A Hologram theory and quantum physics = existential crisis

[Noclip1]

Hello, here there are 2 things (one about hologramic universe and the other about a quantum physics test similar to the slit lamp.

The first one is about the Bohm and Pibram as well as one about Alain Aspect 1982 study: articles about their theories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory

and this is another one that is by Alain Aspect:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/09/is-our-universe-a-hologram-in-1982-a-litttle-known-but-epic-event-occured-at-the-university-of-paris.html

The latter article about Alain Aspects 1982 study says at one point: "University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist..."

Now here is the second thing that is bothering me and is about the quantum theory and here is a newish article that proves that "reality doesn't exist until we look at it" and is somewhat related to the slit lamp test. here is the article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...cks-theory-reality-doesn-t-exist-look-it.html

So my questions are:

Regarding the first ones about Bohm-Pibram/ Alain Aspect's study:

1. Does Bohm and Pibram'stheory suggest that we live in a hologram and do they have proof?

2. Does Alain Aspects 1982 study suggest that we live in a hologram or that we live in a simulated reality and does this article or study show proof that we do live in a simulation or a hologram?

Regarding the quantum physics test in the above article:

3. Does this suggest that we and that nothing exists at all and that we are all an illusion like the title says?

4. Does this prove or suggest that we live in a simulated reality or that we simply do not know yet why; what can the results from this study mean besides the universe being simulated?

5. Is it true that an object or Quantum mechanics states reality don't exist until they're measured?

Many thanks and I hope I did not ask too much.

 

[Strilanc]

1. Does Bohm and Pibram'stheory suggest that we live in a hologram and do they have proof?

No, the article you linked is describing a brain architecture. You'd ask about this kind of thing in a neuroscience forum, not a physics forum. It has nothing to do with whether or not the universe is a hologram, except as an explanatory analogy for their hypothesized architecture spreading out information instead of concentrating it.

2. Does Alain Aspects 1982 study suggest that we live in a hologram or that we live in a simulated reality and does this article or study show proof that we do live in a simulation or a hologram?

No. That study suggests we live in a place governed by quantum mechanics. Nothing to do with holograms or simulations.

Also, you seem to be mixing up "hologram" with "simulation". Discovering that the universe can be described by a 2-dimensional model doesn't imply that the universe doesn't exist or that it's being simulated.

3. Does this suggest that we and that nothing exists at all and that we are all an illusion like the title says?

Any premise that suggests "nothing exists" is obviously wrong, since, you know, you're reading this instead of failing to exist. If nothing exists, nothing is doing an awful lot of stuff.

4. Does this prove or suggest that we live in a simulated reality or that we simply do not know yet why; what can the results from this study mean besides the universe being simulated?

No, it shows we live in a place governed by quantum mechanics.

You can find people on the internet that think that quantum mechanics being right means we're in a simulation. I say they're nuts, and that they've fundamentally failed to grok how inference works. I don't think they've actually thought much about P(quantum | ground-floor), or considered that P(quantum-simulation | classical-ground-floor) would be smaller than P(quantum-simulation | quantum-ground-floor). Meaning that finding yourself in a quantum simulation would give evidence that the ground-floor was quantum, in which case why did we think quantum implied simulation in the first place...?

5. Is it true that an object or Quantum mechanics states reality don't exist until they're measured?

No, that's not true. We can model and manipulate superpositions. We can turn them over and move them around and explain what's happening all along the way. The math matches the experiments. Seems pretty exist-ish to me.

People say stuff like "the position doesn't exist", but what that actually means in practice is "the superposition covers a range of positions, and if we were to pretend that there was really some single underlying unknown position then our model would give wrong answers". They might also subscribe to an interpretation with a meaning of "exists" that's not quite what you have in mind.

 

[Noclip1]

Thanks guys, I appreciate the help. Regarding question 2, I know you said it has nothing to do with holograms but why do a lot of research refer to it (Alain Aspect's 1982 study) as proof that we live in a hologramic universe including David Bohm and his friend Pigram. Thanks.

 

[Strilanc]

Could you actually find a quote of David Bohm saying that the Aspect experiments support the universe being a hologram? His Wikipedia page doesn't say hologram at all, except with respect to the hypothesized brain architecture thing.

I know the article says that he said something like that, but it doesn't actually quote Bohm and I suspect the journalist exaggerated the connection.

 

[bhobba]

The thing about Bohm is he was a very great physicist. But he had two sides to his personality. The first side was the great physicist, the second side was an inclination to - well let's not be gentle here - philosophical mumbo jumbo that bordered on gibberish and was barely, just barely physics. His writings about the holographic universe, oneness, wholeness, implicate order, you know this new age touchy feelly mumbo jumbo was, unfortunately, in the second category. Such a pity because he really was a great physicist.

QM supports no particular view of the world - it could be objectively real, or all in you mind, or all sorts of other things like many worlds. No one knows - and certainly not Bohm.

Thanks
Bill

 

[jedishrfu]

Time to close this thread before it diverges into the Twilight Zone.