More Hologram Theory ...

[Iacchus]

From this thread

I am willing to accept that there is nothing outside of the balloon, as near as you folks can tell anyway. However, I would very much like to know where the four dimensions of space-time are supposed to exist.

In the analogy, we have the advantage of observing the balloon from outside the balloon, even though within the bounds of the analogy there is no outside the balloon from which to observe. We don't have that advantage in reality, though. We can't leave spacetime and observe it from outside. Nevertheless, we have to grapple with the apparent fact that the universe is centerless, and one way to deal with it is to discard the idea of spacetime extending infinitely in all directions and consider the idea that it loops back on itself somehow (analogously, the way 2D-space loops back on itself on the surface of the balloon).

Let's take a look at where this conclusion of centerlessness comes from:
1. We observe objects in space moving away from us and one another, and so it appears that the universe is expanding.
2. We observe objects moving away from us at a uniform rate, and so it appears initially that we're smack dab at the center of the universe, which is pretty surprising.
3. What's even more surprising, though, is that the distant objects are moving away from each other at the same uniform rate, which doesn't make any sense in a model with an outward expansion originating at a specific center. Picture the balloon again, and imagine all the dots on the balloon moving away from each other at the same rate that they're moving away from the center of the space inside the balloon. It doesn't work. Draw the vectors if you don't believe me.

So centerlessness is a conclusion based on observation. "Curved" spacetime is a hypothesis put forth to deal with it.

Yes, but a two-dimensional plane in and of itself does not contain anything. However, if what you're saying is that everything exists within this two-dimensional plane, then it suggests that we are living in some sort of illusion and, that in fact somebody has pulled the wool over our eyes. Which, of course has been my contention all along. But then again, it might make more sense if we said everything existed relative to the observer. Isn't this in fact something that Einstein said? Which of course makes even more sense when I say we are not to discount the observer. Not within the parameters of time and space anyway.

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. While for the same reason, there would be nothing defined in its center, simply because the center is defined within the hologram. 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 ... which, in effect doesn't exist in that sense either. 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.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

*sigh*, so what projects the hologram? and what powers that machine?

And you still seem completely unable to grasp the concept of the ballon being a representation our universe, not what we really think it looks like.

 

[Iacchus]

*sigh*, so what projects the hologram? and what powers that machine?

Something other than the hologram, no doubt.

And you still seem completely unable to grasp the concept of the ballon being a representation our universe, not what we really think it looks like.

Am merely trying to make sense out of what's been told to me. Thus far I can't accept the notion of everything existing within a two-dimensional plane, unless of course it were just an illusion.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Something other than the hologram, no doubt.

Am merely trying to make sense out of what's been told to me. Thus far I can't accept the notion of everything existing within a two-dimensional plane, unless of course it were merely illusory.

We NEVER claimed that everything in the universe lives within a two-dimensional plane. No one here ever said that.

 

[bruto]

So, since this thread has been split, I'll ask again here: Iacchus, can you give us any reason, any tiny bit of a hint of a smidgen of a little part of even the holographic echo of a reason, why we should assume that a hologram does not occupy time and space? If you can do that, maybe you can follow it with a reason we might accept for believing that there is such a thing as a hologram in the universe other than the human invention of laser projection that bears that name.

 

[Mojo]

Am merely trying to make sense out of what's been told to me. Thus far I can't accept the notion of everything existing within a two-dimensional plane, unless of course it were just an illusion.

That was an ANALOGY! It was an attempt to explain how a 3-dimensional space can expand without actually expanding into a surrounding 3-dimensional space, by analogy to the 2-dimensional surface of a balloon expanding in three dimensions without expanding into a surrounding 2-dimensional plane.

Go back and read the relevant thread again.

 

[Iacchus]

So, since this thread has been split, I'll ask again here: Iacchus, can you give us any reason, any tiny bit of a hint of a smidgen of a little part of even the holographic echo of a reason, why we should assume that a hologram does not occupy time and space? If you can do that, maybe you can follow it with a reason we might accept for believing that there is such a thing as a hologram in the universe other than the human invention of laser projection that bears that name.

Because there was a time before the creation of time space? And, time and space didn't just manifest itself out of nowhere?

 

[bruto]

Because there was a time before the creation of time space? And, time and space didn't just manifest itself out of nowhere?

I won't even try to address the idea that there was a time before there was a time. And no doubt before there was space there was a space to put it in. Whatever. But aside from that, it is a total non sequitur and does not address my question. I have asked by what stretch of the imagination a hologram can exist independently of either time or space. I am asking for an explanation for why you attribute to holograms the ability to exist outside of time and space. The question is not one of what you might consider to be a reasonable explanation of the origins of the univers. The question is how or why a hologram can exist outside of time and space. Particularly time. Think carefully.

