Interbane wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:the claim that the universe is real can be justified, and provides a logical foundation for all knowledge.

How do you justify the claim? By ruling out the contrapositive? Is the universe real even if it is holographic? If you try to rule out the contrapositive, you get into issues with the definition of "real" and "universe", to the extent that the claim becomes analytic(the proposition only works when these terms occupy the same conceptual territory). If you have the answer, I'm all ears. But from all my searching I haven't found anything that works except to satiate belief. Satiating belief is not justification.

The idea that the universe may be holographic and not material is, in my view, absurd. It is a logical game about imagining the Matrix syndrome of a plugged in deception. The real problem here is that if you accept that this logical game is legitimate, you are saying that the claim that nothing exists is possible. That is nihilistic. You can't have it both ways. Either you reject nihilism or you persist with giving credence to holographic logical fantasies. Your equation between rejecting nihilism on principle and 'satiating belief' is more word games aimed at insisting we can't be sure if the material universe actually exists.

The idea that the universe may be holographic and not material is, in my view, absurd. It is a logical game about imagining the Matrix syndrome of a plugged in deception. The real problem here is that if you accept that this logical game is legitimate, you are saying that the claim that nothing exists is possible. That is nihilistic. You can't have it both ways. Either you reject nihilism or you persist with giving credence to holographic logical fantasies. Your equation between rejecting nihilism on principle and 'satiating belief' is more word games aimed at insisting we can't be sure if the material universe actually exists.

I'm sure as far as belief goes, but you can't just say something is justified(knowledge), and have it be so. Regarding a holographic universe, I don't know if it's impossible or possible. I don't have enough information to know. How could I know? I'm not saying I do, but you are. You are saying that you know it is impossible. The justification is word games, I know, but those are the tools we have to work with. We formulate concepts using words and rearrange them to see what comes out. History has shown the proper arrangement of concepts(logic) to be more sure of arriving at truth than our gut feelings, which I think you base your certainty on.

I think the authors are right in that Skepticism is the more practical position. Skepticism(as in the philosophical theory of knowledge) is not the same as Nihilism. If I had to place a label on my forehead, I'd say I'm a Skeptical Empiricist. Although I have a lot to learn regarding the other theories.

Interbane wrote:you can't just say something is justified(knowledge), and have it be so.

To assert that matter is real and not imaginary (the point at issue here) is hardly an arbitrary claim. It is a foundational assumption of science. Questioning of the reality of matter is on a par with questioning the operation of evolution. But I understand that this is unprovable and comes down to faith. Atheists have such a jittery aversion to faith that they refuse to allow it even a chink of respectability, and so back themselves into the corner of saying maybe the universe is imaginary.

There is an extremely long and tedious thread at the Cosmoquest discussion board where believers that reality is dependent on mind are able and willing to offer cogent defences of their absurd claims. But cogency does not mean a belief is justified.

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.

Interbane wrote:Regarding a holographic universe, I don't know if it's impossible or possible. I don't have enough information to know. How could I know?

Well obviously you cannot know that matter is real if you are willing to indulge in “ashes can be reassembled” types of argument. Everyone knows that ashes cannot be reassembled, and the comic absurdity of Maxwell Smart in using this argument is on a par with you saying here that perhaps the universe is imaginary.
Chief: “I can’t believe you would insist on using the cone of silence to ask me for a loan of $20!
Max: “Would you believe … $30?”

Interbane wrote:I'm not saying I do, but you are. You are saying that you know it is impossible. The justification is word games, I know, but those are the tools we have to work with. We formulate concepts using words and rearrange them to see what comes out. History has shown the proper arrangement of concepts(logic) to be more sure of arriving at truth than our gut feelings, which I think you base your certainty on.

The proper arrangement of concepts regarding the systematic foundations of logic requires that we apply Ockham’s Razor to reject hypotheses that are absurdly complicated. The holographic universe is a whopper of a Rube Goldberg machine. It is a nice foil for asking how we know things are real, but the coherence of the belief in the existence of matter is so immense that inventing ways to doubt it is an absurd exercise. But I understand the point of it – the theory of confidence insists that faith is a vice, and so systematically refuses to allow any form of faith, including in the existence of matter, causality, space and time, despite these assumptions being blindingly obvious and necessary.

Interbane wrote: I think the authors are right in that Skepticism is the more practical position. Skepticism(as in the philosophical theory of knowledge) is not the same as Nihilism. If I had to place a label on my forehead, I'd say I'm a Skeptical Empiricist. Although I have a lot to learn regarding the other theories.

Sensible skepticism can reject some propositions, such as that maybe nothing exists. But that is precisely what is entailed by the holographic universe hypothesis, which is just another way of describing the deceiving demon imagined by Descartes as a foil to justify the process of scientific logic. Science rejects the deceiving demon, and the holographic universe, on the basis that we are certain the universe exists.

The theme raised by this book is how the boundaries of understanding can most sensibly be defined. My view is that resort to arguments of infinite regress is a flawed logical approach. Such regress only applies in topics where science cannot have any real knowledge, such as the origin and extent of the universe. But on very simple questions, such as whether matter is real, there is no regress, and there is no unjustifiable assumption, as long as the assumption is demonstrably congruent with all scientific knowledge.

By the way, I had more of a study of the turtle at the bottom of the universe. From India, the Large Magellanic Cloud rises above the southern horizon as far north as Calcutta and Bombay, and has done so for millions of years, certainly for all of the 80,000 years of human habitation of the subcontinent. So in fact there is nothing under the turtle, and the question of why not is a category mistake, ignorant of the allegorical mythical meaning of the story of Kurma.

Just like that cosmic stack of turtles, the process of justifying beliefs based on other beliefs never ends-unless at some point we manage to arrive at a belief that doesn't rely on justification from any prior belief. That would be a foundational source of belief.

Ch 2, The Paradox of Belief

I am having some difficulty understanding exactly what is being said here. A belief, however justified is not a fact. The word belief for me, suggests the opportunity for doubt and if there is doubt, there can then be disbelief. The authors give us a "coherent framework of factual belief" and say, "we need to accept three core assumptions" the first of which is, "an external reality exists" I am having problem with the idea of factual belief. This idea is not only a paradox, it sounds like an oxymoron.

Does the universe exist or not? It does exist, we exist, there is a moon, there are planets, etc. I would understand if the authors were saying:
Because the existence of the universe is fact, the thought that there are discoveries yet to be made about the universe, would be a justified belief. The justified belief comes from a fact, is laid upon a foundation of fact.

Is this what is being said in non-commandment one. That the world is real, but our desire to know more is the basis for belief? That would make sense, otherwise, maybe we live under a big dome and the human tamers above us shine a light on us a few hours every day and throw food pellets into our tank. Maybe Africa is starving because the human tamers forget to feed it. If my reality is based on a foundational source of belief and not fact, I can believe anything I want.

the universe being a projection from extreme distance makes it no less real than otherwise.

I'm not totally on board with the holographic universe but even if they are saying the universe as we percieve it is a hologram that doesn't negate the realness of it.

Consider also that there is no "stuff" in stuff. Everything is the competition of overlapping force fields. Mass is an emergent phenomenon from the interaction of one field of vibrations with another field of vibrations.

Yet mass matters. Mass kills. Mass creates.

Saying the universe is holographic is not the same as saying it is an illusion. It is just an attempt to pin point where the substance of the universe originates.

Everything is approximate including our ability to see. Things are not really smaller just because they are far away, but when we see a photograph we can describe it as being a "real" image as in depicting the actual situation, even with those approximations.

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.

bias aknowledged!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[quote="Robert Tulip"}. Giving credence to such nihilistic solipsism gives philosophy a bad name.

Saying time and space may not be real is like Maxwell Smart justifying the cone of silence by saying ashes can be reassembled.

[/quote]
Nihilism in philosophy is maintaining that nothing in the world is real. The authors here are pretty much going with a 99.99% chance that the world we experience is real.

Interbane wrote:

Is the universe real even if it is holographic?

Robert Tulip wrote:

The idea that the universe may be holographic and not material is, in my view, absurd.

Interbane wrote:

Regarding a holographic universe, I don't know if it's impossible or possible.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Sensible skepticism can reject some propositions, such as that maybe nothing exists. But that is precisely what is entailed by the holographic universe hypothesis

Johnson 1010 wrote:

I'm not totally on board with the holographic universe but even if they are saying the universe as we percieve it is a hologram that doesn't negate the realness of it.

What is, "the holographic universe"? It has become a large part of this discussion and I may not be alone in wanting a better understanding of what this term means and how it applies to AH-HM.

There are gradations of nihilism. Freddie Mercury held that "nothing really matters to me". The King of Hearts could not tell the difference between important and unimportant.

The authors here are well below 99.99% certainty of the existence of the universe. Their argument that all claims rest on an infinite regress back to an unjustifiable claim looks more like about a 70% bet.

One site on the holographic universe concept is http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html

But I am not sure if that is what Interbane meant.

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice-XII.html
`What do you know about this business?' the King said to Alice.
`Nothing,' said Alice.
`Nothing whatever?' persisted the King.
`Nothing whatever,' said Alice.
`That's very important,' the King said, turning to the jury. They were just beginning to write this down on their slates, when the White Rabbit interrupted: `Unimportant, your Majesty means, of course,' he said in a very respectful tone, but frowning and making faces at him as he spoke.
`Unimportant, of course, I meant,' the King hastily said, and went on to himself in an undertone, `important--unimportant-- unimportant--important--' as if he were trying which word sounded best.
Some of the jury wrote it down `important,' and some `unimportant.' Alice could see this, as she was near enough to look over their slates; `but it doesn't matter a bit,' she thought to herself.

Yes, I was referring to those ideas Robert. I agree they are ridiculous. But unlike you, I'm not absolutely certain they are impossible. Under the guise of being the arbiter of common sense, you're closing doors. Perhaps it's the way my mind works, I can mock something with the door still open. I don't need to close doors, I just follow the ones with a wider gap.


I found a link regarding life and algorithms that Flann might enjoy by reading through the articles:

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/contex ... -algorithm