The implications of a Holographic Universe

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » The implications of a Holographic Universe

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

richrf
 
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 11:00 pm
Hi all,

A member of the forum reminded me of the holographic universe theory and while researching it on the web, I came across this article:

The Holographic Universe - Crystalinks

Here are some interesting ideas excerpted from the article:

1) To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film.
When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.

2) The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose.Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

3) University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, ... the universe is at heart .. a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

4) Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, ... all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.

5) ... in the 1960s Pribram ... believes memories are encoded not in neurons, ... [but] in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram.

6) ... what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, ... what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist.

7) We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea ... physical reality ...

8) Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces consciousness. Rather, it is Consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain as well as the body and everything else around us we interpret as physical.

9) Perhaps we agree on what is 'there' or 'not there' because what we call consensus reality is formulated and ratified at the level of the human unconscious at which all minds are infinitely interconnected.

There are other parts to the article, some are easier reading than other parts.

Rich
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 11:52 pm
@richrf,
mystical stuff. I think people have very futile imaginations.
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 12:01 am
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;74966 wrote:
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.


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
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 12:20 am
@richrf,
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.
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 12:57 am
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;74971 wrote:
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.


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.

As for me, I find cutting edge ideas exciting, bold, and interesting. I admire the way Wheeler came up with the Delayed Choice Gedanken Experiment, I love the way he explained it, and I am fascinated by the ingenious scientists who went about exploring it. This to me is an exciting life - away from the norm. I love reading about Einstein's EPR and Aspect, as well as the more recent Delayed-Choice experiments. All of this gets my thoughts and blood flowing.

But, I respect where you want to be. At times I wish that I could live comfortably at the norm. Lots more company.

Also, my objectives are to develop and refine my metaphysical philosophy. That is why I put it in this section as opposed to the science section. Metaphysics is, I believe, outside the domain of physics.

Rich
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 01:07 am
@richrf,
richrf;74968 wrote:
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

http://www.crystalinks.com/consciousnessbrgrid.jpg




The Holographic Universe - Crystalinks


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.
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 01:24 am
@richrf,
Quote:

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. 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.
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 01:44 am
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;74987 wrote:
Scientists are not making stuff up from nothing. Their intention is to solve existing conceptual problems by extending what we already know.


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
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 01:49 am
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;74987 wrote:
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.


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

Peace to you vectortube
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 01:53 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;74982 wrote:
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.


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
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 02:29 am
@richrf,
richrf;74993 wrote:
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


I disagree that you could partition people this way. It is true that it takes a strong soul to question authority, but most of these people are not more special than anyone else in science. They are just like everyone else. They see a problem within the existing paradigm, and they try to solve the problem using the methods of the existing paradigm. Their objective is to solve problems, and everything else comes second. 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.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 02:30 am
@richrf,
richrf;74996 wrote:
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


Hi Rich this is a huge and fascinating subject I have often thought that the brain is a microcosm of the macrocosm the universe. The brain is the most complex wonderful construct we know of. The brain has more possible switching states from one moment of thought to the next than there are fundamental particles in the entire universe.

We just need to look at a much simpler thing like the possible outcomes in a game of chess which has countless billions of possibilities
http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/IMG00002.GIF

Comparison between Karl Pribram's "Holographic Brain Theory" and ore conventional models of neuronal computation




I extracted a few pointers from Jejj Prideaux exhaustive article , the link to it is above


Comparison between Karl Pribram's "Holographic Brain Theory" and
more conventional models of neuronal computation


By Jeff Prideaux
[email][email protected][/email]
Virginia Commonwealth University

Pribram says that both time and spectral information are simultaneously stored in the brain. He also draws attention to a limit with which both spectral and time values can be concurrently determined in any measurement (Pribram, 1991).


This uncertainty describes a fundamental minimum defined by Gabor in 1946 (the inventor of the hologram) as a quantum of information. Dendritic microprocessing is conceived (by Pribram) to take advantage of this uncertainty relation to achieve optimal information processing. Pribram then says that the brain operates as a "dissipative structure" where the brain continually self-organizes to minimize this uncertainty.


The next few sections will attempt to explain the concept of the "uncertainty principle" and the concept of "dissipative structures" that self-organize.
The holonomic theory (for the example of vision) summarizes evidence that the image formed on the retina is transformed to a holographic (or spectral) domain. The information in this spectral "holographic" domain is distributed over an area of the brain (a certain collection of cells) by the polarization of the various synaptic junctions in the dendritic structures.

At this point, there is no longer a localized image stored in the brain. Correlations and associations can then be achieved by other parts of the brain projecting to these same cells. Conscious awareness (and memory) is the byproduct of the transformation back again from the spectral holonomic domain back to the "image" domain. Possibly the most radical part of the holonomic theory is Pribram's claim that a "receiver" is not necessary to "view" the result of the transformation (from spectral holographic to "image"). He claims that the process of transformation is what we "experience". Memory is a form of re-experiencing or re-constructing the initial sensory sensation.

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.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 02:43 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;74995 wrote:
The magic of the past so often becomes solid science of the present does it not?

Peace to you vectortube



Astrology became Astronomy; Alchemy became Chemistry; General Semantics laid the groundwork for Formal Axiology (Value Science.) I predict the latter will one day merge with the Relevance Logic of A.R. Anderson and Belnap presented in their book, ENTAILMENT, or some advanced refinement of it. I am aware of one University Professor who is devoting his life to this project. For background, see:
Relevance Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
When this project matures only a few will be able to comprehend the technical theory. It will take good science writers to acquaint the rest of us with its implications and applications. The community of those who do understand it will accept it by dint of its utter reasonableness.

Can any readers suggest other bold speculations that later became 'standard textbook' stuff? Can the Standard Model of Particle Physics explain Gravity? Can it explain Dark Matter?
I have a friend who can account for the latter. He has no pedigrees. His theory is as good as any of which I've heard.
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 02:49 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;74995 wrote:
The magic of the past so often becomes solid science of the present does it not?


I would not use the word "magic". For most people that don` t know anything about physics, and mathematics, they tend to see every little thing as magic. Surely, we see alot of technological advances in the last 200 years, but in terms of mathematics, there is very little change in the mathematics we use to build engines, planes and bridges. We still use the same differential equations to built bridges, planes etc. The equations of gauss, maxwell and euler are as profound today as they are 100-300 years ago. Given newton` s law, and the mathematics of 1900, i don ` t think they have problems forseeing technology that are derivative of their equations. The rise of the personal computer has it origin in the theoritical study of abstract computer models by mathematicians. Studying the mathematics and physics of today allow us to see what is possible in the future. If something does not violate any laws of nature, and getting into any mathematical inconsistency, then there is at least a non-zero probability of becoming a piece of technology.
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 08:27 am
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;75003 wrote:
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.


Hi,

The beauty about the holographic theory is that it fits so well into so many issues that are confounding physicists and metaphysicists alike. It is really quite a fascinating and exciting theory. Much more so than "the brain is just a computer - which I find rather .... retro.

Enjoy this theory. It may open up many new ideas for you.

Rich

---------- Post added 07-05-2009 at 09:31 AM ----------

Alan McDougall;75004 wrote:

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.


Hi Alan,

Totally fascinating. Much of the article I cannot follow at this time, but slowly I am picking up the vocabularly. A simple suggestion from a member of this forum has opened up a whole new line of inquiry for me. I love it! :detective:

Rich
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 12:26 pm
@richrf,
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
 
Satan phil
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 12:58 pm
@richrf,
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.
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 01:12 pm
@Satan phil,
Satan;75093 wrote:
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
 
Satan phil
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 01:28 pm
@richrf,
richrf;75097 wrote:
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


Light and mind huh? So then how did humans evolve out of slime that didn't have any mind to speak of?

You do realize that existence precedes thought, right?
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 01:36 pm
@richrf,
richrf;75090 wrote:
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


Hi Rich

I have often pondered if black holes are really holes or are they not just black orbs that reflect nothing. In other word do they have a diameter and circumference like a infinitely dense ball or are they just entry points into other realms of existence????

Maybe the term Black Hole is a misnomer just like the Big Bang is?
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » The implications of a Holographic Universe
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 11/26/2021 at 06:23:44