Philospphy and the holographic model (web link)

  • Thread starter RAD4921
  • Start date

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,764
5
Oh, gee. Aspect, interpreted wrong, Bohm brought back for mystical purposes, holograms trivialized. This is out-of-date bunk, not philosophy.
 
293
0
selfAdjoint said:
Oh, gee. Aspect, interpreted wrong, Bohm brought back for mystical purposes, holograms trivialized. This is out-of-date bunk, not philosophy.
One person's out of date bunk is another person's new jewel in the rough.

juju
 
21
0
hmm, parts of the theory seem to describe M-Brane theory.
 
312
1
selfAdjoint said:
Oh, gee. Aspect, interpreted wrong, Bohm brought back for mystical purposes, holograms trivialized. This is out-of-date bunk, not philosophy.
You claim in your profile to be born in 1933. That would make you 71 years old but the content of your post and the way you address people are so juvenile. Are you REALLY 71 years old or are you developmentally arrested?
 
312
1
Brane theory

lnx990 said:
hmm, parts of the theory seem to describe M-Brane theory.
I don't know much about brane theory buy you a stirred my curiosity. Thanks
 

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,764
5
RAD4921 said:
You claim in your profile to be born in 1933. That would make you 71 years old but the content of your post and the way you address people are so juvenile. Are you REALLY 71 years old or are you developmentally arrested?

When you have no response to a criticism, turn to ad hominem, unsupported assertions. Yes I am 71, and I have seen people argue like you for decades, to my sorrow. Why don't you address my criticism of your original post on its merits? Where do you get your information about Bohm and Aspect, for example?
 
312
1
Oh gee?

selfAdjoint said:
When you have no response to a criticism, turn to ad hominem, unsupported assertions. Yes I am 71, and I have seen people argue like you for decades, to my sorrow. Why don't you address my criticism of your original post on its merits? Where do you get your information about Bohm and Aspect, for example?
Starting a post with "Oh Gee" sounds rather silly. I would take you more seriously if you took yourself more seriously.

There is nothing to respond to in your post since it is just your opinions on various physicist. You have done this before with my post and a pattern is starting to emerge when I post people who appear to fly in the face of your metaphysical belief you result to childish name calling and unwarrented criticism.

You say people have been responding incorrectly to your post and this brings you "sorrow". There is no need to get so emotionally involved in forums, chat rooms and other correspondence on the internet.

David Bohm is a very well respected physicist. He worked with Oppenheimer and although you claim he was involved in mysticsism, I think you will find it difficult to find many scientsist who don't have some sort of metaphysical philosophy. That is part of human nature.

I am sure that there are some who question Aspect's results. Some still question Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. That is part of sciecnce but it is by no means a reason to ignore the theories and experiemental data. As far as I know, Apect's results are still widely accepted and you appear to be in a minority.

In the future I ask that if you cannot address my post with more maturity and seriousness, that you refrain from responding and just ignore my post.
 
596
0
RAD4921 said:
The Holographic Reality is spooky. The idea of a 'a Whole in every part' does take our notion of 'Part-Whole' relation in a different direction. However, It does reiterate many calls that several scientific methodologies and theses need urgent revisions. It will be hard to confront the science communities with this fact, let alone kickstart the process overnight. We may have to be cautious and systematic about it and just wait for this come to fruition.
 
312
1
Brian Greene on the holographic model

Philocrat said:
The Holographic Reality is spooky. The idea of a 'a Whole in every part' does take our notion of 'Part-Whole' relation in a different direction. However, It does reiterate many calls that several scientific methodologies and theses need urgent revisions. It will be hard to confront the science communities with this fact, let alone kickstart the process overnight. We may have to be cautious and systematic about it and just wait for this come to fruition.
I had actually once e mail Brian Greene and asked him what he thought of the holographic model. If I remember correctly he said someting like that it is an interesting "idea" but it may just be a very general descrition of the universe and have very limited (if any) practical applications.

Scientific American magazine once did a front cover article on the holographic model and I must admit that as much as it appeals to aestically, at this point in physics, the holographic model has no more validity than parallel universe "theories"
 

Related Threads for: Philospphy and the holographic model (web link)

  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
377
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Top