“Holographic Cosmology” wins PSI Award for Pseudoscience

PSI Blog 20170208 “Holographic Cosmology” wins PSI Award for Pseudoscience
Thanks to Rick for this heads-up on the latest outrage in cosmogony:
Even Doyle Rice, the reporter for USA Today, sounds incredulous:
Talk about a reality check: The entire universe could be a "vast and complex hologram," scientists reported Monday. Also, even more unsettling, what we think of as reality may be just an illusion.

Rice, Doyle, 2017, Mind blown: The entire universe could be a hologram: USA Today [http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/01/30/universe-hologram-illusion/97249856/].
For the Oh So Serious article that got past the reviewers at Physical Review Letters, check this out:
Afshordi, Niayesh, Corianò, Claudio, Delle Rose, Luigi, Gould, Elizabeth, and Skenderis, Kostas, 2017, From Planck Data to Planck Era: Observational Tests of Holographic Cosmology: Physical Review Letters, v. 118, no. 4, p. 041301 [http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.041301].
This type of nonsense is typical of regressive physicists and cosmogonists who are especially fond of the indeterministic assumption of immaterialism. The solipsism is in tune with Deepak Chopra, who seems to think that the existence of the universe depends on his own consciousness. The universe is an illusion alright—until you bang into something hard that wakes you up and brings you to your senses.
I find it hard to get the motivation here. I suppose they believe they are advancing the BBT along the path to eternal righteousness. It all goes to show that the mathematization of garbage is still garbage. Let’s hope that “holographic cosmology” doesn’t get recycled. But don’t hold your breath.


Bligh said...

I was struck by the similarity with fake news. :)
Initially I was interested in the hologram idea because D. Bohm is not that far away from that idea....except I am pretty sure his would be some sort of a 3D foundation, not a 2D hologram.
Then there is the problem of a BBT, being imbedded as well.
Double No. To this idea.
But, as dumb an idea as it is, I do not see any reason to call it immaterialistic.
The same concept or theory could just as well come from a materialist.

Glenn Borchardt said...


Any reference to the universe as an "illusion" is automatically immaterialistic, in opposition to the First Assumption of Science. On the contrary, the universe consists of matter. What we think about that matter is irrelevant. It just is. Making up hologram stories about it is as idiotic as the BBT itself.