Hologram demonstration

Regular readers will know that I’m captivated by the theory of the holographic universe. Here’s a personal demonstration of a real hologram in operation, to show you that the theory is not as wacky as some might believe.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , ,

20 thoughts on “Hologram demonstration

  1. Robert Miller says:

    But Darryl

    There are other dimensions – people have always talked about time and space as being dimensions ( or is that just Dr Who ? 😀 )

    There is also the concept of string theory – taken right from the anals of Wikipedia:

    One of the most inclusive of these is the 11-dimensional M-theory, and in the M-theory way of thinking, string theory requires spacetime to have eleven dimensions

    So the concept of a multi-dimensioal universe is coming into main-stream research, mid you if you want to understand the math behind good luck 😀

  2. Darryl Sloan says:

    The “anals” of Wikipedia. LOL!

    I’m just glad the concept is graspable without resorting to complex mathematics and quantum physics.

  3. Robert Miller says:

    Ooops – could you possibly correct my spelling i feel it should be annals – people might take that the wrong way 😀 – oh and don’t keep this up

  4. I don’t really have a problem with things not being exactly as we perceive them. It’s been something that interests me, to a certain degree.

    For example, just changing the eye itself, changes everything we look at. A fly sees something completely different to us, etc. Even someone who is colour blind sees the world differently to someone that is not.

    My problem with this issue, taking it to the extreme, is that while you can change what you see, through trickery, optics, etc, there are other senses which work in co-operation, to get the most accurate representation of what is around us.

    You’re able to rule out the hologram, because you can touch the item and find out. So really, as far as the world around us goes, it seems pretty real.

    The only argument i think that has any weight, in this area, is the idea that we might all be in some virtual world. Where it seems real, but is nothing more than mathematical equations, being run on some super computer, while we’re sat in some comfy chair, covered in cables and diodes.

    But there really isn’t any evidence for this. There may well be a few things that don’t quite add up, with the perception we have, sometimes, like anomalies, the paranormal, etc, but they’re few and far between. And they sure don’t instantly point at any specific other-reality.

    It’s much more likely that the experience we now have, is real, but that there are a few bits of it that we don’t know yet. We may well have gifts that we don’t know about, ESP, etc. There may well be spirits, aliens, ghosts, or whatever else. There may be no such thing as death, with our energy existing forever, etc. But there’s no evidence, or reason to change the facts we already perceive.

  5. Darryl Sloan says:

    The thing that is impressing most upon me is that you’ve got to be careful what assumptions you make, and in particular what you use as your starting point for understanding the nature of reality. Wrong starting point leads to wrong conclusion.

    If you use observation of the universe as your starting point, then you’ve already assumed that your perceptions are telling you the whole truth, and you end up at the place you described, claiming that there’s no evidence for the holographic universe theory.

    But instead take your starting point back a stage further and begin with yourself as your first and primary point of knowledge: “I think therefore I am,” or “I know I exist because I am self-aware.” Then carefully creep forward and try to determine what else you can be sure of. And what you can’t be sure of is the underlying nature of the universe around you, because everything outside of yourself only enters your conscious awareness after it is interpreted through your senses. All data on the universe is second-hand.

    So, to my understanding, it’s not a case of there being no evidence to support the holographic universe theory; it’s that there’s no evidence to support the physical universe theory.

  6. Skeptic says:

    Hi Darryl,

    Great blog you have here! Some excellent recent posts about reality, perception, etc.. I’ve been reading along for quite some time now, but thought I might start chipping in my two cents.

    there’s no evidence to support the physical universe theory

    While I agree with you in principle (i.e., that the physical universe is NOT all there is, and there’s no real way for us, as perceivers, to really truly know what is the fundamental nature of the universe because we are limited both in our perception and by our perception), there is, however, definitely a reality out there that does possess the attributes of physicality/three-dimensionality and time.

    Despite the fact that we can only really be sure of our own conscious minds, and the fact that we are mere perceivers, it is completely certain to me that other perceivers exist, and that we all have a commonality of perception (despite differences in our modes of perception), otherwise, you and I wouldn’t be having this discussion. So, whatever this universe is in actuality, I think what we perceive through our sense about this universe is true and trustworthy: that bus coming down the street WILL hit you if you step out in front of it, that child of ours screaming in the night really does need fed lest he expire, and so on. History, as much as it hasn’t been revised into falsity, is also trustworthy: your grandparents exist/existed, World War II actually happened, etc..

    If you accept yourself and your own conscious mind as the starting point, then the next step is to accept that the universe which you are perceiving, whatever it may be, does exist, and it does have the attribute of four-dimensionality. Within that four-dimensionality, we can perceive the existence of certain rules and laws, those which science is trying to observe and deduce. We can also perceive events that happen (either first-hand, or from history) in contradiction to any viewpoint which tries to dogmatically claim that reality stops at the material level (like your psi-wheel experiments), and say to ourselves (as you have done) that reality is more than what we can perceive with our five senses.

    You’ve definitely hit the nail on the head with the concept of conditioning. There’s a certain irrationality to which human beings seem prone, and it causes us to latch on to external explanations of reality and defend them to the death, even when something is screaming in our face telling us that we’re wrong. This error of the conscious mind typically happens as a result of the limited nature of both our perception and our understanding of that which we perceive — we want to know everything, but we don’t, so we try to make what we do know into an explanation for everything. Seeing through all of the different kinds of conditioning that tries to weasle its way into our minds can be really hard, but I think you’re on the right track by breaking it all down to first principles. Any idea about what direction your journey is going to go in?

  7. Darryl Sloan says:

    Hi, Skeptic. Thanks for the lengthy comment. I agree 99%, and maybe even 100%, with what you say.

    You’re right to say that the bus will actually hit you. But in another sense, it’s equally plausible to say that the holographic bus hits your holographic body, mathematically restructuring that body according to the laws of physics, mathematically sending other sensory information, such as sound and touch to your conscious awareness via your holographic nerves and holographic brain.

    It’s not so different from collision detection in a videogame. In reality we have the laws of physics which appear to be three-dimensional. In a videogame, we have the game engine, containing a subset of the laws of physics, projecting a three-dimensional illusion onto a TV screen. Either way, it’s all just math.

    I find that every angle I look at the holographic model from, I can’t fault it.

    As you say, the universe is true and trustworthy, and we all have a commonality of experience, but let’s be careful to notice that this in no way lends additional support for the solid universe view. It just means that we perceive a universe based on rules.

    A very interesting question is “Who or what made the rules?” I have some ideas on that one that I’ll be sharing in a future video. Next up, I’m going to take a closer look at the question “What are we?”

    As for where this journey of mine is going? Well, I’ve recently started doing some experiments in telepathy with a friend. It’s too early to say anything definitive. I’ll just say results I’ve been getting thus far definitely justify further tests.

  8. The problem with going back, beyond accepting the world around us, and starting with ourselves is, just because we perceive ourselves to be real, doesn’t mean we are.

    I think, therefore i am. There’s so many holes in that argument, and I don’t really agree with Descartes anyway.

    If the world around us, and our perceptions of it cannot be taken as proof of anything, then our perception of thought, understanding and memory must be treated the same.

    You could set up a computer, with memory, and sensory devices, such as a motion-detecting webcam, audio-activated mics, and even touch sensitive pads. It could experience a good bit of the world around it, with face recognition software (and indeed any shape recognition), software looking for certain sounds and patterns, and software looking for certain touches, etc. It could remember all of those things, and even process all of those senses, and compare them to past experiences. It’s still nothing more than a computer though, to us. So why are we anything more than a computer, if there’s no solid starting point.

    There is no proof of anything at all. In us, around us, etc. If you question things. If a tree that looks, feels and even sounds solid, isn’t really solid, then why is our thinking and our being any more real?

    Another question would be: You don’t trust your perception of the world, you don’t trust solid objects and the universe around you, but you’re willing to experiment with ESP to move psi wheels, to further convince yourself that the world isn’t what we think. Why would you trust your senses to believe a psi wheel is moving without being touched, when you’re using the same senses to do that, as you would to realise a tree is a real, solid object?

    If you walk out into the garden and put your hand on a tree, feeling the bark, solid, unable to move your hand through it, or in any way disprove its solidity, surely that’s just as valid, at the very least, as using your eyes to monitor the movement of a psi wheel, which you perceive to be moving, without touching it?

  9. Darryl Sloan says:

    To me, Descartes reasoning is sound, but I feel it needs modified slightly. It’s not our ability to think that means we definitely exist; it’s our self-awareness. Thinking (and emotion) are purely brain-based. And when the brain dies, they die. Our thoughts and personalities are not us; we are consiousness, not mind (I’m going to make a video shortly that explores this side of things). I would modify Descarte’s quote to “I am self-aware, therefore I am,” or simply, “I am, therefore I am.”

    Self-awareness is the one thing we can be sure of. You can’t put it under a microscope. You can’t prove it exists scientifically. But you ARE it. I think that people of a strictly scientific mindset have lost touch with the wonder of self-awareness, instead thinking of human beings in purely reductionist terms, like we’re just walking computers with AI. But that’s just not accurate. We’re more than that, and we know it. You would never say your computer is self-aware, even though it is capable of thought, in its own way.

    “Why would you trust your senses to believe a psi wheel is moving without being touched, when you’re using the same senses to do that, as you would to realise a tree is a real, solid object?”

    I don’t really follow you. And I’m not sure you’re picking me up right, either. I do trust my senses, but with the understanding that they’re just a layer of what’s really going on. Psychokinesis and telepathy are attempts to produce measurable evidence that there is a deeper aspect to reality than its solid three-dimensional state.

  10. Skeptic says:

    Darryl,

    “But in another sense, it’s equally plausible to say that the holographic bus hits your holographic body, mathematically restructuring that body according to the laws of physics, mathematically sending other sensory information, such as sound and touch to your conscious awareness via your holographic nerves and holographic brain.”

    I am afraid I don’t follow. How can I, as a mere perceiver, come to any reasonable understanding that this metaphorical bus is holographic in nature? To say that the underlying reality of the bus is a hologram would be pure conjecture, as far as I can reckon, and one could also validly assert that the bus is fundamentally ethereal fairies holding together beams of green cheese.

    The primary point here, and I think someone else in the combox said it, is no matter what the underlying nature of the universe may be, it does not negate the fact that the universe we perceive with our five senses does possess the attribute of four-dimensionality. Despite your desire to explain the nature of reality with holograms, we know for a fact that this attribute of four-dimensionality means that, when the bus hits you, you will cease to exist in the universe, as far as we are able to perceive it. And the fact that you can move psi-wheels with your mind doesn’t seem to make any difference to that reality.

    “As you say, the universe is true and trustworthy, and we all have a commonality of experience, but let’s be careful to notice that this in no way lends additional support for the solid universe view. It just means that we perceive a universe based on rules.”

    I would say that our commonality of perception does lend additional support to the view that the universe possesses the attribute of four-dimensionality, and certain rules can be discerned within that four-dimensionality. If by the term “solid universe view” you’re intending to mean scientific materialism, i.e., that the universe begins and ends with solid matter and whatever else we can perceive and measure, then I would say, in the love of truth, that our commonality of perception does indeed lend support to that view because we can all agree that “solid matter” exists. Even though “solid matter” may not truly be solid in its fundamental essence, I think you’ve already admitted in one of your recent videos that it is basically impossible for human beings to figure out what the structure of the universe truly is, and that’s an important fact to consider when you’re weighing up scientific materialism and questioning why people want to “buy into it”.

    I guess my point here is that our commonality of perception allows us to agree that “solid”, four-dimensional matter exists outside of our own consciousness. It does not allow us to agree that the universe is fundamentally holographic in nature because that would be very difficult for us to perceive, if not impossible. Therefore, reasoning from the surety of four-dimensionality seems to be the most intellectually stable next step after the realization that we are consciousness. But let’s be sure to agree that this doesn’t mean to say we must shoe-horn our explanation of everything else into that four-dimensional reality. Not at all! However, I think it is a sacrifice of intellectual integrity if we desire to set aside what we are sure of in order to favor that which we are not sure of.

    I have some comments about your peculiar references to mathematics both in your reply to me and in your most recent video blog, but I’ll write those comments on the videgames post.

  11. This is my problem with Descartes and these theories in general. The starting points for such assumptions seem to meet the needs of the perceiver, rather than be any serious look into the reality or lack thereof of the world around us.

    There is absolutely no reason why our perception of thought and imagination and anything else we can do, should be real, if our other perceptions are unreliable about matter, and the like.

    And as posted above by Skeptic, there are much more likely outcomes to the argument, which at least have perceivable facts, which although not 100% reliable, are at least better than “intuition,” which is just another word for faith.

    And that’s really what all of this comes down to, you’re basing a faith on the faith itself. Much like a Christian puts their faith in god, then gives him the glory if something nice happens to them, you’re putting your faith in the hologram theory and single consciousness theory, then anything you find that’s a little odd, like moving the psi wheel, is credited as proof, rather than admitting there’s no proof either way, and that moving a psi wheel could be one of a billion things at work.

    And this is why i don’t believe any of us are capable of thinking outside of our own little box, and being completely open minded. We’ll always look at things and judge things according to what we already believe, based on what we’ve heard, read or been told.

  12. Darryl Sloan says:

    Hi, Skeptic.

    “no matter what the underlying nature of the universe may be, it does not negate the fact that the universe we perceive with our five senses does possess the attribute of four-dimensionality.”

    Agreed. When I use the term hologram, I don’t mean it in the sense that you could put your hand through it and hit nothing but air. Yes, the oncoming bus will kill you, absolutely. All I mean by hologram is that three dimensional perception does not have to exist in a real three dimensional space.

    Videogames are an example of this. Perhaps a better example is crash-test software, which uses 3D modelling and genuine physics to predict the outcome of a collision.

    Consciousness is perceiving the entire realm of three-dimensionality and classical physics. What I’m suggesting is that our ability to understand and reconstruct this realm as a computer-generated model means that it was a model to begin with.

    “our commonality of perception does indeed lend support to that view because we can all agree that “solid matter” exists. Even though “solid matter” may not truly be solid in its fundamental essence”

    Then we’re agreed. That’s all I’ve been saying.

    “I guess my point here is that our commonality of perception allows us to agree that “solid”, four-dimensional matter exists outside of our own consciousness.”

    Not quite. I think of it like this: if the universe is a perception, who or what is doing the projecting? That’s a question that lies outside the realm of physics, and I think the way to answer it is through intuition. I have some thoughts on that one that I’ll save for the next video.

    “However, I think it is a sacrifice of intellectual integrity if we desire to set aside what we are sure of in order to favor that which we are not sure of.”

    I’m not exactly sure what you mean, but it strikes me that there is very little we can be sure of in an absolute sense. I’m sure of my existence in an absolute sense because of self-awareness. Everything else comes down to trust, because everything else is perception. For instance, I could take the view that I’m the only person who is real. All other people in the world are figments of my imagination. I can’t prove that’s true, and I can’t really prove it’s not true, either. But I trust that other people really do exist.

    In the same way I have to decide whether to trust that the physical universe is the fundamental building block of reality or whether it’s merely a layer of reality that I’m tuned in to. It’s the latter that resonates with me. But either way, it comes down to trust.

    This is why I place importance on intuition as well as rationality.

  13. Darryl Sloan says:

    Hi, Paul (GodIsWearingBlack).

    I think the underlying issue with the things you say is that you’re firmly locked into an evidence-based mode of thinking. I appreciate that to a large degree, but I also make room for the intuitive, because I think evidence-seeking can only take you so far. The problem is that there are things that might be true that there is no evidence for and there never will be evidence for because those things exist outside the realm of physics itself. The idea of there only being a single consciousness, for instance.

    This resonates with me deeply. I could say, “I’m not going to believe it, because there’s no evidence.” But here’s the thing: whether it’s true or false, it belongs to outside of this five-sense perceptual universe. I’m never gonna be able to know, either way. In this sense, evidence-seeking alone leaves you high and dry in a vacuum of belief, even though there’s a chance that belief in nothing is not the way things really are.

    That’s where intuition comes in. You define it as faith. It is indeed faith in the sense that it is belief without evidence. But there’s more to it than that. Intuition is your mind’s connection to the deeper single consciousness that is everything. When you have an intuition, you are not saying “Gee, I like the sound of that,” you are remembering what you always knew, but forgot due to the disconnection of being stuck in a body and a finite mind.

    “And this is why i don’t believe any of us are capable of thinking outside of our own little box, and being completely open minded. We’ll always look at things and judge things according to what we already believe, based on what we’ve heard, read or been told.”

    Paul, if that were true, then I would still be a Christian. You can choose to have a belief system that is constantly open to change from new and challenging information, or you can choose to have a belief system that always tries to re-interpret and re-mould new information to defend the existing belief system.

    Making the former choice is what led me away from Christianity. You may say that I only abandoned one box in favour of another. You can believe what you like about me. I know that’s not what I’m doing. And stepping outside of the box is a choice open to anybody.

  14. Darryl,

    But the problem with not being limited by evidence is you could end up believing in anything, and because no proof is needed, there’s never any real reason for that belief to be based in anything real.

    I could easily state today that I believe I am god. If i also state that i won’t prove it either way, through miracles and evidence, then no-one can really argue against it, or for it. It’s just a matter of whether people believe me on faith or not.

    Likewise, I could argue that what we are all living is nothing more than a virtual reality playing in some museum on another planet, for pre-school alien kids to use as entertainment. They could tune in to our little lives and see what’s going on today, as we’re faced with different computer created challenges, and see how we react, just like little characters in The Sims.

    There’s no way of proving or disproving this. I could say I believe it because I had a dream, or because it’s something i feel strongly in my heart. There’s no way for someone to come in and say: “Well actually you’re wrong, because …” And likewise, i can’t convince other people by saying: “It’s true, because …”

    This is how people get into dangerous mindsets, people like David Icke, thinking they’re the Son Of God, and getting caught up in crazy conspiracies about shape-shifting lizards controlling the world and holding satanic rituals where they sexually molest and murder children. When you rule out filters, you end up getting carried away and listening to your own fears and agendas.

    As for being open-minded, i should have phrased that better. I think to a certain degree we can think for ourselves, and change our opinions, etc, but not without a catalyst from another person.

    Throughout our lives we tend to follow trends and other people. This is why very few people go from 100% Christian to 100% new-age, etc. Usually it’s a long process, where other people tell us new things, or we are exposed to new ways of thinking, over time. But i also think a large part of that is desire. We desire something, even though sometimes what we find isn’t something we would have desired, we were so eager to find something, rather than face nothing, that we’ll accept whatever it is we find.

    This is why most people tend to go between beliefs, often going back and forth, between the ones that suit them most. And every time we find that new thing, we proclaim it to be the true answer.

    I have to say though, i’m not all together against the virtual reality theories. There’s something quite romantic about the idea, if that’s the right choice of word. The idea that we’re a simulation of some kind, playing out in another realm, or level of existence. But for me, it’s more an entertaining thought, than one of substance. There’s no way of proving it and as the world stands, around us, there’s no real reason to believe it’s true.

    I really do believe our initial perception plays a huge role in anything we believe or see or hear or know. I’ve said it before, and i think it perfectly sums up the way i think on these things:
    If there’s a strange light in the sky, that goes against all we know about physics, ie. the speed at which it moves, how it acts, where it is, etc, and we all see it, what each person believes that light is, depends on their knowledge and belief that they already have.

    A Christian will look at that light and claim it is an angel. A believer in aliens will claim it’s a UFO from another planet. Someone who thinks we’re part of a matrix, may believe it’s a glitch in the code. An Atheist might think it’s just an unexplained light in the sky, or an optical trick caused by the positioning of the sun and clouds, etc. A young child might think it’s Superman.

    And that’s my argument. You look at a psi wheel moving, and based on your intuition you have a certain belief about it. I see a psi wheel moving, and if indeed it is really a paranormal event, and not caused by thermodynamics and the like (I’m not convinced yet. :P), then i’m more inclined to think it’s a rather wonderful gift that either some people, or all of us have, that we don’t fully understand yet. I really don’t feel the need to change reality to allow for it, it fits in with the reality i already believe in.

