I don't either, it's misleading. Obviously the majority of our "solid" mass is not solid in the sense we understand it. That same sort of counter-intuitive structure is all I figure a holographic universe means.Johnson wrote:Personally, i don't like the holographic universe. But i really don't know enough about it to say whether i like it or not. I think it's a knee jerk reaction to the kind of metaphysical mumbo jumbo that is likely to arise from discussing it.
A small leap of faith is different from justification. What does it mean for a proposition to be justified? Does it mean the logical structure requires it to be true, as long as the premises are based on solid observation? The observations themselves are subject to errors such as theory-ladenness.Robert wrote:The irony here is that this book claims the reality of the universe to be the first of its non-commandments, even though the authors seem to say that this fundamental observation is not justifiable. I would prefer that they joined the existentialists in taking the small leap of faith to say that they are certain that matter is real.
It seems that you want a small leap of faith to serve as justification. I don't think it does, by the definitions of the terms. Not to say the leap isn't justified in a moral sense, but that is a different connotation from epistemology.