Is the Universe a

Jem . . . explain this to me pls.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/universe-hologram-physicists_n_4428359.html

 

You're asking jem? He can't even understand a basic science like man-made global warming and he thinks there was a designer of the universe.

 

A Hologram has no solid mass, correct?. If this is the case, then how do they explain the solid mass of our universe? Otherwise, Holograms do have solid mass, which to my knowledge is a physical impossibililty, which would mean we are somehow being tricked into thinking what we see and touch have mass, when in fact they don't. Further, if none of these things have mass, then neither do we, since we occupy the same universe.

 

There was a book on this subject originally published in 1992 called "The Holographic Universe." It was an interesting read, but no way to know how much of it is true.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Holographic-Universe-Revolutionary-Reality/dp/0062014102

 

The physicist who wrote the book stating that the way to explain why our universe appeared so spectaculary fined tuned was with the multiverse conjecture.

Was also one the first physicists on this hologram principle.

here he explains it pretty well.

Its obviously tough to grapple with but I see as similar to platos idea of the shadows on the wall of the cave.

or...

There is perfection in one spot and it projected out.


<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/jJqT357ofuE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

you are a moron troll who refuses to deal with fact.

Over an over I have shown you how our universe appears designed.

and...

I have shown you the data the scientists use to show that co2 lags temps.




http://www.climatechangedispatch.co...ture-rises.html

In a study recently published in Global and Planetary Change, Humlum et al. (2013) introduce their analysis of the phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and mean global air temperature by noting that over the last 420 thousand years, "variations in atmospheric CO2 broadly followed temperature according to ice cores, with a typical delay of several centuries to more than a millennium," citing Lorius et al. (1990), Mudelsee (2001) and Caillon et al. (2003).

And they explain this relationship by stating it "is thought to be caused by the slow vertical mixing that occurs in the oceans, in association with the decrease in the solubility of CO2 in ocean water, as its temperature slowly increases at the end of glacial periods (Martin et al., 2005), leading to subsequent net out-gassing of CO2 from the oceans (Togweiler, 1999)."

So if this be true for glacial cycles, should it not also be true for seasonal cycles?

Feeling that such might indeed be the case, the three Norwegian researchers intensively studied the phase relations (leads/lags) between atmospheric CO2 concentration data and several global temperature data series - including HadCRUT, GISS and NCDC surface air data, as well as UAH lower troposphere data and HadSST2 sea surface data - for the period January 1980 to December 2011. And what did they find?

Humlum et al. report that annual cycles were present in all of the several data sets they studied and that there was "a high degree of co-variation between all data series ... but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature." More specifically, they state that "the maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months [in relation] to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months [in relation] to global lower troposphere temperature," so that "the overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from the ocean surface to the land surface to the lower troposphere."

 

I would also note another top guy, Penrose, speaks of the quantum mind and the shadows of the mind.

I am still learning about his speculations but he is one of the smartest guys in the room.

I could see how the quantum mind and a hologram like projection would match up.

 

this question reminded me to check into the research being done showing the universe is actually digital.

I then ran into this article which does a good job explaining.

I found the payoff pretty interesting.

http://www.infowars.com/yet-more-ev...imulation-created-by-an-intelligent-designer/

Yet more evidence emerges that our universe is a grand simulation created by an intelligent designer
The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Mike Adams
Natural News
Feb 7, 2013
There’s a lot of buzz in the news about a new scientific study that statistically supports the idea that our known universe is actually a grand computer simulation. This is mainstream science, and the idea isn’t a whacky as you might first suppose. I’ve actually written about this several times in articles about consciousness and the nature of reality. This news, by the way, also supports the idea of a Creator who brought this universe — and everything in it — into existence by design.
A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation.
Here’s what it means in layman’s terms
Here’s the super easy way to understand all this. Your computer display screen has a finite number of pixels available, and this is called the “screen resolution” such as 1920 x 1440. This means there are 1920 pixels across and 1440 pixels vertically.
Everything you see on your computer screen must be drawn and depicted using these pixels, and nothing can be displayed that’s only half a pixel. For example, you can’t draw a vertical line on the screen that exists between the pixels that are hard-wired into the screen resolution. Everything you view on the monitor — a computer game, a website, even a video — is essentially transposed onto the “lattice” of pixels that exist in your hardware.
Your hardware, in effect, has a hard-wired “resolution limit” which defines the smallest size of any object that can be depicted on the screen.
Now, zoom out to the “real” world in which we live. Here in the real world, we think that there are no pixels and that we can move fluidly to any location we wish. We are not digitized being, we think; we’re analog beings living in a fluid world without the pixelation of a computer screen, right?
Not so fast. As it turns out, our “reality” is also pixelated, just at a very fine resolution. This study out of Bonn revealed that the energy level of cosmic rays “snaps to” the “resolution” of the universe in which we live. The very laws of electromagnetic radiation, in other words, are confined by the resolution of the three-dimensional simulation we call a “universe.”
The existence of this construct, if proven, also proves intelligent design by a conscious Creator who built the universe to begin with. This is the upshot of this scientific discovery that most scientists refuse to acknowledge. But the conclusion is inescapable: If our universe is a carefully-constructed simulation, then by definition there must have been a purpose behind its construction as well as a Creator who built it.
For the record, my personal belief is that the Creator set all the physical constants in the universe and then initiated the so-called “Big Bang” and let things play out from there. I do not believe our Creator “tinkers” with the universe at a micro level on a day-to-day basis. But I do believe there very well may have been individuals throughout history who found ways to “bend the rules” of the Matrix ever so slightly and thereby perform the very kind of miracles we see described in ancient texts.
“The structure of the underlying lattice”
The authors of this new paper describe their conclusion as following: “The numerical simulation scenario could reveal itself in the distributions of the highest energy cosmic rays exhibiting a degree of rotational symmetry breaking that reflects the structure of the underlying lattice.”
This “underlying lattice” is what I’m describing as a “resolution” of our physical simulation.
There’s other evidence of this, too: Plank’s Constant, for example, is by itself yet more evidence that the physical universe in which we live is quantized to a particular resolution. In fact, even light behaves in a quantized manner, which is why “light packets” are called quanta.
Our universe, it turns out, is digital, not analog. Heck, even your DNA is digital, not analog. You are a digitized physical being imbued with a non-material consciousness that transcends this physical simulation. Realizing this is a lot like taking the red pill in The Matrix and being shown that the universe you thought was real is actually just a grand computer simulation.
Of course, once you grasp that we are living in a grand simulation, the next obvious question is: Who built it?


...

 

Don't, stu, please don't.

 

