"The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot

OutOfBreath

I would like to shortly present the book I just read called ”The holographic universe” by Michael Talbot. Link as follows to wikipedia on the author and relevant links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Talbot

Put shortly, the book takes as starting points and lean heavily on the theories of a physicist named David Bohm and a neurosurgeon named Karl Pribram, both who in different ways argue for a holographic model of the universe and the brain, respectively. The point of a hologram is that it is a 3-dimensional representation in which all information about the whole is contained in the parts, and the information of the parts contained in the whole. The consequence is that the universe is an unbroken whole that cannot really be divided into parts.

The book presents a lot of experiments and scientific findings to corroborate this theory, perhaps the centrepiece from physics being the ability of two tiny particles shot away from eachother at a speed which denies information to travel between them via light, still can gain information about eachother and align accordingly. From this starting point the book goes on to many different types of phenomena, from medical cases, the apparent power of the mind to many kinds of paranormal phenomena which are all fitted together into a comprehensive theory of everything which allows for these phenomena to exist. Another main point being centered around the mind’s healing power and ability to influence it’s surroundings as well.

There’s a lot more to this, but the main arguments is that the universe is just a hologram, or wave frequency which our minds (also frequencies) interpret into our experienced world. Since the solidness of reality is first and foremost an illusion, we have the power and ability to change parts of it using only our mind.

Actually there is too much going on in that book for me to cram it into a couple of paragraphs here. And I think I am making a bungle of it right now.

As a criticism, I posit that many of the leaps and conclusions Talbot land at throughout the book is lightly corroborated at times. I am not completely sure whether I buy into all of it, or even the grand total theory he proposes. Nevertheless, much of what he relates is very interesting in and by themselves, even if one does not buy the whole package.

As for my personal opinion of this book, I must say it was a spiritual experience for me really. Maybe the world doesn’t work like he proposes, but I hope with all my heart that it does, as the picture he presents is truly beautiful and meaningful. Many parts of it also underscored and clarified notions and beliefs I was already entertaining. The book goes from physics via lots of different kinds of miracles (medical and otherwise) and the paranormal and ends up in what is basically the spiritual realm, and it does so fluently and naturally.

Also, I do like one of the points he emphasizes a couple of times throughout, as a criticism towards modern science, namely that science should also consider what is reported outside the laboratory by thousands of people today and through the ages and at least treat it as there being “something” there, even if it’s hard to know what it would be. Or as he quotes from a physicist I think (possibly Bohm): “It is of more interest to know what’s probable about the important things, than to be certain about the trivial”.

*gets off soapbox*
*readies himself for questions or comments*

Peace
Dan

ClimberInOz

I picked that book up at christmas, and have just started reading it. Taking what I have read so far with a degree of skepticism- although I am finding some parts of it interesting. I will withhold judgement until I have finished the book.

However I did find the section you mentioned below a somewhat stereotypical crticism of science from an author who is convinced that there must be 'something there'. The reason why paranormal experiences and the like have not verified scientifically is not because they have never been considered, but because the experiences amount to no more then anectdotal evience that cannot be replicated. They are more parsimoneously explained by the human tendency to want their to be something else out there, or our ability to misinterpret naturally occuring phenomena.

OutOfBreath wrote:

IAlso, I do like one of the points he emphasizes a couple of times throughout, as a criticism towards modern science, namely that science should also consider what is reported outside the laboratory by thousands of people today and through the ages and at least treat it as there being “something” there, even if it’s hard to know what it would be.

gue_barium

Sounds like mildly entertaining reading, nothing more, nothing less.

OutOfBreath

ClimberInOz wrote:

I picked that book up at christmas, and have just started reading it. Taking what I have read so far with a degree of skepticism- although I am finding some parts of it interesting. I will withhold judgement until I have finished the book.

However I did find the section you mentioned below a somewhat stereotypical crticism of science from an author who is convinced that there must be 'something there'. The reason why paranormal experiences and the like have not verified scientifically is not because they have never been considered, but because the experiences amount to no more then anectdotal evience that cannot be replicated. They are more parsimoneously explained by the human tendency to want their to be something else out there, or our ability to misinterpret naturally occuring phenomena.

Oh, it's not a new kind of criticism to be sure. It goes back to the phenomenological turn, and the "positivist-debates" back in the 70s and up until the present. And I acknowledge the human will to believe in this.

The question is if not anecdotal evidence should be worthy of consideration, if there piles up enough of it. And it also poses the question whether the subjectless observer is a useful or even realistic ideal. There was an important turn on this with the phenomenological turn, the acceptance of qualitative data, and the dethronement of quantitative and lab-measures in science. At least within social sciences there were such a turn, anyway.

I recommend going on reading. I was kinda put off at first as well, but it gets better. Interesting subject matter in any case.

Peace
Dan

gue_barium

OutOfBreath wrote:

Oh, it's not a new kind of criticism to be sure. It goes back to the phenomenological turn, and the "positivist-debates" back in the 70s and up until the present. And I acknowledge the human will to believe in this.

The question is if not anecdotal evidence should be worthy of consideration, if there piles up enough of it. And it also poses the question whether the subjectless observer is a useful or even realistic ideal. There was an important turn on this with the phenomenological turn, the acceptance of qualitative data, and the dethronement of quantitative and lab-measures in science. At least within social sciences there were such a turn, anyway.

I recommend going on reading. I was kinda put off at first as well, but it gets better. Interesting subject matter in any case.

Peace
Dan

Well, now it sounds boring.
No sale.

OutOfBreath

gue_barium wrote:

Well, now it sounds boring.
No sale.

Well, this is not what the book is about. I was outlining the background and implications/criticisms towards orthodox and/or positivist science in response to a response.

The book is some of the more intriguing cosmology/theory of everything I have ever read until now.

Peace
Dan

hodge

one of my favorite books

In 1982 a remarkable event took place...

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.

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser.

To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film.

When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.

The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose.

Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.


The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts.

A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.

This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration.

Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side.

As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them.

When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.

This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment.

According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality.

Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.

In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected.

The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky.

Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.

In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order.

At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past.

What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is."

Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a "mere stage" beyond which lies "an infinity of further development".

Bohm is not the only researcher who has found evidence that the universe is a hologram. Working independently in the field of brain research, Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram has also become persuaded of the holographic nature of reality.

Pribram was drawn to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories are stored in the brain. For decades numerous studies have shown that rather than being confined to a specific location, memories are dispersed throughout the brain.

In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious "whole in every part" nature of memory storage.

Then in the 1960s Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram.

Pribram's theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little space. It has been estimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information during the average human lifetime (or roughly the same amount of information contained in five sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage--simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information.

Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word "zebra", you do not have to clumsily sort back through some gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like "striped", "horselike", and "animal native to Africa" all pop into your head instantly.

Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information--another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with ever other portion, it is perhaps nature's supreme example of a cross-correlated system.

The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions. Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions.

An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists.

Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability.

Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism.

Pribram's belief that our brains mathematically construct "hard" reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support.

It has been found that each of our senses is sensitive to a much broader range of frequencies than was previously suspected.

Researchers have discovered, for instance, that our visual systems are sensitive to sound frequencies, that our sense of smell is in part dependent on what are now called "cosmic frequencies", and that even the cells in our bodies are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies. Such findings suggest that it is only in the holographic domain of consciousness that such frequencies are sorted out and divided up into conventional perceptions.

But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality?

Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion.

We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.

This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature.

Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many para-psychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm.

In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level.

It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolved puzzles in psychology. In particular, Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness.

baraka

I read this book several years ago and I highly recommend it. At the very least, most will find it very interesting!

gue_barium

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, this is not what the book is about. I was outlining the background and implications/criticisms towards orthodox and/or positivist science in response to a response.

The book is some of the more intriguing cosmology/theory of everything I have ever read until now.

Peace
Dan

I guess that's cool that you have that interpretation. I don't read much of this kind of thing, but it does sound entertaining, to me.

Ahnimus

Michael Talbot is a science-fiction writer, isn't he?

I think all physicists would like the universe to behave this way, but most realize that's just a fantasy.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

Michael Talbot is a science-fiction writer, isn't he?

I think all physicists would like the universe to behave this way, but most realize that's just a fantasy.

Think he has also written novels, yes.

On what grounds do you think that most physicists would want that, and further how most of them see it as a fantasy anyway? The big theories of everything in science are poorly corroborated most of them, even the most popular ones. This holographic theory looks promising for further inquiry into it, as far as I can see.

Anyway.

Peace
Dan

Byrnzie

I read this about 15 years ago. It's brilliant. He also wrote one called 'Mysticism and the new physics'. The Holographic universe fits a lot of the pieces of lifes big jigsaw together.

Byrnzie

Ahnimus wrote:

Michael Talbot is a science-fiction writer, isn't he?

Not to my knowledge he isn't. I think he dies of cancer years ago, although I could be wrong. He was freinds with Whitley Strieber - who wrote 'Communion'.

Byrnzie

OutOfBreath wrote:

I would like to shortly present the book I just read called ”The holographic universe” by Michael Talbot. Link as follows to wikipedia on the author and relevant links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Talbot

Put shortly, the book takes as starting points and lean heavily on the theories of a physicist named David Bohm and a neurosurgeon named Karl Pribram, both who in different ways argue for a holographic model of the universe and the brain, respectively. The point of a hologram is that it is a 3-dimensional representation in which all information about the whole is contained in the parts, and the information of the parts contained in the whole. The consequence is that the universe is an unbroken whole that cannot really be divided into parts.

The book presents a lot of experiments and scientific findings to corroborate this theory, perhaps the centrepiece from physics being the ability of two tiny particles shot away from eachother at a speed which denies information to travel between them via light, still can gain information about eachother and align accordingly. From this starting point the book goes on to many different types of phenomena, from medical cases, the apparent power of the mind to many kinds of paranormal phenomena which are all fitted together into a comprehensive theory of everything which allows for these phenomena to exist. Another main point being centered around the mind’s healing power and ability to influence it’s surroundings as well.

There’s a lot more to this, but the main arguments is that the universe is just a hologram, or wave frequency which our minds (also frequencies) interpret into our experienced world. Since the solidness of reality is first and foremost an illusion, we have the power and ability to change parts of it using only our mind.

Actually there is too much going on in that book for me to cram it into a couple of paragraphs here. And I think I am making a bungle of it right now.

As a criticism, I posit that many of the leaps and conclusions Talbot land at throughout the book is lightly corroborated at times. I am not completely sure whether I buy into all of it, or even the grand total theory he proposes. Nevertheless, much of what he relates is very interesting in and by themselves, even if one does not buy the whole package.

As for my personal opinion of this book, I must say it was a spiritual experience for me really. Maybe the world doesn’t work like he proposes, but I hope with all my heart that it does, as the picture he presents is truly beautiful and meaningful. Many parts of it also underscored and clarified notions and beliefs I was already entertaining. The book goes from physics via lots of different kinds of miracles (medical and otherwise) and the paranormal and ends up in what is basically the spiritual realm, and it does so fluently and naturally.

Also, I do like one of the points he emphasizes a couple of times throughout, as a criticism towards modern science, namely that science should also consider what is reported outside the laboratory by thousands of people today and through the ages and at least treat it as there being “something” there, even if it’s hard to know what it would be. Or as he quotes from a physicist I think (possibly Bohm): “It is of more interest to know what’s probable about the important things, than to be certain about the trivial”.

*gets off soapbox*
*readies himself for questions or comments*

Peace
Dan

The Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer arrived at the same conclusion by way of raional deduction. The Eastern Philosophers and mystics/shamen the world over also believed in these things. Finally science has caught up.

OutOfBreath

Byrnzie wrote:

The Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer arrived at the same conclusion by way of raional deduction. The Eastern Philosophers and mystics/shamen the world over also believed in these things. Finally science has caught up.

Maybe I should look into Schopenhauer then, although I am intimidated by philosopers' preferred mode of delivery. Anything for the layman you can recommend?

Peace
Dan

Byrnzie

OutOfBreath wrote:

Maybe I should look into Schopenhauer then, although I am intimidated by philosopers' preferred mode of delivery. Anything for the layman you can recommend?

Peace
Dan

Maybe this one: Check out his in/famous essay on women. It's a hoot!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Essays-Aphorisms-Classics-Arthur-Schopenhauer/dp/0140442278/ref=sr_1_7/026-4775409-5294013?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176365200&sr=1-7

Ahnimus

I was made aware of these same ideas by the film "What the BLEEP do we know?" it was what started me off on this whole kick for the truth about the universe. But even as that movie pointed out atoms are not solid, but the electrons act as magnets attracting and repelling other atoms. So hard as we try with our minds, these electrons are still orbiting in some atom and stopping us from walking through the walls.

The idea of a Holographic Universe can mean one of two things. First is how you suggested with the whole containing all the parts like a hologram card. Or also I call this a fractal universe and I also agree that is a likely probability. The second meaning is that internally we all take in waves of light and waves of sound and we interpret those, just as we interpret the atomic repulsion as solidity. I also believe this to be true, I'd go so far as to say I know that is true.

Besides that we can't actually do a lot, we can't manipulate any of that stuff in physical reality. We can only interpret it differently. If we can do that then what are we really doing? Are we interpreting it any better at that point? I don't know. I've no reason to think I'm bigger than the universe. If I could manipulate the universe, what would everyone else do? I exist within a reality that has pretty solid understandings. Walls are typically impenetrable and I cannot see through them. I'm satisfied with that. That is something I know. I know it because I'm a human being and not an atom. I exist at this point in the universe.

Maybe it does explain some phenomena the way that quantum physics might. But it's far to speculative, I'm willing to bet there are far simpler and less gratifying explanations for most phenomena. Like alien abductions, NDEs, OBEs, they are probably all just hallucinations. That's reality man, it's cold, it's hardcore, it doesn't give a shit. On the other hand, we can make it better by positively influencing it. We aren't just victims of reality, we can manipulate it physically, our attitudes have a huge impact on our behavior and the reality we experience. That's the internal reality.

Anyway, that's what I think about it. This guy Talbot is a fantasy writer, he's bound to think like this. Many scientists either believe in some fantasy or wish they could, but most of them tend to recognize certain things as reality. For example Einstein said "Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.". He acknowledge determinism, but then claimed their to be some God or piper. Arthur Schopenhauer also said "A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills.", since you guys mentioned him. However Schopenhauer believed in some kind of cosmic intelligence, or God like Einstein.

Byrnzie

Ahnimus wrote:

I was made aware of these same ideas by the film "What the BLEEP do we know?" it was what started me off on this whole kick for the truth about the universe. But even as that movie pointed out atoms are not solid, but the electrons act as magnets attracting and repelling other atoms. So hard as we try with our minds, these electrons are still orbiting in some atom and stopping us from walking through the walls.

The idea of a Holographic Universe can mean one of two things. First is how you suggested with the whole containing all the parts like a hologram card. Or also I call this a fractal universe and I also agree that is a likely probability. The second meaning is that internally we all take in waves of light and waves of sound and we interpret those, just as we interpret the atomic repulsion as solidity. I also believe this to be true, I'd go so far as to say I know that is true.

Besides that we can't actually do a lot, we can't manipulate any of that stuff in physical reality. We can only interpret it differently. If we can do that then what are we really doing? Are we interpreting it any better at that point? I don't know. I've no reason to think I'm bigger than the universe. If I could manipulate the universe, what would everyone else do? I exist within a reality that has pretty solid understandings. Walls are typically impenetrable and I cannot see through them. I'm satisfied with that. That is something I know. I know it because I'm a human being and not an atom. I exist at this point in the universe.

Maybe it does explain some phenomena the way that quantum physics might. But it's far to speculative, I'm willing to bet there are far simpler and less gratifying explanations for most phenomena. Like alien abductions, NDEs, OBEs, they are probably all just hallucinations. That's reality man, it's cold, it's hardcore, it doesn't give a shit. On the other hand, we can make it better by positively influencing it. We aren't just victims of reality, we can manipulate it physically, our attitudes have a huge impact on our behavior and the reality we experience. That's the internal reality.

