hmm i now fastly went over reading about

Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric - Wikipedia

to then understand that my initial comments to holographic principle is definitely incorrect.

since this symmetric space with riemann manifold topic has all the generalism this topic requires imho. 

although hmm  still yet unsure of the initial basic ideas there being yet not very well abstract thought. 

or maybe I need to read more to retract that.Since i still dont know about the how this holographic principle were exactly thought upon. I mean the entropy over surface topic but not volumn wise entropy type differences. how did they came up to that is yet unclear to me. I mean that simple surface versus volume replacement seemed kind of very simplistic methodology that I reacted as I did not liked the abstraction here.

of course occam's razor is always more logical thought method. but still, i mean there is yet alot simplistic thinking to say entropy is per surface wise not volume wise just because it enables some quantum physics equations there. 

hmm I think I need to get expert in topology and algebraic topology to comment more on this topics. 

so I am blabbering nothing right now since I dont qutie alot know.

but I quite liked the abstraction level in symmetric spaces topic after I read mroe asbout this. so definitely retracted my initial critique for those. 

but coming to the original holographic principle idea, i just find it uber simplistic to say entropy is surface wise for black holes. just too much simplistic thinking it seems as. but maybe its correct. yet i dont know. since i dont know about. I mean there could be other space time metrics that makes it seem like that but not exactly be like that. just then saying its surface wise seems kind of  over simplification. 

alike 100 years ago science method it seemed as. i mean even in some science people doing science with "this  must be inverse square wise related!" even that seems less simplistic thought process than this surface argument i read. 

but still I might be erring about my initial opinion on this topic since I had not yet studied to these topics. just had listened to introduction to 101 of.  so please take my initial review comments with grain of salt to theoretical physics topics , since yet i dont know about to comment. 

I mean in overall, holographic universe idea comes from such thought procerss of entropy of black holes topic discussion right? ok its quite valid thought methodology and universe really might be holographic, but there the root thought cause of such methodology seemed the origin idea of black holes topic did not made the very most sense. since -> I mean the theorem it self makes alot sense. i mean universe being brane. and the infinite lod defined like that either. makes alot sense. and quite alot makes sense to entanglement topics either. but -> the intiial discussion of black holes did not made the most sense to me. maybe its because they told in wrong order. if they intiially told of theorem then told that black holes also erntropy might be related to its surface area, (of its boundary) then it would make perfect sense. ok i found the actual thing that created cognitive disonance. the 101 did told the topic in wrong order. black hole is just an application of theorem but the initial thought cause of theorem.  cause i mean one can attribute to many things to entropy be that much overall. not only this holographic nature definition. 

ok now that my cognitive disonance is resolved, lets continue. 

its just because they told the inventors of this faculty of thought created this idea from entropy of black holes being possibly surface area wise related (not volume related) 

but i dont think the authors of this theorem did 1900s positivism type "oh this is inversely squared related!" type simplistic thinking in that. of considering switching from volume to surface topology definition. its just they told it as if its 1800s 1900s some science formulaes simplified positivism thought practices were involved in invention of this thoughts/ideas. 

but why complain about idea being told with over simplified positivism methods (as if reading 1900s 1800s science inventions )  when listening to 101 introduction of an idea. of course the 101 wuold tell it in oversimplified fashion. 

so now that my cognitive disonance is resolved regarding holographic principle topic, we can resume studying to ml algos. 

then I detected original controlled instability of such AdS definitions discussions. which says its in some perturb configs black holes  would easily form and the entire space time might be instable in such consideration.  (which is evidence that universe is not Ads then) 

and i saw somewhere else that there is evidence that its not AdS. 

lets see and read more later. 

hmm task of resolving my curiosity to holographic principle is also resolved/concluded.

my conclusion -> could universe be like that? definitely yes, it makes alot sense to universe be like that due to entanglement topic specifically.

