Thank you, Scott, I sort of understand it.  Your P.S.. really strikes a
cord.  This is why I gave up on Religious Science - there are some things
you can't think away...and my ovarian cancer went away with no "good"
thoughts at all!!
Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott E. Antes" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Scott-What is a "Holographic" Universe?


> Hi Ray!  I forget the judge's name, but when he was asked to define
> pornography, he said, "I know it when I see it."  This is not my area of
> expertise, but I know a hologram when I see it.  The particular type of
> hologram the author describes below is a projected 3D image of a material
> object.  It looks "real."  One can view it from any direction, and there
> it
> is.  Yet, it is only an image.  It's not a tangible thing.  One can't
> touch it
> (in the sense that most of us think of touch), because it is non-material.
> Yet, as we look at it, we see something "real."  On Star Tek: The Next
> Generation, the Enterprise had a "holodeck," where crew members could dial
> up
> any kind of situation with which to interact, containing like-real humans
> and
> like-real settings, but it was all imagery.  (Of course, in the Star Trek
> version, crew members could "touch" these images as if they were material
> things.)  I think what Lanza is saying is that much of our individual
> reality
> consists of what we perceive as being "there," but isn't necessarily
> "really"
> there, in the material sense.  Speaking of sense, did I make any?  Scott
>
> PS: To many people on this planet, PD--like every other malady--is only an
> illusion.  Maybe so, but as an illusion myself :-), I'd hate to be the one
> to
> tell that to the sufferer.  The "illusionary" response would break my
> "illusionary" heart.
>
>>===== Original Message From Parkinson's Information Exchange Network
> <[log in to unmask]> =====
>>Scott, can you explain in simpler terms than expressed in this article
>>what
>>"holographic" or a hologram means?
>>Thanks, Ray
>>
>>
>>Biocentric and Holographic Universe
>>I recently stumbled across an intriguing interpretation of the
>>implications
>>of quantum physics. I thought this fit rather nicely with some other
>>theories I've come upon, so I decided to attempt to integrate them.
>>
>>In the American Scholar article "A New Theory of the Universe", Dr.Robert
>>Lanza tells physicists they've been barking up the wrong tree. Lanza is a
>>leading expert in tissue engineering, cloning and stem cell research. He
>>is
>>not a physicist and so is likely to be ignored by the physics community.
>>Yet, he may be on to something.
>>"The urgent and primary questions of the universe have been undertaken by
>>those physicists who are trying to explain the origins of everything with
>>grand unified theories. But as exciting and glamorous as these theories
>>are,
>>they are an evasion, if not a reversal, of the central mystery of
>>knowledge:
>>that the laws of the world were somehow created to produce the observer.
>>And
>>more important than this, that the observer in a significant sense creates
>>reality and not the other way around. Recognition of this insight leads to
>>a
>>single theory that unifies our understanding of the world.
>>..As unimaginable as it may seem to us, the logic of quantum physics is
>>inescapable. Every morning we open our front door to bring in the paper or
>>to go to work. We open the door to rain, snow, or trees swaying in the
>>breeze. We think the world churns along whether we happen to open the door
>>or not. Quantum mechanics tells us it doesn't.
>>
>>The trees and snow evaporate when we're sleeping. The kitchen disappears
>>when we're in the bathroom. When you turn from one room to the next, when
>>your animal senses no longer perceive the sounds of the dishwasher, the
>>ticking clock, the smell of a chicken roasting-the kitchen and all its
>>seemingly discrete bits dissolve into nothingness-or into waves of
>>probability. The universe bursts into existence from life, not the other
>>way
>>around as we have been taught. For each life there is a universe, its own
>>universe. We generate spheres of reality, individual bubbles of
>>existence."
>>I think this fits well with the notion of a holographic universe. Consider
>>a
>>transmission hologram. At first it appears to be simply an interference
>>pattern, but when illuminated with a laser a fully realized 3D object pops
>>into view. In a similar way, the universe exists as an interference
>>pattern
>>of probability waves. When a portion of the pattern is "lit up" by an
>>observer it generates what we perceive as physical reality. Perhaps each
>>bubble generates an "image" of the whole universe, just as individual
>>pieces
>>of a hologram that has been cut apart retain the entire image, but with
>>some
>>loss of detail.
>>
>>There is some theoretical support for a holographic universe. Per
>>Wikipedia,
>>"The holographic principle is a speculative conjecture about quantum
>>gravity
>>theories, proposed by Gerard 't Hooft and improved and promoted by Leonard
>>Susskind, claiming that all of the information contained in a volume of
>>space can be represented by a theory that lives in the boundary of that
>>region."
>>
>>I'm going to try and paraphrase the Wikipedia description of the reasoning
>>so we don't get too bogged down:
>>
>>The entropy that can be contained in any given volume of space can not be
>>any larger than the entropy of the largest black hole that can fit in that
>>space. The more massive the black hole, the larger the surface area of the
>>event horizon. This means the maximum entropy for any region of space is
>>determined by surface area, not by volume. This is counter-intuitive
>>because
>>entropy is an extensive variable, being directly proportional to mass,
>>which
>>is proportional to volume (all else being equal, including the density of
>>the mass). If entropy of ordinary mass is also proportional to area, this
>>implies that volume itself is somehow illusory: that mass occupies area,
>>not
>>volume, and so the universe is really a hologram which corresponds to the
>>information encoded on its boundaries.
>>
>>Then there are the philosophies of David Bohm, the quantum physicist who
>>wrote "Wholeness and the Implicit Order"
>>Bohm suggests that the whole universe can be thought of as a kind of
>>giant,
>>flowing hologram, or holomovement, in which a total order is contained, in
>>some implicit sense, in each region of space and time. The explicate order
>>is a projection from higher dimensional levels of reality, and the
>>apparent
>>stability and solidity of the objects and entities composing it are
>>generated and sustained by a ceaseless process of enfoldment and
>>unfoldment,
>>for subatomic particles are constantly dissolving into the implicate order
>>and then recrystallizing.
>>More on David Bohm later.
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
>>mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>
> Scott E. Antes
> Department of Anthropology
> Northern Arizona University
> Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5200
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn