So we often times engage in science vs philosophy debates on the nexus, but the truth is science is very quickly converging with philosophy. Many have heard that some physicists think the univerise is a hologram and this paper is a descent introduction.....but it also gets into neuroscience territory as well...which makes it much more intriguing to me in light of a lot of our nexus discussions

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

One of the best lines from this article is


Ironically these theories are very much converging with Hindu philosophy which is likely the oldest established philosophy on the planet...some wouls argue the sumerians, but I wouldn't make that argument myself.

So after reading this article do we still want to debate whether hyperspace is real? Perhaps the more appropriate debate should be is this real.

Here’s a quote from your linked article:



That’s not entirely correct. Here’s a quote from this source:


As the piece through which you’re viewing gets smaller and smaller, the angle of view gets smaller and smaller. So a very small piece of a hologram doesn’t really contain the whole 3D image, but rather contains an image from a single viewpoint. (Which itself makes for some interesting metaphors.)

check this out as well:

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=16395

dude is building a machine to test the hypothesis

Good point Gibran. The author wasn't that far off though...he was just missing the angle of view or vantage point. Remember this is article is supposed to be accessible for the lay person and is probably not entirely perfect.... But your point is spot on none-the-less. One other thing to note is that they are using a hologram as a model to fit these theories. It very well could be that all parts of the universe do indeed contain all the information for the rest of the universe and holograms aren't really the best model to describe how the universe works.

There are also references to psychedelics if one makes it all the way through!

Cheers

Very cool article....



Salvia anyone?

Neat article. The holographic cosmos idea is really fun to think about but it doesn't dispel the idea of an objective reality. Instead, it just pushes the issue back so we have to ask "what must the physics of the hologram system be like to produce the cosmos we detect?" This become hideously complex math but lucky for us there are some clever folks trying to work it out. We'll see how it goes. These theorists need to come up with a real experimental vulnerability on the holographic cosmos. There are a lot of grand cosmological theories up in the air right now.

The holographic brain idea is bunk. Of course the brain is a complex, interconnected regenerating system. but not all such systems are holographic. There is no chance that I could post on a forum with a fraction of my brain. If you wnat straight dope on memory read Eric Kandel. We understand a lot about how memory works but many problems remain. Unfortunately, the real mechanisms underlying memory storage and retrieval do not lend themselves to grand and elegant models.

great article thanks a lot

Suffice it to say , that I don't agree with you at all on this.

Edited to include below

You will find some good counter arguments to Eric Kandell’s theories in the misconception section of this wiki page.

I honestly don't know who is right, but the holographic universe certainly fits into some of the experiences I've had....

http://www.scholarpedia....e/Holonomic_brain_theory

OK that was a quite interesting wikki. It seems to offer a substantially different theory than the first article. The holonomic idea may not be bunk. The central idea seems to be that 'fine processes' such as dentrites can process information without action potentials. This is actually an interesting, testable idea.
It'll all come down to this: If a neuroscientist of the future was to read your memories what information would she need? I think I'll stay skeptical of all neat and simple theories until they can demonstrate memory reading ability.

I thought humans only used a fraction of their brain at all times.. am I mistaken?

Yes. It would be more accurate to say "humans only use a fraction of their brain at any given time." You need your whole brain to have the whole spectrum of human action and feeling. If you injure any part of your brain there will be changes in your behavior and/or mood. (you don't have to try this experiment. just read some of the thousands of reports of traumatic brain injury and the weird ass effects on people.)

This is actually how we have learned much of what we know about brain function. It is a very simple approach. Five dudes show up in your clinic who can't recognize faces after a traumatic brain injury. You check them out and find that all five have a lesion in the same area of the brain. Now you can tentatively conclude that this region is necessary for face recognition. Enough humans have bumped their heads enough times for us to have a somewhat robust accounting of what different regions of the brain do.

Yeah, the 10% brain usage is a myth. All of the brain is used, but different parts at a time. Its like saying "not all of my computer's harddrive is being used at once", well yeah but at a given time you can use all of the parts if they are relevant to the task at hand.

Regarding brain damage, deedle you are right but you probably also know that there are cases of (physically) significant brain injury where that isnt correlated with symptoms, displaying very little or no cognitive-behavioral sequelae. Also there are cases of people who had whole sections of their brains cut off, and specially if they were young, can grow up to live normal lives because of the brain's plasticity and capacity to adapt. The brain is fascinating indeed!