Does the hologram universe exist or not?

Question

does it exist or not do you think? why or why not do you think that? please explain why because im really scared/freaked out now after watching a youtube video that says it does :(

Answer 1

sweet0kaye you just plagiarized, you have to list a source when you use one, type in hologram universe in google and the first website yo get, he copied right off of it.

Answer 2

I haven't seen the youtube video, but I can offer two general comments:

1.) The idea's ages old. George Berkeley, the philosopher, argued things outside you may just be ideas and have no counterpart in any actual world: this whole thing could be a dream. (Check the first link)

2.) Which leads to the second point: for all we know, existence has always been a computer simulation or our own imagination or a dream. Yet, here we are. So, perhaps this is real life and perhaps this is a dream. Clearly, it doesn't matter.

In J.D. Salinger's biography written by his daughter she recounts a hospital visit from her childhood: '[Her mother] was standing on the right side of my bed. "Mama, I can't tell whether I'm dreaming or awake." She looked at me and said slowly and calmly, looking right into my eyes, "It doesn't matter." I heaved a sigh, a shudder of relief. ...'

Answer 3

First of all I don't put a whole lot of stock in theories. I need proof. This whole hologram thing sounds a bit farfetched. As far as electrons being able to communicate, does that mean that they are alive? Also, there would be no way to prove their communication over 10,000,000,000 miles because we can't get that far away from here. If he is doing some kind of extrapolation to theorize communication over this distance his margin for error would be so huge that he would be a fool for even suggesting it. I don't think we have anything to worry about.

Answer 4

yes thay exist i have one,

in the future all the people on earth will have it

Answer 5

n 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science. Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.  

Answer 6

The hologram universe theory is a radical theory. I personally can't completely comprehend the theory myself. I am going to be attending a lecture on it soon so I hope that the lecture will increase my understanding of the theory.

Based on what I have heard, I don't completely agree with it. Part of this is because it is simply so hard to imagine. It is another "m theory" which is attempt to explain the universe as a whole and none of the current candidates really speak to me that much.

We can't tell if it exists or not, right now the belief in these theories are up to you. Whether you agree with them or not is your choice, not ours.

Answer 7

this is the most stupid thin i hav herd in my life..sorry 2 b rude..but this theory is stupid..haha.. n i agree with theory guy rico..einstein relativity theory rules..haha..

Answer 8

I watched the YouTube video, and for the most part, it was pretty interesting.  I kept asking myself, "Why haven't I heard of this before?"  Then I saw the last 20 seconds of Part II when they said that God must be the reason behind this and this absolutely proves the existence of God.  Now, I'm not saying that all of that stuff is false, but that whole video does seem a bit like propaganda to get people to believe in a creator.

Do I believe everything that was said in the video?  Heck no.  The video says that everything that they say is fact and has been proven.  That's not true.  I haven't found anything to back up their conclusions.  While I have been reading a bit about it in the last few minutes, the more and more I read, it sounds like the "hologram universe" is like the Matrix.  While it's neat to think about, I don't believe for a second that the computer screen and keyboard in front of me is all in my head (which is what the video is saying).

I don't think you have anything to worry about here.  Hope I was able to help out!

Answer 9

sweet0kay, I have reported you for plagiarism (copy and paste) of:

http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html

OK, I've just watched both videos. I even took notes as to the times for the things that I am bout to say. This is probably going to become a fairly long response.

First, a side note: did Tuvok narrate that?

Second side note: There was no mention of holograms!

Onto my analysis:

This video seems to be more of a philosophical argument, and contains no science. It certainly does present many scientific "truths", but that science does not have anything to do with the arguments made in the video.

For instance: If my optic nerves were cut, yes, I would no longer perceive the bird.

The video asks: "Since we can never reach the external world, how can we be sure that such a world exists?" This is really the main point of the video: what does it mean to exist, and what does it mean to "reach the external world".

The video claims that if we took our brain out of our body and could see and touch it, then it becomes a mere "perception". This is true (in my mind). But then the video claims that since that is true, the brain cannot be the source of perception, since the brain is itself a perception.

I do not agree with this. There is no argument that a perception cannot be the source of another perception.

At 6:40 in the second video, the claim is made that "it is the soul" which allows perception. We could say , with the same type of argument,  that the soul is a perception, and therefore, the soul is not "real". Maybe a "super-soul" is above the soul?

This comes back to "what is real?" and "what is existence?".

No clear definitions of reality or existence are given in the videos. I (personally) believe that reality is that which I can sense, and that existence is that which I perceive to exist.

I can imagine things. I can listen to a song without the song actually playing. I can hear the music, and I know the lyrics. Is that "real"? If I define reality to be ALL that my mind perceives, then yes, it is real. It is a real DREAM (or imagination, or whatever), but it IS part of my reality. But I do not classify it as part of my "physical reality", which I define to be the input of my senses while I am awake.

During minute 7 of the second video, the argument is made: "Even if we start with the pre-supposition that matter is real, the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, load us to the fact that matter is an illusion."

At no point did the video state any physical, biological, or chemical concept to justify this statement. (Mostly since "reality" was never defined, nor was "illusion".)

at 8:25 in the second video: "we must consider"..."therefore this perception MUST have been caused"...

You cannot "consider"  one idea, and in the same sentence, claim that this can be the ONLY idea. With the same type of argument, I could say: "we must consider that matter is REAL, therefore no higher power can exist." (There is no argument, just unjustified statements.)

I will not debate the existence of God here.

I will say that this is a typical example of a red herring. Many scientific statements are made that are NEVER used as part of the argument. However, by stating a bunch of scientific evidence, the author of the video gains favor in reputation among the audience.

If I start telling you all that I know about physics, you may be impressed. Then if I were to tell you that UFO's existed, you might say: "that guy really knows physics, so I should believe what he tells me about UFO's." Bunk!

Like I said, this is philosophy, not science. And my (personal) philosophy on this subject is that "reality" is made up of what my senses tell me. And I believe that something  "exists" if I can see it or touch it or perceive it in some way. So I am calling imagination a perception, and I have the capacity to distinguish between imagination perception (I hear the song in my head), and "real" perception (I am actually litening to the song on the radio).

According to my definitions of "reality" and "existence", nothing from these videos are valid.

So, the burden is on you, dear asker: what do you define to be "real" or an "illusion"? What does it mean for something to "exist"?

Think long and hard about those questions, as they a very important to your interpretation of these videos.

Answer 10

This spiritual matrix is not only older but stranger than you know.

Some think it is only a projection of the mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic...

What is true 'reality'?

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

Live or Memorex?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf5esT95G...

Answer 11

well first of don't believe everything you see on you tube most are hoaxes in this case no its not its true but every thing still exist we are still real and so is most of everything else

on the person who answered before also remember Einstein's rule for space-time and gravity's effect on it

but yeah shes right