 |
 |
In a message dated 25/03/2007 07:07:09 GMT Standard Time, [log in to unmask] writes: 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 I've seen an exhibition of holograms, they're basically 3-D images made of light, like a shadow -play on a wall, but with thickness. If you touch them you just go straight through - & get told off. Dunno what the point of them is other than amusemen, they didn't look that real. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn