Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Have you ever looked into Bohm and Pribram's Holographic theory? Have any idea of its relation to simulation theory? Just curious. I find their holonomic view of the brain fascinating although a bunch of mystical bullshit has sprung up around these ideas(like people falling for Sai Baba's BS). I have seen different religious takes on the holographic theory and not just from your typical Buddhist/Hindu/Gnostic views but have read some really interesting breakdowns on this idea of the word and image in Christianity that are too in depth for here.
|
I have read a few things on the Holographic theory in regards to the human brain. I know originally the science behind it was based on the hologram itself and it's storing information through a beam of light. Though, I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to neurology(brain) based physics I can say the findings are very interesting. First off, the math checks out in numerous accounts, but there's plenty of room for possibilities. For me, I believe Math is the one true way to understanding most things.
I do, however, remember vaguely when I did read about the holographic theory that images were successfully transferred to the interference patterns of laser beams, which were then used as a metaphor to describe the human brain. I found that to be interesting , considering a lot of the math checked out when they started splitting cortexes and cells ( I believe?)
As far as the relationship to simulation theory. There is definitely a relationship in my opinion. Then, again I think everything has a relationship if you can find the similarities and likeness in the math that's used to describe it. Am I believer of the universe essentially being one big giant simulation? Well, I will say this. I think the universe is one giant math problem stemmed amongst billions more. Therefore, could you relate a math problem with a simulation? My answer is yes, but the question remains, how? So until, we can successfully answer that question or can fully plot the equations to prove such theories, I'll always be a skeptic.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of string theory, and I'm not very interested in Steven Hawkins (MR PR Of science) back hole theories. I think a lot the ideas are very creative , but in a matter of concrete science, it has such giant holes. We need some new theories....