Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Thoughts on holographic universe and existence in general

  1. Jan 14, 2004 #1
    holographic universe and our very existence in general....

    One night i was in a strange mood and wrote this... i dont really remember writing most of it... but i thought i would share with the community here and i am deffinitly searching for any feedback on my ideas that anyone might have!

    I am very interested in the holographic universe theory and i am interested in understanding the world more and understanding these ideas better... so please post up your thoughts!

    A single energy source… a laser…
    Capable of making infinite unique projections…by simply changing the angle…

    What if…
    There is a big energy field out there…an infinite energy field…
    Like a hologram…this energy has infinite projections with infinite variations…

    What if…
    Every one of those infinite projections was a conscious...a conscious that is an individual...
    Us individuals… are merely projections of this greater ONE energy field…

    Science has proven…
    That everything we see, touch, smell… is merely an electrical impulse going to our brain…
    Therefore… The world that we perceive does not necessarily exist…

    Is there really such a thing… called time?
    Is there a determined future and destiny for us… fate?
    Or are we living the moment… the moment…being created that very instant…
    Projected by this energy field… through us… no such thing as time… only… The Moment.

    The Sub-conscious…
    Hypnotherapy… the act talking directly to the sub-conscious…
    Hypnotherapy patients can be told not to bleed…and the body will respond accordingly…
    The sub-conscious efficiently and effectively resolves any task presented to it…
    So it is in control!

    What if…
    This sub-consciousness… is connected to all the other sub-consciousnesses in this energy field… the source…
    We are all connected through our sub-consciousnesses… to the collective of consciousnesses…
    Being connected with the collective of consciousnesses…we have access to infinite knowledge and wisdom…

    What if…
    The world we perceive is merely a projection just as we are?
    So we, as a collective consciousness, are in control of this projection…
    In control… with our subconscious…

    Active stress and preoccupation diverts you from successfully accomplishing any task…
    The more you stress and worry about it… the harder and harder it becomes to accomplish…
    When you cease stressing… a solution to the problem seems to be magically presented to you…
    It’s not magic… it’s your subconscious taking over the problem and efficiently resolving it…

    People pray… to some unknown entity... to have their problems fade away…
    By praying… one lifts the burden from their shoulders… or so they believe…
    Stress and preoccupation are lessened… because now… it is in someone else’s hands…
    NO! It is not in someone else’s hands… it is up to your sub-conscious now…

    The Collective Consciousness
    This source energy… an infinite collection of sub-consciousnesses… a collective…

    An unknown entity creating solutions… or an infinite collective of individuals?
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 16, 2004 #2


    User Avatar

    If this is all true, and our subconsiousness and the general population is incontrol of everything, then how was this general population formed in the first place, without God? Because if we control the world and what we see, then how did we come into being?
  4. Jan 16, 2004 #3
    I honestly dont think that there is an answer to "where did it all start" cuz doesnt matter how far you go back...you always wonder what was before that?

    earth and galaxies... how did that get there?
    big bang... how did that get there?
    gas cloud... how did that get there?
    god... how did that get there?

    i dont think that will ever end... i dont think there wil ever be an answer to that question... which is a really freaky thought.

    what are your thoughts? do u think there is a way to explain where we came from?

    and aside from where we came from...what do u think of the rest of my ideas...takin out the source concern
  5. Jan 18, 2004 #4

    Another God

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

  6. Jan 18, 2004 #5
    Metaphysics should join Physics in a TOE.
    One concept.
  7. Jan 18, 2004 #6
    Re: holographic universe and our very existence in general....

    Rody ... you questions are about the fundamental interconnectivity.
    When there is such interconnectivity why would it be that - like in a hologram - everything is copied again in everything? That's a lost a energy and a more complex model.
    Einstein said that the essence was the gravitational field: that's interconnectivity, yes?
    So everything is still interconnected even if not ALL is contained in holograms. The gravitational field is the source of the causal relationship(s) between all spiritual and physical events.
    David Bohm spoke about the Implicate Order to find such causal relationship, and also to him a holographic approach was logic, but to me this can be explained more simple by the building up of holons.
  8. Jan 20, 2004 #7
    There is no evidence for this, your idea is lunacy.
  9. Jan 20, 2004 #8
    Evidence for string theory?
    Evidence for Superposition?
    How much postulates do they have?

