In briefly reading your examples this is dimensionally limited (3-D) is it not? I will spend some more time with it later .. I'm off to go give blood .. Interesting reading though, thanks
Here's what the holographic principle states in gist-> We are three dimensional (3D) projections of a four dimensional(4D) reality, much in the same way a holograph (as we all have seen one of these on many products as a mark of being genuine), is a three dimensional projection of what is in effect two dimensional information. The concept of vacuum fluctuations is a bit more complicated, but what it says in essence is that for very brief instances in time, matter appears and disappears into 'non existence' (not exactly, but it is a good enough analogy for now). In fact a leading hypothesis of how the universe came about utilises this principle to provide plausible hypothesis about the creation ex nihilo, i.e spontaneously and naturally. It is fascinating really, but not everyone's into it. There is pretty sound theory supporting these claims, but the actual physical evidence is just coming around now. These developments have a profound implication for entire debate . So it could even be that we may never be able to attain an omniscient perspective needed to ascertain the real 'reality'. Bohm describes matter as just spherical standing waves in space. I think it makes sense. Read and judge yourself. It is a pretty long article but worth a read I think.
This is similar to the question: Does god exist and if yes what separates us from him. I ask from a pure logical aspect: Can there be 'something' that / who knows 'all' things, knows an absolute reality? Must be the answer no all the time? "I know the absolute reality!" (I) = object one, the so called subject. Absolute reality = object 2. So how can it be all / absolute? Who should know what when talking about the absolute? I mean we have here 2!!! I know the absolute reality 2. I know myself 2. I know..whatever...2. Are there two realites? Is that comprehensible what I mean? I don't know, but I want to know what others think about, since to me it is very. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then spiritualists come into the game. They say: Absolute reality is what is now. It is no object, it is being. And here any conflict of science and spirituality starts. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Btw: Nice that you have decided to contribute further here, sid. This thread is after all an impressing experiment of how to get information. We can experience things in a monologic way, but will remain on the surface Example: A scientist can measure brain activity. But to have experience of depth we need at least a dialog. We need to communicate. Brain waves don’t tell us about : How are you? Or How do you think about the matter. Edit: IMO Bohm is with his holographic principle conform to Monism and Advaita Vedanta is, also. Did you know he had a interesting relationship / talks to J. Krishnamurti?
Ha ! Well hasn't Pandora's box been opened . So many links, so much reading . Zallinger is very interesting indeed. Bohm also. Quantum mechanics is quite mind boggling and certainly is giving me food for thought. Once I've digested some of it I'll post my thoughts. If I don't short circuit first that is ........
@Sid The content of the above articles that you have linked are quite interesting however because there are holes/gaps in my education concerning these matters I could only achieve the following .. This link on holographic principle is excellent and shows promise in more closely aligning with some of my own personal beliefs/perceptions/views .. The example Yen mentioned "Did you know he had a interesting relationship / talks to J. Krishnamurti? " a more organic relationship between Science and Spirituality in where common ground exists, this is where my interests currently are .. I must admit I lack the scientific vocabulary and an outdated engineering educational background which doesn't adequately represent my views/thoughts at times scientifically but for that short coming I bring a willingness to learn, communicate, an open mind, and a deeply rooted spiritual tradition (not to be mistaken for religion) to the table .. redroad's brain
It is going to be hard to show how things are manifesting now when all science/physics/theories point to creation having already happened and life is thus chaotically dying? Creation how I've seen it is happening now! Life is being animated or being created now both the "dead" parts and living! A code of life having to do with God is responsible for life being manifest not manifested! So the words alone we use can limit the desire to discover something new! I believe it is going to be difficult to expect a merge of current contemporary science and metaphysics or science that includes spiritual aspects to life Also when one wants to know life one has to also consider death in the equation. And when going towards death one seems to go into fear or blank out so that is also factor in remaining conscious when exploring the complete universe which includes life and death Just some things to consider as this next dimension of time (eternity) is the hereafter or fourth-dimensional dominion of time which is the union of life an death This is good information as nothing really scares or paralyzes their mind then the fear of death but because the fourth-dimensional dominion of time which is the union of life an death then at resonance with the hereafter or the 4th dimension their is no death fear and greater consciousness, awareness or complete information... But everyone is trying to define the next dimension 4th from this purely physical 3rd dimension and it's not going to happen. To have the information of this 4th dimension or this place of being truly present then one has to resonate with the 4th not think about it! Otherwise one will just continually bounce back to the 3rd dimension over an over again like being stuck in a bubble they can't get out of! Like a prisoner of space! Physics hit's this bubble or has locked it's self into the 3rd dimension of things being manifested, not what it might wish to know which is how things are manifest or what things are manifest from (The 4th dimension) The Mayan Calendar itself is a model or map of those frequencies of the (The 4th dimension) and the laws of time are greater than and include the laws of space or 3D The Doors - Break On Through (To the Other Side)
I agree with you on this and surely the words fall short but with the words are resonating thoughts which impact the world we live in .. Thoughts/words which separate are giving way to what you speak of as well as others that is my current in the moment experience
@TS: Very well put. As I have stated before, if you look at each spiritual belief system, each of them hint at this. Being trapped in Malkuth. Having to come back and reckon with mistakes you've made. Karmic debt and responsibilities. I can't help but feel that, just as there is a unifying theorm for the 4 forces (Strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity) There is a "super-spirituality" which covers all of the missing information that each of the belief systems do not have. That's why, IMHO, no spiritual tennet gets it completely right; each is missing a key piece of the grand puzzle. I suspect that a melding of science, philosophy and spirituality will one day find the answer. I await that day with bated breath. Because -that's- the day that mankind will finally be united.
The Quran speaks of their being winners and losers My "past" post was noting that those who don't believe we're termed as losers Believers as winners I never said nor implied that I decided who wins and who loses Nor am I separate from God who does make such distinctions! The author of the Quran however clearly did and that author via the angel Gabrielle via Muhammad is God! Being separate from God in God's universe is clearly a loser move in my opinion That is all I meant by my posts but some jumped the gun on that one... And things got crazy I wish everyone here good luck in getting closer to God or the way creation works in reality not just hypothesis I only give/gave clear reminders of how I saw/see it working with my non-intoxicated and unadulterated state as a healthy, lucid child It seems the world mind gets in the way of communication and knowing that how ever life works it's similar for all of life than different, hence non-different and in resonance with all of life Using non-sacred methods and linear states of mind to achieve remembrance of God or comprehensive cosmic understandings seems to lead people away from greater knowledge and wisdom not towards it!
If one feels 'annoyed' to read long posts (of me) please jump to the bottom of some blue lines, please. I can feel your 'pain', redroad. I have to admit that I have forgotten many scientific contents which I originally knew due to my study. It's quite normal that things fade away which are not used during the daily job. I deal with organic Chemistry (Which is not made to have answers here), my knowledge of Physics or Physiology of the brain / Neuro-Pharmacology have been diminished. To me it's also hard to get every detail of some scientific theories which were posted. This thread inspired me to get some old books again, lol. With the hint to Krishnamurti I wanted to say that science and 'spirituality' (he had been spiritual teacher, besides of Philosopher and Theosophist) have 'exchanges of ideas they do communicate. So it is not unusual. Also the 14th Dalai Lama (which I could meet personally, being in the audience ) searched(es) communication with scientists (as we can see at the posted video also). He is very funny and has a lot of wisdom! It had been a great sunny day to us. This thread is developing also and I am glad about. It should be possible that each of the original contributors and many others can have here a comfortable place to post. No matter if science, Philosophy or spirituality. It is also an experiment concerning co-existing of those. I came to the conclusion, that science no matter how interesting it is, leaves back unanswered questions. It were simple illusions which can be easily revealed. (Such as mental disassembling the body and finding the core of 'I'). The sudden feeling of deep affinity to everything. Also the driving force of suffer (the idea that one has to die and the question what's that all about life then.) It is written that we use only a small capacity of the brain. But that is written by scientists. It implies that we can do 'more' (quantum). We have not more we have something great. The ability of direct cognition. It is in conflict to science. All educational scientific institutions are made to teach knowledge. 100% dual cognition. 'I' learn 'something' Spiritual teachings are dual also. But they have the goal of direct cognition. It is actually unavoidable that science and spirituality get in a conflict. Scientific methodology doesn't apply when it comes to direct cognition. It Is reflected in this little dialog I have read somewhere I can't remember. Apprentice:"Master, what is reality?" Master (spreads out his arms and similes):"" Apprentice: "Where? I can't see it!" To bring more input (which may lead to even more confusion, lol) let me repost this: "We Live In The Past, Salk Scientists Discover" http://www.salk.edu/news/pressrelease_details.php?press_id=31 It is in agreement to my experiences. My ideas about: To recognize a table, one needs to assign the input of the senses to a already stored and determined object until it can be recognized as 'table'. After the process has finished one recognizes a 'table', not before. This is dual cognition. The 'deep affinity' to all is not recognized, for instance. When have practiced some mental exercises, or when having life experiences, or due to cultural influences, society, collective consciousness of the tribe /people / country / history/ rituals....and so on...and so on... Then (it also can happen suddenly) direct cognition can happen / 'flash'. When now science asks how is the table then? Then one must say it is the wrong question, it is no table (yet). What is it then? It is as it is. And this cognition is presently and not delayed. It can be objectified in measurement of total different brainwave activities. But that's like to measure them to get an image of the 'present' world of the one. Science ever is doomed to get an object of it 'a table', an idea, a theory. But not the reality as it is. Quantum mechanics is a sort of blurred (uncertain according to Heisenberg) determinism. But it is after all determinism as object as idea. I have posted that to inspire, not more. I know some of the contributors can comprehend what I try to post of my experiences... Is it comprehensible that there is a way of cognition at which one has total awareness of the present where 'things' can be perceived before they become a 'name' an idea? And if yes how could 'that' be communicated without to get in an conflict of scientific methodology? And which aspect has such a cognition concerning the reality? ..to consider....
A hologram is an interference pattern that allows an observer to deduce the entire pattern from any portion thereof. The universe is itself an interference pattern. It is intriguing to speculate that we can deduce the entire pattern of the universe from any portion of it.I think that this has always been the principle assertion of mysticism, which explains Bohm's interest in Krishnamurti.
@Yen "Is it comprehensible that there is a way of cognition at which one has total awareness of the present where 'things' can be perceived before they become a 'name' an idea?" Let me start by saying yes .. My view/experience because my awareness to a degree is tethered to my body preparation/practice and purity of intention create an environment where the potential for what you have described can to be made manifest and my true nature can be revealed .. The question arises well if all that is possible why would one ever leave that awareness given the choice .. The responsibility to my path (the good red road) (sacred obligations) and the recognized mystery warrant that I be here now .. I accept this way of life with it's share of burdens and struggles however amongst this there are those moments where what I believe you are describing exists for me .. Letting go of prejudice and inhibition, a certainly fearless state of being I need to cut these thoughts short for now because my other worldly duties call .. Closing for now Edit: Further thoughts "And if yes how could 'that' be communicated without to get in an conflict of scientific methodology?" If there is an inherent or predisposed conflict with scientific methodology when attempting to communicate these ideas/thoughts the short comings in communications stems from the dynamics of skepticism where a more open mind (discerning) is needed here to begin to establish this level of communication is my view .. Can the level of intention with regards to communication be considered one of the 'properties' of communication to the scientifically trained mind ? Incomplete thoughts for now -->
I think Martin Gardner wrote a particularly severe criticism of Krishnamurti in the Skeptical Inquirer- have a look here. David Bohm and Jiddo Krishnamurti
When reading any article I think it's important to consider to what degree an almost inescapable level of bias is present .. This article is no exception .. The author's perceptions ring of a degree of bias that are further from the idea of an open mind then what I would like when considering Krishnamurti .. For example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Gardner "Gardner wrote repeatedly about what public figures such as Robert Maynard Hutchins, Mortimer Adler, and William F. Buckley, Jr. believed and whether their beliefs were logically consistent. In some cases, he attacked prominent religious figures such as Mary Baker Eddy on the grounds that their claims are unsupportable. His semi-autobiographical novel The Flight of Peter Fromm depicts a traditionally Protestant Christian man struggling with his faith, examining 20th century scholarship and intellectual movements and ultimately rejecting Christianity while remaining a theist. He described his own belief as philosophical theism inspired by the theology of the philosopher Miguel de Unamuno. While critical of organized religions, Gardner believed in a god, asserting that this belief cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed by reason or science. At the same time, he was skeptical of claims that any god has communicated with human beings through spoken or telepathic revelation or through miracles in the natural world."
