Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ketzer
The holographic principal is a rather bizarre one to take in at first. But once one remembers that regardless of whether that universe, which is thought to be out there, is holographic in nature (if it exists out there at all :), the universe we live in is the holographic one created by our brain.
I find it interesting that the human brain must fold the cerebral cortex into so many contortions because its power to process information is correlated not to its volume, but to its surface area. Which is interesting because the maximum amount if information that can be contained in any give volume of space, is also proportional not to the volume, but to it's surface area. Which is interesting because if that volume is a sphere, and the information is actually at its maximum density, then its radius will be determined by the Bekenstein bound, which is the radius that a black hole will have. So blackholes are places in the universe which contain a maximum density of information, but that density, and hence the corresponding volume is determined by a two dimensional surface area, not the three dimensional volume as intuition would expect (not to mention places where that information is no longer accessible to us). Which is interesting because holograms are three dimensional illusions, created from two dimensional surfaces. Which circles back around to our own brains, which compute and create the holographic universe within our heads in which we live, but whose power to do so also seems to be dependent on two dimensional surface area. A computed holographic universe, which appears to be computed in two dimensions not three, with three dimensions just being an arrangement of two dimensional surfaces. Which is interesting because our 4 dimensional reality can be though of as an illusion created by an arrangement of 3 dimensional realities observed sequentially though time. All very interesting in how these patters of created realities seem to repeat fractally as we move from lower to higher dimensions. Networks of networks of networks, all encoding the information that we use to create and experience our realities.
The upshot of all this is that if someone tells you are dense, and that all you have between your ears is a black hole, you can take that as a compliment. 
As an aside, there is more information hidden away in the black hole at the center of our galaxy as there is in the rest of the known universe, outside of black holes, combined. And there are countless backhoes in the universe. The upshot of which is that even if John Snow knew all of the knowable information in the universe, relatively speaking he would pretty much still be extremely ignorant. Poor John, he will always know nothing. 
I almost forgot, if John did know all the knowable information in the known universe, his head would have to have a surface area at least the size of Switzerland, which it clearly doesn't. So it seems John Snow knows considerably less then what is, relatively speaking, practically nothing, and will never know any more. You know less then nothing John Snow.
https://www.pbs.org/video/how-to-det...nsions-ekf1gb/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxVlGAFX7vA
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...o-dimensions/# |
Ketzer,
It was fascinating to listen to the speaker's theories in your references.
I have to admit, my understanding of the gist of what he said escaped the
"quantum-sized limit" of my understanding of much of it,
"more or less, considerably less or more than more or less!" (my favorite line as a bartender in my high school's rendition of a play about a fictional town in the wild west).
I also have to admit my gratitude to Inavalan for two superb references (1) Michael Talbot's as the author of,
The Holographic Universe, to which Busby referred earlier, and (2) renewing my interest in Seth, a non-physical entity channeled by Jane Roberts, who like Talbot died before her time (yes, I know that's an oxy-"moronic" statement!)
though Seth’s voice was likewise silenced.
Along with Michael Talbot helping me understand how to make sense of the term "holographic" for a layman (like me) through his ground-breaking book, it is Seth's contributions that enabled me to realize why the gist of John Snow's "holographic computational limitations of the universe" may be moot! Why moot?
Because of the following paragraph's in reference 1 (from a search engine of the texts of Seth's books, relating to the word "atom"):
"(Pause at 9:35.) As I have said frequently, time as you think of it does not exist, yet in your terms, time’s true nature could be understood if the basic nature of the atom was ever made known to you. In one way, an atom could be compared to a microsecond.
It seems as if an atom “exists” steadily for a certain amount of time. Instead it phases in and out, so to speak. It fluctuates in a highly predictable pattern and rhythm. It can be perceived within your system only at certain points in this fluctuation, so it seems to scientists that the atom is steadily present. They are not aware of any gaps of absence as far as the atom is concerned.
(9:41.) In those periods of nonphysical projection, the off periods of fluctuation, the atoms “appear” in another system of reality. In that system they are perceived in what are “on” points of fluctuation, and in that system also then the atoms (seem to) appear steadily. There are many such points of fluctuation, but your system of course is not aware of them, nor of the ultimate actions, universes, and systems that exist within them.
Now the same sort of behavior occurs on a deep, basic, secret, and unexplored psychological level. The physically oriented consciousness, responding to one phase of the atom’s activity, comes alive and awake to its particular existence, but in between are other fluctuations in which consciousness is focused upon entirely different systems of reality; each of these coming awake and responding, and each one having no sense of absence, and memory only of those particular fluctuations to which they respond.
Now: Resume dictation. These fluctuations are actually simultaneous. It would seem to you as if there would be gaps between the fluctuations, and the description I have used is the best one for our purposes; but the probable systems all exist simultaneously, and basically, following this discussion, the atom is in all these other systems at one time."
—SS Chapter 16: Session 567, February 17, 1971
And the
bolded portion of Seth's comments in Reference 2:
Seth details a philosophy of conscious creation. This philosophy supposes that:
* Physical reality arises from consciousness, not the other way around.
* We create our own reality.
* We are not at the mercy of a disjointed deity or subconscious.
* We are multi-dimensional beings; more than our physical bodies.
* Time and space are dimensional “illusions” we jointly create and by which we tacitly agree to abide.
* At the core of our being, we reside in a realm in which time and space do not exist.
* We are, in essence, creative spiritual beings having an earthly experience.
* The fate of each of us is in our own hands.
* We have multiple, perhaps infinite, life experiences. Problems not faced in this life will be faced in another.
* We cannot blame God, society, or our parents for “misfortunes,” since before this physical life we chose the circumstances into which we would be born and the challenges that could best bring about our development.
* We form physical matter as effortlessly and unselfconsciously as we breathe. Telepathically, we are all aware of the mass ideas from which we form our overall conception of physical reality.
"Toto, I don't think we're in Switzerland, anymore"! 
Maybe we never were, more or less, considerably less or more than more or less...
Reference 1:
https://findingseth.com/q/session:567+ATOM/
Reference 2:
http://www.the-office.com/seth/