    Calling someone or his idea lunacy is an intellectual weakness. If you don't like it ... attack it with arguments, and be specific in your remarks. When you say: 'There is no evidence for this' ... what do you mean?
  10. Jan 22, 2004 #9
    A theory cannot be dismissed by calling it metaphysics. This should be obvious, since all theories are based in metaphyics. As Banesh Hoffman says:

    “It is difficult to decide where science ends and mysticism begins. As soon as we begin to make even the most elementary theories we are open to the charge of indulging in metaphysics. Yet theories, however provisional, are the very lifeblood of scientific progress. We simply cannot escape metaphysics, though we can perhaps over-indulge, as well as have too little.”

    The Strange Story of the Quantum (Penguin 1968)

    Neither is it true, as someone here said, that there can be no explanation of existence because we cannot end the infinite regression of explanations. There are ways around this.

    Still I don't think Rody's ideas are right, they don't work logically as they stand. But I'd argue that they are on the right track.
  11. Jan 23, 2004 #10

    Another God

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Sorry, I didn't mean to attract attention...let me rephrase:

    "This post is a metaphysical question, it therefore belongs in the metaphysics forum, not the general philosophy forum."
  12. Jan 23, 2004 #11
    I can see your point, but I suspect that if you banish metaphysics from the philosophy forum there won't be much left to discuss. Imo it is the segragation of philosophy, metaphysics and science that leaves us unable to explain anything properly. This is what I was trying to suggest in my previous post.
  13. Jan 26, 2004 #12
    Re: Re: holographic universe and our very existence in general....

    I dont think that they all contain it... i think that they are all interconnected with the source so they dont need to contain it...

    there was an experiment done...where 2 electrons were shot off in exact opposisite directions and they had an "obstacle course" both electrons made the same decisions as to which way to go... now i doubt that they were both programmed with the same information, but they were deff interconnected to eachother...and probably something bigger. (i am not sure who did this experment, i do remember reading about it and my explanation is deff a crude oversimplification of it)

    I think its not some kind of physical force that has us interconnected like u say... i am kinda leaning toward Plato's ideas that we are merely projections...in which case all of these forces are merely something that we are imagning.

    right here you say what i said in response to your first question/point... do you agree with what i said now?

    what is that?

    i deffinitly think that metaphysics should be involved...because maybe what is really reality (tho we will probably never figure it out and all agree on it) might be sumthin metaphysical...and if we dont entertain those ideas we might never come to realize it.

    i want to make clear that i am not lookin for people to agree with my ideas... i just want feedback on them like i have been getting because it helps me think about them more and review them based on problems and such that might arise... i am looking to make my own theory of reality right now... it might not be right... but if it is something that i strongly believe in and somehting that i have figured out (with the help of others of course) and bettered myself by learning more and more, then i am happy... i am not religious... so this would in its own way be my religion
  14. Jan 30, 2004 #13
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2004
  15. Feb 2, 2004 #14
    Re: holographic universe and our very existence in general....

    what is evidence but a set of arbitrary criteria? no words are truth just as the word "cup" is not a cup, though words can describe the truth.

    first of all, you can see the reaction you get when you put yourself out there. for a various network of reasons, people will object to what you have to say. in part, the reason may be that one clings to a concept of a proof, the concept of words being the truth (or not), and one clings to the notion that nothing is truth without evidence that fits certain criteria.

    what you have described in the two quoted paragraphs above could roughly be described as you hypnotizing yourself and talking to your subconscious. it is letting you know that is what is happening. rather, more accurate to say it is partially talking through you. the effect of forgetting what you write during this and being in a strange mood when you write it is very common among those who practice this; it is part and parcel with "the process." the first waypoint is to find your true self and by obtaining these "writings" you can help yourself get closer to yourself.

    the way i contextualize it is the following: it's not your subconscious that is doing the writing, or is the source of the writing, though it is very much you. it is your "higher self" that is writing. freud has his way of mapping out the nonphysical components of the human and the way i map it can be explained via the following analogy: you are like a car. the engine is your true self. it supplies the power. without it, the car would go nowhere. the higher self is the transmission (with the double entendre intentional). it delivers the power to the wheels. without the transmission, the car would go nowhere. you can "install" a "high-tech" transmission by practicing these forms of writing to try to obtain power from the "engine" more directly rather than letting it haphazardly seep into your "wheels." the chassis and tires are the "little self": the ego and physical body. most people, i imagine, identify their 'i' with the chassis and tires rather than the whole car. in truth, you're not just the engine or just any part: you're the whole car. the question is who drives the car. well what is the purpose of all cars? to journey. and when you journal from the higher self perspective, your journey has hit another waypoint.

    how do i know any of this? an appropriate question in an epistemology thread. but really, how do i know anything? it just seems self-evident to me as far as i am aware.

    there is also some loose connections between the holographic universe theory and the concept of everything, including time, being a kind of illusion. i compare it all to a mirror. in the bible, it says we are created in God's image. to me, that suggests we are a reflection of God. a room full of convex mirrors that shrink down the original image. time is connected to entropy. the arrow of time advances as entropy increases. but entropy is also related to information distribution. the way i see it, time is totally nonlinear and is more aptly measured as a shift in awareness. from a certain perspective, the function f(x)=x^2 is not a constant. this is the local perspective. but the global perspective sees f as the set including the elements (0,0), (1,1), (2,4), etc. this set is completely static. so depending on your perspective, this thing is dynamic and static. our consciousness is locally oriented most of the time but from a global perspective, it is seen as all being static. time then is the advancement of the awareness of that static thing called reality which when viewed from a local perspective seems to change.

    as far as illusions go, the word cup, as i wrote earlier, is not a cup itself. i believe that the cup is not a cup itself either. rather, it is only the physical component of the cup. i believe the totality of the cup is the combination of its physical component plus the "form" of cup that its physical component is a reflection of. the word cup is an icon for the cup. the physical cup is an icon for the whole cup. so, in a sense, the word cup is closer to the whole cup than the cup is because they are both abstractions of the physical cup. it's not that holograms are not real, they're just hollow.

    that one energy field has some popular and less popular names, depending on who you are:
    the universal mind
    the christ consciousness grid
    the holy spirit
    the tree of knowledge
    the tree of life
    the gift of design (G.O.D.)
    the grand order design (G.O.D.)
    there are probably some scientific names too

    it's not correct to be equating those together within any belief system i'm aware of.

    i believe we're all like psychic islands in the sea of consciousness. note that the network of islands are all connected though under the water so we can't see it. the connection is there nonetheless.

    there is some degree to which we can control it and to some degree it controls us. it's a lot like how matter and space-time interact. it is incorrect to say one really controls the other though there is mutual influence.

    the higher self is not omniscient though it tends to carry with it the ability to tap into a greater resource than the little self can specifically because it is not embedded in a 3D world as our little selves are. the simple exercise is to write directly to it, let that "strange mood" come on and just write. one way to go about it is to write "what do i need to know at this time" and just let the words flow. if nothing comes out, then write that down. it's really no more mystical than being hypnotized and talking while hynotized. the boon is that when you write it down, you're recording what you're saying.

    you can obtain writings for advice though i generally find that my higher self can be about as concerned about things as a father would be if his child dropped their ice cream. mine only tells me what it thinks i need to know. the truth is that God has no needs. God doesn't need you to find yourself, become the savior of the universe, worship it, pray to it, praise it, etc.

    there is a theory that on this planet people fall into one of three categories. those with a collective soul, those with an individual soul, and those who began with a collective soul and are transitioning to one with an individual soul. these souls are ultimately still connected. the ones with a collective soul are called droids for their typically robotic-style mentality which is common and the other types are called beings. much more information on this is available at the universal sight discussion forum under "self."
  16. Feb 2, 2004 #15
    the totality of all that is; so yes, a collective. putting it that way conjures up images for me of the borg collective and assimilation and as something to fear. fear is akin to the tires on that car slipping or being flat: a product of the little self in the guise of the ego.
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2004
  17. Feb 4, 2004 #16
    question for canute

    i'm intruigued. please explain.
  18. Feb 4, 2004 #17
    wow phoenix! i havent been able to really sit down and think about all the stuff you said yet... i work 56 hours a week and i have school so its hard to find sum peace time... i did kinda read over it and i am very anxious to read it deeply and understand what you are saying so that we can discuss it further!
  19. Feb 4, 2004 #18
    Re: Re: holographic universe and our very existence in general....

    could you explain this further?

    the bolded part is where i dont quite follow you... are you saying that its the reflection of the physical component which you just mentioned right b4 that? could you clarify for me?

    this is all i could get through for now... i am lookin forward discussin the rest with you though!
  20. Feb 4, 2004 #19
    Re: Re: Re: holographic universe and our very existence in general....

    "Proof is only possible in mathematics, and mathematics is only a matter of arbitrary conventions."
    --aliester crowley, liber CCCXXXIII, chapter 45.

    the arbitrary convention for constancy is that a function f is not constant if there are two inputs that lead to different outputs. if '=' means 'equals' and '!=' means 'does not equal' then that means the function f is not constant if f(x)!=f(y) for some x and y. from this convention, one can see that f(x)=x^2 is not 'constant' because

    this is what i call a local perspective.

    if you view a function as a set of ordered pairs of the form (x,f(x)) then it is static always. for example, if f(x)=x^2, then a few of the ordered pairs in the function f are (0,0) (because 0^2=0), (1,1) (because 1^2=1), and (-2,4) (because (-2)^2=4). on this 'level', notice how this set of ordered pairs is static and it doesn't change. sure, you can swap the ordering of the ordered pairs around, but the result is considered the same set of ordered pairs by convention. so, by this convention of constancy, any function is actually constant. whether a function is constant depends on your perspective.

    i think there's an analogy here between what happens with functions and what's true about reality in general. by one convention, it 'obviously' changes and there is a perception of time which 'explains' why it changes and then there is another convention by which reality doesn't change, only our awareness of it changes. our awareness of it changes on a totally nonlinear, non-sequential basis, ultimately. in a sense, awareness shifts in a domain not subject to the passage of time. it's like a dvd-disc. it has a movie on it which appears to change over time as the laser beam moves along the disc but the whole contents of the disc are static and not changing. the characters in the movie even seem to have individual personalities and even free will, though the truth is that they are bound by the script, a script which the actors choose to act out in their own way with their own style. the disc is reality and the laser beam is awareness. in truth, the laser beam is not separate from the disc and it is self awareness.

    by 'form' i refer to my own loose interpretation of what plato meant by the word 'form.' some authors use form as the exact opposite meaning such as saying form is what you can touch and taste and even x-rays and neutrinos. form is space, matter, and energy. the way i meant form was a kind of abstraction of the cup. the concept of a cup is its form; the 'cupness', the qualia of cupness, so to speak, is what i meant when i wrote that the physical cup is a reflection of the 'form' of a cup. but they are mutual reflections of each other in a kind of symmetric way. i refer to these as concretes and abstracts. most things have both an abstract component and a concrete component. other authors would say the concrete component is the form while plato might say the abstract component is the form. in the first case, the abstract component is formlessness. the concrete-only view is hollow; the concrete is contained in the abstract.

    to me, the word 'spirit' is what i call an abstract. there's nothing supernatural about it though it isn't concrete. i think that evolutionarily we haven't 'needed' to develop a 'sight' of abstracts, universally speaking, because we didn't need to in order to survive. though for one reason or another, people have been thinking about this stuff and finally writing it down for millenia. it does seem, however, that only recently, within the last century or two, have people been attempting to synthesize it 'all.' i write that though my knowledge of history is very poor, especially the history of spiritual thought.

    i wrote about these things from the higher self perspective in a way similar to how you did and realized that 'i' was reinventing the wheel; a ton of people before me have come to the same conclusions and it really seems like there is something we all can tap into, a source of it all, that 'produces' this. call it consciousness itself if you will. it does not matter what you call the source or how you define it; one can still investigate Its properties.

    may your journey be graceful,
  21. Feb 5, 2004 #20
    Re: question for canute

    I was suggesting that not only is there a single finite explanation of existence but that we can know for certain what is is.

    However I doubt that I can explain this coherently without writing a weighty tome. The explanation wanders across around all over the place and is unprovable ex hypothesis. I'd find easier to respond to specific questions or objections.

    Fundamentally this view is based on a synthesis of 'non-dual' epistemology and ontology with a little bit of personal experience thrown in. It makes sense to me but perhaps I've missed something.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook