Abstract: Many famous physicists promote (themselves and) the “*Holographic Universe*” (aka the “Holographic Principle”). I show that the Holographic Universe is incompatible with the notion of Free Will.

***

When studying Advanced Calculus, one discovers situations where the information on the boundary of a locale enables to reconstitute the information inside. From my mathematical philosophy point of view, this phenomenon is a generalization of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. That says that the sum of infinitesimals df is equal to the value of the function f on its boundary.

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus was discovered by the French lawyer and MP, Fermat, usually rather known for proposing a theorem in Number Theory, which took nearly 400 years to be proven! Fermat actually invented calculus, a bigger fish he landed while Leibniz and Newton’s parents were in diapers.

As Wikipedia puts it, inserting a bit of francophobic fake news for good measure: *“**Fermat was the first person known to have evaluated the integral of general power functions. With his method, he was able to reduce this evaluation to the sum of geometric series.[10] The resulting formula was helpful to Newton, and then Leibniz, when they independently developed the fundamental theorem **of calculus.”* (Independently of each other, but not of Fermat; Fermat published his discovery in 1629. Newton and Leibniz were born in 1642 and 1646…)

Holography is a fascinating technology.

The objection is similar to that made in Relativity with light: if one goes at the speed of light (supposing one could), and look at a mirror, the light to be reflected could never catch-up with the mirror. Hence, once reaching the speed of light, one could not look oneself into a mirror. Einstein claimed he got this idea when he was 16-year-old (cute, but by then others had long figured out the part off Relativity pertaining to that situation…

My further objection below is going to be a bit more subtle.

***

Here Is The Holographic Principle As Described In Wikipedia:

*The **holographic principle** is a principle of **string theories** and a supposed property of **quantum gravity** that states that the description of a volume of **space** can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional **boundary** to the region—preferably a **light-like** boundary like a **gravitational horizon**. First proposed by **Gerard ‘t Hooft**, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by **Leonard Susskind**[1]** who combined his ideas with previous ones of ‘t Hooft and **Charles Thorn**.**[1]**[2]** As pointed out by **Raphael Bousso**,**[3]** Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower-dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way.*

*In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire **universe** can be seen as **two-dimensional** information on the **cosmological horizon**, the event horizon from which information may still be gathered and not lost due to the natural limitations of spacetime supporting a black hole, an observer and a given setting of these specific elements,**[**clarification needed**]** such that the **three dimensions** we observe are an effective description only at **macroscopic scales** and at **low energies**. Cosmological holography has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the **particle horizon** has a non-zero area and grows with time.**[4]**[5]*

*The holographic principle was inspired by **black hole thermodynamics**, which conjectures that the maximal **entropy** in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a **black hole**, the insight was that the informational content of all the objects that have fallen into the hole might be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon. *

***

**The Superficiality Principle Rules:**

I long suspected that physicists and mathematicians are taken by the beauty of the simplification of knowing the inside from the outside. It’s a sort of beauty, fashion model way of looking at the world. It miserably fails with Black Holes.

To figure this out, one needs to know one thing about Black Holes, and another in philosophy of mind.

***

*FREE WILL DEMOLITION OF THE HOLOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLE:*

My reasoning is simple:

- Consider a Black Hole so large that a human being can fall into it without been shredded by tidal effects. A few lines of high school computation show that a
**Milky Way sized volume with the density of air on Earth is a Black Hole**: light falling into it, cannot come back. (Newton could have made the computation and Laplace did it.) - So here we have this Human (call her H), falling in the Milky Way Air Black Hole (MWAB).
- Once past the boundary of the Black Hole, Human H cannot be communicated with from the outside of the boundary (at least from known physics).
- What the Holographic proponent claim is that they can know what is inside the MWAB.
- Suppose that Human H decides to have scrambled eggs for breakfast instead of pancakes. The partisans of the Holographic Universe claim that they had the information already. However they stand outside of the MWAB, the giant Black Hole, and cannot communicate with its interior. Nevertheless, Susskind and company claim they knew it all along.

That is obviously grotesque. (Except if you believe Stanford physicists are omniscient, omnipotent gods, violating known laws of physics: that is basically what they claim.)

This is not as ridiculous as the multiverse (the most ridiculous theory ever). But it’s pretty ridiculous too. (Not to say that the questions Free Will lead to in physics are all ridiculous: they are not, especially regarding Quantum Theory!)

By the way, there are other objections against the Holographic Universe having to do with the COSMOLOGICAL Event Horizon (in contradistinction of those generated by Black Holes). Another time…

*******

*We Are Hypocrites, So We Live From Fake News:*

Tellingly, the men promoting the Holographic Universe are Nobel Laureates, or the like. Such men tend to be very ambitious, full of Free Will, ready to say, or do anything, to dominate (I have met dozens in person). It is revealing that so great their Free Will is, that they are ready to contradict what they are all about, to make everybody talk about themselves, and promote their already colossal glories.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: Free Will, Holographic Principle, Holographic Universe

February 15, 2017 at 12:50 am |

Impressive physics/philosophy mix!

LikeLike

June 7, 2017 at 11:53 am |

Hey there, I have ocd and I’ve been trying to understand free will and the holographic principle, I feel like you may be able to help.

A person said this to me “It has nothing to do with free will and only says that what we see happening in three dimensions might be controlled from somewhere else. You think you are a body walking arround but you are actually somewhere else controlling the body. Even that sounds extremely theoretical and like a long stretch”

Would what you said in this article pretty much refute this? Thanks you 🙂

LikeLike

June 7, 2017 at 8:49 pm |

Hello Jo, your comment should get in immediately next time… I need to re-read what I wrote, no time now. The Holographic Principle seems to be to be what is called in math Stokes’ Theorem. (Physicists will not say this, because they like it mysterious, thus boosting their aura…) This says basically that, in some cases, one can compute something on the BOUNDARY of a region instead of throughout it. But of course one has to know the boundary, before it can help in any sense. So, applying it in cosmology will not work: nobody knows the boundary of the universe. Same in psychology. And worse: the functions computed there change in such a way the boundary (if we knew it) does tell us all what’s going on inside…

Hope that helped, and I will re-read my own essay when I have time, in light of your question. But basically, the Holographic Principle is bunk (outside of math; in math, it’s very useful, but math functions tend to be tame…)

LikeLike

June 6, 2019 at 7:48 am |

If I’ve properly comprehended your argument here, I feel that your added mathematics work to show your solutions are unnecessary here and as I am quite lacking in mathematical skill and understanding I will hope that my answer works without taking any of that into question.

So, as you state that Susskind and other holographic forefathers like Maldecena ect… claim that by using only the surface of the volume they can locate and extract information about the volume itself.. because as the holographic principle posits.. all of the information about the 3rd dimension is encoded on the 2 dimensional surface.. ..

Okay, well Susskind nor Maldecena actually made this claim. They both always maintained that while the information may be there it is in a scrambled, unreadable, unusable form. And cannot be sent or used by anyone in or out. This is the basis of his disagreement with Hawking that led to “Hawking” radiation.. they agreed no one can ever “get” the information back but whether it is destroyed by evaporation or still kept intact as the laws of conservation dictates

LikeLike

June 6, 2019 at 3:05 pm |

Welcome Bpayne!The first comment is subject to inspection, but your following comments will be published direct. No time to comment now, I have to bring my daughter to school… So called “holographic” principle seems to me to be just Stokes theorem, or, bottom line that integrating the differential on the surface gets it all… Sd = dS = 1…. More later…

LikeLike