I very recently read - and immediately lost link to - a very long scientific narrative about the supposed real nature of our existence. Those writings tried to explain how our reality is holographic instead of physical.
I’m personally terrible at science. It’s not that I didn’t take the minimum required science courses in high school and college. But discovering my psychic self at age 16 made it really, really hard to learn about the absolutes of nature when not a word was written in any of my course materials about what I was experiencing.
So when I recently ran across this holographic text - which didn’t have any particular mystical slant - it somehow intrigued me. I read many pages before getting interrupted; and, through the interruption I discovered that the holographic narrative was way beyond my science-weak brain so I moved on to other fluffy readings. But in the past few days, my mind has repeatedly returned to the one part (which was an analogy) which I did understand and it’s allowed me to dovetail the mystical (or at least the psychic) into that narrative.
Here is a materially accurate though certainly paraphrased repeat of the part of that text my mind has been chewing on. Before I totally quote this out of context, please remember that the text is trying to explain that our perceived solid universe is instead just a holographic representation of information.
So one point this text used is that we are (scientifically speaking) confused by scientific discovery that two remote objects can be intimately entangled in such a way that when the state of one object changes the other changes in an identical manner. As if they are communicating with each other somehow instantaneously and remotely.
I am pretty certain at this point in the text the author.(s) is trying to tell us that our interpretation of this occurrence is wrong as is our fundamental understanding of our universe. Their point is that we are not observing two different entangled objects but instead the same on single object from two different viewpoints.
The analogy the author used was to image you are visiting an aquarium where there is one fish alone in a tank. There are two video cameras pointed at the tank at right angles to each other and each camera projects to a separate TV monitor. When the fish is looking directly at one camera, the fish is concurrently seen from the side on the second monitor. If the fish moves/turns away from that first camera, it might be seen head on when viewing the second monitor. If the observer did not know about the two camera setup but could view both monitors, it could be possible to wrongly interpret that there are two separate fish and further that they are somehow reacting to each other in an instantaneous and coordinated fashion.
Finally, I close with my musing about our psychical nature extrapolated from my limited understanding of that author’s unrelated scientific text. A holographic universe would be able to explain (or support) how some psychic communications work specifically premonitions in that a person could be observing the same object/action/point-in-time from two different angles.
I’m personally terrible at science. It’s not that I didn’t take the minimum required science courses in high school and college. But discovering my psychic self at age 16 made it really, really hard to learn about the absolutes of nature when not a word was written in any of my course materials about what I was experiencing.
So when I recently ran across this holographic text - which didn’t have any particular mystical slant - it somehow intrigued me. I read many pages before getting interrupted; and, through the interruption I discovered that the holographic narrative was way beyond my science-weak brain so I moved on to other fluffy readings. But in the past few days, my mind has repeatedly returned to the one part (which was an analogy) which I did understand and it’s allowed me to dovetail the mystical (or at least the psychic) into that narrative.
Here is a materially accurate though certainly paraphrased repeat of the part of that text my mind has been chewing on. Before I totally quote this out of context, please remember that the text is trying to explain that our perceived solid universe is instead just a holographic representation of information.
So one point this text used is that we are (scientifically speaking) confused by scientific discovery that two remote objects can be intimately entangled in such a way that when the state of one object changes the other changes in an identical manner. As if they are communicating with each other somehow instantaneously and remotely.
I am pretty certain at this point in the text the author.(s) is trying to tell us that our interpretation of this occurrence is wrong as is our fundamental understanding of our universe. Their point is that we are not observing two different entangled objects but instead the same on single object from two different viewpoints.
The analogy the author used was to image you are visiting an aquarium where there is one fish alone in a tank. There are two video cameras pointed at the tank at right angles to each other and each camera projects to a separate TV monitor. When the fish is looking directly at one camera, the fish is concurrently seen from the side on the second monitor. If the fish moves/turns away from that first camera, it might be seen head on when viewing the second monitor. If the observer did not know about the two camera setup but could view both monitors, it could be possible to wrongly interpret that there are two separate fish and further that they are somehow reacting to each other in an instantaneous and coordinated fashion.
Finally, I close with my musing about our psychical nature extrapolated from my limited understanding of that author’s unrelated scientific text. A holographic universe would be able to explain (or support) how some psychic communications work specifically premonitions in that a person could be observing the same object/action/point-in-time from two different angles.
Last edited:
