The Universe as a Hologram

Originally posted by black beetle
I agree that the apparent flow of time is an illusion, however I add that this illusion has to be taken seriously. Mind you, when I inform you I was born on May 16, 1964 and that today I am almost 47yo, is my age caused out of an illusionary flow of the time and therefore, as such, is it illusionary?

You can say with surety that you were born in 1964 because the state of the present and the laws of physics leave no other possible past open.
You cannot be so sure when you will die. This is a result of the direction of time created by the second law of thermodynamics.
But apart from the fact that the future is less well known than the past, there is little to distinguish between the two.
The past only appears more solid because there are far less possible pasts, but nevertheless there are multiple possible pasts, and this becomes visible at the quantum level thus creating the 'wave like' nature at those scales.

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “I don't see why not. Can you prove that there is a single particle of existence that exists for you but not for me? How would you prove that?”

I don’t mean this, of course we agree over this issue due to the fact that our respectful subjectivities over here are in agreement. I will rephrase: Do you think that a neutrino is a part of the realit ...[text shortened]... istence. Methinks the present, the past and the future are mind-dependent discriminations
😵

May I thank you for your explanations here. I am finding them very helpful.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You can say with surety that you were born in 1964 because the state of the present and the laws of physics leave no other possible past open.
You cannot be so sure when you will die. This is a result of the direction of time created by the second law of thermodynamics.
But apart from the fact that the future is less well known than the past, there is l ...[text shortened]... his becomes visible at the quantum level thus creating the 'wave like' nature at those scales.

Edit: "You can say with surety that you were born in 1964 because the state of the present and the laws of physics leave no other possible past open."

But the state of each present is conventional;



Edit: "The past only appears more solid because there are far less possible pasts, but nevertheless there are multiple possible pasts, and this becomes visible at the quantum level thus creating the 'wave like' nature at those scales."

So, in your opinion the particle does not squeeze through both slits but through solely one -and we have the illusion that they squeeze through both slits simply because we are unable to discriminate in full a specific former past from another which is relatively later in relation to the former, and so extremely close to the former that it is causing to us the illusion of the wave-like nature of the particle? Is this really what you mean or I misunderstand you?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
So, in your opinion the particle does not squeeze through both slits but through solely one -and we have the illusion that they squeeze through both slits simply because we are unable to discriminate in full a specific former past from another which is relatively later in relation to the former, and so extremely close to the former that it is causing to ...[text shortened]... f the wave-like nature of the particle? Is this really what you mean or I misunderstand you?
😵

No, in my opinion, the particle might have come through either slit. We cannot tell which and the two possible pasts interact to give what appears to be a wave effect from our point of view.
We get the same effect with the future except that there are so many more possible futures that the waves become so large as to be practically unusable. Emit a photon from the screen and you cannot be sure if it will go through either slit.

Originally posted by Taoman
May I thank you for your explanations here. I am finding them very helpful.

And I thank you for this thread; since every participant works it out form a different perspective, hopefully we will find ourselves in an Udana 68-69 case
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, in my opinion, the particle might have come through either slit. We cannot tell which and the two possible pasts interact to give what appears to be a wave effect from our point of view.
We get the same effect with the future except that there are so many more possible futures that the waves become so large as to be practically unusable. Emit a photon from the screen and you cannot be sure if it will go through either slit.

But the case study is that the particle comes through both slits and thus it interferes with itself on the other side;
😵

Originally posted by Taoman
Yes, I agree it would still have the same result - for that structured experiment.

I am not persuaded of the argument that individuals collapse wave-functions, but that some conscious-like field is involved and all, including us, are involved in it.

The Universe does not need a sentient mind to "collapse" it. To me it is rather self-emergent and with co ...[text shortened]... easons. The appearance to me has validity but must be interpreted very carefully.

The double-slit experiment does not require multiple particles. You can do it with single particles and you will see an interference pattern from particles interfering with themselves. (this is also what quantum theory predicts)

If you change the experimental setup, then it's not surprising that you find different results, is it?

Originally posted by black beetle
But the case study is that the particle comes through both slits and thus it interferes with itself on the other side;
😵

What interferes is the two possible histories. In one history it came through one slit, in the other it came through the other slit. The probability map for which history is what creates the wave effect.
Just to be clear, I must point out that there is no actual evidence that the particle went both ways and interacted other than a probability calculation based on where it hit the screen. In the two slit experiment, photons hit the screen one by one in a specific place, the quantum effect is seen in the pattern formed by many photons over time - a banding effect is observed.
I bright band just tells us that there are more possible pasts that result in a photon striking there than in a dark band.
One can interpret that as "all possible pasts exist" in which case the photon did go through both slits - in different pasts.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What interferes is the two possible histories. In one history it came through one slit, in the other it came through the other slit. The probability map for which history is what creates the wave effect.
Just to be clear, I must point out that there is no actual evidence that the particle went both ways and interacted other than a probability calculation ...[text shortened]... possible pasts exist" in which case the photon did go through both slits - in different pasts.

This is just semantics, though.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What interferes is the two possible histories. In one history it came through one slit, in the other it came through the other slit. The probability map for which history is what creates the wave effect.
Just to be clear, I must point out that there is no actual evidence that the particle went both ways and interacted other than a probability calculation ...[text shortened]... possible pasts exist" in which case the photon did go through both slits - in different pasts.

Let’s sort it out. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation we have merely a probability wave of a particle that lacks of a definitive location; since the particle cannot be located, it does not exist as a particle at all. Therefore, when we do not observe the particle/ probability wave, it is spread out and it will pass through both slits at the same time and it will arrive at the detector as a wave showing the well known interference pattern. Solely when we observe the particle by placing detectors at the slits, the particle is revealing its specific location which causes the probability wave to collapse into a particle. This is the theory I have in mind, and it is not related to any concept regarding the multiple possible pasts you mentioned.
Which exact theory do you follow and you came into this conclusion of yours?
😵

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The double-slit experiment does not require multiple particles. You can do it with single particles and you will see an interference pattern from particles interfering with themselves. (this is also what quantum theory predicts)

If you change the experimental setup, then it's not surprising that you find different results, is it?

That was what I was seeking to refer to. As I understand there is not yet a logical "Newtonian type" explanation of these phenomenon. The quantum phenomenon are paradoxically weird to most scientists, yet highly predictable.

The below is a quote associated with very current experiments, with link to context.
The interesting thing to myself and others is that the ancient intuitive findings of the underlaying nature of reality sound extraordinarily similar.
(The ancient intuitive findings are quite counter intuitive actually. Who in their right mind would think that this so apparently real world would at base be such an "emptiness"?)

It is "neither a particle, nor is it a wave, it is neither local, nor is it non-local..etc.

And it refers at the end to the consequent sub atomic internal "freedom" that results from this.

This has also been a principle aspect of the Buddhist philosophy of the inherent "emptiness" of reality, that without which functional freedom is lost, that this potent "emptiness" is actually required for "things" to manifest. But ultimately, as in quantum findings, they can neither be said to exist nor not exist.

Is its nature not supremely vague? Even attaching terms like "consciousness-like" could be saying too much. The holistic interactive aspect does to me have that appearance however.

>>>

"Researchers have shown in the last few years that for photons and atoms - and now, electrons - "both/and" and "either/or" exist side-by-side. In other words, there is a grey zone of complementarity. There are hence experimentally demonstrable conditions where matter appears to be both a wave and a particle. These situations can be described by a so called duality relation. It can be viewed as an extended Complementarity Principle for quantum physics; which should be more precisely called a Co-existence Principle. It states that manifestations of matter which would normally be mutually exclusive - e.g., local and non-local, coherent and non-coherent - are indeed measurable and make themselves evident, in a particular "transition regime". One can speak of partial localisation and partial coherence, or partial visibility and partial distinguishability. These are measurements that are connected to each other via the duality relation. In this transition regime the Complementarity Principle, and the complementary dualism should be extended to the more general Co-existence Principle, describing the parallel dualism of nature. Nature has thus a more ambivalent character than previously recognized. Atomic interferometry provides us with examples of this ambivalence. It was first found in 1998 in atoms, (5) which consist of an assembly of particles enabling internal degrees of freedom."

http://hasylab.desy.de/news__events/research_highlights/archive/molecular_double_slit_experiment/index_eng.html

Added edit: 'The ancient intuitive findings are quite counter intuitive actually. Who in their right mind would think that this so apparently real world would at base be such an "emptiness"?'

Originally posted by Taoman
That was what I was seeking to refer to. As I understand there is not yet a logical "Newtonian type" explanation of these phenomenon. The quantum phenomenon are paradoxically weird to most scientists, yet highly predictable.

The below is a quote associated with very current experiments, with link to context.
The interesting thing to myself and others is t ...[text shortened]... this so apparently real world would at base be such an "emptiness"?'

Particles are always both localized and a wave, neither of the descriptions, in their pure form, make any sense in a quantum mechanical way. A (pure) wave cannot be normalized and (pure) localization is not a function (it's a so-called generalized distribution, a delta function).

I don't see any value in "ancient texts" as long as they cannot be used in any predictive way. Ad hoc interpretations don't impress me.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Particles are always both localized and a wave, neither of the descriptions, in their pure form, make any sense in a quantum mechanical way. A (pure) wave cannot be normalized and (pure) localization is not a function (it's a so-called generalized distribution, a delta function).

I don't see any value in "ancient texts" as long as they cannot be used in any predictive way. Ad hoc interpretations don't impress me.

Edit: "Particles are always both localized and a wave, neither of the descriptions, in their pure form, make any sense in a quantum mechanical way."

Of course. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation (amongst else), this simply means that the particles are neither existent, nor not existent, nor both existent and non existent, not neither😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: "Particles are always both localized and a wave, neither of the descriptions, in their pure form, make any sense in a quantum mechanical way."

Of course. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation (amongst else), this simply means that the particles are neither existent, nor not existent, nor both existent and non existent, not neither😵

Particles exist (why describe something that you're not sure, or at least assuming, exists?), they are just not localized to a specific point in spacetime, nor can you describe them using a wave with a single wavelength.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Particles exist (why describe something that you're not sure, or at least assuming, exists?), they are just not localized to a specific point in spacetime, nor can you describe them using a wave with a single wavelength.

If a particle is not localized to a specific point in spacetime, how can you claim that it is existent?
😵