Physicists Claim Universe is a Hologram

[KyrieEleison17]

Lol you can’t make this stuff up:

Physicists discover ‘clearest evidence yet’ that the Universe …

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/physicists…

A team of physicists have provided what has been described by the journal Nature as the “clearest evidence yet” that our universe is a hologram.

I thought about posting this in the news section but its philosophical implications are just too obvious.

Is this just more scepticism masquerading as science? I am reminded here of Philosopher Edward Feser’s interpretation of the enlightenment period as little more than a subtle philosophical revolution. Is this possibly just the enlightenment thinker’s latent scepticism manifesting itself, or are we to take seriously the claim that the universe is a hologram?

 

[laircy]

Really now if this is all a hologram then what is the ‘real’ world…? A hologram is understood or conceived of, within the framework of this universe. One cannot simply call the whole thing a hologram.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

That is an interesting way of considering it. Does the analogy in this instance necessarily defeat its own plausibility?

I think this reminds me of the contentions over viewing the universe as a “machine” in the first place. Normally we understand a significant difference between the natural and the mechanical but modern views tend to collapse this distinction. There are no doubt certain analogies but within limits: classically art was said to take nature “one step further” (Aristotle). Today we would probably laugh off someone who insisted that the world was like a giant mechanical clock, probably because by modern standards a mechanical clock is considered a rather simple affair and can’t possibly capture the complexities of the universe or all of nature. But you will hear people calling the universe (as here) a kind of hologram just like scientists will make analogies between computers and software with the relationship to the mind and the brain as a physical system.

Saint Thomas Aquinas for instance did see a kind of analogy between art and nature, but for the world he saw nature as the peculiarly divine art.

I think the scientist like a good artist (his name is after all, I have read at least, a sort of knock-off from artist) needs to be humble and see nature as his muse: he should avoid superimposing things onto nature and rather just ‘listen’ as it were and let nature speak for herself and tell us how best she should be interpreted or understood. A simple listening to nature would reveal in time the obvious limits in analogies to machines I think.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Lol you can’t make this stuff up:

Physicists discover ‘clearest evidence yet’ that the Universe …

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/physicists…

A team of physicists have provided what has been described by the journal Nature as the “clearest evidence yet” that our universe is a hologram.

I thought about posting this in the news section but its philosophical implications are just too obvious.

Is this just more scepticism masquerading as science? I am reminded here of Philosopher Edward Feser’s interpretation of the enlightenment period as little more than a subtle philosophical revolution. Is this possibly just the enlightenment thinker’s latent scepticism manifesting itself, or are we to take seriously the claim that the universe is a hologram?

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Lol you can’t make this stuff up:

Physicists discover ‘clearest evidence yet’ that the Universe …

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/physicists…

A team of physicists have provided what has been described by the journal Nature as the “clearest evidence yet” that our universe is a hologram.

I thought about posting this in the news section but its philosophical implications are just too obvious.

Is this just more scepticism masquerading as science? I am reminded here of Philosopher Edward Feser’s interpretation of the enlightenment period as little more than a subtle philosophical revolution. Is this possibly just the enlightenment thinker’s latent scepticism manifesting itself, or are we to take seriously the claim that the universe is a hologram?

Since, I accidentally hit the wrong button and submitted a reply before I wrote one here is what I wanted to write above. (I tried to edit that post but it wouldn’t allow me to since I took longer than 20 minutes to write this.)

I am a physicist with some small amount of knowledge in this field. I read a similar article to this and I am not worried about the philosophical implications. First of all, most philosophical interpretations of science are abuses of science. Science is what it is, it doesn’t tell us how we should live our lives. Whenever a new scientific theory is unearthed there are always people who are willing to use it to further their own pet philosophy. Perhaps the strongest case of this was Darwin’s theory of self-selection (or ‘survival of the fittest’). Darwinism only tells how nature generally works, it does not say how humans should act.

Second, the term hologram, is unfortunate because it can cause people to think it means that reality does not exist but is like a picture. That is not what they mean. A hologram is something that has all the information of 3 dimensions encoded in 2 dimensions. If they turn out to be correct, and it is a huge if at this point, what they mean is that it is easier to understand the universe, in certain cases, in terms of 2 dimensions instead of three.

To some extent, this is like saying that the earth orbits the sun. The fact that the earth orbits the sun makes certain things much easier to understand even though that is not our everyday experience. The vast majority of our engineering and experience, though, is with a stationary earth. If you think too much about this fact, especially if you know a little bit about general relativity, you can think yourself into circles to no avail. It is mathematically possible to create a world where the Sun orbits the earth instead, but why?

 

[JerryZ]

Since, I accidentally hit the wrong button and submitted a reply before I wrote one here is what I wanted to write above. (I tried to edit that post but it wouldn’t allow me to since I took longer than 20 minutes to write this.)

I am a physicist with some small amount of knowledge in this field. I read a similar article to this and I am not worried about the philosophical implications. First of all, most philosophical interpretations of science are abuses of science. Science is what it is, it doesn’t tell us how we should live our lives. Whenever a new scientific theory is unearthed there are always people who are willing to use it to further their own pet philosophy. Perhaps the strongest case of this was Darwin’s theory of self-selection (or ‘survival of the fittest’). Darwinism only tells how nature generally works, it does not say how humans should act.

Second, the term hologram, is unfortunate because it can cause people to think it means that reality does not exist but is like a picture. That is not what they mean. A hologram is something that has all the information of 3 dimensions encoded in 2 dimensions. If they turn out to be correct, and it is a huge if at this point, what they mean is that it is easier to understand the universe, in certain cases, in terms of 2 dimensions instead of three.

To some extent, this is like saying that the earth orbits the sun. The fact that the earth orbits the sun makes certain things much easier to understand even though that is not our everyday experience. The vast majority of our engineering and experience, though, is with a stationary earth. If you think too much about this fact, especially if you know a little bit about general relativity, you can think yourself into circles to no avail. It is mathematically possible to create a world where the Sun orbits the earth instead, but why?

But to be able to create a hologram, you need a “holographic projector” would that be GOD’s home theater system?

You know I am convinced when God created the Universe He made sure to give ample rope to anyone wanting to hang himself trying to disproof The Creator with “science” after all, anything that science “discovers” is the result of the mind behind the Creation.

–

 

[GEddie]

NB: I am not a philosopher, do not play one on television or in Hollywood, and in general do not give a flip for “philosophical ramifications.”

But why could our “known universe” not be a hologram projected from the eternities? Makes sense to me.

ICXC NIKA!

 

[KyrieEleison17]

Since, I accidentally hit the wrong button and submitted a reply before I wrote one here is what I wanted to write above. (I tried to edit that post but it wouldn’t allow me to since I took longer than 20 minutes to write this.)

I am a physicist with some small amount of knowledge in this field. I read a similar article to this and I am not worried about the philosophical implications. First of all, most philosophical interpretations of science are abuses of science. Science is what it is, it doesn’t tell us how we should live our lives. Whenever a new scientific theory is unearthed there are always people who are willing to use it to further their own pet philosophy. Perhaps the strongest case of this was Darwin’s theory of self-selection (or ‘survival of the fittest’). Darwinism only tells how nature generally works, it does not say how humans should act.

Second, the term hologram, is unfortunate because it can cause people to think it means that reality does not exist but is like a picture. That is not what they mean. A hologram is something that has all the information of 3 dimensions encoded in 2 dimensions. If they turn out to be correct, and it is a huge if at this point, what they mean is that it is easier to understand the universe, in certain cases, in terms of 2 dimensions instead of three.

To some extent, this is like saying that the earth orbits the sun. The fact that the earth orbits the sun makes certain things much easier to understand even though that is not our everyday experience. The vast majority of our engineering and experience, though, is with a stationary earth. If you think too much about this fact, especially if you know a little bit about general relativity, you can think yourself into circles to no avail. It is mathematically possible to create a world where the Sun orbits the earth instead, but why?

Thank you for helping to explain the theory a bit.

Drawing philosophical implications from science is inevitable, exactly because science basis itself in sense experience above all else - in the “empirical”. We get all our ideas from sense experience and it is the things of sense experience that serve as a basis for even our abstract concepts or analogies - the branches (or fields) of science; the body of knowledge, etc.

