So is this proof of Maya?

[mina.magpie]

Buddhism posits that all of creation is actually an illusion, and that we are all part of a single, indivisible whole. They call this illusion Maya, and the process of realising and rising above this illusion, Nirvana.

In the last few decades, physics has come up with a theory, the Holographic Principle, that says much the same thing: The universe is a holographic projection, with different realities at different "angles" in the same way a holographic plate can store different images at different angles. This theory has been kinda fringe ... till now, it seems:

Our universe may be a giant hologram, New Scientist.

So whadaya think?

Mina.

[TamTam]

Totally not proof.   Even the article says that it's not really a theory yet, just more like an idea, and I agree.  I kind of take issue with how a lot of theoretical physics is being run these days, where any old interesting and unique idea can be called a theory and then argued for/against as though there's any definitive and testable evidence either way.. ::sigh::  It's armchair science, not science.  It's good the article mentioned that it's not a theory yet.

It would be fascinating if it could be proven, or if at the very least some actual evidence started appearing, but until it is, I won't subscribe to it.   The mere 'apparent graininess' of the universe is not what I consider actual evidence, merely an interesting phenomenon that we perhaps do not have equipment delicate enough to explore in depth.  We have to remember, there was a time when atoms were considered the smallest things in the universe.  When scientists say [or imply?] that the plank length is the smallest thing in the universe, I am not convinced.  They even said in the article that this length is beyond the reach of any currently conceivable experiments.  If all of this is beyond the capability of current experiments or technology, then it cannot be proven, and it can only remain an interesting idea.  Nothing wrong with interesting ideas. I just try not to believe in them too strongly, because they could collapse at any time.

Edit- Just before anyone gets on my case about my definition of theory, this is the one I am working with:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
- US National Academy of Sciences

Hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. Theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>.
-Merriam-Webster online dictionary

I would say, then, that this article is discussing a hypothesis, not a theory.

[vanna]

Bleh

And i came in here thinking it was about another brand of vegan Mayo.

Do what thou wilt 

[Sandy]

Bleh

And i came in here thinking it was about another brand of vegan Mayo.

Do what thou wilt 

There is also a commercial grade 3D rendering software suite called Maya and I was a bit confused as well.

BTW: Come on over to the "One Last Sincere Topic" to discuss the Holographic Universe in much more detail.  That thread is beginning to look like the tread that ate Cincinnati!  It has a little bit of everything in it! 

[NicholeW.]

Is this thread an illusion?

N~

[je]

Is this thread an illusion?

I think so.

[Alyssa M.]

I don't think it is -- I think that science in essence takes Maya as a postulate -- that is, all the universe can be described by some mathematical abstraction. If that's not Maya, I'm not sure what is. How is a hologram any less "real" than anything else? How is traditional QFT on flat Minkowsi space; or GR (curved, locally-Minkowski space); or any attempt to reconcile the two (like string theory) any more "real" than anything else? At some point, you give up the notion of a distinction between things that are "real" and mathematical "abstractions."

[NicholeW.]

I don't think it is -- I think that science in essence takes Maya as a postulate -- that is, all the universe can be described by some mathematical abstraction. If that's not Maya, I'm not sure what is. How is a hologram any less "real" than anything else? How is traditional QFT on flat Minkowsi space; or GR (curved, locally-Minkowski space); or any attempt to reconcile the two (like string theory) any more "real" than anything else? At some point, you give up the notion of a distinction between things that are "real" and mathematical "abstractions."

Exactement, mon cheri. And hence, all within our range of perception is "illusory." Yep, I'd say Gautama definitely found something.

Nichole

[postoplesbian]

Nothing is impossible only improbably for the time get rid of the conception of time and anything goes. If you can think of it it is happening somewhere as if a tree falls in the forest does it make any noise.