Holograms, Perception & The "G" Constant
Notice something about everything in this reality...
Strategic
Coordination of
Analytically-based
Long-Term
Angular thought &
Redirection
S.C.A.L.A.R
“We live in a holo-fractal (holographic-fractal), morphogenetic cosmos, and yes, one could call this a simulation, but I prefer not to…”
If I (Dave) stated the identity of the above academic whom had postulated such a declarative remark to me, I would lose the trust of said individual. But this individual was adamant that I quote him on what I could bring into the public domain of such discourse.
But why?
One could postulate that this speaks to the idea in which there may indeed be an inter-mergence between what we call “Physics” and “Metaphysics”. To quote Dr. Salvatore C. Pais, the U.S Navy’s (now Space-Force) “Plasma Inertia Dampener” patent holder (of which he’s now widely-known for), “…(this) bridges the world of the very large, and the world of the very small…” (source: Curt Jaimungal’s Theories of Everything).
But what bridges the world of the very large and the very small? What is “it” specifically that brings the micro to merge with the macro? After all, this has been the question of many ontologists, academics, physicists, philosophers, anthropologists & intellectuals for as far back as modern-human history can accurately track.
It was Sir Isaac Newton whom postulated the “G” Constant, of which we see defined by Wikipedia as…
“…an empirical physical constant”.
The priori-stated, arguably, makes for a “cause for pause” moment when analyzing and interpreting such concepts in correlation to the traditional Lagrangian and Newtonian summations found within the literature of S.T.E.M (science, technology, engineering & mathematics).
If anti-gravitic technologies have indeed been “cracked”, what would that entail relative to the understanding of what we call “life”, or the reality we live in? Would it further our understanding? Or only complicate it? Or both?
To what extent can we state that we fully and confidently understand what a hologram even is? Should we even approach the topic of anti-gravity until we have, at the very least, understood in more depth what the current understandings and definitions of the public technologies we possess as a species are?
Officially, a hologram has been defined as entailing the following…
But just like my dear academic friend told me off-the-record, if we indeed do live in a holofractal, morphogenetic cosmos, what does that entail if the “hologram” we live in is indeed fractal?
Can it be “spliced”? Can it be manipulated using the “G” Constant? Can it be layered or stacked upon itself perhaps? And will we as individual sovereign “beings” ever be able to experience or even observe such a phenomenology if ever applied in an engineering-based sense? Or perhaps even in an “organic”, “spiritual” sense via that of natural human intention and willpower? A.K.A our thoughts.
The directly-above mentioned brings full-circle the justification for the image used at the very beginning of this article; Fake or Fact?
Does it even matter if we’re living inside of a “hologram”?
You want my take on that? It absolutely matters; because if we do not take the time to understand what we are residing within, how will we ever know what is “outside” of this?
If only it were as easy as the image below…
Or is it?
Complexities vs Simplicities
Chaos vs Peace
Thesis vs Antithesis
Everything we are influenced to think, do, watch, eat; all seems to be residing within that of a metaphorical pendulum that never “stops” in the middle, but swings to the extremities of either-end of its oscillatory-limits.
However, I respectfully make the very strong argument that just because the metaphorical pendulum doesn’t stop at any point in the middle, doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no middle-point.
If we stick with the pendulum example for a moment, the questions we could ask, amongst a plethora of others, are…
Regardless of the direction the pendulum swings in/towards, what’s causing the swing in the first place?
Now let us envision for a moment that as we try to understand what is causing the swing of said pendulum, there are large groups of individuals screaming in your ear telling you you’re crazy for even looking into who’s controlling the swinging…
But what’s wrong with that? Why can’t we know who’s controlling the pendulum’s swinging, and therefore, it’s oscillations?
Now take such example, and apply it to all of society; whether in your personal-life, work life, social life, or otherwise: you will notice that the more you want to dive into such questions of, say, “who’s running _____, or who’s funding ______?” the more you will receive such remarks as:
“You’re nuts dude!”, or “sheesh get off it already, move on!”
You will hardly hear someone ever say, “well did you find out who’s controlling the swinging? Or at least have a better idea of what’s causing it?” An individual would much rather dismiss it all - ergo: simply choose to not think!
Until one attains a mental state in which they can be willing to potentially admit and accept that most of what they’ve learned - whether in school or even from their own families around the dinner table - is perhaps incorrect (or at the very least an obfuscation of a more collective understanding of what may more accurately be), and that their experiences in what we call “real life” are more of an ascertainable education relative to what is at the top of that metaphorical pendulum, one may realize:
We’ve been swinging the pendulum the entire time, with most of us perhaps not even realizing it.
I, Dave, could be wrong - but this speaks to the idea that even if I am wrong, which I may certainly be - could we not take all of the above-written and apply that line of thinking to, say, oh I don’t know…something that is important to you, the reader, specifically?
You absolutely can apply it anywhere and everywhere. But do me a favour if you plan to do-so: see who scoffs at you, see who ignores you, but most importantly: look for the person who remains quiet, the person whom studies the room of which you’re in. It is of my opinion that such individuals, the ones whom remain silent, are more than likely the ones to relate to your question - regardless of what that question is in its granular specificity.
Why?
Because they’re taking the time to think about it, instead of providing you with a pre-programmed response in which external, societal influences have instilled into them as an (unfortunate) baseline of neuro/social/linguistic behavioural “norms”.
God forbid someone ruins the particular speed, velocity, and pace of that swinging pendulum; the direct result being that of stimulating change and analytical thought.
It’s almost as if so long as we collectively do not figure out who’s ensuring that said pendulum stays swinging the way it does, we’ll keep thinking of things like holograms and the “G” Constant as just “science”, when really, it may be much more…