Essay Abstract

The problem of understanding how reality can be both continuous and discontinuous is simpler to understand if one changes perspective. Combining reason with intuition one can imagine what it would be like to not see light, but to be it. Light traveling at the speed of light would know no time, only space. A universal reality that is actually a dynamic holograph would make time and distance no longer empirical, merely phenomenological. The universe is an undivided whole. Time and distance is a human bias.

Author Bio

Lorian Gray is a student of general science at Marylhurst University.

Download Essay PDF File

  • [deleted]

  • Post #2

Lorian,

Is that the complete essay? If it is I am a little disappointed as it makes such a good introduction to what could have been an interesting alternative exploration of reality and what it means for our models.

I do think that the holograph idea has a place but is once again only a partial solution to the complete problem. Realism is necessary. There has to be objects. Whether those are fundamentally different from what is in between them in a another question. Those objects emit or reflect EM waves whose wavelength and intensity allow sensory interpretation of the spatially separated matter. So it is the EM field, which can be perturbed by gravity, that enables space-time to be generated as a higher level reality. So this gives 3 levels of reality. The foundational objects and medium, the holographic EM field, and the space-time observer interpretation.

Unfortunately I think "Reality" by Michael Christian is a simpler and more profound entry. His entry also addresses the essay question.

If there is more to your answer than has appeared here I would be interested to read it.

Kind regards, Georgina

    • [deleted]

    • Post #3

    Just for clarification I am referring to a field that exists WHETHER OR NOT charges are present. The EM field produced by the charged particles will be just another kind of disturbance or perturbation of the -PRE-EXISTING field, as are gravity and magnetism. I have not given any name to medium or field in my essay. It does need another name to overcome ambiguity.It may be Eugene Klingman's C field but I am not sure yet.

    Re-reading my comment to you above I think I sound rather dismissive of your entry. That was not the intention. On the contrary I wanted to let you know that I read it and was interested by the ideas you introduced. However I just hoped there would be more to read after that introduction.It was brave of you to enter such a succinct piece. But perhaps all it takes is 1 good idea and it can inspire 100 or more others. I just really like Christian's entry with the message Think about it! though yours is also very thought provoking. What if..?

    Kind regards, Georgina.

    5 days later

    Hello Lorian,

    I also read your entire essay. I happen to agree with much of what you say, but I think you did not say quite enough. There are several areas of study that support your view, which you did not mention, and perhaps did not yet discover.

    I know it is a challenge, sometimes, to find adequate material in support of a given view, so I am suggesting that you might enjoy this web-site on decoherence, maintained by Erich Joos.

    You will find that he also espouses agreement with some of your ideas, but I daresay his technical rigor is greatly superior to yours. And his colleague H.D. Zeh is both a masterful thinker and a Math wizard. Sorry there was not more of your essay to comment on.

    Regards,

    Jonathan J. Dickau

    Hello again Lorian,

    Given what you say, in your essay, I wanted to offer that you might enjoy my essay, as I expand on some of the points you make.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    9 days later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #6

    I'm sorry to report that Lorian passed away on February 21, four days after her essay was posted.