Your comments remind me of the mindset of Carl Sagan, who in his more stoned moments wondered if science could explain everything. Of course, no “logical scientific” evidence exists yet to explain what we now call the “paranormal,” but looking to the other end of the spectrum (i.e. “spiritual” philosophies and experiences of the mind) may give us clues in which direction we might proceed.

That is all I was trying to say, and although Talbot may be wrong and illogical, I feel that he has a useful model from which to extrapolate. It is one among many. If this means a descent into illogical thought and delusions, we’ll just have to trust our judgment and discernment. I’m willing to take that risk.

I never indicated that Micael’s holographic universe concept was an analogy or not, so there is no evidence that I could be confusing the map with the territory. But I like your misplaced analogy because that is exactly what I was talking about — people confusing an object with an image of an object. In scientific circles they call this hallucinations, illusions, delusions, or lies. Delusions are the most common.

So what if (read: pretend) a map of the universe existed and it was a like a hologram and it existed everywhere? That’s a lot of untested ifs. Those make believe premises would also require us to pretend that entropy doesn’t exist. Remember what I said about entropy? Information is degrading with time, so it is always incomplete (read: finite) information. And information does not exist everywhere to the same degree. If you want information about the Sun, you don’t point your telescope at the moon, you point your telescope towards the Sun because that is where the most information about the Sun is going to be found.

You are right about there are concepts in science that “seem” illogical, but there are no concepts in that are actually illogical. Not a one. Humans by nature are not logical beings, so it is no wonder that is why they need to be taught logic in university classes, and why so many scientifically logical ideas “seem” illogical to the average person. Logic is never wrong and it never fails; it is only people who do not understand how to properly apply logic that fail.

Back to the analogy. Have you ever seen a holographic film? It is full of “swirly” patterns and colors and those patterns and colors are not uniformly distributed. If every square inch of that holographic film contained all the information about the object it recorded, the film would look uniform instead of “swirly”. Cut off a corner of a holographic film the next time you see get one and see how much of the object can be reconstructed from that corner piece. You will clearly see degradation of the object in the recording.

Michael’s ideas do not just “seem” illogical, they are illogical. Michael proposes what amounts to “the universe is all map and no territory”. That is what “infinite information” implies. Furthermore, Micheal’s claims are not just illogical, they are pseudo-scientific because although they sound like science but they are not actually science. Michael’s book is not a science textbook. It is not a peer reviewed science journal. It is was made for your entertainment, not your education.

It doesn’t matter who agrees or disagrees with those facts or logic, because science is not a democracy. Scientists do not vote for what they believe to be truth or not. It doesn’t matter who or how many people endorse Michael or not. A thousand Frenchmen CAN be wrong. For example, the vast majority of scientists used to believe that light traveled through the luminiferous ether or that the Sun revolved around the Earth, but the vast majority were all wrong. Sometimes it is the other way around as well. All that matters isn’t who believes in a claim or how many believe in a claim, it is if the claim or reasoning or justification is flawed because then there is a just cause for rejecting it. The only proper thing to do when a claim is made in a complete vacuum of evidence is to reject that claim, therefore the only logically proper thing to with Michael’s claims is to reject them because they are made in the absence of evidence, they are logically flawed, and they are pseudo-scientific.

Talbot argues that vampire originates as a worm serpent — it’s the rainbow serpent in fact. But, a la Dr. Andrew Parker’s book “In the Blink of an Eye” the Cambrian Explosion on Earth was created by quantum diffraction gradients through asymmetrical resonance of pressurve waves in the biolumescent ocean.

Greg: Holography is still dependent on closed systems for analysis — even if it’s quantum chaos. The holographic paradigm resurrected by Susskind in cosmology and the new Bekenstein Bound, returns back to the Pythagorean or Vampire-Snake theorem.

Listening to sound relies on pure tone sine-waves that can not be contained as “frequency” of phase-shift using in holography. Nevertheless the resonance of sound, only measured by pure number and not technology, creates light through acoustoelectric energy.

This was the limitation of Talbot’s theory for when vowels were introduced into semitic language there was a shift from tonal-based knowledge using the right-brain to visual-based knowledge using the left-brain. For example when we combine a phase-shift in the sine-wave harmonics the visual Fourier analysis is qualitatively different but the auditory perception is of the same frequency.

This is the sort of civilized discussion I was referring to when I wagged my finger at “The Sage.”

By “KISS” I believe you are referring to Keep It Simple, Stupid.” Yes, the ET theory of UFOs is probably the simplest one, but as I pointed out, this theory has not made any headway in the last 50 years, except as the most popular one. There is little (probably closer to no) objective evidence for it, so I think we are left to our personal taste as to which theory is the more valid.

The ET theory is also very anthropocentric, which when hypothesizing about non-humaness may close off many other possibilities.

Something I left open is that if there are ETs visiting us, they may use their knowledge of this holographic idea as a tool for examining and confusing us as well as a mechanism for keeping us in the dark as to their true nature.

Finally, I am just so tired of the ET explanation that I am eager (some might say too eager) to consider alternate theories. Perhaps the “aliens from Zeta Reticuli” people are right, but that territory is already settled, and I’m off looking over the next hill, even if it may be a garbage heap.

I think you are confusing the map with the territory. It would seem that Talbot is using a metaphor in order to get a deeper concept across: reality is not a hologram it is like a hologram. The idea is that everything does not literally “record” information about everything else, it is merely a gate or access point to the rest.

Also, the scientists (Bohm at least) that Talbot interviewed don’t seem to have had any problem with the book. This would indicate that they agreed with his view of their work. From what you’re alleging, the scientists he talked to do not understand science properly, and are engaging in “New Age pseudo-scientific fantasy.”

Which “non-scientific types often confuse actual objects with projected images of actual objects”? Are you speaking metaphorically here, or do you believe that some people can’t tell when they’re looking up at stars or are in a planetarium, for example?

Some newer (some almost 80 years old) concepts in physics may seem “illogical.” Have you looked into this UFO business at all? The whole thing is illogical.

We’re having a discussion about possibilities here, not a pseudo-debate by fiat.

I am however, a proponent of the KISS system. Until the improbable becomes the impossible, then the simplest answer is usually the correct answer. Recent discoveries seem to bear out the N&B explanation. We now know that planets do indeed orbit other star system and we also know with certainty they are vast and varied. Recently, water (and therefore oxygen) was discovered on a gas giant HD 189733b orbiting a star only 63 light years away. As more discoveries are made supporting the possibility and probability of life elsewhere (and they will be made), it will simply become more difficult to espouse “holographic” ‘I think it therefore it exist’ theories. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that” but…

Historically, many native cultures incorporate stories of star visitors, the Dogon being the most notable example. Does this bear any weight on the matter as well re N&B’s?

I guess my point here is simply I won’t categorize you a nutter Greg for hypothesizing hyper dimensional multi verses with holographic possibilities, if you’ll do me the kindness of extending the same courtesy for considering “Nuts and Bolts” KISS theory as the simplest, most likely explanation…

What would Holmes do?

Maybe WE (all of us, everything) are the creators and have chosen to foist that responsibility on another. It seems that many of us must personify the intelligence inherent in the universe to make it comprehensible to us. Maybe I’m wrong.

P.S. This is from the “skeptic” who wrote Project Beta!

I couldn’t in good conscience put up the post without qualifying it for those who are not prepared to accept that I am not nuts!

I would go one further and suggest that our brains essentially create space-time and therefore our perspective is dependent on this. Sort of like the idea that some things can’t come into existence until we “believe” or at least accept a possibility. It’s not there until we have the capacity to see it.