Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 30 Nov '10 10:51
    Some years ago Michael Talbot in his book "Holographic Universe" gave this science -respecting informed layman a personal "paradigm shift" in conception, initiating an exploration of Eastern philosophies. I know others confronted with similar facts have caused shifts into similar fields, as well as exploring the role of consciousness in experiencing the structure of reality. These others include respected scientists.

    This extract from "The Universe as a Hologram" by Michael Talbot.
    The link to the full article/chapter (?) may be found here:

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/secret_projects/project421.htm

    "An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists. Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability. Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism.

    Pribram's belief that our brains mathematically construct "hard" reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support. It has been found that each of our senses is sensitive to a much broader range of frequencies than was previously suspected. Researchers have discovered, for instance, that our visual systems are sensitive to sound frequencies, that our sense of smell is in part dependent on what are now called "osmic frequencies", and that even the cells in our bodies are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies. Such findings suggest that it is only in the holographic domain of consciousness that such frequencies are sorted out and divided up into conventional perceptions.

    But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion. We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.

    This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature."
  2. 30 Nov '10 12:11 / 1 edit
    The brain's perception has nothing to do with the existence of an "objective reality", at most it will limit the degree to which we can determine whether or not such a reality can and/or does exist. If a meteor strikes the Earth tomorrow and kills all living beings on the planet, it will likely not have a significant impact on the universe as a whole.

    The idea that people and/or the brain itself shape reality is a typical arrogant and anthropocentric delusion.
  3. 30 Nov '10 14:04
    It's very common to extrapolate an idea, that might be sound and probable, into speculations, further into mumbo jumbo and/or religion, often eastern inspired New Age, and claim that the acient scriptures have already known this for thousands of years, and therefore must be true, even if today's backward scientists have not discovered it yet, or refute it, because thay are not able to measure its effect.

    Well, does this fall into this category?
  4. Standard member black beetle
    Black Beastie
    30 Nov '10 15:23
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The brain's perception has nothing to do with the existence of an "objective reality", at most it will limit the degree to which we can determine whether or not such a reality can and/or does exist. If a meteor strikes the Earth tomorrow and kills all living beings on the planet, it will likely not have a significant impact on the universe as a whole.
    ...[text shortened]... ple and/or the brain itself shape reality is a typical arrogant and anthropocentric delusion.
    Since our dreams are also holograms projected solely out of our brain, the ground being of the stuff of the world as we perceive it during our dreams when we are sleeping, and the ground being of the stuff of the world as we perceive it by means of activating our cognizance during our everyday life when we do not sleep, are the same. Therefore, since the “external illusions” are indeed coming from within our mind just the same way our dreams are coming from within our mind alone, the generator of Maya is solely the brain. Over here the notion “illusion” is used in order to clarify the fact that the reality as we perceive it lacks of own being (it is a relative reality, not an “absolute” or “objective” reality, as it is demonstrated amongst else by Hut, Alford and Tegmark at the paper “On Math, Matter and Mind&rdquo. Furthermore there is a difference between the apparent reality and the genuine reality, and there is a difference between the way the things appear (they appear as if they have inherent existence/ own being) and the way the things are (all phenomena lack of inherent existence/ own being).

    To me and to you, a helicopter hovering above us herenow is a helicopter hovering above us herenow, however a bird by our side herenow conceives this very reality “differently” although it is the “same”. According to the paper I mentioned earlier, if a comet will destroy all the living entities on Earth, there is no way to be sure that this event will be understood the same way as the two of us we understand it herenow. Whatever you name “objective” is nothing but a product of our collective subjectivity. The Cartesian-Newtonian worldview describes exactly this conventional reality that you name “objective”; well, since this “objectivity” does not exist in the quantum realm, a realm that is by far closer to the essence of the reality, objectivity is non-existent. In fact, methinks the phenomenally external phenomena we perceive out of a wide spread-out wavefunction in the context of specific causal fields they could not exist the way they appear (to us) to exist prior to the collapsing of the wavefunction by ourselves
  5. 30 Nov '10 15:28
    Originally posted by black beetle
    Since our dreams are also holograms projected solely out of our brain, the ground being of the stuff of the world as we perceive it during our dreams when we are sleeping, and the ground being of the stuff of the world as we perceive it by means of activating our cognizance during our everyday life when we do not sleep, are the same. Therefore, since th ...[text shortened]... he way they appear (to us) to exist prior to the collapsing of the wavefunction by ourselves
    There is nothing "subjective" about (relativistic) quantum physics. At best this whole Matrix-like blah blah is a form of Last Week Thursdayism.
  6. Standard member black beetle
    Black Beastie
    30 Nov '10 15:30
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The brain's perception has nothing to do with the existence of an "objective reality", at most it will limit the degree to which we can determine whether or not such a reality can and/or does exist. If a meteor strikes the Earth tomorrow and kills all living beings on the planet, it will likely not have a significant impact on the universe as a whole.
    ...[text shortened]... ple and/or the brain itself shape reality is a typical arrogant and anthropocentric delusion.
    Edit: "The idea that people and/or the brain itself shape reality is a typical arrogant and anthropocentric delusion."

