/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10561335
>self-similarity means "sphere"
No

>>10561378
>this is your logic for concluding the universe is a hologram? really?

Yes you idiot. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. No assumptions of stupid little discrete pool balls. No unexplained and various forces with no rhyme or reason.
Actual
Empirical
Evidence
Something modern day science apparently forgot about or doesn't need in your opinion.

>i find it to be completely unrelated to the claim. can you please explain better?
Physical pertains to material correct? To energy and matter? You could say that it's a "matter of semantics" but what is the cause of "physicality"? Does "material" just explain itself? It can't. It doesn't just form itself into whatever it wants as if it has a mind of it's own. It's impelled by something else. To be "impelled" doesn't necessarily mean "physically impelled" like a newtons cradle or something like that. One be "impelled" to do something by thought alone. That isn't physical. Why does a salt crystal form in a cube? Why does amethyst form in a trigonal prism? It doesn't "think" like we do, but it possess a reproducing self-similar nature and it is impelled by "qualities" such as heat. Is temperature "physical"?
Now you can say that it all break down to "well it just gets its material from another material", and at the end of the day "it's all just hydrogen/neutrons/protons/whaterons", but now we get down to "what forms those". So now we're down to "fields" and I'm not even gonna bother asking what those are made of because again...It's undefinable. It has no quantity.
You can call that "physical" if you want, but it is not measurable by any standards. Therefore I would not call it anything really, but it certainly isn't "nothing".
The info and explanations are already there, it's only your laziness and need to be spoonfed that's holding you back. Wouldn't you feel so much better about yourself if you found out for yourself than having an avatarfag such as myself explain it to you?