Has science proven that the Universe is in reality just a hologram?

[Machiavelli]

This is true. Scientists don't do enough drugs evidently.

This is not true. Scientists tend to invent the drugs in the first place.

 

[Machiavelli]

Has science proven that the Universe is in reality just a hologram?

No.
It's called theoretical Physics as it is just a theory. According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, Isaac Newton's gravity theory was wrong but it is still used as it works for most purposes. Just because doing this or that makes your sums work it doesn't prove a theory as fact.

Einstein's theory of relativity only disproved SOME OF and NOT ALL OF Newtonian mechanics.

 

[Machiavelli]

Newton's Theory of Gravity is not "wrong". Einstein expanded it to cover things Newton didn't know about - the fundamental parts of Newton's Theory are still used because they are correct, and essentially identical to Einstein's when applied for 'everyday' use. Even Einstein's Theory breaks down in certain circumstances (black holes, etc), but it doesn't make the rest of it 'wrong'. If and when someone discovers a more accurate way to describe gravity (probably at a quantum level) then Einstein's theory may go the same way as Newton.

A Theory in science is the strongest possible term - nothing is ever described as 'fact'. 'Theory' does not mean guess - that's a hypothesis.

This is a response to David in Southampton, and is a good one. I come at this from philosophy with a limited understanding of the philosophy of science, rather than as a scientist, but this is well put. The depiction of theory here also illustrates that the claim 'that's a fact' and the belief that facts are watertight and sacrosanct and superior to theories (as many users on NSC maintain) is problematic.

 

[Machiavelli]

What we are learning through quantum physics is that the universe largely exists as superpositioned realm of possibilities until observed. This essentially means that the reality we experience is a construct of consciousness, not the other way around.

Are you carving a distinction here between 'reality' and 'the reality we experience'? If so, I agree with you; if not, I don't.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Can one of you clever chaps start by explaining what they mean by hologram or holographic, as I can't get me head round biological entities being projections of something else.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

This is not true. Scientists tend to invent the drugs in the first place.

The most mind blowing and spiritual drugs grow out of the ground my friend.

 

[Hungry Joe]

It means that the universe is essentially a 2d structure of information and this information is projected into the reality that we are familiar with.

The significance of this is that it is another hint that reality, or perhaps the entire universe, is a mental construct.

So The Matrix in other words.

Scratch that; The Indy has just answered it, kind of....

'The idea of the universe existing as a ‘hologram’ doesn’t refer to a Matrix-like illusion, but the theory that the three dimensions we perceive are actually just “painted” onto the cosmological horizon - the boundary of the known universe.'

 

[Machiavelli]

The most mind blowing and spiritual drugs grow out of the ground my friend.

Do you think between us we could construct a list of manufactured, or laboratory-based, drugs and 'natural' ones?

 

[Machiavelli]

It means that the universe is essentially a 2d structure of information and this information is projected into the reality that we are familiar with.

The significance of this is that it is another hint that reality, or perhaps the entire universe, is a mental construct.

Still interested in hearing your response to my question posed in post 46. Do you work in physics?

 

[Machiavelli]

Sorry, no I don't, but I read a lot about quantum physics, in particular the philosophical interpretations of it.



I was deliberately vague because there are many strong conflicting theories and ideas about this.

I'm not sure a distinction can be made between those two concepts - reality is essentially an external state of existence that we all experience - I consider them to be the same thing.

What I meant was that quantum physics is teaching us that there is no objective reality beyond what is observed, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Any unobserved matter exists as a state of potentiality that is not yet real and this means that reality, or the universe, is fundamentally mental.

Thanks for this Mustafa. What of 'the objective reality' -- or as I'd prefer to put it, the earth and other parts of the universe -- that existed prior to human life on earth?

 

[Buzzer]

No disrespect to Mustafa and Hybrid_x if they do fully understand what the article is referring to but I'm a bit sceptical of any layman (and I count myself as one too despite studying theoretical physics at uni many, many years ago) inferring anything concrete from it seeing as the subject matter is so esoteric and downright confusing. It does however show just how beautiful and weird and wonderful the study of science can be.

Saying that, it does make me happy to see (and the poster Machiavelli will probably be better able to explain the phrase than me) that the academic world has by and large ignored Wittgenstein's maxim that those things that we cannot speak of should be passed over in silence.

 

[Ken Livingstone Seagull]

Just reading this and wondering, does the Barnsley board or Owl World.com have interesting and thoroughly entertaining discussions like this? God bless NSC.

 

[Leighgull]

Do you think between us we could construct a list of manufactured, or laboratory-based, drugs and 'natural' ones?

Natural:
Opium
Peyote
Mescaline
Psilocybin
Cannabis
Muscimol
DMT
Ephedrine
Nitrous oxide
Blue Lotus
Khat


Man made:
Pethedine ( manufactured opium)
Codeine (artificial opiate)
Ketamine
Ecstasy ( MDMA does occur naturally)
LSD ( lysergic acid does occur in nature though)
Morphine (alkali of opium)
Cocaine ( derived from cocoa)
Diamorphine (AKA heroin) derived from opium
Benzodiazepines

A lot of the manufactured drugs are analogues of Natures rich table...and I'd argue, by and large, far more damaging than the originals. There are thousands of legal highs but they're pretty shit in my view.

