BBC Focus Magazine

[Croatguy]

A thought provoking book about the potential holographic nature of our universe. Highly recommended to anyone with an open mind about the universe.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Sounds strangely familiar, would it by any chance hinge upon the theory that everything is composed of photons caught up in self generating 'helical doughnut' fields?

If so, someone else already thought of it.

[Shadowwolf]

No Mr M tis not related to that at all and this book is much older, I believe the author passed away back in 1992 so quite a ways back.

I also found that the idea being proposed is building on the work of others but also trying to propose an explanation for paranormal events that are obviously taken to be in some cases real. Believe that Mr Baba was cited as the real article that now has an explanation, though he has since been confirmed as a fake.

Beyond that I don't really know much about what is being proposed but trying to suggest that the paranormal is real is not a good start.

[Croatguy]

Yeah, the author died right after publishing this book in '92.

The book does build on the theories of David Bohm and Karl Pribram, with their holographic models. He only provides theories, through the hologram, on what may account for paranormal phenomena. He does not suggest they are real, he just provides an alternative explaination on why they may occur.

He does use a lot of case studies citing special people throughout the ages, and yes, Mr Baba (gotta love that name) was certified as a fake. That was always a risk citing someone from rural pre-20th century India. But the other sources he uses are hard to discredit.

Like I said, its intended for people with an open mind. You are not required to take everything onboard as some of the stuff is quite mindblowing. But it will no doubt open your mind up that bit more about the universe we live in.

[M Paul Lloyd]

I'm with you now.

[Shadowwolf]

He does not suggest they are real, he just provides an alternative explaination on why they may occur.

But by trying to explain that which has not been shown to exist in the first place did he not imply that he did believe they were real phenomena? Also by trying to create an explanation for phenomena which have never been demonstrated to actually exist in the first place, he certainly gives the impression that this tome is not about science.

That was always a risk citing someone from rural pre-20th century India. But the other sources he uses are hard to discredit.

Umm that guy is very much a 20th century persona and unless I am mistaken is still alive and active in far more than rural India. The point is the guy is a fake, a bit of examination is all it takes to discover this, the author did not critically examine the claim and instead apparently just took it as fact, a process he may well have repeated for every other example. I would wager that all the other sources are explainable by much more mundane means or have been explained.

Like I said, its intended for people with an open mind. You are not required to take everything onboard as some of the stuff is quite mindblowing. But it will no doubt open your mind up that bit more about the universe we live in.

Well either he has a plausible, logical and coherent scientific argument or he does not, it is not a case of having an open mind, which many of us have but that should not excuse a lack of evidence or shortcomings. It honestly looks like an effort to provide a scientific gloss for the paranormal and well short of providing anything groundbreaking.

[M Paul Lloyd]

You have to be careful not to open your mind so much that everything falls out.

[Croatguy]

Some good points there Shadowolf. I only posted this book as some astronomers, most notably Marcus Chown, are starting to to base their theories of the universe as a hologram. Of course, this is all speculation until there is some evidence that we do live in a hologram, but they do make a strong case. I agree that anything relating to the paranormal is far fetched and requires extraordinary evidence, but it is interesting to hear the author's views on why they occur through holographic principles. But from memory, I think the paranormal part is only a chapter, so its not the main theme.

Yeah, you may be right about Mr Baba as a 20th century figure, but I haven’t read it for a while. As for the other case studies, they may or may not have been explained away. Until you read the book, you will have to make up your own mind as to whether you believe them or not.

If anyone can recommend any other books that deal with the hologram theory I would love to hear them. Michael Talbot’s book is the only one I know of. Hopefully Marcus Chown can write a book on it

[Shadowwolf]

As for the other case studies, they may or may not have been explained away. Until you read the book, you will have to make up your own mind as to whether you believe them or not.

I have seen a good many so odds are most are familiar and I probably have not seen any evidence to support them. I'm unlikely to read the tome as I simply don't have the time at the mo and it is only something I'd get from a library so it could not be kept around.

...theories of the universe as a hologram.

I find the notion just a little problematic as a hologram is an artificial construct that we developed only relatively recently, it does not exist in nature. Are some folks not just confusing 'is' with 'like' a hologram in certain circumstances? Am I missing something?

...but it is interesting to hear the author's views on why they occur through holographic principles.

Perhaps but there is just no point in explaining what has never been shown to exist, by doing so he has probably conveyed the wrong message and alienated people. Plus, if a theory can explain why non-existent phenomena work, does that not suggest that the theory is in fact wrong?

[Croatguy]

Perhaps but there is just no point in explaining what has never been shown to exist, by doing so he has probably conveyed the wrong message and alienated people. Plus, if a theory can explain why non-existent phenomena work, does that not suggest that the theory is in fact wrong?

But do not all paranormal events have explanations anyway? What is the harm in the author having his own explanations amongst the many others that account for UFO's, ghosts, etc.? By explaining something away, the skeptics and scientists are still accounting for the fact that something has occured even though they may not believe it.

I find the notion just a little problematic as a hologram is an artificial construct that we developed only relatively recently, it does not exist in nature

Neither do strings occur in nature, but we still term the theory, "String Theory". When dealing with abstract theories, I guess we can only compare to what we know, so if the theory fits like a hologram, then the word, "hologram" will suffice for now.

Shadowolf, I'd love you to read this book. Make some time Check your local library, they may just have it.

[Shadowwolf]

Neither do strings occur in nature, but we still term the theory, "String Theory". When dealing with abstract theories, I guess we can only compare to what we know, so if the theory fits like a hologram, then the word, "hologram" will suffice for now.

Ahh yes I see, in that way it makes more sense.

But do not all paranormal events have explanations anyway?

To the best of my knowledge they do.

What is the harm in the author having his own explanations amongst the many others that account for UFO's, ghosts, etc.?

The harm comes when he claims to do science and that his scientific theory can accommodate the various paranormal phenomena. You see the phenomena are explicable by very ordinary and known means, there is in fact no paranormal phenomena as such, only misinterpretation to varying degrees. Dowsing, telekinesis, psychic mediums, remote viewing and so on, not one of them have ever been demonstrated to actually exist in an extraordinary sense. The events that are being misinterpreted as a paranormal phenomena are due to ideomotor effects, pareidolia, cold reading and such, these are very ordinary explanations that have been misinterpreted as being something extraordinary. So if someone creates a theory that purposely or in an ancillary fashion seeks to propose a mechanism by which real paranormal events occur, and does so when there are no actual paranormal events demonstrable there is a problem. It is making a prediction for something which does not exist, hence there is something amiss.

By explaining something away, the skeptics and scientists are still accounting for the fact that something has occured even though they may not believe it.

You are correct in that by positing an explanation for a claim, an explanation that is more plausible than the claim, then they are accounting for the claim that something has occurred. You are amiss in thinking that they are accounting for something paranormal that occurred even though they may not believe it. It is only ever a claim that something paranormal occurred, the claim can be investigated and always so far found to be decidedly ordinary in origin, that nothing actually occurred other than someone else's misinterpretation of events. Skeptics and scientists do not supply an alternate theory for what occurred, they explain exactly what happened and that there never was anything out of the ordinary in the first place.

Shadowolf, I'd love you to read this book.

Well for the next few months I have a significant study and assignment load, so even if I do it will not be for a while. I did read an article he wrote based on the same idea and it was rather full of holes.

[Croatguy]

At the end of the day, its how you interpret his theories. Its up to the reader if he/she totally dismisses it or not. Its one of those speculative theories you can neither disprove or prove (at this present age, anyway). I guess I am just open to the idea that the universe may have holographic qualities, and if you are inclined towards that view then the book will certainly expand your horizions.

[Shadowwolf]

Then it does not sound like a book on science but speculative fiction, consider this slight rewording of your summary; I've bolded the changes.

At the end of the day, its how you interpret scripture. Its up to the reader if he/she totally dismisses it or not. Its one of those speculative things you can neither disprove or prove (at this present age, anyway). I guess I am just open to the idea that the universe may have deistic qualities, and if you are inclined towards that view then the book will certainly expand your horizions.

Put like that, the description becomes just so much hand waving to gloss over what appears like a lack of any concrete content, the 'cannot be proven / disproven' get out clause and the final note of being inclined towards a given view, that is to say, just believe and your mind will be opened.

Described like so and it sounds about as valid as contending that mice really are running the show, an interesting yarn but nothing more. If it really is just making wild claims that cannot be substantiated and relies on a requirement for faith then it would appear to have no real merit, at least not for me.

[Croatguy]

Shadowwolf, I am an atheist who believes in the Hologram theory. What has it got to do with religious themes such as scriptures and deity? Don't introduce God into the argument as a believer versus a non-believer debate when I am not suggesting anything religious. Arguments for God are far-fetched and unsound, whereas arguments for the Hologram theory are at least plausible. Do not compare the two arguments.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Croatguy, please do not take offence, Shadowwolf is only trying to point out that a belief system is not a scientific method and by your own admission you 'believe' in a holographic universe, which is fine if it makes you happy, but belief is not proof of anything, therefore even if it is a nice idea 'proof' of a holographic universe is utterly absent.
Do you see what we are trying to get at here?

[Shadowwolf]

What has it got to do with religious themes such as scriptures and deity? Don't introduce God into the argument as a believer versus a non-believer debate when I am not suggesting anything religious.

Nothing and I did not, I used the religion version to create a stark contrast with your final summation of the 'Holographic Universe'. Like Mr M says, I was not calling you a religious believer or intending offense. This rewording was done to the end of illustrating that the manner in which you finally described the book could be applied to just about anything, here it is again without the religion element but it still sounds exactly the same.

At the end of the day, its how you interpret the evidence Its up to the reader if he/she totally dismisses it or not. Its one of those phenomena you can neither disprove or prove (at this present age, anyway). I guess I am just open to the idea that humans may have psychic qualities, and if you are inclined towards that view then the book will certainly expand your horizions.

It does not matter what you put into it the message is always the same and that is, there is no concrete evidence, it is up to personal predilection as to how you interpret the evidence and whether you accept or dismiss the idea but it helps if you are initially inclined to believe it. Things like this are routinely uttered on just about anything that has no evidence, the key points being personal interpretation, beyond proof or disproof, open to the idea regardless and if you are then this will be entertaining and informative to the a priori assumptions made.

I am an atheist who believes in the Hologram theory... Arguments for God are far-fetched and unsound, whereas arguments for the Hologram theory are at least plausible. Do not compare the two arguments.

As I hopefully illustrated I did not, my point was that your final words on it lend the distinct impression that in the book there is no evidence and that it really helps if you want to believe, something you yourself profess to do even though there seems to be nothing underpinning the hologram idea, other than that it sounds pleasing. Multi-verse, warp speed and dimensional travel all sound very interesting to me but I don't believe in any of them because so far they lack proof and until something better comes along for the hologram idea I personally find it so far to be essentially unsound and a bit far fetched, the result of seeing patterns where there are none. You are welcome to argue why it is a good and plausible idea if you wish.

[Croatguy]

Okay, my apologies, I really thought you were comparing my arguments to a bible lover. But I see your point now that you have explained it. I agree that there is no obvious evidence for the hologram theory, and I can accept that. However, unlike God and psychic believers, who have sketchy arguments for but also many valid and plausible arguments against, the hologram theory does not have any valid arguments against at this stage, so until there is a valid argument against I will continue to have a belief in it. But how can I believe in something with no concrete evidence? I dont know, its just part of my human nature, and its an entertaining theory. Until some scientist shoots it down with a credible argument, I wont give up on the 'speculative' theory.

[Croatguy]

Shadowolf, Im curious if you have seen the latest Horizon episode about the holographic principal for our universe? What are your thoughts on it if you have?

[Lateralman]

Can a projected Hologram die?

So, if you believe that information is stored around the edges of black holes, then if the great electrician in the big black-hole in space, flicks on your selected hologram light switch again, you or anyone can come back to life!

Trouble is that no one that I know of has yet seen the light! Unless, that is, if they are all undead in a parallel verse and if that principal is correct, then why can't they just cross over back into this verse again? Then again they don't have to, as anyone who is now alive is not dead, for with parallel verses there is no such thing as death, only life, in a parallel verse?

Is everyone who ever lived living in a parallel verse? How many parallel verse are there? Do I live in a parallel verse at any age and stage of my life? Are these parallel verses crowded? Are all the animals, fish and reptiles living in parallel verses?

So why do we need to be born??

If I punched a hologram would it fall down or would my fist pass through it?

[Lateralman]

In hindsight, perhaps I was a little blunt in my previous post, as i jumped into this thread with both feet first!

I watched the Horizon programme and my out take on the Holographic universe with the suggestion that information is being stored around the edges of back holes hasn't convinced me to change my religion!

Not when we as mere mortals have already the power of creation, by creating our own holograms! Holograms within hologram's? Apart from the idea being too far fetched, it just doesn't add up, as we observe planets being sucked in and blown back out of black holes.

Although I was absorbed in the basic scientific conundrum of the slit experiment, which seems to be the basis of many new scientific theories on what is and what is not real?

Not forgetting to mention what is currently happening with those quirky, quark's!!