The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3221
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
'Most mind-boggling of all are Bohm's fully developed ideas about wholeness. Because everything in the cosmos is made out the seamless holographic fabric of the implicate order, he believes it is meaningless to view the universe as composed of parts.'
Bohm's theory is that 'space is real and rich with the process as the matter that moves through it reaches full maturity in his ideas about the implicate sea of energy'. In addition, he argues that, 'Matter does not exist independently from the sea, from so-called empty space.' The metaphorical use of sea is referring to the energy from which all which exists comes from primarily.
Bohm's ideas have particular implications for the understanding of consciousness, as an aspect of metaphysics. Talbot argues that,
'Bohm rejects the idea that particles don't exist until they are observed. But he is not in principle against trying to bring consciousness and physics together. He simply feels that most physicists go about it in the wrong way, by trying to fragment reality and saying that one separate thing, consciousness, interacts with another separate thing, a subatomic particle.'
Talbot goes on to say that Bohm believes that,
'consciousness is a more subtle form of matter, and the basis for any relationship between the two lies not in our own level of reality, but deep in the implicate order. Consciousness is present in degrees of enfoldment and unfolding in matter, which is why plasmas possess alone some of the traits of living things'.
I am aware that I have only given a brief sketch of the ideas, and a central notion is David Bohm's idea of the implicate and explicate order. In some ways the implicate order could be seen as the invisible source, almost like Plato's Forms, with the explicate order being what is manifest in physical reality, although with less of a split between mind and body than in some other theories. I am raising this perspective to see how helpful it may be for the underlying metaphysical questions about consciousness, as apparent in various thread discussions.
Also, one other point suggested in the book is that there is no one correct theory outrightly, and, that theories are 'approximations of the truth, finite and indivisible.' I am interested to know to what extent this statement about theories, or models, may be seen as useful or accurate.
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE
When a tree falls in the forest
And there’s no one around to hear it,
Does it make a sound?
No, for there is no ear to turn
The sound waves into sound.
Nor is there a smell, for there is no nose
For the odorous molecules to attach to,
Nor has it any color, for there is
No retina to decode the light frequencies.
What does it look like, then?
It doesn’t look like anything,
For there is no brain to put it all together
By detecting form, color, texture,
Size, taste, smell, or vision.
Since the entropy of a black hole is known
To depend on the surface area of
The event horizon and NOT on its volume,
Then our third dimension MIGHT BE a projection.
A projected illusion, as in a hologram,
May still be used as it were really there
Since we can make sense of it, so to speak,
But, in truth, the third dimension may not exist.
Thus, apparently separate particles,
Like created photon pairs,
Copy the other when one is changed,
Because, in truth, they are still
The same thing in the projector room.
If the universe is holographic,
Then the tree in the forest,
Whether seen or not,
Is, at heart, an interference pattern
Brought to life only when we tune it in.
This is the mystery of the realness
Of sleeping dreams revealed:
We tune in to the interference patterns,
Whether awake or asleep,
To bring alive the reality projected.
Everything connects to everything else
Through overlapping interference patterns,
And so nothing is so separate at all, as it seems,
But is one large all-encompassing whole.
Memory, too, seems to be holographic,
Residing everywhere in the brain,
Every piece associated with others related,
Instantly broadcasting all the connections.
Every part of a hologram contains the whole,
The whole universe contained within
A grain of sand, all eternity within a moment,
The universe rumbling when an electron vibrates.
We are part and parcel of everything—
We are the cosmos; we are life; we are love;
We are all that is; we are the creator
Of the dance as well as the dancer.
Whether the past is recorded and accessible
As part of the holographic whole is not known
Or whether the other two dimensions are
Projected, as well, but perhaps we shall see.
This then is the secret of the universe,
Knowing of that which underlies all reality:
Fundamental, absolute, indestructible,
Omnipresent, indeterminate, but all pervasive.
Why absolute and fundamental?
Because it is made of one piece—itself,
And therefore indestructible, and eternal, too,
And makes up all that there is, everywhere.
The quantum fields would be the implicate order—the sea of energy as the 'vacuum' that isn't a vacuum in 'empty space' that isn't empty. The explicit order would be the matter and energy 'particles' that can act stand-alone but are still the quantum fields at heart.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3221
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
I appreciate your poem because it illustrates the idea of the hologram which is image based. The concept is about symmetry and patterns which appear in the reality which emerges in existence. As human beings these patterns and reflections are aspects of existence into which it possible to be attuned to. Parts are reflected in other parts in intricate patterns, and even inherent laws of nature may be observed through becoming aware of the way in which patterns are manifest and unfold in life.
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
For me that represents the old issue of speculations about the non-evident which is the heart of metaphysics. I can't see any purpose in the endeavour of discussing such metaphysical speculations. The usefulness of engaging in such sort of thinking has to be assessed by the individual who engages in it and has to do with what this individual desires and whether such thinking brings the individual closer to what it desires.JackDaydream wrote: ↑October 21st, 2021, 2:01 pm In 'The Holgraphic Universe', by Michael Talbot, a holographic model based on the new physics is described. This began from the work of Karl Pilbram, which focuses on the way in which memories are distributed in the brain, as well as David Bohm's ideas on interconnectedness. Talbot suggested that,
'Most mind-boggling of all are Bohm's fully developed ideas about wholeness. Because everything in the cosmos is made out the seamless holographic fabric of the implicate order, he believes it is meaningless to view the universe as composed of parts.'
Bohm's theory is that 'space is real and rich with the process as the matter that moves through it reaches full maturity in his ideas about the implicate sea of energy'. In addition, he argues that, 'Matter does not exist independently from the sea, from so-called empty space.' The metaphorical use of sea is referring to the energy from which all which exists comes from primarily.
Bohm's ideas have particular implications for the understanding of consciousness, as an aspect of metaphysics. Talbot argues that,
'Bohm rejects the idea that particles don't exist until they are observed. But he is not in principle against trying to bring consciousness and physics together. He simply feels that most physicists go about it in the wrong way, by trying to fragment reality and saying that one separate thing, consciousness, interacts with another separate thing, a subatomic particle.'
Talbot goes on to say that Bohm believes that,
'consciousness is a more subtle form of matter, and the basis for any relationship between the two lies not in our own level of reality, but deep in the implicate order. Consciousness is present in degrees of enfoldment and unfolding in matter, which is why plasmas possess alone some of the traits of living things'.
I am aware that I have only given a brief sketch of the ideas, and a central notion is David Bohm's idea of the implicate and explicate order. In some ways the implicate order could be seen as the invisible source, almost like Plato's Forms, with the explicate order being what is manifest in physical reality, although with less of a split between mind and body than in some other theories. I am raising this perspective to see how helpful it may be for the underlying metaphysical questions about consciousness, as apparent in various thread discussions.
Also, one other point suggested in the book is that there is no one correct theory outrightly, and, that theories are 'approximations of the truth, finite and indivisible.' I am interested to know to what extent this statement about theories, or models, may be seen as useful or accurate.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3221
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
What may be useful to think about is how the holographic model is not a metaphysical theory primarily but a theory in physics. I have focused more on the metaphysics because I was wishing to draw attention to the implications for the understanding of consciousness, especially the relationship between mind and matter, a recurring philosophical conundrum.
What may be the issue is the way in which descriptions and models within the physical sciences draw upon and give rise to metaphysical assumptions. On one level, the theories offer ways of understanding how the physical world works, and the holographic model had implications for thermodynamics and the understanding of the way in which information is stored. However, the theory or model is a description of reality as well, and most other theories do so and in some ways, they may be seen as credible because they are 'scientific'. Nevertheless, scientists use language and are building pictures of the universe and the world and this may be glossed over. The particular holographic one is image based, but there was recognition by its theorists that it was only a model, which is important, because it would be possible for it to be interpreted in a concrete way.
