Look, you guys win. I admit I like Rand.

[lebing]

I'm not an astrophysicist, nor a neuroscientist.

Then could you link me to some studies which have tested it? 'Cause until it's tested, it's not science.

This is a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.

The first one is a wikipedia article that "needs attention from an expert", and the second is a dead link.
I'll ask again. Could you link me to some studies which have tested it? (Note that "have" is past tense. I want to see results.)

Just DL this an watch it. http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7425675/The_Holographic_Universe_-_Part_One

[1714917190]

1714917190

[1714917190]

1714917190

[myrkul]

It relates to consciousness, so a reductionist approach which paints things black or white is not going to work in this context. That being said, it's a theory based on other tested theories.

But you said:

These are not conspiracy theories which are untestable.

So is it testable, or not? And if it's testable, why has it not been tested?

[justusranvier]

I will just say reality is interpreted and defined far beyond life and death; cliffs and gravity.

You're making Ayn Rand look bad if that's the best you can do in terms of epistemology.

[Atlas]

I will just say reality is interpreted and defined far beyond life and death; cliffs and gravity.

You're making Ayn Rand look bad if that's the best you can do in terms of epistemology.

She would consider me an irrational mystic. She would hate me. However, I still enjoy parts of her thoughts.

[vampire]

I'm not an astrophysicist, nor a neuroscientist.

Then could you link me to some studies which have tested it? 'Cause until it's tested, it's not science.

This is a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out

Why you didn't do the complete research? GEO600 noise was gone.....

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2009/09/update-on-geo-600-mystery-noise.html
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2012/02/hoganmeter.html

[lebing]

I'm not an astrophysicist, nor a neuroscientist.

Then could you link me to some studies which have tested it? 'Cause until it's tested, it's not science.

This is a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out

Why you didn't do the complete research? GEO600 noise was gone.....

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2009/09/update-on-geo-600-mystery-noise.html
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2012/02/hoganmeter.html

Ok, so explain how memory works without holograms and I'll concede.

[myrkul]

I'm not an astrophysicist, nor a neuroscientist.

Then could you link me to some studies which have tested it? 'Cause until it's tested, it's not science.

This is a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out

Why you didn't do the complete research? GEO600 noise was gone.....

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2009/09/update-on-geo-600-mystery-noise.html
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2012/02/hoganmeter.html

Feels a little weird to have you on my side.

[vampire]

Ok, so explain how memory works without holograms and I'll concede.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory

[the joint]

It's self-evident that reality is both subjective and objective simultaneously.  There is no explanation necessary, it's completely obvious (as in "duh").

If you don't believe me, ask yourself a few questions.  How about this one to start:  Are you (subject) and the environment (object) real?  Yes?  You don't say...

Subjectivity and objectivity are not mutually exclusive (unless you evoke a limited scope).

[justusranvier]

It's self-evident that reality is both subjective and objective simultaneously.  There is no explanation necessary, it's completely obvious (as in "duh").

You're clearly done a lot of studying and thinking about this topic and have a lot of knowledge to share with the rest of us.

Can you begin by explaining what you mean by "subjective" and "objective"?

I've been defining objective as anything which is true relative to a standard which is independent of any particular perception and subjective as the opposite of objective (i.e. an opinion).

Using theses definitions your statement is not at all self-evident but perhaps this is because I lack your wisdom. or because you mean something else by "subjective" and "objective". Would you please enlighten us?

[lebing]

Show from Nova (PBS) on the holographic universe: http://video.pbs.org/video/2163057527/

[myrkul]

Show from Nova (PBS) on the holographic universe: http://video.pbs.org/video/2163057527/

...studies?
...tests?
...results?

No. Shows.

[lebing]

Show from Nova (PBS) on the holographic universe: http://video.pbs.org/video/2163057527/

...studies?
...tests?
...results?

No. Shows.

You wouldnt understand it anyway If you so want to find the studies yourself, then pay for them (yes you have to pay for access to journals) and get them yourself. The info is there. Do with it as you please.

[myrkul]

You wouldnt understand it anyway If you so want to find the studies yourself, then pay for them (yes you have to pay for access to journals) and get them yourself. The info is there. Do with it as you please.

I think you mean: "You wouldn't understand it anyway." When attempting to insult someone's intelligence, spelling, grammar, and yes, punctuation, count. So far you've directed me to watch a movie, and now a PBS show. The only studies presented (thanks, Vampire) have found no evidence to support your silly theory.

So, rather than pointing at the internet and saying "it's there, find it yourself," How about you direct me to the journal it's in? All I've ever asked for is a link to the study.

[lebing]

You wouldnt understand it anyway If you so want to find the studies yourself, then pay for them (yes you have to pay for access to journals) and get them yourself. The info is there. Do with it as you please.

