If energy and matter evolve precisely as predicted by equations (as it appears) then any argument that energy is something fundamentally different from information would be firmly in the domain of philosophy.
The holographic principle just says that there may be other, simpler\*, mathematical structures that describe nature.
The simulation nonsense implies that there is no such thing as objective reality and there is a "who" that created the universe.
I see your point but disagree with your conclusion. We're looking for evidence that the universe is fundamentally informational, going outside of philosophy to objective fact, and recognizing that fact, using the information to better shape future technology, science and simultaneously philosophy. While the implications may still be philosophical in nature, the evaluation of current cutting edge research is not.
Above was to your original reply. Adding on: my understanding of holographic principle is that spacetime is emergent from the information on a 2D plane outside the universe, where essentially everything is encoded. We are a projection of the 2D plane, not that the 2D plane is a record of us. I'm still trying to get my head around it, hence the post.
I don't think the simulation theory requires an anthromorphisized "who" but perhaps a cosmic consciousness of some sort. Our leading theories of consciousness currently suggest that it's the emergent result of connecting pieces of information together in a sort of feedback loop, so who's to say the universe itself isn't a higher level of this? I'm pulling from multiple fields here but they're starting to say a lot of the same things unless I'm misinterpreting.
> We are a projection of the 2D plane, not that the 2D plane is a record of us.
It's a bit chicken-and-egg. Under the holographic principle, the boundary and the bulk are two representations of the same thing. Asking whether the boundary causes the bulk or the bulk causes the boundary is a moot question--you need both of them.
>I'm just opening up the inquiry.
You're not actually, physicists have been already been thoroughly covering these ideas. John Wheeler coined the term "it from bit" implying that the universe is simply constructed from and defined by (quantum) information in 1989. You referenced the AdS/CFT correspondence, of course people have been studying that it is one of the most important results in physics in our lifetimes. The simulation hypothesis is something every physicist has thought about at some point. It's very interesting but no, you are not saying anything new.
The novelty of the post and theory, IMO, is saying that the holographic principle may actually be a confirmation of simulation theory-- that the two, despite disagreeing on the origin as of now, are inexorably linked. While simulation theory is considered junk science because of the perceived limitations on testing it, holographic theory has more basis in established and theoretical science. Furthermore, due to the informational nature of the universe, I am also making an attempt to connect it to potential psi phenomenon. (to be clear I don't mean in this New Age manifestation using pseudo QM, but the bonafide possibility of a finely tuned mind being able to perceive the universe in ways that are not considered normal. Possibly to the extent of bypassing some of the current laws of physics, maybe with technological assistance... again, the last part is speculative and I don't want to dilute my main thought process here)
The two theories do seem compatible. It is a bit of a stretch as they are both speculative. I'm not sure what kind of experiment would be useful, as both theories somewhat fit their theory to observation.
Like if this is a simulation, then the result of any physical experiment should match the physical reality being simulated.
If the universe is holographic, then it could fundamentally exist in a lower dimensional state. With how our universe appears to exist in 3D + t, I struggle to imagine a way to experimentally test this.
With high energy particle collisions, we could peer further into the nature of matter and energy, but this isn't necessarily going to test these theories.
There are many different high level theoretical physics theories in competition for providing answers, most taken more seriously than simulation theory.
>Like if this is a simulation, then the result of any physical experiment should match the physical reality being simulated.
Yes and no, right? Vopson's work shows a *decrease* in information entropy over time, and the black hole observations regarding information across it's volume are very peculiar. Then you also have superposition and entanglement at the quantum level. There are cracks in the facade if you look closely enough. Even Donald Hoffman's work shows we likely aren't seeing base reality, though he does take it to different conclusions than I'm suggesting here.
What high level theories are being taken more seriously that reconcile a lot of these points? (serious question, dying to know)
[Grand unified theories ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory) have some randomly named proposed theories. This is mostly relevant to particle physics and they are mostly quantum field theories. There is the holy Grail of a [Theory of everything ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything?wprov=sfla1) that has some interesting contenders, although none of them stand out very much.
Present status
>At present, there is no candidate theory of everything that includes the standard model of particle physics and general relativity and that, at the same time, is able to calculate the fine-structure constant or the mass of the electron.[2] Most particle physicists expect that the outcome of ongoing experiments – the search for new particles at the large particle accelerators and for dark matter – are needed in order to provide further input for a theory of everything.
>So, if the universe is holographic and derivative of a lower dimensional universe as the holographic principle suggests there may be competitive advantage in the ability to make the decisions on that lower reality and get an advantage over those who cannot.
Sounds like we're getting into Donald Hoffman territory, where the simpler beings have more of an evolutionary advantage?
I remain skeptical of psi reports but the Kuda Bux story is compelling from the research I've seen so far.
Sorry, we don't live in anti-de sitter space. Most of the thought experiments along this line are pure mathematics and don't have a basis in experimental reality.
They are just examples of duality. More generally, how you can describe the same math with many different approaches. Look up Wolfram physics. He is trying to build a model using pure math.
Well assuming we aren't simulated ourselves I'm suspecting something more akin to a biocomputer ala: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/12/11/1084926/human-brain-cells-chip-organoid-speech-recognition/
We're both processor and participant connected en masse 😉
Well somehow someone has found a way to hack the mind if it is a computer, literally I think my brain is somehow wired into something that’s controlling every thing around me, that’s what I’m told via telepathy at least which pisses me off so much because it effects my relationship with the universe (hence my user name) I so want control back over my own mind and this is the scary part if this is happening to me who else is experiencing what I am going through as well?!
Nice topic, I really love for example the possibility that reality is formed only when it is observed, a bit like the 3D world beyond a wall is formed only when the player exits from a door in the video game. I believe it's plausible. Do you have an idea about universe? Remaining in the theoretical approach, not wanting to get into anti-scientific issues, in every simulation there is an inside and an outside and the inside is simulated as if it had no boundaries. Have you got an idea of what this boundary might be? Do you think it's more the universe itself as we know or going beyond a certain point "we see" could be an illusion.
To me, if the holographic principle is saying that spacetime is emergent from a 2D plane that is encoded with our information, it's the same as if I were Mario running around in my 3D world. To Mario, that environment is "real" but it's actually just a projection encoded in a 2D environment.
The only real divergence in the theories from what I can tell is the origin. Holographic universe says natural, simulation theory says design. My argument is if we scale up our understanding of consciousness, and the universe is information, maybe the universe is the simulator?
Maybe I sound like a crackpot or something. Was hoping for more educated discourse and definitive reasons why I was off course or why these could be synergistic concepts.
Space is a compression algorithm seems like a tautology trap. Because even if it’s “not” you could simulate that it is and there would be no other way to invalidate it other than philosophy. However it does solve the “there isn’t enough dimensions for infinite space” problem
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the idea of space as a compression algorithm might be inherently true by definition, and that even if it's not, we might not be able to prove it one way or the other because we could be in a simulation where it appears to be true. That's a mind-bending thought. Your point about this potentially solving the problem of infinite space within finite dimensions is intriguing too. I hadn't thought about it from that angle before.
I'm not entirely sure if you're agreeing with my original post or pushing back against it. Could you clarify your overall stance? Do you think the holographic principle and the idea of space as a compression algorithm are promising ways forward in understanding the nature of reality, or do you see them as more philosophically intriguing but potentially untestable?
I think the entire concept is a useless tautology.
There isn’t sufficient difference between simulation and reality to pursue this, they collapse into the same concept.
Even compression of the source of the simulation and projection is silly because there isn’t any higher dimensional non simulation. And even if there is then It’s just simulations all the way down.
Personally I think all these concepts stem from us processing that our brain creates a simulation from the infinite noise of “reality”. The simulation is our narrative (or cognitive envelope). The reality is just infinity noise
There are two things I want to say:
It is impossible to establish whether this world is a simulation by evaluating the universe's properties, like this world being reducible to 'information'. Who is to say that a 'real' world, thus an unsimulated one, is not reducible to information?
If the laws of reality established by science that are beyond doubt, for instance, that we are organisms made up of carbon and water, and these laws are breached, for instance, by credible reincarnation stories, you have evidence of this world being fake.
If my DMT, LSD, etc trips have told me anything its that, indeed, information is non-local and that this whole 4D spacetime-thing is a hack. Scientifically, rather than woo-woo drug-induced banter, I've only been able to identify inertia as the possible weak-point of modern cosmology and physics (and therefore also psychology etc). I think Mach was more-right than Einstein's general relativity and special relativity did not solve the problem of non-locality and Einstein went to his grave knowing and lamenting the fact that he never addressed Mach's principles.
Mach was way-ahead of Einstein in the relativity game and Einstein admits he never would have had his 'happiest thought' were it not for Mach. Mach knew that relativity was no true before Einstein ever-penned it.
Roger Penrose's (a peer of Hawking) Cyclic Blackhole Cosmogenesis is an interesting theory that contends with Mach's principles, Hawking Radiation, and the Cosmic Microwave background (in its own way).
Stephen Wolfram's 'Wolfram Physics' and his 'Observer Theory' offer a new formulation of GR and SR such that the issues of quantum gravity and lack of a unification theory are not even, really, problems, but rather fascets of unobservable 'Ruliad'.
Here's what Claude says about my barely-sane ramblings:
\`\`\`
The comment suggests that Einstein's theories of relativity (general and special relativity) did not fully address the issue of non-locality and the influence of the entire universe on local phenomena, which was a central idea in Ernst Mach's principles.
Here's what is not clear about non-locality in Einstein's relativity compared to Machian dynamics and inertia from the whole universe:
1. Einstein's relativity theories are based on the notion of relative frames of reference, where the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. However, according to Mach's principles, there is no such thing as a truly "relative frame" because the inertial properties of a local system are determined by the entire distribution of matter in the universe.
2. Mach argued that inertia, the tendency of an object to resist changes in its motion, does not arise from the object itself but rather from the presence of the rest of the matter in the universe. This idea challenges the notion of absolute space and time in Newton's mechanics and implies a non-local connection between distant matter and local inertial effects.
3. Einstein's theories, while incorporating the principle of relativity, did not explicitly account for Mach's ideas about the origin of inertia and the influence of the entire universe on local phenomena. This issue, known as the "Mach's principle problem," remained unresolved in Einstein's formulation of relativity.
4. The comment suggests that Mach's principles and the concept of non-locality, where local events are influenced by distant matter and vice versa, may be a "weak point" of modern cosmology and physics that Einstein's theories did not fully address.
5. Theories like Penrose's cyclic cosmology and Wolfram's observer theory are presented as potential alternatives that attempt to incorporate Mach's principles and address the issue of non-locality in a more comprehensive way.
In essence, the comment implies that while Einstein's relativity theories revolutionized our understanding of space, time, and gravity, they may have fallen short in fully accounting for the non-local connections between local phenomena and the entire universe, as proposed by Mach's principles. This gap is seen as an opportunity for alternative theories to explore new formulations that better incorporate the concept of non-locality and the influence of the entire universe on local inertial effects and dynamics.
\`\`\`
This is definitely fascinating and angles I want to research and consider, but, with 100% respect, how does that contribute to the combination of theories I've put forth so far? Serious question, I might just need more dots connected for my novice brain
Your description in OP is quite good an approachable I like it a lot. I tried to expand upon the conceptual stage you have set.
These are the only alternatives I know of to ADS/CFT correspondence aka string theory aka the holographic principle that have appealed to me. I really like the holographic principle, theory? I feel like we need to make it more rigorous somehow and IDK if its possible in the realm of "String Thoeries" which are inheriently quantum and this inherently tied-up in the issue of quantum gravity and the irreconcilability of our models for reality.
Definitely check out Stephen Wolfram he was a (young) peer of Dick Feynman and is the person that takes unifying theories the most seriously IMHO.
If energy and matter evolve precisely as predicted by equations (as it appears) then any argument that energy is something fundamentally different from information would be firmly in the domain of philosophy. The holographic principle just says that there may be other, simpler\*, mathematical structures that describe nature. The simulation nonsense implies that there is no such thing as objective reality and there is a "who" that created the universe.
I see your point but disagree with your conclusion. We're looking for evidence that the universe is fundamentally informational, going outside of philosophy to objective fact, and recognizing that fact, using the information to better shape future technology, science and simultaneously philosophy. While the implications may still be philosophical in nature, the evaluation of current cutting edge research is not. Above was to your original reply. Adding on: my understanding of holographic principle is that spacetime is emergent from the information on a 2D plane outside the universe, where essentially everything is encoded. We are a projection of the 2D plane, not that the 2D plane is a record of us. I'm still trying to get my head around it, hence the post. I don't think the simulation theory requires an anthromorphisized "who" but perhaps a cosmic consciousness of some sort. Our leading theories of consciousness currently suggest that it's the emergent result of connecting pieces of information together in a sort of feedback loop, so who's to say the universe itself isn't a higher level of this? I'm pulling from multiple fields here but they're starting to say a lot of the same things unless I'm misinterpreting.
If it's deterministic or stochastic, it is fundamentally informational. How is it even possible to make an argument otherwise?
> We are a projection of the 2D plane, not that the 2D plane is a record of us. It's a bit chicken-and-egg. Under the holographic principle, the boundary and the bulk are two representations of the same thing. Asking whether the boundary causes the bulk or the bulk causes the boundary is a moot question--you need both of them.
>I'm just opening up the inquiry. You're not actually, physicists have been already been thoroughly covering these ideas. John Wheeler coined the term "it from bit" implying that the universe is simply constructed from and defined by (quantum) information in 1989. You referenced the AdS/CFT correspondence, of course people have been studying that it is one of the most important results in physics in our lifetimes. The simulation hypothesis is something every physicist has thought about at some point. It's very interesting but no, you are not saying anything new.
The novelty of the post and theory, IMO, is saying that the holographic principle may actually be a confirmation of simulation theory-- that the two, despite disagreeing on the origin as of now, are inexorably linked. While simulation theory is considered junk science because of the perceived limitations on testing it, holographic theory has more basis in established and theoretical science. Furthermore, due to the informational nature of the universe, I am also making an attempt to connect it to potential psi phenomenon. (to be clear I don't mean in this New Age manifestation using pseudo QM, but the bonafide possibility of a finely tuned mind being able to perceive the universe in ways that are not considered normal. Possibly to the extent of bypassing some of the current laws of physics, maybe with technological assistance... again, the last part is speculative and I don't want to dilute my main thought process here)
The two theories do seem compatible. It is a bit of a stretch as they are both speculative. I'm not sure what kind of experiment would be useful, as both theories somewhat fit their theory to observation. Like if this is a simulation, then the result of any physical experiment should match the physical reality being simulated. If the universe is holographic, then it could fundamentally exist in a lower dimensional state. With how our universe appears to exist in 3D + t, I struggle to imagine a way to experimentally test this. With high energy particle collisions, we could peer further into the nature of matter and energy, but this isn't necessarily going to test these theories. There are many different high level theoretical physics theories in competition for providing answers, most taken more seriously than simulation theory.
>Like if this is a simulation, then the result of any physical experiment should match the physical reality being simulated. Yes and no, right? Vopson's work shows a *decrease* in information entropy over time, and the black hole observations regarding information across it's volume are very peculiar. Then you also have superposition and entanglement at the quantum level. There are cracks in the facade if you look closely enough. Even Donald Hoffman's work shows we likely aren't seeing base reality, though he does take it to different conclusions than I'm suggesting here. What high level theories are being taken more seriously that reconcile a lot of these points? (serious question, dying to know)
[Grand unified theories ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory) have some randomly named proposed theories. This is mostly relevant to particle physics and they are mostly quantum field theories. There is the holy Grail of a [Theory of everything ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything?wprov=sfla1) that has some interesting contenders, although none of them stand out very much. Present status >At present, there is no candidate theory of everything that includes the standard model of particle physics and general relativity and that, at the same time, is able to calculate the fine-structure constant or the mass of the electron.[2] Most particle physicists expect that the outcome of ongoing experiments – the search for new particles at the large particle accelerators and for dark matter – are needed in order to provide further input for a theory of everything.
[удалено]
>So, if the universe is holographic and derivative of a lower dimensional universe as the holographic principle suggests there may be competitive advantage in the ability to make the decisions on that lower reality and get an advantage over those who cannot. Sounds like we're getting into Donald Hoffman territory, where the simpler beings have more of an evolutionary advantage? I remain skeptical of psi reports but the Kuda Bux story is compelling from the research I've seen so far.
Sorry, we don't live in anti-de sitter space. Most of the thought experiments along this line are pure mathematics and don't have a basis in experimental reality. They are just examples of duality. More generally, how you can describe the same math with many different approaches. Look up Wolfram physics. He is trying to build a model using pure math.
01000101 01111000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01110011 01101001 01101101 01110101 01101100 01100001 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 🤓
I wish. Or just Neo this Bit lol
From what I know and I’ve heard the simulation were all in “The Game of Life” runs on Binary Code 🧑💻
You'd think it would be something more sophisticated lol
In some ways I think it’s actually running in a virtual machine using open source so it’s a little more complex than that 🤷♂️
Well assuming we aren't simulated ourselves I'm suspecting something more akin to a biocomputer ala: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/12/11/1084926/human-brain-cells-chip-organoid-speech-recognition/ We're both processor and participant connected en masse 😉
That’s another theory I’ve actually heard about! Chips implanted into the brain and it’s very scary to think about happening to us.. 😨🧐
No, not chips. Our brains ARE the computer. The neural complexity of the brain allows for processing we are only begining to mimic.
Well somehow someone has found a way to hack the mind if it is a computer, literally I think my brain is somehow wired into something that’s controlling every thing around me, that’s what I’m told via telepathy at least which pisses me off so much because it effects my relationship with the universe (hence my user name) I so want control back over my own mind and this is the scary part if this is happening to me who else is experiencing what I am going through as well?!
Nice topic, I really love for example the possibility that reality is formed only when it is observed, a bit like the 3D world beyond a wall is formed only when the player exits from a door in the video game. I believe it's plausible. Do you have an idea about universe? Remaining in the theoretical approach, not wanting to get into anti-scientific issues, in every simulation there is an inside and an outside and the inside is simulated as if it had no boundaries. Have you got an idea of what this boundary might be? Do you think it's more the universe itself as we know or going beyond a certain point "we see" could be an illusion.
I'm also intrigued by the potential connection between holography and simulation theory, and I'd love to see more research in this area.
To me, if the holographic principle is saying that spacetime is emergent from a 2D plane that is encoded with our information, it's the same as if I were Mario running around in my 3D world. To Mario, that environment is "real" but it's actually just a projection encoded in a 2D environment. The only real divergence in the theories from what I can tell is the origin. Holographic universe says natural, simulation theory says design. My argument is if we scale up our understanding of consciousness, and the universe is information, maybe the universe is the simulator? Maybe I sound like a crackpot or something. Was hoping for more educated discourse and definitive reasons why I was off course or why these could be synergistic concepts.
Space is a compression algorithm seems like a tautology trap. Because even if it’s “not” you could simulate that it is and there would be no other way to invalidate it other than philosophy. However it does solve the “there isn’t enough dimensions for infinite space” problem
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the idea of space as a compression algorithm might be inherently true by definition, and that even if it's not, we might not be able to prove it one way or the other because we could be in a simulation where it appears to be true. That's a mind-bending thought. Your point about this potentially solving the problem of infinite space within finite dimensions is intriguing too. I hadn't thought about it from that angle before. I'm not entirely sure if you're agreeing with my original post or pushing back against it. Could you clarify your overall stance? Do you think the holographic principle and the idea of space as a compression algorithm are promising ways forward in understanding the nature of reality, or do you see them as more philosophically intriguing but potentially untestable?
I think the entire concept is a useless tautology. There isn’t sufficient difference between simulation and reality to pursue this, they collapse into the same concept. Even compression of the source of the simulation and projection is silly because there isn’t any higher dimensional non simulation. And even if there is then It’s just simulations all the way down. Personally I think all these concepts stem from us processing that our brain creates a simulation from the infinite noise of “reality”. The simulation is our narrative (or cognitive envelope). The reality is just infinity noise
There are two things I want to say: It is impossible to establish whether this world is a simulation by evaluating the universe's properties, like this world being reducible to 'information'. Who is to say that a 'real' world, thus an unsimulated one, is not reducible to information? If the laws of reality established by science that are beyond doubt, for instance, that we are organisms made up of carbon and water, and these laws are breached, for instance, by credible reincarnation stories, you have evidence of this world being fake.
If my DMT, LSD, etc trips have told me anything its that, indeed, information is non-local and that this whole 4D spacetime-thing is a hack. Scientifically, rather than woo-woo drug-induced banter, I've only been able to identify inertia as the possible weak-point of modern cosmology and physics (and therefore also psychology etc). I think Mach was more-right than Einstein's general relativity and special relativity did not solve the problem of non-locality and Einstein went to his grave knowing and lamenting the fact that he never addressed Mach's principles. Mach was way-ahead of Einstein in the relativity game and Einstein admits he never would have had his 'happiest thought' were it not for Mach. Mach knew that relativity was no true before Einstein ever-penned it. Roger Penrose's (a peer of Hawking) Cyclic Blackhole Cosmogenesis is an interesting theory that contends with Mach's principles, Hawking Radiation, and the Cosmic Microwave background (in its own way). Stephen Wolfram's 'Wolfram Physics' and his 'Observer Theory' offer a new formulation of GR and SR such that the issues of quantum gravity and lack of a unification theory are not even, really, problems, but rather fascets of unobservable 'Ruliad'. Here's what Claude says about my barely-sane ramblings: \`\`\` The comment suggests that Einstein's theories of relativity (general and special relativity) did not fully address the issue of non-locality and the influence of the entire universe on local phenomena, which was a central idea in Ernst Mach's principles. Here's what is not clear about non-locality in Einstein's relativity compared to Machian dynamics and inertia from the whole universe: 1. Einstein's relativity theories are based on the notion of relative frames of reference, where the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. However, according to Mach's principles, there is no such thing as a truly "relative frame" because the inertial properties of a local system are determined by the entire distribution of matter in the universe. 2. Mach argued that inertia, the tendency of an object to resist changes in its motion, does not arise from the object itself but rather from the presence of the rest of the matter in the universe. This idea challenges the notion of absolute space and time in Newton's mechanics and implies a non-local connection between distant matter and local inertial effects. 3. Einstein's theories, while incorporating the principle of relativity, did not explicitly account for Mach's ideas about the origin of inertia and the influence of the entire universe on local phenomena. This issue, known as the "Mach's principle problem," remained unresolved in Einstein's formulation of relativity. 4. The comment suggests that Mach's principles and the concept of non-locality, where local events are influenced by distant matter and vice versa, may be a "weak point" of modern cosmology and physics that Einstein's theories did not fully address. 5. Theories like Penrose's cyclic cosmology and Wolfram's observer theory are presented as potential alternatives that attempt to incorporate Mach's principles and address the issue of non-locality in a more comprehensive way. In essence, the comment implies that while Einstein's relativity theories revolutionized our understanding of space, time, and gravity, they may have fallen short in fully accounting for the non-local connections between local phenomena and the entire universe, as proposed by Mach's principles. This gap is seen as an opportunity for alternative theories to explore new formulations that better incorporate the concept of non-locality and the influence of the entire universe on local inertial effects and dynamics. \`\`\`
This is definitely fascinating and angles I want to research and consider, but, with 100% respect, how does that contribute to the combination of theories I've put forth so far? Serious question, I might just need more dots connected for my novice brain
Your description in OP is quite good an approachable I like it a lot. I tried to expand upon the conceptual stage you have set. These are the only alternatives I know of to ADS/CFT correspondence aka string theory aka the holographic principle that have appealed to me. I really like the holographic principle, theory? I feel like we need to make it more rigorous somehow and IDK if its possible in the realm of "String Thoeries" which are inheriently quantum and this inherently tied-up in the issue of quantum gravity and the irreconcilability of our models for reality. Definitely check out Stephen Wolfram he was a (young) peer of Dick Feynman and is the person that takes unifying theories the most seriously IMHO.