    This assumption is false; the idea is that every sentient being shapes reality according to its cognizance alone; Therefore, there are as many realities as sentient beings -all of them real and relative
  7. Standard member black beetle
    Black Beastie
    30 Nov '10 15:43
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    There is nothing "subjective" about (relativistic) quantum physics. At best this whole Matrix-like blah blah is a form of Last Week Thursdayism.
    Methinks "everything there is" about quantum physics for the time being is deeply subjective and in accordance with specific formulas. In the Cartesian-Newtonian realm you will fail to spot problems like "wave/ particle" and delocality; it is hard to make sense of the exact (objective) type of physical reality that takes place in the quantum realm of existence. Even regarding the double slit experiment we don't deal with factual waves that end up on a screen but with formulas, but with a set of numbers that our collective subjective consciousness brought up for our convenience
  8. Standard member black beetle
    Black Beastie
    30 Nov '10 15:55
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    There is nothing "subjective" about (relativistic) quantum physics. At best this whole Matrix-like blah blah is a form of Last Week Thursdayism.
    Set your chessmen on your chessboard at a specific position of a given puzzle; that position is understood differently by players of different levels, although many players of different levels will manage to find the same solution.
    Now get your cat, your dog, a cow, a tiger, a dolphin and an ant and show them the same position. Each one of these sentient beings has a different understanding of the same "objective" reality known to us as "position" because they all collapse differently the wavefunction
  9. 30 Nov '10 16:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by black beetle
    Methinks "everything there is" about quantum physics for the time being is deeply subjective and in accordance with specific formulas. In the Cartesian-Newtonian realm you will fail to spot problems like "wave/ particle" and delocality; it is hard to make sense of the exact (objective) type of physical reality that takes place in the quantum realm of ex of numbers that our collective subjective consciousness brought up for our convenience
    I don't understand, in what way exactly does the double-slit experiment demonstrate subjectivity? To me, what it demonstrates is that the classical physics concepts of place and momentum have a different meaning when looking at the quantum level. Since that different meaning is described accurately and precisely using mathematics (which generally is not ambiguous) I don't see where the "deep" subjectivity comes in. Wavefunction collapse itself, in a non-deterministic way, is not observed if you time propagate a system with a well-defined Hamiltonian.
  10. 01 Dec '10 00:49
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The brain's perception has nothing to do with the existence of an "objective reality", at most it will limit the degree to which we can determine whether or not such a reality can and/or does exist. If a meteor strikes the Earth tomorrow and kills all living beings on the planet, it will likely not have a significant impact on the universe as a whole.
    ...[text shortened]... ple and/or the brain itself shape reality is a typical arrogant and anthropocentric delusion.
    The concept you state is a typical "New Age" interpretation.

    It is not mine, yet I am not convinced of consciousness being just an epi-phenomenon that has emerged from a purely "physical" universe, whatever "physical" means in the light of quantum findings. That's the core issue of the discoveries - they were seeking to find what atomic particles consisted of and are still arguing and mystified about what it "is" that they found.

    Most reductionist scientists still simply choose to ignore the implications for the older scientific viewpoint and say just work with it, its not our business to indulge in the whys and wherefores. I find that a telling cop-out.

    Like the scientists grappling to form a new paradigm I do not simplistically hold the poor view you mentioned. It is poor argument to select the poorest representation and make your response on that. Have an opinion but give some evidence you have actually explored the proven observed phenomenon that have come out of quantum science. I know it is still not resolved, and whatever new insight you have may be very helpful. Don't just ignore it, or act like a fundamentalist whatever.

    The so-called "observer effect" also has a number of interpretations and not yet resolved. I found Bohm's attempt respectable and worthy of consideration, particularly when scientists from biology (Robert Sheldrake) and from neuroscience (Pibram and others) are seriously pursuing somewhat aligned explorations of quantum effects in their respective fields.

    Some of these physicists have recognized the remarkable alignment of elements of the Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism and Taoism with quantum findings. In a technical and difficult subject it is important to start from considered and serious understanding of both these philosophies (as is BB) and of quantum implications rather than populist simplicities and misrepresentations.

