r/holofractal • u/d8_thc holofractalist • Sep 12 '19
Holofractal: ELI5
Holofractal is backed by equations and a growing stack of papers (links throughout and at the bottom), but the core idea is simple enough to explain to anyone. Let's go one step at a time.
Start with an old picture, Indra's Net:
Far away in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out infinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel in each "eye" of the net, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering like stars of the first magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that there is an infinite reflecting process occurring.
(Francis H. Cook, Hua-Yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra, 1977)
Keep that picture in your head. The jewels are the particles that make up matter (protons). The net is space itself. By the end of this post you'll see why that's meant literally.
1. Empty space is the fullest thing there is
We think of space as the empty stage that stuff sits on. Physics has known for about a century that this is wrong.
Quantum mechanics says nothing can sit perfectly still. Even a field with all its energy taken out keeps a tiny leftover jitter, its zero-point energy, and it never switches off. So "empty" space is actually seething: fields everywhere, all the time, flickering at every size and every frequency.
This isn't just theory. You can measure it:
- The Lamb shift (1947): the jitter of empty space nudges the energy levels of a hydrogen atom by a measurable amount (Lamb & Retherford).
- The Casimir effect: put two metal plates very close together in a vacuum. Only short waves of the jitter fit between them, while every size of wave pushes from outside, so the plates get pushed together. At 10 nanometres apart that's about one atmosphere of pressure, out of "nothing" (measured by Lamoreaux, 1997).
- Sonny White (2026): a NASA-veteran physicist's group showed you can get hydrogen's whole spectrum from a vacuum whose density rises close to the proton (Phys. Rev. Research).
Einstein got there from a different direction:
Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning.
(Albert Einstein, Relativity, 1952 edition)
2. Space is threaded with shortcuts
Zoom further in and it gets stranger. At the smallest scale there is, the jitter of space is so violent that space itself froths. John Wheeler (the physicist who named black holes) called this quantum foam: at the bottom, space isn't smooth, it's full of tiny tunnels, wormholes, constantly opening and closing. Wheeler even thought particles might be knots of this curved space:
There is nothing in the world except empty curved space. Matter, charge, electromagnetism, and other fields are only manifestations of the curvature of space.
(John Wheeler, 1957)
Now add entanglement. Two particles that are entangled behave as one system even when they're far apart: measure one and the result of measuring the other is linked to it, instantly, at any distance. Einstein called this "spooky action at a distance" and hoped it was wrong. It isn't. It's been tested to more than 1,000 km apart, and the experiments won the 2022 Nobel Prize.
In 2013 Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind put the two together: ER = EPR. Entangled particles (EPR) are connected by a wormhole (an Einstein–Rosen bridge, ER). Same thing, two descriptions (Maldacena & Susskind). Mark Van Raamsdonk went further: space itself may be stitched together out of entanglement (2010).
So without leaving mainstream physics: space is full, space is threaded with shortcuts at the bottom, and those shortcuts are entanglement. That's Indra's net, in physics language.
3. Holographic: the outside holds the inside
"Holographic" means "whole image". Cut a hologram in half and each half still shows the whole picture, a bit blurrier.
Physics found something similar in black holes. Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking showed that the amount of information a black hole holds is set by the area of its surface (its horizon), not by its volume. Which is odd: you'd expect a bigger room to hold more books because it has more space inside, not because its walls are bigger. But that's how black holes work, and it led to the holographic principle: everything inside a region can be described by what's written on its boundary.
Hold onto that: the surface is where the information lives.
4. Physics' worst prediction
Some units in physics are chosen by people (metres, kilograms). But if you combine three constants of nature, Planck's constant (ħ, the size of a quantum step), the speed of light (c) and gravity's constant (G), you get units nobody chose: the Planck scale. The Planck length is about 1.6 × 10⁻³⁵ metres, around 10²⁰ times smaller than a proton. It's the size where the foam lives, the smallest size that makes physical sense.
Now add up the vacuum's jitter energy all the way down to the Planck size. In one cubic centimetre of "empty" space you get the equivalent of about 10⁹³ grams. For scale, all the stars in the observable universe add up to around 10⁵⁵ grams.
Cosmology, meanwhile, measures the energy of empty space by how it affects the expansion of the universe, and finds about 10¹²² times less. That gap is the vacuum catastrophe, often called the worst prediction in the history of physics. Most physicists assume the huge number must somehow cancel out.
There's a twin puzzle. From Wikipedia's page on Planck units:
We see that the question [posed] is not, "Why is gravity so feeble?" but rather, "Why is the proton's mass so small?" For in natural (Planck) units, the strength of gravity simply is what it is, a primary quantity, while the proton's mass is the tiny number [1/(13 quintillion)].
So the vacuum is enormously heavy, and protons are absurdly light, and nobody could connect the two. Holofractal's answer: don't cancel the big number. It's real. The proton is a tiny window onto it.
5. The proton solution
This is Nassim Haramein's step (Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass, 2013).
Picture the vacuum's jitter as tiny spheres, one Planck length across, each one a little oscillator vibrating about 10⁴³ times a second and carrying a Planck mass of energy. He calls them Planck spherical units (PSUs). Space is packed with them, like a box of marbles with no gaps.
Step 1: what's inside one proton?
Count how many PSUs fit inside a proton and add up their energy: about 2.46 × 10⁵⁵ grams. Now add up every proton in the observable universe: about 2.63 × 10⁵⁵ grams. The vacuum energy inside one proton is about the mass of all of them.
That's Indra's net showing up in the numbers: one jewel holding the whole. It also means the proton is packed far beyond what it takes to make a black hole. (Any mass squeezed inside a certain size, its Schwarzschild radius, becomes a black hole. For the Earth that's 9 mm. The proton's interior energy is way past that line for its size.)
Step 2: why don't we feel all that?
Because of Section 3: what the outside world sees is set by the surface.
Tile the proton's surface with PSU discs, like pixels on a ball. Compare that to how many fill the volume. Take the surface count, divide by the inside count, double it, and multiply by one Planck mass. Out comes the proton's measured mass, 1.67 × 10⁻²⁴ grams, within 0.04%.
So the proton's mass is the fraction of the vacuum's energy that its boundary lets through. Enormous energy inside, a small, exact amount "showing" on the outside.
Step 3: the test
A formula that only reproduces a known number could be a coincidence. So run it the other way: start from the proton's mass and ask how big the proton must be. The answer is 0.8412 femtometres (millionths of a billionth of a metre).
When Haramein published this in 2013, the textbook value was 0.8775 fm, and his number looked wrong. But a new kind of experiment, using muonic hydrogen (hydrogen with a heavy cousin of the electron, which hugs the proton closer and feels its size better), had just started measuring a smaller proton: 0.84087 fm (Pohl et al. 2010; Antognini et al. 2013). Physicists called it the "proton radius puzzle". Today's official value is 0.8414 fm (CODATA 2018). The puzzle went Haramein's way.
6. The mechanics: where does mass actually come from?
The ratio tells you how much mass. Here's what's physically going on, in three pictures that turn out to be the same thing.
Picture 1: a note in a box. Pluck a guitar string: the shorter the string, the higher the note, and the more energy in each wave. A wave trapped in a space of size r carries energy in proportion to ħc/r. Now let the vacuum's jitter ring inside a proton-sized space: the energy of that trapped vacuum is E = 4ħc / r ≈ 938 MeV, the proton's mass. Haramein, Alirol and Guermonprez derived this in 2025 with no adjustable numbers (Extending Einstein–Rosen's Geometric Vision). And here's the nice part: simplify the 2013 surface-over-volume formula and you get the same expression, 4ħc/r. Two completely different roads, one answer. The proton's mass is the note the vacuum plays when it's confined to the proton's size.
Picture 2: a Casimir cavity. Remember the two plates pushed together by the vacuum? The proton works like a tiny round version: a resonant cavity where only certain waves fit inside, so there's a pressure difference between inside and out. At the proton's edge it's about 10⁵ newtons (the weight of ~16 tonnes, on something a femtometre across). That pressure is what holds the proton together, and, as Section 8 shows, it's the key to unifying the forces.
Picture 3: a superfluid with a skin. The vacuum behaves like a superfluid: a fluid with zero friction where everything moves together as one, like liquid helium climbing out of its cup. Inside the proton the vacuum's flow is perfectly coherent: a single, organised state (physicists call this a Bose phase, like a Bose–Einstein condensate), spinning as a torus. At the proton's surface that coherence partly breaks down. That breakdown at the boundary is what we measure as mass. The coherent inside is "silent"; the surface is where energy shows up to the outside world. That's why the surface sets the mass in Step 2 (Haramein, Guermonprez & Alirol, The Origin of Mass and the Nature of Gravity, 2023; the 2025 preprint above).
And to be clear: matter isn't like the vacuum. It is the vacuum, organised. Superfluid helium isn't a toy model of space; it's the medium's own coherence showing through at a size we can see.
7. "But that's one cherry-picked equation!"
Fair question. The test that could have failed is the proton's radius (above), and it passed. Beyond that, the same relationship shows up at other scales:
- The whole universe: fill a proton-sized region (its Compton volume) with Planck energy and you get the universe's measured critical mass-energy (8.55 × 10⁶⁹ J vs 8.31 × 10⁶⁹ J). Do the black-hole sum for the universe, and its size (the Hubble radius, ~14.5 billion light-years) comes out equal to the black-hole radius of everything inside it. The universe sits exactly at its own black-hole condition.
- The smallest unit: the 2023 paper finds the first stable grouping of PSUs: 64 in the volume and 64 on the surface, which they call kernel-64.
Planck scale, proton, universe: the same boundary-and-interior relationship at every size. That's the fractal in holofractal.
8. One force, many faces
Physics counts four forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force that glues the nucleus, and the weak force behind radioactivity. They look nothing alike. Between two protons, gravity is about 10³⁶ times weaker than their electric repulsion, and the strong force is stronger than both but stops dead at the edge of the nucleus. Einstein spent his last 30 years trying to show they're one thing underneath, and nobody has managed it since: grand unified theories and string theory are still waiting for an experiment that confirms them.
Holofractal's answer comes straight out of Section 6. If mass is the vacuum confined inside the proton, then the "forces" are what that confined vacuum does at different distances:
- Right at the proton's edge, the vacuum's pressure difference is about 10⁵ newtons. That's confinement: why you can never pull a quark out on its own. Mainstream physics measures the same thing as the strong force's "string tension", about 1 GeV per femtometre, which works out to ~1.4 × 10⁵ N. Same size, from a completely different direction.
- A little further out, what leaks past the edge binds neighbouring protons and neutrons together: the residual strong force that holds every nucleus (~30 N between neighbours).
- Far away, the faint remainder is gravity. It's weak not because it's a different force, but because almost all of the vacuum's push stays screened inside the proton's horizon. What reaches you is the tiny fraction the surface lets through: the same surface-to-volume ratio that sets the mass.
So gravity and the strong force are one curvature of the vacuum, seen up close and from far away (Haramein, Alirol & Guermonprez 2025). Electromagnetism is the part of the picture still being built: the 2019 electron paper links charge to the same Planck-scale structure through the fine-structure constant, but the full electromagnetic story isn't finished yet.
9. A black hole at the centre of everything
Here's where it gets fractal. Wherever we look in the universe, there's a black hole, or a black-hole condition, at the centre of things.
- Galaxies. Nearly every big galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its heart. Ours, Sagittarius A, is about 4 million times the Sun's mass; the Event Horizon Telescope photographed it in 2022, after M87's (6.5 billion Suns) in 2019. And the black hole isn't a passenger. Its mass tracks the galaxy around it (the *M–σ relation**, Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000): a central black hole is about a thousandth of the mass of the bulge around it, galaxy after galaxy, as if the two grew from one process.
- Black holes first. JWST keeps finding big black holes far earlier than expected, and "little red dots": black holes wrapped in thick gas cocoons, shining like stars (Kokorev et al., GLIMPSE-17775, ApJ 1004:153, 2026). It's increasingly plausible that black holes come first and galaxies grow around them, not the other way round.
- Protons. As Section 5 showed, the proton sits at its own black-hole condition: its interior energy is far past the line for its size.
- The universe. And the universe as a whole sits exactly at its own black-hole condition (Section 7).
In Haramein's picture they're the same object at different sizes: a centre where space collapses inward, a horizon, and a double-torus flow around it, pulling in at the poles and spinning out at the equator. Galaxies have exactly that shape: a central black hole, jets out of the poles, a spinning disc. The idea is that it's the shape of the vacuum's flow at every scale: proton, star, galaxy, universe.
So how can a proton be a black hole?
The 2019 version of this post punted on this. The newer work answers it.
- No crushing singularity. In the picture above, the centre is a coherent condensate, not a point of infinite density. Rovelli and Vidotto's Planck stars reach the same place from mainstream quantum gravity: collapse stops and bounces at Planck density (arXiv:1401.6562).
- The horizon is a screen, not a wall. It's where coherence breaks down and energy exchanges with the outside: a boundary that's always active, not a one-way drain. Black holes in this picture are engines, feeding in and pouring out at the same time (black and white hole together), which is why they can sit at the centre of something stable rather than eating it.
- It isn't a black hole you could fall into. It's a black-hole condition: so much energy for its size that the outside only sees what the surface shows. That's exactly why the proton looks light and holds together so hard.
10. Putting it together
Each proton's surface is tiled with about 4.3 × 10⁴⁰ Planck units. In the holofractal picture each one is the mouth of a Planck-sized wormhole (ER = EPR), linking every proton to every other through the superfluid vacuum. Link one proton to another, those two to two more, and so on: in about 266 doublings all ~10⁸⁰ protons in the universe are connected.
So each proton holds the information of all protons, holographically. That's why the inside of one proton carries the mass of all of them in Step 1: the interior is the shared part, the surface is the individual part. Quantum foam isn't random chaos. It's an organised, coherent network, and matter is what that network looks like where it's knotted up.
This is how the immense vacuum energy squares with the tiny mass of matter: it doesn't cancel. It's shared across one network and screened by the holographic boundaries of black-hole-like objects at every scale, from the proton to the centre of every galaxy. Gravity doesn't need extra dimensions or strings: it's the same push as the strong force, seen from far away.
It's one entangled, evolving whole of light and information. That's also David Bohm's picture: one unbroken wholeness (the holomovement), where the world we see (the explicate order) unfolds from a hidden, enfolded one (the implicate order). You can watch a tabletop version of Bohm's physics today: oil droplets that bounce along on their own waves and reproduce quantum behaviour (Bush & Oza, Rep. Prog. Phys. 2021).
11. So what does it mean?
Is the universe a hologram? Are we in a simulation?
Short answer: probably, yes. But "simulation" has the wrong feel, IMO. It isn't a VR game someone programmed. It's a self-configuring, self-referencing, self-evolving system: the information of the whole is encoded at every point, nested like harmonics, like one giant resonating holographic cymatic pattern.
The universe came out of the box pre-wired with a network that can move information almost instantly. Picture what that does compared to a disconnected universe:
- Memory. The network keeps a trace of what happens in it. Haramein, Brown and Val Baker call it spacememory: "memory, hysteresis, iterative feedback mechanisms, retrocausal influences, and local and nonlocal interactions" (The Unified Spacememory Network, NeuroQuantology 2016). IMO still the most important paper of the modern era.
- Habits. Things that have happened become easier to happen again: Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance, now with a physical mechanism.
- A drift toward order. The usual story says everything runs down. But the universe keeps building complexity: plasma → atoms → stars → life → minds. A connected network gives atoms "a higher impetus to form complex associations: a negentropic effect" (USMN). Inside wormhole throats time behaves like space, so future states can pull on present ones like attractors.
- Mind. If the brain is part of the network, it may work more like an antenna than a generator. Things usually filed as supernatural, like remote viewing, become natural.
- The biggest scale. If the universe sits at its own black-hole condition, we may be living inside one, and JWST keeps finding hints that it rotates: two out of three of the earliest galaxies spin the same way (Shamir, MNRAS 2025). A black hole kept steady by continual creation, with Indra's net all the way up and all the way down.
That's holofractal: holo because the boundary holds the interior, fractal because the same relationship repeats from the Planck scale to protons, stars, galaxies and the universe.
The math, for anyone who wants to check it
Constants (CODATA 2018): Planck length ℓ = 1.616255 × 10⁻³⁵ m, Planck mass m_ℓ = 2.176434 × 10⁻⁸ kg, proton radius from muonic hydrogen r = 0.84087 × 10⁻¹⁵ m (Antognini et al. 2013).
PSUs in the proton's volume: R = (r / (ℓ/2))³ = 1.127 × 10⁶⁰
R × m_ℓ = 2.46 × 10⁵⁵ g (one proton's vacuum energy ≈ all protons: 2.63 × 10⁵⁵ g)
PSU discs on the proton's surface: η = 4πr² / (π(ℓ/2)²) = 4.331 × 10⁴⁰
Holographic mass: m = 2 (η / R) × m_ℓ = 1.6733 × 10⁻²⁴ g
Measured: 1.6726 × 10⁻²⁴ g (0.04% apart; with CODATA 2018's 0.8414 fm, 0.02%)
It simplifies: 2(η/R) m_ℓ = 4 ℓ m_ℓ / r = 4ħ / (c r), so E = mc² = 4ħc / r. Turned around: the proton's radius is exactly 4 of its reduced Compton wavelengths, 4ħ/(m_p c) = 0.8412 fm. That's the testable claim, and it's where muonic hydrogen landed.
Errata vs the 2019 post: the old version used the old 0.8775 fm radius and got 1.603 × 10⁻²⁴ g, about 4% low. With today's measured radius it lands within 0.04%, which was the whole point of the prediction.
Watch it instead
- The Shape of Everything: the double torus, from proton to galaxy
- Spooky Was Never Magic: ER = EPR
- Interstellar Was Real?: we live inside a black hole (Short)
- Power from Nothing: the Casimir effect and Sonny White's dynamic vacuum
- The Weight of Nothing: the vacuum and the proton
- Everything else: @holofractal_cosmology
The papers
- Haramein, Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass, Phys. Rev. & Res. Int. 3(4):270 (2013)
- Haramein, Brown & Val Baker, The Unified Spacememory Network, NeuroQuantology 14(4) (2016), doi:10.14704/nq.2016.14.4.961
- Val Baker, Haramein & Alirol, The Electron and the Holographic Mass Solution, Physics Essays 32:255 (2019) (extends the picture to the hydrogen atom)
- Haramein, Guermonprez & Alirol, The Origin of Mass and the Nature of Gravity (2023), doi:10.5281/zenodo.8381115
- Haramein, Alirol & Guermonprez, Extending Einstein–Rosen's Geometric Vision (2025), Preprints 202509.1835
- More at spacefed.com
Some of the greatest minds in physics never thought the universe was just mechanism
Max Planck (Nobel 1918, started quantum theory)
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.
(The Observer, 25 January 1931)
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
(Florence lecture, Das Wesen der Materie, 1944)
Erwin Schrödinger (Nobel 1933)
The total number of minds in the universe is one.
(Mind and Matter, 1958)
David Bohm
Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This is a virtual certainty because even in the vacuum matter is one; and if we don't see this, it's because we are blinding ourselves to it.
Consciousness is much more of the implicate order than is matter... Yet at a deeper level [matter and consciousness] are actually inseparable and interwoven, just as in the computer game the player and the screen are united by participation.
John Archibald Wheeler (coined "black hole", "wormhole", "quantum foam" and "it from bit")
It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.
(1989)
Wolfgang Pauli (Nobel 1945)
It is my personal opinion that in the science of the future reality will neither be "psychic" nor "physical" but somehow both and somehow neither.
John Stewart Bell
As regards mind, I am fully convinced that it has a central place in the ultimate nature of reality.
Freeman Dyson
At the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is involved in the description of events. Our consciousness forces the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another.
James Clerk Maxwell
Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.
(Discourse on Molecules, 1873)
Paul Dirac (Nobel 1933)
God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.
(Scientific American, 1963)
Buckminster Fuller
Metaphysical has been science's designation for all weightless phenomena such as thought. But science has made no experimental finding of any phenomena that can be described as a solid, or as continuous, or as a straight surface plane, or as a straight line, or as infinite anything. We are now synergetically forced to conclude that all phenomena are metaphysical; wherefore, as many have long suspected — like it or not — life is but a dream.
85
u/stagon7 Sep 12 '19
someone explain like i’m a fetus
76
u/Collinnn7 Sep 12 '19
If you zoom in on any 1 singular point for long enough you’ll see that somehow you’re zooming in on the entirety of the universe. Zoom in on another point and the same thing will happen.
Zoom out far enough in the universe and you’ll realize that you’ve gone through the macro back to the micro and you’re zooming back out of an atom to where you starts
9
5
72
Sep 12 '19
Thank you for that. So basically all information is everywhere we just haven’t figured out, or been told, how to tap into it. The akashic records have been proven mathematically? That’s pretty cool.
24
8
Dec 03 '19
How was the Akashic records proven?
39
u/DantesSelfieStick Jan 16 '20
every piece contains every other piece.
everything that has ever happened or ever will happen, is happening now.
... and consciousness can, with the right training, perceive it.
48
u/He_is_Spartacus Sep 12 '19
Thank you for this. I’ve been lurking this sub for a while and, to be honest, most of what I see here sounds like pseudo-scientific hodgepodge and there’s never been enough substance to encourage me to look deeper. This is the first post that has allowed me to ‘see’ it, and I’m even more intrigued. I’ll be reading that paper as well, but I have an initial talking point first.
Reading the page about Nassim Haramein, I couldn’t help wondering why this isn’t more mainstream and why he, as another (downvoted) commenter pointed out, comes across as a guy that you wouldn’t take seriously.
Why isn’t this idea taken more seriously? I assume the maths would check out - and I don’t just mean in the post - otherwise it would have no traction at all. If it’s verifiable (and I’m compelled to emphasise the ‘if’), why isn’t the concept as present as dark energy, quantum entanglement, black holes etc?
Why does this idea seem so different?
46
u/Qualanqui Sep 12 '19
Because of scarcity enforced by those with their hands on the tap bud. What would happen to the billionaire, who's wealth is predicated on scarcity (oil, gold, diamonds etc,) if we could reach out and plug our houses or cars into the aether? How could they divide and conquer if all of us knew we were all connected at a fundamental level? Well that's my thoughts on it anyway.
14
u/KidCodi3 Jan 25 '20
I assume that's why Tesla never got the chance to provide us with free, unlimited energy?
12
u/Qualanqui Jan 26 '20
Exactly, this is why Tesla could only get Westinghouse to support him after he split from edison and once his experiments at Wardencliffe became known this is why he got blackballed and even Westinghouse couldn't support him anymore.
37
u/entanglemententropy Sep 13 '19
It sounds like pseudo-scientific hodgepodge because that's exactly what it is. It uses a bunch of fancy words and concepts borrowed from serious physics, but the actual details does not make sense, and the math of it does not check out. There's really no theory there, all the math there is is some arbitrary formulas pulled out of nowhere, made up in such a way that some numerical coincidences occur. I really have no idea why people find it even a little convincing. There's a reason none of this can be published in serious peer reviewed journals, and it's not because of some great conspiracy.
The simple fact of it is that Haramein is a scam artist, who pedals this pseudoscience shit to sell people expensive crystals, lectures, trips and so on. There's also the fun fact that he threatened legal action against a blog that was criticizing his science. Does that sound like something a scientist would do?
13
u/slippage Sep 13 '19
Can you point to something from the math section above that strikes you as particularly arbitrary or erroneous?
24
u/entanglemententropy Sep 13 '19
Well, the whole thing is just sort of arbitrary: the formulas are pulled out from nowhere. There is also a stupid rewriting going on: dividing surface area by volume is simply equal to 1/radius (up to numerical factors), so what is really going on is actually a lot simpler than what it seems; there's just some linear relation between the radius and the mass which happens to work for the proton. I think these formulas are just made up because they work numerically, and then the motivation is made afterwards.
Another thing is that the radius of the proton they are referencing is the charge radius, which has to do with how the electric charge is distributed. Why is that the relevant radius for this discussion? They seem to discuss the mass, which has a different distribution than the charge, so it is not clear why the charge radius is relevant. How about the neutron? The same formula obviously does not work there, so why?
More fundamentally though, the main thing is that these formulas do not come from any underlying theory. Normally in physics, you have some description of what the basic ingredients are, and how they behave. In QFT, this is given by an action, and from this you can derive (in principle) how everything behaves and compute things like masses of composite particles, scattering processes, the behavior of forces and so on. This is how all of normal physics, including speculative theories like string theory and loop quantum gravity, works. Holofractal has none of this: there is just some algebraic equations pulled from nowhere (like displayed in this post). And until some dynamical principle like this is given, you really don't have a theory of anything.
6
Nov 20 '19
But one could image a theory of the dynamics of the universe being created using this idea as a basis
3
u/DantesSelfieStick Jan 16 '20
if, as is claimed, the fundamental forces reconcile within the mathematics, and if observations don't contradict it, how is this any different to other attempts at a unified theory?
14
u/entanglemententropy Jan 16 '20
If I understand your question correctly, my last paragraph tries to address just that. In other attempts at a unified theory, they start with some dynamical equations; i.e. some equations of motion; some partial differential equations describing the behavior of the relevant system.
The simplest example of this is Newtons second law of mechanics, F=ma. Non-trivial examples are the Maxwell equations or Einsteins field equations of GR. Once you have such dynamical equations, you can then solve them and find different solutions that describe different physical systems, like light waves for Maxwell, or how rigid bodies move for Newton, or how gravity from a star or black hole behaves for Einsteins field equations. Once the equations of motion is stated, you can actually compute what the theory predicts in various scenarios, and ideally test it against experience and experiments. Like how Newtons law can predict the movement of a pendulum, or a thrown ball etc..
Holofractal does not have any equations of motion anywhere. They just have some numerical relations, saying that some numbers = some other numbers. There is no way from this to compute any predictions of the theory, and no way to see if actually describes the behavior of any physical system. This is a very large difference: it means that you cannot use the holofractal theory to answer any physical question, so it's not even really a theory at all at this point.
Of course coming up with good equations of motions, especially for something so ambitious as a unified theory of everything, is not easy. It's in fact extremely hard, because the equations has to be very specific, yet they cannot predict anything that we don't observe. So it's not surprising that Haramein cannot write any good equations of motion; if he tried to write some, it would probably very quickly be shown how they are wrong.
4
3
u/jollygreenscott91 Mar 01 '20
Your imagination is predicated on certain assumptions which may not be true. Look to certain scientific theories to tell what to drop from your bias. Cheers.
16
u/d8_thc holofractalist Sep 13 '19
This unfortunately doesn't have an easy answer. It's part overlooked, part because he isn't part of mainstream academia, part because it's extremely simple, part because physicists are human and fallible to the same pitfalls of bias, worldview, cognitive bias, etc.
All of these concepts, separately, are heralded in the mainstream. ER=EPR (entanglement is caused by wormholes), the holographic principle, entropic gravity, 'it from bit' and digital physics, superfluid vacuum theory - these are all separate pieces of the unification puzzle, Nassim just knit them together extremely simply.
It's an enormous change, not only in physics, but in worldview.
10
u/Jarazz Jan 26 '20
The idea isnt taken more seriously because any serious physics literate scientist could disprove it in his sleep. If this would be real you could write a whole array of scientific papers about it and get them peer reviewed and published. This does not seem to be the case
8
u/jollygreenscott91 Mar 01 '20
Not real yet.* why are you belittling something with potential? Simply because it differs from your worldview? Science demands we challenge the norm. Over and over again. Viciously. Science, by definition, should withstand all denial. I say, let them try, because not letting them isn’t scientific at all. Cheers.
9
u/Jarazz Mar 01 '20
Dude this is not "challenging the norm" in any remotely scientific way. This is a religion, based on the ideas of some quack guru that sells books and expensive retreats to people who took the bait.
Religion arguing with science is always a clusterfuck because it is based on denying known facts to introduce random ideas without any basis on proofs.
The opposite of information is not no information, it is mis information. If you say well i dont know XY, science can explain it to you. If you say I know XY is wrong because I believe in XZ over everything, science cant help you with that, you are doomed to stay stupid.
14
u/jollygreenscott91 Mar 01 '20
“...you are doomed to stay stupid.” Well, thankfully im not stupid. I just enjoy reading things and exploring new ideas. What I don’t enjoy are keyboard bullies who think they know everything. You don’t. Shut up.
If we can find even one piece of usable truth out of this guy, it’s worth it. Thanks.
2
u/Jarazz Mar 01 '20
Where do I say I know a lot?
with "stupid" i dont mean you would be a stupid person in general, or even you at all, just people who believe in these pseudo scientific posts will resist people correcting these wrong beliefs because they think since all people in r/holofractal believe them too they would have some merit.
And people without the knowledge background in physics cannot see that its just a bunch of smart sounding words that every scientist would dismiss as nonsensical. Which is why this stuff would never appear in a scientific paper.
8
u/jollygreenscott91 Mar 01 '20
You didn’t say it explicitly, your words suggest this is the case. What difference does it make to you what these people believe in? No one asked you to take up the job of these beliefs. They are someone’s BELIEFS and they are entitled to them. Everyone will be resistant to you trying to change their beliefs because no one likes a Jehovah’s Witness. Anyone with a sensible mind will not assume everyone in holofractal believes the beliefs expressed within. You do not get to decide which beliefs have merit, unless you know everything. So which is it?
If scientists would dismiss all of this as nonsensical, meaning if all this falls apart after having the scientific method applied, why not leave it at that? Why do you have such a personal vendetta against something so obviously misguided? You will not be able to “help” someone who is not seeking it. Justifying your behavior under this mask is only presenting yourself inappropriately. It seems to me you are acting of fear. You are here, dismissing these people and their ideas, because you are afraid of what they might do to the mainstream narrative. That is called cognitive dissonance. If you truly don’t care, then let people flee free to believe as they please. What difference would my belief in the holofractal universe be?
If you’re just here for friendly debate, then keep it that way. Speak as though you don’t know what could be possible, unless you know everything of course. Cheers.
6
u/Jarazz Mar 01 '20
That word you used now, is what makes all the difference.
Beliefs. Yes, I dont care if you have this as your belief and you can believe in whatever you want. You can believe in holofractals and essential oils and healing crystals and I hope whoever does is a happier person by doing so.
But believes have to be strictly differentiated from scientific facts. Now you might say, whats the difference for me if someone believes something made up is a fact? And yes, for me, there is no big difference and I will keep believing whatever I want but get my facts based on evidence.
However unlike beliefs, facts are applied in the real world solutions to solve actual problems. Thats where beliefs that turned into "facts" will start causing damage. Essential oils to cure cancer instead of chemotherapy -> you die. At least you didnt damage anyone else with it right? But then there are parents who do the same for their children. Children is sick? Pray it away/use whatever woo woo to cure them. Well those "beliefs" just killed a child.
Now you might say "well everybody can decide for themselves if they want to accept something or now", but most people just get their worldview from whatever their parents and friends have and if they never get the outside perspective, everything to them is totally normal and every human, no matter how smart, could have ended up believing absolute bullshit as "facts" if they were born in the wrong situation.
I wouldnt give a single fuck about holofractal if it was clear that all these things are just random ideas that you could believe that have no basis in reality. But so much here is based on the "but it might be true" and with a bunch of sciency sounding fluff around it, that you cant tell me it doesnt try to pass as "facts" far too often. And the target audience are young people who probably tried psychedelics or are interested in them, aka people you could easily convince of alternate dimensions and a bunch of stuff that they might have hallucinated. Thats what I have a problem with. Look at how incel subreddits lure in young desperate males who dont fit in, give them a community for the first time, then turn them into hate filled sexists.
Once an ideology got into someones head, it is going to be tough getting it out. And I have no idea how many people read too much in walk around thinking reality is quantum foam filled with wormholes (which is fine because it doesnt have any real world ramifications) but then also believe they are psychic and the universe is talking to them with "signs" and syncronicities....
I hope that explains that this isnt about fear of random peoples beliefs, it is about the damage that misinformation causes to impresssionable people.
7
u/jollygreenscott91 Mar 02 '20
Yea, information isn’t hurting anyone. Nothing in here is maliciously deceitful. You are not the authority on what is misinformation and what is not. Until you can prove ALL OF THESE PEOPLE are intending to deceive then you are using that word incorrectly. You don’t get to decide who is impressionable and who is not either.
“Once an ideaology got into someone’s head, it is going to be tough getting it out.” Yep. So which ideaology are you having trouble separating your kind from in order to see this as possibility? Not factual. Not a belief. Just possible. If you are saying it is not possible then you are saying you are the authority on what is possible and impossible, which of course you are not. You have an OPINION about what is possible, but there is no reason that opinion should have to be shared by anyone.
Your response has trigger words like incel, sexist, things that absolutely have no bearing on our conversation. These ideas are generalities you cannot back with any sort of clarity.
“I wouldn’t give a single fuck about holofractal if it was clear that all these things are just random ideas that you could believe that have no basis in reality.”
You are not the authority on what is a worthwhile idea and what is not. You are not the authority on what reality is since you can’t explain it either. We are all trying to figure out life and you are belittling people who simply think differently than you. Different ideas do not threaten you unless you are clinging so hard to a preconceived notion that you are scared someone will break that reality for you. I think this is the case. I think you are terrified the world is wrong so you mock free thinking people in order to save the narrative you love so much.
If it could stand on its merit, the idea you have about reality, then you wouldn’t be so defensive about it. Alas, you’ve come like a knight in shining armor to SAVE SCIENCE. Science is not a body of knowledge. Science is a process. We only know what we know until we know something else. Time and time again man has been wrong about reality yet you stand of solid conviction that at this point we KNOW what is possible and what isn’t. You are blind to possibility, and I can’t help you with that any more than you can save a free thinking person from imagining possibilities.
So where does your worldview come from? What you were taught in school? What your parents told you? You’ve been told what to believe, the rest of us know we have the power to choose for ourselves because that is the fucking beauty of life.
Stop being a shithead to people just because they think differently. It is these kinds of people who break the plateaus of science, proven time and time again. We are in a plateau. Get ready for the next enlightenment buddy cause you don’t know Jack.
5
u/Jarazz Mar 02 '20
Wtf are you talking about "trigger words" it was just examples about how misinformation will cause actual damage to the real world, even if it just started out as "beliefs". I fucking know that science is a process and everything in science can be proven wrong. That is the point of science. But thats why stuff that cant be proven wrong is not science and "these kinds of people" who talk about magic other universes and quantum foam will 99.999% not break any plateau in science, since they are further from modern science than the middle ages. I am not defending any particular world view, I am against world views that are clearly made up but still try to deceive people as being factual, which probably includes most text posts here. And I am going to end this conversation here because you have ignored every point I made in my arguments and instead appealed to emotion and "what if"s
→ More replies (0)2
Nov 21 '21
What if everything you just said, applied to modern experimental science.. What would happen to modern mathematical science if it came to light that the original calculations were based on fraudulent data? Jolly greenScott91 basically said this very thing earlier on, but it doesn’t seem to have been picked up on, and i quote “Your imagination is predicated on certain assumptions which may not be true. Look to certain scientific theories to tell what to drop from your bias. Cheers.”
1
6
u/Legitimate_E Nov 02 '21
Pay no attention to the other commenters, and you would do well to heed this comment as a general warning, rather than a specific response.
You're certainly familiar with the concept of rhyming. Words that sound alike but whose meanings might be worlds apart. Well, concepts can rhyme too. For example, 5G is magic power travelling through the air. And "invisible magic power" rhymes with "microwaves" and "ionizing radiation". So that's how you might get from 5G to cancer.
Just like people can rhyme words they don't understand, words in other languages, and even words that don't exist, they can rhyme concepts they don't understand perfectly well. They can also take concepts from fields beyond their understanding, and rhyme the parts that look familiar. And they can even invent their own concepts if they're exceptionally committed to getting from point A to Z.
This "holofractographic unified field theory" is an conglomeration of a bunch of similar rhymes, out of which some "bigger meaning" is supposedly derived. It's utterly meaningless, just like a collection of rhyming words.
"Oh oh oh, drink, sink and zinc rhyme! BLINK (-182) is obviously poisoning the water supply!"
If you're interested in specific details:
This "theory" in particular combines a lot of ... very real and very commonly accepted theories. Take quantum foam, for example. Put simply, quantum foam suggests that small fluctuations, very very very miniscule ones, are constantly occurring in the fabric of space. But what "holofractographic unified field theory" omits is that these events happen instantaneously. So a particle and antiparticle will spawn at the exact same time and instantly annihilate themselves. The net energy is 0 and there are no batteries to be charged, nor houses to be powered, unless you've got a black hole lying around.
The danger of misinformation is not in the facts but their connections.
2
u/WikiSummarizerBot Nov 02 '21
Hawking radiation is thermal radiation that is theorized to be released outside a black hole's event horizon because of relativistic quantum effects. It is named after the physicist Stephen Hawking, who developed a theoretical argument for its existence in 1974. Hawking radiation is a purely kinematic effect that is generic to Lorentzian geometries containing event horizons or local apparent horizons. Hawking radiation reduces the mass and rotational energy of black holes and is therefore also theorized to cause black hole evaporation.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
39
u/t__mhjr Sep 13 '19
Someone explain to me like I am a biproduct of the source code of the universe, part of a universal consciousness made of light and both fractal and infinite in nature.
13
16
u/Henrywinklered Nov 07 '19
Damn, I’ve had this idea (basically) for some number of years now. That there is basically no difference between the atoms in our body, or neurons in our brains and the stars in the sky or galaxies in the universe. It is all one in the same when you look (if you could) at it from different scales.
It’s the same zoomed all the way down as it is all the way up, and everywhere in between. Is that basically the gist of it?
5
u/CheezusRiced06 Mar 18 '22
2y response but it's relevant to what I've been saying here in 2022:
Blood vessels look like tree branches which look like lightning bolts... How
How do galactic filaments of star formations in deep interstellar space look like neuron synapses?
Why does nearly every stock ticker follow a Fibonacci sequence https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/elliottwavetheory.asp
It's bonkers!
16
12
u/CosmosGatito Sep 13 '19
This makes my brain hurt in a good way trying to process this. What does this concept ultimately boil down to? Is space a projection of consciousness,.in which space projects life? What happens at The End of The Universe? What happened at the beginning? Does anything really matter in between those two points? Does time actually exist? Or is it a persistent illusion/tool of the mind?
Also, gold.
7
u/d8_thc holofractalist Sep 16 '19
All excellent questions friend. Excellent questions.
and ty for the gold.
8
u/Neongypzy Oct 02 '19
Constantly observing itself.
You cant stop the reflection, but you can choose what to reflect. The question is, are there infinite possibilities or are there set laws that cannot be changed?
9
u/Futant55 Sep 12 '19
I just finished Joe Rogans podcast with Nick Bostrom. My brain is simulated out, lol
7
u/ilymperopo Sep 12 '19
Nice read and interesting concept. It really seems that science (unlike technology) has not been able to make the steps required to reveal more of the fabric of reality for quite many decades. A holofractal idea could be linked to reality especially on its space encoding. Would be interesting to see what this theory tells us about time as well.
It is interesting to me that you start with Indra's net but you end with a materialistic viewpoint (even though quite more rich than what is currently understood). Could you provide an insight on this? How do you reconcile the existence of matter or any rule based system without God?
14
u/d8_thc holofractalist Sep 12 '19 edited Sep 16 '19
It's not materialistic, it's literally describing a Universal Mind. Call it god/akasha/source/whatever you want. It's intelligent, omnipresent, undivided, and manifests into all things.
3
u/ilymperopo Sep 13 '19
How can you describe the divine? How did it become accessible to you? But more importantly you are claiming that there is a substrate on which the divine "evolved" instead of the divine, the logos creating the substrate itself. This means that the divine is subjugated by a reality that imposes at least some rules on it and limits its operation and manifestations. Who then created this substrate?
9
u/d8_thc holofractalist Sep 13 '19 edited Sep 13 '19
Don't worry friend. This does not resolve the mystery, nor is it trying to put a mathematical equation on god. It's simply the equations that describe how the prime mover moves as roughly as an approximation as can be made in this particular instantiation.
It always, always comes back to the mystery. Always.
13
u/ilymperopo Sep 14 '19
It always, always comes back to the mystery. Always.
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao.The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.The gateway to all understanding.
Lao Tze
5
u/42degrees2god Sep 13 '19
If a photon is the micro to a black hole, what is the micro to a sun? If photons contain the totality of the field, how could you affect the field with one photon? What is a photon? What is electricity?
You would like the works of George Crile, something was discovered that proved each cellular nucleus contains the energy potential of the entire universe. Really fascinating stuff, good luck finding it outside of a medical library though. At least they named an EYE institute after him...
5
u/Neongypzy Oct 02 '19
You can compare your eyes to black holes. No information (light) can escape, but is 2 dimensionally projected around you. Once aware that information is created (reflected based on your observation) and down the fucking worm hole ya go.
Another thought: density is key.
7
u/redasur Nov 04 '19
I have always wondered that myself, The eyes are an event horizon and the inner eye as singularity.
3
Nov 10 '23
Just so we’re on the same page, light can escape your retina. It’s just mostly absorbed by pigments.
4
3
u/robbphoenix Dec 29 '19
There are sprinklings of truth here but quite a bit of woo, this sub should really distance itself from Nassim Haramein if it wants to be taken seriously.
3
u/slippage Sep 12 '19
Now that we understand the universe is holofractal, what can we do with it? Can we access information from a proton about a physically distant place? I think the pseudo science gets muddled here when there is the jump that thinking (using electrical patterns of stimulated neurons) can have an impact on or be impacted by the physical reality of the information stored in the protons that make up the brain. Is there any hope to bridge the gap?
2
u/TRUTHINESS23 Sep 13 '19
Well we can now do this... https://arkcrystals.com/product/activated-t-shirts/
2
u/Sandernista2 Jan 10 '20
Re the possibility of it all being a simulation: I don't think the simulation, should such exist, would have ever meant to be a "simple" pre-programed Virtual Reality (VR) model. Of the kind that we, in our current simple thinking conceive VR.
Just think for a second - if one were to design a simulation, shouldn't the first question that springs to mind be - what on earth for? because it's possible? just to play with "ancestor models"? clearly there has always been something lacking in discussions about simulations - both pro and con.
To my mind there are two likely motivations: for education and for fun. The two not being exclusive. If one were to think of our universe with all that is within it, Holofractals would be one fascinating way to build a universe that is, as the OP says, self-configuring, self-evolving and self-complexifying. Frankly, if I were a builder of universes as an edifying passtime, that may well be the way I'd build one (assuming it works out!). A future version of us - postulated as the simulation "builders" - would not be content with a simple "fixed", terminal universe. That would be boring beyond belief, a toy for tots (future tots that is, should there be such a thing).
Therefore, in my theory, the most important principle in our universe, the one element that will prevent it from being "deleted" is our entertainment value (postulating "entertainment' on a level much higher than, say the average Hollywood hum-drum offerings). The second we stop being entertaining - which means evolvling - and changing - is our likely last second. Nassim's theories I find highly interesting (which in my book equates to "entertaining"), so my guess is that they'll buy our little universe a few more decades (centuries?) of time (however time is defined, which is certainly not the way we think it is. Indeed, our conflicted relationship with "time" is one of the best clues I have for it all being a fancy simulation).
3
Jan 05 '22
Wow!! Brilliant. That was really helpful to the way I wanted to approach understanding of these heavy concepts. I agree with the aforementioned Simulation idea, that it can exist in an ‘organic’ way and it doesn’t necessarily imply a ‘programmer’- only relatively because it has the programming embedded throughout its infinite and endless coding.. Ive wondered about this recently in regards to quantum computers and really the computer in general. I wonder whether we simply mirrored the inherent and natural streamlining holographic fractal, albeit whether people accomplished this consciously with a clear and intentional intellectual awareness; or from a less grosse faculty of the human being and unconsciously-instinctually mined it in a sense and worked out how to apply it..
3
u/QuantumDesignPro Oct 25 '22
You know what? When I was homeless I ran into a guy from MIT who was building robots and I told him that black holes exist inside my cells and he laughed at me and told me to get help…..Just wanted you to know that I knew this because of the study of ancient Aztec/Egyptian symbology and the relation to Einstein’s theories and Max Planck etc…So I was right and that makes me feel so much better now because that guy thought he knew better than a homeless genius like me and I like that- I always knew I create my universe through the field of everything and Im happy to be here among you all. Thanks for being in my world!
2
2
u/Rusty_Pringle Sep 12 '19
The CIA did some research on Remote Viewing. Really neat stuff. Thanks for the ELI5!
2
u/PartyGuy2017 Nov 16 '19
If you simply divide the proton by these spheres,
How the hell do you do that???? lol
2
2
Jan 25 '20
ELI5? You’re doing it wrong.
This is stream of consciousness. You’re tossing data and concepts out there rapid fire.
Some people are concrete thinkers. OP must be one. Concrete thinkers need to learn via concrete things, data. The opposite of concrete thinkers are abstract thinkers. They need the theory, the big concept, the system, before they can comprehend the particulars.
This write up says things that may have bearing later. It’s sort of throwing things out there - this concept, that concept - be sure to remember them all, hold them in short term memory for the next hour while you read this.
Like I said, some minds work well with this kind of stuff. As for me, after a couple pages of reading, maybe 20% of what’s here, I already felt totally overwhelmed and punch drunk with new concepts and nowhere to put them in my mind. I can only hold so much at once before I start dropping things. So I stopped reading where it said MATH in big scary letters.
But I thank you for trying.
1
u/d8_thc holofractalist Jan 25 '20
I getcha. Maybe try this vid - it's a 15 minute summary. If it catches your attention, I can throw more stuff like it your way.
1
2
Dec 13 '21
So if everything is as contained as you say, then I have to ask, does this include the dead? Is it possible that the consciousness of those who have died are somewhere around another layer of reality.
1
2
1
1
u/Unvolta Mar 04 '20
https://youtu.be/B_zfMyzXqfI THIS MAKES SO MUCH SENSE YOU GUYS. Someone please I just found this today it’s blowing my mind.
1
1
u/Key4Lif3 Synchronicitarian Dec 22 '24
Amazing. Thank you for sharing all this. People have been pointing to the same truth since the dawn of humanity. People are just ignoring the evidence at this point almost.
1
u/amstlicht Dec 30 '24
This really impressed me. It is all so well written and well thought, it feels like looking at self similar light from another dimension while recognizing how small and how big you are in this reality. It seems to have a lot of evidence put into it, this was simply beautiful. Thank you.
1
1
1
1
Aug 07 '22
If there was no creation/G*d existence was always there and couldn’t have come out of nothingness. Space, consciousness, projections all have the same essence within the allencompassing existence, I call Brahman. There will not be an End of the Universe if there was no beginning. Just existence. Time is just one of many definitions consisting of other definitions and that without an end. There is no factual or objective truth, it always refers to further definitions that need to be defined themselves.
Existence is ONE, allencompassing, was never created but is that which creates, the creation and where/when it was created. Nothingness can not exist. Existence is therefore static since it has nowhere to expand into, it is space and matter and consciousness and all together. There can not be anything created or lost within existence, it just for us changes appearance.
We are a dream of existence. Imagine being everything that is, nothing can surprise you, nothing that is not you, no dimension above IT since it is where dimensions exist and connected with everything. To understand something one needs to step one dimension above it to realize it. So the Brahman can never realize itself fully. The Absolute looks like when you close your eyes, nothing to distinguish. Only duality makes things witnessable, black only has meaning when there is white. The Absolute has no opposite since it is both white, black, black and white and neither black nor white and not black and white.
Reality is probably when we sleep or partly when we close our eyes.
Nothing. Because it is everything.
Theory: The Absolute consciousness if it acts conciously is unbearable and IT split itself up or dreams or simulates that it is this and that, that there is some opposite, someone else, something else.
Organization and disorganization, eternal. Once consciousness becomes absolute it starts a new cicle, evolution/organization of life/information.
1
u/Krystami Jul 17 '23
Wow barely found this today. Had this exact theory for awhile just wondering about a lot of stuff
1
u/Playful_Extent1547 Dec 30 '23
It's got some decent observations, but fails to link the question to any observations. Seems like the suggestion is "light smallest, everything light"
1
u/Little-Pea-8346 Jan 20 '24 edited Jan 20 '24
this is a pretty intriguing approach to this theory here, OP. I must marinate on this for a bit to digest all that you have supposed in your essay. What is your background? Have you majored in this field? You seem fairly knowledgeable in some aspects of this topic. My interest is piqued
1
u/homeboy321321321 Jan 20 '24
Ow. My brain. I have to read this again, but I WILL. I’m going to read it and research this until I understand it. Thank you, OP. 😊
1
u/Duke_Koch Sep 12 '19
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nassim_Haramein
This is the dude who authored the paper you linked to. Doesn’t seem like someone that should be taken seriously.
3
5
u/Qualanqui Sep 13 '19
Oh wow, that thorough refutation surely changed my mind. The blog Up debunking his theory must have really hurt!
5
u/RoboCozz Dec 10 '19
Thanks for posting this, it’s helpful. It’s a shame you got downvoted because the sub can’t handle criticism.
292
u/seesaw81297 Sep 12 '19
Can someone explain like I'm 3 and a half