Are you proposing that science is the holographic image that you're thinking of?

I admire the argument, however, this hologram must be in a distinct location in order for our 'beams' to create our representation of the world. And where would this location be? Yet another hologram? So that would entail; a hologram inside a hologram and an infinite continuous loop of holograms with no explanatory location. Moreover, what is referred to as the self, that must also be a hologram right? Would that then make our minds part of this hologram or a materialistic representation of what our minds tend to be?

Why must there be material things. There is no need for material substance to formulate ideas. Why wouldn't there be a distinction between minds and the world? The mind is something inexplicable to the human. We can't concieve of the mind, nor can we experience it. However we can be certain that they exist as we are able to think, feel and fear.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

What are you having trouble with?

What sustains us? The wall? What sustains the wall?

If you continue reading on you will realise that my argument was to remove the wall (world) and support the fact that there are just minds and there cannot be a wall for us to lean on because we wouldn't need one.

It may be impossible for us to be able to put ourselves in the position of our future locations, but the break in the wall remains doubtful to me; as when you walk around a circular wall you have no idea what is to come, yet you are still able to walk with the same wall adjacent to you. In other words, if there were a break in the 'wall' there would be no intention of us progressing to the future (the broken wall) as it would be detached from existing in time. Though it may be correct that what hasn't happened does not yet exist, but the intention for there to be a future does. Therefore, it is only logical that there must be a 'wall' for us to continue down to process, as we progress in journeys with a similar was adjacent to us. It seems as if it is the same concept, However I do admire your premises.

Of course, I agree that the 'wall' is a confinement that we rely on for many reasons. And the world has had many advances; making rapid progress from past to the future to come. However, I don't know if there would be a break, I would just say that there is a evident change in the wall.

I think differently, Being trapped in a deprivation tank will deny our access to our senses, yes. But who is to say that we will be unable to still think, hope, fear and dream? There are things about the world that we possibly can figure out through the deduction and intense thought. Perhaps this is the only way that we can retain true knowledge as we may be under a deceptive spell to believe that we exist. It is not a matter of a person loosing their mind. It's a matter of someone creating something in their own mind, in order to substitute for the world they are being deprived of. Thus suggesting that maybe we rely on this deceptive barrier around us that we call existance?

Indeed we must need justification. So what may your justification be for the existence of the world and our cerebral minds that are seen to be beings? Furthermore, it is imperative that we go beyond scientific and statistical reasoning as they are all based on mathematics. We cannot define and identify certain short comings of the world by numbers and statistics; because numbers don't exist. Thus forcing us to branch into further realms of thought in order to understand how the world works. Physics and mathematics are a foundation based on statistical facts that logically do not exist.

I disagree, The mind cannot be housed in the world, if we assume that everything that we experience are just ideas. You can't have something 'real' be a product of an idea that is passive in our own minds, could you?

That is indeed interesting, I believe that the world does indeed need the mind to exist - giving that we all have a representation of it that we cannot really distinguish between that of the "real world" - but does the mind really need the world to exist? Assume that we were just minds, how would we know of our surroundings if we aren't aware of ourselves prior to us being able to figure out that we can think, feel, hope and fear. Without our physical representation of our bodies, the mind and the world. Therefore, Can we really be sure that the mind needs the world in order to exist?

I agree, for us to remain alive we must keep sustained and we can only do so by using the world as a wall to lean on. However, our needs and the existence of the world could possibly be all ideas in our mind. Assuming we were just minds without the means to eat, sleep, survive; what wall would there be to lean on? We wouldn't need one, so could that suggest that even our primal needs are just figments of our imagination, and something that we never truly experience?

My strong approach to this question would be, forever and always, that we can never be made up of what is defined by mathematics. Sciences, such as physics, that defines most of the world's secrets are based mostly upon math. But how can we judge the existence of time, space and ourselves on merely things that don't exist themselves. What are these things? Numbers! Numbers do not exist, therefore basing the whole idea of our existence along with space, time and other things must also not exist. Moreover, there must be some other logical way that we could exist. Or maybe not one atall.