The Universe as a Hologram

Originally posted by Taoman
Thank you for that further explanation. Informative. So he is not confused in relation to his own reference points, but confused or un-informed about the classical Indian approach to logic, and Nagarjuna's intention, if I have it correctly.

Avi Sion tries to show that Nagarjuna implies wrongly an hybrid of the Aristotlean logic in order to prove that his tetralemma holds -however the Indian not only doesn't conduct such a thing, but he furthermore negates all theses and all views, his own ones included. Also, Sion fails to offer an 1:1 correspondence between the Aristotlean argumentation and the argumentation of the prasanga per se, and as a result he ends up stranded
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Avi Sion tries to show that Nagarjuna implies wrongly an hybrid of the Aristotlean logic in order to prove that his tetralemma holds -however the Indian not only doesn't conduct such a thing, but he furthermore negates all theses and all views, his own ones included. Also, Sion fails to offer an 1:1 correspondence between the Aristotlean argumentation and the argumentation of the prasanga per se, and as a result he ends up stranded
😵

I imagine Nagarjuna and Paul Feyerabend getting on quite well.

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: "I think my brain has been formatted not to understand these arguments."

Then I will rephrase my last sentence as following:
-- "...he would be hopefully able to see on his own by means of his own enso that
A thing is A, and at the same time ~A, and at the same time both A and ~A, and at the same time A or ~A".
These arguments are merely ski ...[text shortened]... ace of the table that they will all roll down once the table is semi-raised at an angle
😵

But that's exactly what I wanted to get at. To me, all those require an objective reality in which individuals exist and interact. So there must be an ultimate reality, our "physical world" as you call it. So existence in that physical world must be a binary option, not the four ones in the tetralemma.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I imagine Nagarjuna and Paul Feyerabend getting on quite well.

Probably😵

Originally posted by Palynka
But that's exactly what I wanted to get at. To me, all those require an objective reality in which individuals exist and interact. So there must be an ultimate reality, our "physical world" as you call it. So existence in that physical world must be a binary option, not the four ones in the tetralemma.

A Madhyamika would reject this thesis and he would discard the binary option, and he would attack this argument claiming that, since there is no such a thing as an "absolute truth", it is impossible to establish a fundamental holistic theory that describes how things really are. The Madhyamaka/ Zen sunyata approach rejects the idea of a world that exists independently of our concerns, therefore the Madhyamika philosopher discards on the spot the concept of a "truth" based in a similarity of structure between a statement and the factual "0 or 1" bit of the physical world it refers to.
All in all, the Madhyamika will answer you that the bit of the reality one conceives is coherent with the known elements of reality one knows, therefore we are in front of the indefinite state "0/1" instead "0 or 1". Well, due to this specific amplified quantum superposition, existence in our physical world is not fundamentaly a binary option but it has the shape of the tetralemma
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
A Madhyamika would reject this thesis and he would discard the binary option, and he would attack this argument claiming that, since there is no such a thing as an "absolute truth", it is impossible to establish a fundamental holistic theory that describes how things really are. The Madhyamaka/ Zen sunyata approach rejects the idea of a world that exist ...[text shortened]... l world is not fundamentaly a binary option but it has the shape of the tetralemma
😵

That is a false dichotomy. Absolute truth need not be knowable to exist.

I still don't see how the wall being kicked can "exist" in an indefinite state if it is what allows us to interact. Again, note the difference between having an indefinite state of existence and having perfect knowledge of what the state truly is.

Originally posted by Palynka
That is a false dichotomy. Absolute truth need not be knowable to exist.

I still don't see how the wall being kicked can "exist" in an indefinite state if it is what allows us to interact. Again, note the difference between having an indefinite state of existence and having perfect knowledge of what the state truly is.

What exactly is a false dichotomy?

And what exactly do you consider "absolute truth"? Every sentient being gives a different shape to the reality it perceives according to its cognizance apparatus alone. On the other hand, if you consider "absolute truth" a factual reality that you ignore (ie the reality that takes place in my personal environment right now), then that specific reality is to you undefined (0/1) because you cannot observe it. As you see, I argue that reality -the observer universe as we perceive it- is epiontic.

The "wall being kicked" exists solely in a definite state after this specific cause-effect is manifested -it exists solely when you have conduct your observation of this specific causal field, therefore it exists solely when you envelop a specific event, therefore this reality of yours exists solely when you, thanks to your interaction, have made up specific elements of reality that you know. These defined elements of reality are the sole reality you can perceive, anything else that is not a known to you element of reality is undefined (0/1). All we are doing, is to cut in pieces ever-changing causal fields within ever-changing causal fields (that they do not exist independently from one another), collecting a super-extendent string of events and creating an archive of it in the ever-changing mind-only causal field that I define as "collective subjectivity". None of these strings of events could exist prior to your observation due to the 0/1 superposition; furthermore, in the realm of the human observation are included all the bits of collective subjective pieces of information throughout our history.
So methinks the "perfect knowledge of what the state truly is" is not a stable condition due to the fact that all the phenomena we perceive are in constant flux: the seemingly definite states of existence of the physical objects are not really stable because they dematerialize into their wavefunction existence; they appear to us to be stable due to the fact that their probability waves spread out very slowly from the state they were when they were last observed by us. Back then, Heracletus knew well that the so caled "stability" is nothing but a massive illusion
😵

Epiontic?


