Holographic Universe

[Jorune]

I love this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdF10MsS6Os

It's interesting stuff to ponder and think about it (with the realization that we can only take it with a grain of salt since there is so little we actually know).

Jorune

ps. Hit the closed caption button to get rid of double lower thirds (red CC button).

[Erlend Grefsrud]

Quotes Robert Anton Wilson, even. He's the fucker who led me down this rabbit hole in the first place and tricked me into maybe possibly understanding that we're all really arguing over nothing and that everything is one process all happening at once in a singular non-space interpreted into an apparent structure whose form is determined by our sensory organs and biological processing bias so that we contain ourselves and the universe.

The recursion is killing me, though, and my social life has suffered greatly ever since I started seeing strangely coherent particle clouds where there were angry robots before.

[Dan_Theman]

I tried explaining to my son that when he dropped his pencil, it was actually the curviture of space-time that brought it from hand to desk. His reply was "No, it was that I was bored with homework."

Touché, mon fils.

PS - awesome video, btw

[asspennies]

The video starts out with real physics and moves into pseudo-scientific claptrap. This is no better than "What the bleep do we know?" or any of those other quasi-mystical 'quantum physics as religious philosophy" nonsense.

We have models - they're very good at predicting quantum events. We have very interesting and creative math that gives us ways of describing things in non-relatable ways. But none of that math is or should be considered anything more than philosophy. As Feynman so eloquently said, "It doesn't matter how beautiful it is, it doesn't matter who wrote it, How smart he is...if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong."

And if you can't do an experiment, it's not science.

Right now our picture of reality is probably a lot like Ptolemy's picture of the solar system. Epicycles within epicycles, needlessly complicated, but when you put it all together, it works rather well. We should all be happy with that and interested in exploring further. But let's not fall down the trap of thinking we've either got it all figured out, or that we can't learn any further, or, worst of all, that we can abandon experiment altogether and just start sketching out the world on a blackboard.

[Jorune]

The video starts out with real physics and moves into pseudo-scientific claptrap. This is no better than "What the bleep do we know?" or any of those other quasi-mystical 'quantum physics as religious philosophy" nonsense.

We have models - they're very good at predicting quantum events. We have very interesting and creative math that gives us ways of describing things in non-relatable ways. But none of that math is or should be considered anything more than philosophy. As Feynman so eloquently said, "It doesn't matter how beautiful it is, it doesn't matter who wrote it, How smart he is...if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong."

And if you can't do an experiment, it's not science.

Right now our picture of reality is probably a lot like Ptolemy's picture of the solar system. Epicycles within epicycles, needlessly complicated, but when you put it all together, it works rather well. We should all be happy with that and interested in exploring further. But let's not fall down the trap of thinking we've either got it all figured out, or that we can't learn any further, or, worst of all, that we can abandon experiment altogether and just start sketching out the world on a blackboard.

Hmmm...what part of 'take it with a grain of salt' didn't you get?

Also, you seem to believe that science is the ONLY source of knowledge to be trusted, even though it in of itself is flawed. There are a great many things that we CANNOT prove through experiment, though we know it to be true.

There are 2 types of people who scare me; those that hold tight to their scriptures and those who hold tight to their experiments.

Two quotes from A. Einstein:

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

Jorune

[MattKeil]

Also, you seem to believe that science is the ONLY source of knowledge to be trusted, even though it in of itself is flawed. There are a great many things that we CANNOT prove through experiment, though we know it to be true.

Uh...like what?

[Lunch of Kong]

Also, you seem to believe that science is the ONLY source of knowledge to be trusted, even though it in of itself is flawed. There are a great many things that we CANNOT prove through experiment, though we know it to be true.

*gets popcorn*

[Ergo]

Yeah, I'd like to hear some of these things we know to be true but can't prove.

[Erlend Grefsrud]

Read some psychology and report back. Can't really deny a lot of the (admittedly occasionally wishy-washy) observations and statements made by Freud and Jung, yet they can't be proven.

You can just discount psychology as a whole because it's a hermeneutic rather than empirical science, but then how come the ideas and principles seem to work so well even when directly applied?

[chequers]

Read some psychology and report back. Can't really deny a lot of the (admittedly occasionally wishy-washy) observations and statements made by Freud and Jung, yet they can't be proven.

You can just discount psychology as a whole because it's a hermeneutic rather than empirical science, but then how come the ideas and principles seem to work so well even when directly applied?

STILL NOT A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE

[MattKeil]

Read some psychology and report back. Can't really deny a lot of the (admittedly occasionally wishy-washy) observations and statements made by Freud and Jung, yet they can't be proven.

What exactly cannot be denied that cannot be proven? Because I guarantee that if you can't prove it, I can deny it.

[PapaSmurf]

Fermat's last theorem was pretty obvious but couldn't be proved until recently.

Pretty sure the twin prime conjecture hasn't been proven yet.

[MattKeil]

Mathematical proofs aren't the same thing as scientific proof, unless I am greatly mistaken.

[PapaSmurf]

OK:

Ignoring biological (and controversial ones) like evolution, there's even the big bang theory. To make it fit our observations - and even make the universe's behavior fit into our known physics - we've had to come up with dark matter and dark energy. It sounds like bad science fiction.

Dark energy right now is little more than the cosmological constant that physicists mocked Einstein for (though his was used for a different purpose that doesn't fit current observations).

Seriously, when you get down to real theoretical science exploring what we don't know about - as opposed to overglorified engineers fiddling with what we do know about - you start crossing the boundary between science and philosophy very quickly.

[MattKeil]

And if any of what you listed was held by science to be "true" and not a hypothesis still undergoing testing, that would fit the bill. But it isn't, so it doesn't.

It's probably worth pointing out that science doesn't actually hold anything to be incontrovertibly true, which is really the most absurd aspect of Jorune's original comment. Science can be pretty damn sure about something, but science is always ready to be wrong at a moment's notice. That's kind of why it's so useful.

[MarchHare]

It's probably worth pointing out that science doesn't actually hold anything to be incontrovertibly true, which is really the most absurd aspect of Jorune's original comment. Science can be pretty damn sure about something, but science is always ready to be wrong at a moment's notice. That's kind of why it's so useful.

Exactly. Since Jorune seems into Einstein quotations, how about this one:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

[kerzain]

I can't prove the holocaust isn't a hoax.

[Jorune]

It's probably worth pointing out that science doesn't actually hold anything to be incontrovertibly true, which is really the most absurd aspect of Jorune's original comment. Science can be pretty damn sure about something, but science is always ready to be wrong at a moment's notice. That's kind of why it's so useful.

I've reread my comment several times, and in no way have I said or even alluded to (as far as I can tell), anything coming close to the idea that I feel science feels it is always right. You may have *thought* that's what I meant, somehow, but no, it's not there. Instead, I warned against taking information solely from what science can prove/disprove.

The idea that The Big Bang Theory is still hypothetical and not scientific fact may be true, but the theory is treated as fact here in the U.S., meaning that they do not teach any alternative theory as far as I am aware (I haven't attended every school, but generally speaking, they don't).

I feel love, but I can not prove scientifically that love exists.

That said, I have no problem engaging in meaningful conversation, but if you gentleman are sharpening claws and getting ready to pounce, don't expect a response. Like I said, I don't hold tight to anything in order to keep my mind open, so please don't think that what you have to say will be falling on deaf ears. If you have something to teach me, I am open to it.


Jorune

[MattKeil]

I've reread my comment several times, and in no way have I said or even alluded to (as far as I can tell), anything coming close to the idea that I feel science feels it is always right. You may have *thought* that's what I meant, somehow, but no, it's not there.

It's definitely part of your comment. You don't understand what "true" means in the realm of science.

The idea that The Big Bang Theory is still hypothetical and not scientific fact may be true, but the theory is treated as fact here in the U.S., meaning that they do not teach any alternative theory as far as I am aware (I haven't attended every school, but generally speaking, they don't).

Because there isn't an alternative theory, really. Something like the Big Bang is almost certainly what happened, we just don't quite understand why/how yet. It's our best guess, no more, no less. No scientist worth his/her salt is going to flatly tell you the Big Bang Theory is 100% correct. For one thing, there are so many conflicting hypotheses related to the details of the Big Bang and how/when it happened that it would be hard to even nail down which version of BBT is supposedly "true."

Also, you're not using the scientific definition of "theory" if you're contrasting it with "fact." Scientific theories are not guesses or facts-in-training.

That said, I have no problem engaging in meaningful conversation, but if you gentleman are sharpening claws and getting ready to pounce, don't expect a response. Like I said, I don't hold tight to anything in order to keep my mind open, so please don't think that what you have to say will be falling on deaf ears. If you have something to teach me, I am open to it.

The most valuable lesson to learn would probably be this - Don't conflate science with guessing, musing, philosophizing, or theology. It is none of those things and is our best tool for exploring and explaining the universe we live in. In short:

[Jorune]

It's definitely part of your comment. You don't understand what "true" means in the realm of science.

I just don't see it in my comment.

The most valuable lesson to learn would probably be this - Don't conflate science with guessing, musing, philosophizing, or theology.

Just to be clear: What I said is that I don't base my beliefs SOLELY in what science has to say, I feel we can find truths in other ways also. Someone merely dismissed the second half of the video because it ventured into non-scientific territory, which I think is a shame. I know the difference between science and "pseudo-scientific claptrap", I just don't dismiss 'the claptrap' out of hand, I feel it is worth thinking and pondering about.

Jorune

[asspennies]

There are 2 types of people who scare me; those that hold tight to their scriptures and those who hold tight to their experiments.

This is a fundamentally false equivalence. I don't mean to impune upon your knowledge or character, but when I see or hear people talking about how science is a religion or vice/versa, or that they can be looked at in the same way, I don't think they know much about either.

Let me explain further. Let's take scripture. If you look around the world today, the "meaning" of that scripture can be radically different depending on if you are in Boise, Kabul, Bangladesh, Moscow, Jerusalem, Miami, Rio, San Diego, etc. In addition, if you go back in time 200 years, the meaning is again different. What scripture means is subject to the wills and whims of the moment and of the current culture.

Now take science. If you take an experiment with the same starting conditions, it doesn't matter where in the world you perform that experiment; the answer is always the same. It also doesn't matter WHEN you perform the experiment. 200 years ago, 500 years from now - the answer is again always going to be the same.

That's why we trust science. We trust science because it doesn't care about your culture or your location or who or even what you are. It just is.

Since you're fond of Einstein quotes, here's a famous one:

"God doesn't play dice."

First of all Einstein was not religious, so his "God" was metaphor. And second of all, he was wrong. (As far as we can tell.)

[Jorune]

This is a fundamentally false equivalence. I don't mean to impune upon your knowledge or character, but when I see or hear people talking about how science is a religion or vice/versa, or that they can be looked at in the same way, I don't think they know much about either.

I guess it's all in the interpretation. I felt that what they were doing in the 2nd half of the video was taking what science has to say on the nature of the Universe and than philosophising on what 'could' be. If somehow this is a 'movement' where people are pushing there beliefs as factual by pointing to scientific claims, than I could see the confusion. But again, I think the video contains some scientific fact, and than A LOT of philosophising.

If there were sub-forums, I would put this in the philosophy category, not the science one.

I'm not sure if it's arguing over semantics, but I also do not think religion and philosophy are in the same category, and I do not believe anyone in the video was pushing a religion of any kind, just a philosophy. But I guess that may be debatable.

Jorune

[Erlend Grefsrud]

STILL NOT A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE

True. I'll see if I can come up with something.

[Lynch]

I can't prove the holocaust isn't a hoax.

No, you can't prove the Holocaust is a hoax. Proving it true (to yourself?) is pretty easy, just visit Central Europe and go for some KZ tour.

[MattKeil]

I just don't see it in my comment.

When you do, you'll have learned why people reacted the way they did to it.

Just to be clear: What I said is that I don't base my beliefs SOLELY in what science has to say, I feel we can find truths in other ways also.

Science doesn't find truth. Science observes and says "This is what we think is happening, but we might be wrong." Using the word "truth" in conjunction with science is generally not a good idea, especially when it comes to things like the subject of the video.

Someone merely dismissed the second half of the video because it ventured into non-scientific territory, which I think is a shame. I know the difference between science and "pseudo-scientific claptrap", I just don't dismiss 'the claptrap' out of hand, I feel it is worth thinking and pondering about.

Why? Certainly it's not something that should be put on the same level as science, a process that has had real and concrete results that have repeatedly benefited humanity over the centuries since the scientific method became commonplace. I mean, I like to speculate on the (non)existence of Bigfoot, but I wouldn't put it in a BBC nature documentary. It doesn't belong. The dismissal of the claptrap is due to their attempt to hold it up next to science and say "This belongs here."