 

[BrickTamland]

If the conscious observer is fundamental to the universe, then it would be impossible for the universe to exist without it. Instead, it would more likely be an infinite realm of possibility, a chaotic state of absolute entropy where everything happens at once. So when you consider that our physical bodies and brains are not fundamental, but instead are products of the physical universe, it would be reasonable to assume that consciousness has always existed in some form.

It is also important to consider time and whether time could even exist without a conscious entity to observe change. It is possible that anything that "happened" prior to the existence of the conscious observer, only became reality once measured. For example, as we study the cosmos we are making measurements from millions of years in the past and so on a quantum level we could be deciding upon the history of the universe - and as we do that, it becomes reality.

Thats a very 'empiricist' view point you have there. Only issue is that if you believe everything is dependent on perception then it follows that if you walk out of a room and close the door then everything in that room no longer exists, which although obviously impossible to disprove, can't make sense.

 

[beorhthelm]

as far as i can tell this whole issue is a mis-communication or misunderstand from translating a high level theoretical physics concept down to everyday understanding using a concept most dont actually understand either. the idea proposed is reality is *like* a hologram, being a projection of n dimensions onto n(offset) dimensions. this doesnt change reality or our perception of it either way, it only changes how theoretical physicists look at some problems and apply some of thier maths. some are talking about consciousness and observers, thats taking it too far. its about how how gravity and other phenomenon come out of the equations that explain everything else. this isnt "oh, its easy" comment, just that its not as deep and far reaching for everyday understanding as some would like to make out.

 

[Leighgull]

What I mean about drugs...especially hallucinogens...tend to show the us that there is nothing at all real about the universe or time. It shows us, typically, as connected to each other and everything else via some all encompassing energy matrix. That we are all creatures of energy trapped in a physical construct.

Once you've been there...you don't see anything the same way again. I try not to watch easynows daft videos but he is obviously influenced by Terence McKenna and the other psychonauts trying to show us what were all about. And they are really on to something.

 

[Gullys Cats]

Palace didn't REALLY beat us in May?

 

[Hungry Joe]

What I mean about drugs...especially hallucinogens...tend to show the us that there is nothing at all real about the universe or time. It shows us, typically, as connected to each other and everything else via some all encompassing energy matrix. That we are all creatures of energy trapped in a physical construct.

Once you've been there...you don't see anything the same way again. I try not to watch easynows daft videos but he is obviously influenced by Terence McKenna and the other psychonauts trying to show us what were all about. And they are really on to something.

I was thinking about this on Wednesday whilst dealing with a colleague who'd just punched a hole through a wall and smashed her head on the toilet cistern. She suffers from what we term mental illness and periods of psychosis that are controlled, in the main, through medication. Wednesday was a particularly 'bad' episode, and whilst we were waiting for the paramedics she was asking me if she was dead and various other strange questions, whilst interacting with things that to me just weren't there. So, is what she was experiencing a genuine series of illusions based on misfiring brain chemistry, or an alternate view of reality who's observation is only possible in such states?

 

[vegster]

What I mean about drugs...especially hallucinogens...tend to show the us that there is nothing at all real about the universe or time. It shows us, typically, as connected to each other and everything else via some all encompassing energy matrix. That we are all creatures of energy trapped in a physical construct.

Once you've been there...you don't see anything the same way again. I try not to watch easynows daft videos but he is obviously influenced by Terence McKenna and the other psychonauts trying to show us what were all about. And they are really on to something.

I thought I had escaped my physical constraints by drinking three pints of Burning Sky Saisson last nights but this morning my physical shell feels even more constricting.

 

[Machiavelli]

No disrespect to Mustafa and Hybrid_x if they do fully understand what the article is referring to but I'm a bit sceptical of any layman (and I count myself as one too despite studying theoretical physics at uni many, many years ago) inferring anything concrete from it seeing as the subject matter is so esoteric and downright confusing. It does however show just how beautiful and weird and wonderful the study of science can be.

Saying that, it does make me happy to see (and the poster Machiavelli will probably be better able to explain the phrase than me) that the academic world has by and large ignored Wittgenstein's maxim that those things that we cannot speak of should be passed over in silence.

I will probably disappoint you in several respects here. But first, I agree with you about studying being beautiful, but I'd add philosophy -- considered broadly -- to your list.
I haven't read Wittgenstein yet, but am hoping to find the time to do so in 2014. Will report back if I manage to do so.
From what I understand of Wittgenstein and know about his reception, he's still extremely influential, but not really for the maxim you've identified. It's his concept of language games that is most discussed. I think it goes something like this: whenever a rule is applied, there is never a perfect application of it. So, there's always some distance between the rule and the application. He similarly undermines the distinction between language and practice.