Deriving materialism from physics...

New thread alert! This isn't even really a response, honestly... I'm just kind of spiraling because of what Boba Fett said.

Boba Fett said:I mean, come on, we basically already know the drill. We know exactly which chemical cocktails trigger that whole love thing, right? Which specific genes or hormones are pulling the strings on our personalities, and which ones are calling the shots when it comes to how smart we are... stuff like that. It’s all just science at this point.

So, here’s my attempt at this: I'm basically trying to show that if you actually follow the whole "materialistic worldview" thing to its logical conclusion, you end up somewhere that barely even qualifies as materialism anymore. It just kind of breaks down.

So, let's look at that opening line: "which processes and which chemicals cause love." Okay, look—nobody's arguing that love is tied to specific chemical reactions happening inside our bodies. That part is a given. But here’s the real kicker: what actually causes what? Like, could we flip the script and say "which processes and chemicals does love trigger?" Is it possible that love is the actual starting point—the primary spark—and all those messy chemical shifts are just the aftermath?
If you look at this from a purely materialistic standpoint, what even is love? It’s basically just a process designed—you know, via evolutionary programming—to get the male and female reproductive organs together so the species keeps going. But wait, don't a ton of other living things have their own version of this? They all have processes that lead to the same end goal: merging two sets of DNA. And isn't it true that for some species, that whole thing happens through totally different chemical pathways than ours? So, couldn't we argue that what’s actually the SAME across many species—this "love" thing, if we define it as the drive to fuse DNA—actually MANIFESTS IN DIFFERENT WAYS through different material processes depending on the organism? Like, can't we say "love manifests itself differently"? And wouldn't there still be something fundamentally the SAME within all those different manifestations... which is, well, "love" itself?

Alright, let's dive into round two. We're talking about which genes or hormones actually call the shots on our temperament, or even what dictates how smart we are. Honestly? It's the genes that kill me. What even *are* genes? Are they just some physical molecules sitting there? Or... I don't know. Here's the kicker: genes are basically information carriers. But when we say "information," what does that actually mean? Think of it like "shaping" or "patterning." That word alone implies there's some kind of "shape" or "form" involved. To me, information is really just a blueprint of that form.
So, think about it: at the moment of conception, you’ve got a male egg cell and a female egg cell smashing together. Two totally different sets of DNA fuse into one brand new thing, creating this whole new blueprint. This massive burst of information is what ultimately—given enough luck and the right environment—resulted in *me*. Basically, my entire FORM was set from day one. It’s been the boss of my development ever since, dictating exactly how all those material molecules should snap together. Sure, the nutrients and stuff had to be available in the womb, but which specific ones actually get picked? That’s driven by my FORM. Even the way my body pumps out hormones—like growth hormone, testosterone, estrogen, whatever—it’s all just following that original FORM.
So, going back to my opening thought... what even is temperament? It’s this Latin word that basically means a true MEASURE. It's all about someone's disposition—their whole emotional setup. And what actually dictates that vibe? For the most part, it comes down to the ratio (which is *ratio* in Latin or *logos* in Greek) of hormones. So, we aren't just talking about hormones themselves, but the specific RATIO between them. And what sets that ratio? Our genes. Basically, my own biological FORM.
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like this? Like, seriously, am I alone in this head space? Honestly, probably not. Tons of people out there have this exact same vibe. Even my old man—he’s got the same temperament as me. It makes you wonder, right? Could we basically say his personality was what actually dictated my genes? And look, if I really did inherit that temperament from him—which, let’s be real, I totally did—wasn't that whole disposition already potentially baked into me from the very start? You know, the moment of conception when my DNA and my entire physical form first kicked off? If that's the case, isn't it technically true that my temperament is what ultimately determines my hormones? Just a thought.

Look, I’m gonna double down on this: form absolutely trumps matter every single time. It’s just how it works. If you look at it through an Aristotelian lens, form is the essence—it's what actually makes a thing what it is. Like, think about it: if you're looking at a human being and a pig, what's the actual deciding factor that separates them? On a molecular level—the "matter" side of things—they're pretty much more or less the same stuff. But the form is totally different. Aristotle would say it's the form, and honestly, even today we'd just call it the genetic information. It's all about the form.
When some new DNA kicks in, some new biological blueprint, it takes those molecules—which obviously have to be there first—and shapes them into a human or a pig. But within that raw matter, you don't actually have a human or a pig yet. I mean, it's POTENTIALLY a human, or a pig. Or a million other things. If you really look at it: it could be anything. So what is that matter, then? It’s just everything, or if you follow that logic to its end, it’s actually NOTHING. It's just the possibility, the POTENTIAL, for something to exist. The thing that actually *is* something? That’s its FORM.

Can we dig even deeper into the matter? Particle physics has basically shown us that particles can transform into one another; they can swap identities. Honestly, there isn't any single particle that couldn't turn into something else. "Matter" is essentially that which hasn't been defined yet—it’s nothingness, pure potentiality. It’s that scholastic *potentia pura*, Aristotelian *dynamis*, Platonic *aoristos dyas*, the Pythagorean *apeiron*, or even the Christian concept of nothingness (*creatio ex nihilo*).
In "particle physics," matter gets its definition through conservation laws—basically, the stuff that stays the SAME throughout all those constant changes.
That "same" thing is the form: Aristotelian *morphe* or *eidos*, Platonic *eidos* or *idea*. It's the Pythagorean *peras*, the measure, the ratio. It's the Heraclitean *logos*. (Ratio, or proportion).

And there are even fewer quarks and tau particles... 😁

Everything just falls under the scope of perception, doesn't it? Or maybe how we perceive size as a dimension that's physically or materially determined... right?

If everything is ultimately determined by thought or an idea, then what is that very thing actually made of?

🤔

Kate Lee12 said:Even quarks and tau particles have smaller components! 😁

Everything falls under the umbrella of perception—how we define size as a dimension dictated by material or physical constraints. Isn't that right?

If everything is ultimately determined by thought or an idea, then what is that very thing actually made of?

🤔

It doesn't consist of anything at all...🙄
👋

In the history of wisdom, that old Socrates line always seems to hold water—you know, the whole "I know that I know nothing" bit. It feels especially true when you start digging into the nature of matter. Even mistyfox812 pointed out how relevant that is:
Can we actually dive into the meat of this? Particle physics basically tells us that particles aren't these fixed, permanent things—they just swap identities. One thing turns into another; in fact, there isn't a single particle out there that couldn't eventually transform into something else. It makes you realize that what we call "matter" is really just... undefined. It’s essentially nothingness—pure potentiality. It’s that scholastic *potentia pura*, or Aristotelian *dynamis*. It's that Platonic concept of the indefinite duality, or even the Pythagorean *apeiron*. Honestly, it feels a lot like the theological idea of creation out of nothing. Just pure possibility waiting to happen.
In particle physics, how do we actually define matter? It basically boils down to conservation laws—you know, that one thing that stays exactly the same while everything else is constantly shifting around. It's the constant in the chaos.
It’s all the same thing, really—just different ways of labeling the same old patterns. You’ve got the Aristotelian *morphe* or *eidos*, then you slide right over into the Platonic *eidos* or the whole concept of an Idea. Then there’s that Pythagorean obsession with ratio—that sense of measure and proportion. And don't even get me started on the Heraclitean *logos*. It’s all just different lenses for looking at ratio—whether you call it *ratio* in Latin or *logos* in Greek, it's essentially the same underlying structure. Isn't it funny how we just keep renaming the same fundamental truths?

So, here we go again—making the exact same mistake. It’s like watching a movie where you already know the ending, except the plot never actually moves forward. People keep falling into this trap of looking *only* at the corpuscular side of things—this narrow idea of matter defined by particles. You know, that basic concept most people cling to: the idea that everything is just "stuff," from hydrogen all the way up to uranium. But honestly? That isn't really what matter is. Not anymore. If we're being real about physics today, matter is inextricably tied to electromagnetic energy. It’s not just little bits of dust floating around. We're talking about matter being both matter and antimatter; we're talking about gravity and antigravity; we're talking about magnetism. To ignore the energy aspect is to miss the entire point, isn't it?
It’s funny how we just keep making the same mistakes—it’s like a broken record at this point. People constantly fall back on that tired old trio of states of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. They act like that's the whole story, completely ignoring plasma. And honestly, if you listen to someone like Dennis Gallagher—who actually knows his stuff as a plasma physicist over at NASA—he’ll tell you plainly that 99.9% of the universe is plasma. Think about that for a second. If only 0.1% of everything out there is actual atomic matter, then what exactly are we doing with the rest of the plasma? But no, some pseudo-physicist is perfectly happy to trot out the standard line that "plasma is just ionized gas" and call it a day. It’s almost impressive how they manage to stay relevant among all those brilliant physicists—and philosophers, for that matter—who somehow find it acceptable to base their entire intellectual credo on a mere 0.1% of the universe's matter. Does anyone else find that a bit... lacking?
So, George Gamow basically argues that we should view the interior of the Sun—you know, a star—as this massive, natural alchemical lab where elements are constantly being reshaped, atoms morphing into other atoms. It’s a similar vibe to what James van Allen said when he referred to "that nuclear physics laboratory called the Sun." Then you have Hans Bethe, who was the first to actually map out how hydrogen—the absolute simplest building block—transforms into helium within the Sun. By 1957, definitive scientific analysis confirmed that this exact same thing happens in all stars: these processes steadily build up simple elements, layer by layer, into increasingly complex structures. So, when I suggest that this exact same process is happening right here on Earth through the medium of human intelligence... well, then the resident physicists on this forum immediately try to label me a "fool." Is it really that much of a leap? Or is it just easier to shut down the conversation?
Honestly, until we actually address one specific question, any conversation about matter is pretty much a non-starter—just a massive waste of breath. How is it even possible that everything on Earth, from basic hydrogen all the way up to uranium—plus those transuranic elements that don't even exist naturally here—actually exists? From an astrophysical theory standpoint, the math just doesn't add up. It’s physically impossible. So, really, why are we even bothering to talk about matter if we haven't solved that fundamental mystery first?
Back in 1973, the English mathematician Jacob Bronowski wrote:
"Substance" is basically this dualistic thing that just dissolves into "Energy." We talk about the universe being built from "matter" and "antimatter," but honestly, matter has become such a ghost of an idea that modern physicists are basically saying an electron isn't a particle or a wave—it’s just this... entity? Something that resists any kind of visual description you could throw at it (if you look at *The New World of Physics*, page 133). It feels pretty outdated to act like elementary particles are just tiny little pellets of solid stuff. They aren't. They’re more like nonmaterial structures—which, if we're being honest, makes this whole "New Physics" feel a lot like metaphysics. When you're dealing with things that exist beyond what we can actually see or pin down with standard natural laws, you're left playing around with nothing but statistical probabilities—otherwise known as the "principle of indeterminacy." Does anyone else feel like we've just traded certainties for math games?
Blavatsky actually hit on a similar conclusion back in 1888 when she wrote:
A physicist needs to grasp what an atom actually is—in reality—and realize they can't truly know. They have to try and bring it within reach of their own physical senses, which is impossible. Why? Because nobody has ever actually seen, smelled, heard, touched, or tasted an "atom." Not once. Strictly speaking, the atom lives entirely in the realm of metaphysics. It doesn't belong to physics at all, since you can’t exactly put it under a microscope or weigh it on a scale to prove it exists. Unlike George Gamow, Jacob Bronowski, or anyone else following those old lines of thought, I’ve laid out my thesis based on actual physical and nuclear facts: life itself creates the atoms of matter on Earth, and by extension, throughout the entire universe. And yeah, I'm standing by that right here.
It’s honestly kind of sad watching some physicists and chemists on this forum push back against verbalism without actually bringing a single fact to the table to debunk it.
So, mistyfox812, you're spot on when you claim matter is "precisely what hasn't been defined"—and let's be real, it remains undefined precisely because it's only being defined through a monistic lens. Matter only truly becomes something defined—in terms of our actual material reality—once it's defined binarily and quadripolarly. Think about it: our physical world is composed of solid, liquid, gas, and plasma, with plasma making up a staggering 99.9% compared to just 0.1% for everything else... and that plasma is what essentially drives the mechanics behind our visual brains.

Alright, if matter isn't what defines things, then what actually is?

(If we pivot back to that last point hollowpilot9 laid out so elegantly... what exactly is our visual brain doing here?)

So, "reality" is basically defined by our grasp of plasma—whatever that may be. Though, I suppose some folks in this thread might feel a bit slighted by that, thinking plasma is essentially the "soul"... which, based on this logic, would imply the soul is just a component of it.

Taylor Alvarez6 said:it doesn't even consist of anything at all....

👍

Aren't we just talking about this the whole time? 😁

Alright, if matter isn't predetermined, then what is?

Nothing is set in stone...😉

Fine, if matter isn't predetermined, then the real question is: what—or who—is doing the determining, and by what means? 😁

Kate Lee12 says: okay, if matter isn't predetermined, then what is?

(if we pivot back to that last point hollowpilot9 laid out so elegantly—what exactly is our visual brain?)

So, "reality" ends up being defined by our understanding of plasma (whatever that actually turns out to be)—though I suspect plenty of people here might get a bit triggered thinking plasma is just another word for the "soul," which, based on this logic, would make it a literal constituent part of it.
hollowpilot9: If we consider that plasma, in its most primal sense, is the Fire we all know—the kind that devours millions of cubic feet of wood and vegetation—and we acknowledge that sunlight is plasma, and all other electromagnetic radiation is plasma, and even realize that every image on our TVs or computer screens is plasma... then, if we accept that all external images processed by our brains are mediated through plasma—light—then the fourth state of matter takes on a massive role in existence, specifically regarding the existence of life, particularly plant life. Where does this leave us? That's a whole other debate. But in terms of matter, it’s vital to ditch that old, flawed mechanistic definition and embrace the modern view involving wave-particle duality. Waves clearly fall under the umbrella of plasmatic matter, and since waves carry energy, they inherently carry INFORMATION. It brings to mind what Taylor Alvarez6 mentioned: matter can't be proven; it can only be thought. Even Carl Sagan, the astrophysicist, said: "MATERIAL REALITY CANNOT BE PROVEN; WE CAN ONLY THINK IT." Along those lines, there's this perspective:
Physicists say "dark matter" can't be proven because it's essentially non-interactive, hence the name. It doesn't interact with anything. It lacks the electromagnetic or nuclear interactions seen in protons and electrons. It won't play nice with physical apparatus or lab instruments, making it impossible to detect or prove in a controlled setting. (Neil deGrasse Tyson, physics professor). As for what "dark matter" actually is? Physicists admit they haven't a clue.

I think Taylor Alvarez6—and maybe a few others—might remember my rather "turbulent" thread over on the science subforum: Does abiogenesis occur? There, I argued—with plenty of supporting points, obviously—that macro-level human life, through its physical and nuclear processes, actually creates atoms of matter. My thesis was that there are at least two ways matter is generated in the universe: the stellar way described by astrophysicists, and the terrestrial way via human intelligence—in other words, life. To many, that sounded like heresy, despite me backing it up with quotes like these:
Panpsychism
Subatomic particles such as electrons (WHICH ARE PLASMA) are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Physical reality either is not subject to the principle of local causation or does not objectively exist independent of the observers who participate in its creation.

In the context of the "soul," David Bohm offers a pretty fascinating take: The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky. Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.

So, in a plasmatic, holographic universe where everything is correlated with everything else, it stands to reason that the mentality of life (humanity) is equivalent to a complex concept of matter, rather than some simplified particle model.

hollowpilot9, if I’m following your logic here, are you saying that plasma is essentially just a specific "cluster/density/flow" of energy? And through its very "manifestation," it somehow regulates the existence of something that isn't even there... or rather, it provides us—specifically "consciousness," in the end—with information about how it has "manifested" in a way that we, conditionally speaking, "recognize"?

