HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE...would like your opinion!

[LeeHere Absent]

---

LeeHere Absent wrote:

---

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?

---

This was my question.

[Sonja Smedley]

Well I would love to discuss this all..that's why I have posted this link..but I cannot discuss it with people who are not familiar with the whole workshop..it would only continue like the last 3 sites.

And this would be a waste of time.

I do not defense I only say it is worth to watch for people who are interested.

If anyone takes his time to watch it out there feel free to contact me after that.

[LeeHere Absent]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

Well I would love to discuss this all..that's why I have posted this link..but I cannot discuss it with people who are not familiar with the whole workshop..it would only continue like the last 3 sites.

And this would be a waste of time.

I do not defense I only say it is worth to watch for people who are interested.

If anyone takes his time to watch it out there feel free to contact me after that.

---

I see it more as an opportunity wasted than time wasted, but it is easy to see my own perspective from where I sit.   I appreciate your point about it being difficult to discuss if all the participants are not well versed in the subject.  There is also probably a point to be made about motivation.

I do think there is an opportunity, however, for you to talk a little more about the impact the concept has made on your life.  As with any new product, principle, or doctrine, I think it is possible for those using it to talk about how they are using it. But I can see this conversation has pretty much reached its conclusion and the rest will likely be a rehash.

[Coby Foden]

/me thinks this thread might lead to long discussions, too little sleep, neglecting one's duties in the office...

:smileytongue:

 

[Syo Emerald]

---

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.

---

Being open for new things and interested is one thing, a totally different thing is to say such things as "my life has totally changed now after watching this video!" To be honest, that sounds much more like from a TV comercial.

I'm also interested in many things and I like to watch science documentations, but I'm not going to let them give my life direction. Especially if I haven't reviewed more than one opinion (and this video can count as a single one). In my opinion its not a great trait to easily fall for one opinion without having reviewed other sources.

 

 

Also I doesn't suprise me, that nobody wanted to spend over 4 hours just to then join a discussion with you. Thats not how forums and people work. Maybe you should seek for a forum where lots of people are already deep into this kind of theories?

(and sorry, I couldn't reply in German. Had that annoying forum bug again. I know it already discriminates our language, but even avoiding the common problematic letters didn't solved the error message I got).

[Sonja Smedley]

Fact is you would not understand me...cause you cannot see it like I do now.

That´s why the discussion would continue in this direction I don´t want it to continue.

I can only say for myself that it helped me a lot to understand some important things and see the world different now...more beautiful and not that negative anymore.

I can say I was most of the time a pessimist, but now it clears up for me.

I it kind of freeing.

And it is very much worth to live this life as it is.

 

[LeeHere Absent]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

Fact is you would not understand me...cause you cannot see it like I do now.

 

---

That's a facile argument.  A cop out. 

 

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

I can only say for myself that it helped me a lot to understand some important things and see the world different now...more beautiful and not that negative anymore.

I can say I was most of the time a pessimist, but now it clears up for me.

I it kind of freeing.

And it is very much worth to live this life as it is.

 

---

 This, however, is more interesting and on point.  How long ago did you see the video series?

[LeeHere Absent]

A video with a slightly different tone.

 

[Charly Muggins]

Ah, I think I have worked out what the six hours might be describing from only a handful of cryptic posts, largely made by ESLers. It's the quantum mechanics version of Plato's Cave, isn't it.

I once watched a BBC populist science documentary (probably Horizon) in which an Eminent Quantum Scientist (capital letters for the benefit of our German-speaking friends here) stated that if you thought you understood the theory involved, you probably didn't.

[Ceka Cianci]

i usually have a hard time investing  that kind of time in something that sounds like a sales pitch from the start..

then seeing things like..there was a time everyone thought the world was flat..

which really was being pretty vague..

when did they think that? are they insinuating that in the days of columbus they thought that or was it much earlier in time?

they knew the world wasn't flat in his times and were pretty accurate of it's size never even having went around it yet..

columbus actually ended up being wrong in his sizing..thinking the americas  east coast was east india..hence naming the natives of the americas indians..

it seemed like 20 minutes of sales pitch and making sure that the mindset was setup before even starting to get into the science..

that comes off as propoganda to me more than anything..

and if i have a problem with it ..i'll have to hunt down the scientists to argue it with them?

 

to get 6 hours of my time..they are gonna have to sell me better than that..maybe by using confidence rather than knowing right off the bat that they have to cover their butt in explinations before even starting..

 

i may watch it..but it won't be for a life changing experience..it'll be to find what science they are manipulating to go along with the already manipulating intro..

 

you asked for opinions..and so far this is mine..

i would hope if they wish to get their theory off the ground that they would use more confidence than politics and myths from the start..

and it should  not take 6 hours to get the idea out there..

i'm sure they could trim the fat if they stuck just to the science and left the swaying alone..

 

as i said..just my opinion so far..which you asked for..

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

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.

---

My knowledge of quantum mechanics (or even classical physics, really) is barely skin deep, even after two years of undergraduate physics courses and a semester of Quantum Mechanics in grad school. Yet, within the first 40 minutes of the video, the definition of "observer" had been misrepresented to the point that if I'd given it in my QM class, I'd have been told that philosophy and theology were taught in the building next door.

I understand that you may feel "cut off" by my stopping at the 40 minute mark, but the errors to that point tell me that I'll not be moved until they are addressed. I would not continue building a house if I saw that the foundation was unstable.

Sonya, we have very different backgrounds and will come at these deep questions from different angles. Nevertheless,  I think we just might share both awe of this beautiful universe and gratitude for the chance to experience it. If Stephen Davis brought you to this place and chance brought me, the result is the same. We're both here.

:-)

[Perrie Juran]

[Ceka Cianci]

Sonja let me try to say this in a much better way than i did..

because i love scienc and we've had a few discussions here around string theory and quantam theory and fractial mathmatics and many things..

it's just awesome stuff..i get absorbed  in it constantly..i'm huge into fractal mathmatics and fractals in nature..it's something that has me walking around the mountains just looking at so much more detail..

i'm always excited to look at theories in science..things that conflict..because that could be new ground..

but i think the guy that made this video..he makes people leery from the start..

he did me..

and that is very distracting and can have people on guard rather than relaxed and really taking in what is being said..

i don't want to enter into something ready to pick it apart..

i would much rather be relaxed and ready to absorb what they have to say first..

but that can't happen if he has to feel he has to make me feel confident in what someone else is saying..

right from the start he gives kind of a warning like you would get on a Mcdonalds coffee cup..this product is hot..or on a tv show..the opinons expressed here are not my own but those of the people i have hand picked to give you the information..

he should have been trying to make it sound exciting and wowing us rather than..ok let me explain myself before you start dissing me..

so right from the start he is turning people off..

but i'll go and look into the science  myself and find information on it..

i just don't want to use his..because he made me not trust him is all...

that's not saying the video may not have strong theories in it..

it's that he didn't make me too comfy to want to invest the time needed to watch his video..

 

but i am curious and i am going to find information on it..and if the thread is still aorund..i'll be glad to discuss it..

sorry for sounding kind of harsh in my first response..

he just reminded me of someone tryng to sneak  creationism in on me..and  it had me putting my guard up right away to where i didn't wish to look farther into anything else he had to show..

 

 

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Charly Muggins wrote:

Ah, I think I have worked out what the six hours might be describing from only a handful of cryptic posts, largely made by ESLers. It's the quantum mechanics version of

Plato's Cave

, isn't it.

I once watched a BBC populist science documentary (probably Horizon) in which an Eminent Quantum Scientist (capital letters for the benefit of our German-speaking friends here) stated that if you thought you understood the theory involved, you probably didn't.

---

wow that was a pretty cool article..i never read on that before..

did they actually do that to people? chain them to a cave wall facing the wall like that?

what a sucky matrix they  must have had..

[Sonja Smedley]

Here it is too....at part five...it starts at 1 hour and 37 minutes....

[Ted McGregor]

A Dream Within A Dream

Take this kiss upon the brow!

And, in parting from you now,

Thus much let me avow-

You are not wrong, who deem

That my days have been a dream;

Yet if hope has flown away

In a night, or in a day,

In a vision, or in none,

Is it therefore the less gone?

All that we see or seem

Is but a dream within a dream.

 

I stand amid the roar

Of a surf-tormented shore,

And I hold within my hand

Grains of the golden sand-

How few! yet how they creep

Through my fingers to the deep,

While I weep- while I weep!

O God! can I not grasp

Them with a tighter clasp?

O God! can I not save

One from the pitiless wave?

Is all that we see or seem

But a dream within a dream?

 

Edgar Allan Poe

[Sonja Smedley]

This is nice thank you....:heart:

I like the imagination to see life only as a dream...why not when it makes me happy?

And honestly who knows really what happens when we die...no one knows.

So we can have as many discussions as we want about it, in real no one knows the answer...at this is wonderful.

[Ted McGregor]

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

This is nice thank you....:heart:

---

You're welcome. Thnx for the kind reply.

 

---

Sonja Smedley wrote:

I like the imagination to see life only as a dream...why not when it makes me happy?

---

My question would remain : how do we define ourselves when waking up from that dream ?

 

 

[Charly Muggins]

Life is not a dream.

It's a series of extended nightmares.

Punctuated by narcosis.

[Ted McGregor]

Get sober and stop flaunting yourself in a cloack of Jupiter, o' filius Fufluns.  :robotindifferent:

[Sonja Smedley]

Oh no...not only nightmares...it is only how you see the world.

You create the nightmares when you think that way.

[Sonja Smedley]

I guess this is the question we cannot answer.

And this is the point that makes it exciting...for me.

 

[Nyll Bergbahn]

Only a few minutes into the video and I come across one of Davis's so-called experts from my own country, someone who hit the headlines some years ago and it wasn't for his insights into a holographic universe. Yes, like I'd believe anything that 'expert' says: http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/0531/26280-maynooth/

Anyway, weren't the Geo 600 conjectures Davis talks about at the start of the video disproved by gamma ray observations by the ESA's Integral Gamma Ray Observatory?

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Nyll Bergbahn wrote:

Only a few minutes into the video and I come across one of Davis's so-called experts from my own country, someone who hit the headlines some years ago and it wasn't for his insights into a holographic universe. Yes, like I'd believe anything that 'expert' says:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/0531/26280-maynooth/

Anyway, weren't the Geo 600 conjectures Davis talks about at the start of the video disproved by gamma ray observations by the ESA's Integral Gamma Ray Observatory?

 

---

Yep.

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

There's been increasing criticism over String Theory (from which the Holographic Universe springs) because it's unproveable and has made very little progress in the 40 years or so that people have been banging on it. Some of that criticism stems from the politics/economics of the scientific community (which is why science's healthy skepticism should be applied to the business of science as well).

What really bugs me about Davis' video are his huge conceptual leaps that simply have no basis in fact. He goes from the idea of "holographic projection" of String Theory's 10-11 dimensions into our four to the wild fabrication that that projection is centered around Earth, as if we're Nature's favorite child.

This torturing of logic continues in the second video linked here, where Davis' claims that Lamarck's epigenetics has turned biology upside down (30:02 in the second video). Has it? Lamarck was a contemporary of Darwin, and though we were aware then, and are increasingly aware now of epigenetic evidence, it has hardly turned biology on its head. Cell differentiation, which gives us bones and muscle and blood, is epigenesis in full bloom. Without it, we'd be homogeneous blobs of goop. The environment really does effect gene expression, even in ways that survive into offspring, but that effect pales in comparison to the information carried from generation to generation via the DNA itself. If epigenetics were the prime mover, cell differentiation would be more affected by environment than DNA and my being a blonde female human would be more the result of Mom's environment (and if you believe Davis, mental disposition) than the fact that I was born of two northern European humans. Epigenetics is wiggling biology, not capsizing it.

And there again, Davis' and Lipton make a huge, unwarranted leap from environmental effects on gene expression to conscious awareness controlling DNA. Most of life on Earth is not be considered "conscious". I've not watched the entire video, but how does Davis' account for the little bits of epigenetic inheritance seen in plants and microbes?

It's not news to anyone that mental health has an effect on physical health, for reasons we understand and reasons we've yet to understand. But to make the leap from that to the idea that you can think your way to health, and to the health of your offspring, isn't supported by the evidence.Somewhere in the video, it's claimed that placebo is as effective as 33% of medications and surgeries. That's true in the studies, but those studies are for specific medications and surgeries. To suggest that because placebo is as effective as arthroscopic knee surgery in relieving pain, it's as effective everywhere else is nuts. Would you want to be placebo'd out of a burst appendix, ruptured aortic aneurysm, plague or venomous snake bite?

There may be grains of truth in the video, but they are being washed away by the river of manipulation.

 

[Sonja Smedley]

Basically, everything is just a createdness of the humans...... all the sciences, the languages, simply everything here on earth. ( I do not mean nature of course or the planet itself).

People give names to things ... they wrote the Bible ... actually all made by human hands.

So I ask myself seriously, who gives us the right to say actually what really is and is not in this world?

No one knows what this world really is and why we are here and were we did come from.

I do not believe all that stuff we got teached in school ...

Soooo ... maybe I am different and seem crazy to all the other people but this is how I am and I do not need to hide my feelings I am honest.