    The "spooky" action at a distance has now been proven numerous times since Alain Aspect.

    What interpretation do you align with about the underlying nature of existence in the light of this one weird fact among a number emerging?
  11. Standard member black beetle
    Black Beastie
    01 Dec '10 06:15
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I don't understand, in what way exactly does the double-slit experiment demonstrate subjectivity? To me, what it demonstrates is that the classical physics concepts of place and momentum have a different meaning when looking at the quantum level. Since that different meaning is described accurately and precisely using mathematics (which generally is not ...[text shortened]... inistic way, is not observed if you time propagate a system with a well-defined Hamiltonian.
    You could see that the double-slit experiment demonstrates subjectivity once you see how exactly our units of knowledge are evolving. Our world is not the same to Newton’s world although the seemingly same world it remains: the phenomena we perceived back then and herenow are the same, however our interpretation regarding specific causal fields we examine went to be different over time. We evolve constantly by means of using our own products (our ideas, our theories etc) in order to prosper: the double-slit experiment would hold too at the time of Pericles, yet back then we were unable to drive our collective subjectivity towards that specific causal field. (And each sentient being is also a causal field -in fact, in its subjective world it is the protagonist causal field amongst the rest causal fields with which it interacts: when it dies, every examination/ interaction stops).
    Subjectivity is the core of every language amongst else because each word and each notion is an invention/ convention of the mind alone in the context of our struggle to create a 1:1 analogy between our mind and our environment, and Math and Physics are nothing but two more languages at our disposal. Show me a factual wavefunction out there in our world and I will bow to you, because all I see for the time being is your fundamentalist view that a straightforward application and further framework of Physics can cover and explain all of the reality we perceive herenow. In fact, when you describe by means of an algorithm that lion who predates and kills that deer, methinks you conduct nothing more than an 1:1 description: your description is as accurate as it gets, however it is not the event itself but merely a description. On the other hand, show your algorithm to the lion and see what you ‘ll get regarding your so called "objective reality"; you can also show your algorithm to anybody who has not studied Math and see what you 'll get;



    Edit: “To me, what it demonstrates is that the classical physics concepts of place and momentum have a different meaning when looking at the quantum level.”

    So it seems that now you appear to agree with me: for, when you admit that the classical Physics is a tool (we are using in order to describe the classical reality, I reckon) that we cannot use when we are looking at the quantum level, then the opposite also holds. And why do they have a different meaning? Methinks because, as I told you earlier, the reality of the classical Physics and the reality of the quantum level are two different realities determined by us subjectively according to the specific epistemic instruments we decided subjectively to use for our convenience when we examine specific epistemic objects, and both of them are relative. The difference is caused solely by the specific causal field we examine and by our own mind (who picked the causal field we examine out of many other causal fields), a causal field that we subjectively decided to examine, that is, as if it was separated from the observer universe and from every other observer/ causal field included in that huge system;



    Edit: “Wavefunction collapse itself, in a non-deterministic way, is not observed if you time propagate a system with a well-defined Hamiltonian.”

    Of course. The fact that the wavefunction collapse itself in a non-deterministic way, it means for one that you are not in position to know if it is in fact collapsed or not herenow, and how. First You have to observe it.
    For two, it means that solely when you are enveloped in the wavefunction’s causal field you are in position to determine a specific event and, thus, to determine the “reality”, which it will forever be subjective and relative because its determination takes place solely when you are becoming a part of the causal field that envelops the reality whose wavefunction you collapsed.
    Finally, since whatever isn’t observed it is not an element of reality because it lacks of any exchangeable and finite packet of physical information, the lack of measurement itself points towards to the (empty/ relative) reality that “whenever a wavefunction collapse itself unobserved if you time propagate a system with a well-defined Hamiltonian, it does not provide any element of reality and thus it cannot be included in the realm of our (relative) reality”.
    By the way, what is the exact meaning of your notion “time propagation” in our space-stretched universe?
  12. 01 Dec '10 08:19
    Originally posted by Taoman
    A small but growing group of researchers .....
    Why does that always sound more positive than "A large but diminishing group....".
  13. 01 Dec '10 10:54
    Originally posted by black beetle
    You could see that the double-slit experiment demonstrates subjectivity once you see how exactly our units of knowledge are evolving. Our world is not the same to Newton’s world although the seemingly same world it remains: the phenomena we perceived back then and herenow are the same, however our interpretation regarding specific causal fields we exami ...[text shortened]... t is the exact meaning of your notion “time propagation” in our space-stretched universe?
    Newtonian and quantum physics are not as different as you make it sound; Newtonian mechanics is in fact emergent from quantum physics if you replace all operators with their expectation values (an appropriate approximation if you have a large number of particles, i.e. a macroscopic system). They are both tools used to describe some aspect of reality (or so we hope, at least), with certain limitations - you wouldn't want to use quantum theory to describe some gravity-dominated effect, for example.