I think this is the most made sense universe idea i ever read (I mean per single universe definition. multiverse is just many many worlds interpretation extension to theorems) but i think i definitely label string theory wise this holographic principle universe theory as one universe theory that really seems to be  very sound/logical/complete from my initial impression to the theorems. 

its just because i read last hours about this because I last night listened space time topics and it mentioned this holographic universe topic and I said what the heck is a holographic universe and upon last 2 or 3 hours readings I understood what the fuss is about in that (as idea wise).  so this task of curiosity has been completed. (which disrupted my today's ml algos this week sprint' stdy time for today evening. but nevertheless these topics i also need to learn 2 months later.  so not a loss of time. but lea\rning these definitely normally not a task of this sprints nor of 0.1 version either.  but 1.0 version  of ml algos version requires learning these topics of theoretical physics theorems quite alot.  so its like I introduced me to 1.0 version sprint tasks slightest (but not because such sprint started but because curiosity of just simply wondering what the heck is a holographic universe?  how could 2d universe could be perceived as 3d? alike initially mind blowing queries which all became very clear upon listening to 101 introduction of holographic universe topic )

 

but still there is a lot doubt it actual theorem of universe is holographic principle. it is very logical and makes alot sense. but it could be something else either. hmm one does not need to think cohesive or variant spaces cohesive alike that. we can simply abstract more these topics. to abstraction level in tarski paradox wise thinking methodologies. hmm abstraction of space is one topic the topos theorists category theorists quite alot tackle. so yep i have some articles to read later on those aspect on how to define space time topic. i see that cohesive approaches is applied in current space time universe fabric metrics. what about noncohesive approaches? had not yet seen. but what i mean is, although this cohesive wise definitions wise holographic principle makes alot sense,  there is still alternatives yet to be thought specifically why so cohesive? is it because our perception implies universe is somewhat cohesive? we all know theoretical physics is all about not following intuition/perception right? :)  

soo, although in usual universe space time metrics wise, this holographic principle theorem stacks is one most making sense type theorem stack (of how universe is, i think the theorem i found most logical among all other universe theories i read)  but still we can not be sure if its like that. 

and one criticism more comes, its too cohesive type metrics wise definition. it can be other space topology which does not follow cohesive sets concept that all these space time methodologies in default follow. 

but if we followed cohesive sets wise space time definitions tradition, i think this holographic principle theory is the most made sense/most impressive/most making logic type space time theory i had ever read of. 

other theories i dont even consider as possible.

e.g. hmm panpsychism theories. no absolute no!  i mean could be but if universe were a big brain, then our part in it would not have any slightest idea of entire universe's consciousness. 

no a big no to such  panpsychism based universe theories,

i think among cohesive set topology world, this holographic principle is the most making sense type theory i had read of among theories i had yet seen (I had not seen all theories either) but this one seems very logical making alot sense. 

in my criticism to universe has consicousness wise universe theories, why i dont think its like that, because it just the original inductive assumption that every part of universe has some form of consciousness (even quarks?) that universe is overall a big brain alike with consciousness? 

ok one can not definitely strongly reject the possibility of consciousness raising from complex systems.

hmm alike one can not strongly reject existence of boltzmann brains.  although not same. (just doing analogy)

I mean it makes sense that consciousness can form from complex systems and the entire universe might have some consciousness thats not the part i reject, the part i reject is panpsychism.  the consciousness is an orchestrate inside complex systems. but would a neuron is conscious ? of course not.  so how could they link that to panpsychism from a big universe brain idea that made those ideas very unbelievable.  I mean universe having consciousness trait. the entire ultimate universe might really have consciousness (although doubtful)  but it wouldnt make panpsychism(that everything in universe has consciousness trait) any true due to that. (do a single neuron have consciousness? I dont think so. ) so if universe were a big brain, would neurons of it (maybe galaxies? ) would have consciousness? i again dont think so  same wise. the idea that consciousness comes from complex systems is true in mind soul  duality topics of course. but does not mean that a neuron has consciousness any at all. 

so due to these and that, this theory for instance I found kind of nonsound/nonlogical. (I mean theory of conscious universe, i think total failure as a theory imho its not sound even) 

so among cohesive set topology wise world, I think i found this holographic principle one most making sense universe model among theorems i had read yet. 

if i deemed cohesive set topology as the default, I would definitely would think universe is holographic alike most possibly. 

but, the thing is we also dont know yet if the set topology  there of space time is yet cohesive or not.  just because we perceive cohesive does not mean exactly it is cohesive.  (alike intuitionistic maths does not mean its direct intuition based alike analogy :)  (as intuitionistic maths rejects the idea of default direct intuition). so could be a well pointed analogy here. to say why dont we consider noncohesive set topologies for universe? (although we perceive the universe to be cohesive) 

no worries, ml algos would also tackle check noncohesive theories side also together with me.  

yep now resting time. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------