I wasn't aware that that was an implication of the holographic principle. Assuming it is, then I wonder if that is a result of the mathematics of quantum mechanics. From what I can discern (which isn't a lot, I'll concede), it seems as though the mathematics of the wave function sort of suggest...
It seems to me that Greene is conflating an epistemological issue with an ontological one. That is, he seems to be saying that there isn't a paradox of whether he died at the event horizon or went through it alive because we can't KNOW whether or not he died. But whether or not he died is...
I went back and read further along and realized why I had said that Greene had suggested a resolution to the seeming paradox, but I had not recalled some important parts of what he said - continuing from the quote I cited above:
I really don't know how to interpret that and that's why I said...
I did mean mostly "observable", except I wasn't sure that term is inclusive enough to include what physicists are talking about when they are applying the holographic principle to the "whole" universe.
As to why I said "vaporized", here is what Greene says on page 257 of "The Hidden Reality"...
I should have been more clear - I have a separate question about how a person falling through a black hole can "simultaneously" appear to an outside observer to have vaporized at the horizon due to Hawking radiation and whatnot, but to the person they will seem to have gone "through" the horizon...
Question: Greene's "The Hidden Reality": the holographic principle
On pp. 260-261 of "The Hidden Reality" Brian Greene says the following:
I puzzled over this for quite awhile and it seems as though Greene, probably inadvertently, phrased this somewhat more decisively than is justified - that...