More Hologram Theory ...

Which has not been established, and for which there is no evidence, and for which your analogy is inappropriate.

Back to square one. This time, try looking at the evidence first, and then figuring out what it means.
What is contigency, and why is it that everything within the Universe is bound to it? Why is it so predictable in other words? Again, why is it so easy to predict that chicken eggs will turn into chickens?
 
What is contigency, and why is it that everything within the Universe is bound to it?
You have not established that it is; please do so before asking why it must be so.
Why is it so predictable in other words?
Some things are predictable. Some are predictable only in aggregate. Some are predictable only in short term. Some are, to the best of current knowledge, unpredictable. You must establish that predictability exists before you may ask why it is so.
Again, why is it so easy to predict that chicken eggs will turn into chickens?
Ah...back to things we can, and have, observed. Yes, Iacchus, chicken eggs will turn into chickens. We know this. It tells us nothing about how cars are made, nor planets, nor universes. You are using it as an analogy, Iacchus, not as an identity.

When an analogy is shown not to work, the intellectually honest thing to do is to admit it, and cease to use that analogy. It is in your best interest, if you are honestly trying to understand the universe, to free yourself from flawed analogies, as they do not help you. I cannot see why you are still attempting to flog this particular analogy; it is fatally flawed, and continuing to attempt to use it is a waste of your time.
 
And I think KingMerv00 actually put it quite well here ...

From this thread

The only presupposition I can think of is that the universe is consistant. The laws of the universe need to apply at least most of the time. If the laws jumped around willy-nilly, the scientific process would be meaningless. Even then, there are some observations that we could make to see that laws are inconsistant.

Reality need not be "real". The universe could be in the Matrix and science would still work.
Mind you, KingMerv00 and I don't seem to have much ground to agree upon anything!
 
When an analogy is shown not to work, the intellectually honest thing to do is to admit it, and cease to use that analogy. It is in your best interest, if you are honestly trying to understand the universe, to free yourself from flawed analogies, as they do not help you. I cannot see why you are still attempting to flog this particular analogy; it is fatally flawed, and continuing to attempt to use it is a waste of your time.
Whereas it wouldn't be an analogy if it were a "perfect fit" now would it?
 
Some things are predictable. Some are predictable only in aggregate. Some are predictable only in short term. Some are, to the best of current knowledge, unpredictable. You must establish that predictability exists before you may ask why it is so.
Are we referring to above the Planck level or, beneath the Planck level here? Or, certainly when we begin to refer to things in terms of their atomic structure or, essentially the fabric of reality, we seem to be speaking of something quite predictable now aren't we?
 
Last edited:
Whereas it wouldn't be an analogy if it were a "perfect fit" now would it?
Any analogy is helpful only so far as it fits. Yours does not fit. Period. Why do you continue to use it, when it stands in the way of learning?
 
Whereas it wouldn't be an analogy if it were a "perfect fit" now would it?

Iacchus, I am a great fisherman. Therefore, I am a great pianist, since both have scales.

Tulips grow from bulbs. Therefore, electricty grows from light bulbs.

Some analogies simply fail to work.
 
Iacchus said:
Whereas it wouldn't be an analogy if it were a "perfect fit" now would it?

Perhaps. But it isn't. Just drop it and find another one.

Iacchus said:
Misunderstanding what? Your ability/inability to comprehend?

The theory, Iacchus. You obviously don't understand the theory. Since it would be easy for you to google it and get all the answers you seek, the only logical explanation for your continued misunderstanding is intellectual dishonesty.

Iacchus said:
Are we referring to above the Planck level or, beneath the Planck level here?

Is there anything beneath the planck level ?
 
Iacchus, I am a great fisherman. Therefore, I am a great pianist, since both have scales.

Tulips grow from bulbs. Therefore, electricty grows from light bulbs.

Some analogies simply fail to work.
Yeah, but you have to admit that how similer Randi, Santa Claus and God look isn't just a cooincidence...
 
Any analogy is helpful only so far as it fits. Yours does not fit. Period. Why do you continue to use it, when it stands in the way of learning?
Perhaps because it's a very fundamental question? How does something in all its entirety (the Universe or, Universal Chicken) appear to arise out of nothing ... without the slightest bit of information or code (comparable to the DNA within the egg) to tell it how to do so? It's really quite simple.
 
Existence of four dimensions of space-time

You ask the question of Where the four dimensions of space-time are supposed to exist.
Just for a moment, forget about the big bang and the balloon effect etc.
See your eyes, they see an image in front of them and reflect the image upside down inside your head then throw the image back to your brain right side up so that you can see the image in it's proper place in front of you.
Now when you put your eyes in an upward glance when you move forward, you can see where you are going to step to and when you put your eyes down past your nose as you walk, you stumble and fall. These two places are the two most important dimensions of space-time that there is. They contain two pure energies that are in everything, the photons and the electrons. The photons exist above the electrons in front of your face and provide the different dimentions that you ask about. Light moves in an arc and light is an electric energy, so you could think about the two arcs joined together as a circle. You have been told about the above and the below differing dimentions of energies, now the other two are on the left and the right of these two dimentional energies. Imagine the form of a cross in front of your eyes and you get four dimentions and energies and lifestyles. As your eyeball moves into any one of the four energies that are in front of your pupil, your life will move into that dimention of energy. To prove my point, the right contains positive energy and the left contains negative energy and so take a hammer and holding a nail to be driven into wood, LOOK AT THE NAIL with your EYES SLANTED UPWARDS INTO THE RIGHT HIGH SIDE into the positive energy of photons. You will find that the hammer hits the nail and the nail slides easily into the wood. Now try the opposite, look at the nail while you are LOOKING DOWN at it past the LEFT SIDE END OFYOUR NOSE and do be careful, because you will hit your thumb, your fingers and miss the nail many times. You will have just entered the lower negative dimention of energy.
There really IS FOUR dimentions of space-time in the air and atmosphere and you live in all the time. As regards the big bang theory, well that will be for another time. Just try the experiment and learn about the four dimentions of energies that you cannot see but oh boy, when you know about them, you sure can feel them.
 
Perhaps because it's a very fundamental question? How does something in all its entirety (the Universe or, Universal Chicken) appear to arise out of nothing ... without the slightest bit of information or code (comparable to the DNA within the egg) to tell it how to do so? It's really quite simple.

It only remains fundamental because you either don't understand or refuse to accept the answer: the universe did not arise from NOTHING.
 
It only remains fundamental because you either don't understand or refuse to accept the answer: the universe did not arise from NOTHING.
Yes, the information which tells the chicken how to grow comes from its parents. Now, where did the information come from that told the Universe how to structure itself (and/or grow) after the Big Bang?
 

Back
Top Bottom