More Hologram Theory ...

[Belz...]

Does it bother you that no physicists agree with you? No cosmologists?

Tsk tsk, Mercutio. Remember, he is much more of an authority on the subject than any of them, especially Planck.

 

[Mercutio]

Getting a full picture of what he's trying to say is not in my interest, until he is more concise anyway.

I did not mean to imply you should try to grasp what he is saying. Far from it. What I meant is that the topic had come up many times in the past, and people other than Iacchus gave a very thorough accounting of it. Several times. To no avail, as far as Iacchus goes, but it is there, nonetheless.

 

[Belz...]

You see, if we merely existed in a hologram, there in effect would be nothing defined outside of it, although it would appear to expand outward, within the parameters of the hologram that is.

You obviously have no idea what a hologram is. It REQUIRES time and space in order to exist. Your analogy does not make sense in any way.

While for the same reason, there would be nothing defined in its center, simply because the center is defined within the hologram.

Still a center, there.

And, since the hologram doesn't really occupy time and space, but rather provides the illusion of time and space, there's no need for it occupy anything other than a single point ...

Tell you what. Let's drop the term "Hologram" and imagine a new term to describe it. I submit the following:

Iacchogram -
Noun, m. : a hypothetical object that gives the illusion of time and space... wait a minute...

How can it give the illusion of time and space without time and space ?

Hence we have the notion of everything exanding away from everything else, simply because it all originates precisely at the same point ... and yet, doesn't expand into anything.

Still, how does that work ? I prefer my Great Brown Chicken hypothesis.

No, this is simple common sense. Have you ever heard of the term, "cause-and-effect?"

First off, "common sense" may not be particularily useful when determining truth. After all, common sense told us the world was flat, and that the sun spun around the earth.

Second, when we're talking about quantum physics and relativity, simple common sense is inadequate, to say the least. Just because you can't imagine something does not mean it doesn't exist, just like the ability to imagine something does not make it true.

No, time and space is the hologram.

Isn't it an illusion ? Get your fact straight so I can complete that Iacchogram definition.

 

[Belz...]

It's strictly a matter of assessing whether we have a point of origin or not.

Not in time, no.

Yes, and if everything is scripted beforehand, that means everything is scripted beforehand. Which tells us that whatever it is that exists on the other side of matter knows no bounds ... at least with respect to time and space anyway.

What is this "other side" of which you speak ? This is the third time I ask you this question.

It's an all or nothing proposition ... meaning, if you can conclude that there was never time when there was ever nothing.

Woah! Right there, Iacchus. This "nothing" of which you speak seems to be one of the cornerstoned of your world view. It seems to bug you very much that scientists claim that the cosmos came forth from "nothing". But this is a strawman. There was no "nothing". A singularity, I believe, is the current idea. A timeless, space-less (obviously) singularity. Pure chaos. Got that ?

 

[Iacchus]

A singularity, I believe, is the current idea. A timeless, space-less (obviously) singularity.

Which of course doesn't mean Jack, unless you understand the rules that define that singularity. If everything is supposed to burst forth from this singularity, don't you think everything should be contained within it then?

 

[Mercutio]

Which of course doesn't mean Jack, unless you understand the rules that define that singularity. If everything is supposed to burst forth from this singularity, don't you think everything should be contained within it then?

Circularly inferred.

 

[Iacchus]

Tsk tsk, Mercutio. Remember, he is much more of an authority on the subject than any of them, especially Planck.

When it comes to things of a spiritual nature, I would venture to say yes.

 

[Iacchus]

Circularly inferred.

Yes, look at all the DNA contained within the fertilized egg.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

By the way, I prefer Kelly Osbourne's idea of entropy.

I'm not sure if that is a joke, blame my ignorance(i do), but would you please verbose, as i don't know the reference, i'm very interested.

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, look at all the DNA contained within the fertilized egg.

And note that you do not have to infer its presence. It is there to see.

You really still do not get this circularity business, do you? After all this time...

 

[Belz...]

Which of course doesn't mean Jack, unless you understand the rules that define that singularity. If everything is supposed to burst forth from this singularity, don't you think everything should be contained within it then?

No, NO, NO and NO.

It does not have space, it does not have time, it does not have dimension. It does not contain anything "within." The "laws" of the universe are PART of the universe. They do not exist without it. They were born with it.

When it comes to things of a spiritual nature, I would venture to say yes.

Since you have no way to verify your claims and have not ever been considered an authority by anyone, your statement here is null and void.

Yes, look at all the DNA contained within the fertilized egg.

Which, of course, is neither atemporal nor adimensional.

 

[Iacchus]

And note that you do not have to infer its presence. It is there to see.

So is the chicken (in our case, the Universe) which came from the egg.

You really still do not get this circularity business, do you? After all this time...

Or, maybe it's simply a matter of not telling you what you're accustomed to hearing?

