Argument for Holographic Principle

[FallenApple]

So around 44:00, Susskind begins his argument.

He put a variety of items into a region of space, and the added a minimal shell of material surrounding the items, then squeezed that material to form a black hole around the item.

Then he said that the amount of original information cannot be more than the amount of information hidden in the black hole. The information in a black hole is tantamount to the information on it's surface.

It's a very interesting argument. But how does it rigorous connect to information being encoded on the cosmological horizon. We know that its not the event horizon of a black hole. We know that a shell wasn't surrounding far away, and then compressed into a black hole. So where's the connection besides the fact that they are both horizons?

All it shows is that 3d information is equivalent to 2d info. But if the info isn't at the horizon, then there wouldn't be any projection.

 

[rootone]

Data can be compressed.
However when you have it compressed in cannot be re-compressed.
If what we take to be reality was a virtual reality, it would not be possible to compress data in the Universe we know of.
We can compress data though, so real really is real.

 

[FallenApple]

Data can be compressed.
However when you have it compressed in cannot be re-compressed.
If what we take to be reality was a virtual reality, it would not be possible to compress data in the Universe we know of.
We can compress data though, so real really is real.

So the most compressed data is the reality and anything else is extraneous and does not contribute?

 

[rootone]

Personally I believe that the universe we observe is what we observed it to be.
I mean so what?, if what we see is actually is a model of some other universe?
Occam's razor doesn't look good for that, and the idea does't explain what the original universe must have been,
before somebody did a 720p video of it.