Something from Nothing?

[Belz...]

Well, whatever you wish to call it, it's the pressing up of one surface area against another, of which there is "nothing" in between ... except perhaps tension and vibration.

What in the blue hell are you talking about ? What two surfaces ? Inside and outside ? No such thing.

 

[Belz...]

Lets try this another way, Iacchus.

There is no 'outside' to the universe. You can never 'leave' the universe.

Hummm... unless there are other spacetime bubbles (which, I guess, is very probable.) Though I have NO idea how we could go from one to another.

 

[Belz...]

If the Universe were in fact a hologram, as I have suggested, how would this hologram be acheived, except by some means of electro-magnetic field or, vibration? Also, "what" would exist on the other side of this hologram ... as a means of generating it that is?

Before answering this question, we should first confirm that it IS a "hologram".

 

[kmortis]

Before answering this question, we should first confirm that it IS a "hologram".

Belz..., you don't actually expect Iacchus to confirm anything do you? Oh, nonononono...that would be like, hitting send before finishing your tho

 

[Iacchus]

Before answering this question, we should first confirm that it IS a "hologram".

Well, if this hologram is being driven by consciousness or, something to that extent, then our means of perceiving what's on the "other side" would be acheived by means of consciousness, don't you think?

 

[PatKelley]

Alright, so you're positing Samsara, but with quantum-flux bells and whistles. All is illusion, right? Well it doesn't matter - because if we are as illusory as our surroundings, we obey the same fundamental laws: we are part of the universe, and cannot be separate enough to distinguish between us and not-us. We cannot percieve that which violates the laws of our universe, because we are bound by the universe.

Your posit is an exercise in futility, in that there is no consequence for us, and no method of discovering whether it is as you say or not.

 

[Iacchus]

Alright, so you're positing Samsara, but with quantum-flux bells and whistles. All is illusion, right? Well it doesn't matter - because if we are as illusory as our surroundings, we obey the same fundamental laws: we are part of the universe, and cannot be separate enough to distinguish between us and not-us. We cannot percieve that which violates the laws of our universe, because we are bound by the universe.

Your posit is an exercise in futility, in that there is no consequence for us, and no method of discovering whether it is as you say or not.

I agree, what would be the point to finding out about God, if our little sojourn in this temporal fleeting world was the extent to all there was?

 

[Belz...]

Well, if this hologram is being driven by consciousness or, something to that extent, then our means of perceiving what's on the "other side" would be acheived by means of consciousness, don't you think?

Irrelevant. Please provide evidence of reality beign a hologram. How is that theory more probable and powerful than, say, assuming that reality is just reality.

 

[PatKelley]

I agree, what would be the point to finding out about God, if our little sojourn in this temporal fleeting world was the extent to all there was?

It doesn't matter. We can daydream all we want about what's "outside" the universe, because for all purposes it does not exist. We could not exist outside of the context of this universe, as we are bound by its laws and conveniences like atomic nuclei that don't decay instantly. Step outside that context, and you no longer exist. Kind of like a hologram on Star Trek:TNG - if you recall, Moriarty disintigrated when he attempted to leave the Holodeck (Context). There is nothing to learn, no "gateway" to find, no way of venturing outside of the blast doors for information that we could hope to return with.

That's the other point; even if you were to establish an "outside" - you could not describe it with the limited set of our universe, any more than you could concieve of it. So anything you gleaned would be useless, and might as well not exist as exist.

It is one of those things: if it has no bearing on the experiment, does it exist for the purpose of the experiment? Essentially, no.

 

[Iacchus]

Irrelevant. Please provide evidence of reality beign a hologram. How is that theory more probable and powerful than, say, assuming that reality is just reality.

I don't claim to be an expert on holograms by any means but, when you consider the nature of holograms, as explained here, there may in fact be something to it. At least this would coincide more with the notion that everything emanates from some conscious mind or entity which, I am already prone to believe.

 

[Belz...]

I don't claim to be an expert on holograms by any means but, when you consider the nature of holograms, as explained here, there may in fact be something to it. At least this would coincide more with the notion that everything emanates from some conscious mind or entity which, I am already prone to believe.

First of all, your link does not provide proof of the existence of a holographic world. At best, it provides proof of holograms, which, in and of itself, is far from surprising, since we already know holograms exist. However, just because we know cookies exist and are still cookies once severed in two is no reason to believe that the universe is a cookie, much less one with 1% trans fat.

"A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes."

I could've told you that about pretty much everything. I don't see how this explains anything, or how it lends credence to your view.

 

[Iacchus]

First of all, your link does not provide proof of the existence of a holographic world. At best, it provides proof of holograms, which, in and of itself, is far from surprising, since we already know holograms exist. However, just because we know cookies exist and are still cookies once severed in two is no reason to believe that the universe is a cookie, much less one with 1% trans fat.

No, if you were to take a picture of a cookie and cut it in half, you would have two pictures of a "half cookie," not two half pictures of a whole cookie which, is what they're suggesing about holograms.

I could've told you that about pretty much everything. I don't see how this explains anything, or how it lends credence to your view.

And, of course if such things as electrons were capable of talking to each other instaneneously, even if billions of miles apart, must suggest that they are not billions of miles apart.

 

[Belz...]

No, if you were to take a picture of a cookie and cut it in half, you would have two pictures of a "half cookie," not two half pictures of a whole cookie which, is what they're suggesing about holograms.

I was making a joke. Still, just because holograms work that way is no evidence that the universe works that way.

And, of course if such things as electrons were capable of talking to each other instaneneously, even if billions of miles apart, must suggest that they are not billions of miles apart.

Or that they can talk to each other instantaneously, even if billions of miles apart. I don't see why that would mean anything else. Assuming they CAN "communicate" as claimed. Frankly, I'm not convinced. And even if it's the case, it might just be a property of space-time that gravity is transmitted instantaneously. Either way, it's quite a leap to saying that the universe is suddenly conscious, or that its a hologram.

So far you've only hinted to the possibility of the universe beign a hologram. that's not what I asked. Do you have evidence that the universe IS a hologram ?

And even if you could, have you considered that holograms are mere photographs ? They're not exactly as complex and operational as the objects they emulate.

 

[Beerina]

And perhaps these "quantum fluctuations" occur as a result of the second dimensional "layer" that exists between the read/write mechanism of God's harddrive -- or, whatever mean He uses -- and the holographic field/dimension that we live in?

Actually, Einstein did not want to give up on reality, which is to say actual objects "out there" with measurable properties, and especially that these were all bound by relativity.

Trivially, we could be in some kind of simulation where these objects are not real, but that just pushes things one level deeper and we're right back to the same problem. What's the reality of "God's hard drive", or God's processor and RAM and whatnot? What "real objects" are all these built on? What "stuff" instantiates God and His mind? And is that stuff "real", or is it just faux stuff in some still larger world? It's turtles all the way up...

 

[Beerina]

And even if it's the case, it might just be a property of space-time that gravity is transmitted instantaneously.

IIRC, some scientists tested this within the past few years, and found out that gravity is also bound by the speed of light, so that if the sun suddenly disappeared, the earth would continue to orbit for about 8 minutes before taking the tangent path away from its orbit.

Which seems a bit odd, since that seems to imply particulate nature of gravity rather than as a fundamental feature of the spacetime continuum.

 

[Belz...]

Which seems a bit odd, since that seems to imply particulate nature of gravity rather than as a fundamental feature of the spacetime continuum.

Personnally, I'd find that more in line with conventional physics, but then I don't know much about the spacetime stuff.

 

[uruk]

IIRC, some scientists tested this within the past few years, and found out that gravity is also bound by the speed of light, so that if the sun suddenly disappeared, the earth would continue to orbit for about 8 minutes before taking the tangent path away from its orbit.

Which seems a bit odd, since that seems to imply particulate nature of gravity rather than as a fundamental feature of the spacetime continuum.

Newton saw gravity as acting instantaneaously, Einstein found that gravity or gravitational waves are also bound by the speed of light. Quantum mechanics sees gravity as one of the four forces in nature and that it should also have a corresponding particle called the graviton. They still are looking for it.
It's part of the apparent incompatability between relativity and QM that physicists are attempting to reconcile.

 

[Solitaire]

Iacchus, I think you’re now ready.

Go and carefully read about the H Set.

Then come back here and very carefully explain it to me.

I don’t understand that web page at all!

P.S. Oh, do the H Numbers too!

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, I think you’re now ready.

Go and carefully read about the H Set.

Then come back here and very carefully explain it to me.

Screw the equations! ...

However, the symbolism is fully exemplified by means of the fifth aspect or dimension.

I don’t understand that web page at all!

P.S. Oh, do the H Numbers too!

As much as I like numbers, I like this symbol a lot more. It looks like it's an attempt to explain infinite regression and whatnot.

By the way, I noticed a corretation between the number coordinates and the "base fourteen" system I work with ...

101 = 14 x 07 + "03"

212 = 14 x 15 + "02"

323 = 14 x 23 + "01"

434 = 14 x 31 + "00" ... or, 14 x 30 + "14"

545 = 14 x 38 + "13"

656 = 14 x 46 + "12"

767 = 14 x 54 + "11"

 

[lwsichsldt]

Now, just to make sure no one gets the wrong idea here, the nothing I'm referring to, is the nothing which is often alleged to exist prior to the Big Bang. And no Mercutio, I'm not necessarily pointing the finger at anyone!

I don't think most scientist claim that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang but something called singularity where all matter was compressed into a sphere with no dimension.