 

[Iacchus]

No, NO, NO and NO.

It does not have space, it does not have time, it does not have dimension. It does not contain anything "within." The "laws" of the universe are PART of the universe. They do not exist without it. They were born with it.

It does not contain any properties and everything is born without it? So, what do we need it for then? Indeed, it sounds very much like this imaginary God.

Since you have no way to verify your claims and have not ever been considered an authority by anyone, your statement here is null and void.

Speak for yourself.

Which, of course, is neither atemporal nor adimensional.

Yes, and aside from it telling us that all chickens have a beginning, much in the way I'm suggesting the Big Bang had a beginning, what the heck are you talking about?

 

[Mercutio]

So is the chicken (in our case, the Universe) which came from the egg.

Precisely. Look carefully at your words here. You see the chicken, and you see the universe. You see the DNA and a chicken egg, but you merely infer your "universal egg" or rules. That is why it is circular. If you had actual, independent evidence of the Universal Egg, as you do of a chicken egg, it would not be circular.

Or, maybe it's simply a matter of not telling you what you're accustomed to hearing?

Nope, that's not it. I hope you understand the above analysis better than any of the previous attempts. I won't hold my breath.

 

[bruto]

So is the chicken (in our case, the Universe) which came from the egg.

Yes, Iacchus, you can see the DNA in the egg as soon as it is laid, but you sure as hell cannot see the chicken! You do realize that, don't you?

 

[Iacchus]

Precisely. Look carefully at your words here. You see the chicken, and you see the universe. You see the DNA and a chicken egg, but you merely infer your "universal egg" or rules. That is why it is circular. If you had actual, independent evidence of the Universal Egg, as you do of a chicken egg, it would not be circular.

However, we both know that chickens don't just appear out of nowhere, precisely because everything was in the works and, scripted beforehand. So, I am just trying to give the best possible analogy for the scenario we seem to have before us ... a fully developed chicken in other words. Aside from that though, I agree, what I'm saying may come across as conjecture. However, it doesn't bother me if people take it this way. I don't expect anyone to "get it" right away.

Nope, that's not it. I hope you understand the above analysis better than any of the previous attempts. I won't hold my breath.

And if you paid attention to the terms "in the works" and "scripted beforehand" which, are apparent with the chicken egg, these are the two things which need to be expounded upon.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, Iacchus, you can see the DNA in the egg as soon as it is laid, but you sure as hell cannot see the chicken! You do realize that, don't you?

Agreed, the Universe (as we see it) did not just come about overnight.

 

[Belz...]

Or, maybe it's simply a matter of not telling you what you're accustomed to hearing?

You're right. We're accustomed to logic and reason.

It does not contain any properties and everything is born without it? So, what do we need it for then? Indeed, it sounds very much like this imaginary God.

Once more you understand nothing of anything. The singularity that gave rise to the universe is NOT a temporal or spatial entity. It does not have energy, matter or dimensions. Do you get that ? "In" it are countless quantum fluctuations, some (or at least, one) of which have grown to "immense" proportions. But a universe, like our own, is curved in on itself: it doesn't expand "into" anything. In fact, if you take everything into account, the total energy in the universe is ZERO. So, if you really want to think about it, the spacetime foam is next to nothing, itself, and the variation brought about by the universe is ZERO.

Maybe I'm not clear about that, but you CAN, I'm sure, find articles on the subject if you put your "mind" to it.

Speak for yourself.

Why ? Has someone other than you actually called you an authority on anything ?

Yes, and aside from it telling us that all chickens have a beginning, much in the way I'm suggesting the Big Bang had a beginning, what the heck are you talking about?

Iacchus. I was telling you, by saying that, that the EGG you talk about is in NO WAY similar to the universe or the singularity in question. Instead of catching on to that, you take it that, indeed, the universe has a beginning, as though what I said actually CONFIRMS a similarity between the two. You have serious reading problems.

 

[Mercutio]

However, we both know that chickens don't just appear out of nowhere, precisely because everything was in the works and, scripted beforehand. So, I am just trying to give the best possible analogy for the scenario we seem to have before us ... a fully developed chicken in other words. Aside from that though, I agree, what I'm saying may come across as conjecture. However, it doesn't bother me if people take it this way. I don't expect anyone to "get it" right away.

So, by the same analogy, houses come from house eggs, cars from car eggs, cardboard boxes from cardboard box eggs.

You might want to re-think whether this is "the best possible analogy".

 

[Iacchus]

So, by the same analogy, houses come from house eggs, cars from car eggs, cardboard boxes from cardboard box eggs.

No, because something didn't just come along and squat and leave these things. However, that does not mean houses and cardboard boxes do not come from an "initial design."

You might want to re-think whether this is "the best possible analogy".

And apparently you seem unprepared to take into account what I said about "in the works" and, "scripted beforehand."