These kind of stuff is a waste of time. Utter mystical bullshit. If some one want to learn about about reality, then go study physics. It is not difficult to learn the real deal from textbooks.

There are plenty of people that create imaginative stories for a living. Most of them are just wrong. Some of them got it right. It is all about making stuff up. Disciplines like physics, and computer science are constantly thinking up imaginary universes as theoritical toy models. Most of them are bullshit, but all of them try to fit with what we already know about the laws of nature. This is not uncommon when you are at the edge of science, but people should know that these stuff do not represent science proper. What bothers me is how people take speculative theories as facts. It is not. If your objective is to learn about physics. People should study what all physicists agree( standard textbooks) on the subject before moving to these speculative theories.

The physicists who are researching and exploring various explanations for various universal phenomenon are suggesting interesting explanations, just as Einstein, Heisenberg, and Bohr did before them. Not everyone is cut out to create and develop completely new ideas. There were only a handful throughout history.

Some theories, such as those proposed by Copernicus, are around for many centuries before they are embraced. Sometimes, things take time.

Rich

I believe all of the people referenced in this article are scientists. Bohm in particular is a very well known physicist. Many other highly regarded physicists have similar theories, e.g. Bernard d'Espagnat.

I don't find textbooks very interesting. They are safe and appeal to those who want to play it safe. Most people feel very comfortable and accepted at the norm. It is OK. Few people, I have observed, are capable of coming up with completely new ideas. So, everyone else has to find some place for themselves, and the norm is as good a place as any.

Scientists are not making stuff up from nothing. Their intention is to solve existing conceptual problems by extending what we already know.

Scientists are not making stuff up from nothing. Their intention is to solve existing conceptual problems by extending what we already know. This is very different from metaphysics, where every new theory starts from the very beginning. The standard motivation for speculative theories has it` s origin in "standard physics". People like to think physic is like literature. I see this all the time when i go to a book store. In physics section, there are always more books about the biography of albert einstein than real physics. These books talk about how "revolutionaries", and "genius". It is great in entertainment value, and it might be a good script for a movie, but real physics is about experiments, problems, and proposed solutions. Most of these stuff bore people, but at least, these are the real things all scientists do.

Michael Talbot (1953-1992), was the author of a number of books highlighting parallels between ancient mysticism and quantum mechanics, and espousing a theoretical model of reality that suggests the physical universe is akin to a giant hologram. In The Holographic Universe, Talbot made many references to the work of David Bohm and Karl Pribram, and it is quite apparent that the combined work of Bohm and Karl Pribram is largely the cornerstone upon which Talbot built his ideas.

From what I have observed, most scientists are interested in getting grants and this usually translates into working within the fully acceptable norm. In other words, they want to make a living. It's fine. As I said, it takes a pretty darn creative and audacious scientists to break from the norm and present new perspectives and ideas. It is not for everyone. There is plenty of room in this world for ordinary, everyday people who are just trying to make a life for themselves and their family by staying within acceptable norms. The same holds true for practically any profession.

Rich

Hi Alan,

Thanks. I pulled these out of Wikipedia:

David Joseph Bohm (December 20, 1917 - October 27, 1992) was an British quantum physicist who made significant contributions in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy and neuropsychology, and to the Manhattan Project.


Karl H. Pribram (born February 25, 1919 in Vienna, Austria) is a professor at Georgetown University , and an emeritus professor of psychology and psychiatry at Stanford University and Radford University. Board-certified as a neurosurgeon, Pribram did pioneering work on the definition of the limbic system, the relationship of the frontal cortex to the limbic system, the sensory-specific "association" cortex of the parietal and temporal lobes, and the classical motor cortex of the human brain. To the general public, Pribram is best known for his development of the holonomic brain model of cognitive function and his contribution to ongoing neurological research into memory, emotion, motivation and consciousness.

Great credentials, but personally what I find more interesting are their thought processes, their creativity, and their ability to articulate their visions.

Rich

The magic of the past so often becomes solid science of the present does it not?

Peace to you vectortube

The magic of the past so often becomes solid science of the present does it not?

If this means questioning established methods, than so be it. In this sense, they are no different than other scientists that try to find a solution to a given problem.

Conclusions


Karl Pribram's holonomic brain theory weaves several concepts together in forming the holonomic brain theory. A partial list is the following:
1. The apparent spectral frequency filtering aspect of cortical cells
2. The relationship between Fourier transforms and holograms
3. The fact that selective brain damage doesn't necessarily erase specific memories
4. The computational advantage to performing correlations in the spectral domain.
5. His idea of conscious experience being concurrent with the brain performing these Fourier-like transformations (which simultaneously correlate a perception with other previously stored perceptions). He believes that conscious experience is the act of correlation itself and this correlation occurs in the dendritic structures by the summation of the polarizations (and depolarizations) through the processes in the dendritic networks.
6. The brain is a "dissipative structure" and self-organizes around a least-action principle of minimizing a certain uncertainty relation.

Objective reality is whatever exists outside of our minds. Hologram, simulation or whatever else it may be, it's still objective and not subjective. The guy quoted in the first post sounds like a quack to make such a fundamental philosophical error.

Hi,

The theory suggests otherwise: that light and mind are creating the information in the universe and there is no objective reality to speak of. You really have to invert the way you think about things in order to grasp the theory.

Rich

Hi all,

I came across a review on a book by Leonard Susskind, The Black Hole War:

Leonard Susskind (photo left) understood that black holes can eventually evaporate and disappear. He also recognized that much of the existing theory of black holes was incomplete. What was missing was the mathematical proof that black hole evaporation would not result in an information loss. The three decade long search for a solution called upon the powerful mathematics of string theory, advanced quantum mechanics, and the counter-intuitive concept of the holographic universe. Leonard Susskind describes how an array of the most brilliant minds in theoretical physics, employed these theories to prove and uphold the law of information conservation. The author describes the war of ideas and the intriguing people involved, in a fascinating manner that brings the theories to life.


Rich