Gee Mirror, he looks just like you! LOL

If you stop and think about it, String Theory is truly laughable, yet science has taken that idea quite seriously.

I have serious reasons why I feel that String Theory is a total mathematical illusion that holds no genuine counterpart in "reality" (or "actuality" as some people prefer to call it)

For one thing I genuinely accept Quantum Mechanics. String Theory flies in the face of Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics states, in no uncertain terms, that nothing less than Planck's constant has any physical meaning.

Yet, everything in String Theory is presumed to violate this principle because everything in String Theory is way smaller than Planck's Constant.

So in a very real sense the entire discipline of String Theory is nothing more than an elaborate display by scientists that they have not yet genuinely understood or accepted Quantum Mechanics as being valid.

They are fighting against their very own observations and theories.

They cannot accept Quantum Mechanics. Which is truly silly. They are demanding that something lies "beneath it" that can potentially "explain it".

Where do they think the bus stops? Do they think that String Theory would then "explain itself".

They are determined to cling to a physical actuality at all cost! And it's no wonder, because that's what that part of science does. That's why it's called PHYSICS.

Physics postulates that the universe is physical, and it clings to that tenatiously refusing to let go of it in spite of it's very own observationa and theory of Quantum Mechanics.

In fact, Quantum Mechanics is indeed not being taken seriously by the scientific community. Quantum Mechanics demands tht this unvierse is quantized and not a continuum. Yet, physicists are still using a mathematics that based on the idea of a continuum!

I'm thinking this holographic model of the unvierse might actually be where scientists should be putting their efforts, instead of wasting their time modeling imaginary strings that Quantum Mechanics itself rules out.

Its been a slippery slope into math-for-its-own-sake for phycisists for a while.

I don't disagree, but eventually the string theorists will have to come back to experimental results.




Well, I think that eventually even QM will be viewed as a quaint, temporary model. Could be wrong of course.




Which "holographic model"?


Edit: ... the one where we take as axiomatic that every particle contains all the information of the universe?

I'm sure a lot of people feel that way. Including mainstream scientists.

But that was what the whole debate between Einstein and Bohr was all about. Einstein argued that QM cannot be complete, Bohr argued that it is complete.

Einstein kept coming up with potential violations of the theory, and Bohr always, without fail, showed the flaw in Einstein's thinking. We think of Einstein as the genius, but in truth Bohr was far more intelligent.

Bohr shot down every objection that Einstein could raise. Bohr showed the flaws in Einstein's thinking and explained why QM holds in every scenario. The EPR experiment became a stalemate. Bohr gave his explanation for it, but could not 'prove' it.

However, later on, John Stewart Bell eventually did prove that Bohr was indeed right. Even though Bell was actually trying to side with Einstein!

Thank goodness that Bell was open-minded enough to recognize that Bohr was indeed right.

So why anyone is still refusing to accept QM is beyond me.




Well, that's just it. I don't think mainstream science even has an official theory. They're too busy trying to prove that QM is wrong.

Really? What kind of device would that be, and what kind of "field" are you talking about?

I don't think its "truly silly." Yes, it appears that Bohr's idea of quantum mechanics is the accepted one. But even Einstein and Bohm felt there was something more. So do I. I don't think quantum mechanics as it stands is complete. I'm going to have to side with Bohm and Einstein on this.

Um... I think you are speaking of a different kind of criticism/objection here. I am neither smart enough nor sufficiently well informed to have a position on that debate - but I am fortunate enough to have been exposed to QM ideas - and the results many years of humans wrestling with those ideas - before becoming overly committed to a particular worldview. So I do not 'reject' QM on any of these basises (basii?).... my reason for suspecting it will one day be considered quaint is based on the entire history of science and philosophy. I could be wrong, because this could be one of those rare exceptions to the trend.

Its a hard disk, and the fields are magnetic fields.

Every electric, magnetic, and (if you believe in them) gravitational field encodes some degree of information about the system which gives rise to the field.

You can encode information in light, by selective polarization - thus the angle of the electric and magnetic fields encode information.

I copied the text you pasted here, and pasted it into google, and skimmed some of the websites that host the same text. Really, a lot of the stuff associated with a 'holographic universe model' on those web sites is basic, accepted physics - its just dressed up to seem a little more fun and exciting. Actual physics is every bit as fun and exciting.

Well, it's a confusing issue to be sure. I side with Bohr because I understand what Bohr is saying. He's not saying that there is nothing 'beneath' QM. What he's saying is that whatever is beneath QM is not going to be explained via the normal ideas of physics that we are attempting to push onto it.

QM basically says, "The buck stops here in terms of an idea of quantity". That's the whole idea behind 'quantum' phsyics. It's saying that the physical aspect of reality is indeed quantized, and that Planck's constant is the limit of that quantized nature.

Perhaps on the otherside of the quantum veil there exists a true continuum. But it doesn't exist on this side of the veil. Moreover, mathematics would be useless in a 'true continuum'.

I need to write a book. Really I do.

There is a lot of respect for David Bohm's intelligence and expertise in the area of quantum mechanics, but most physicists are skeptical of his ideas.

The opinion of Boston University physicist Abner Shimony is representative of this view. He said "I'm afraid I just don't understand his theory. It is certainly a metaphor and the question is how literally to take the metaphor. Still, he has really thought very deeply about the matter and I think he's done a tremendous service by bringing these question to the forefront of physic's research insteadof just having them swept under the rug. He's been a courageous, daring and imaginative man."

There are also physicists who are sympathetic to Bohm's ideas, including such big guns as Roger Penrose of Oxford, the creator of the modern theory of the black hole; Bernard d'Espagnat of the university of Paris, one of the world's leading authorities on the conceptual foundations of quantum theory; and Cambridge's Brian Josephson, winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in physics. Josephson believes Bohms' implicate order may someday even lead to the inclusion of "Mind" or "God" within the framework of science, an idea Josephson supports. If so, the idea of an intelligent designer could be a consideration of science.

Considered together, Karl Pribram and David Bohm's theories provide a profound new way of looking at the world. Our brains mathematically construct objective reality by interpreting frequencies that are ultmately projections from another dimension, a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time: The brain is a hologram enfolded in a holographic universe.

A number of tantalizing findings in physics suggest that Bohm may be correct. Even disregarding the implicate sea of energy, space is filled with light and other electromagnetic waves that constantly crisscross and interfere with one another. As we have seen, all particles are also waves. This means that physical objects and everything else dwe perceive in reality are composed of interference patterns, a fact that has undeniable holographic implications.

Karl Pribram was a neurophysiologist at Stanford University and author of the classic neuropsysiologist textbook "Languages of the Brain." Karl Pribram and David Bohm arrived at their conclusions independently and while working from two very different directions.

Bohm became convinced of the universe's holographic nature only after years of dissatisfaction with standard theories inability to explain all of the phenomena encountered in quantum physics. Pribram became convinced because of the failure of standard theories of the brain to explain various neurophysiological puzzles.

However, after arriving at their view, Bohm and Pribram quickly realized the holographic model explained a number of other mysteries as well, including the apparent inability of any theory, no matter how comprehensive, ever to account for all the phenomena encountered in nature; the ability of individuals with hearing in only one ear to determine the direction from which a sound originates; and our ability recognize the face of someone we have not seen for many years even if that person has changed considerably in the interim.

But the most staggering thing about the holographic model was that it suddenly made sense of a wide range of phenomena so elusive they generally have been categorized outside the province of scientific understanding. These include telepathy, precognition, mystical feelings of oneness with the universe, and even psychokinesis, or the ability of the mind to move physical objects without anyone touching them.

