Some idle metaphysical speculation

[Individual]

OK, so if this is true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems to fit in with Buddhist cosmology.

Wikipedia says the rupadhatu is 4.54 miles high. Our own atmosphere is much taller than that, though?

But it makes sense if we think of the dhatus as 2-dimensional planes stacked one on top of the other.

Maybe the other dhatus are different, though. Maybe not.

[Prasadachitta]

Do you really understand that. I cant glean much from it myself. Maybe you can give me a simplified impression of what you see in this.


Thanks

Gabe

[Individual]

Do you really understand that. I cant glean much from it myself. Maybe you can give me a simplified impression of what you see in this.


Thanks

Gabe

What part? The holographic principle or Buddhist cosmology?

You really can't truly understand modern physics without an advanced understanding of mathematics and the experiments supporting and crushing the various theories. What's there is already a simplified impression.

I would guess that the same applies to the Buddhist cosmology article, although instead of "advanced understanding of mathematics," it's "an advanced understanding of meditation".

If it doesn't make sense to you, it's best to learn more about the basics surrounding the topic.

[Prasadachitta]

Do you really understand that. I cant glean much from it myself. Maybe you can give me a simplified impression of what you see in this.


Thanks

Gabe

What part? The holographic principle or Buddhist cosmology?

You really can't truly understand modern physics without an advanced understanding of mathematics and the experiments supporting and crushing the various theories. What's there is already a simplified impression.

I would guess that the same applies to the Buddhist cosmology article, although instead of "advanced understanding of mathematics," it's "an advanced understanding of meditation".

If it doesn't make sense to you, it's best to learn more about the basics surrounding the topic.

Ill just keep working on the meditation thanks. Strangely enough Buddhist cosmology does make a kind of poetic sense to me.

[Viscid]

Wikipedia says the rupadhatu is 4.54 miles high. Our own atmosphere is much taller than that, though?

If it doesn't make sense to you, it's best to learn more about the basics surrounding the topic.

[Individual]

Wikipedia says the rupadhatu is 4.54 miles high. Our own atmosphere is much taller than that, though?

If it doesn't make sense to you, it's best to learn more about the basics surrounding the topic.

Oops.

Yeah, I did look stupid. Rupadhatu isn't Kamadhatu. My mistake. Thanks for pointing it out... I told you this was just some silly idle metaphysical speculation, though, didn't I?

But does the overall suggestion make sense?

Kama-dhatu:

The following four worlds are bounded planes. each 80,000 yojanas square

Science:

The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon.

[Viscid]

But does the overall suggestion make sense?

Kama-dhatu:

The following four worlds are bounded planes. each 80,000 yojanas square

Science:

The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon.

It seems you are linking two mostly unrelated statements together with the word 'bound.' The first statement on Kamadhatu is simply saying that it's a space with a boundary, much like a nation on a map, or perhaps a space capsule; you cannot travel in the space without eventually reaching the end of it. The second, 'science' statement says that a volume of space can be described by the information encoded in its boundary. The two are, in my view, not related and do not complement eachother.

I was more alluding to the silly way in which you instructed someone to 'learn about the basics' (implying they don't know the basics) when you don't appear to know much more about the topic than what you've superficially gleaned from wikipedia.

[Individual]

But does the overall suggestion make sense?

Kama-dhatu:

The following four worlds are bounded planes. each 80,000 yojanas square

Science:

The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon.

It seems you are linking two mostly unrelated statements together with the word 'bound.' The first statement on Kamadhatu is simply saying that it's a space with a boundary, much like a nation on a map, or perhaps a space capsule; you cannot travel in the space without eventually reaching the end of it. The second, 'science' statement says that a volume of space can be described by the information encoded in its boundary. The two are, in my view, not related and do not complement eachother.

I was more alluding to the silly way in which you instructed someone to 'learn about the basics' (implying they don't know the basics) when you don't appear to know much more about the topic than what you've superficially gleaned from wikipedia.

They are both describing finite 2-dimensional objects.

Don't know jack about Buddhist cosmology, but I've learned enough physics to make some sense of it. Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, watching all those programs on TV like Morgan Freeman's Through the Wormhole, Michio Kaku's series a while ago, the really old stuff by Carl Sagan... And a set of college-level video lectures on quantum mechanics by the The Teaching Company.

You are very quick to judge.

[Viscid]

You are very quick to judge.

Yes, but overwhelming obviousness produces overwhelming intuition.

The holographic principle is quite complex, and watching a program narrated by actor Morgan Freeman, however authoritative-sounding his voice, is simply not adequate to provide an accurate understanding of it.

[Individual]

But it's Morgan Freeman.

You don't like Morgan Freeman?

He played God in a movie once, you know.