To state that "free will does not exist if God if omniscient" is a fallacy. I will explain by example. Let us say that I have access to a time machine, and also had a cloak that made me invisible. (I don't really, but let us pretend for a moment.) If I travel into the future, I could see what will happen tomorrow, and, by wearing the cloak, could observe what happens without being noticed. Then, upon my return to today, I will have knowledge about certain things that will occur the next day (limited to what I observed.) Now, just because I observed Joe Smith ask a girl out on a date and get turned down, I will know this is going to happen. Just because I know it will happen does not take away the fact that Joe did this action of his own free will. To say that he has no free will just because I know what he will "choose" to do is a fallacy. I have no power over Joe in this matter, I simply have knowledge of what he will decide to do. If we define God that you speak of in your OP as the God of the Bible, then He is defined as being Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent. While He has the power to control your life, He also has the power to let you make your own decisions. Omnipresent is defined as being everywhere simultaneously, but can also be defined as "every when". That means he is in the United States, in Africa, in Australia, on the Moon, Saturn, the Pegasys Galaxy, and the most remote places of the universe all at once. It also means he is (not was) at the beginning of time as everything forms, and he is in the present, and he is in the future as far to the end of time, when everything will someday cease to exist, all at the same time. If he is everywhere and every when at the same time, then, unlike my being able to observe a single event at a single time, he is observing all events at all times at once, therefore has knowledge of everything that has happened, everything that is happening now, and everything that will happen. This does not mean he makes them happen, only that he has witnessed and is witnessing the event. So the question isn't about Omniscience and Free Will, where it can easily be proven that one does not rule out the other, but whether or not God exists at all, which cannot be proven one way or the other.
The results of intolerance "I have heard about the rewards announced to get my head," he said. "The amount of money promised is enough to encourage at least a thousand killers to get the job done, given that sometimes only 2,000 taka [about $25.74] can get your enemy killed in Bangladesh." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/18/bangladesh-bloggers-death-threats_n_3294831.html
I'm not a physicist and I read physics stuff for my own interest, so I posted those links to know how something is real in (objective sense) and if I reply something I would sound contradictory here as said earlier Bohemian mechanics sounds quasi- religious and lot of of mysticism in it. This theory is made more sensational than it should be. What it's basically saying is that the universe is composed of particles that behave in ways similar to holographic projections. From this, seeing the potential for a catchy and attention-grabbing buzzword, the researchers conclude that the universe is itself a hologram! This is a ridiculous leap. A hologram is one thing: it involves a mechanical array of real working parts that split an image somehow so that it creates the illusion of dimensionality. Thus, if Bohm is ready to say the universe is a hologram, he needs to explain where the laser emitter is !?! lots of questions and answers are say unknown... Furthermore, it opens the door for equivocation, which Bohm himself commits when he disputes the objective reality of the universe. His logic: since holograms aren't solid objects, and electrons have a property similar to holograms, and everything is comprised of electrons, therefore we are living in a "phantasm," a phony world with no actual substance. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. David Bohm is straying into New Age territory, which hardly surprises me given his long association with the late guru Jiddu Krishnamurti, with whom he would endlessly talk about the "Emptiness." Krishamurti was an enthralling speaker, and who had some great insights to support his theory....
Would it not be more correct to say that Bohm and others (and not all theories involving holographic principles are the same) were trying to convey that the world we all know and live in is like what we know as a hologram than this 'solid' experience that has been engrained into our minds traditionally? Moreover, when I intro'd the holographic principle idea into the discussion, I was referring to Leonard Susskind's and mentioned him. Not only is Susskind looking at ideas involving holographic principle (much gleaned from his work on black hole theory) but his ideas include the cutting edge scientific findings of today. I don't see any 'New Age' theory or mysticism involved in his theories.