Indeed, it quickly became apparent to the ever growing number of scientists who came to embrace the holographic model that it helped explain virtually all paranormal and mystical experiences, it has continued to galvanize researchers and shed light on an increasing number of previously inexplicable phenomena.

For more information about David Bohm:

Catalogue of the papers and correspondence of David Joseph Bohm FRS (1917-1992), physicist

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=1832-ncuacs66497&cid=-1#-1

Well I have to agree that stated that way, quantum mechanics could very well be the bottom of the physical universe.

But is there more than the physical universe? If you are satisfied stopping there, then okay.

I guess some people aren't satisfied stopping there. They want to get out of the box.

Bohr is still in the box.

I’m not sure if we are talking about the same premise.

If the premise you’re talking about is “That there is no such thing as disorder, at all, ever?” Then I don’t think we are. At least, I wouldn’t state it that way.

I would state it this way: “Order is always relative.”

In other words, order, by it’s very definition, is all about the relationships between components.

But that’s not all of it.

There must also be a third party (call it “the observer”) to assign the quality of order to those relationships.

Look at it this way: If there is only one observer and one object, the property of “order” cannot be applied at all. And if there are two objects, but no observer, then there is nothing to assign the property of “order”. Thus, order is a function of the observer, not an inherent property of the system itself.

So the way I see it, the “deeper order of existence”, is not so much an “orderly system” as it is a viewpoint of systems.

And that viewpoint is “I”. (Bohm and Hubbard use the Greek symbol “theta” to represent it.)

In Bohm’s parlance, it could be labeled “that which unfolds things” – or “that which causes things to unfold”.)

Yes, I agree. The offhand dismissal of contrary viewpoints (i.e. “my viewpoint is right and anything contrary to it is wrong”) always leads to problems.

And interestingly enough, I see this theory as being the resolution to that problem. It really says that all viewpoints are true because ultimate truth is the aggregate of all viewpoints.

This is all very difficult to put into English. It all sounds to esoteric. But it is really no different from the “complementarity” we see in QM - how can a single thing have two apparently contradictory properties at the same time? The only logical explanation is that either 1) there are really two things and not one, or 2) the properties are not truly contradictory. And since we have already decided that there is only one thing, all that’s left is that the two properties are not truly contradictory. Which leads directly to the conclusion of a “deeper order of existence” where “the observer” is the source of the contradiction.

I would be interested to see what sites you came up with since I did not "paste" anything in. I hand typed all of it, but I did copy a lot of it from "The Holographic Universe" book and rearranged some of it, just picking out the main points I wanted to make.

I Just did the same thing and found one of my favorite philosophy sites:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-David-Bohm-Holographic-Universe.htm

I had lost track of that site. I love that site.

Why is this so hard for you to believe? I don't know if there is any truth to it, but it IS how holograms work. If the "deeper implicate order has no time or space or location (Everything Here and NOw) then all information would logical HAVE to be in the same "quantum" unit or atom.

JB,

Please accept my apologies for making an assumption about your actions. It never occured to me that you might type all that from paper - I hardly even use paper in my life, except for 'todo lists', (except where required by work). I even copy-paste maps and directions to jpgs to carry on a pda.

I'll take the lazy route and leave it up to anyone who is interested - they can copy-and-paste, as you just did, from your posts into google and see more sites that deal with the topic.

Why do you assume that it is hard for me to believe?

This conversation does not involve my beliefs about reality, at all. It does involve my beliefs about the beliefs of physicist, the system they use to arrive at their beliefs, the degree of understanding (and mis-understanding) certain enthusiasts have of the process, and how they mis-represent the beliefs of physicist to bolster their own views.

My actual opinions and beliefs (as positive assertions) about the nature of reality itself has not entered the conversation; in fact, I've made it clear that I consider 'current scientific beliefs' to be limited.



I'm sorry, JB, but it is not true that this idea is a reflection of 'how holograms work'. The idea that an individual electron might contain all the information in the universe is what one gets when they take ONE quality of holograms to an absurd extreme, while selective ignoring OTHER qualities of holograms. I explained this earlier in this thread. ACTUAL holograms do disperse information throughout the hologram, but NOT with infinite information density. If you break the hologram and throw half away, you LOSE information - just not as linearly as you would lose it in more conventional images.

I do not hold that the materialistic beliefs of modern scientist represents the true nature of reality. But I do hold that many, many people commit a large number of logical fallacies and gross mis-representation of fact in their effort to co-op the beliefs of physicists to justify their beliefs.

I find it far more respectable for someone to say 'this which I claim is outside of the domain of science' than to engage in those kinds of mis-representations.

I expect Abra's video will talk about information being encoded in a dispersed quasi-holographic manner near black holes. I expect no claims would be made of 'infinite information density' (though I wouldn't rule it out completely, as such weird 'infinity-related' things happen as one approaches a singularity).

These ideas do not direct support or require that any other idea related to a 'holographic universe' is true. This is in NO WAY a statement about the plausibility of a holographic universe, it is only a statement about how different claims are related to each other.

Abra has commented in this thread on QM providing a veil, akin to 'this is as low as you can go'. You've suggested that there is 'more' beyond that. I think this is great. In that exchange, it was clear 'that which is evidenced based' and 'that which may be'. Scientific investigation shows us how much we don't know, leaving plenty of room for what may be.

My main motivation here is to keep claims about 'what physical theories and evidences truly supports' from being dishonest.

This does not invalidate speculations that go beyond the evidence.




God is in everything.

Why would you say that Bohr is still in the box?

I can't honestly say that I know precisely where Bohr stands on the issue of 'true nature' of reality. I haven't really studied Bohr's biography (perhaps I should).

But all I see Bohr doing is telling physicsts that the buck stops at QM in terms of how physics goes about determining the nature of reality.

I have no clue what Bohr might actually think about the true nature of reality in general. So whether he's still in the box or out of it I can't say.

I think he might have taken a very pragmatic view and basically said something along the lines of the following:

(this is just me guess what he might be thinking)

"Look, QM is the bottom level of the science of physics. So let's not get into philosophical guessing about what lies beyond it and just move forward to see how we can apply this knowledge to techology"

IF that was his position then all he's truly saying is, "Hey look, I'm not interested in philosophy, I'm interested in technology. So let's realize this is what we have to work with and just work with it"

To me, that's not 'remaining' in the box. It's just accepting that we are indeed in the box. And so he's content with living within those restrictions. He's simply not interested in your unprovable and unverifiable "guesses" about what the true nature of reality might be.

What he's recognized is that anything beyond the quantum veil is indeed unprovable and unverifiable from this side of the veil (at least in terms of the scientific method). So he's willing to accept that fact.

That's about as practical as it gets doncha think?

Well I'm glad we cleared that up before spinning wheels discussing a misunderstanding!



This is what my 'commons sense' suggests to me, and I always found solving problems with entropy to be very weird, because of it. Have you taken science classes in which you can to calculate the change in enthalpy of a system?

AFAIK, there might indeed be an objective approach to 'measuring order' - as equally as 'measuring total energy'. You can get philosophic and say that ALL measurement of anything requires an observer - but thats unrelated to the degree of subjectivity which we intuitively view 'order'.




I'm familiar with the argument.



Even established physics is difficult to put into English... but this sounds like it goes beyond evidence-based physics.

As I see it, the problem is that, unlike “energy”, “order” is inherently subjective. There is no machine or device that can “detect order”.

Yes, there are things like “pattern recognition” software that can nominally “recognize order”. But even in those cases, the parameters of “order” are dependent on the programmer.

So it’s not so much that “measurement requires an observer” as it is “order requires a viewpoint”.

No doubt about that at all. That is inherent in the “What if?”. It’s simply the difference between deductive and inductive logic.