"And what exactly do you consider "absolute truth"? Every sentient being gives a different shape to the reality it perceives according to its cognizance apparatus alone.

You yourself admit it by invoking reality. That every sentient being gives a different shape to it is...irrelevant. Reality is still there. And if you assume it isn't then you have no grounds for communication/interaction between individuals. There would be only the self which is real. So you need to pick one: communication/interaction and the existence of an objective reality independent of anyone's cognitive apparatus or your stance that things are only existent when they are perceived by the self and the absence of common grounds for communication/interaction.

You cannot have both.

So methinks the "perfect knowledge of what the state truly is" is not a stable condition due to the fact that all the phenomena we perceive are in constant flux: the seemingly definite states of existence of the physical objects are not really stable because they dematerialize into their wavefunction existence.

That's because you arbitrarily decided that unlocalized particles are in any way in an undefined form of existence. This is just a random line in the sand, as Kazet pointed out several times already. The state is described by more than its coordinates. So what?

Originally posted by Palynka
Epiontic?


[b]"And what exactly do you consider "absolute truth"? Every sentient being gives a different shape to the reality it perceives according to its cognizance apparatus alone.

You yourself admit it by invoking reality. That every sentient being gives a different shape to it is...irrelevant. Reality is still there. And if you assume it isn' ...[text shortened]... out several times already. The state is described by more than its coordinates. So what?[/b]

Edit: “Epiontic?”

Yes, epiontic. According to Acerbi (The Epiontic Principle, Time and the Laws of Physics), “…the concept of “epiontic” is the fusion of the two terms “epistemic” and “ontic”, and it suggests something whose existence is intrinsically interwined to the knowledge one has of it”. I argue that our reality coincides solely with what we know about it.



Edit: “You yourself admit… …You cannot have both”.

Why is it irrelevant? Reality is different to you, to me, to a dolphin and to a bee due to the fact that each sentient being grasps it differently than the other. What exact type of reality “is there”? What exact type of reality a snail, an eagle and a shark perceive, that is common to your reality and to mine?
I argue that each shape of reality each different species perceive by means of their cognizance apparatus and their collective subjectivity, is not identical to any other reality that is perceived by other species. Therefore the specific reality we human beings are aware of, it is grounded on the field of our collective subjectivity alone and it does not exist "objectively" per se in the way we perceive it.
Regarding the grounds for communication/ interaction, I clarified earlier that every language we are using in this context is nothing but a convention we are entering for our convenience.
So methinks I can well have both -more than both, actually. I can have all of them four;


Edit: “That's because... ...So what?"

On the first hand, over here with you I was not talking about the quantum particle but about solid objects of our physical world, which are perfectly defined. An oak tree that stands out there for 250 hundred years was not stable even for a mere second. In other words, the seemingly definite states of existence of the oak tree are not really stable because they dematerialize into their wavefunction existence. In fact, if you could observe the oak tree after 1.000 years you would be unable to observe it because it would be non-existent due to the fact that the tree too is a phenomenon-in-flux. By the way I would like to know what exact elements of reality belong to your past regarding the oak tree herenow, which they are not a product of your personal observation alone? Also, kindly please let me know how the existence of the phenomenon "oak tree" is fundamentaly a binary option, instead of being conventionally a binary option out of our collective subjectivity alone.
On the other hand, in my conversation with Kazet I wanted to hear his thesis about the nature of the quantum particle. I still wait for an answer, and yours is more than welcomed too
😵

Ok, we're not communicating. I give up.

Originally posted by black beetle
The nature of X cannot be talked about
because it is not observable (by means of conceptual awareness) 😵

Well, as I said, that's fine by me. I may disagree with it, but I'm fine with someone (including you) having such an opinion. But not if you then do proceed to talk about it at length. If something cannot be talked about, refrain from doing so. Do not invent more words that do not apply.

Richard

Originally posted by Palynka
Ok, we're not communicating. I give up.

I give up too; at least we both tried😵

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Well, as I said, that's fine by me. I may disagree with it, but I'm fine with someone (including you) having such an opinion. But not if you then do proceed to talk about it at length. If something cannot be talked about, refrain from doing so. Do not invent more words that do not apply.

Richard

With you I talked nothing at length; if you cannot or don't want to comment on the nature of the quantum particle and on the hologram-nature of the universe, kindly please feel free to act the way you wish
😵

Originally posted by Taoman
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 struc ...[text shortened]... lainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature."

This striking NEW picture of reality is not new at all....but the Vedas have been informing us for eternity that the world is a temporary illusion made of dust, but which is really energy, that ultimately manifests in the mind of God.

Nothing is new.......nothing at all, and its just chewing the chewed.

Thank you blabk beetle and Taoman. Very good stuff.