Katabasis, I am humbled and genuinely grateful that you would take the time and energy to respond to my ideas like this. Thank you.
It should be clear that I disagree strongly with your ideas but I can at least credit you with being open-minded enough to discuss them.
Scientists who have tenure and published books on the line are not always the first to take bold imaginative leaps. And yet, in order for science to move forward, bold imaginative leaps are required.
While it's true that the most impactful scientists have not always been tenured professors with a long publishing history, they
have been, without exception, absolute experts in their field. Which is to say, they have been intimately familiar with all aspects of the science they are studying. The idea that bold, imaginative leaps in the state of science strike with sudden, out-of-nowhere inspiration does a disservice to the other factor - the years upon years of excruciatingly extensive learning and research that create the environment of knowledge necessary for ideas to coalesce into bold leaps. Seeing your misunderstanding of certain concepts makes me thing you have not developed the necessary background to do any leaping. It's possible to disagree with the established science, but your explanation of an alternative should display a deep understanding of what you are disagreeing with.
We have not yet tied everything together. Let's try. If this is a holographic universe, should we treat the frame of reference as zero? Shouldn't the frame of reference in a holographic universe be the speed of light?
If the frame of reference itself is the speed of light, then the perception of light's speed changes.
Can you clarify what you mean by frame of reference? That term has a very specific meaning in physics, namely the set of things that you keep constant (i.e. spatial coordinates, certain types of measurement) in order to standardize the observation of other things which are allowed to vary.
So to say the frame of reference is the speed of light is to imply that the speed of light should be held constant (very reasonable, since all empirical evidence suggests the speed of light is in fact constant). But then you go on to say that the perception of the speed of light changes, which isn't the case. Whenever we observe light, it always appears to be travelling at 3x10^8 m/s. If you want to claim otherwise, where is your evidence for such a claim?
In physics, we say that the information of the universe can be written on a
2D surface. Is this 2D surface acting as an optical barrier, a boundary—the speed of light—that we can see from one side, or the other, but not from both simultaneously?
I couldn't think of a better example of you misunderstanding a basic concept. You ask whether the 2D surface implied in the holographic principle might act as a boundary that can be seen from one side of the other. But saying there is 'one side or the other' to the surface implies a 3rd dimension. If there are only 2 dimensions, there are no sides of a surface, just the surface itself. This is highly unintuitive to people living in 3 apparent dimensions, who have not done the requisite work of understanding and visualizing higher and lower dimensions, and further proof to the idea that you need a robust background in the science to be able to avoid the mistakes that intuition will make for these concepts.
In the gas giants, we see the explosion, not the [dark] matter at its core. In the rocky planets, we see the precipitate of the explosion, not the [dark] energy that surrounds it. We don’t realize that we’re observing the same light—the same “
aquarium” in the words of physicist David Bohm—from different sides of time. Different sides of light’s speed.
I don't think enough is known about dark matter and dark energy to be making these sorts of claims about them. What evidence do you have that dark matter, say, is present in the places you claim? Also, in what sense do gas giants explode (do you mean red giants)? And again, there's no evidence of either dark matter or dark energy altering the speed of light, that I'm aware of. Nor is there much reason to think that they even could do so - as dark matter appears to influence things via gravity alone, and dark energy by the expansion (warping) of space. Both gravity and spacetime warping occur in other circumstances as well, and the speed of light still remains unchanged.
What I’m talking about is an idea that has been discussed by Plato and Descartes in the old age, and Nick Bostrom and Donald Hoffman in the new one. It is the world as image. If, moment by moment, the world is being created, then the body is being created, too. The idea that the body is static matter is an illusion. To speak of the planets as balls of matter in a sea of air is illusion. I respect and love Newton, too. His laws are not "invalid;" they simply deal with matter, and I am suggesting—along with everyone else at the vanguard of physics and cognitive science—that matter is not fundamental.