[Jorune]

Science doesn't find truth. Science observes and says "This is what we think is happening, but we might be wrong." Using the word "truth" in conjunction with science is generally not a good idea, especially when it comes to things like the subject of the video.

Instead of truths, how about I feel we can find 'best guesses' as to the nature of things in other ways beyond science. While I wouldn't over rule anything science has to say on a subject, I feel there are certain areas science doesn't venture into because things like philosophy does the job.

Why? Certainly it's not something that should be put on the same level as science, a process that has had real and concrete results that have repeatedly benefited humanity over the centuries since the scientific method became commonplace. I mean, I like to speculate on the (non)existence of Bigfoot, but I wouldn't put it in a BBC nature documentary. It doesn't belong. The dismissal of the claptrap is due to their attempt to hold it up next to science and say "This belongs here."

Again, only if that's how you interpret it. I don't feel they were attempting to hold it up next to science. I think they were just philosophising possibilities, and as opposed to these ideas coming out of there ass', they pointed to science as the seed for these ideas.

And when Papasmurf had some examples, you replied with: "And if any of what you listed was held by science to be "true" and not a hypothesis still undergoing testing, that would fit the bill. But it isn't, so it doesn't."

Papasmurf understood what I meant. That science does engage in hypothesis' that border into philosophy. The idea that another you exists in a parallel universe, hypothesis that needs testing, or clap trap?

Perhaps I made an error in using the word 'truths' in my initial statement, when I should have said something along the lines of 'best guess as to the nature of the universe and ourselves.' When it comes to understanding this place we exist in and the nature of ourselves, I feel science doesn't have all the answers. That's all I meant. And I have no problem looking towards 'clap trap' for other answers.

Jorune

ps. Matt, I do appreciate you keeping it civil. If there's one thing you have taught me, is that in the world of science, choice of words is VERY important. And I do not mean that in a smart ass way.

[asspennies]

The idea that another you exists in a parallel universe, hypothesis that needs testing, or clap trap?

At best, conjecture. To qualify as a hypothesis there needs to be at least some feasible way of testing it.

What this really hits on is a big problem with hep science today. Lee Smolin and Peter Woit have written much better screeds on it than I can, but there's been a real decoupling of experimentation with mathematical theory, and it continues to lead very, very smart and capable people down inexorable rabbit holes.

Think about how scientists rightfully rail against Intelligent Design advocates for saying evolution is "just a theory" and that a scientific theory is a rigorous framework composed of facts, evidence, and tests for falsifiability. This is then trashed when scientists themselves call "String Theory" and "M-Theory" science. They satisfy none of that criteria.

They are theory in the mathematical sense, which is much more associated with the common English interpretation of "theory" as a "guess," but what actual application they have to science is tenuous at best. There appears to be certain interesting roads, such as anti-deSitter Space/Conformal Field Theory correspondence, but nothing that satisfies any sort of falsifiability test in the sense of Popper.

There's some really out there stuff if you ever want to check out the hep section of arXiv.

I agree with you that it qualifies as philosophy. But so does asking how many angels fit on the head of a pin. It's philosophy that ranks as no better than scripture, taking science fact and then twisting it into strange and absurd realms that have no real meaning. You can think about these things all you want, but I agree with Matt and hark on my original point - mixing real Science with claptrap is not a good thing. It leads to Deepok Chopra, Antivaxxers, Intelligent Design, 9/11 truthers, you name it.

The ultimate problem stems from our worm/fish/lizard/monkey brains, all evolved through natural pressures, none of which had anything to do with understanding quantum mechanics. Any interpretation you read that doesn't explicitly point out the mathematics is essentially poetry. As Mermin suggested, sometimes the best recourse is to stop trying to interpret it. "Shut up and calculate."

[Jorune]

You can think about these things all you want, but I agree with Matt and hark on my original point - mixing real Science with claptrap is not a good thing. It leads to Deepok Chopra, Antivaxxers, Intelligent Design, 9/11 truthers, you name it.

Excellent point. I don't mind it being done, but I can see how a 'simpler' mind may interpret what's being said as science and therefore it actually degrades the point of science.

jorune