    I think i’ve given a link for this site before, but in light of this current discussion, i think it’s probably even more apt. You might like it over there, especially on the forums: http://www.theuniversesolved.com/index.htm – If nothing else, it’s interesting.

  15. Darryl Sloan says:

    Hi, Paul.

    “But the problem with not being limited by evidence is you could end up believing in anything,”

    The problem with relying solely on evidence is that you might end up never getting to particular truths because they are outside the realm empirical examination.

    We’re just not in the same headspace, Paul. 🙂 To you, intuition is going to be regarded as a total leap in the dark, and evidence gathering the only way to truth. Whereas to me, evidence gathering is just one way to truth, and intuition another. Your approach assumes that physical reality is all there is. Whereas I see myself as consciousness peeking into physical reality. To me, inuition is not my imagination; it’s my connection through the subconscious mind to the superconscious that is the real me, you, everyone and everything. But of course, I know exactly how that sounds to you: “Bah! You’re just giving yourself permission to believe whatever you bloody well feel like, Sloan!” You need evidence that there is such a thing as this superconscious before you can believe it. Whether there is or there isn’t, there’s no evidence – which is kind of my point.

    “This is how people get into dangerous mindsets, people like David Icke, thinking they’re the Son Of God, and getting caught up in crazy conspiracies about shape-shifting lizards controlling the world and holding satanic rituals where they sexually molest and murder children. When you rule out filters, you end up getting carried away and listening to your own fears and agendas.”

    We have a vastly different opinions of David Icke. I’ve read six of his books, and I think that in many ways he’s an excellent thinker with some really thought-provoking material.

    “If there’s a strange light in the sky, that goes against all we know about physics, ie. the speed at which it moves, how it acts, where it is, etc, and we all see it, what each person believes that light is, depends on their knowledge and belief that they already have.”

    This is a great example. I think it’s very important not to jump to conclusions and to see if there are other ways to look at things. Incidentally, regarding the psi wheel, there is a part of me that still thinks there may be a conventional explanation at the end of this, and I’ve done a lot more testing than I’ve blogged about.

  16. Skeptic says:

    Hi Darryl,

    “All I mean by hologram is that three dimensional perception does not have to exist in a real three dimensional space.”

    Right, I see. Are you aware that this is not a new observation? Physicists have been working with non-Euclidean geometries for quite some time, and I think most cosmologists and particle physicists would very much agree with your view that the underlying nature of the universe is not three dimensional. I think someone even mentioned this in the combox on one of your other posts.

    “What I’m suggesting is that our ability to understand and reconstruct this realm as a computer-generated model means that it was a model to begin with.”

    I don’t agree with this conclusion, but I’ll talk to you about all of this on the video games post, once my comment is ready.

    “Not quite. I think of it like this: if the universe is a perception, who or what is doing the projecting?”

    Well, the very real fact that we do perceive the universe does not necessarily imply that the universe is itself a perception that is being generated/projected from a source. I’m not quite sure I follow how you have been able to come to this conclusion.

    “I’m sure of my existence in an absolute sense because of self-awareness. Everything else comes down to trust, because everything else is perception. … This is why I place importance on intuition as well as rationality.”

    Yes, you got my original meaning quite well. My point is that we can be sure that the universe does contain physical matter, even though we can also be reasonably certain that the fundamental building blocks of reality may very well not be physical. Whatever the fundamental building block may be in its true essence, it exhibits solidity to our perceptions. Or, to rephrase it: our conscious mind perceives the fundamental building blocks of the universe as solid matter. So, it would seem a trustworthy conclusion if we were to say that solid matter exists outside of our own conscious minds.

    I see a big problem with your approach to this whole thing, though, and perhaps you can correct me if I’m wrong. It seems to me that you’ve fallen into the trap of believing that everything outside of your own self-awareness is untrustworthy. To that end, you are no longer even sure of what you are perceiving through your five senses — is it truly solid, or is solidity an illusion — and therefore evidence-based reasoning must not get in the way of intuitive understanding (for reasons that you’ve made clear in your recent comments to “GodIsWearingBlack”). But the problem here is that you’ve introduced a false dichotomy between evidence-based reasoning and what you call intuition-based reasoning. The two are more truthfully interlinked.

