The "Simulated Reality" is a hypothesis describing our universe as being the result of a highly advanced computer simulation. The "Holographic Principle" says that all the information inside a volume has to fit in the surface of this volume, hence there is a maximum density (every volume has to contain voids) and particles have to be fundamental at some level (you can not divide matter forever). Considering the holographic principle, the supposed computer's memory (the one used to simulate our whole universe) has to have the size to contain all of our universe's information, but as a physical object (on a real universe), the memory itself is made of information and has to fit inside the volume of a real universe. So, to simulate a complete universe, you have to use a computer memory bigger than a universe!
On the other hand, the philosopher Nick Bostrom postulated the "Sceptical Hypothesis" in which he claims that, if we live inside a computer simulation, our programmers would have embedded in us a pathological scepticism, so that someone will always present some deceptive argument when confronted by the simulation hypothesis.
Doesn't this thinking lead to a paradox? If the Holographic Principle is assumed, can we rule out the Simulated Reality theory? And if so, isn't the holographic principle itself the "deceptive argument" that Bostrom talked about?
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_%27t_Hooft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Moravec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_hypothesis#Skeptical_hypotheses
The problem is that the concept of optical holography, as introduced by Denis Gabor, the inventor, differs from the concept of principle of holography for the universe. This is a long history and I consider that the name of the principle exceeds the real context.
Maria,
I agree. The name used was more of a "poetical" than a "scientific" choice. Nevertheless, it refers not to the optical character of holography, but to the fundamental character of the holographic film, that is "a single point in the two dimensional surface of the film holds information from a three dimensional point of view, so that a full 2-dimensional surface can represent a 3-dimensional object. That is why it is called "Holographic principle" and not "Holography principle".
I am afraid the question remains the same because a full 2D surface cannot "represent" a 3D surface. Consider that it is rather our brain seen though the 2D "window" a 3D scene.
You are right again in your statement: A 2D surface cannot represent a 3D volume (I believe you meant volume instead of surface here, please correct me if not). And that is the beauty behind the so called "holographic principle": It states that the amount of information stored in the degrees of freedom of a quantum state has a density limit. You can store as much information as it fits on any quantum state alone, but when dealing with a ensemble of states, the total amount of information stored in a given volume cannot exceed the amount of information that can be stored on the states belonging to the boundaries of such volume. As a consequence, matter itself has a maximum volumetric density, since every quantum state has to store its own quantum numbers as information. Starting from this hypothesis, one arrives at the Schwarzschild radius of a blackhole as the connection between the minimal surface and the minimal volume that a certain mass can occupy.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics