I'm curious whether you've read Talbot's, *The Holographic Universe*? There are several events mentioned therein (probably more) that seem to support your VR theory.

Roland,

Thanks for the easiest question and shortest answer I have fielded all day. No, I have not read it.

Tom C

Glad to help.

One of my favorite books. Seems to be another angle on similar concepts, albeit much less salient than MBT.

_________________

------------------------------
http://www.bookofkai.com

Hi Kia,
Welcome to Tom's MBT site. Talbot was good, the thing with MBT is that it is gooder ;). Not better but bigger, morer...beyond compare of the fruits of PMR thinkers even as well as some have thunk. Have you read Bentov's Stalking the Wild Pendulum?
Your web site is cool, I might even be able to understand some of your information there, thanks for the link.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

You may wish to start a new thread and or provide more context if no one responds

Apart from that, howdy

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

I asked myself this lately when I came to read about it again (also sth about Talbot's work, book is orderd now but not yet read):

Doesn't Tom's 'virtual-reality' theory tie in perfectly with a 'holographic-reality' theory? Both are computation-based. Aren't holograms something 'computed' anyway?

Every hologram is dependent on (light) data streams emanating from elsewhere (big computer) and/or are activated from (contained in) the smaller units of which the "whole" software-construct is composed. That's why it is said (also in mysticism) that the big thing is always contained in each of its small(er) components, which might relate to a common core programming code or sth similar? It also reminds me a little of out biological set-up (DNA in cells) within our PMR ... and of fractals ... But I get carried away now.

However, isn't the holographic principle also about creating sth in 3-D (or higher-dimensional) from sth only in 2-D, iirc. Don't know how this fits into Tom's theory though.

http://www.messagetoeagle.com/holograuniv.php

Would be interesting to hear Tom talk about the holographic principle (as established by Bohm, Pribam, etc.) and how it relates to his TOE. I think they might be roughly compatible.

_________________
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
- Max Planck

There is only a superficial relationship between the concepts of MBT and a hologram/holograph as a model for our reality. A hologram has the property that a portion of the whole still produces the basic image that was its subject but with lesser sharpness and definition. Tom often refers to the fractal nature of our reality from the LCS on down to our own PMR because so much is the result of simple rule sets reiterated, just as in the creation of a fractal image. Fractal type relationships show up throughout PMR in the spacing of trees in forests, the arrangement of leaflets on a fern to the shape of coastlines. These are different things, concepts, from holograms however and not other than simplistically or superficially related.

MBT does not say that we are experiencing anything like a hologram in our experience of PMR. This concept would amount to an external hologram being observed by our PMR representation of eyes. The model here is rather of a data stream creating the experience of PMR with no 'out there' like the holodeck concept of the Star Trek franchise.

Ted

Thanks for the explanations. I knew there was sth about fractals, too, in Tom's work (been a long time since I read it now).

Still, regarding the quote above one question for me remains: I thought that this holographic theory also states that everything is holographic, including the "PMR representation of our eyes" (and brains, bodies, cells, ...) - just like any other receptive / perceptive element of our vehicle used in the respective (N)PMR is a hologram too.

This is where the Stark Trek holodeck metaphor doesn't quite hold for me. We ourselves ("projected" into PMR, so to speak) would thus not be 'external to' the holographic construct of the reality experienced, including our brains, eyes, etc.

This, for me, again roughly equates to Tom's model. The (Bigger) Computer providing the data streams is thus sth like a 'projector' of (holographic / virtual) bytes, providing for our consciousness experience in reality frames. At least that is what I thought the holographic theory meant (too). And maybe every bit/byte contains or mirrors "the whole" somehow, too? (Just speculating).

_________________
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
- Max Planck

That link you provided lead me to read up on the name Karl Pribram, which seemed somehow familiar.
I arrived at Wikipedia and the first of the external links there was good food for thought.
Thank you.
I shall consider getting Talbot's book ;)

Volgerie, i think you are thinking on the right path, just try and think in terms of digital data that the LCS can replicate, or copy anything in a VR that would give the same perception of the original. The reality in PMR is just our perception of the data stream we get , just like when we dream only with a different rule set. Just my take on this. Sabby

Volgerle I think in similar terms with you. Ted I think you are taking the model of holographic universe too literally. It is still an analogy. I would like to iterate that from my own point of view it is the same description of Indra's Net with which you are already familiar.

Now if I actually was nit-picking I could say - but in that model there are the same identical pearls so that's why it works; in our life you cannot actually see that :); I could say the same about digital physics - where are all of the 0's and 1's ; I cannot see them.

Look at it however you wish. I tend to think that if you say holograph, you mean something like a holograph and with the properties of a holograph. If you mean something with fractal qualities, you say that instead. You do not try to create similarities between them when there is nothing similar or analogous about fractals and holographs and their characteristics.

Ted

Ted have you read the Holographic Universe - the book? I think if you read it it will be clarified for you in much better terms than I am able to express.

I have found this explanation taken from wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Talbot_%28author%29

I do not remember reading it but I do not have access to all of my library of books at present. However, I know what holographs are and what their characteristics are. The main characteristic is that a part of a hologram contains most of the information of the complete hologram. The image it can produce will be fuzzy relative to that which can be produced by the whole but the main characteristics will be there. There is no aspect such as this to Tom's model. There are no such characteristics within his model. There are references to fractal structures as common within the LCS and within our VR and descriptions of how simple rule sets are reiterated. Fractals do not however have the properties of holographs. This means that there is not really anything basically the same in these models. If you see other secondary characteristics that you find similar, then that may be so.

Ted