 

[Mercutio]

Because there was a time before the creation of time space? And, time and space didn't just manifest itself out of nowhere?

So, the fact that you make this assertion with no evidence doesn't bother you?

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

 

[Iacchus]

I won't even try to address the idea that there was a time before there was a time. And no doubt before there was space there was a space to put it in. Whatever. But aside from that, it is a total non sequitur and does not address my question. I have asked by what stretch of the imagination a hologram can exist independently of either time or space. I am asking for an explanation for why you attribute to holograms the ability to exist outside of time and space. The question is not one of what you might consider to be a reasonable explanation of the origins of the univers. The question is how or why a hologram can exist outside of time and space. Particularly time. Think carefully.

No, time and space is the hologram.

 

[bruto]

No, time and space is the hologram.

A hologram of what? Why? What possible reason, other than delusion or dementia, would anyone have for believing that time and space are a projected picture of something else. Projected from where on to what? By what twist of Iacchian self-contradiction can time and space be created by a process which requires time and space to exist?

 

[Iacchus]

From this thread

Yes, but in order for something to come into being, there must be rules governing its coming into being, even the Big Bang. Therefore, there could never have been a time when there were not rules set in place. Also, since it suggests nothing could be made up on the fly, out of bounds of the rules of its contingency, that is, there is not a single rule governing the material world (as we know it) that did not exist prior to the Big Bang. And what else could this tell us, except that the whole thing was scripted beforehand? And, what better means to employ such a script, a grand tapestry if you will, than through some sort of matrix or hologram? Whereas the notion of a uniform atomic grid would seem to support this.

 

[Mercutio]

From this thread

From that same thread:

Yes, but in order for something to come into being, there must be rules governing its coming into being, even the Big Bang.

No. You are quite simply wrong. You are, in addition, employing circular reasoning.

Therefore, there could never have been a time when there were not rules set in place.

Bald assertion and circular reasoning. You are, once again, quite simply wrong.

Also, since it suggests nothing could be made up on the fly, out of bounds of the rules of its contingency, that is, there is not a single rule governing the material world (as we know it) that did not exist prior to the Big Bang.

Utterly meaningless. Circular once again, and your conclusions do not follow from your premises.

And what else could this tell us, except that the whole thing was scripted beforehand?

The most parsimonious explanation? That you have no [rule8] clue what you are talking about.

And, what better means to employ such a script, a grand tapestry if you will, than through some sort of matrix or hologram?

You really liked that movie, but it was just a movie. You should learn about what real holograms entail.

Whereas the notion of a uniform atomic grid would seem to support this.

No. You are quite simply wrong. None of what you have said can be seen as supporting this conclusion. None of it. For the Nth time, Iacchus, educate yourself about circular reasoning. You just look like a fool.

Iacchus, we would never want to unjustifiably accuse you of ignoring responses to your posts, and simply re-posting those same ideas in another thread.

But you do.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, but in order for something to come into being, there must be rules governing its coming into being, even the Big Bang.

No. You are quite simply wrong. You are, in addition, employing circular reasoning.

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

 

[bruto]

So in a time before time, from a space outside space, god or something like god projects an image that becomes time and space? I don't buy it.

Actually the universe is a collection of Kodachromes that god took on vacation. Sometimes he forgot to focus: that's why we get things like sasquatches. Sometimes he left the lens cap on: that's why we get Iacchus, love and Kilik.

 

[Iacchus]

So in a time before time, from a space outside space, god or something like god projects an image that becomes time and space? I don't buy it.

So, do you think there was ever time that there was ever nothing ... which, would include nowhere?

 

[Mercutio]

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

I have heard it, and I understand it.

So far, you are only halfway there.

 

[BJQ87]

So in a time before time, from a space outside space, god or something like god projects an image that becomes time and space? I don't buy it.

why not?

 

[bruto]

So, do you think there was ever time that there was ever nothing ... which, would include nowhere?

I think it's safe to say that there has never been a time when there was no time, and that at any time there was time, there was time then.

Are we at least clear on that bit of obvious tautology? That there can be no timeless time?

...Which really doesn't get to my issue with your use of holograms either as a surmise about what the world is made of or as a metaphor for it. A projection comes from someplace, and it does so in time, whatever other illusions or distortions it might produce at the projected end. I'm willing to bend a little on the metaphor for space, though I think it's a sloppy one, but you have not produced any kind of idea that justifies the idea that time can be projected, that something that does not itself operate in time can somehow emit, project, produce or create it.

 

[RandFan]

Because there was a time before the creation of time space?

I'm not sure which is more problematic, a question whether or not there was a time before the crestion of time or an assertion.

Are you asking a question or making a claim?