So asking people not to draw any philosophical implications from science is asking us to go against our nature. Good philosophy is supposed to be based on and incorporate what we know. Otherwise, you have to say that scientific theories are really baseless - but then why teach or use them if they have no merit? Presumably they have some merit and use.

It is, for example, because of a scientific theory based on experiment (experience) that we believe in a force called gravity; whereas, previously, people believed that it was just the nature of earthen bodies to move toward the centre of the earth and for lighter, more aerial bodies to rise toward the extremities of the universe. Concepts like inertia had serious implications for philosophy.

Philosophy aims at reality and the truth; so does science. Ideally the two should work together or co-operate, each giving its own contributions toward the pursuit.

A good philosopher, for example, should be able to draw out the implications or logical conclusions of a theory and thereby, perhaps, show that it might of necessity require more work or need adjustment in some regard.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

NB: I am not a philosopher, do not play one on television or in Hollywood, and in general do not give a flip for “philosophical ramifications.”

But why could our “known universe” not be a hologram projected from the eternities? Makes sense to me.

ICXC NIKA!

Good ol’ American Pragmatism

 

[Geo17]

It’s just another wild idea put forth in the hopes of destroying faith in God. One reason I’m saying this is because further down the same page I found a link saying “Science Discovers God”. It takes us to a different page with better evidence for God, than a holographic Universe. It’s here:

“http://y-jesus.com/more/science-christianity-compatible?gclid=CPfhjtO1srsCFQPNOgodEkwAiA”

You should read it.

 

[TEPO]

Lol you can’t make this stuff up:

Physicists discover ‘clearest evidence yet’ that the Universe …

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/physicists…

A team of physicists have provided what has been described by the journal Nature as the “clearest evidence yet” that our universe is a hologram.

I thought about posting this in the news section but its philosophical implications are just too obvious.

Is this just more scepticism masquerading as science? I am reminded here of Philosopher Edward Feser’s interpretation of the enlightenment period as little more than a subtle philosophical revolution. Is this possibly just the enlightenment thinker’s latent scepticism manifesting itself, or are we to take seriously the claim that the universe is a hologram?

Perhaps the universe is a ‘reflection’ of Gods mind… Thus, it is His creation.

…maybe there really is a place called “heaven”, and that’s where Jesus is, body and all.

 

[TEPO]

Good ol’ American Pragmatism

Or is it metaphysics?

 

[GangGreen]

So the Matrix wasn’t just a movie, eh?

 

[SuperLuigi]

=KyrieEleison17;11498632]Lol you can’t make this stuff up:

Physicists discover ‘clearest evidence yet’ that the Universe …

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/physicists…

A team of physicists have provided what has been described by the journal Nature as the “clearest evidence yet” that our universe is a hologram.

I thought a hologram was made up photons.

Photons have no mass.

I can also see secularist and atheists celebrating this as what they think is another nail in the coffin for Christianity.

After reading the story, I kind of see where they are going with the science, but it leaves a lot left to be desired.

I would bet real money that if we got an close-up of a black hole, this model would need an adjustment or to.

For one thing, I wonder how the discovery of the graviton would affect this.

These predictions and assumptions about the universe need to be taken in context; a context from a group of scientists on a confined space no less.

Where they lose me is when there is some insinuation that everything depends on these cosmic strings like it’s some kind of subtle decision-making model—or at least some kind of direct relationship between the strings and how the entire universe plays out.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

Perhaps the universe is a ‘reflection’ of Gods mind… Thus, it is His creation.

…maybe there really is a place called “heaven”, and that’s where Jesus is, body and all.

It’s not the possibility that this world is dependent on some supreme being that makes this claim extraordinary (most models of the universe always at least beg the question anyways). Rather it’s the claim that this world is a deception or a grand illusion and the implications that has for daily life - for moral thinking not the least.

Sceptics taught that you cannot trust your senses. Naturally this resulted in also being incapable of trusting any judgement you might make, because our judgements are based on the information that we acquire only through our senses (certainly ordinarily at least).

The psychological consequences of imagining that this world is a fiction or grand illusion can only be guessed at. What will especially young minds do with this analogy to the world being a giant hologram? How will that form and affect their later thinking? But the entertainment media and Hollywood being what they are, we can expect to see this idea played with and even possibly promoted in art - whether in films or television programs.

There’s just something about the theory, for me, that seems way off. Evidence of something deeper that is wrong or could possibly become quite wrong. It’s stuff like this that makes one worried whether or not science could easily slip even into superstition.

 

[GEddie]

It’s not the possibility that this world is dependent on some supreme being that makes this claim extraordinary (most models of the universe always at least beg the question anyways). Rather it’s the claim that this world is a deception or a grand illusion and the implications that has for daily life - for moral thinking not the least.

Sceptics taught that you cannot trust your senses. Naturally this resulted in also being incapable of trusting any judgement you might make, because our judgements are based on the information that we acquire only through our senses (certainly ordinarily at least).

The psychological consequences of imagining that this world is a fiction or grand illusion can only be guessed at. What will especially young minds do with this analogy to the world being a giant hologram? How will that form and affect their later thinking? But the entertainment media and Hollywood being what they are, we can expect to see this idea played with and even possibly promoted in art - whether in films or television programs.

There’s just something about the theory, for me, that seems way off. Evidence of something deeper that is wrong or could possibly become quite wrong. It’s stuff like this that makes one worried whether or not science could easily slip even into superstition.

I don’t see that at all.

First of all, the idea that our “world” is a kind of simulation is not at all new. It has been postulated since at least the mid 1900s by science-fiction writers .

Second, if the “world” is a simulation of any kind, then so are we ourselves, as human bodies and body-powered minds. Therefore the simulation would be our truth and our moral duties would remain the same.

ICXC NIKA

 

[TEPO]

I can also see secularist and atheists celebrating this as what they think is another nail in the coffin for Christianity.

After reading the story, I kind of see where they are going with the science, but it leaves a lot left to be desired.

For some reason, I’m not seeing the same connection that other posters are seeing. . How is this a nail in the coffin for Christianity, and where are they going with this.

 

[mikekle]

Ive heard about theories like this before and they are interesting. some suggest our world that we know, the world where our homes are built, where we drive off to work everyday and then come home, the world and all that we see or ‘interpret’ as being real, may not actually be the real deal.

I could see something like this being true, It is highly possible the world as we see it and all things in it, COULD be all fake and just our interpretation of what we consider reality, this subject is very deep and really would be literally impossible to find proof of, so its really pointless to even speculate about it, however the more we learn about alternate dimensions and similar theories, we may find some strange facts about the world we think we know. It is very possible.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I don’t see that at all.

First of all, the idea that our “world” is a kind of simulation is not at all new. It has been postulated since at least the mid 1900s by science-fiction writers .

Second, if the “world” is a simulation of any kind, then so are we ourselves, as human bodies and body-powered minds. Therefore the simulation would be our truth and our moral duties would remain the same.

ICXC NIKA

It far predates the 1900 and is a part of Hinduism, Maya. The world is an illusion.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

I don’t see that at all.

First of all, the idea that our “world” is a kind of simulation is not at all new. It has been postulated since at least the mid 1900s by science-fiction writers .

Science fiction

Second, if the “world” is a simulation of any kind, then so are we ourselves, as human bodies and body-powered minds. Therefore the simulation would be our truth and our moral duties would remain the same.

No that doesn’t follow. In every instance where such a belief is admitted the result is that our morals are just our own shear will divorced from reason and reality; they become the “morals” that a survival of the fittest regime endorses: i.e., based strictly on self-interest or expedience. That is not the same as natural law which is grounded in what reality is: that is grounded in truth and shows morality to be an expression of wisdom. Morals in the latter case are objective; in the former, they are at best a convenient fiction for the sake of expedience. In that case morality becomes a constant reminder that we are living a fiction - a lie. The morals themselves are then easily seen or identified as the very bars of the prison cell keeping us “locked” or “trapped” in this “illusion”. This is exactly why such theories tend to lead to revolution and anarchy.

I think Christians should remember that ours is a “reasonable religion”, the “reasonable service” rendered unto God. Our spiritual worship with which we pay daily homage and honour to God is to live morally and, by that very fact, reasonably also.