Anyway, that's what I think about it. This guy Talbot is a fantasy writer, he's bound to think like this. Many scientists either believe in some fantasy or wish they could, but most of them tend to recognize certain things as reality. For example Einstein said "Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.". He acknowledge determinism, but then claimed their to be some God or piper. Arthur Schopenhauer also said "A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills.", since you guys mentioned him. However Schopenhauer believed in some kind of cosmic intelligence, or God like Einstein.

Tell that to a shaman and he/she will laugh at your arrogance. Just as they'd laugh at the self-imposed certainties of most people in the 'modern' world. It all comes down to perception and levels of consciousness/awareness. You would not feel the same way about concrete objects if you were lucid dreaming, or experiencing a trance state. You would also not feel the same way with regards to your physical environment if you'd been born and raised a member of the Amazonian Yanomami tribe, for example.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

I was made aware of these same ideas by the film "What the BLEEP do we know?" it was what started me off on this whole kick for the truth about the universe. But even as that movie pointed out atoms are not solid, but the electrons act as magnets attracting and repelling other atoms. So hard as we try with our minds, these electrons are still orbiting in some atom and stopping us from walking through the walls.

The idea of a Holographic Universe can mean one of two things. First is how you suggested with the whole containing all the parts like a hologram card. Or also I call this a fractal universe and I also agree that is a likely probability. The second meaning is that internally we all take in waves of light and waves of sound and we interpret those, just as we interpret the atomic repulsion as solidity. I also believe this to be true, I'd go so far as to say I know that is true.

Then you are so far pretty much on the same page as the author.

Besides that we can't actually do a lot, we can't manipulate any of that stuff in physical reality. We can only interpret it differently. If we can do that then what are we really doing? Are we interpreting it any better at that point? I don't know. I've no reason to think I'm bigger than the universe. If I could manipulate the universe, what would everyone else do? I exist within a reality that has pretty solid understandings. Walls are typically impenetrable and I cannot see through them. I'm satisfied with that. That is something I know. I know it because I'm a human being and not an atom. I exist at this point in the universe.

Indeed you do. But being able to change your surroundings does not in itself make you omnipotent or anything. It may just be that we have the potential for a bigger and in Talbot's view more direct interaction with the fabric of reality. He draws the concept of the holographic universe and it's (possible) consequences all the way. Which means that time and space are not constants, as the hologram always contains all information and nothing is lost.

Maybe it does explain some phenomena the way that quantum physics might. But it's far to speculative, I'm willing to bet there are far simpler and less gratifying explanations for most phenomena. Like alien abductions, NDEs, OBEs, they are probably all just hallucinations. That's reality man, it's cold, it's hardcore, it doesn't give a shit. On the other hand, we can make it better by positively influencing it. We aren't just victims of reality, we can manipulate it physically, our attitudes have a huge impact on our behavior and the reality we experience. That's the internal reality.

It may be a bit speculative, and I also expressed some reservations to that effect. But I'm not quite as willing to dismiss it all as "hallucinations" first hand either. Besides, many paranormal phenomena he describes goes way beyond "point of view" problems and affects physical reality. Consider the medical records of miraculous healings and the effect of mental disposition on health for instance. That part of the book, he makes his best case I feel.

Anyway, that's what I think about it. This guy Talbot is a fantasy writer, he's bound to think like this. Many scientists either believe in some fantasy or wish they could, but most of them tend to recognize certain things as reality. For example Einstein said "Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.". He acknowledge determinism, but then claimed their to be some God or piper. Arthur Schopenhauer also said "A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills.", since you guys mentioned him. However Schopenhauer believed in some kind of cosmic intelligence, or God like Einstein.

Since he also writes fiction we cannot trust him? Besides, much of the theory is not his, but derived mainly from the work of Bohm and Pribram. Having a good writer present a theory is not necessarily so wrong is it? And this theory doesn't decide the determinism/free will debate either, although the author tends towards free will. It can just as easily fall into a determinist position. Or quoting Bohm himself on the subject from the following website http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-boh.htm:

In Bohm's view, all the separate objects, entities, structures, and events in the visible or explicate world around us are relatively autonomous, stable, and temporary "subtotalities" derived from a deeper, implicate order of unbroken wholeness. Bohm gives the analogy of a flowing stream:

On this stream, one may see an ever-changing pattern of vortices, ripples, waves, splashes, etc., which evidently have no independent existence as such. Rather, they are abstracted from the flowing movement, arising and vanishing in the total process of the flow. Such transitory subsistence as may be possessed by these abstracted forms implies only a relative independence or autonomy of behaviour, rather than absolutely independent existence as ultimate substances.

