Dubstepforum.com

"The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image. In the 1990s physicists Leonard Susskind and Nobel prizewinner Gerard 't Hooft suggested that the same principle might apply to the universe as a whole. Our everyday experience might itself be a holographic projection of physical processes that take place on a distant, 2D surface."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... tml?page=1


A bit like this

I've read the theory before, its interesting but it's still *just* a theory. So i'm sticking with being a 3 dimensional cross section of the 4th for now.

A take on the brain in the vat, init/

Interesting.

firky wrote:A take on the brain in the vat, init/

Hmm, I'm not sure they're the same. Descarte's brain in a vat was a pure thought experiment and was concerned with intelligence/experience.. not existance... it also had no hope of working out it was a brain in a vat due to the assumption that the evidence for being a brain in a vat was being observed by.... a brain in a vat.

This isn't just about intelligence/sentience is it? It's about existance full-stop... it's wouldn't be your brain that's doing the translating of the hologram (as it would have been doing in the vat), but your brain is part of the hologram too... and, plus, it leaves room for finding conclusive proof, so it's not quite the same sort of proposition.

I wonder about the benefits of pumping cash into thought like this when we seem so far off providing real answers... although they might be making very educated guesses, it does still seem to be guesswork with some not offering much more basis than "religious thought" occasionally. At least with Descartes, he was using logic to understand Truths about human existance... this seems less fruitful for humanity at the moment?

If it is, then WTF is going on in the holograms on our bank cards

The world is actually 1D. You just haven't realised yet. I am not here, you are dead and the devil controls the world from a small air pocket in the centre of the earth.

Some days i feel kinda 2D, maybe the light wasn't bouncing properly.

I wouldnt be surprised if some of the galaxy's are holograms, they look pretty fake.

no.

WhosZena? wrote:Some days i feel kinda 2D, maybe the light wasn't bouncing properly.

I wouldnt be surprised if some of the galaxy's are holograms, they look pretty fake.

It might sound nutty, but the Planck mission that's going to start reporting in the next couple of years is looking for pretty similar ideas to that. The initial thinking is that our view of the universe might actually be getting reflected and duplicated.. possibly over and over, making it appear as though there are trillions of pretty similar looking galaxies when there are actually a lot less.

magma wrote:

firky wrote:A take on the brain in the vat, init/

Hmm, I'm not sure they're the same.

I never said they were. I said it was a take, i.e. the physical world what we see is an illusion of sorts.After that you go into the I behind the I in a Russel kind of way.

firky wrote:

magma wrote:

firky wrote:A take on the brain in the vat, init/

Hmm, I'm not sure they're the same.

I never said they were. I said it was a take, i.e. the physical world what we see is an illusion of sorts.

But that's my point... it's not really a "take" at all. The Matrix or The Lawnmower Man is a "take" on brain in a vat... this just happens to be coincidentally similar. However abstract it might seem, it's at least partially grounded in real data rather than being a "problem" cooked up in someone's head for the benefit of testing logic or entertainment.

Well, there's a fine line between the two in my universe anyway!

magma wrote:I wonder about the benefits of pumping cash into thought like this when we seem so far off providing real answers... although they might be making very educated guesses, it does still seem to be guesswork with some not offering much more basis than "religious thought" occasionally. At least with Descartes, he was using logic to understand Truths about human existance... this seems less fruitful for humanity at the moment?

I think that if the theory were true, it may have more immediate (read: useful) consequences for us technologically than, say, string theory. We'd probably come up with all sorts of new ways to encode data. Also, this theory would be much easier to prove (or disprove as may be the case) than string theory.

magma wrote:

WhosZena? wrote:Some days i feel kinda 2D, maybe the light wasn't bouncing properly.

I wouldnt be surprised if some of the galaxy's are holograms, they look pretty fake.

It might sound nutty, but the Planck mission that's going to start reporting in the next couple of years is looking for pretty similar ideas to that. The initial thinking is that our view of the universe might actually be getting reflected and duplicated.. possibly over and over, making it appear as though there are trillions of pretty similar looking galaxies when there are actually a lot less.

It will be interesting to see if they can prove anything. I think they are onto something.

magma wrote:

firky wrote:

magma wrote:

firky wrote:A take on the brain in the vat, init/

Hmm, I'm not sure they're the same.

I never said they were. I said it was a take, i.e. the physical world what we see is an illusion of sorts.

But that's my point... it's not really a "take" at all. The Matrix or The Lawnmower Man is a "take" on brain in a vat... this just happens to be coincidentally similar. However abstract it might seem, it's at least partially grounded in real data rather than being a "problem" cooked up in someone's head for the benefit of testing logic or entertainment.

Well, there's a fine line between the two in my universe anyway!

Aye, I see what you're getting at, indeed I came up with the brain in the jar long before I heard of Mr. Des' or Mr. Russel for that matter (has there ever been a hash smoking teenager who hasn't). it doesn't take a great deal of thinking to think about what is behind the self. I could have said the Matrix, or even to some extend to the Parable of the Cave, what I was really getting at is that it's not a new concept as such. It's an ancient theory with some science (albeit largely theory) behind it.

How do we know the real world is real when it is in a constant state of flux, blah, blah, blah? It's a question, theory and argument that has been around long before this study. As long as humans were concious of themselves anyway. Personally I think there's more important things to piss away money on than this, such as oohh I don't know, earth quake prediction, renewable energy etc. Rather than the luxury of philosophical debate and theories. There's very little difference between the hairy end of physics and philosophy, lots of bearded people in dusty university offices with ideas and questions far above the human capacity of understanding.

firky wrote:How do we know the real world is real when it is in a constant state of flux, blah, blah, blah? It's a question, theory and argument that has been around long before this study. As long as humans were concious of themselves anyway. Personally I think there's more important things to piss away money on than this, such as oohh I don't know, earth quake prediction, renewable energy etc. Rather than the luxury of philosophical debate and theories. There's very little difference between the hairy end of physics and philosophy, lots of bearded people in dusty university offices with ideas and questions far above the human capacity of understanding.

Yeah, that's what I was driving at with my last paragraph. My housemate is a bit of a techie futorologist and he loves this stuff, but I think maybe it's people getting ahead of themselves... and like you say, the thought/morality side of it isn't anything new.

I guess the idea, though, is that you create theories so you've got things to test for when you run big experiments like the LHC... if they can flesh out these theories well enough to know what the evidence for them is if they saw it, then I guess it's worthwhile?

Until we properly understand the brain, the philosophy side is stuck in the 1700s with the Frenchie... science is a different approach though, Descartes problems and solutions only needed to "add up" in his imagination; this guy's got to try and design a test so the universe can prove him right.

magma wrote:Yeah, that's what I was driving at with my last paragraph. My housemate is a bit of a techie futorologist and he loves this stuff, but I think maybe it's people getting ahead of themselves... and like you say, the thought/morality side of it isn't anything new.

I love this sort of stuff because it's the unexplored frontier, the unknown. It's only (technically) a little further step from when the first proto-humans thought to themselves "Oo. Mountain. What's on other side". Sometimes it makes sense to stay put where you are, get the family sorted. Other times, it makes sense to wander about in case you find something new and valuable. The best is when there are people who like to sort out the homeground combined with people who want to venture out. The problem these days is that there aren't enough people who want to do either, instead they just pass on the buck and do fuck all.

Generally, cosmology has very little "payback" to humanity. But, the basic principles that have been developed in the search for cosmological truths have given us some pretty nifty advances that are used every day. Law of Gravitation. Theory of Electromagnetism. Theory of Relativity. The Laws of Thermodynamics. Practically everything we do these days makes use of these laws in one form or another. Finding out the truth about the fundamental building blocks of nature definitely falls within the heading of "Really Useful Things to Know". Working out whether the Universe will continue expanding or eventually collapse, on the other hand, falls into the category "Neat, but it's probably not gonna change my life". Working out how long it will take before the Sun starts ballooning into a red giant could fall into either category, depending on how close you are to that point in time.

kay wrote:

magma wrote:Yeah, that's what I was driving at with my last paragraph. My housemate is a bit of a techie futorologist and he loves this stuff, but I think maybe it's people getting ahead of themselves... and like you say, the thought/morality side of it isn't anything new.

I love this sort of stuff because it's the unexplored frontier, the unknown. It's only (technically) a little further step from when the first proto-humans thought to themselves "Oo. Mountain. What's on other side". Sometimes it makes sense to stay put where you are, get the family sorted. Other times, it makes sense to wander about in case you find something new and valuable. The best is when there are people who like to sort out the homeground combined with people who want to venture out. The problem these days is that there aren't enough people who want to do either, instead they just pass on the buck and do fuck all.

Generally, cosmology has very little "payback" to humanity. But, the basic principles that have been developed in the search for cosmological truths have given us some pretty nifty advances that are used every day. Law of Gravitation. Theory of Electromagnetism. Theory of Relativity. The Laws of Thermodynamics. Practically everything we do these days makes use of these laws in one form or another. Finding out the truth about the fundamental building blocks of nature definitely falls within the heading of "Really Useful Things to Know". Working out whether the Universe will continue expanding or eventually collapse, on the other hand, falls into the category "Neat, but it's probably not gonna change my life". Working out how long it will take before the Sun starts ballooning into a red giant could fall into either category, depending on how close you are to that point in time.

Classy thoughts! Interesting brains!

kay wrote:Generally, cosmology has very little "payback" to humanity. But, the basic principles that have been developed in the search for cosmological truths have given us some pretty nifty advances that are used every day. Law of Gravitation. Theory of Electromagnetism. Theory of Relativity. The Laws of Thermodynamics. Practically everything we do these days makes use of these laws in one form or another. Finding out the truth about the fundamental building blocks of nature definitely falls within the heading of "Really Useful Things to Know". Working out whether the Universe will continue expanding or eventually collapse, on the other hand, falls into the category "Neat, but it's probably not gonna change my life". Working out how long it will take before the Sun starts ballooning into a red giant could fall into either category, depending on how close you are to that point in time.

Totally agree. I guess the trick is in the balance. "Wondering" doesn't strike me as worthy of public investment at this point in time (though it's wonderful to do on your own and may result in a happy life and/or the publishing of brilliant books)... but educated guesswork backed by the possibility of experimental proof... that's definitely worth throwing money at.

Gaining knowledge for the species is always beneficial (even if that knowledge leads to things like Nukes)... I can't remember which Astronaut it was said it when he was on the Moon:

"As I stand out here in the wonders of the unknown at Hadley, I sort of realise there's a fundamental truth to our nature: Man must explore. And this is exploration at its greatest."

magma wrote:

kay wrote:Generally, cosmology has very little "payback" to humanity. But, the basic principles that have been developed in the search for cosmological truths have given us some pretty nifty advances that are used every day. Law of Gravitation. Theory of Electromagnetism. Theory of Relativity. The Laws of Thermodynamics. Practically everything we do these days makes use of these laws in one form or another. Finding out the truth about the fundamental building blocks of nature definitely falls within the heading of "Really Useful Things to Know". Working out whether the Universe will continue expanding or eventually collapse, on the other hand, falls into the category "Neat, but it's probably not gonna change my life". Working out how long it will take before the Sun starts ballooning into a red giant could fall into either category, depending on how close you are to that point in time.

Totally agree. I guess the trick is in the balance. "Wondering" doesn't strike me as worthy of public investment at this point in time (though it's wonderful to do on your own and may result in a happy life and/or the publishing of brilliant books)... but educated guesswork backed by the possibility of experimental proof... that's definitely worth throwing money at.

Gaining knowledge for the species is always beneficial (even if that knowledge leads to things like Nukes)... I can't remember which Astronaut it was said it when he was on the Moon:

"As I stand out here in the wonders of the unknown at Hadley, I sort of realise there's a fundamental truth to our nature: Man must explore. And this is exploration at its greatest."

Don't diss war! Man's greatest thought is on how to devise ways to kill each other, though serendepity gives us wonderful things such as the microwave, sterile water, medicines etc