So, one aspect of thinking about the way in which theories in the physical sciences, ranging from the ideas of Newton, quantum theory and string theory are descriptions and often use language in a metaphysical way. All human beings do, in physical and metaphysical thinking and it is about being able to think as to what lies behind the words, and how concepts are formulated. I am not convinced that human beings can avoid metaphysics, and people combine images and logical explanations to understand how the universe and 'reality' works, in order to interpret this meaningfully.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3221
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
The word 'metaphysical' in the third line of the final paragraph is a typing error and should read as 'metaphorical'. This is an important distinction because I am wishing to draw attention specifically to the way in which physicists and metaphysicists use language metaphorically, even to the point where such linguistics may become mystified in ideas which are accepted academically and culturally.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
My view of the theories of physics tends to be an instrumental one. They are expressions of patterns that we've noticed in what we've observed of what we, with good reason, believe to be reality. At least, that's their starting point. We may or may not then go on to speculate as to what else they represent.JackDaydream wrote:Also, one other point suggested in the book is that there is no one correct theory outrightly, and, that theories are 'approximations of the truth, finite and indivisible.' I am interested to know to what extent this statement about theories, or models, may be seen as useful or accurate.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3221
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
It is different to think of how each person in the context of the twentieth first century thinks about physics on an individual basis to the way in which such ideas have an influence culturally in assumptions about how reality is. In particular, Fritjof Capra has spoken of how the new physics, replacing the Cartesian- Newtonian world picture has brought in a new paradigm of thinking in so many diverse fields, especially in the development of systems theory. Such ideas have been central to all kinds of shifts in thinking about biology, and in the social sciences. All these are bound up with metaphysical assumptions. Writers such as Talbot and Bohm have contributed so much at the infrastructure of thought and Bohm's ideas have had a particular influence on ideas about interconnectedness and, have also challenged physicalism on some level.If nothing else, the ideas of physicists like Talbot and Bohm look at patterns, such as the curvature of space time, in such a way which make thinking about processes in life tangible, and give frameworks for philosophical discussions about the underlying structures of reality.
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
Sorry but even though you are using words like "physics" and "thermodynamics" and "Newton" and "quantum theory" as ornaments implying serious science the thrust of your posts (OP and this one quoted) actually is metaphysical speculation through and through.JackDaydream wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2021, 4:58 am @stevie
What may be useful to think about is how the holographic model is not a metaphysical theory primarily but a theory in physics. I have focused more on the metaphysics because I was wishing to draw attention to the implications for the understanding of consciousness, especially the relationship between mind and matter, a recurring philosophical conundrum.
What may be the issue is the way in which descriptions and models within the physical sciences draw upon and give rise to metaphysical assumptions. On one level, the theories offer ways of understanding how the physical world works, and the holographic model had implications for thermodynamics and the understanding of the way in which information is stored. However, the theory or model is a description of reality as well, and most other theories do so and in some ways, they may be seen as credible because they are 'scientific'. Nevertheless, scientists use language and are building pictures of the universe and the world and this may be glossed over. The particular holographic one is image based, but there was recognition by its theorists that it was only a model, which is important, because it would be possible for it to be interpreted in a concrete way.
So, one aspect of thinking about the way in which theories in the physical sciences, ranging from the ideas of Newton, quantum theory and string theory are descriptions and often use language in a metaphysical way. All human beings do, in physical and metaphysical thinking and it is about being able to think as to what lies behind the words, and how concepts are formulated. I am not convinced that human beings can avoid metaphysics, and people combine images and logical explanations to understand how the universe and 'reality' works, in order to interpret this meaningfully.
I don't deny that there might be even physicists who are carried away by their speculative thoughts and come up with self-declared "theories" which aren't rightly called "theory" because in science a theory is a logically consistent hypothesis which is validated by experimental evidence.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3221
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
Of course, I am not a physicist and I come from a humanities and arts background. I merely read some books on physics to try to widen the scope of my knowledge and as part of my own philosophy quest. I certainly would not have posted this topic in the philosophy of science section of the forum. However, I would be interested to engage with people who come from a background of specialised study of physics, and especially with anyone who has read about the holographic model of the universe. I was rather amused by your remark that I use physics terms rather like 'ornaments', and it does raise the question as to what extent should one dabble in fields of thought which have not been studied sufficiently? But, I do have another question which I raise for you or anyone else reading the thread, which is to what extent should physics be the foundation for metaphysics?
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
Just to be clear I accept that individuals have different inclinations when it comes to philosophical thinking which is why there is a vast number of different philosophies. I also accept that people have different attitudes towards speculative thinking because one may pursue speculative thinking just for fun, due to enjoyment of the thinking potential as such not taking he speculations seriously. However I think that when individuals become seriously involved in speculative thinking (through believing speculations to be true or even believing that there is a chance that speculations may be true and/or becoming passionate about speculations) then speculative thinking becomes a serious psychological object. The latter is why religion for me is merely a psychological topic but even philosophy can become some sort of "religion" relevant for psychology.JackDaydream wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2021, 12:21 pm @ stevie
Of course, I am not a physicist and I come from a humanities and arts background. I merely read some books on physics to try to widen the scope of my knowledge and as part of my own philosophy quest. I certainly would not have posted this topic in the philosophy of science section of the forum. However, I would be interested to engage with people who come from a background of specialised study of physics, and especially with anyone who has read about the holographic model of the universe. I was rather amused by your remark that I use physics terms rather like 'ornaments', and it does raise the question as to what extent should one dabble in fields of thought which have not been studied sufficiently? But, I do have another question which I raise for you or anyone else reading the thread, which is to what extent should physics be the foundation for metaphysics?
This attitude of mine is why I tend to reject metaphysics as a whole and your question appears hilarious to me Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy but not a branch of physics.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3221
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
I understand that you 'reject metaphysics', and that you see it as 'a branch of philosophy but not a branch of physics'. However, I am a little unclear as to whether you see the psychological as being the main basis for analysis as you go on to say that 'speculative thinking becomes a serious psychological object'. Does that mean that you think that all explanations are connected to the individual's psychological need to understand the world?
I would not deny that the psychological needs come into play when anyone speculates about the world, and that the need to 'understand' has a psychological component. However, when a person seeks answers to the world , surely, this involves being able to step outside of the psychological, or subjective elements and try to find answers.
When you say that my question appears 'hilarious', I am presuming you mean the one in my previous post: to what extent should physics be a foundation for metaphysics? Surely, while it is possible to find an alternative way of viewing, the question is important because the way the physical world and its laws has some kind of bearing on how reality is interpreted. That is because while people are psychological beings they are part of the cosmos and I don't see how all thinking about this can be reduced to the psychological aspects. Even Ayer, the logical positivist, saw metaphysical matters as purely speculative, but he did acknowledge that people are likely to wonder about them. I can see that metaphysical speculation is limited and there are philosophical mysteries. Is the reason why you think the psychological is most important based on an assumption that the philosophical mysteries, within metaphysics, cannot be solved at all?
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
I would not agree that all individuals have a "psychological need to understand the world" but there are certainly more or less individuals who have such a need. And neither would I think that it is natural to have such a need nor would I think that it is natural to not have such a need. I can only say that I think that individuals are different in terms of their needs, be these psychological or non-psychological.JackDaydream wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2021, 2:41 am @ stevie
I understand that you 'reject metaphysics', and that you see it as 'a branch of philosophy but not a branch of physics'. However, I am a little unclear as to whether you see the psychological as being the main basis for analysis as you go on to say that 'speculative thinking becomes a serious psychological object'. Does that mean that you think that all explanations are connected to the individual's psychological need to understand the world?
...
Using verbal expressions of psychology for me currently is the only way to speak about individuals' attitudes, intentions, interests because neuroscience currently doesn't provide an appropriate pool of verbal expressions due to lack of knowledge. So the main basis of analysis for me is the subject that expresses itself verbally or in writing, not the alleged objects its verbal expressions seem to refer to and I would prefer to use neuroscientific language instead of psychological language because neuroscience better corresponds with what I think science 'is' (or 'what should be regarded as' science) than psychology does.
As I said for me it's merely a question of either focusing on the subject or on the subject's mentally fabricated objects (incl. their relations). Metaphysics is just a collection of such mental fabrications. So from my perspective there aren't any "philosophical mysteries" to be solved. Metaphysical philosophies may be likened to novels or paintings of artists, an expression of their creativity. If someone finds enjoyment reading novels or looking at paintings, then fine, this can be a nice pastime.JackDaydream wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2021, 2:41 am ... Is the reason why you think the psychological is most important based on an assumption that the philosophical mysteries, within metaphysics, cannot be solved at all?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
Physics is a hard science. Metaphysics, whatever it is, is not a hard science. It is difficult (for me) to see how one might, could, or should form a foundation for the other.JackDaydream wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2021, 12:21 pm I do have another question which I raise for you or anyone else reading the thread, which is to what extent should physics be the foundation for metaphysics?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2021, 7:22 amPhysics is a hard science. Metaphysics, whatever it is, is not a hard science. It is difficult (for me) to see how one might, could, or should form a foundation for the other.JackDaydream wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2021, 12:21 pm I do have another question which I raise for you or anyone else reading the thread, which is to what extent should physics be the foundation for metaphysics?
Physicists aim to discover order: Metaphysicists discuss whether or not order is discovered or invented.
It's scary to imagine there may be no order apart from what humans invent.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023