Anyway, I find the ideas intriguing and worth pursuit. And although Talbot perhaps tries to cover a bit too much, and add together more than he may have good reason to, the basis of the idea seems pretty solid. As solid as any comprehensive theory on reality at any rate. I'd recommend you to read at least the first chapters concerning the physics and the medical side of it, and look away from the latter chapters delving into various paranormal and in the end spiritual subjects. Especially since you dont seem totally alien to the idea of holographic reality.

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus

Byrnzie wrote:

Tell that to a shaman and he/she will laugh at your arrogance. Just as they'd laugh at the self-imposed certainties of most people in the 'modern' world. It all comes down to perception and levels of consciousness/awareness. You would not feel the same way about concrete objects if you were lucid dreaming, or experiencing a trance state. You would also not feel the same way with regards to your physical environment if you'd been born and raised a member of the Amazonian Yanomami tribe, for example.

Well the Shamans aren't walking through walls, are they? If it was possible and these Shamans had acheived it, we would all know beyond a doubt, it'd be recorded on video and broadcast around the world, scientists would be studying the phenomena. No. What happens is they take psychoactive drugs or meditate to put themselves into a psychoactive mental state. They may feel like they are transcending reality, but in reality they are convulsing on the floor, and when they die from over-dose, what do you call that? Becoming one with the universe? No wonder so many people kill themselves to acheive spiritual oneness with the universe. Hey, next time a comet flies by let's suicide and we will all become God.

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

Then you are so far pretty much on the same page as the author.


Indeed you do. But being able to change your surroundings does not in itself make you omnipotent or anything. It may just be that we have the potential for a bigger and in Talbot's view more direct interaction with the fabric of reality. He draws the concept of the holographic universe and it's (possible) consequences all the way. Which means that time and space are not constants, as the hologram always contains all information and nothing is lost.

It may be a bit speculative, and I also expressed some reservations to that effect. But I'm not quite as willing to dismiss it all as "hallucinations" first hand either. Besides, many paranormal phenomena he describes goes way beyond "point of view" problems and affects physical reality. Consider the medical records of miraculous healings and the effect of mental disposition on health for instance. That part of the book, he makes his best case I feel.

Since he also writes fiction we cannot trust him? Besides, much of the theory is not his, but derived mainly from the work of Bohm and Pribram. Having a good writer present a theory is not necessarily so wrong is it? And this theory doesn't decide the determinism/free will debate either, although the author tends towards free will. It can just as easily fall into a determinist position. Or quoting Bohm himself on the subject from the following website http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-boh.htm:

Anyway, I find the ideas intriguing and worth pursuit. And although Talbot perhaps tries to cover a bit too much, and add together more than he may have good reason to, the basis of the idea seems pretty solid. As solid as any comprehensive theory on reality at any rate. I'd recommend you to read at least the first chapters concerning the physics and the medical side of it, and look away from the latter chapters delving into various paranormal and in the end spiritual subjects. Especially since you dont seem totally alien to the idea of holographic reality.

Peace
Dan

Yea, I think Talbot is stretching it too far, it's ruined the meaning of the science.

Ahnimus

I received "The Astonishing Hypothesis: Scientific Search for the Soul" by Francis Crick today. But I'm not done this other one. I'm a slow reader :(

My Catholic Philosopher friend wants me to read another book after, I can't remember what it's called, but he says it will challenge my beliefs, so I'm guessing it's from his perspective, I said I would, I've no quams with reading an opposing viewpoint, but doubt he will read anything I suggest.

Byrnzie

Ahnimus wrote:

Well the Shamans aren't walking through walls, are they? If it was possible and these Shamans had acheived it, we would all know beyond a doubt, it'd be recorded on video and broadcast around the world, scientists would be studying the phenomena. No. What happens is they take psychoactive drugs or meditate to put themselves into a psychoactive mental state. They may feel like they are transcending reality, but in reality they are convulsing on the floor, and when they die from over-dose, what do you call that? Becoming one with the universe? No wonder so many people kill themselves to acheive spiritual oneness with the universe. Hey, next time a comet flies by let's suicide and we will all become God.

So you believe that we are merely physical entities and nothing else besides?

Byrnzie

Ahnimus wrote:

What happens is they take psychoactive drugs or meditate to put themselves into a psychoactive mental state. They may feel like they are transcending reality, but in reality they are convulsing on the floor

You sound pretty confident for someone who has never had a shamanic/mystical experience.

Ahnimus

Byrnzie wrote:

You sound pretty confident for someone who has never had a shamanic/mystical experience.

I've taken drugs before.

Salvia Divinorium is one version of sage plant used by Shamans. It could be legally purchased at High Times in Canada. It causes a psychoactive hallucination, and convulsion, very possibly leading to death in some cases. The experiences it induces will make the greatest skeptics believe they experienced an alternate reality, while in this reality they are overdosing and dying. The full effects of the drug aren't known, but it's my guess that it activates a part of the brain responsible for belief.

It's not that I've never looked into these theories, it's just that the alternate possibilities, the not so fantastic possibilities are actually quite tragic.

Byrnzie

Ahnimus wrote:

I've taken drugs before.

Salvia Divinorium is one version of sage plant used by Shamans. It could be legally purchased at High Times in Canada. It causes a psychoactive hallucination, and convulsion, very possibly leading to death in some cases. The experiences it induces will make the greatest skeptics believe they experienced an alternate reality, while in this reality they are overdosing and dying. The full effects of the drug aren't known, but it's my guess that it activates a part of the brain responsible for belief.

It's not that I've never looked into these theories, it's just that the alternate possibilities, the not so fantastic possibilities are actually quite tragic.

You should check this out: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Breaking-Open-Head-Daniel-Pinchbeck/dp/0007149611/ref=sr_1_8/203-0570104-2124748?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176430528&sr=1-8

And whilst your at it...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dance-Four-Winds-Secrets-Medicine/dp/0892815140/ref=sr_1_57/203-0570104-2124748?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176430722&sr=1-57

And...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Journey-Ixtlan-Lessons-Juan-Arkana/dp/0140192344/ref=sr_1_10/203-0570104-2124748?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176430834&sr=1-10

Byrnzie

Ahnimus wrote:

I've taken drugs before.

Salvia Divinorium is one version of sage plant used by Shamans. It could be legally purchased at High Times in Canada. It causes a psychoactive hallucination, and convulsion, very possibly leading to death in some cases. The experiences it induces will make the greatest skeptics believe they experienced an alternate reality, while in this reality they are overdosing and dying. The full effects of the drug aren't known, but it's my guess that it activates a part of the brain responsible for belief.

It's not that I've never looked into these theories, it's just that the alternate possibilities, the not so fantastic possibilities are actually quite tragic.

Not all shamans use drugs to achieve heightened states of consciousness. Some use drumming. Others use dancing. Others still use meditation.

hodge

hey ahnimus if you could provide some sources where a psychoactive drug has caused someone to "overdose" and die directly from it, i'd love to read it

Ahnimus

Byrnzie wrote:

Not all shamans use drugs to achieve heightened states of consciousness. Some use drumming. Others use dancing. Others still use meditation.

I understand that. I'm really not interested in convincing myself that life is a dream. I don't want to be an empty shell laying on the floor while thinking I'm in some other reality. I'm quite content with this reality. I've also no reason to believe that I am beyond this reality.

hodge

Byrnzie wrote:

You should check this out: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Breaking-Open-Head-Daniel-Pinchbeck/dp/0007149611/ref=sr_1_8/203-0570104-2124748?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176430528&sr=1-8

great book, have you read 2012: the return of quetzalcoatl? or any terence mckenna?

Ahnimus

hodge wrote:

hey ahnimus if you could provide some sources where a psychoactive drug has caused someone to "overdose" and die directly from it, i'd love to read it

http://www.drug-overdose.com/