The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

[Pattern-chaser]

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?

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.

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.

I don't think physicists aim to discover order. Rather, they seek to observe, measure and model apparent reality - the reality which is apparent to our senses and our measuring devices. This applies whether reality is ordered, complex or chaotic, or in reality , a mixture of all of them. Metaphysicians are not so concerned with order, I don't think. Perhaps we could say metaphysicians consider possibilities of all kinds?

Scary? We have determined empirically that there appears to be both order and chaos in reality; it is what it is, or maybe it seems to be as it seems to be.

[Steve3007]

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?

To answer that question (or any other question) we'd have to establish how we're using the words that it contains. If the word "metaphysics" is being used to refer to the study of what exists (i.e. if we take metaphysics to consist largely of ontology), then physics could be the foundation of some metaphysical positions. For example, consideration of the findings of physics might help some people to decide whether or not to adopt the metaphysical/ontological position called materialism.

[Belindi]

It is a terrible responsibility to make order out of chaos. No wonder people used to shrug off this responsibility on to God!

[Pattern-chaser]

It is a terrible responsibility to make order out of chaos. No wonder people used to shrug off this responsibility on to God!

We can make order out of chaos? This seems unlikely; perhaps I misunderstand your point?

[JackDaydream]

@Belindi
The question as to how much order there really is and how much is related to human constructs is interesting. Chaos theory suggests that there is order amidst disorder. The holographic model involves seeing patterns in all aspects of life, in the replication of cell division with chromosomes being contained in every cell and underlying structures of the natural world being based on similarities. But, there may be some tension between the similarities and the unique. This involves each being having such unique features and, also, the nature of some freedom for choice. Beyond the issue of human freedom, even animals have some choice, unless there is some overriding determining order within the emergence of what takes place in life.

[JackDaydream]

Pattern-chaser

You speak of physics being 'hard science' and metaphysics as not. It may be that this leads some people to think that it is easier to come to clear conclusions about the physical world than about the abstract questions of metaphysics. My understanding is that the logical positivists believed that the speculations of metaphysics could best be accounted for in terms of language analysis. It may be that it is hard to come up with clear explanations but, in some ways, it is inevitable that people do make some speculations, some people more than others. I know that I have spent sleepless nights wondering about metaphysics, such as whether there is any reality beyond the physical world. The trouble is that it is hard to come to definite and clear answers, because there is argument for and against, and it comes down to a matter of perspective or interpretation, although that is not to say that the physical sciences don't involve some degree of interpretation, as suggested by the role of participant observer within experiments.

[JackDaydream]

@stevie

Even though I am querying the nature of explanations based on psychology, I admit that when I make explanations I often do so in terms of psychology. That is partly because a lot of my own studying has been in this field, but, also, because understanding human beings involves so much of psychology. Initially, philosophy and psychology were interlinked by writers, such as William James. In the twentieth century there was so much development in psychology and neuroscience, and this makes it easier to explore the hows rather than the whys. Many do seek the whys within the physical sciences but even these do draw upon metaphysics. Personally, I do think in terms of there being metaphysical mysteries, but more with a view to contemplation, rather than matters which can be solved necessarily.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser

You speak of physics being 'hard science' and metaphysics as not. It may be that this leads some people to think that it is easier to come to clear conclusions about the physical world than about the abstract questions of metaphysics. My understanding is that the logical positivists believed that the speculations of metaphysics could best be accounted for in terms of language analysis. It may be that it is hard to come up with clear explanations but, in some ways, it is inevitable that people do make some speculations, some people more than others. I know that I have spent sleepless nights wondering about metaphysics, such as whether there is any reality beyond the physical world. The trouble is that it is hard to come to definite and clear answers, because there is argument for and against, and it comes down to a matter of perspective or interpretation, although that is not to say that the physical sciences don't involve some degree of interpretation, as suggested by the role of participant observer within experiments.

The less well-defined issues that we philosophers deal with are the difficult ones.

Where there is enough evidence of suitable quality that a conclusion can be reached deductively, there is no dispute as to how that issue should be handled. We adopt and accept the deduced conclusion.

But where there are no "definite and clear answers", we employ structured thought and considered speculation. And if we are able to reach any conclusions at all, we count ourselves lucky. These are the difficult philosophical issues. They're the ones I enjoy the most, but that's probably just my personal taste.

[JackDaydream]

@Steve3007

The particular philosophy which draws upon physics as a basis for materialism is the position of realism, but the holographic model goes beyond the division between materialism and idealism. That is because it sees consciousness as imminent in matter, rather than mind being some 'disembodied' presence, or as being reduced to matter. It could be seen as suggesting some essential idealism, but on the other hand, it is also compatible with emergent views of consciousness. Perhaps, matter and consciousness emerge together rather being inseparable. This may be seen in human beings, but this may also be true of rudimentary consciousness in all things, on a level which may contain a basic form of panpsychism.

[JackDaydream]

@Pattern-chaser

Coming to conclusions is much more difficult than coming up with questions. Sometimes, when people try to find clear answers, it may be a wish for simplification. I can live with some ambiguity and part of the fascination with philosophy for many may about being able to speculate and wonder about matters which to a large extent remain as 'unknown.'

[Belindi]

It is a terrible responsibility to make order out of chaos. No wonder people used to shrug off this responsibility on to God!

We can make order out of chaos? This seems unlikely; perhaps I misunderstand your point?

Yes. It's a psychological matter , because we select which inductive ideas are useful (i.e. make sense) and which are useless(i.e. nonsense). Applied statistics may indicate that a counter-intuitive idea is correct, however applied statistics involve intersubjective selection
of data.I.e. confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is more than simple prejudice. Confirmation bias is about the metaphysical, cultural, and common sense stance upon which the subject of experiences stands in order to face up to decisions that have to be made as what to do next in any given environment.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's a psychological matter , because we select which inductive ideas are useful (i.e. make sense) and which are useless (i.e. nonsense).

I'm afraid I have to disagree once more, but only in a minor way. I agree that "we select which inductive ideas are useful and which are useless", of course. But I'm less convinced that use and sense always have the intimate connection you imply. Also, must nonsense always be useless, I wonder?

[stevie]

@ stevie

... Many do seek the whys within the physical sciences but even these do draw upon metaphysics. ...

I don't think so. Based on and in line with already validated knowledge a logically consistent hypothesis is set up that can be experimentally tested. If the hypothesis can be confirmed by experiments then the concept of "hypothesis" is transformed into the concept of "theory". So there is no room for metaphysics.

[Gee]

@ stevie

... Many do seek the whys within the physical sciences but even these do draw upon metaphysics. ...

I don't think so. Based on and in line with already validated knowledge a logically consistent hypothesis is set up that can be experimentally tested. If the hypothesis can be confirmed by experiments then the concept of "hypothesis" is transformed into the concept of "theory". So there is no room for metaphysics.

So stevie,

Maybe you don't think so, but on the other hand maybe you should think about it a little more. I met a lot of people in the science forums when I was researching there and found that the large majority of them could not tell the difference between philosophy, wild imaginings, and speculation -- and they had no understanding of metaphysics. You appear to be of this ilk.

I thank you for the above lesson in science and would like to state that science is all about the empirical, so it is very much about observation. Please observe that you are in a philosophy forum, not a science forum, and that this is the forum dedicated to metaphysics -- something that you do not understand. Also note that the current topic is about consciousness; it is not about the brain, so science is pretty clueless on this subject as most insist that consciousness is relegated to the brain.

You could go to Wiki and look up metaphysics. I would also recommend looking up Aristotle's metaphysics.

Gee

[Gee]

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,

<snip>

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.

I have Talbot's book and have worked at understanding it, but I am not there yet. It is not something that can just be read, but must be studied. He has so many notes and references, more than 20 pages of them, so if one does not understand the people that he is referencing a great deal is lost. But it is definitely worth the attempt.

I also agree that there is no comprehensive theory of consciousness. We talk about consciousness as though it were a single simple thing, but it is not; it is a massive complex thing that is too big for our understanding. This is why we try to reduce it to the brain, or nature, or "God", or the Universe -- to try to make the idea manageable.

Much like the planet we live on, most of us think we know what it is and have our own interpretation of it. But if we took someone in snowy Alaska and then someone from the swamps of Louisiana, and someone from a huge desert, and from the Swiss Alps, and from forests, and islands, etc., and had each of them write a description of Earth as they know it, would there be any agreement? Would they even be recognizable as a description of the same planet? I don't think so. It would be easy to point out the differences and accuse each of them as not knowing what they are talking about, rather than respecting the fact that there could be valid differences. I think that this is what we do with theories of consciousness, and it is not productive.

It is my personal opinion that until the three disciplines, science, philosophy, and religion, all have an equal voice in the concept of consciousness, there will be no comprehensive theory. So I see different theories and models as very helpful.

Gee