Holographic Universe. 2D Universe = Matrix?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the Holographic Universe, specifically the idea that our three-dimensional universe may be a hologram of a two-dimensional reality. Participants explore the implications of this theory and its potential connection to the notion of living in a simulation, as popularized by the movie "The Matrix." The conversation touches on theoretical physics, philosophical questions, and the interpretation of scientific articles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants mention the Holographic Principle emerging from string theory as a basis for the discussion.
  • There is a request for credible sources and references to support claims about the holographic nature of the universe.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the relationship between a two-dimensional universe and the concept of living in a simulation, seeking clarification.
  • Another participant argues that the Holographic Principle does not necessarily imply a two-dimensional world, using the analogy of the number PI to illustrate this point.
  • Philosophical questions are raised regarding the nature of the "outside" world and the laws of physics in both real and simulated contexts.
  • Concerns are expressed about the common assumption that a perfect outside world exists, with the simulated world being flawed, particularly in the context of classical versus quantum mechanics.
  • One participant asserts that quantum mechanics is more fundamental and beautiful than classical mechanics, challenging the view that we live in a simulation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the Holographic Principle or the validity of the simulation argument. Multiple competing views are presented, particularly regarding the interpretation of quantum mechanics and the nature of reality.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various articles and papers, indicating a reliance on external sources for understanding the Holographic Principle. There is acknowledgment of the complexity of the topic, with some expressing difficulty in grasping the concepts discussed.

Kaktus
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
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
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You may have read something about the Holographic Principle that comes out of string theory.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Greg Bernhardt
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.
 
haael said:
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?
 
Thread closed for Moderation...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K