HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE?

Too busy a day to go into this properly, but...It's not that *there is* such a boundary, it is that there *could be*, and it could contain all of the information necessary to decribe our Universe. It is more a mathematical identity than a definite description of reality. I haven't read Lenny's book, but I guess the typical process of 'popularisation' has made it a bit overblown. And the fact that I remember helping educate Lenny in his black hole physics, and he gets the book where-as I have to explain it on some website doesn't make me in the slightest bit envious... oh no.Anyway, this is not that surprising for string theorists as we are already used to the idea of the entire 4d (10d) Universe being a projection from the the two-dimensional world-sheet of the strings. In the late nineties, a potential mathematical physics identity was discovered called AdS/CFT correspondance which also hinted at the Holographic Principle. If you are familiar with undergrad phsyics/maths, then even good old Gauss' Theorem (divergence theorem) is a hint at this. Our reality is almosr certainly a projection, whether it comes from two dimensional surfaces, eleven dimensional M-theory, or 'simply' from our everyday four dimensional fields. I have mentioned this a few times recently, but even our idea of distance is probably just a projection of different numbers. A rock in your garden and a rock on the Moon are only different distances from you, because the 'distance numbers' associated between you and the garden rock, and you and the Moon rock are very different. Just like the numbers describing the temperatures inside your freezer and inside your cooker are very different.What gives it substance? Our brains Are you asking because of the finiteness of c, or is this something to do with actually being a projection?If the former, the projection isn't actually 'projected' - there isn't a boundary AND an interior, there is only the boundary. And all the rules of causality are played out in the boundary. Edited by cavediver, : Spelling correction - it was 'bit' mis-spelled 'it' - spooky, huh?