It gets into the particle physics alot, but not the mind.
What would the external world, or particles, math, information be without mind to think of these things?
Reality is my experiencing of it. My mind, the internal, and the world, the external, experience, are inseperable. Spiritual beliefs tell us that this duality of internal and external are an illusion, that the two are one and the same.
It all what I call the Living Biocentric Virtually Holographic Programmed Universe (over time I'll learn new things and I'll have to add more words to that description). It an incomplete theory, on account of the more we learn the more mind will create more things to ask questions about.
I think so anyways.

ebb101:
Shorten it a wee bit?
SHORTEN IT A WEE BIT?!
I already dropped the words 'evolutionary' and 'novelty'.
Two very important words.
I can only make the description longer, not shorter.
But that's me, it should be simple, that's what Steve McConnell said.
I'll call it:
The Living Biocentric Evolving And Virtually Holographic Universe Of Novelty.
:)

I'm calling it the LiBi EV HUN

I finally got a chance to watch this program (all four parts) - it was very well done; thanks for posting, Neo. And it included some of my favorite thinkers and experimenters - Max Tegmark and Craig Hogan. I do have a few comments:

1. I absolutely can not wait until Tracy writes up his LiBi EV HUN treatise. Bound to shake the foundations of physics to their core!

2. I agree with ebb101's idea that a consciousness-based reality theory should have been included in this potpourri of reality ideas. Or, at a minimum, a simulation theorist like myself or Nick Bostrom at least should have been included. What is Horizon afraid of??? And how do I get "The Universe - Solved!" noticed by programs like this?

3. It is ironic that Leonard Susskind was given credit for thinking of the holographic paradigm in 1993 when Michael Talbot's mainstream book "The Holographic Universe" was published in 1991 and David Bohm's holographic paradigm of the universe dates from the 1980's. In my humble opinion, that whole idea of mapping 3-dimensional reality onto a 2-dimensional surface of a black hole is a red herring. The information that encodes our world doesn't have to be at "the edge of the universe"; it can just as easily be encoded anywhere else. Any number of dimensions can be encoded mathematically in any construct that you want to think of, such as a programmatic data structure in a computational mechanism. The black hole diversion makes no sense.

4. What Craig Hogan is doing is a great and ground-breaking experiment. However, it is NOT testing whether or not reality is holographic. It IS testing whether or not reality is quantized. If his results prove positive for quantization, that would validate any number of theories based on an information-based reality, including but not limited to Programmed Reality. If his results prove negative for quantization, it does not negate any particular theory, but rather may generate some maximum level of resolution for a potentially quantized universe.

5. Is pluralizing "math" into "maths" a British English thing?

6. Tegmark's comments about reality being described in purely mathematical terms, was interesting. If reality can be completely described mathematically, is that the same as saying that the fundamental building blocks of reality are information? "As we peel back the layers, we are discovering the code." I think that Max is on his way to recognizing the validity of the Programmed Reality model.

I watched this programme when it originally aired on BBC 2, because I live in England. We are lucky to get good quality documentaries like this. Normally we are forced to endure reality TV, repeats and cheap shows.

Tracy, I look forward to this theory you have devised.

...

This happens all the time in the UK. We get documentaries on reality, biology (DNA), cosmology, etc yet the scientists/physicists rarely mention The Simulation Argument, cellular automata or digital physics. The only programme I remember viewing that went into more detail was something called, What We Still Don't Know (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf66bCMA_Uk), on Channel 4 about 7 years ago. Great show, but we need more up-to-date stuff. Jim, have you thought about making your own documentary film? And, one time there was a programme dedicated to Edgar Cayce and Akashic Records on The History Channel. But, again, we need more up-to-date case studies.

I wish Nick Bostrom and Stephen Wolfram (author of A New Kind Of Science) would be more vocal like Jim. Some of the things that Stephen says is so interesting like, "You mine the computational universe for programs that do interesting/useful things". He makes it sound like you can find any program you want. This reminds me of the Akashic Records again.

And, one of the highlights of the documentary was Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, because it's very similar to the programmed reality idea.

Don't worry Tracy, your secret's safe with me. ;o)

Jim:

I'm afraid it would be too similar to The Universe Solved. Even thought I'm not myself a huge fan of The Matrix, I'd have to start with that very same scene you did. My take on it would be, "The blue pill, or the red pill?" I've thought for much long time now that you should write a blog entry, or discuss here in the forum, your experiences and thoughts on writing, or having written such a great book!