories.

That's like saying if god was real, you wouldn't need the bible.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

How does Sabine's opinions about the simulation hypothesis refute anything I'm saying? Her opinion is no more or less valid than Neil deGrasse Tyson or Nick Bostrom. So her opinion isn't relevant at all because the thread is not arguing for or against the simulation hypothesis. I'm saying scientist wouldn't need a simulation hypothesis, is the universe conscious, the case against reality, is the universe a neural network and more if there was evidence of an objective material reality.

I keep saying this and I don't understand what you're not comprehending. How does Sabine's opinion refute the subject of the OP when her opinion or Neil deGrasse Tyson's opinion on the simulation hypothesis isn't the point of the thread?

Theoretical physicists don't deal with reality they deal with mathematics. I can give you multiple exmples where their math tured out to be wrong like rogue waves for example they did the calculations and determined you would get 1 every 20000 years. Turns out they happen daily in every ocean of the world.

Theoretical physics uses an amazing mathematical paradigm and added with fantastic computer animation provides very convincing results. But mathematical modeling and computer animation are virtual and fictitious, for which many of their analytical solutions are not physically real. What is wrong with current theoretical physicists is that they have used mostly a timeless (t = 0) mathematical subspace for their analyses that does not exist within our temporal (t > 0) universe.

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.


Since theoretical physics is mathematics, the burden on their shoulders is to provide us with physically real solutions for practical implementation. Yet they have been persistently giving us virtual fictitious solutions, even though they knew some of their results are irrational. Now having said that they do play an important role their job think outside the box which can lead us into new areas of physics.

It amazes me how the internet destroys students who get caught up in fantasies and ignore reality.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

How does Sabine's opinions about the simulation hypothesis refute anything I'm saying? Her opinion is no more or less valid than Neil deGrasse Tyson or Nick Bostrom.

Dr. Hossenfelder explains in the comments that the laws of nature are her specialty, not Bostrom's, so indeed she is inferring that her opinion related to her specialty is more valid than Bostrom's, and Bostrom's paper lacks specifics on how the laws of nature would be simulated, which should be present if one wants to consider it a truly scientific paper. As it stands, it's no better than the old joke about how to immobillize all the navies on Earth: just drain the water out of the oceans. How do you do that? (the joke goes). Nobody can say so it's a totally unscientific proposition.

The Simulation Hypothesis is Pseudoscience

Sabine Hossenfelder6:28 AM, February 15, 2021

GL,

I mentioned the other options and explained why I do not discuss them. The point that you evidently entirely missed is that this isn't a philosophical question. It's a question about what properties the laws of nature have and that happens to be my specialty, not Bostrom's.

I'm saying scientist wouldn't need a simulation hypothesis, is the universe conscious, the case against reality, is the universe a neural network and more if there was evidence of an objective material reality.

Prove your claim that scientists need any of those. They don't. As already explained with the holographic principle, 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.

They are exploring other ideas, because that's what theoretical physicists do. I think the logic of your argument is seriously flawed. Just because they are exploring other ideas besides the models we already have, is not evidence these ideas are "needed". Holographic universe has solved nothing so far, simulation hypothesis has solved nothing so far, so why do they need these things which solve absolutely nothing that their existing models don't solve so far? They don't. As I already said, the majority of new ideas in theoretical physics eventually turn out to be unnecessary, or even wrong. I don't see how the simulation hypothesis is ever going to solve any problems our existing models don't solve, so I would argue it's not needed at all, it's just nerd porn for the curious mind, something to think about, that's not going to solve any problems.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

This makes no sense!

Dr. Hossenfelder explains in the comments that the laws of nature are her specialty, not Bostrom's, so indeed she is inferring that her opinion related to her specialty is more valid than Bostrom's, and we don't really have any evidence that Bostrom gave much thought to the laws of nature.

This is Sabine trying to add weight to her point because she doesn't have one. She wants you to stop thinking and say well, Sabine is educated differently than Bostrom so Sabine must be right. That's just wrong.

The simulation doesn't have to simulate every law of nature as Sabine says. First, the simulation will start with the laws of physics and the constants of nature as we know them, then if you have enough computing power, a universe will be simulated. Secondly, let's say you simulate a universe that's 80% like ours but is missing some features but the simulation still evolves simulated beings?

How would the simulated beings know that 20% of the simulation is not like our universe? They might call it dark something like we do. This causes Sabine to fall flat on her face. There may be things that can't be simulated and say the highest we get is a 92% simulation that's missing 8% of the features from our universe and simulated beings still evolve, then why wouldn't that be good enough for the simulated beings?

Yes, they're exploring other ideas because there's no evidence that an objective material universe exists and you or none of the others have presented a shred of evidence that supprts this. It's not just Theoretical Physicist. It's Biologist and Cognitive Scientist. You try to make these blanket, illogical statements to attack everyone that comes up with a theory you can't refute.

Tell me the mainstream model that explains why information in a volume of space is proportional to it's 2D surface area and not it's volume.

The Holographic Universe didn't come out of nowhere and where's your evidence that all of these scientist regect the holographic model of spacetime. List all of these Physicist. You made the statement that the majority rejects the holographic model and the mainstream model, whatever that is, is just fine.

How does the mainstream model explain black hole thermodynamics and the Bekenstein Bound? Do you realize that the Holographic model was born out of these things and the black hole wars between Hawking, Susskind and others?

Do you think Susskind is an idiot and just supports the Holographic model because of a whim when it's born out of his many years of debate with Hawking?

Here's a recent article:

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...

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

I'll be waiting for your list of scientist that reject a holographic model of spacetime and your list that shows this is most scientist. 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.

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

You and the other guy wants to disparage Theoretical Physicist who are working on problems you can't begin to understand like quantum gravity, but you want to make a blanket statement about all of them. HOW ABSURD AND DISHONEST!

Here's a Cognitive Scientist who wrote a book The Case Against Reality. Are all Cognitive Scientist idiots also!!

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...

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur
This is Sabine trying to add weight to her point because she doesn't have one.

Your failure to understand Dr Hossenfelder's point is evidence of your ignorance, you don't seem to understand what she said at all.

Tell me the mainstream model that explains why information in a volume of space is proportional to it's 2D surface area and not it's volume.

Wheeler's "bags of gold" can come up with a different result than that, and a quantum theory of gravity may resolve the apparent contradiction.

Wheeler's bag of gold solution contradicts the holographic principle

A hologram is a representation of a system using fewer dimensions that can still pack in all the information from the original system. E.g. a 2D surface that has all the information in a 4D space-time – a BH. So BH’s are the very definition of the holographic principal.

2) Now, Wheelers ‘bag of gold’ analogy means – curve classical space into a bag and you can stuff a great deal of ‘gold’ (i.e. entropy) into it. So ‘WBG’ solutions in General Relativity allow different volumes (and entropies) contained in the same surface area in 4D space-times. This conflicts with the surface-area : entropy BH relationship. Remember though that GR is non-quantum.

A full quantum gravity theory is expected to resolve this ‘paradox’, and indeed, in AdS (not quite a full quantum gravity theory) there are pointers to this, as @Bruce Lee expands on.

When we have a quantum theory of gravity which works, hopefully such apparent contradictions will be resolved, but until then, I don't have a lot of confidence in any particular approach which may ultimately be dependent on a quantum gravity theory that we don't have yet.

The Holographic Universe didn't come out of nowhere and where's your evidence that all of these scientist regect the holographic model of spacetime. List all of these Physicist. You made the statement that the majority rejects the holographic model and the mainstream model, whatever that is, is just fine.

Your memory is terrible, and that's another strawman. I already posted this in an earlier post, about the same 2017 holographic result you posted about, saying that "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. "

You Aren't Living in a Hologram, Even if You Wish You Were

You may have read today that the entire universe is a giant hologram. Maybe your mind was blown while you hit your Big Bong and contemplated a 2D universe, or that researchers had somehow found substantial evidence you were “living in an illusion.”

No, nope. Not what happened. Rather, physicists figured out that one of their models doesn’t break when they apply data from the real universe. Which is still awesome, but not insane...

“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.

So the article explains the universe isn't really a hologram, the holographic universe model is just a model that doesn't break in specific applications (it actually does break if they try to apply it to too much of the universe).

I think this may allude to what dragonridr was saying about why holographic models aren't really favored lately, though some people still talk about them:

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.”

So the holographic model has been proposed, but most scientists aren't seeing a reason to prefer that model, I think was dragonridr's point, which is echoed in that citation from the gizmodo article.

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

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