Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ohaeri]

See guys, it might mean that Plato was right afterall!

I thought his point was more that reality is an imperfect echo of divinity. Of course, I always get mixed up as to whether that was Socrates's view or Plato's, because it was written as a dialogue between Socrates and another person by Plato. The literature regarding the theory of forms suggests that he believes it, but he also wrote about the grave flaws in that theory in Parmenides, so idk. I get mixed up sometimes.

For those who don't know what we're referencing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

[Siquo]

Perhaps he was referencing to the allegory of the cave, although that is exactly the opposite: A 3D universe that is experienced as 2D.

[Puck]

Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something."

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

source http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.htm]http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.htm]http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.htm

Trippy stuff right there. That's basically what I read in a booklet of some incense sticks about a decade ago. Blew my mind back then, blew it right now, again.

[Virex]

I get the concept, but what prompted them to think of this option in the first place? It has to have some explanatory value or else they'd not considered it.

Not necessarily. Sometimes there's a lag between innovation in ideas and innovation in practicality. I'm struggling to come up with a suitable example because my mind has blanked . . . the only one I can think of is Galileo's initial work with gravity. Sure, his observations didn't change anything; they just caused others to look at things differently and realize that the world didn't work quite in the way people would expect it to (until that time, Aristotle's view that light things fell slower was in vogue; in reality, mass has nothing to do with acceleration). But out of his work we got nice things like Einstein's work with relativity. You never know what a paradigm shift will cause later on down the line.

That wasn't what I meant though. Gallileo made an attempt to formalise things about gravity and mechanics that didn't have rules at the time. Same with the many worlds explenation of quantum mechanics. It's not a provable theory but it does do away with the problems of quantum uncertanty.

So I'm asking: what problem does this hy[pthesis attempt to solve? If it doesn't attempt to do anything, then it's every bit as usefull as saying that electrons are green...

[Ohaeri]

That wasn't what I meant though. Gallileo made an attempt to formalise things about gravity and mechanics that didn't have rules at the time. Same with the many worlds explenation of quantum mechanics. It's not a provable theory but it does do away with the problems of quantum uncertanty.

So I'm asking: what problem does this hy[pthesis attempt to solve? If it doesn't attempt to do anything, then it's every bit as usefull as saying that electrons are green...

How about the shift from geocentrism to heliocentrism, then? Back when it was first being debated, it was about as useful; the debate was entirely philosophical and didn't involve mathematics or have any proofs at all. It's useful now, especially in predictive astronomy.

The problem is that I can't really give you many examples of paradigm shifts that looked useless but later became useful, because they're all useful now. It's kind of hard to argue from that perspective.

[Virex]

The debate about Heliocentrism had to do with Ockams Razor. As people started to understand gravity they realised that the geocentric model needed too many hoops to jump through, so some started to look for a simpler model.

Again, I am not asking "What are thepractical implications of this?", but rather "What prompted the formulation of this hypothesis?". A hypothesis is a possible awnser to a problem or a gap in our knowledge. If I'd were to say that the thermodynamic laws stem from the fact that energy are particles miving in a latice and that what we measure is a projection of it upon our world, then I'd give an explenation as to why the laws of thermodynamics are as they are. If I'd claim that electrons smell like elderberries then I'm trying to explain what the smell of an electron is. What does this hypothesis try to explain? Those papers should have the awnser...

[Ohaeri]

Again, I am not asking "What are thepractical implications of this?", but rather "What prompted the formulation of this hypothesis?". A hypothesis is a possible awnser to a problem or a gap in our knowledge. If I'd were to say that the thermodynamic laws stem from the fact that energy are particles miving in a latice and that what we measure is a projection of it upon our world, then I'd give an explenation as to why the laws of thermodynamics are as they are. If I'd claim that electrons smell like elderberries then I'm trying to explain what the smell of an electron is. What does this hypothesis try to explain? Those papers should have the awnser...

Oh, I see what you're asking. The second site has the explanation for that in the first section:

In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.

I can't find Aspect's paper itself, but he was awarded the 2009 Senior Prize for Fundamental Aspects of Quantum Electronics and Optics for his work on quantum entanglement. http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1458.htm

Sorry, I was just confused because I thought you had read the second link.

[Deon]

Ugh. The concept is neat, but the world is much more complex. I.e. they don't even tell anything about plasmon effects or anything close to it, and it makes almost no sense from a scientific point of view if you know a bit more than a school program.

I believe it's another nonsense which is aimed to shake unknowing masses.

However there may be some sense if you use logic. What is a hologram? It's a fractal which is formed outside of time (i.e. it's already formed). And if you talk about fractals, then it's another matter. There's a lot of fractal theories about universe and existence as a whole, which draw various global matters like connection between everything etc.

So, use proper language. You can't use wrong terms if you want to stay serious or correct.

P.S. I love fractals.

P.P.S. Alein Aspect's experiment proved that there're some derivations from Bell's equations (which are probably not correct as quantum physics in the whole because our model is not complex enough to describe the world) but sadly they didn't answer the question why. There's a lot of work to be done, maybe one day this mystery will be solved (and open other thousands of questions).

[Ohaeri]

P.S. I love fractals.

P.P.S. Alein Aspect's experiment proved that there're some derivations from Bell's equations (which are probably not correct as quantum physics in the whole because our model is not complex enough to describe the world) but sadly they didn't answer the question why. There's a lot of work to be done, maybe one day this mystery will be solved (and open other thousands of questions).

Point A: I do love me some fractals.

Point B: Yeah, the second link (I couldn't read the first one) is more clear in explaining that the holographic universe theory is one explanation to Aspect's work with quantum entanglement. I think it's pretty "out there" personally, which is why I choose to reject the theory until they can substantiate it better. Just because a theory has been suggested doesn't mean we have to adopt it as the truth.

[codezero]

Reminds me of something Balzac said in one of his novels. About cameras, where he contended that an image of everything was superimposed everywhere else or something like that. Daggurrotype was the word iirc, can't remeber the spelling.

[LegoLord]

I don't get it.

If we're a hologram, then how come we can make holograms that we can pass through?

[Battlefrank]

Well, the thread on evolution/god thread reminded me of this piece of news which I read a few weeks back and summarily forgot. I don't really understand most of the article, but I'm proud of myself for reading the whole bloody thing. I'm worried I might have come to some wrong conclusions though...

Does it really mean anything, or change anything if we know we live in a holographic universe? Could someone translate the science-speak into stupid-speak?

Here's a quote from the article:

"The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image. In the 1990s physicists Leonard Susskind and Nobel prizewinner Gerard 't Hooft suggested that the same principle might apply to the universe as a whole. Our everyday experience might itself be a holographic projection of physical processes that take place on a distant, 2D surface."

if you want to read more, you have to sign up
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?full=true

Edit: I found an alternate website which is interesting and explains a bit about what a holographic universe entails, but I can't tell if it's full of half-truths and pseudoscience
http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

MIGHT be.

[SHAD0Wdump]

I don't get it.

If we're a hologram, then how come we can make holograms that we can pass through?

Hologram in hologram?

That sounds as crazy as picture in picture!

[LegoLord]

No, I mean if I'm a hologram, and I can't pass through, say, a solid wall, then why can we make a hologram of a solid wall and be able to pass through that?

[Yanlin]

Because of all the restrictions placed on us by the 2D data and shiz.

Really, people of crazy unproven theories will twist anything to prove their point. Even if it makes no real sense.