Universe As A Hologram?

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
So you want me to go through and dig up some research studies just to prove my point? When more than likely, you won't read or understand it? I don't have the time nor motivation to do that. What i posted answered what you asked, and also answered what i quoted. If you're too dense to understand it, here's the gist of it: we understand how the brain works, and how memories are stored and retrieved. They are stored across the brain (and we understand it, despite what the guy in the article claim... if you actually READ that dumb article), because memories rely on multiple senses. He was using a 1920 research to support his claim... that's research that's 80 years old. Do you really not see the problem in that? Are you really so blind in your sense of 'belief' that you would believe everything you read?

You are completely missing my point. I asked for proof. If you did not want to give me actual proof, then you should have said so earlier. Next, I already told you that they are not using the 1920's study as evidence. They were using it as an implication. They were using this hologram thing as a possible explanation for that study. Next, your article does not explain how the brain works (like you claimed). It said where the memories are stored/retrieved. They do not say how they know this, but they probably monitor electrical activity in the brain and report where the electrical activity is when a person experiances certain things. This just shows that we can monitor electrical activity (since they did not say how they obtained those results, I have to assume). We do not know actually HOW that information is stored. You can say it's stored by neurons and axons (sp?) or whatever, but that still doesn't explain HOW they are stored. Your article does not prove or tell any of that. I understand that you don't want to take the time to dig up an article, so let's drop that because frankly I don't care anymore. Next, what are you claiming that I believe? What did I read that I believe? I already told you that I am not saying that the hologram theory is correct, so what are you talking about?
I am not going to respond to this thread anymore because I don't care anymore. I only wanted to point out that your criticism was invalid, but you decided to dismiss my arguement simply based on the fact that I believe in God. I don't care if you don't believe in God, but I do pity the fact that you won't even listen to me because my beliefs are different than yours. Once again, don't bother responding because I'm not coming back.

 

[FatJackSprat]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
Regarding free will: you still have to hold people accountable. If you throw a drink on me, and I break your nose, you probably will reconsider in the future. If I don't do anything, you will continue throwing drinks at me. You can't argue this isn't the case. Your actions and my actions are predetermined (drink -> broken nose -> no drink) but you still effectively choose not to throw stuff in the future. Also, bystanders see that they shouldn't throw drinks at me either, influencing their predetermined future decisions.

Are we talking about two different situations:
In the first everything is predetermined
In the second people can change future events through learning.

I am discussing where everything is predetermined and see it like this:

1. I throw a drink at you (predetermined)
2. You punch me (predetermined)
3. I throw a drink at you again in the future (predetermined)

Because step three is predetermined I am unable to change it. This action was destined to occur and no interference from any outside force (learning, free will) can change the occurence of that event if it was predetermined without absolutely eliminating the situation of predetermined existence.

Where each act is predetermined there can be NO control.

You are discussing:
1. I throw a drink at you (predetermined)
2. You punch me (predetermined?)
3. I do not throw a drink at you (learned behavior resulting in choice or free will)

"You can't argue this isn't the case."
You are have brought up a situation which allows for individual learning and choice based on decision following an evaluation of all likely future events based on the knowledge of the consequences of past action. I do not view this a predetermination. In fact, this is exactly the state of present existence.

If every single move I will make throughout the course of my lifetime is established prior to my existence, how can I change even the smallest detail of any one of those events and still have a situation of predetermination? It isn't possible.

People would not be accountable for actions which they are absolutely unable to influence due to the fact that those actions were predetermined to occur.

Changing behaviors through learning and being bound to act as a consequence of predetermination are completely opposite concepts.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: KraziKid
Decent read. I would just like to point out that the phenomena of "instant communication" is more well known as quantum entanglement.

Ta Da!!!

Actually, entanglement does not violate physics as they state in the article.

 

[dighn]

yes if i remember correctly there is no way to transmit information using entanglement because when you observe one of them the state is random so the sent information is random as wlel

 

[WarmAndSCSI]

kewl stuff

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: FatJackSprat

Originally posted by: CTho9305
Regarding free will: you still have to hold people accountable. If you throw a drink on me, and I break your nose, you probably will reconsider in the future. If I don't do anything, you will continue throwing drinks at me. You can't argue this isn't the case. Your actions and my actions are predetermined (drink -> broken nose -> no drink) but you still effectively choose not to throw stuff in the future. Also, bystanders see that they shouldn't throw drinks at me either, influencing their predetermined future decisions.

Are we talking about two different situations:
In the first everything is predetermined
In the second people can change future events through learning.

I am discussing where everything is predetermined and see it like this:

1. I throw a drink at you (predetermined)
2. You punch me (predetermined)
3. I throw a drink at you again in the future (predetermined)

Because step three is predetermined I am unable to change it. This action was destined to occur and no interference from any outside force (learning, free will) can change the occurence of that event if it was predetermined without absolutely eliminating the situation of predetermined existence.

Where each act is predetermined there can be NO control.

You are discussing:
1. I throw a drink at you (predetermined)
2. You punch me (predetermined?)
3. I do not throw a drink at you (learned behavior resulting in choice or free will)

"You can't argue this isn't the case."
You are have brought up a situation which allows for individual learning and choice based on decision following an evaluation of all likely future events based on the knowledge of the consequences of past action. I do not view this a predetermination. In fact, this is exactly the state of present existence.

If every single move I will make throughout the course of my lifetime is established prior to my existence, how can I change even the smallest detail of any one of those events and still have a situation of predetermination? It isn't possible.

People would not be accountable for actions which they are absolutely unable to influence due to the fact that those actions were predetermined to occur.

Changing behaviors through learning and being bound to act as a consequence of predetermination are completely opposite concepts.

No, I disagree.

I'm talking about the first situation - everything is predetermined. HOWEVER, you still have choice for all practical purposes. Look at it this way. Even though it has been predetermined, HYPOTHETICALLY, assume I did not punch you. Even though this is not in the realm of possibility because of predetermination, had it happened, you would have continued to throw drinks at me. The fact is, it was predetermined that based on my experiences, I, a deterministic computer built from biological goop and water, would seek retribution, and you, as another deterministic computer, would react to that attack by not throwing more drinks.

Choice is sort of an illusion - your choice has been made, but it is effectively real.

Consider an unreal tournament bot. In the same decision, it will always do the same thing. Add a little learning (e.g., if you are shot every time you stand at some spot, don't stand there), and it will APPEAR to have chosen not to stand in the dangerous place, but in reality, it is just a deterministic program on a deterministic processor. There is no real choice, but for all practical purposes, it chose not to stand where it gets killed.