If matter is not fundamental, it is an emergent property of some deeper system - string theory, or other theories that come closer to the mathematical universe hypothesis. At this point, the notion is not new or controversial. However, just because matter is not fundamental does not mean that some deeper system has any bearing on the things made of matter that we care to understand, such as the body.
For all intents and purposes, the body is made of matter, and the idea that matter might actually be types of vibrations in unimaginably tiny strings does not enter the equation at all. As long as protons still act like protons, and electrons like electrons (and as they pertain to the human body, they really do), a conception of matter
qua matter is all that is needed to understand the body. The fact that we don't fully understand the body is because matter can be incredibly complicated in its own way.
If my central nervous system is using zero as its baseline speed, how do I know it’s the right zero? A dark-energy zero—if my sense of scale is too small—is, sub-clinically, too fast and too salty (Parkinson’s?). When my sense of scale is too small, I am not viewing light as light, train as train. I am viewing light as its passenger.
I think you really need to go back and do a deep dive into relativity, because what you're saying here makes no sense. In relativity, you speed is only something that occurs relative to something else. In some sense, your baseline speed is always zero because everything else can always be thought of as moving or not moving relative to you. The alternative notion, that someone could have speed in the absolute, not relative to anything, would mean that you'd be able to, at least in principle, speed up enough to 'catch up to' light, which turns out to be impossible, even theoretically. Relativity is how we are able to reconcile the speed of multiple parties with the unchanging speed of light. It's also a mathematically elegant concept, and I think if you really understood it, you would be disabused of your current ideas.
What I am talking about, really, is not reality. But rather how reality is being perceived. In a way it is more cognitive science than physics.
The perception of reality is an interesting topic, but what evidence do you have that suggests that it divorces fundamentally from reality itself? All available evidence suggests that our perceptions are a product of our brains, which are made of matter acting in a totally ordinary way. The fact that you can physically change your brain (through drugs or surgery or whatever) and produce a change in consciousness or perception is just one proof of the 'ordinariness' of the physics of consciousness, and also proof that we can't really trust our perceptions to tell us much of use without rigorously applying the scientific method to them.
Does scale play a role in perception, time, and disease? I don’t know. But this is a photograph of human remains—the Atacama skeleton—whose scale looks off to me. The Atacama skeleton is from a region of the world where the earth’s magnetic field might read differently to our brains. It’s known as the
South Atlantic Anomaly.
The Atacama skeleton looks 'off' because it's a fetus with birth defects. There's been some study about that and it is the overwhelmingly likely explanation. Even if we couldn't pin down exactly which biological explanation accounts for the skeleton, what seems more likely to you - that there was some hitherto unknown genetic mutation whose exact identity has been lost to the sands of time (so to speak), or that our conception of physics as a whole has been wrong this whole time?
What I (and many others; I am not trying to suggest that this idea is original to me) am suggesting is that the world—the image of the world, i.e. what we see—is not static, like a painting. It has a speed, like a movie. And the movie has a proper speed. It is being rendered. This rendering creates restraints, and can lead to metabolic cul-de-sacs. I believe ME/CFS is one such cul-de-sac.
I feel like the speed you are trying to describe here is time. And the 'speed of time' can change due to the warping of spacetime. However, this only occurs when you are moving extremely fast or are in an extremely strong gravitational field. Here on earth, neither is the case. To suggest this has anything to do with human biology is, frankly, beyond silly.
I get that ME/CFS is frustrating because we don't know what the pathophysiology of it is. Many of us are desperate for some kind of answer or explanation. But honestly, it's borderline offensive to suggest you understand ME/CFS based on some half-baked, whimsical interpretation of complex scientific concepts that you're clearly not educated about. It's great that you are interested in understanding ME/CFS but a little humility would go a long way. If you want to learn physics, you're going to need to do more than watch a YouTube video about it. For ME/CFS, you'd probably be better off learning about biology or medicine, and even that is going to take a lot of work to understand with any sort of depth.
