HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE...would like your opinion!

[Sonja Smedley]

A friend of mine gave me this link and I first said oh no...this is nonsens I do not watch it, but then I did and I must say it changed my view of life completely.I give you here the link of the first part...all together there are 5 parts and more than 6 hours to watch but I recommend it to all who are interested in such things.It is worth it.

And I would like your honest opinions about this.

Would be great to hear from you.Thanks.

[Charly Muggins]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

there are 5 parts and more than 6 hours to watch

---

You lost me at this bit.

As someone recently pointed out, you wouldn't even want to have sex for that long.

Oh, that's right; it was me; but the evidence has been removed to protect the guilty.

[Sonja Smedley]

Lol..sorry to hear that.

But it is really interesting.

And you should not compare this with sex..smiles.

[Griffin Ceawlin]

I wondered how I was going to be able to get back to sleep. Guess I can save that tranquilizer for another day. Thank you.

[Sonja Smedley]

You are very welcome Mister!

By the way I was wondering why people like you need tranquilizer.;-)

Actually they never wake up.

 

[Madeline Blackbart]

I really doubt that the world is "holographic" even under the theory that were in a computer generated simulation it's not holographic. In a computer simulation those things would be physical at least to us and compared to us. And honestly a summary of the Idea is probably better to link to then the whooole 6 hours. Let's be honest only someone who is really  into this (new agey magical stuff) is going to watch all 6 hours. The normal person doesn't have time for that.

[Griffin Ceawlin]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

 

By the way I was wondering why people like you need tranquilizer.;-)

Actually they never wake up.

---

"People like you"?

[Syo Emerald]

Now you are getting awkward and embarrassing, Sonja.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

A friend of mine gave me this link and I first said oh no...this is nonsens I do not watch it, but then I did and I must say it changed my view of life completely.I give you here the link of the first part...all together there are 5 parts and more than 6 hours to watch but I recommend it to all who are interested in such things.It is worth it.

And I would like your honest opinions about this.

Would be great to hear from you.Thanks.

---

Hi Sonya,

I'm 38 minutes into the video, but have already seen enough to think I know where the remaining 5 and a half hours are going, which for me is... nowhere. This looks like an advertisement for "intelligent design".

Curiously, within the first few minutes, the video's creator, Stephen Davis, makes an error that destroys his credibility with me.

To paraphrase:

"Who am I? My name is Stephen Davis and that's all you need to know because I'm not the one saying things to you in this video."

His insinuation that, because he doesn't make any direct statements you can't argue with him, is nonsense. If I gather together 20 scientists for a conference about the shape of the Earth, and I have hand picked only those who believe it's flat, do you really think I didn't have a voice in the discussion? It's even worse in this video, as Mr. Davis has quoted scientists out of context, and in new contexts he's created that change the apparent meaning of their quotes.

And, in direct contradiction to his initial disclaimer, Mr. Davis actually does make substantive claims. At 30:33 he claims that Minecraft is a good clue or hint to how the universe actually works. Even if this were not a nonsensical claim, it is still a claim. And he said at the opening that "I am not the one saying things to you in this video." Whether he's a liar would depend on his intent. He may simply possess more incompetence than he claimed at the start of the video. I fall victim to that same hubris.

Davis' intellectual dishonesty/incompetence continues in his portrayal of the "collapsing of the quantum wave function" as something that happens whenever "we" observe it, where "we" is a human. That's not at all how it works. In Quantum Mechanics, the definition of "observer" does not mean a human. A single electron is a perfectly good observer, capable of collapsing the wave function at some point in space and time, and then carrying information from that observation to another point in space and time and depositing it into another wave function. In effect, the universe is observing itself, everywhere and always. No consciousness or intelligence is required. Dr. John Hagelin makes that leap of faith to a "field of intelligence" at 36:02 and I will not follow him there, as there's no evidence for it. He's free to have his wishful thinking, I'm free not to share it.

Davis' insinuation that the "holographic projection" of a (theorized) higher dimensional universe into the four dimensions we can observe is analogous to that of 3D holographic projection is wrong. The holographic projections we all see on our credit cards are a fozen in time recording of the interference patterns of light reflected off a 3D thing which is no longer there. It is not a representation of the current state of a thing we're observing. Quantium Holographic Projection theory (as I roughly understand it) states that all the "information" contained in dimensions we cannot directly observe is available within the four dimensions available to us. So, while we may not be able to directly access those hidden dimensions, we can access all that's important about them via the universe we're able to measure (and remember the "we" includes things as simple as electrons). All the extra dimensions of "string theory" are theoretical, and thought by many to be undetectable and unproveable. So, discussing them is perhaps as much or more a philosopical exercise than a scientific one.

I do enjoy discussions like this, but not when I detect hidden agendas and logical errors. I'll leave it to others to determine whether the agendas and errors really exist, or are figments of my imagination. I'll watch the remainder of the first hour when I've got a bit more time. As often happens, I've already spent more time doing background on what I've watched than I spent watching it. Digging for (what feels to me like) the truth takes time!

[Profaitchikenz Haiku]

I think this might be an attempt to do the next "What the Bleep..." without J Z Knight's input.

 

Now, if somebody decided to make a Quantum Physics exploration island in SL, that would be worth linking to.

[Charly Muggins]

According to the argument of the Many-Worlds Interpretation, there will exist at least one "universe" in which this video is an accurate reflection of reality.

This isn't that universe.

