Whitley Strieber remarks on the implications of recent evidence suggesting our universe might be a giant hologram:
Hogan says that there "could still be a mundane source of the noise," and until all possible sources are ruled out, we cannot be certain that we are detecting the grains that make up a hologram that comprises reality.
However, if that's true, it might explain a lot to those of us who have found ourselves living at the indeterminate edge of experience. The reason is that the very graininess of reality may be drawn into consciousness in the form of perceptions that reflect reality in unique ways. And the issue of how individual 'grains' of the holographic universe may relate to the whole will need to be addressed by physics, and it is possible that the attempt to do so itself will affect our place in, and perception of, reality in ways that we can scarcely now imagine.
3 comments:
In one of life's small coincidences, I've been reading Vallee's "Dimensions". Earlier today I'd stopped reading after completing the following passage:
"If it were possible to make three-dimensional holograms with mass, and to project them through time, I would say this is what the farmer saw. And with that theory we would explain many of the apparitions."
And to further the coincidence, the paperback copy I'm reading has a foreword by Whitley Strieber.
I've long suspected that the UFO/abduction phenomenon (and other anomalies) probably has something to do with someone, or something, that has been able to 'hack' the fabric of existence itself. Nice to see that we could be one step closer to discovering the mechanism behind all this stuff.
I just don't know what to make of Hogan's findings. It's frustratingly tantilizing but still far too vague to make any kind of educated guess.
Maybe they are misinterpreting the "noise" entirely. Perhaps nature chose a holographic matrix simply because its the best way to store huge volumes of data? Maybe we are indeed a simulation?
It wouldn't necessarily shock me to find out that we were simulations but I have to wonder what implications that would have. Sadly I think the answer would be that nothing would really change at all. We still pay bills, we still need food to live. Simulations we might be but to survive in the construct we have to obey the rules of the system. The depressing part is contemplation regarding what constitutes "real life" and what kind of meaning we ultimately have in a simulation.
If I spin the fantastic, I like to imagine that this "simulation" is in fact a training program designed to put our logic through its paces. Upon death our individual experience data is dumped into a functional body in the supposed "real world". Earth is just a training ground where inferior programs are kept locked in the system while others evolve beyond it.
Might explain why ET hasn't come knocking yet ;)
-Denny
Even if I'm living in a giant simulation, I still have laundry to do today. On the other hand, I don't see why we can't eventually learn to reprogram the simulation so that the distance between Earth and Alpha Centauri can be made to equal 1 nanometer. Maybe that's the point: run the simulation and see if someone "inside" eventually starts messing with the parameters.
Post a Comment