Evan Harris Walker

[Alex K]

To be honest, I have not the faintest. Let me think about it..

[Cato]

Anyone have any comments on this?

Be careful with the Talbot brand of the holographic universe with the string theory holographic computational work being done. I'm not sure which to present first.

Talbot's book is based on actual scientific work, but I think he was intentionally and sensationally disingenuous; perhaps to sell books. Talbot has passed since writing his book so we'll never be able to assess his conviction. Talbot is claiming that what we perceive as 3D is nothing more than a projection of information contained in 2D at the edge of the universe. This is a bold assertion and fun to imagine, but testing it would be difficult (a little more on this later).

The actual holographic work being done is computational and deals with information and entropy calculations at a black hole's event horizon. String theory implies 11 dimensions. Calculations and associated papers by Japanese physicists were published last year that show the same state can be achieved with only 10 dimensions. Not exactly the stuff that would support Talbot's claims.

One physical property that was discussed as possible evidence for Talbot's claim was an idea that said if we experience a holographic universe, then measurable information would become 'fuzzy' at a certain point. Fuzzy being analogous to eventually only seeing pixels instead of the picture the pixels together represent. I can't remember how long ago, but a German gravity wave detector claimed to gather this fuzzy data at 10^-16m, much larger than a Planck length. This by no means proved anything, but was thought to be exciting as if to say "there might be something to this holographic universe" stuff.

This lasted until a European gamma ray detector didn't 'see' any fuzzy data down to 10^-48m. The fuzzy gravity wave measurement likely has the burden here due to being larger than the Planck length and the magnitude of error. It simply doesn't bode well for Talbot's ideas.

[Mudhammam]

So now I'm in the middle of chapter 10 in this Walker book. For the most part thus far, the book read like popular science. He went into a brief history of physics since Newton, focusing primarily on the great thinkers of the 20th century, some of their experiments, the EPR Paradox, John Bell's theorem, etc. As he transitioned from Bell's experiments to the following chapter, this is when he began to lose me. He's absolutely sure that Bell "ripped" a hole in the "fabric" of materialism, or more succinctly, "objective reality." From this he goes into the topic of consciousness and...Zen Buddhism, how all objects "out there" are actually "me" because they're all within my consciousness. I appreciate the insights into Buddhism (though from a physicist, which Walker is, it's a little underwhelming). And I mostly enjoy his insights in thinking about consciousness, especially his ability to paint a vivid image with words. From Buddhism he shifts into discussion over the monism-dualism debate within philosophy of the so-called mind-body problem, highlighting Churchland, Wittgenstein, and Gilbert Ryle's "ghost," which Walker seems to think has something to do with quantum physics. This is where I'm at right now. Anyway, my expectations for the book are quickly waning. I took a peek at some online reviews and glanced at the last chapter...I think it's going to end up at the Christian god. How I can only guess. I'll keep updating as I read along.

[Mudhammam]

I finished the book today. Simply atrocious ending. If it wasn't for the heartfelt journey through the author's childhood diary that recounts a story of his teenage love, a girl named Merilyn who died at the age of sixteen, I'd give this book 1 or 2 stars out of 5. But because I did find his interwoven personal narrative genuinely moving, I'll give it a 3.

Here are some of the most cringe-worthy quotes I found in the final chapter called "A God For Tomorrow":
"The tools of science permit us to question, test, and dispute the atheistic doctrines posing as scientific principle just as much as they permit us to question, test, and dispute theistic doctrines." Do they really? I wish he would've provided examples of "atheistic doctrines" or specific "theistic doctrines" that have been tested by science. As you can imagine, he does not (except to tie quantum physics into consciousness and posit this as the first cause of the Universe).

He talks about the archaic religions and the evils committed by their adherents and concludes: "perversions that had nothing to do with religion." DERP DERP.

"But for all this terror, there is one thing that is worse: the thought that all the suffering and all the pleasure of life have no meaning." I get the sense that this is why he leaps from physics to quantum minds to a first cause Universal Consciousness to miracles, souls, and--wait for it--Christianity! And yet without a hint of irony, a few sentences later, he writes: "Science has the capacity to the show us the path to truth. We must go down that path and face whatever is there." Unless, of course, you find it so empty of meaning that you would believe it is WORSE than the atrocities committed by religious fundamentalism.

Another good laugh a few paragraphs down:
"Maybe now, some of us can see the justification of faith." Umm nope. And then he concludes his book with an episode he had wandering around his old neighborhood and "feeling" some sensation run through his body, to which he concludes his long lost love Merilyn "is still with us."

There really is a lot of nonsense in this book, interwoven with science and personal storytelling--to make for an utterly confusing read. When is he speaking as a physicist who has taken great care in accurately presenting facts? When is he speaking as a heartbroken Christian with sympathies for Eastern philosophy? For someone not too well studied in physics (such as myself), I fear his book will lead to many false ideas being embraced as "scientific." Overall, like I said, a decent book with interesting ideas, well written, concise, but largely unhelpful. 3/5