    If you have evidence-based reasoning by itself (i.e., I’m not going to believe X because there is no evidence for it), then I agree that you’re going to get nowhere fast. If you have intuition-based reasoning by itself (i.e., I am going to believe in X because it seems right to me, and I have no reason that I think is good enough to believe otherwise), then you risk going off the deep end. But when the two work together, it allows us to say, “Look, I believe X might be true, but I don’t have evidence of it to back up my belief. So I will tentatively believe X is true while I look for supporting evidence, or until I discover something that negates X.” In effect, letting evidence-based reasoning and intuition work together give you a much more solid (and credible) position in the investigation because it constrains your imagination, and any tendency to want to see things that really might not be there.

    To me, it almost seems like you’ve come to a point where you can say, “Well, there’s no real evidence for anything, so I might as well just believe what seems right.” If that’s the case, then I think you’ve made an error. But I’m happy to be corrected!

  17. Darryl Sloan says:

    Hi, Skeptic.

    Have no fear. We’re mostly in the same headspace. I think the problem is more one of language and interpretation.

    “Whatever the fundamental building block may be in its true essence, it exhibits solidity to our perceptions. Or, to rephrase it: our conscious mind perceives the fundamental building blocks of the universe as solid matter. So, it would seem a trustworthy conclusion if we were to say that solid matter exists outside of our own conscious minds.”

    I’m with you until the last sentence. As I see it, consciousness is tuned into the physical universe. Solid matter does not exist as actual solid matter, only as perceptual solid matter. In the same way, a videogame arena only exists as a perceptual game arena. There are the games console circuits, the computations and the mathematics, but at no time is there ever an actual 3D arena except in my perceptions of it from a flat TV screen … as with physical reality to consciousess.

    Perhaps our difference lies in this: you appear to see yourself as being in the universe, part of it. Whereas I see myself as being an observer of the universe, wholely distinct.

    “To me, it almost seems like you’ve come to a point where you can say, “Well, there’s no real evidence for anything, so I might as well just believe what seems right.””

    Oh, not at all. It’s just as you said, rationality and intuition interlinked. A true intuition should never be irrational. And rationality can effectively be used to test an intuition. I’m right with you.

    My ongoing attempts at telekinesis and telepathy are primarily to test my intuitions about consciousness and its relationship to the physical world, to obtain empirical evidence (or at least substantial clues) to what’s going on. Shows I’m as hungry for evidence as the next person. Although I’m certainly willing to fly with an intuition in the absense of evidence, too.

    I need to be clear about one thing. I’m not a dogmatist. I’m not saying, “This is the way it’s gotta be, or else.” This is just the picture of things that seems true to me. And of course, I could be wrong, and I’m willing to change. Everyone has to plot their own course.

    Dogmatism belongs to religion, where if you can’t quite manage to believe a certain thing in a certain way, it’s whoops! Off to hell you go. Good riddance to that way of thinking.

    To come back to earth a little, 🙂 I’m perfectly aware that I’m supposed to have this five-sense experience, which is bound by dependable laws. In that sense it is real. But I can choose to have the experience of life with a sense of awareness that nothing deeper is going on, or I can choose to have the experience with the sense of awareness that far more is going on than the experience itself.

  18. Adam Neira says:

    Excellent presentation Darryl. There are very deep mysteries of the universe that some people more than others can tap into.

  19. David says:

    So how do you feel now that the holographic universe theory has received a massive death-blow?

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/hologram-universe/

  20. Darryl Sloan says:

    You call that a deathblow? Philosophically speaking, materialism fails to answer the question of universal causality. This question can only be answered by conceptualising a realm beyond of space-time, to what we might call the Infinite, where time and form have no substance. All is one. You probably don’t get what I’m saying, but THAT is what gives credence to the holographic universe theory. Physicality is not the prime state of reality, but an expression.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: