Book Extract: The Holographic Universe - Does Objective Reality Exist?

[alkemical]

Book Extract: The Holographic Universe - Does Objective Reality Exist? (http://www.westender.com.au/stories.php?s_id=606)


- By Michael Talbot
In 1982 a remarkable event took Place. At the University of Paris a Research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th Century.


You did not hear about it on the evening News. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing.

The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations. University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser. To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.

The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the Rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.

This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.

This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality. Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose.

And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram. In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected. The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky.

Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web. In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order. At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously.

This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past. What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is."

Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a "mere stage" beyond which lies "an infinity of further development". Bohm is not the only researcher who has found evidence that the universe is a hologram.

Working independently in the field of brain research, Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram has also become persuaded of the holographic nature of reality. Pribram was drawn to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories are stored in the brain. For decades numerous studies have shown that rather than being confined to a specific location, memories are dispersed throughout the brain.

-(cont'd below)-

[alkemical]

In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious "whole in every part" nature of memory storage.

Then in the 1960s Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram.

Pribram's theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little space. It has been estimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information during the average human lifetime (or roughly the same amount of information contained in five sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica). Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage--simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information.

Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word "zebra", you do not have to clumsily sort back through some gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like "striped", "horselike", and "animal native to Africa" all pop into your head instantly. Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information--another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with ever other portion, it is perhaps nature's supreme example of a cross-correlated system.

The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions. Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions. An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations.

Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists. Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability. Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism.

Pribram's belief that our brains mathematically construct "hard" reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support. It has been found that each of our senses is sensitive to a much broader range of frequencies than was previously suspected. Researchers have discovered, for instance, that our visual systems are sensitive to sound frequencies, that our sense of smell is in part dependent on what are now called "cosmic frequencies", and that even the cells in our bodies are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies.

Such findings suggest that it is only in the holographic domain of consciousness that such frequencies are sorted out and divided up into conventional perceptions. But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist.

As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion. We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.

This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature. Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many para-psychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm.

In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level. It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolved puzzles in psychology. In particular, Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness.

[baja]

That's why on the other thread I said,

"I am"

but there is no "me"

[The Lone Bolt]

This book is on my reading list. Fascinating theory!

[baja]

But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist.

Masters have said for centuries that we create our own reality.

[baja]

As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion. We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.

some might find the following a good read;

"Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East by Baird Spalding

Great thread Josh

[The Lone Bolt]

But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist.

Masters have said for centuries that we create our own reality.

So when L.T. is ripping off 200 yards against your D you can comfort yourself with "it's only a hologram it's only a hologram . . . ";D

[Denver Crush]

This was a great read. Very thought provoking indeed. Some of this ties into Jungs theory of cosmic consciousness. Good stuff.

[freak6]

How does this play with M theory?

Sounds kind of similar in that there are other universes at the subatomic level whose physics can be pulled together with our world's physics via M theory/String Math.

[Garcia Bronco]

What's perceived is real so-to-say.

[BroncoBuff]

Well, if objective reality DOESN'T exist, I'm pretty torqued off... cause I should be living in one of my fantasies!!


Take my reality. Please.


If my life isn't objective, then I got royally S C R E W E D, dammit!!


In my fantasy world, I'm sitting on 754 tonight in my home field Dodger Stadium - and I DON'T have a head the size of a watermelon!



Maybe if I close my eyes really tight for a minute, my subjective reality will take over ....

....

....

....



DAMN! .... Still the OrangeMane....

[mhgaffney]

IMO the evidence doesn't dispute the objective world -- rather it suggests that the whole is much MUCH more than the sum of the parts.

Materialism cannot account for the evidence. Scientists who claim --and there are many -- that human beings are just a complex of chemicals and physical processes have been pursuing a dead end.

If the whole exists in the smallest part -- and this is the meaning of the holographic model -- then, this supports the view that we are multidimensional beings, including a spiritual nature.

Ths is exactly what the great saints of every tradition -- including Jesus -- have been saying all along.

It's about time that science "discovered" the fact.

[alkemical]

As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion. We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.

some might find the following a good read;

"Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East by Baird Spalding

Great thread Josh


I can fit that to how the QBL expresses the way the world is setup as well baja. This is what i mean when i say i want to find the universal, by stripping off the nonsense.

Thanks

[alkemical]

That's why on the other thread I said,

"I am"

but there is no "me"

baja - i was being playful on the other thread. I didn't say i didn't agree with you - i just approach it from a very different manner. I have had alot of things happen to me in the past few years i haven't shared with you that i've learned.

I read this book roughly 10 years ago and it shaped a good foundation of how i can use science WITH my spiritualism to find the common ground.

:)

[baja]

IMO the evidence doesn't dispute the objective world -- rather it suggests that the whole is much MUCH more than the sum of the parts.

Materialism cannot account for the evidence. Scientists who claim --and there are many -- that human beings are just a complex of chemicals and physical processes have been pursuing a dead end.

If the whole exists in the smallest part -- and this is the meaning of the holographic model -- then, this supports the view that we are multidimensional beings, including a spiritual nature.

Ths is exactly what the great saints of every tradition -- including Jesus -- have been saying all along.

<b>It's about time that science "discovered" the fact.</b>

Ya I was going to mention the same thing. I think it indicates that human beings are poised for a quantum leap Spiritually.

I suspect as the old unsustainable systems are breaking down all around us (ripped out of complacency) it will be the catalyst for this spiritual leap.

[mhgaffney]

I agree -- but am less optimistic.

Elizabeth Kubler-Ross used to say "We are in a race between love and fear..."

How true. Unfortunately at this point in the race it feels like fear is winning.

As evidence I would submit the facts of recent history: Consider the neo cons' great success using the terror card to stampede America into invading other nations --

If Americans don't wake up soon to the fact that the real terrorists are in the White House -- we as a species are going down -- probably for the last time on this planet.

A species with pretensions of intelligence only gets so many chances -- to get it right.

Mother Nature bats last.

[baja]

I think we save ourselves at the last possible second.

People need to be pushed to greatness.

[alkemical]

I'm less optimistic. People want blood, so there will be blood.

[alkemical]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=63575

You don't exist, so don't worry about it

[baja]

I'm less optimistic. People want blood, so there will be blood.

Oh I never said there would be no blood shed just that we will not wipe out the species.

I think about 1/3 will be left to try again

[alkemical]

Oh I never said there would be no blood shed just that we will not wipe out the species.

I think about 1/3 will be left to try again


I agree.

Don't worry about me baja - i'll get by. ;)

[baja]

As you pointed out in post 19 everyone will ;D

[alkemical]

As you pointed out in post 19 everyone will ;D

hehehe ;)

How have you been man?


(PS - i re-wired my brain if you haven't been able to tell)

[mosca]

Very interesting stuff, clav. Thanks for posting it.

One thing I think about is - in the event that there is widespread catastrophe, bloodshed, etc. leaving only a small amount of the species left, we'll use your 1/3rd for example - how difficult will it be for humankind to continue this type of significant scientific (and/or spiritual) research that we are just now really starting to learn about? Not only this holographic theory, but other related stuff - quantum mechanics, M-theory, string theory, zero point field, etc. Will all of our progress in learning be lost?

[W*GS]

Just more new-agey mumbo-jumbo.

[baja]

Just more new-agey mumbo-jumbo.

Have you ever made a positive post?

God it must suck to be you!

[BroncoBuff]

Like every other leap in human discovery, it's the unseen dimensions that were somehow overlooked before. The "whole in every part" theory reminds me of relativity in that, prior to e=mc2, time was never considered to be interfaced with space. Now, every particle of a space might contain the whole ? ... and space itself is an illusion? Whew ...

It seems to me that string theory is superceded by this. The "clunky" model of infinite strings connecting particles through 11 dimensions of space is outmoded - once every part contains the whole, like the rose hologram. The rat brain thing is pretty damn trippy too.

Still ... as humans, we all share so many objectives truths ... are we really operating on the kind of simple, base level of existence that this implies?




gaff - did Kubler-Ross really say we're in a race between fear and love? That's a profound statement if she's referring to the journey of life being such a race.

[BroncoBuff]

If the whole exists in the smallest part -- and this is the meaning of the holographic model -- then, this supports the view that we are multidimensional beings, including a spiritual nature.

Ths is exactly what the great saints of every tradition -- including Jesus -- have been saying all along.
I had those same thoughts as I read it ... the spiritual potential.

The book is older than it seems - 1992.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Book Extract: The Holographic Universe - Does Objective Reality Exist? (http://www.westender.com.au/stories.php?s_id=606)

- By Michael Talbot


Michael Talbot?

I read his book "Mysticism and the New Physics" when I was in college.

Great stuff. :thumbsup:

[BroncoBuff]

Sounds a little like Gary Zukav books - especially "Seat of the Soul." HIs other one, "Dancing Wu-Li Masters" is pretty good too.

I am #3 on the SPL waiting list for "Holographic Universe."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

HIs other one, "Dancing Wu-Li Masters" is pretty good too.



:thumbsup:

I read that book (along with "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra) around the same time I read Talbot's book (c. 1983.)

Fascinating stuff.

[alkemical]

Very interesting stuff, clav. Thanks for posting it.

One thing I think about is - in the event that there is widespread catastrophe, bloodshed, etc. leaving only a small amount of the species left, we'll use your 1/3rd for example - how difficult will it be for humankind to continue this type of significant scientific (and/or spiritual) research that we are just now really starting to learn about? Not only this holographic theory, but other related stuff - quantum mechanics, M-theory, string theory, zero point field, etc. Will all of our progress in learning be lost?

I think it would be a continuance IMO. I mean the Kabbalah, indra's net etc - they can all be methods/models of explaining this theory/other theories, etc.

There are those of us who feel the need to preserve knowledge and it always has been passed down.

[baja]

Candice Pert's 'Molecules of Emotion' is good science about similar concepts.

She proved every cell in the human body knows what is going on in all other cells instantly and always.

She hypothesized about this hologram theory applying it on a cellular level saying within every cell is the imprint of the whole body.

I remember thinking at that time that a hologram of all that is (universe) would be more likely.

She almost won a nobel price for this work

[alkemical]

This is why (this thread, etc) i think there's alot more to the radionics thread i had posted (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=1603232) -

http://www.life-enthusiast.com/twilight/research_emoto.htm

[W*GS]

Have you ever made a positive post?

Of course - under my other alias, Lord Voldemort!

God it must suck to be you!

Why?

[alkemical]

Of course - under my other alias, Lord Voldemort!



Why?



Funny Lord Voldemort hated everything in the world that was himself as well....

Irony is often more rich than not.

[W*GS]

Hint: Harry Potter is fiction.

Thanks for playing!

[alkemical]

Hint: Harry Potter is fiction.

Thanks for playing!

LOL actually wags - thank you for playing - you just further illustrated the point Baja was making.

LOL! It does suck to be wags!

[W*GS]

BTW, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" opens real soon. Go check it out!

[alkemical]

BTW, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" opens real soon. Go check it out!

I've actually never read a harry potter book or seen a movie in regards to the book. I just found it ironic your cited the most negative character to assume a point ala allegory.

[W*GS]

I put out a plate of honey, and you got stuck.

[baja]

Of course - under my other alias, Lord Voldemort!



Why?

It is the conclusion I have drawn from reading you over the years.

You spent 100's of hours on the DPO railing against something you had no control over in the building of Invesco Field.

You chose a poster to engage with (LABF Macaffy) and have long running back and forth postings that are antagonistic and patronizing leading to personal attacks and ill will.

I do not recall a happy uplifting post authored by you. Not one ever.

You are clearly a smart guy but you give the impression that you feel disenfranchised by everyone. You seem to feel that you stand alone in the world and that one one has the intellect to understand you. That's way.

[alkemical]

I put out a plate of honey, and you got stuck.

I'm sorry wags, but that's false. Someone like yourself is incapable of putting anything sweet out. Don't try to delude yourself any further - as baja's post outlines and as others here can see, negativity is the only thing you offer. I'm sorry your world sucks, but it is what you make it.

[W*GS]

It is the conclusion I have drawn from reading you over the years.

You spent 100's of hours on the DPO railing against something you had no control over in the building of Invesco Field.

My only satisfaction is that the Broncos have sucked since they started playing there. I've tried contacting the MFSD to see what the status of the payoff of the bonds is, and they apparently no longer meet or care much about the $400 million we taxpayers dumped into that white elephant. Just as I predicted starting in 1998...

I do not recall a happy uplifting post authored by you. Not one ever.

If one is seeking happiness, fulfillment, and contentment from a computer screen, one is in serious need of the help of a mental health professional. Try exploring the real world!

You are clearly a smart guy but you give the impression that you feel disenfranchised by everyone. You seem to feel that you stand alone in the world and that one one has the intellect to understand you. That's way.

I do not seek completion from a bunch of alphanumerics passing by on the screen. I prefer flesh and blood people, not aliases with agendae and whose personalities are colored by anonymity. For that, I apologize.

[baja]

L O L

Thanks for the classic example of my point.

[W*GS]

Your point being that you need the OM (and other 'Net venues) for validation and/or acceptance...

What a horrifically shallow existence.

[baja]

wags - I do not seek completion from a bunch of alphanumerics passing by on the screen. I prefer flesh and blood people, not aliases with agendae and whose personalities are colored by anonymity. For that, I apologize..

And this is why you are a regular here with over 6,000 posts in a little over 2 years. Before that thousands and thousands on the DPO.

You're not fooling anyone wags

[baja]

Your point being that you need the OM (and other 'Net venues) for validation and/or acceptance...

What a horrifically shallow existence.

Actually this is the only place I post regularly and I come here for Bronco talk and to share similar cultural interests that I do not easily find living in Mexico.

Your not even a Football fan let a Broncos fan what is your excuse for being here. Escaping that loving human contact you like to refer to?

[baja]

Wags - If one is <b>seeking happiness, fulfillment, and contentment from a computer screen,</b> one is in serious need of the help of a mental health professional. Try exploring the real world!

LABF is right you have comprehension challenges, I said a positive (happy) post generated by you. How did this get turned to my or your need to find happiness on the internet/

[mosca]

I think it would be a continuance IMO. I mean the Kabbalah, indra's net etc - they can all be methods/models of explaining this theory/other theories, etc.

There are those of us who feel the need to preserve knowledge and it always has been passed down.
I'm hopeful that some people will preserve and pass down such knowledge. This would be similar to the old ways of the shaman, and be more in the spiritual direction.

But what I am concerned about would be the hard scientific research into these areas. This kind of stuff is expensive, already requiring government or private grants to perform in laboratories. This of course is not the only method of exploration, but is one where many of the new discoveries have been found or proven lately. If there is a widespread cultural collapse, the high technology for this kind of research would be incredibly difficult to obtain. I suppose many researchers would require a paradigm shift back into the mystical and spiritual worlds in order to continue.

[alkemical]

I'm hopeful that some people will preserve and pass down such knowledge. This would be similar to the old ways of the shaman, and be more in the spiritual direction.

But what I am concerned about would be the hard scientific research into these areas. This kind of stuff is expensive, already requiring government or private grants to perform in laboratories. This of course is not the only method of exploration, but is one where many of the new discoveries have been found or proven lately. If there is a widespread cultural collapse, the high technology for this kind of research would be incredibly difficult to obtain. I suppose many researchers would require a paradigm shift back into the mystical and spiritual worlds in order to continue.



I know what you mean.... That's why knowledge has to be spread though. If "the worst case scenario happens" - you need to keep information at the very least - avail so it's not lost.

[W*GS]

LABF is right you have comprehension challenges, I said a positive (happy) post generated by you. How did this get turned to my or your need to find happiness on the internet/

Why do you seek happiness or affirmation from me (or anyone else, for that matter)?

Perhaps this fellow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Smalley

is more to your liking.

[alkemical]

Your point being that you need the OM (and other 'Net venues) for validation and/or acceptance...

What a horrifically shallow existence.

as opposed to what, just showing up to be a dick every day? Oh wait, that's an obvious answer: Your life sucks - Or you are what you eat.

[orangeatheist]

Just more new-agey mumbo-jumbo.

I don't know, man. I tend to agree. I know others here are heaping on the abuse but so far, in researching more about this book, I get mainly links to "hiddenmysteries", "rense", and "crystalinks". Not exactly Oxford, Yale or Stanford. Mostly New Age sites.

But I'm still looking. Clavi, you got any sort of peer-reviewed research papers discussing this "holographic" theory of the universe? The book itself isn't peer reviewed but maybe the actual research papers the book is getting its idea from have been. I mean to underline that this is an interesting idea, but how rigorously has it been tested? Is there opposition to this idea? And what is this opposition saying?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It is the conclusion I have drawn from reading you over the years.

You spent 100's of hours on the DPO railing against something you had no control over in the building of Invesco Field.

You chose a poster to engage with (LABF Macaffy) and have long running back and forth postings that are antagonistic and patronizing leading to personal attacks and ill will.

I do not recall a happy uplifting post authored by you. Not one ever.

You are clearly a smart guy but you give the impression that you feel disenfranchised by everyone. You seem to feel that you stand alone in the world and that one one has the intellect to understand you. That's way.

This take sounds right on the money. :thumbsup:

[mosca]

I don't know, man. I tend to agree. I know others here are heaping on the abuse but so far, in researching more about this book, I get mainly links to "hiddenmysteries", "rense", and "crystalinks". Not exactly Oxford, Yale or Stanford. Mostly New Age sites.

But I'm still looking. Clavi, you got any sort of peer-reviewed research papers discussing this "holographic" theory of the universe? The book itself isn't peer reviewed but maybe the actual research papers the book is getting its idea from have been. I mean to underline that this is an interesting idea, but how rigorously has it been tested? Is there opposition to this idea? And what is this opposition saying?
Granted, the New Agers tend to be more interested than most in this kind of stuff, but I don't think that invalidates it. It may not be accepted by the mainstream, but it is a valid theory.

At the very least, the basis for the theory is based on the work of a highly regarded scientist. Wikipedia's brief bio of David Bohm, : "David Joseph Bohm (b. December 20, 1917, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania - d. October 27, 1992, London) was an American-born quantum physicist, who made significant contributions in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy and neuropsychology, and to the Manhattan Project." Not just another New Age hippie dude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm

[Cito Pelon]

I figure there are elements of interconnectedness, but there is also a hard element to the Universe. There are certain elements of the Universe that are incontrovertible, there are hard and fast rules, gravity for instance. Naturally, there is a way to subvert those incontrovertible elements of the Universe, as this article points out.

This is what stood out to me out of that whole piece:

" argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but [B]are actually extensions of the same fundamental something."

That's the task whatever force put our Universe into motion has laid out for us - master and control that "fundamental something". Otherwise, I figure the Universe will collapse on itself once again, and who knows how many times the expansion/collapse cycle has occurred in the past? There was a thread not long ago that examined this same deal, Alec I believe started it. I believe some folks are buying into this string/M theory that Freak6 alluded to once again above.

I'll honestly say I have only a small understanding of it, but I guess it's part of the brickwork that builds a foundation for the ultimate quest - to understand and conquer the Universe. I believe the Universe will collapse upon itself again, and I believe it has happened before because the conscious beings that inhabited that failed Universe did not achieve their ultimate goal.

A holographic Universe? A Universe with no objectivity? My reality is the only reality? Maybe the last is true in a sense. However, if that is true, whomever's reality included hard objects, hard reality, their reality had lasting force because the Universe in which we live has definition, it has tactility.

So I surmise that the Universe in which we exist has hard elements that can be manipulated. Underlying that tactile Universe is another Universe that can be manipulated also. But, to me out of all that has to be a goal. All this around us didn't start out without a goal, an end result. This Universe is trying to accomplish something with consciousness and limbs, trying to develop the ability to manipulate objective reality and subsequently that "fundamental something".

I surmise that goal is to prevent another collapse of this Universe, regardless of how many other mirror Universes exist. We can tackle that problem later. First we have to understand and accomplish the first hurdle.

[orangeatheist]

Granted, the New Agers tend to be more interested than most in this kind of stuff, but I don't think that invalidates it.

Never said it did. My only point was that in my limited research so far, I've only come across this idea being advanced by New Age-type websites. I tried to make it clear that I think the idea is interesting insofar as it does come from a respected theoretical scientist. I'm just asking for the fuller research within the scientific community, instead of the Rense topics.

[baja]

I don't know, man. I tend to agree. I know others here are heaping on the abuse but so far, in researching more about this book, I get mainly links to "hiddenmysteries", "rense", and "crystalinks". Not exactly Oxford, Yale or Stanford. Mostly New Age sites.

But I'm still looking. Clavi, you got any sort of peer-reviewed research papers discussing this "holographic" theory of the universe? The book itself isn't peer reviewed but maybe the actual research papers the book is getting its idea from have been. I mean to underline that this is an interesting idea, but how rigorously has it been tested? Is there opposition to this idea? And what is this opposition saying?

Well it answers a lot of questions, like the perceived injustice of God.

Here's another way of putting it.

Reality is a living, responsive flow of life which continues forever on many levels of existence. Reality honors each being, and responds to it's love. You are invited and encouraged always to shape reality to your needs and purposes. However, there is a significant difference between shaping reality and inventing it. You would be wise to learn the difference and to know the fictional self is the creator of fictional realities which have undone you.

[orangeatheist]

Well it answers a lot of questions, like the perceived injustice of God.

Here's another way of putting it.

Reality is a living, responsive flow of life which continues forever on many levels of existence. Reality honors each being, and responds to it's love. You are invited and encouraged always to shape reality to your needs and purposes. However, there is a significant difference between shaping reality and inventing it. You would be wise to learn the difference and to know the fictional self is the creator of fictional realities which have undone you.

No offense, baja, but that was "new-agey mumbo-jumbo"! ;)

"...living, responsive flow of life..."
"Reality honors each being, and responds to it's love."
"...the fictional self is the creator of fictional realities..."
:saywhat: :confuzzle hmmm...

[alkemical]

For those look for white-papers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_paradigm

Wiki has some sources cited. From what i can tell - there isn't a TON of opposition due to the nature of quantum mechanics. But Bohm is highly regaurded, and i just find it interesting how his work seamlessly mixes with what ancient texts describe in some areas.

Truley if the hermetic axiom: As above, so below is correct - quantum mechanics is indeed the toolset to understand how the brain really works, in conjunction to the universe.

[alkemical]

I also found something interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm

[edit] Manhattan Project Contributions
During World War II, the Manhattan Project mobilized much of Berkeley's physics research in the effort to produce the first atomic bomb. Though Oppenheimer had asked Bohm to work with him at Los Alamos, the top-secret laboratory established in 1942 to design the bomb, the head of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves, would not approve Bohm's security clearance, after tip-offs about his politics (Bohm's friend, Joseph Weinberg, had also come under suspicion for espionage).

Bohm remained in Berkeley, teaching physics, until he completed his Ph.D. in 1943, under an unusually ironic circumstance. According to Peat(see reference below, p.64), "the scattering calculations (of collisions of protons and deuterons) that he had completed proved useful to the Manhattan Project and were immediately classified. Without security clearance, Bohm was denied access to his own work; not only would he be barred from defending his thesis, he was not even allowed to write his own thesis in the first place!" To satisfy the university, Oppenheimer certified that Bohm had successfully completed the research. He later performed theoretical calculations for the Calutrons at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, used to electromagnetically enrich uranium for use in the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.


[edit] McCarthyism leads to Bohm leaving the United States
After the war, Bohm became an assistant professor at Princeton University, where he worked closely with Albert Einstein. In May, 1949, at the beginning of the McCarthyism period, the House Un-American Activities Committee called upon Bohm to testify before it— because of his previous ties to suspected Communists. Bohm, however, pleaded the Fifth amendment right to decline to testify, and refused to give evidence against his colleagues.

In 1950, Bohm was charged for refusing to answer questions before the Committee and arrested. He was acquitted in May, 1951, but Princeton had already suspended him. After the acquittal, Bohm's colleagues sought to have his position at Princeton re-instated, and Einstein reportedly wanted Bohm to serve as his assistant. The university, however, did not renew his contract. Bohm then left for Brazil to take up a Chair in Physics at the University of São Paulo.



___


So depending on if his work would still be 'classified' there might not be anything to peer review.

[mosca]

This part was pretty interesting to me, as I just finished reading one of Krishnamurti's books myself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm#Bridging_science.2C_philosophy.2C_and_c ognition

Bohm's scientific and philosophical views seemed inseparable. In 1959, his wife Saral recommended to him a book by the Indian philosopher J. Krishnamurti that she had seen in a library. He found himself impressed by the way his own ideas on quantum mechanics meshed with the philosophical ideas of Krishnamurti. Bohm's approach to philosophy and physics receive expression in his 1980 book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, and in his 1987 book Science, Order and Creativity. Bohm and Krishnamurti went on to become close friends for over 25 years, with a deep mutual interest in philosophy and the state of humanity.

[baja]

This part was pretty interesting to me, as I just finished reading one of Krishnamurti's books myself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm#Bridging_science.2C_philosophy.2C_and_c ognition

Bohm's scientific and philosophical views seemed inseparable. In 1959, his wife Saral recommended to him a book by the Indian philosopher J. Krishnamurti that she had seen in a library. He found himself impressed by the way his own ideas on quantum mechanics meshed with the philosophical ideas of Krishnamurti. Bohm's approach to philosophy and physics receive expression in his 1980 book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, and in his 1987 book Science, Order and Creativity. Bohm and Krishnamurti went on to become close friends for over 25 years, with a deep mutual interest in philosophy and the state of humanity.

This is a fascinating read please check this out, you too OA;

http://integral.typepad.com/everydayguru/2004/07/life_and_teachi.html

[Cito Pelon]

Well it answers a lot of questions, like the perceived injustice of God.

Here's another way of putting it.

[QUOTE]Reality is a living, responsive flow of life which continues forever on many levels of existence. Reality honors each being, and responds to it's love. You are invited and encouraged always to shape reality to your needs and purposes.

I agree with this.

However, there is a significant difference between shaping reality and inventing it.

That may be true, but it's pure speculation. You don't know that is actually a reality. You'll find out if that is actually a reality when you've moved to the Great Beyond, I guess, same as me and everybody else.

You would be wise to learn the difference and to know the fictional self is the creator of fictional realities which have undone you

This is mumbo-jumbo and controverts what you stated above.

[Cito Pelon]

For those look for white-papers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_paradigm

Wiki has some sources cited. From what i can tell - there isn't a TON of opposition due to the nature of quantum mechanics. But Bohm is highly regaurded, and i just find it interesting how his work seamlessly mixes with what ancient texts describe in some areas.

Truley if the hermetic axiom: As above, so below is correct - quantum mechanics is indeed the toolset to understand how the brain really works, in conjunction to the universe.

Quantum mechanics does delve into territory that opens up more than it can prove, and that's the appeal. "Quantum mechanics" is a misnomer in a way. "Quantum" is a solid word, it means a quantity, a measure of something, a specified quantity. "Mechanics" is also a solid word, it means a physical operation. Put together, one would think those two words would actually measure, weigh, quantify something.

But quantum mechanics does not do that. Instead, it "proves" that the more you measure and quantify, the more variables are introduced into the measurement.

But quantum mechanics has validity. It proves Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and that's actually a big step in human knowledge, dopey as that sounds when tried to put into words.

[alkemical]

Quantum mechanics does delve into territory that opens up more than it can prove, and that's the appeal. "Quantum mechanics" is a misnomer in a way. "Quantum" is a solid word, it means a quantity, a measure of something, a specified quantity. "Mechanics" is also a solid word, it means a physical operation. Put together, one would think those two words would actually measure, weigh, quantify something.

But quantum mechanics does not do that. Instead, it "proves" that the more you measure and quantify, the more variables are introduced into the measurement.

But quantum mechanics has validity. It proves Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and that's actually a big step in human knowledge, dopey as that sounds when tried to put into words.



Of course it does open up more than it can prove. I mean with the 'multiverse' theory, etc - it notes that ever possiblity is a reality (hitler won the war, green lights mean stop, etc).

Do i think the probability of such exists? No - it seems impossible (or beyond my own comprehension) that such situations can/could exist at all the same time, since everything is really existant in some 'shadow time' area.

Just when i see all the mechanisims coming out of this 'new' realm of science and how it can correlate to all of these old texts in some manner of observed 'laws' - and how they seem to intertwine.... etc - that's what is a big interest to me.

[Cito Pelon]

Of course it does open up more than it can prove. I mean with the 'multiverse' theory, etc - it notes that ever possiblity is a reality (hitler won the war, green lights mean stop, etc).

Do i think the probability of such exists? No - it seems impossible (or beyond my own comprehension) that such situations can/could exist at all the same time, since everything is really existant in some 'shadow time' area.

Just when i see all the mechanisims coming out of this 'new' realm of science and how it can correlate to all of these old texts in some manner of observed 'laws' - and how they seem to intertwine.... etc - that's what is a big interest to me.

It's a big interest to me also. It's very interesting that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has been somewhat proven by all these new physicist's theories. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has been the furthest reach of physics for a long time, IMO. And I agree that there is a correlation between ancient texts and modern physics. If one agrees with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, then one must agree that the observation of an experiment impacts that experiment. I think that is what the ancient texts observe, but in an unrefined way.

I don't see an acknowlegement of Heisenberg often in experimentation at particle level. If Heisenberg's Principle is true, then the particle physicist's have another set of equations to work through to make efficacy. I think that's the next step.

[alkemical]

It's a big interest to me also. It's very interesting that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has been somewhat proven by all these new physicist's theories. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has been the furthest reach of physics for a long time, IMO. And I agree that there is a correlation between ancient texts and modern physics. If one agrees with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, then one must agree that the observation of an experiment impacts that experiment. I think that is what the ancient texts observe, but in an unrefined way.

I don't see an acknowlegement of Heisenberg often in experimentation at particle level. If Heisenberg's Principle is true, then the particle physicist's have another set of equations to work through to make efficacy. I think that's the next step.


That's my suspicion as well (re: bolded part). They used this different way of keeping the knowledge around IMO. Sort of like how dances in Asia contain parts of martial arts, etc. (best correlation at this hour anyway... ;) )

It's one of the reasons i'm really into radionics at the moment, i think it can get down to the particle level - it's just a matter of figuring out "how" it works .

[mosca]

That's my suspicion as well (re: bolded part). They used this different way of keeping the knowledge around IMO. Sort of like how dances in Asia contain parts of martial arts, etc. (best correlation at this hour anyway... ;) )

It's one of the reasons i'm really into radionics at the moment, i think it can get down to the particle level - it's just a matter of figuring out "how" it works .
Is this a reference to the Eskrima episode of Human Weapon ?

[alkemical]

Is this a reference to the Eskrima episode of Human Weapon ?

Nope, but i know what you are talking about. I took kung fu for sometime and some of the events i went too had 'dances' but they were really a choreographed fight -

[mosca]

Nope, but i know what you are talking about. I took kung fu for sometime and some of the events i went too had 'dances' but they were really a choreographed fight -
I see ... I watched an episode of that show the other night that showed a dance done by the locals in the Phillippines incorporating martial arts moves. Interesting way of keeping knowledge of the martial art alive even when it was outlawed.

[alkemical]

I see ... I watched an episode of that show the other night that showed a dance done by the locals in the Phillippines incorporating martial arts moves. Interesting way of keeping knowledge of the martial art alive even when it was outlawed.


That "tradition" is used in that part of the world (Or at least what very little i've learned of it). So yeah, that's pretty much it i guess.... ;)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Sunyata - the emptiness of all things

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/sunyata.htm

The teachings on emptiness (Sanskrit sunyata or shunyata) find their most articulate development in the Kadampa branch of Mahayana Buddhism (Madhyamika Prasangika philosophy). To the Kadampas nothing exists 'inherently' or 'from its own side'. All phenomena exist in dependence on three things -

(i) their causes,
(ii) their parts, and
(iii) their imputation by the mind of a sentient being.

And the sentient mind is NOT a physical construct or epiphenomenon of matter . The mind is clear and formless and has the power to know phenomena in a qualitative way [KELSANG GYATSO 1992], and hence give meaning to them.

To Kadampa Buddhists all things are totally empty of any defining essence. Consequently all things have no fixed identity ('inherent existence') and are are in a state of impermanence - change and flux - constantly becoming and decaying. Not only are all things constantly changing, but if we analyse any phenomenon in enough detail we come to the conclusion that it is ultimately unfindable, and exists purely by definitions in terms of other things - and one of those other things is always the mind which generates those definitions.

Kadampa Buddhism regards the persistent delusion of 'inherent existence' as a major obstacle to spiritual development, and the root of many other damaging delusions. One of these delusions is the materialist belief in an objective reality existing independently of mind. By asserting that the universe exists inherently as a brute fact, materialism denies that subjective experience has any relevance to or influence on the universe, or indeed any existence at all.

The delusion of inherent existence is deeply ingrained our our culture. It was embedded into western philosophy by the Greek philosopher Plato, who was born about sixty years after Buddha's death.

Plato's view of reality is that for any class of objects there is a defining ideal form which is fixed, permanent and unchanging. All physical instances of objects tend to be imperfect. For example the wilting, mildewed roses in my garden are imperfect instances of an ideal rose which exists in a perfect realm of eternal forms. It is only by reference to this authoritative 'specification' that my mind is able to identify and name the transient physical phenomena, which 'participate' in the ideal form's attributes.

Buddha died in 483 BC. Plato was born in 428 BC. Yet it is most unlikely that Plato was aware of his predecessor's teachings. In those days there was little contact between Greek and Indian philosophy. This had to await the eastward advance of Alexander the Great around 328 BC. The first recorded contact between Greek civilisation and Buddhism is the conversation between the Greek King Milinda of Bactria, and Nagasena, a Buddhist chariot dismantler [CONZE 1959].

Empty vehicles
King Milinda was a Greek and an experienced soldier who thought he knew a chariot when he saw one. But Nagasena demonstrated that if Milinda's chariot were gradually dismantled - knock a spoke out of a wheel here, a plank off there, then a bit of the frame and so on - there was no way for Milinda to decide at exactly what step in the procedure he should stop imputing 'vehicle' and start imputing 'heap of firewood'.

Nagasena said this was because the chariot had no power to define itself from its own side. Nor was there any ideal chariot form 'in the sky' which engaged and disengaged with the timber at definite stages of assembly and disassembly.

Milinda's mind was the only thing that could make the distinction between vehicle and firewood. And there were no logical rules, stepwise procedures or decision trees for Milinda to decide when to cease imputing one thing and impute another.

As with chariots, so with cars. Everyone knows what a car is. A car is an assembly of parts. But what makes those parts into a car is surprisingly difficult to pin down. At what stage on the production line do the components finally become a car?

Does it temporarily cease to be a car when it's in for repairs and the gearbox is several yards away from the rest of the vehicle? Is my car still a car when I wake up one morning to find it supported on bricks with the wheels missing?

Or, could I say that the essential feature of a car is that it performs the functions of a car? So does it cease to be a car when it won't start? And does it return to the state of being a car when I cure the problem by spraying the electrics with moisture repellent? Does the true essence of being a car therefore reside in an aerosol can?


Emptiness of natural things.
Maybe we can rescue Plato's ideas of the inherent existence of perfect forms if we assume there is a strict demarcation between man-made and natural objects, with the former existing in dependence upon the 'judgement' of the observer, but the latter existing 'from their own side'. For having come to accept that man-made things such as chariots and cars owe some of their existence to dependence on our mind, we may suspect that this is somehow because they are originally products of the human mind - as first conceived by the designer.

We find it more difficult to accept the natural things in the world, such as flowers and trees are dependent upon our minds. A rose would smell as sweet by any other name. A rose bush is a rose bush is a rose bush, and is different in its inherent nature from a plum or a cherry tree. There is no continuum between these three species and thus no necessity for our mind to make a judgment of the borderline. But is this really the case?


Leaving aside nightmare genetic engineering scenarios of octophants, elepuses and all stages in between, we may consider that there is (or was) a continuum of form between all living things. If we were to examine the fossil records of the ancestors of cherry trees and plum trees we would find that they diverged from one common ancestor. Looking back through the fossils we would seen a continuous gradation of characteristics from the ancestors of the cherry to to the ancestors of the plum, leading back to a time when they were indistinguishable. But the decision as to where ancestor ended and plum or cherry began would be totally arbitrary. And if we were to trace the common ancestor of the cherry and plum we would find convergence with the ancestors of the rose, strawberry, raspberry etc. What Darwin did for creationism he also did for biological Platonism - the biological species concept does not encapsulate any underlying truth [BROOKES 1999], and each individual species is unfindable


The ultimate unfindability of the real nature of all phenomena - their lack inherent existence, is usually referred to by English-speaking Buddhists as 'emptiness', which is a translation of the Sanskrit word Sunyata (sometimes spelled Shunyata). According to David Loy the English word emptiness has a more nihilistic connotation than the original Sanskrit. The Sanskrit root su also conveys the concept of being swollen with possibility [LOY 1996]. It is therefore most important not to confuse emptiness with total nothingness. Emptiness implies the potential for existence and change. The mathematical analogy of emptiness is not zero, but the empty set.

The conclusion that all things are empty of inherent existence and appear only in dependence on our minds is not an obvious truth. So deeply ingrained is the idea of inherent existence and authority in Western culture that even when we have analysed all things as dependent on causes, and dependent on parts, we still hold back from the most subtle truth of dependence on mind. We think there ought to be 'something out there', or someone 'authoritative' who prevents the real world from being so much dependent upon our judgement. On first meeting teachings on emptiness the western mind often suspects it is the victim logical trickery or mere playing with words. Fortunately it is possible to demonstrate the true and all-pervasive nature of emptiness by examining the mode of existence of fundamental particles, the building blocks of all things in the material universe.

The participation of the observer.
According to the Kadampa school of Buddhist philosophy all phenomena exist by dependence on other phenomena, which are themselves dependently related to other phenomena and so on. No matter how deeply or far back we search, no phenomenon can ever be found which is fundamental or a 'thing-in-itself'. Neither the observer nor any observed phenomenon exist independently, but are inextricably intertwined. This viewpoint is known as dependent relationship.

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso [KELSANG GYATSO 1995] states that there are three levels of dependent relationship:

(1) Gross dependent relationship - causality - the dependence of phenomena on their causes.

(2) Subtle dependent relationship - structure - the dependence of phenomena on their perceived parts (including aspects, divisions and directions).

(3) Very subtle dependent relationship - the dependence of phenomena on imputation by mind.

All functioning things exist in these three ways. The very subtle dependent relationship - existence by the mind's imputation - is the most difficult one to understand, especially since for most ordinary phenomena this view of existence is masked by the two grosser levels of existence. This subtle mode of existence is always present, but only becomes apparent in those circumstances where the grosser levels do not dominate.

If we have problems with the terminology of gross and subtle, we may think of this as the degree of apparent objectivity of dependent relationship . The most gross is the most objective and the very subtle is the most subjective (or participatory) type of dependent relationship.

The existence of a thing in dependence of its causes (except in the special case where we were involved in making it ) appears totally objective and does not require our participation. The causes of a car are the geological processes which produced coal, iron and copper ores. Then the miners, metalworkers, designers, component manufacturers and assembly line workers who transformed the raw material into the finished product. Unless we happen to work in one of these industries, the causal mode of existence does not depend on our participation.

Existence in dependence on parts is more subjective. We may view a car as composed of a chassis, an engine and four wheels. Or we may take a more detailed view with the engine being seen as pistons, cylinder-head, carburettor etc. These too can be analysed into subcomponents, all the way down through atoms of iron and carbon, to the fundamental particles such as protons, electrons and the photons which shine from the headlamps.

Our perception of dependence upon parts is very much determined by how we choose to subdivide the whole. The mind has to participate by applying analytical effort to generate the view of existence in dependence upon parts.

It's when we get to the final stage of perception of dependence in terms of the fundamental building blocks of matter that we come up against the very subtle (most participatory) level of dependent relationship of imputation by mind. Experiments in quantum physics seem to demonstrate the need for an observer to make potentialities become real.

Quantum sunyata
Now, fundamental particles such as electrons and photons do not have any obvious causes. Either they always have been there or else they come into existence as the result of random quantum events. Neither do they have anything in the way of observable parts (otherwise they wouldn't be fundamental). So when we examine an electron or photon, we are looking at a phenomenon in which the two grosser ways of existing are relatively inapparent. As the two grosser levels are not clamouring for our attention, Kadampa metaphysics would predict that the very subtle level of dependent relationship (in dependence of imputation by mind) should manifest itself.

It is important to emphasise that the mathematical equations of quantum physics do not describe actual existence - they describe potential for existence. Working out the equations of quantum mechanics for a system composed of fundamental particles produces a range of potential locations, values and attributes of the particles which evolve and change with time. But for any system only one of these potential states can become real, and - this is the revolutionary finding of quantum physics - what forces the range of the potentials to assume one value is the act of observation. Matter and energy are not in themselves phenomena, and do not become phenomena until they interact with the mind. These experimental aspects of sunyata are described in quantum phenomena.

- Sean Robsville

[alkemical]

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/01/vr-hypothesis.html

The VR hypothesis
The idea that the universe is a giant virtual reality simulation is a well explored theme in science fiction. Films such as The Matrix have used this premise to great effect.

Now a New Zealand scientist is saying that physicists should seriously explore the idea. Brian Whitworth (http://www.massey.ac.nz/%7Ewwiims/people/b.whitworth/)at Massey University says that it is perfectly reasonable to conjecture that "the world is an information simulation running on a three-dimensional space-time screen" (http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0337). Deciding whether or not this is true is a matter for science to resolve.

Assuming Whitworth is serious, what should we make of this idea? He readily admits that this is a weird idea but points out that it is no more strange than many widely held views in physics such as the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, the big bang and Boltzmann brains (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19526171.100-spooks-in-space.html).

So how would we be able to tell if our universe was a simulation? Whitworth says that if reality was to do something that information processing cannot, then it cannot be virtual. But he falls short of suggesting what this might be.

(As an aside, there are plenty of mathematical algorithms that are incomputable. They are the products of a physical human mind, so if they count as something that information processing could not come up with, Whitworth's idea is already dead in the water.)

Whitworth goes on to suggest various ways in which phenomenon associated with quantum mechanics and relativity can be explained in terms of VR.

He also claims that VR can resolve many of the philosophical questions associated with the Big Bang, such as what caused it and how could it arise when there was no space and time. His answer is that the universe simply booted up although he conveniently ignores all the questions that such a "Big Boot" would raise.

Whether the VR hypothesis is actually testable is a question Whitworth avoids. But without testable predictions about the universe that would distinguish this idea from other theories, the VR hypothesis is pure philosophy.

That's why it is almost certain to be ignored by mainstream physicists. It's not the first idea to suffer this fate - the physicist David Bohm proposed a small modification to quantum mechanics that made no difference to its predictions but ensured that the theory was deterministic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation).

Most physicists rejected it on the basis of Occam's Razor: that science should strive for the simplest theory that fits all the facts.

My guess is that Whitworth's work will go the same way.

Justin Mullins, New Scientist consultant

[alkemical]

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1332&category=Science

A Quantum Math Description of Parallel Universes

[Cito Pelon]

Sunyata - the emptiness of all things

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/sunyata.htm

The teachings on emptiness (Sanskrit sunyata or shunyata) find their most articulate development in the Kadampa branch of Mahayana Buddhism (Madhyamika Prasangika philosophy). To the Kadampas nothing exists 'inherently' or 'from its own side'. All phenomena exist in dependence on three things -

(i) their causes,
(ii) their parts, and
(iii) their imputation by the mind of a sentient being.

And the sentient mind is NOT a physical construct or epiphenomenon of matter . The mind is clear and formless and has the power to know phenomena in a qualitative way [KELSANG GYATSO 1992], and hence give meaning to them.

To Kadampa Buddhists all things are totally empty of any defining essence. Consequently all things have no fixed identity ('inherent existence') and are are in a state of impermanence - change and flux - constantly becoming and decaying. Not only are all things constantly changing, but if we analyse any phenomenon in enough detail we come to the conclusion that it is ultimately unfindable, and exists purely by definitions in terms of other things - and one of those other things is always the mind which generates those definitions.

Kadampa Buddhism regards the persistent delusion of 'inherent existence' as a major obstacle to spiritual development, and the root of many other damaging delusions. One of these delusions is the materialist belief in an objective reality existing independently of mind. By asserting that the universe exists inherently as a brute fact, materialism denies that subjective experience has any relevance to or influence on the universe, or indeed any existence at all.

The delusion of inherent existence is deeply ingrained our our culture. It was embedded into western philosophy by the Greek philosopher Plato, who was born about sixty years after Buddha's death.

Plato's view of reality is that for any class of objects there is a defining ideal form which is fixed, permanent and unchanging. All physical instances of objects tend to be imperfect. For example the wilting, mildewed roses in my garden are imperfect instances of an ideal rose which exists in a perfect realm of eternal forms. It is only by reference to this authoritative 'specification' that my mind is able to identify and name the transient physical phenomena, which 'participate' in the ideal form's attributes.

Buddha died in 483 BC. Plato was born in 428 BC. Yet it is most unlikely that Plato was aware of his predecessor's teachings. In those days there was little contact between Greek and Indian philosophy. This had to await the eastward advance of Alexander the Great around 328 BC. The first recorded contact between Greek civilisation and Buddhism is the conversation between the Greek King Milinda of Bactria, and Nagasena, a Buddhist chariot dismantler [CONZE 1959].

Empty vehicles
King Milinda was a Greek and an experienced soldier who thought he knew a chariot when he saw one. But Nagasena demonstrated that if Milinda's chariot were gradually dismantled - knock a spoke out of a wheel here, a plank off there, then a bit of the frame and so on - there was no way for Milinda to decide at exactly what step in the procedure he should stop imputing 'vehicle' and start imputing 'heap of firewood'.

Nagasena said this was because the chariot had no power to define itself from its own side. Nor was there any ideal chariot form 'in the sky' which engaged and disengaged with the timber at definite stages of assembly and disassembly.

Milinda's mind was the only thing that could make the distinction between vehicle and firewood. And there were no logical rules, stepwise procedures or decision trees for Milinda to decide when to cease imputing one thing and impute another.

As with chariots, so with cars. Everyone knows what a car is. A car is an assembly of parts. But what makes those parts into a car is surprisingly difficult to pin down. At what stage on the production line do the components finally become a car?

Does it temporarily cease to be a car when it's in for repairs and the gearbox is several yards away from the rest of the vehicle? Is my car still a car when I wake up one morning to find it supported on bricks with the wheels missing?

Or, could I say that the essential feature of a car is that it performs the functions of a car? So does it cease to be a car when it won't start? And does it return to the state of being a car when I cure the problem by spraying the electrics with moisture repellent? Does the true essence of being a car therefore reside in an aerosol can?


Emptiness of natural things.
Maybe we can rescue Plato's ideas of the inherent existence of perfect forms if we assume there is a strict demarcation between man-made and natural objects, with the former existing in dependence upon the 'judgement' of the observer, but the latter existing 'from their own side'. For having come to accept that man-made things such as chariots and cars owe some of their existence to dependence on our mind, we may suspect that this is somehow because they are originally products of the human mind - as first conceived by the designer.

We find it more difficult to accept the natural things in the world, such as flowers and trees are dependent upon our minds. A rose would smell as sweet by any other name. A rose bush is a rose bush is a rose bush, and is different in its inherent nature from a plum or a cherry tree. There is no continuum between these three species and thus no necessity for our mind to make a judgment of the borderline. But is this really the case?


Leaving aside nightmare genetic engineering scenarios of octophants, elepuses and all stages in between, we may consider that there is (or was) a continuum of form between all living things. If we were to examine the fossil records of the ancestors of cherry trees and plum trees we would find that they diverged from one common ancestor. Looking back through the fossils we would seen a continuous gradation of characteristics from the ancestors of the cherry to to the ancestors of the plum, leading back to a time when they were indistinguishable. But the decision as to where ancestor ended and plum or cherry began would be totally arbitrary. And if we were to trace the common ancestor of the cherry and plum we would find convergence with the ancestors of the rose, strawberry, raspberry etc. What Darwin did for creationism he also did for biological Platonism - the biological species concept does not encapsulate any underlying truth , and each individual species is unfindable


The ultimate unfindability of the real nature of all phenomena - their lack inherent existence, is usually referred to by English-speaking Buddhists as 'emptiness', which is a translation of the Sanskrit word Sunyata (sometimes spelled Shunyata). According to David Loy the English word emptiness has a more nihilistic connotation than the original Sanskrit. The Sanskrit root su also conveys the concept of being swollen with possibility [LOY 1996]. It is therefore most important not to confuse emptiness with total nothingness. Emptiness implies the potential for existence and change. The mathematical analogy of emptiness is not zero, but the empty set.

The conclusion that all things are empty of inherent existence and appear only in dependence on our minds is not an obvious truth. So deeply ingrained is the idea of inherent existence and authority in Western culture that even when we have analysed all things as dependent on causes, and dependent on parts, we still hold back from the most subtle truth of dependence on mind. We think there ought to be 'something out there', or someone 'authoritative' who prevents the real world from being so much dependent upon our judgement. On first meeting teachings on emptiness the western mind often suspects it is the victim logical trickery or mere playing with words. Fortunately it is possible to demonstrate the true and all-pervasive nature of emptiness by examining the mode of existence of fundamental particles, the building blocks of all things in the material universe.

The participation of the observer.
According to the Kadampa school of Buddhist philosophy all phenomena exist by dependence on other phenomena, which are themselves dependently related to other phenomena and so on. No matter how deeply or far back we search, no phenomenon can ever be found which is fundamental or a 'thing-in-itself'. Neither the observer nor any observed phenomenon exist independently, but are inextricably intertwined. This viewpoint is known as dependent relationship.

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso [KELSANG GYATSO 1995] states that there are three levels of dependent relationship:

(1) Gross dependent relationship - causality - the dependence of phenomena on their causes.

(2) Subtle dependent relationship - structure - the dependence of phenomena on their perceived parts (including aspects, divisions and directions).

(3) Very subtle dependent relationship - the dependence of phenomena on imputation by mind.

All functioning things exist in these three ways. The very subtle dependent relationship - existence by the mind's imputation - is the most difficult one to understand, especially since for most ordinary phenomena this view of existence is masked by the two grosser levels of existence. This subtle mode of existence is always present, but only becomes apparent in those circumstances where the grosser levels do not dominate.

If we have problems with the terminology of gross and subtle, we may think of this as the degree of apparent objectivity of dependent relationship . The most gross is the most objective and the very subtle is the most subjective (or participatory) type of dependent relationship.

The existence of a thing in dependence of its causes (except in the special case where we were involved in making it ) appears totally objective and does not require our participation. The causes of a car are the geological processes which produced coal, iron and copper ores. Then the miners, metalworkers, designers, component manufacturers and assembly line workers who transformed the raw material into the finished product. Unless we happen to work in one of these industries, the causal mode of existence does not depend on our participation.

Existence in dependence on parts is more subjective. We may view a car as composed of a chassis, an engine and four wheels. Or we may take a more detailed view with the engine being seen as pistons, cylinder-head, carburettor etc. These too can be analysed into subcomponents, all the way down through atoms of iron and carbon, to the fundamental particles such as protons, electrons and the photons which shine from the headlamps.

Our perception of dependence upon parts is very much determined by how we choose to subdivide the whole. The mind has to participate by applying analytical effort to generate the view of existence in dependence upon parts.

It's when we get to the final stage of perception of dependence in terms of the fundamental building blocks of matter that we come up against the very subtle (most participatory) level of dependent relationship of imputation by mind. Experiments in quantum physics seem to demonstrate the need for an observer to make potentialities become real.

Quantum sunyata
Now, fundamental particles such as electrons and photons do not have any obvious causes. Either they always have been there or else they come into existence as the result of random quantum events. Neither do they have anything in the way of observable parts (otherwise they wouldn't be fundamental). So when we examine an electron or photon, we are looking at a phenomenon in which the two grosser ways of existing are relatively inapparent. As the two grosser levels are not clamouring for our attention, Kadampa metaphysics would predict that the very subtle level of dependent relationship (in dependence of imputation by mind) should manifest itself.

It is important to emphasise that the mathematical equations of quantum physics do not describe actual existence - they describe potential for existence. Working out the equations of quantum mechanics for a system composed of fundamental particles produces a range of potential locations, values and attributes of the particles which evolve and change with time. But for any system [B]only one of these potential states can become real, and - this is the revolutionary finding of quantum physics - what forces the range of the potentials to assume one value is the act of observation. Matter and energy are not in themselves phenomena, and do not become phenomena until they interact with the mind. These experimental aspects of sunyata are described in quantum phenomena.

- Sean Robsville

Interesting.

[Cito Pelon]

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/01/vr-hypothesis.html

The VR hypothesis
The idea that the universe is a giant virtual reality simulation is a well explored theme in science fiction. Films such as The Matrix have used this premise to great effect.

Now a New Zealand scientist is saying that physicists should seriously explore the idea. Brian Whitworth (http://www.massey.ac.nz/%7Ewwiims/people/b.whitworth/)at Massey University says that it is perfectly reasonable to conjecture that "the world is an information simulation running on a three-dimensional space-time screen" (http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0337). Deciding whether or not this is true is a matter for science to resolve.

Assuming Whitworth is serious, what should we make of this idea? He readily admits that this is a weird idea but points out that it is no more strange than many widely held views in physics such as the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, the big bang and Boltzmann brains (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19526171.100-spooks-in-space.html).

So how would we be able to tell if our universe was a simulation? Whitworth says that if reality was to do something that information processing cannot, then it cannot be virtual. But he falls short of suggesting what this might be.

(As an aside, there are plenty of mathematical algorithms that are incomputable. They are the products of a physical human mind, so if they count as something that information processing could not come up with, Whitworth's idea is already dead in the water.)

Whitworth goes on to suggest various ways in which phenomenon associated with quantum mechanics and relativity can be explained in terms of VR.

He also claims that VR can resolve many of the philosophical questions associated with the Big Bang, such as what caused it and how could it arise when there was no space and time. His answer is that the universe simply booted up although he conveniently ignores all the questions that such a "Big Boot" would raise.

Whether the VR hypothesis is actually testable is a question Whitworth avoids. But without testable predictions about the universe that would distinguish this idea from other theories, the VR hypothesis is pure philosophy.

That's why it is almost certain to be ignored by mainstream physicists. It's not the first idea to suffer this fate - the physicist David Bohm proposed a small modification to quantum mechanics that made no difference to its predictions but ensured that the theory was deterministic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation).

Most physicists rejected it on the basis of Occam's Razor: that science should strive for the simplest theory that fits all the facts.

My guess is that Whitworth's work will go the same way.

Justin Mullins, New Scientist consultant

Interesting. Nothing can be eliminated from the realm of possibility.

[baja]

Our perception of dependence upon parts is very much determined by how we choose to subdivide the whole. The mind has to participate by applying analytical effort to generate the view of existence in dependence upon parts.

Thus the huge importance of the human mind to the extraterrestrials as Cito has mentioned in the past,that is as long as we all agree there is a past. ;D

[Cito Pelon]

Thus the huge importance of the human mind to the extraterrestrials as Cito has mentioned in the past,that is as long as we all agree there is a past. ;D

For people that don't know the history between Cito and Baja, we go way back to 1998 on the old DPO board. Baja has irritated me for a long time, and vice-versa.

[baja]

For people that don't know the history between Cito and Baja, we go way back to 1998 on the old DPO board. Baja has irritated me for a long time, and vice-versa.

I wasn't joking on this one Cito I believe that. Really.

[baja]

if you will excuse the pun there is more than meets the mind on this one.

[Cito Pelon]

There is no theory that can be eliminated as ridiculous. The Universe is a crazy deal in itself. Nobody really knows jack**** about our own galaxy much less the Universe. The Hubble shots are amazing, they show chaos all over the place. Entire galaxies being swallowed by a neighboring galaxy, and what the hell comes out of that? That occured a million years ago, and the light only reached us today. We don't understand jack**** about the Universe, we don't even understand our own solar system, our own little star. Here we are still killing each other over water and oil, haven't even made a base outside of the Earth. We'll also kill anybody that tries to make that base happen.

[baja]

Hell we don't even understand ourselves half the time.

[alkemical]

cito, it's why i think there's not an actual adult on the planet.

[Bronco Bob]

Hell we don't even understand ourselves half the time.

Does anybody understand women?

[baja]

Mock?

[alkemical]

Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all)

It could be the weirdest and most embarrassing prediction in the history of cosmology, if not science.

If true, it would mean that you yourself reading this article are more likely to be some momentary fluctuation in a field of matter and energy out in space than a person with a real past born through billions of years of evolution in an orderly star-spangled cosmos. Your memories and the world you think you see around you are illusions.

This bizarre picture is the outcome of a recent series of calculations that take some of the bedrock theories and discoveries of modern cosmology to the limit. Nobody in the field believes that this is the way things really work, however. And so in the last couple of years there has been a growing stream of debate and dueling papers, replete with references to such esoteric subjects as reincarnation, multiple universes and even the death of spacetime, as cosmologists try to square the predictions of their cherished theories with their convictions that we and the universe are real. The basic problem is that across the eons of time, the standard theories suggest, the universe can recur over and over again in an endless cycle of big bangs, but it’s hard for nature to make a whole universe. It’s much easier to make fragments of one, like planets, yourself maybe in a spacesuit or even — in the most absurd and troubling example — a naked brain floating in space. Nature tends to do what is easiest, from the standpoint of energy and probability. And so these fragments — in particular the brains — would appear far more frequently than real full-fledged universes, or than us. Or they might be us.

Alan Guth, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who agrees this overabundance is absurd, pointed out that some calculations result in an infinite number of free-floating brains for every normal brain, making it “infinitely unlikely for us to be normal brains.” Welcome to what physicists call the Boltzmann brain problem, named after the 19th-century Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, who suggested the mechanism by which such fluctuations could happen in a gas or in the universe. Cosmologists also refer to them as “freaky observers,” in contrast to regular or “ordered” observers of the cosmos like ourselves. Cosmologists are desperate to eliminate these freaks from their theories, but so far they can’t even agree on how or even on whether they are making any progress.

If you are inclined to skepticism this debate might seem like further evidence that cosmologists, who gave us dark matter, dark energy and speak with apparent aplomb about gazillions of parallel universes, have finally lost their minds. But the cosmologists say the brain problem serves as a valuable reality check as they contemplate the far, far future and zillions of bubble universes popping off from one another in an ever-increasing rush through eternity. What, for example is a “typical” observer in such a setup? If some atoms in another universe stick together briefly to look, talk and think exactly like you, is it really you?

“It is part of a much bigger set of questions about how to think about probabilities in an infinite universe in which everything that can occur, does occur, infinitely many times,” said Leonard Susskind of Stanford, a co-author of a paper in 2002 that helped set off the debate. Or as Andrei Linde, another Stanford theorist given to colorful language, loosely characterized the possibility of a replica of your own brain forming out in space sometime, “How do you compute the probability to be reincarnated to the probability of being born?”

The Boltzmann brain problem arises from a string of logical conclusions that all spring from another deep and old question, namely why time seems to go in only one direction. Why can’t you unscramble an egg? The fundamental laws governing the atoms bouncing off one another in the egg look the same whether time goes forward or backward. In this universe, at least, the future and the past are different and you can’t remember who is going to win the Super Bowl next week.

“When you break an egg and scramble it you are doing cosmology,” said Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology.

Boltzmann ascribed this so-called arrow of time to the tendency of any collection of particles to spread out into the most random and useless configuration, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics (sometimes paraphrased as “things get worse”), which says that entropy, which is a measure of disorder or wasted energy, can never decrease in a closed system like the universe.

If the universe was running down and entropy was increasing now, that was because the universe must have been highly ordered in the past.

In Boltzmann’s time the universe was presumed to have been around forever, in which case it would long ago have stabilized at a lukewarm temperature and died a “heat death.” It would already have maximum entropy, and so with no way to become more disorderly there would be no arrow of time. No life would be possible but that would be all right because life would be excruciatingly boring. Boltzmann said that entropy was all about odds, however, and if we waited long enough the random bumping of atoms would occasionally produce the cosmic equivalent of an egg unscrambling. A rare fluctuation would decrease the entropy in some place and start the arrow of time pointing and history flowing again. That is not what happened. Astronomers now know the universe has not lasted forever. It was born in the Big Bang, which somehow set the arrow of time, 14 billion years ago. The linchpin of the Big Bang is thought to be an explosive moment known as inflation, during which space became suffused with energy that had an antigravitational effect and ballooned violently outward, ironing the kinks and irregularities out of what is now the observable universe and endowing primordial chaos with order.

Inflation is a veritable cosmological fertility principle. Fluctuations in the field driving inflation also would have seeded the universe with the lumps that eventually grew to be galaxies, stars and people. According to the more extended version, called eternal inflation, an endless array of bubble or “pocket” universes are branching off from one another at a dizzying and exponentially increasing rate. They could have different properties and perhaps even different laws of physics, so the story goes.

A different, but perhaps related, form of antigravity, glibly dubbed dark energy, seems to be running the universe now, and that is the culprit responsible for the Boltzmann brains.

The expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating, making galaxies fly away from one another faster and faster. If the leading dark-energy suspect, a universal repulsion Einstein called the cosmological constant, is true, this runaway process will last forever, and distant galaxies will eventually be moving apart so quickly that they cannot communicate with one another. Being in such a space would be like being surrounded by a black hole.

Rather than simply going to black like “The Sopranos” conclusion, however, the cosmic horizon would glow, emitting a feeble spray of elementary particles and radiation, with a temperature of a fraction of a billionth of a degree, courtesy of quantum uncertainty. That radiation bath will be subject to random fluctuations just like Boltzmann’s eternal universe, however, and every once in a very long, long time, one of those fluctuations would be big enough to recreate the Big Bang. In the fullness of time this process could lead to the endless series of recurring universes. Our present universe could be part of that chain.

In such a recurrent setup, however, Dr. Susskind of Stanford, Lisa Dyson, now of the University of California, Berkeley, and Matthew Kleban, now at New York University, pointed out in 2002 that Boltzmann’s idea might work too well, filling the megaverse with more Boltzmann brains than universes or real people.

In the same way the odds of a real word showing up when you shake a box of Scrabble letters are greater than a whole sentence or paragraph forming, these “regular” universes would be vastly outnumbered by weird ones, including flawed variations on our own all the way down to naked brains, a result foreshadowed by Martin Rees, a cosmologist at the University of Cambridge, in his 1997 book, “Before the Beginning.”

The conclusions of Dr. Dyson and her colleagues were quickly challenged by Andreas Albrecht and Lorenzo Sorbo of the University of California, Davis, who used an alternate approach. They found that the Big Bang was actually more likely than Boltzmann’s brain.

“In the end, inflation saves us from Boltzmann’s brain,” Dr. Albrecht said, while admitting that the calculations were contentious. Indeed, the “invasion of Boltzmann brains,” as Dr. Linde once referred to it, was just beginning.

In an interview Dr. Linde described these brains as a form of reincarnation. Over the course of eternity, he said, anything is possible. After some Big Bang in the far future, he said, “it’s possible that you yourself will re-emerge. Eventually you will appear with your table and your computer.”

But it’s more likely, he went on, that you will be reincarnated as an isolated brain, without the baggage of stars and galaxies. In terms of probability, he said, “It’s cheaper.”

You might wonder what’s wrong with a few brains — or even a preponderance of them — floating around in space. For one thing, as observers these brains would see a freaky chaotic universe, unlike our own, which seems to persist in its promise and disappointment.

Another is that one of the central orthodoxies of cosmology is that humans don’t occupy a special place in the cosmos, that we and our experiences are typical of cosmic beings. If the odds of us being real instead of Boltzmann brains are one in a million, say, waking up every day would be like walking out on the street and finding everyone in the city standing on their heads. You would expect there to be some reason why you were the only one left right side up.

Some cosmologists, James Hartle and Mark Srednicki, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, have questioned that assumption. “For example,” Dr. Hartle wrote in an e-mail message, “on Earth humans are not typical animals; insects are far more numerous. No one is surprised by this.”

In an e-mail response to Dr. Hartle’s view, Don Page of the University of Alberta, who has been a prominent voice in the Boltzmann debate, argued that what counted cosmologically was not sheer numbers, but consciousness, which we have in abundance over the insects. “I would say that we have no strong evidence against the working hypothesis that we are typical and that our observations are typical,” he explained, “which is very fruitful in science for helping us believe that our observations are not just flukes but do tell us something about the universe.”

Dr. Dyson and her colleagues suggested that the solution to the Boltzmann paradox was in denying the presumption that the universe would accelerate eternally. In other words, they said, that the cosmological constant was perhaps not really constant. If the cosmological constant eventually faded away, the universe would revert to normal expansion and what was left would eventually fade to black. With no more acceleration there would be no horizon with its snap, crackle and pop, and thus no material for fluctuations and Boltzmann brains.

String theory calculations have suggested that dark energy is indeed metastable and will decay, Dr. Susskind pointed out. “The success of ordinary cosmology,” Dr. Susskind said, “speaks against the idea that the universe was created in a random fluctuation.”

But nobody knows whether dark energy — if it dies — will die soon enough to save the universe from a surplus of Boltzmann brains. In 2006, Dr. Page calculated that the dark energy would have to decay in about 20 billion years in order to prevent it from being overrun by Boltzmann brains.

The decay, if and when it comes, would rejigger the laws of physics and so would be fatal and total, spreading at almost the speed of light and destroying all matter without warning. There would be no time for pain, Dr. Page wrote: “And no grieving survivors will be left behind. So in this way it would be the most humanely possible execution.” But the object of his work, he said, was not to predict the end of the universe but to draw attention to the fact that the Boltzmann brain problem remains.

People have their own favorite measures of probability in the multiverse, said Raphael Buosso of the University of California, Berkeley. “So Boltzmann brains are just one example of how measures can predict nonsense; anytime your measure predicts that something we see has extremely small probability, you can throw it out,” he wrote in an e-mail message.

Another contentious issue is whether the cosmologists in their calculations could consider only the observable universe, which is all we can ever see or be influenced by, or whether they should take into account the vast and ever-growing assemblage of other bubbles forever out of our view predicted by eternal inflation. In the latter case, as Alex Vilenkin of Tufts University pointed out, “The numbers of regular and freak observers are both infinite.” Which kind predominate depends on how you do the counting, he said..

In eternal inflation, the number of new bubbles being hatched at any given moment is always growing, Dr. Linde said, explaining one such counting scheme he likes. So the evolution of people in new bubbles far outstrips the creation of Boltzmann brains in old ones. The main way life emerges, he said, is not by reincarnation but by the creation of new parts of the universe. “So maybe we don’t need to care too much” about the Boltzmann brains,” he said.

“If you are reincarnated, why do you care about where you are reincarnated?” he asked. “It sounds crazy because here we are touching issues we are not supposed to be touching in ordinary science. Can we be reincarnated?”

“People are not prepared for this discussion,” Dr. Linde said.