• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Best Evidence Yet of a Holographic Universe?


I ran across the same article the other day, but it doesn't do much other than to inform us that the supercomputer models that they're using to simulate events in our universe are getting better and better all the time. Looking at some of these simulations, it's hard to argue that with sufficient processing power, a whole universe as detailed as our own could be created.

 
My intuition is that we are not simulacrums. I think therefore I am, or is it I am therefore I think. We are in a understandable universe, no need for such abstraction. No need to add a creator into the whole thing. Be it a divine creator or adept programmer. There is no magic in the Universe just things that we don't yet understand. The question of "Why we are here" is a non-secquiter. Why infers purpose and intention, a mind behind it all. Then there we go again with that whole super-being garbage. Not all questions are logically consistent. Most of the "Why" ones fall into that category. More than likely it is a failing of living in Universe where times error only points in one direction in 3 dimensions. There is so much more than what we can see, touch, taste and smell. Mathematics (M-Theory) predicts 10-11 dimensions. I wonder what 10 dimensional creatures think of all this.
 
Last edited:
My intuition is that we are not simulacrums. I think therefore I am, or is it I am therefore I think.
The word "simulacrum" doesn't apply because it's too restricted a term that implies that we're a representation of something other than what we are. The computational model doesn't require this to be the case. It is entirely possible given the rules of the system, that we have evolved out of the construct to become individual intelligences within it. In this context, my intuition, combined with the circumstantial evidence, suggests to me that the universe as we observe it is a generated construct. The question remains, generated by what?
We are in a understandable universe, no need for such abstraction.
Quite the contrary. There are some fundamental things about the universe that aren't understandable without invoking the concept of a multiverse or some abstraction, and even then we're still not sure how it works.
No need to add a creator into the whole thing. Be it a divine creator or adept programmer. There is no magic in the Universe just things that we don't yet understand.
It's not a matter of "need". It's a matter of figuring out the true nature of things. There are plenty of things we don't need to know, but want to know anyway.
The question of "Why we are here" is a non-secquiter. Why infers purpose and intention, a mind behind it all. Then there we go again with that whole super-being garbage. Not all questions are logically consistent. Most of the "Why" ones fall into that category. More than likely it is a failing of living in Universe where times error only points in one direction in 3 dimensions. There is so much more than what we can see, touch, taste and smell. Mathematics (M-Theory) predicts 10-11 dimensions. I wonder what 10 dimensional creatures think of all this.
Mathematical constructs don't guarantee that they are true to reality. But I do agree with you on the issue of questions about why things are this way or that way. Sometimes it's simple cause and effect. Other times, as you say, the question isn't logically consistent, and not everyone is wired to see that right away.
 
Everything is understandable in time. To think anything else is to sell humans and our potential short. We evolved from the universe (star matter), we are the Universe trying to understand itself. No magic or imaginary deities required. This whole simulation idea is just another modern form of God worship. Taking the responsibility from say Jesus and his holly trinity and putting it on Glurg the guru programmer (for example). Same difference. Modern emergent religion. Humans must realize that we are alone, there is no protector in the sky to watch over us, no guardians of the galaxies, no life after death. Once your brain depolarizes thats it, your gone. There is no answer to why we are here, no one made us. Given enough time (billions of years) it just happens...No conscious design needed or required. It is truly irrational to think anything else. It does not matter what we want to be true, or like to be true it just is. People can believe any self deluding fantasies they like, without using logic and reason to make your opinions and viewpoints you can never expect to be correct. Dreams are dreams they rarely reflect reality. Stop dreaming and accept our lot in life. Life is precious and short, the only way to live after death is in the memories of your children and loved ones.
 