On the other hand, the MWI implies that there is at least one universe where the MWI is invalid. It might be this one.

[LeeHere Absent]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

A friend of mine gave me this link and I first said oh no...this is nonsens I do not watch it, but then I did and I must say it changed my view of life completely.I give you here the link of the first part...all together there are 5 parts and more than 6 hours to watch but I recommend it to all who are interested in such things.It is worth it.

And I would like your honest opinions about this.

Would be great to hear from you.Thanks.

---

I think the more interesting question and discussion is about what you will specifically do differently because your view of life has been so completely changed by this series of videos and the concept of a Holographic Universe.  What have you done differently that can be traced solely back to the impact the Holographic Universe concept made on you?

[LeeHere Absent]

I did a little Googling as I am wont to do.

None of this rules out the holographic universe - if nothing else, the holographic principle is still hugely useful to understanding quantum mechanics. But it looks like, if our universe really is a hologram, then the evidence for that exists on scales so impossibly small that they lay beyond our abilities to probe. So then, it's probably best to leave the cosmic hologram as an interesting idea, and - at least for now - not much more.

http://io9.com/5818008/the-universe-probably-isnt-a-giant-hologram-after-all

http://news.discovery.com/space/we-might-not-live-in-a-hologram-after-all-110701.htm

[Sonja Smedley]

Very funny indeed...I know some people are different and that's nothing bad at all.Just continue your life as you like it that's good.

[Syo Emerald]

Or what should she make different, now that she knows that she gets easily and strongly influenced by one series of YT videos about something that is highly possible to remain "a nice idea"?

[Sonja Smedley]

Actually I was hoping that only people who are interested in these things would watch it.

And honestly what is really normal in this world?

[Charly Muggins]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

what is really normal in this world?

---

Abnormality.

Do you realise that more than 99.99% of things are not average.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Profaitchikenz Haiku wrote:

I think this might be an attempt to do the next "What the Bleep..." without J Z Knight's input.

 

Now, if somebody decided to make a Quantum Physics exploration island in SL,

that

would be worth linking to.

---

These kinds of pitches are so very familiar, having sprung from aspects of humanity that were reasonably well understood (and taken advantage of) long before science popped up to start clobbering claims. Although I find the video unconvincing, I do find it very human.

[Charly Muggins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I do find it very human.

---

And as has been claimed by anti-logicians in these forums previously, it is the propensity to make mistakes that makes us human.

Which presumably means that lemmings are human.

Or is  that a mistake?

[Sonja Smedley]

Warum?Nur weil ich offen bin fuer viele Sachen und diese mich auch interessieren?

Ich sehe mir die Dinge vorher an und bilde mir danach ein Urteil und schimpfe nicht schon vorher drauflos.

Manchen hilft es anderen nicht..das ist auch ganz ok.

Ich finde es nur schade, dass der Grossteil der Menschen so reagiert wie hier.

Nicht schade fuer mich sondern fuer diese Menschen.

[Sonja Smedley]

The makers own part comes in part five as he said at the beginning.

Please don't judge something when you only saw 40 min or less.

No one forces anyone here to watch it.

If it is nothing for you then fine.

Don't waste your energy here.

[Charly Muggins]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

Warum?Nur weil ich offen bin fuer viele Sachen und diese mich auch interessieren?

Ich sehe mir die Dinge vorher an und bilde mir danach ein Urteil und schimpfe nicht schon vorher drauflos.

Manchen hilft es anderen nicht..das ist auch ganz ok.

Ich finde es nur schade, dass der Grossteil der Menschen so reagiert wie hier.

Nicht schade fuer mich sondern fuer diese Menschen.

---

Erm, I think you are in the wrong room for an argument.

Try here.

[Sonja Smedley]

She is speaking german so don't worry she will understand...hehe

[LeeHere Absent]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

Warum?Nur weil ich offen bin fuer viele Sachen und diese mich auch interessieren?

Ich sehe mir die Dinge vorher an und bilde mir danach ein Urteil und schimpfe nicht schon vorher drauflos.

Manchen hilft es anderen nicht..das ist auch ganz ok.

Ich finde es nur schade, dass der Grossteil der Menschen so reagiert wie hier.

Nicht schade fuer mich sondern fuer diese Menschen.

---

I used Google Translate.  

 

Why? Just because I am open for many things interest me and this? I look at things in advance and then imagining a judgment and not scold already straight on. It helps some others do not .. that's ok. I think it's just a shame that the majority of people reacts as here. Not too bad for me but for these people.

[LeeHere Absent]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

The makers own part comes in part five as he said at the beginning.

Please don't judge something when you only saw 40 min or less.

No one forces anyone here to watch it.

If it is nothing for you then fine.

Don't waste your energy here.

---

You make your own choices, of course, but it is possible you are spending too much time reacting defensively to what you see as attacks, and not spending enough time answering legitimate discussion questions, like what changes you have made based on your new insights from the video.  Your choices are driving the direction of this discussion as much as the responses to them.  It's understandable, natural, of course, for you to respond that way. The subject is a potentially emotional one, and it is about your belief system, which you are now being asked to justify.  Defensiveness, particularly in an online forum discussion, is completely, to use a word from this conversation, normal.  But you have an opportunity to make another choice and redirect the conversation somewhat.  I hope you choose it. Although I will understand if you do not given both the climate of the discussion and the difficulty of the task. It would not be easy to discuss this complex principle and its real-life applications.  Okay, I'm done net nannying you for now.    Good luck.