The hologram containing all the past and the future of "THIS" universe is touching (only touching) my perception of Total Simultaneity, where all pasts and all futures of all probable and unprobable universes are "available".

The hologram that is "reaching" back to the point where we are has however some interesting aspects I think :

1. In this perception the "history" goes further as our 13,7 billion years, which of course can be a good thing, we would be able to back eternally, because the hologram has to be infinite on the illusion of time.

2.Once we are accepting the infinite time aspect on the hologram, we no longer have the trouble that the so called "going back" is needed (This so called "going back" is the reason that FREE WILL is not available in this perception, the life/time-line is fixed !!!) Just see the moment we are consciouss and the thereby belonging "block universe" as one point on the infinite surface of the hologram, from that point you can both reach an infinity of pasts and an infinity of futures, the Free Will is conserved, we are no longer a movie with a fixed beginning and end.

In my essay "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" I treated this subject deeper.

Happy new year (the life line in TS that gives you and the ones you love the most of well being)

Wilhelmus

  • [deleted]

Doug,

Thank you for your kind words. I have expressed, in the past, an appreciation for Pascal's description:

"Scientific learning is composed of two opposites which nonetheless meet each other. The first is the natural ignorance that is man's lot at birth. The second is represented by those great minds that have investigated all knowledge accumulated by man only to discover at the end that in fact they know nothing. Thus they return to the same fundamental ignorance they had thought to leave. Yet this ignorance they have now discovered is an intellectual achievment. It is those who have departed from their original condition of ignorance but have been incapable of completing the full cycle of learning who offer us a smattering of scientific knowledge and pass sweeping judgements. These are the mischief makers, the false prophets."

There are other translations, but, this is my favorite. I have found it to be greatly resisted and have never received feedback in agreement with it. For me, it is clear and correct. It applies to me as well as all others. I see it as representing the acknowledgement that all we ever learn about are effects. They are our body of knowledge. We do not know what cause is. An example of the smattering process is, I think, the mechanical interpretation of the operation of the universe presented to us by theoretical physics. I see this as a severely limited artificial perspective. The achievement of this universe is the existence of human free-will. A mechanical universe is incapable of producing even the first step in understanding the existence of human free-will. That is my opinion. I don't presume that you agree with my position. Thank you for sharing your view.

James Putnam

  • [deleted]

I have free-will. I believe in free-will. I don't have free-will. I can't believe in free-will. God does not play dice. HE can throw doubles at will. Can free will and physics co-exist? The Free Will to Believe in Physis. The Physics of Free Will. I swear I didn't do it. I was framed by Physics.

Can free will and physics co-exist?

Physics applies up to the point free-will kicks in?

Free-will destroys physics.

I do believe in free will. I said that on my own accord, right?

I have the free will to believe in free will.

Does God have free-will.

Take responsibility and believe in free will.

Do I not have the free will not to believe in free will? Does that mean I have free will? That free will is TRUTH. Only if had the free will.

Pointless meaningless everything. Pointful. Meaningful. Nothing.

Presume what you may James, for your presumption is as good as my own, perhaps even better. Today I will let you decide if I have free will. I can do that, right?

& Happy New Year - wweeeeeeeeeeee

  • [deleted]

Doug,

Theoretical physics does not offer us free-will, but, the empirical evidence of physics shows that we must have free will. Theoretical physics says the world is about motion of objects. There are attempts to sell the idea that uncertainty in that motion invites free-will. I don't buy that argument. The mechanics of the motion of objects has nothing to offer about the existence of intelligent life. There is far more to the operation of the universe than that offerred to us by theoretical physics. Information arrives to us in a wildly mixed storm of photons from innumerable directions and sources. Yet we discern meaning from that mess.

The only way in which that is possible is if we already know how to search for sense in the possible forms of patterns first and then use our existing innate intelligence to attach meanings to those patterns. The meanings are already ours inside us. We know the meanings before before the first interpretation is made and for all interpretations that we will ever make. Choices are a part of that process. That is the way I see it and have written about it in my essay Human Free Will.

There is another presentation of the origin of all learning written by St Augustine titled 'Concerning The Teacher'. He uses language to demonstrate the same conclusion. Both approaches involve recognizing the role played by signs. Words are signs and photons are signs. Those signs, in both cases, merely point us to where we must look to learn. In both cases we look within ourselves. Learning comes from within. We teach ourselves that which we already know but is buried in our subconscious mind. Again, that is the way I see it and that is what physics empirical evidence tells me must be the case.

James putnam

  • [deleted]

James,

I read in part your theory online and agree with your statement that "The Universe is under control". May I quote you from time to time, attributing the observation to you of course?

We are better than Physics.

Physics does not choose for us. But our choices are confined by physics nonetheless insofar as I can see things large and small.

Or, can I fly to the stars?

Are you saying that we can consciously collapse the wavefuction to our benefit. Can we think that small?

Or, are our thoughts and powers bigger than that such that we can collapse a multitude of them, thus feeling our way through life.

My CIG Theory brings determinism back into the realm of physics but only at the level it contemplates physics. It does not delve deeper than it delves.

I still know nothing.

  • [deleted]

Dear Doug,

It is not easy to know always what is original. I think that my theoretical work is almost all original. You are certainly welcome to quote from it. The statement that "The Universe is under control." does make a point which is a certainty to me. I am sure that that statement is not original to me. However, perhaps my reasons for saying so do include originality. Anyway, my feeling about quotes is that while a source should be given credit, including myself if I am someone's source, it remains absolutely necessary for me to invite anyone to offer earlier sources. I have no need or desire for credit that rightfully belongs to someone else. I wish I had enough knowledge to always give credit where credit is due. Thank you for wanting to use something that I have said.

James Putnam

8 days later
  • [deleted]

So..the instant of the Big Bang is an illusion?..and of course the Maths must themselves be judged to be illusionary!..so say the math-emagicians?

a month later
  • [deleted]

Mathematical structures can support any idea because the constraints are based on whatever the mathematician choses. The real world illusion or otherwise has constraints that must be defined and tested. A hologram still operates on well known optical principles so with that in mind holograms have nothing to do with illusions. Strominger should try another word, an imaginary theory rather than a holographic theory because we have a theory of holograms.

  • [deleted]

You can find anything mathematically but cannot find anything physically. These ideas are really challenging logic at a fundamental level.

FQXi should really have an "Anonymous Competition". I suspect when you remove all the academic titles and institutional affiliation, many of these ideas will be viewed more clearly. I suspect many great thinker would lose. Steven King did something similar to see if he could still get published if no one knew who he was

    • [deleted]

    FQXi should really have an "Anonymous Competition". I suspect when you remove all the academic titles and institutional affiliation, many of these ideas will be viewed more clearly.

    A truly excellent suggestion, and contains the reason why it probably won't happen.

    • [deleted]

    Hi Sophie, All,

    In the article the term "future" is used- Quote "the universe is a hologram projected back from the future". That such a future realm exists seems, taken at face value, to be metaphysical conjecture, as is its supposed infinity. Is that conjecture used because it gives the most beautiful mathematics? Is it necessary? or is use of that term (future) just the way in which the work is described for general consumption and there is a different understanding of the term by the researchers themselves?

    Isn't something very far away seemingly in the future only because it takes time for information about it to reach the distant observer. Who upon receipt and interpretation experiences it in his/her/its present time. Doesn't the "pre-written future", that actualised (materially existing) information, that will eventually lead to generation of present experience (a manifestation) co-exist with the "observer to be" within the uni-temporal or timeless space?

    I agree that the -seen universe (image universe)- is a kind of illusion.IMHO That information giving a 3D representation can be encoded upon a 2D surface is a very useful and important concept. I have previously read about it with interest.By the way I'm about to read "Information The new language of science" by Hans Christian Von Baeyer, that curiously I found in a local discount bookshop. It has a chapter called " Black holes where information goes to hide". Written in 2003- so not the latest work and ideas about information in physics, unlike the many FQXi articles : )

    • [deleted]

    The issue is really mathematics vs mechanics. Mechanics is aways mathematical but mathematics is not always mechanical. Einstein special theory is more mechanics than mathematics and the General theory is more mathematics than mechanics.

    Space can exist without time but time cannot exist without space. Time can be recorded by a clock or it can be recorded by space. Clocks are a common way but it does not tell us anything about time but more about transformations in events. Vibrating a space is the only way to know what time is.

    9 months later
    • [deleted]

    "SEPHIROT": EMET!!!: "Known Unknowns Versus Unknown Unknowns": It's a Jack-in-the-Box Universe: Ten-Digits; Log-Law Scale-Invariance; Utter-Simplicity: "Complexity" Versus "Complicatedness"; Zipf's-Law/ Hyperbolicity/ Inevitability (Archimedes); Bose- {Euler[(1732)] over-reals R)Ôê'_(k=1)^Ôê×Ô-'ÒÇ-1/k^R =ÔêÅ_PÔ-'1/((1-1/P^R ) )ÒÇ--= ÔêÅ_PÔ-'P^R/((P^R-1) ) ~ ÔêÅ_¤ëÔ-'e^(─º(¤ë-z)/kT)/((e^(─º(¤ë-z)/kT)-1) ) }-{Riemann, "Ueber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Groesse", Monatsberichte der Berlin Akademie,(1859)] over-complex-numbers C): Ôê'_(k=1)^Ôê×Ô-'ÒÇ-1/k^( C) =ÔêÅ_PÔ-'1/((1-1/P^( C) ) )ÒÇ--= ÔêÅ_PÔ-'P^( CC)/((P^( C)-1) ) ~ ÔêÅ_¤ëÔ-'e^(─º(¤ë-z)/kT)/((e^(─º(¤ë-z)/kT)-1) )}-{Bernoulli-Newcomb[Am. J. Math. 4, 39(1881)]-{Planck(1901)]}-{Einstein(1905)]-Poincare[(1912)]-Weyl[Goett. Nach.???(1914); Math. Ann. 77, 313(1916)]-Bose(1924)-Einstein(1925)]-VS. Fermi(1927)-Dirac(1927)-Benford[J. Am. Phil. Soc. 78, 115(1938)]-Kac["The Mathematics of Statistical-Reasoning" (1955)]-Raimi[Sci. Am.(1969) ]-Hill[Proc. Am. Math. Soc.123,3,887(1995)logarithm-function scale-invariance("MAGNIFICAT", (Bach) proof]-Jech(1995)-Siegel, Antonoff, Pi, Smith[Am. Math. Soc./Math. Assn. Am./SIAM Joint Mtg., San Diego(2002)] -Benson[last-lecture!!!: Workshop: "Cohomology and Support of Algebraic-Representation-Theory", Julia Petsova, Eric Friedlander and David Benson eds., Pacific Institute for Mathematical Studies, University of Washington(2012)]-Chern[????]-Hirezbruch, Riemann, Roch Theorem!!! Finding and proof of a digits on-average[CAUSING] logarithmic-law Ôî®PÔî¬=ÒÇ-logÒÇ--_10 (1+1/d), by mathematicians mistakenly excluding physics-crucial d = 0 singularity/pole, as log-law Ôî®PÔî¬=ÒÇ-logÒÇ--_10 (1+1/(dÔêê[1,...,9] )), but in actuality purposely including the all-important physics-crucial d = 0 singularity/pole: Ôî®PÔî¬=ÒÇ-logÒÇ--_10 (1+1/(dÔêê[0ÔÇ╝!; 1,...,9] )) permits "EMET"/TRUTH, purposely sans any "specificity-of-(so miscalled)"complexity" tactics: NO: models("standard" nor any other), mechanisms, processes, parameters(proliferation: ad infinitum; ad nauseum!!!), "Digits"' classic (but not classical!) Newcombe(1881)-Poincare(1912)-Weyl(1914; 1916)-Benford(1938) "NeWBe-Law" P(d) = log10 (+1+1/d) [integer d * [0,9]] * Z ; versus, non-integer 0 < P < 1] (on average) statistical-correlations, with recent Browne-Hill-Mathews-Greespan popularizations, based upon recent Hill-Jech-Pietroniero ostensibly-"rigorous" proofs domination by [(logarithm-base - invariance) = (units-invariance) = (SCALE-invariance)], and Nigrini-Hill-Burton widespread forensic applications to fraud-detection, with indictments, prosecutions and convictions, has gotten Wall Street's attention, after Peters proof of SCALE-invariance dominance of economics' capital-markets so-called "complexity", as nothing else! (Anderson-Mandell-Pascual-Leone identically in nerves/brain/mind); FDA.applications: drug testing verification/qualification;... Digits['1,...,9] =(upon Benford-law algrbraic-inversion)= Bosons with d = 0 BEC(!!!), and denominator-EXPONENTIAL Taylor/power-series expansion to Zipf-law Hyperbolicity (Archimedes)INEVITABILITY!!!Attachment #1: 1_FULL_PAPER_COMPLEX_QUANTUM-STATISTICS_IN_FRACTAL-DIMENSIONS.pdfAttachment #2: FULL_PAPER_on_so_MIScalled_COMPLEXITY_IS_UTTER-SIMPLICITY_vs._COMPLICATEDNESS.pdf

    5 months later
    • [deleted]

    Teory of Everyhing (TOE) based on Set Theory

    Number zero 0 ≡ Ø = {} (empty set) represents BEING. Number 1 ≡ 0' = {0} = {Ø } represents quantum vacuum, number 2 ≡ 1' = {0,1} = {0, {0}}, = {Ø, {Ø }} represents electromagnetic energy, number 3 ≡ 2' = {0,1,2} = {0, {0}, {0, {0}} } = {Ø, {Ø, {Ø, {Ø }}}} represents elementary particles. Observer in physic has origin in BEING which is not a type of energy or matter we know and we describe with E=mc2.Attachment #1: TOE_-_Set_Theory.png

    3 months later

    What if the structure of the Universe is God's Mind as Hegel argued? All individual minds are a part of Universal Mind. This way all space points represent the whole Universe from their perspective - i.e. the Universe is a hologram.

    https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Fra

    mework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_K

    ants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic

    3 months later

    Akinbo et al.

    Our new big home, the 'Laniakea supercluster', video and links here; Scitech article.

    paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0880.

    Full Video.

    To give a better perspective on the misconception of a single CMBR 'rest frame'.

    But also be careful as they admit to many assumptions, saying;

    "Except for the very closest galaxies, uncertainties in distance measurements translate into uncertainties in the peculiar velocities of galaxies that are larger in amplitude than the actual peculiar velocities."

    Using Earth as a datum rest frame and assuming distances (we know redshift is a flawed basis), Omega and it's direction etc, only minor adjustments could mean the whole flow direction is REVERSED! i.e. (A crowd walking mainly north at different speeds would look like they're mostly walking south from the rest frame of a skateboard moving north at a speed 85% of the average.). The effect may be a called apparent 'time reversal', or just poor rationalisation.

    The clear logial conclusion in any case is that LOCAL 'REST FRAME' SPEEDS VARY RELATIVELY. What we actually find is that EM radiation propagates at c in all LOCAL rest frames, as SR postulates. The logical rationale of discrete inertial systems with limited spatial 'domains' should then be a little clearer, I hope?

    Best wishes

    Peter

      Hi Peter,

      I agree with aspects of your post and misunderstand others. But thanks for showing me and others our new luxury mansion, the 'Laniakea supercluster'!

      "on the misconception of a single CMBR 'rest frame'". I still don't know why you have a difficulty with this. Is the CMBR in motion? And if so, relative to what? Most of the anisotropies in the CMBR appear to be related to cosmology and structure formation or intervening effects before reaching observer. Are there any dynamical anisotropies due CMBR motion?

      LOCAL 'REST FRAME' SPEEDS VARY RELATIVELY. Perhaps, as we have argued before, local 'rest frame' can vary relatively, to sun, then to galaxy then to Laniakea supercluster, then to ..., then to ..., then to.... Unless the universe is infinite, you must end at one largest and biggest mansion.

      "EM radiation propagates at c in all LOCAL rest frames, as SR postulates".. This statement hides information. The values of c in LOCAL rest frames is not universal. When compared to each other, for example on the surface of a super dense neutron star, c will be much less in value than what we measure c as here on Earth. This is also why there is refraction (change in speed) when light traverses the vicinity of the star before it reaches us.

      Akinbo

      Akinbo,

      I don't 'have a difficulty', it's just a flawed conception. I suspect being unfamiliar with astronomy you've long harboured a false conception of bunches of 'objects', (i.e. components of a galaxy), moving THROUGH 'space'.

      That's incorrect. The local 'space' moves WITH the 'inertial systems'. Even the editor of Sci Am recently wrote about how galaxies rotate in what he termed 'lockstep', i.e. whole galaxies rotate like 'dinner plates', complete with the interstellar medium, (and halo and satellites out to many k light years) in the same way that it's not Earth' that orbits the sun but the whole Earth 'system'; atmoshpere, ionosphere, magnetosphere, plasmasphere.. EVERYTHING, at rest with the centre of mass of the central dense 'body'. Light does 'c' within that zone WRT THE LOCAL centre of mass frame, just like it does c through the ISM wrt the local Centre of mass GALAXY rest frame.

      That's the dichotomy, never resolved relativistically, of the "ecliptic plane issue" identified in my 2012 essay, IAU 2000 and for instance USNO Circ 179. (p6). The sun's kinetic 'domain limit' is the heliosheath, which is why Voyager appears to have 'slowed down' from our frame after crossing it. 100 years ago they thought space was 'nothing'. No wonder the residual confusion! But the POSTULATES of SR make perfect sense; inertial systems are 'nested'.

      In simplistic terms, space IS a 'medium' (which is why it can expand!) and indeed contains far more of the mass/energy of the universe than baryonic matter! (objects') approx 70% as opposed to just 4%! Once you've grasped that conception you'll far better understand the video and concept of 'bulk flows' of the regions. EACH has it's own local CMB rest frame.

      You'll find a whole host of anomalies can be resolved once the confused 'interpretations' of SR are removed to allow causal logic to return!

      best wishes

      Peter

      It appears you don't understand my position since I am in full agreement with all in paragraph 2.

      But to the POSTULATES of SR make perfect sense, I disagree. Read what the postulates say and mean and not your own interpretation of them.

      Also I doubt anyone can understand the meaning of "EACH has it's own local CMB rest frame".

      Such mixing of sense with nonsense is what sometimes creates the antagonism you see directed at some of the sense you make here.

      Regards,

      Akinbo

      Akinbo,

      I identify the 'interpretation' of the postulates as the problem. I agree the original is nonsensical. Mine is based on Einstein's OWN final interpretation (his 1952 paper) dropping the original, saying "the entire theory is contained in the postulates" and conceptualizing it as;

      "small space 's', not thought of as bounded, in relative motion within large space 'S'."