I think you mean: "You wouldn't understand it anyway." When attempting to insult someone's intelligence, spelling, grammar, and yes, punctuation, count. So far you've directed me to watch a movie, and now a PBS show. The only studies presented (thanks, Vampire) have found no evidence to support your silly theory.

So, rather than pointing at the internet and saying "it's there, find it yourself," How about you direct me to the journal it's in? All I've ever asked for is a link to the study.

I'm not trying to insult anyone, its a fact that this shit is extremely difficult for our monkey brains to comprehend.

Here is a link to a lecture on the double slit study, which specifically says that there is no such thing as an objective reality:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html
"This is an extreme break from the idea of an objective reality or one where the laws of Nature have a special, Platonic existence."

[myrkul]

You wouldnt understand it anyway If you so want to find the studies yourself, then pay for them (yes you have to pay for access to journals) and get them yourself. The info is there. Do with it as you please.

I think you mean: "You wouldn't understand it anyway." When attempting to insult someone's intelligence, spelling, grammar, and yes, punctuation, count. So far you've directed me to watch a movie, and now a PBS show. The only studies presented (thanks, Vampire) have found no evidence to support your silly theory.

So, rather than pointing at the internet and saying "it's there, find it yourself," How about you direct me to the journal it's in? All I've ever asked for is a link to the study.

I'm not trying to insult anyone, its a fact that this shit is extremely difficult for our monkey brains to comprehend.

Here is a link to a lecture on the double slit study, which specifically says that there is no such thing as an objective reality:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html
"This is an extreme break from the idea of an objective reality or one where the laws of Nature have a special, Platonic existence."

All the double-slit experiment proves is that light behaves weirdly, and that one can never be truly certain where a particular sub-atomic particle is at any one moment. It still doesn't have fuck-all to do with how you and I interact.

Let me put it this way: If reality were truly subjective, the experimenter could choose which slit the particle went through. Or the experimenter could pick whether the cat has died or not when he opens the box. But he can't. The particle detectors discover which slit the photon went through. The experimenter discovers whether or not the radioactive material has decayed when he opens the box. In other words, yes, the tree does indeed make a sound. A falling tree will displace air whether or not there is someone there to register that against their eardrums.

[lebing]

Let me put it this way: If reality were truly subjective, the experimenter could choose which slit the particle went through. Or the experimenter could pick whether the cat has died or not when he opens the box. But he can't. The particle detectors discover which slit the photon went through. The experimenter discovers whether or not the radioactive material has decayed when he opens the box. In other words, yes, the tree does indeed make a sound. A falling tree will displace air whether or not there is someone there to register that against their eardrums.

Just because reality is subjective, does not mean that you have control over that reality... This experiment proves that whatever we perceive turns to "matter"... everything else is simply waves of possibility.

[myrkul]

Let me put it this way: If reality were truly subjective, the experimenter could choose which slit the particle went through. Or the experimenter could pick whether the cat has died or not when he opens the box. But he can't. The particle detectors discover which slit the photon went through. The experimenter discovers whether or not the radioactive material has decayed when he opens the box. In other words, yes, the tree does indeed make a sound. A falling tree will displace air whether or not there is someone there to register that against their eardrums.

Just because reality is subjective, does not mean that you have control over that reality... This experiment proves that whatever we perceive turns to "matter"... everything else is simply waves of possibility.

No, it proves that Light travels in a probabilistic wave, or that there is a second dimension of time. I say again: quantum mechanics is not relevant to this discussion.

[lebing]

Let me put it this way: If reality were truly subjective, the experimenter could choose which slit the particle went through. Or the experimenter could pick whether the cat has died or not when he opens the box. But he can't. The particle detectors discover which slit the photon went through. The experimenter discovers whether or not the radioactive material has decayed when he opens the box. In other words, yes, the tree does indeed make a sound. A falling tree will displace air whether or not there is someone there to register that against their eardrums.

Just because reality is subjective, does not mean that you have control over that reality... This experiment proves that whatever we perceive turns to "matter"... everything else is simply waves of possibility.

No, it proves that Light travels in a probabilistic wave, or that there is a second dimension of time. I say again: quantum mechanics is not relevant to this discussion.

It's not just light, its matter (they were firing electrons). Why isnt quantum mechanics relavent? Because it doesnt fit the newtonian worldview?

What the hell does time have to do with anything?

[myrkul]

Why isnt quantum mechanics relavent? Because it doesnt fit the newtonian worldview?

Because the uncertainty ceases once you get above the subatomic level. My salt shaker (and all the salt, for that matter) is always in the same place, unless someone moves it. I can say with utmost certainty exactly where it is. When I open the cabinet door, the salt does not spring into existence exactly where I left it.

What the hell does time have to do with anything?

If time is 2 dimensional, then the subatomic particle can be in a specific point (not a probabilistic wave) but because it is moving in that other dimension of time as well, and we only perceive one, what we see is an uncertain universe. In other words, if something seems random, it's probably just following rules more complex than you understand.