    I'm not sure what you mean with "causal field".

    By "time propagation" I mean considering the mathematical description of some abstract quantum system; in such a system, if you know its Hamiltonian and it is well-defined, the time evolution is deterministic i.e. if you know what the system looks like at t = 0 you know how it will look like at all times. Non-determinism, in the form of wavefunction collapse, could be nothing more than an artifact of not having the information about the system under study; we don't really know.
  14. 01 Dec '10 11:01
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Why does that always sound more positive than "A large but diminishing group....".
    Yes, the use of words to give a slant. Quite right. But is it a matter of numbers of adherents that proves a fact, or if not prove, give grounds for serious consideration ? No.

    The major body of scientists today are still refusing to look seriously at approaches that include paradigms different to that which was universal in the centuries prior to quantum discoveries. They still speak and act as if those discoveries didn't happen, as if it is all still Newtonian and machine-like. And it is NOT, quite apart from whatever interpretation or theory you are willing (or not) to have a go at! It is NOT all Newtonian and machine-like anymore.

    Why is it not possible that some form of unitary consciousness-like field helps order and synchronize information at various levels? Scientists still don't know what is the nature of consciousness itself and cannot locate its place in the brain. Statements are made baldy with not a shred of real argument. And on the other side many unanswered phenomenon look more reasonable if such a field did exist.

    Others, and prominent rational highly-trained others, see the non-sequitors and have been from the inception of the quantum era exploring possible relationships and connections to try and build a new and coherent paradigm. This doesn't mean they are necessarily right in their postulations, but in the light of the discoveries some reasonable respect and consideration should be had of their attempts.

    I guess its always like that when the new unexpectedly drops in uninvited.
    And as well we have the mad fundamentalists frightening the horses.

    "Don't even imply anything like that! Don't go near there, just don't!"

    The early quantum physicists, unwillingly and being dragged by their forelocks, could not understand or even want to believe these phenomenon displayed before them. Some real scientists, working from observation of phenomenon and empty of preconceived ideas have sought to make sense of what is still rocking modern science. Whenever its raised, scientific fundamentalist attitudes emerge that are foreign to the true scientific spirit of unbiased enquiry.

    I believe we are in the midst of a scientific revolution and the elephant in the corner still sits there, as it did for quite a while with all the furore going on about it on why the earth was indeed flat as a tack and, obviously, in the centre of everything!

    Eventually the Elephant farts and some real registering goes on.
  15. Standard member black beetle
    Black Beastie
    01 Dec '10 11:43
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Newtonian and quantum physics are not as different as you make it sound; Newtonian mechanics is in fact emergent from quantum physics if you replace all operators with their expectation values (an appropriate approximation if you have a large number of particles, i.e. a macroscopic system). They are both tools used to describe some aspect of reality (or ...[text shortened]... rtifact of not having the information about the system under study; we don't really know.
    Since you admit that they are used merely in order to describe "some aspect of reality" -I would add over here: "as we perceive it subjectively thanks to our 6 senses"-, you probably admit that they both cannot provide an holistic objective aspect of all the reality that exist; therefore, these "aspects of reality" are all subjective because they are all purely mind-dependent.


    Regarding the causal fields: methinks every sentient and every observer is a causal field. I will briefly check myself: since I can well be regarded as a sequence of events that stand in close temporal and causal relations, my physical processes cause sensory events which are then framed by my concepts, used by myself as the basis of my decisions, which give rise to my actions, which in turn set physical processes in motion which cause new sensory events and so on ad infinitum. I clarify I do not see myself (and yourself, and any other sentient being) as a cognitive nucleus that stays constant in the middle of a stream of changing sensory impressions and mental deliberations, but as the entire set of such interconnected sensory and mental events. Therefore I assume am a causal field that exists in constant interaction with other causal fields, causal fields that they are either sentient beings or any other kind of observers.


    Finally, regarding the time propagation: both our determinism and non-determinism in this context are dependent solely on us (on our observation alone) and they lack of own being. In the former case our determinism is merely an aspect of a probability regarding an appropriate approximation, whilst in the latter our non-determinism is an aspect of the absence of a probability regarding an appropriate approximation due to the fact that we are unable to conduct observation. On the other hand, both approximations exist simply because they are dependent on us; and at the same time they do not exist to whoever is unable to observe the system we are observing herenow.
    However, I asked you about the nature of time propagation because I simply wanted to point out that even our t=0 is axiomatic