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/holytech.html

God Is the Machine
IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS 0. AND THEN THERE WAS 1. A MIND-BENDING MEDITATION ON THE TRANSCENDENT POWER OF DIGITAL COMPUTATION.
By Kevin Kelly
At today's rates of compression, you could download the entire 3 billion digits of your DNA onto about four CDs. That 3-gigabyte genome sequence represents the prime coding information of a human body — your life as numbers. Biology, that pulsating mass of plant and animal flesh, is conceived by science today as an information process. As computers keep shrinking, we can imagine our complex bodies being numerically condensed to the size of two tiny cells. These micro-memory devices are called the egg and sperm. They are packed with information.
Alex Ostroy
Alex Ostroy
That life might be information, as biologists propose, is far more intuitive than the corresponding idea that hard matter is information as well. When we bang a knee against a table leg, it sure doesn't feel like we knocked into information. But that's the idea many physicists are formulating.
The spooky nature of material things is not new. Once science examined matter below the level of fleeting quarks and muons, it knew the world was incorporeal. What could be less substantial than a realm built out of waves of quantum probabilities? And what could be weirder? Digital physics is both. It suggests that those strange and insubstantial quantum wavicles, along with everything else in the universe, are themselves made of nothing but 1s and 0s. The physical world itself is digital.
The scientist John Archibald Wheeler (coiner of the term "black hole") was onto this in the '80s. He claimed that, fundamentally, atoms are made up of of bits of information. As he put it in a 1989 lecture, "Its are from bits." He elaborated: "Every it — every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely from binary choices, bits. What we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes/no questions."
To get a sense of the challenge of describing physics as a software program, picture three atoms: two hydrogen and one oxygen. Put on the magic glasses of digital physics and watch as the three atoms bind together to form a water molecule. As they merge, each seems to be calculating the optimal angle and distance at which to attach itself to the others. The oxygen atom uses yes/no decisions to evaluate all possible courses toward the hydrogen atom, then usually selects the optimal 104.45 degrees by moving toward the other hydrogen at that very angle. Every chemical bond is thus calculated.
If this sounds like a simulation of physics, then you understand perfectly, because in a world made up of bits, physics is exactly the same as a simulation of physics. There's no difference in kind, just in degree of exactness. In the movie The Matrix, simulations are so good you can't tell if you're in one. In a universe run on bits, everything is a simulation.
An ultimate simulation needs an ultimate computer, and the new science of digitalism says that the universe itself is the ultimate computer — actually the only computer. Further, it says, all the computation of the human world, especially our puny little PCs, merely piggybacks on cycles of the great computer. Weaving together the esoteric teachings of quantum physics with the latest theories in computer science, pioneering digital thinkers are outlining a way of understanding all of physics as a form of computation.
From this perspective, computation seems almost a theological process. It takes as its fodder the primeval choice between yes or no, the fundamental state of 1 or 0. After stripping away all externalities, all material embellishments, what remains is the purest state of existence: here/not here. Am/not am. In the Old Testament, when Moses asks the Creator, "Who are you?" the being says, in effect, "Am." One bit. One almighty bit. Yes. One. Exist. It is the simplest statement possible.
All creation, from this perch, is made from this irreducible foundation. Every mountain, every star, the smallest salamander or woodland tick, each thought in our mind, each flight of a ball is but a web of elemental yes/nos woven together. If the theory of digital physics holds up, movement (f = ma), energy (E = mc²), gravity, dark matter, and antimatter can all be explained by elaborate programs of 1/0 decisions. Bits can be seen as a digital version of the "atoms" of classical Greece: the tiniest constituent of existence. But these new digital atoms are the basis not only of matter, as the Greeks thought, but of energy, motion, mind, and life.
From this perspective, computation, which juggles and manipulates these primal bits, is a silent reckoning that uses a small amount of energy to rearrange symbols. And its result is a signal that makes a difference — a difference that can be felt as a bruised knee. The input of computation is energy and information; the output is order, structure, extropy.
Our awakening to the true power of computation rests on two suspicions. The first is that computation can describe all things. To date, computer scientists have been able to encapsulate every logical argument, scientific equation, and literary work that we know about into the basic notation of computation. Now, with the advent of digital signal processing, we can capture video, music, and art in the same form. Even emotion is not immune. Researchers Cynthia Breazeal at MIT and Charles Guerin and Albert Mehrabian in Quebec have built Kismet and EMIR (Emotional Model for Intelligent Response), two systems that exhibit primitive feelings.
The second supposition is that all things can compute. We have begun to see that almost any kind of material can serve as a computer. Human brains, which are mostly water, compute fairly well. (The first "calculators" were clerical workers figuring mathematical tables by hand.) So can sticks and strings. In 1975, as an undergraduate student, engineer Danny Hillis constructed a digital computer out of skinny Tinkertoys. In 2000, Hillis designed a digital computer made of only steel and tungsten that is indirectly powered by human muscle. This slow-moving device turns a clock intended to tick for 10,000 years. He hasn't made a computer with pipes and pumps, but, he says, he could. Recently, scientists have used both quantum particles and minute strands of DNA to perform computations.