Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
07-21-2003, 06:33 AM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Seoul
Posts: 12
|
This world is illusion
|
07-21-2003, 06:36 AM | #2 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London
Posts: 1,425
|
Cool. So can I have all your illusionary money, then?
|
07-21-2003, 09:35 AM | #3 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: the 10th planet
Posts: 5,065
|
This months Scientific American has something on it as well:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...AE80A84189EEDF |
07-21-2003, 10:23 AM | #4 | |||
Moderator - Science Discussions
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Providence, RI, USA
Posts: 9,908
|
The scientific idea of the "Holographic Universe" doesn't really have anything to do with the new-agey version, though...it's basically saying that the amount of information a space can contain is bounded by the area of a sphere that encloses it, and that physics in an N-dimensional spacetime may be equivalent to physics on some other N-1-dimensional spacetime...on the other hand, new agers are taking inspiration from Bohm's causal interpretation of quantum mechanics, which involves a quantum potential that can pass information between particles faster-than-light, and which Bohm believed supported a sort of semiphilosophical notion he called the implicate order (Bohm's interpretation of QM has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'Holographic principle' mentioned in the Scientific American article, by the way). New Agers then combine this with other ideas like Pribram's holographic theory of how the brain encodes memories (which I believe has been pretty much superceded by neural-network-type explanations for distributed memories, although it's possible that there are useful mathematical similarities between how you'd model a hologram and how you'd model a neural net) to justify statements like these, from the article fokket posted:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
07-23-2003, 12:51 PM | #5 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Rural Michigan
Posts: 55
|
Quote:
Am I completely misreading this article, or at least this section of it? Is there something I'm missing? Or is the author really making the leap I described? |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|