How to perceive the subjective real universe

Quoting Rich

These are two different views of such a hologram as reconstructed by a laser beam. The brain can be considered such an analogous source in the quantum field. The mind extends out into it and perceives it to be out there and not in here. This idea of perception of a real quantum field is the result of Stephen
Robbins research utilizing Henri Bergson's metaphysics.

So then there still is an "out there" that our minds extends out into? How did you get different views if not from different perspectives of different minds occupying different spaces, "out there"? It doesn't follow to call perception the real universe, while still using phrases like, "out there" and "different views", and "extends out into it", as if there is more to the universe than just your subjectiveness. Even using the term, "subjective" implies the existence of the objective reality. If there isn't anything more than our "subjective" perspective, then "subjective" becomes meaningless, as it would really be an objective perspective.

Reply to Harry Hindu

One can consider "out there" as a feeling of extension from the core. There are the waves and there is an ocean. There is no distinction between the two but there also is depending upon what one is looking at. So duality exists.

Quoting Rich

This is a hologram before reconstructing. It could be analogous to a quantum potential field.

Maybe it could be, but maybe it couldn't be, too. How would we know?

And why are we accepting "quantum potential fields" as real things?

Reply to Terrapin Station It's a puzzle and different clues lead one to contract a model that fits all of the pieces together.

Quoting Rich

This is a hologram before reconstructing.

Right! Makes sense to me. That is an effective analogy for the way the brain~mind 'constructs' reality on the basis of sensation, perception, judgement and so forth. But, on a similar note, this post you're reading now is 'just ones and zeros' - it's binary code transmitted by electrical impulses. But is it really ones and zeros? Or is the order by which the ones and zeros come to represent this message more fundamental than the ones and zeros themselves.

Reply to Wayfarer The ones and zeros is a symbolic representation. A hologram or a quantum potential field would be continuous and entangled. There would be no clear boundaries.

I think that it should be underscored that Bergson intuited this model and Stephen Robbins enhanced approaching the problem from a philosophical point of view. It is an example of philosophy can advance or understanding of the nature of nature.

Quoting Rich

The ones and zeros is a symbolic representation.

Well, not really. They are the 'on' and 'off' indicators in an electrical pulse; it is where programming language is converted into physical instructions which cause pixels to appear on the screen, and everything else that actually happens; remember that microprocessors are actually arrays of switches, and all 'a computer' is, is a large collection (billions) of such switches, in either on or off position. So the binary code encodes the symbolic representation - it is what actually mediates between the symbolic and the physical 'layers' of the model.

And in saying that, I'm not trying to argue against your OP. I'm simply bringing up a point for discussion. And, this being Sunday, I will certainly spend some time reading the articles on the site you have linked to, they're of great interest to me.

Reply to Wayfarer This is how switches work in order to achieve their purpose, but this is not how holograms are constructed and reconstructed. The photos themselves are strictly symbolic of an underlying, continuous field.

Great that you are inquiring. I'm sure to learn a lot from another individual exploring this model. I learned a ton from Robbins. I believe this model is at the cutting edge of philosophy and I hope it encourages young philosophers to explore new territory.

BTW, I've communicated with Robbins and he is extremely open and responsive to explorative critique. When you have chance, I'll provide you with a link on Amazon.com where he does a masterful job of showing how Special and General Relatively contradict each other. He exchanged several messages with a physicist on this subject.

Quoting Rich

The brain can be considered such an analogous source in the quantum field.

Metaphors. They are not the real thing. The brain is not a hologram.

Reply to Banno

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170130083231.htm

Reply to Rich SO there is some evidence in support of the holographic theory of the universe.

But the brain is not a hologram.

At the best, you might be able to take the mathematics of holograms and use it to describe neural connections in a creative way. That would be interesting.

But even then, the brain is nit a hologram, any more than it is a computer or an ant nest or a machine or any of the other metaphors that have been posited over the years.

Reply to Banno The article discusses research that provides evidence that the whole universe is a hologram.

Reply to Rich The brain is not the whole universe.

Reply to Banno I was trying to avoid the obvious out of respect for all those who believe we all live in the same universe, brains and all.

Reply to Rich Sometimes it is worth pointing out the obvious.