Holographic Universe. 2D Universe = Matrix?

[Kaktus]

Hi people. I just read some articles about physicist starting to gain more and more evidence for the Universe to be a 3D Hologram of a 2D world (or that's how I understood it). And apparently for us living in a "Matrix", like the one in the movie. Now I would like to understand the relation between those two. How exactly does the universe being a 2D world imply us living in a simulation? I just really don't get where these people take that theory from. Why would it have to be like that? What do those two things even have to do with each other? Great if people discover that the universe really is two dimensional but what the hell does it have to do with simulations? Thanks for reading and I hope you'll be able to answer some of my questions.

Article: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/there-is-growing-evidence-that-our-universe-is-a-giant-hologram

 

[stedwards]

You may have read something about the Holographic Principle that comes out of string theory.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Can you please reference these articles you read

 

[Kaktus]

Sorry. Here's the article: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/there-is-growing-evidence-that-our-universe-is-a-giant-hologram

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Sorry. Here's the article: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/there-is-growing-evidence-that-our-universe-is-a-giant-hologram

We usually only discuss journal papers and sources from credible institutions. Did you have a peak at the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.4089 and the HUP wiki page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

 

[Kaktus]

Sorry but I can't really gain much from reading all of that, it's just kinda confusing. If you could make the time and you know about this stuff, it would be awesome if you could kindly summarize the relation there is (apparently) between a 2D world and living in a simulation. I don't know if vice is a credible source but googling on the subject it seems to me like there are quite a few articles like that on the internet (if you just google "universe giant hologram"), so I'm wondering what that's all about. If there's actually something to it or if it's just stuff you guys hear every day on this forum and just shaking your head over.

 

[haael]

Great if people discover that the universe really is two dimensional

Holographic principle does not imply that the world is two-dimensional. Just as encountering the number PI in some physical equation does not imply that the universe has a shape of a wheel.

And apparently for us living in a "Matrix", like the one in the movie. Now I would like to understand the relation between those two. How exactly does the universe being a 2D world imply us living in a simulation?

The problem with "simulations" is philosophical. The first question is: what does the "outside" world look like? Are the laws of physics in the "real" worlds the same as the "simulated" ones?

All arguments that we live in a simulations I've heard of rely on some kind of "simulation errors". Usually the author assumes that there is some perfect outside world and we live in a buggy simulation. Also, usually they imply that the ideal real world is pure Newtonian, while quantum mechanics is the sum of simulation errors. The philosophical problem with this argument is that they find Newtonian physics "beautiful" and fundamental, while quantum physics is the ugly imperfect copy of it. In my opinion this view is wrong. QM is more beautiful and more fundamental than classical mechanics. There's no way to explain QM as "classical mechanics with errors", rather classical mechanics is an approximaition of QM.

Thus, we don't live in a simulation.

 

[Kaktus]

Holographic principle does not imply that the world is two-dimensional. Just as encountering the number PI in some physical equation does not imply that the universe has a shape of a wheel.The problem with "simulations" is philosophical. The first question is: what does the "outside" world look like? Are the laws of physics in the "real" worlds the same as the "simulated" ones?

All arguments that we live in a simulations I've heard of rely on some kind of "simulation errors". Usually the author assumes that there is some perfect outside world and we live in a buggy simulation. Also, usually they imply that the ideal real world is pure Newtonian, while quantum mechanics is the sum of simulation errors. The philosophical problem with this argument is that they find Newtonian physics "beautiful" and fundamental, while quantum physics is the ugly imperfect copy of it. In my opinion this view is wrong. QM is more beautiful and more fundamental than classical mechanics. There's no way to explain QM as "classical mechanics with errors", rather classical mechanics is an approximaition of QM.

Thus, we don't live in a simulation.

Thanks for your answer, but did you read the article I referenced?

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...