I vaguely recall this topic being discussed somewhere in the fog of my memory, though I don't remember the specifics, since I wasn't really "navigating" these waters back then... 😁

Taylor Alvarez6, I agree with the question. It really is the core of any attempt to grasp our own existence and, ultimately, the fundamental "seed" of religion itself...

Kate Lee12 says:
hollowpilot9, if I’m following your logic correctly—and I might be misinterpreting things here—is it fair to say that plasma is essentially a specific "cluster/density/movement" of energy that, by simply manifesting, regulates the existence of something that technically doesn't exist? Or rather, it provides us (meaning "consciousness," in the end) with information about how it "manifested" in a way that we—conditionally speaking—can "recognize"?

I sort of remember this topic drifting through my head once, though I don't recall the specifics since I wasn't really "navigating" these waters back then.

Taylor Alvarez6, I agree with the question; it actually hits on the core of trying to grasp our own existence and, ultimately, serves as the fundamental "spark" for religion...

hollowpilot9: The classic definition of plasma is ionized gas, which is obviously incomplete—actually, it's just wrong. Gas is the third state of matter, not the fourth, and gases are made of molecules containing complete atoms (protons, neutrons, and electrons). But if you keep heating a gas, if you keep ionizing it, you eventually reach the DISINTEGRATION OF ATOMS into their constituent parts: neutrons, protons, electrons, plus energy. A flux of neutrons, protons, electrons, or any other unbound particles—like photons—is PLASMA. And it's not always heated to millions of degrees Celsius; PLASMA can be as COLD as a TV screen. So, basically, all energetic radiation is PLASMA, which means we are "bathing" in solar plasma every single day. Since every particle, molecule, or energy wave—every quantum—has a specific frequency (like color), it inherently carries specific INFORMATION. We see this today in photochemistry, photobiology, photomedicine, and the massive scale of photosynthesis within FLORA, which directly or indirectly shapes all life on Earth. Of course, the question remains whether magnetic flux counts as plasma—which, by all accounts, it does—making PLASMA the FOURTH UNIVERSAL CONCEPT OF MATTER, encompassing subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, waves, magnetism, and everything else those terms imply in existence. For instance, if sunlight, or light in general, is the agent of perception and neuro-brain processes (like seeing an image or thinking about what you see), then it’s perfectly logical that PLASMA has some connection to our mentality, mind, spirit, soul, consciousness, or whatever label we choose to use.
Why does this matter? Simply because physical science has moved far beyond mechanical physics and has stepped deeply into wave-quantum PLASMA PHYSICS, which is EXPONENTIALLY DRIVING US TOWARD THE SINGULARITY—that point where the human and machine brain merge, as the innovator Kurzweil suggests—yet philosophers aren't even debating it?! Plus, there's this phenomenon where everyone is becoming dizzyingly "plasmatic," staring into computer monitors and TV screens, stepping into a cyber world that is 100% plasmatic.
To make things even more interesting, I stumbled upon this text online:

Plasma Intermediary Life stage
New Scientist
Physicists have created blobs of gaseous plasma that can grow, replicate and communicate - fulfilling most of the traditional requirements for biological cells. Without inherited material they cannot be described as alive, but the researchers believe these curious spheres may offer a radical new explanation for how life began.
Most biologists think living cells arose out of a complex and lengthy evolution of chemicals that took millions of years, beginning with simple molecules through amino acids, primitive proteins and finally forming an organised structure. But if Mircea Sanduloviciu and his colleagues at Cuza University in Romania are right, the theory may have to be completely revised. They say cell-like self-organisation can occur in a few microseconds.
If plasma and life are causally linked, the existence of FLORA on Earth is SUFFICIENT PROOF!!!
As for the origins of religion, it seems more accurate to put it this way: Intuition is the CAUSE behind any belief, including beliefs in the existence of God, and the CAUSE of intuition is PLASMA, because plasma contains ABSOLUTE INFORMATION ABOUT EVERYTHING. That is exactly what David Bohm refers to as the holographic universe!

Of course, we're still left with all sorts of unanswered questions, but let's start with two...
What exactly is a hologram—I mean, what is it actually "projected" from? (And I’m not talking about that definition involving eternal fluctuations of spiral light and thought—E.C.) And then there's consciousness. Is it the cause, or just the consequence?

Can I take what you wrote as an affirmative answer to my previous question?😁

Kate Lee12 says: sure, we’re still stuck with a mountain of unanswered questions—but let's just start with these two:
So, what exactly is a hologram? And I’m not talking about that whole bit regarding the eternal fluctuation of spiral light and thought—you know, the E.C. perspective—but the actual mechanism. What is it being "projected" from? And then there’s the consciousness question. Is it the cause, or just some byproduct? Just something that happens after the fact?
Can I take what you just wrote as a "yes" to my previous question? Or am I totally misreading the vibe here?

My fascination with holography actually stems from my photography work—just a quick bit of context for those who don't know. A hologram is essentially a 3D image generated using coherent laser light. You take that laser light, split it, and direct it onto two separate plates. One image from one plate reflects via mirrors onto the photographic plate, while a second mirror directs the image from the other plate into the space behind it. It’s all pretty technical, but you can even get holographic photos printed on paper, much like how National Geographic experimented with similar concepts back in 1884. Since Gabor invented the hologram, it stands to reason that holographic imaging would be a solid business in a hub like Washington, D.C. I actually had the chance to see a holographic image once—I practically had to reach out and touch it just to convince myself there wasn't actually something physical sitting there.
It’s been quite a while since we last talked about this, hasn't it? And honestly, the way we define a hologram has shifted so much. It isn't just some flickering light projection anymore—that’s such a narrow view. Nowadays, we’re looking at holograms generated across various parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, not just visible light. We’ve got X-ray holography, and then there’s acoustic holography, which is wild because it basically lets you "see" right through solid objects. It’s pretty incredible how these things have moved from theoretical curiosities to actual, practical tools used everywhere—from heavy industry and scientific research to business and education. Who would've thought?
The whole hologram phenomenon became such a massive scientific hit so quickly that a formal philosophical-scientific definition had to follow—one that I believe was first put forward by David Bohm. His take on it goes something like this: in a holographic world, the one and the many are essentially the same thing. Or, if you want to look at it another way, everything everyone else knows is known by every single individual, and everyone else knows exactly what any one person knows. (In our everyday American culture, we’ve basically been using a "folk" definition of a hologram for ages: "One for all, and all for one!" That’s really just the grassroots, common-sense version of it, isn't it?)
Based on that kind of definition, Bohm put together this holistic theory of the universe—basically suggesting that every single tiny unit of existence somehow knows everything about the cosmos, or rather, describes the entire universe within itself, while the whole universe is simultaneously tucked away inside every individual part. It’s a lot to wrap your head around, isn't it? Naturally, this paved the way for all sorts of holistic philosophies and theories to follow—some of the most intriguing being the ones that try to bridge the gap between ancient religious intuitions and this concept of a holistic reality.
Pribram is working on this theory that our brains are basically holograms—where every single brain cell holds the collective knowledge of all the other cells. But honestly? I’d take it a step further. If every cell in your brain already contains the data from every other cell in your entire body, isn't that just a massive, glaring hint toward a holographic universe? It feels like we're looking at the blueprint for everything.
But then—and here’s where things get stuck—whenever anyone actually tries to bridge the gap between micro and macro holistic phenomena, the conversation just hits a wall. Since I’ve always been a bit obsessed with the holographic principle for a dozen different reasons, I started thinking about how humanity’s media presence might actually be holographic and holistic in nature. Think about it: when a major news outlet like CNN drops a single story, that one piece of information reaches millions of people in a split second. That single broadcast is essentially identical to the millions of individual bits of data scattered across the global population—it’s a holographic phenomenon. It’s the same logic you see in biology, right? Every single cell in our bodies "knows" what the cells in our brain know. It’s all part of the same pattern. A hologram. Which leads me to my point—we ourselves are holographically structured.
We really need to address the fact that the quantum hologram is still incredibly relevant here. If you think about it, every single quantum state is essentially just a specific concentration of whatever that quantum refers to—which leads to the idea that a quantum state is actually a holistic perception of the world, or maybe even a perception of the future. It’s a bit of a trip, right? It completely upends everything we thought we knew—especially our tidy little ideas about space-time. Because in a holistic space-time model, space and time don't really exist as separate things anymore. Everything is simultaneous. It's all happening at once. To make things even more "complicated"—if you can call it that—this holistic theory actually aligns with the religious notion that the Origin (God) manifests in the future of time, too, rather than just being tucked away in the past like we've been mistakenly led to believe. Anyway, I hope that's enough of an answer for you.

Thanks, though you could have just sent over this link where most of what you mentioned is actually written in English... 😁

It’s not like I can say I disagree with David Bohm’s theory, nor was that ever my claim 😁

More importantly, I have always "believed"—and still do—that our entire existence, life, and environment is merely a matter of perception (an artificial construct resulting from the exchange of elementary particle charges)... essentially, what one might call a "vision" of reality is little more than a fantasy (to put it plainly, or as you would say, colloquially) ... 😉

I brought up this exact point once upon a time in a thread about "what is reality?" (on an old forum) ...

What fascinates me beyond that is the precise cause-and-effect relationship between my own consciousness and the "external" stimulus (let's call it an "emitter") of this aforementioned "hologram."

Because, as you yourself wrote, there must be another "source" by which we ourselves (our consciousness, the aforementioned hologram) are defined... right? /Perhaps even a new dimension ...

Kate Lee12:
Thanks, though you could have just sent the link where most of what you said is actually written in English...

It’s not like I’m saying I disagree with David Bohm’s theory—I never claimed that in the first place.

More than that, I’ve always "believed" (and still do) that our entire existence—life, our surroundings, everything—is basically just a matter of perception. It’s a construct born from shifts in elementary particle charges. In other words, what I might call our "view" of reality is essentially a fantasy—or, to use your term, just a layman's imagination...

I actually brought this up once a long time ago in a thread about "what is reality?" on an old forum...

What really fascinates me beyond that is the relationship between cause and effect regarding my own consciousness and the "external" stimulus—let's call it the "emitter"—of this supposed "hologram."

Because, just like you wrote, there has to be another "source" that defines us—our consciousness, the aforementioned hologram—right? Maybe it's even a new dimension...

hollowpilot9: Look, I agree that links can convey information, but personally, I’m "against" using them that way. My style is that knowledge should be integrated and built upon. There’s a difference between taking a piece of info and weaving it into my own understanding (whether I cite the source or not—though it's proper to do so), versus just saying, "Hey, go read what Kate Lee12 wrote." Those are two completely different ways of communicating intellectually to reach actual insight. If we aren't expanding and enriching our individual knowledge, if we aren't complementing one another to create synthetic knowledge from existing Knowledge, then all we’re doing is playing ego games—acting like one person knows more than the other. Only when we reach universal knowledge—which is what I constantly advocate for—will we each possess our own version of the SAME truth, yet expressed through CREATIVE, INDIVIDUALIZED knowledge. You follow me, right?

Any thinker, any researcher, has to solve the problem of cause and effect and the subject-object relationship first. Without resolving that, there is no REALITY, and certainly no CONSCIOUSNESS or THOUGHT. Let me give you a "trivial" example that we overlook constantly.
Imagine we’re looking at an optical image—say, the American flag with its RED, WHITE, and BLUE stripes. We are all dead certain we see red, white, and blue, right? But you know, as does anyone who finished a basic physics seminar, that the colors we see are just reflected light from the object. The object polarizes the light: it absorbs some parts and reflects others. We label the object by the color of the light it reflects, not the light it absorbs. So, what is the Truth? What color is the object if we see it as RED? Is it red because of the reflected light, or is it actually green because of the absorbed light? That right there is a perfect illustration of the problem of cause and effect—the subject-object relationship.

There absolutely must be ANOTHER SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE! Anyone even remotely interested in studying the evolution of knowledge, the spirit, or the mind knows that we all operate within three dimensions: length, surface, and volume. Just as we have these levels of reality, we have corresponding levels of consciousness—though I won't dive into that here. I will say, however, that very few people can actually think in three dimensions, which is what we call imagination. But what about the fourth dimension? And what about the FIFTH SYNTHETIC dimension? That is undoubtedly the SOURCE you mentioned, and the source of the HOLOGRAM itself, because that is the realm of the Origin—and an Origin is always the summary of everything it pertains to.
So, that’s all for now. Thanks for the questions and comments; it's only through this kind of exchange that we can nudge our stagnant minds out of the "crooked" paths of mechanical, linear scientific and philosophical traditions. Anyone thinking in straight, linear lines has nothing left to seek in the realm of the mind at the start of the 21st century—not to mention the rest of the century!
Keep going!

Kate Lee12 said:okay, if matter isn't defined, then what actually is?

But honestly, just asking "what is...?" is basically trying to define it. In philosophy, answering that question is basically hunting for the "essence" of something. So, by even labeling it as a specific thing, you're giving it a definition, a core, a form—you're plugging it into a concept or an idea...
Matter doesn't have an essence. It’s not "something" defined... it’s just that dark, opaque void...
One way to look at it: "it exists, but we can't fundamentally grasp what it is"—that's total Kant, the "thing-in-itself."
Or maybe: "it’s actually nothing at all."
Or even: "it's just the unconscious; once we become aware of it, we're basically translating matter into spirit."
Who knows? There could be a million other takes...

Someone or nothing says: answering the question "what is...?" essentially means defining it. In philosophy, providing an answer to "what is that?" is what we call determining the essence of a thing. So, by defining something, you are assigning it a specific definition, an essence, a form—you’re participating in a concept or an idea...
Matter has no essence; it isn't anything defined... it’s just that dark, opaque void...
Some possible answers: "it is something, but we can't even theoretically know what it is"—that’s Kant, the "thing-in-itself."
Or: "it really is nothing."
Or: "it is that which is unconscious; through awareness, we translate matter into spirit."
Maybe there are others...

hollowpilot9: My post in the other thread explains pretty clearly what it means to DEFINE SOMETHING, regardless of what it actually is! Until we define the Origin of what we otherwise "think" of as NONEXISTENCE, we can't even define something that exists. Even if a thing is mentally complex, DEFINING THE ORIGIN ISN'T A SIMPLE LINEAR CONCEPT—it's a POLARLY COMPLEX CONCEPT CONSISTING OF TWO PAIRS OF INVERSE POLAR CONCEPTS. To be specific, it looks like this: suppose we want to define male and female, with names or without—no matter how hard we try, we can't define them the way we experience and think about them. We can only define them as THEY ARE. Male and female are complex, not linear, unambiguous concepts, because every concept is composed of both male and female elements—meaning we actually have four inverse and complementary concepts wrapped into ONE. You see, PHILOSOPHY IS THE INTELLECT THAT UNDERSTANDS AND CORRECTLY INTERPRETS THESE FOUR CONCEPTS AND THEIR INTERRELATIONS WITHIN EVERY SPECIFIC EXISTENCE AND EXISTENCE IN GENERAL.
Here’s a detail: I think you're making a mistake when you say: "matter has no essence, it isn't anything defined... it’s that dark, opaque void...", because the same applies to matter as it does to you or anything else we consider a definition—an existence. Matter is indefinable for the exact same reasons a human being is indefinable; that is, MATTER is a polarly complex concept, not a simple linear one. Just as an example: we can't simply say matter is a mineral like a chunk of rock, because it is also liquid, gaseous, and even plasma. So, to make a long story short, matter CAN BE DEFINED, but only as a quaternary concept, just like everything else. And one more thing: what traditional philosophy merely attempts to label with the term ESSENCE is actually the Origin. There is no second Essence besides the Origin, neither in so-called reality nor in the minds of philosophers. Only when philosophy begins to philosophize from such a defined position of BEING does it truly become PHILOSOPHY. Everything before that is just more or less successful ATTEMPTS at philosophizing.