Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
Hang on there a second, you mean to tell me that the universe could be a holographic projection? : science
Welcome to /r/science!
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
First off, "duh".
"holographic universe" was published 18 years ago.
Pop cosmology is a little ahead of the hard science (tho a little wrong, a lot of the time).
second, WTF?
They've found new physics at the planck length?
This scares the shit out of me b/c we all know that new physics usually leads to new bombs.
And sooner, rather than later...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That new physics usually leads to new bombs.
And sooner, rather than later...
Well, the two big bombs that did explode on civilians stopped a war, and brought so much fear that it prevented the Cold War to become a real war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The press badly need terrorists right now, to help sell newspapers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Am I the only one deeply annoyed when people talk about the Atomic bombs in such a flippant way?
We're the only fuckin country to ever use them (on a civilian population, no fuckin less) and all we do is talk about how we can't allow anyone to have them because it'd be dangerous.
You (mostly) hairless apes really piss me off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We're the only fuckin country to ever use them
Maybe you are from that country.
I'm not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Keep your stinking hands off me ape".
Which movie?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worse: whatever you see is a projection onto your two-dimensional retina.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolation: most of us have two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great, real life is just like the Star Ocean games.
I wonder who I'm an avatar for...
And why he refuses to read the player's guide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's an infinite number of things the universe could be, but when they don't provide testable hypotheses they aren't scientifically valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just read, "Nigh-Sea Journey" by John Barth, blew my mind to find out what he was really talking about and why.
My concept of "universe" is much more complex now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well he seems to have done something of this order : he apparently computed how his vision of the nature of the universe could generate a particular signal detected by the GWD, then sent it to the GWD where scientist had persistent problem with "noise" that they recognized as very close to the signal described by Hogan.
So from this account he devised an hypothesis that seems to be verified (plausibly given the limit of precision of the GWD).
Now of course we lack elements and this is hardly conclusive : did Hogan know of this noise beforehand, did he make his calculation available and were they checked by the scientific community, can this noise be explained in other theories less radical, ...
But I wouldn't say that this article is completely groundless from a scientific point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed. There's a word for these blue-sky "it could be that..." imaginings.
"Not even wrong."
As in, it makes no testable predictions, and thus is immune to both disproof and proof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't worded exactly correctly, in my humble opinion.
If they don't provide physically testable hypotheses, they aren't physics - but they can still be science.
The scientific method distinguishes hypothesis from predictions quite well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could you provide an example?
Maybe you were thinking of mathematics.
A new idea might would still show a way of solving a problem or answering a question, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quantum Physics entanglement is what leads to the holographic theory.
Http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AIPC..573...98B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I think therefore I am." - Descartes
After going back and forth with the philosophers debate about are we real, or are we projections.
Is our universe the real universe or the shadow of another, is it our universe that casts the shadow we see as real...
Yeah, Descartes finally said screw all of you.
We're real, or it's pointless to go on living.
So assume you're real, "I think therefore I am." and get on with yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descartes finally said screw all of you.
We're real, or it's pointless to go on living
I've always interpreted this to mean that we're real, in some sense, because we are having experiences.
I.e. Even if we are holographic projections or "brains in a jar", we're real holographic projections or brains in a jar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We're real holographic projections or brains in a jar.
It can be interpreted that way.
The bottom line is simply that given what we perceive as reality, we must treat it as reality and not as some representation of it where our thoughts or actions do not matter.
Even if it does turn out that we're all figments of some greater beings imagination, we have no way of ever determining that.
So we must live our lives and make our choices and investigations on the basis that we (And our observable universe) are real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|