BookTalk.org

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

Suzanne,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_universe

Like i said, i don't really know a lot about this topic, but i will explain it as i understand it.

the idea seems to be that the volume of space is actually empty. completely.

What we experience as 3-d space is a projection from the edge of the universe which is mathematically a 2 dimensional surface. The walls of the balloon of our universe would have all the informational content of our universe on them and the 3-d effects are a projection.

i remember in high school i was shown a spherical metal case with a hole cut in the top. All along the inside the case was mirror-reflective. The teacher dropped a bolt into the bottom of the container and if you looked under the edge of the opening at the reflection it gave a very convincing appearance of the bolt sitting on top of the opening. The reflections gave the effect that the bottom of the container was actually sitting on top of the container as a lid with the bolt on top of it.

Once you tilted so that the outside lip of the hole obscured a part of the reflection the illusion was broken. I tried to locate a video of this device but couldn't. All youtube has for holograms is Tupac and a japanese anime pop idol...

But anyway the idea is analogous so far as i understand. What we percieve as happening "here in the middle" is actually an effect transpiring at the boundary of the universe.

Maybe i've got this completely wrong and THAT's why it doesn't resonate with me...

donno.

I still think this Crystalinks idea of a holographic universe is as plausible as Maxwell Smart's claim that it is more secure to communicate to the chief his request for a loan using the Cone of Silence than to write it down and burn it.

For that matter, the holographic universe is just as plausible as the claim that God invented the universe in the last ten thousand years and inserted all manner of clues to deceive scientists into thinking it is older. Except that the creationist model is far better explained as the result of pre-scientific thinking.

There is no arrogance in asserting that the universe really contains many of the features observed by science. But this means it is wrong for the Atheist Heart book to assert, as it does in this chapter, that claims that science observes reality rest on unjustifiable beliefs.

I labor this pedantic point because the objective of this chapter is to describe the systematic foundations of thought and knowledge, but the authors are a bit too glib in how they proceed in this essential task.

But you are in entire agreement with these first three assumptions and the non-commandments based on them, correct? Just wanted to be sure that your objection is not more than procedural.

Robert Tulip wrote: There is no arrogance in asserting that the universe really contains many of the features observed by science. But this means it is wrong for the Atheist Heart book to assert, as it does in this chapter, that claims that science observes reality rest on unjustifiable beliefs.

I don't think you're really disagreeing with what they're saying, it's a bit of a semantic issue maybe.

On p.23 they say, "It is not possible to definitively prove that the world we exist in is indeed an external reality."

Don't you agree with this? It is surely logically possible that it's false. They're not saying there is any significant probability that the assumption "An external reality exists" is false. That's why they're making it a starting assumption.

Skipping ahead to the chapter on God, they say: "Even if we were to accept a particular God as a starting assumption, is it possible to live and function without assuming our senses are the only way we perceive reality? Some people can -- and do. But the rational mind cannot."

Robert wrote:I labor this pedantic point because the objective of this chapter is to describe the systematic foundations of thought and knowledge, but the authors are a bit too glib in how they proceed in this essential task.

I was always under the assumption that you agreed that the core of our knowledge must rest upon an assumption. That we can only justify knowledge so far before the attempt breaks down. That at some point, to avoid the infinite regress that would come with endless attempts at justification, we call it stops and accept some basic axiom. An axiom is still a foundation, so the chapter doesn't necessarily fail in its purpose.