Everything is understandable in time. To think anything else is to sell humans and our potential short. We evolved from the universe (star matter), we are the Universe trying to understand itself. No magic or imaginary deities required. This whole simulation idea is just another modern form of God worship.
Not necessarily. Few people who take the idea seriously are treating the computational model as a religion. It is a rational and scientific possibility, though by no means a certainty.
Taking the responsibility from say Jesus and his holly trinity and putting it on Glurg the guru programmer (for example). Same difference. Modern emergent religion.
Maybe for a few people. But the idea that the universe is a generated construct isn't a religious concept.
Humans must realize that we are alone, there is no protector in the sky to watch over us, no guardians of the galaxies, no life after death. Once your brain depolarizes thats it, your gone. There is no answer to why we are here, no one made us.
I seriously doubt that we're alone in the universe. That's not to say I believe in sky protectors or guardians of the galaxy, but I'm not so sure we can be 100% certain that there isn't some form of continuity of consciousness following material death. Because the computational model is a possibility, there may be some mechanism that preserves consciousness that we are not aware of.
Given enough time (billions of years) it just happens...No conscious design needed or required. It is truly irrational to think anything else.
Again, the idea of our observable universe being part of generated construct is not irrational. However believing it to actually be that way would be unfounded at the present time. More evidence is needed.
It does not matter what we want to be true, or like to be true it just is. People can believe any self deluding fantasies they like, without using logic and reason to make your opinions and viewpoints you can never expect to be correct. Dreams are dreams they rarely reflect reality.
I guess that depends on what you mean by reality. Our dreams are a subjective reality, and sometimes they even correspond well with objective reality. Or are you using the word "dreams" as synonymous with the "desires and ambitions"? In that case I would say they most certainly matter to us. To refute that would be a state of denial.
Stop dreaming and accept our lot in life. Life is precious and short, the only way to live after death is in the memories of your children and loved ones.
If you have no dreams how can you make your dreams come true? I say screw accepting your lot in life. Preserve your dreams and pursue them with all your heart because life is precious and short, and your children and loved ones will have something more to remember you for than being a sell-out to mediocrity and the establishment. That isn't to say I endorse nonsense like "manifesting wealth" without putting in any other effort than wishing intently for it. There are few things I believe, but I'm a great believer in the power of critical thinking.
 
"Accept your lot in life"

That's a telling phrase, smacking of surrender and abject despair. Individuals in that situation shouldn't be commenting to anyone other than their therapist.
 
I think Rupert Sheldrake may have something to contribute to this discussion. Here's the link:
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/articles/pdf/explore-Materialism.2013.pdf

And here is an excerpt to get you interested:

"THE SCIENTIFIC CREED
Here are the 10 core beliefs that most scientists take for granted.
1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example,are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, “lumbering robots,” in Richard Dawkins' vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.
2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.
3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared).
4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.
5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.
6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not “out there,” where it seems to be, but
inside your brain.
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.
 
I think Rupert Sheldrake may have something to contribute to this discussion:

"THE SCIENTIFIC CREED
Here are the 10 core beliefs that most scientists take for granted.
1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example,are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, “lumbering robots,” in Richard Dawkins' vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.
2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.
3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared).
4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.
5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.
6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not “out there,” where it seems to be, but
inside your brain.
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

I've run across Sheldrake before. Without going into details, he has some interesting ideas, but I've heard him use quotes that are outdated and he seems to fill in the parts in-between with his own ideas. Do your usual fact checking on his theories and claims. The so-called Scientific Creed above is his own contraption for building an argument against established scientific methodology, and not all his reasoning hangs together. Still, I kinda like the guy because he's well spoken and intelligent and likes to think outside the box.
 
Here is David Harriman's lecture series The Philosophic Corruption of Physics.

The only place I have found it for free is inside episode 63 of the Peace Revolution Podcast.

http://peacerevolution.podomatic.com/ent...5_48-07_00

Lectures begin right after Jack Blood at 1h21m. End at 7h33m. Aye Caramba!
smile.gif
Took me a week to finish, but was worth it.

Direct MP3 link (312 MB): http://peacerevolution.podomatic.com/enc...-07_00.mp3
 
I think, to disagree with quantum physicists is like disagreeing with the mechanic who reports what he has observed inside the complex engine of your car when you have not. Scientists claim to go where the math leads them. Problem is--it is a mathematics and level of abstract reasoning most of us can never hope to attain. This does not mean they are necessarily correct. We are left to rely on summations of data, debates amongst the most gifted, and books written sans mathematics that explain by analogy.

Nuclear fission was a dramatic demonstration to the world that physics had modeled something deep and powerful. Public prestige for physics peaked in 1945. I sometimes wonder what the next step in a process, one capable of stunning the masses and validating new models, might be. The only example I can imagine is antigravity. There are probably others.
 
I think, to disagree with quantum physicists is like disagreeing with the mechanic who reports what he has observed inside the complex engine of your car when you have not. Scientists claim to go where the math leads them. Problem is--it is a mathematics and level of abstract reasoning most of us can never hope to attain. This does not mean they are necessarily correct. We are left to rely on summations of data, debates amongst the most gifted, and books written sans mathematics that explain by analogy.

Nuclear fission was a dramatic demonstration to the world that physics had modeled something deep and powerful. Public prestige for physics peaked in 1945. I sometimes wonder what the next step in a process, one capable of stunning the masses and validating new models, might be. The only example I can imagine is antigravity. There are probably others.

Now with mathematics, find the formula for magic and telepathy, I'm sure its possible, maybe some of the creed steps would be eradicated, but then how would measure above human ability...then maybe we can unlock not naturally but by programming it
 
Back
Top