[granpa]

If the universe is a hologram then every object is 'spread out' over the whole and interacts with everything else instantly.

If at a deep enough level everything interacts with everything else instantly then at that level the speed of light would be infinite.
Hence there would be no trouble reconciling relativity with quantum mechanics.

the speed of light wouldnt really be infinite.
it would take one quantum of time for each particle to interact
but in that time it would interact with everything else

[yor_on]

I think one problem in the idea arises with our perception of how light behaves. In our universe it has a defined 'speed' with an 'arrow of time' defining the direction. The 'original' hologram might as you say work 'instantly' though. The interesting thing if that was true would be the 'rules' defining our 'universe', maybe we could see 'entanglements' as some sort of 'proof' for the possibility of things happening 'instantly'? And if it is true that you can 'transport' energy through them?

Maybe??

[granpa]

and in a medium light appears to move even slower.

the speed of light doesnt have to be the same at all levels

[granpa]

and just because everything interacts with everything else instantly wouldnt mean you cant have wave-like behavior.
a system of masses and springs will still transmit waves.

[yor_on]

I agree, the problem is how to look at such a behavior? Would that be a 'background'? Or would it be 'outside'?

[granpa]

I'm dont understand the question

[yor_on]

String Theory seems to think of strings as something acting from a 'background', and if we imagine a 'spring system' regulating a 'point-like behavior' that to us look like a 'motion'. Should it then be seen as a 'background'? Or should it be that SpaceTime have no 'background' to create its 'forces' and 'motion' in, only consisting of what I call its 'relations'?

I prefer 'relations' myself as we don't have to explain that 'background'
Then what we see is like a cloud created in the air, with the air being something that is inside the cloud as well as outside And now I sound like a mystic huh )

[granpa]

uh..er...the whole point of quantum field theory is that all of space is thought of as
being composed of discrete quantum units about the size of a planck length.
this length is NOT frame independent.
that is why it is hard to unify with relativity.

these quantum units would be the background.

[granpa]

the idea that space is just a description of the way that particles interact is probably still valid.
you just have to apply it to these background quantum units.

[yor_on]

If I remember right then what's called 'strings' are expected to be somewhat larger than Planck size, I think I read it somewhere? And Plank measures are what I would expect as a border between SpaceTime and whatever else there might be. But to me the question is how to see it, like SpaceTime 'infused' with it or SpaceTime contrasted against a 'background'. If you define SpaceTime as having something that it 'shows itself' from you are creating something that also needs to be explained, reminding me of times arrow as 'events', creating the same kind of need for some 'glue' to cement those 'events'. I want SpaceTime to be as simple as possible myself, with as few 'parts' as possible. So the idea of it being 'relations' creating it fits my thinking.

[granpa]

well thats beginning to get too philosophical for me.

but as I said:

the idea that space is just a description of the way that particles interact is probably still valid.
you just have to apply it to these background quantum units.

Anyway, if everything interacts with everything else instantly then
the whole idea of space itself begins to break down.
If particle x interacts with everything other particle instantly then which particle is it next to?

[yor_on]

My 'relation space' I suspect to be similar to the holographic principle. To me both build without needing a background But yes, I agree, in such a 'SpaceTime' the 'interactions' of 'discrete events' becomes diffuse. And that's where I think we have the Plank measures as some sort of border between what we see, and what may be. 'Distance' and 'motion' becoming expressions suitable only here. But you're right, it's kind of philosophical

[Bill S (OP)]

and just because everything interacts with everything else instantly wouldnt mean you cant have wave-like behavior.
a system of masses and springs will still transmit waves.

Surely, if "everything interacts with everything else instantly", there is no passage of/through time.  If waves exist, they must exist in a timeless, "Platonia" type situation in which change is impossible.

[granpa]

I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Why would change be impossible?

[Bill S (OP)]

Just making a "nice" distinction between everything interacting instantly with everything else: i.e. everything happening at once; and all interactions being instant: i.e. interactions occurring chronologically, but happening instantly, when they do happen. 

[yor_on]

Don't mix SpaceTime with the concept of a 'spring system'

The idea of springs 'creating' a motion is like having a thin sheet tightened. Under it you use a pen and start to make 'points' on the sheet. From the other side, if the points are close enough, the impression will be one of 'motion' somewhat similar to how you make a cartoon by still images. How that is done can be interpreted two ways I think, either as 'events' if we associate each 'pressure-point' of that pen with a 'discrete event'. Or, as it to us is happening inside a three dimensional reality, with the pen 'pressing everywhere simultaneously', looked at as a analogue behavior without any clear 'borders'. Maybe both views are applicable, only depending on how you choose to define your 'system'?

But that's the idea of 'invincible springs', as I understands it. Another question is how you choose to see 'times arrow' in such a system. Either you can choose to say that the 'pressures points' causality (organization) creates an illusion of an arrow, much as those still images in the cartoon makes a 'moving picture' to us, or you can look at it as if we need the 'arrow' before any causality process can be created. To me the last interpretation seems reasonable as I'm having a hard time to understand just how the 'causality chains' otherwise can be interpreted? It seems to me that if it was this way the first interpretation places an awful lot of importance on consciousness for creating 'motion'. And most of the matter existing isn't 'conscious', as far as I know but still 'reacts' and transforms, without supervision.

but?

It's an idea, an alternative to what we see as 'motion'. You can think of it a little like some complementary principle to the way Nature seems to work from simple beginnings to complexity, e.g. from seed to tree, or spermatozoa and egg to a complex living individual.
==

But I'm not sure, there's also the question of 'free will' involved. Maybe there exist a third possibility in which, at some emergent 'plane', complexity like consciousness creates the the arrow of time. It's a weird idea
==

Another point to be made is that if it is so then nothing of what we deem 'necessary' for our 'SpaceTime' to exist, like distances, will be the exact same on 'the other side of the sheet'. So when I'm speaking of something making 'points' simultaneously creating a 'motion and distance' or 'confinement' seen as a particle then that's our interpretation, valid on our side.

[Bill S (OP)]

If particle x interacts with everything other particle instantly then which particle is it next to?

Perhaps the concept of "next-to-ness" is only a feature of spacetime in our Universe. In the wider (infinite?)cosmos everything could be "next to" everything else.  indeed, everything could be everything else, in which case instantaneous interaction would be no problem. 

[yor_on]

But there would still need to be some sort of 'laws' defining SpaceTime, don't you think?
But it would be a paradigm shift if we decided that this might be the case, and started to look for them instead of defining 'forces'. And that's my point of view, for the moment