Is This World a Two-Dimensional Projection? A Kyoto University Professor Explains the "Holographic Principle" and the "True Nature of Time"

Introduction: The Courage to Give Up on “Understanding” the World

“Is this world truly three-dimensional?”

What if this three-dimensional world we believe to be “reality” is actually nothing more than a “projection” of information drawn onto a distant two-dimensional plane?

It sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie, but this is the “holographic principle” theory, seriously debated at the forefront of modern physics. The video we introduce today features Professor Koji Hashimoto of Kyoto University, a leading figure in Japanese theoretical physics, in a discussion from ‘EXTREME SCIENCE’.

This video goes beyond mere science explanation. Starting with the mysteries of black holes, it delves into the fusion of AI and physics, and even the limits of human “understanding,” unfolding thrilling discussions that fundamentally challenge our perceptions.

Particularly striking is Professor Hashimoto’s “physicist’s perspective.” It’s a way of thinking that doesn’t accept the world as complex, but abstracts it to the extreme, extracting only the essence. And it’s a humble stance toward future intelligence, questioning how we should accept the “truths beyond human comprehension” that AI might uncover.

From Insight Dot’s perspective, this video is the ultimate teaching material for “deconstructing fixed notions (unlearning).” Watching concepts we take for granted—like “space,” “time,” and “understanding”—being deconstructed with surgical precision by physics is almost cathartic.

In this article, building on the video’s content, we’ll delve deeper into Professor Hashimoto’s words and explore, from our own perspective, the “hints for changing how we see the world” that can be gleaned from them. No physics knowledge is required. In fact, having no prior knowledge might allow you to enjoy this shocking worldview more purely.

Now, let’s embark on a journey where common sense crumbles.

The Holographic Principle: Is the World a “Shadow” of 2D Information?

The highlight of the video, and the most intellectually thrilling part, is the explanation of the “Holographic Principle.”

Simply put, it’s the hypothesis that “gravitational phenomena in our 3-dimensional space (plus time) are mathematically equivalent to quantum-mechanical information existing on its boundary in two dimensions.” Professor Hashimoto explains this as: “All information in this universe is stored somewhere far away on a surface, and the space and gravity we perceive are merely projections (holograms) of that.”

“Information that falls into a black hole must be considered as accumulating on its surface. Taking this seriously, while spacetime should exist inside, it is ultimately determined on the surface. In other words, everything within curved space or time might be entirely determined on the surface. This is the holographic principle.”

Koji Hashimoto

This paradigm shift profoundly challenges our sense of “existence.” We feel we possess solid three-dimensional substance and exist within this space. But if the essential information resides on a two-dimensional “surface,” then perhaps we ourselves are merely “shadows,” like characters in a movie projected onto a screen.

In daily life, we often become too fixated on “visible reality”—the troubles before our eyes, material possessions, physical distances. Yet the holographic principle suggests these are merely “projected results,” while the essential “information” might reside in another dimension.

What happens when we apply this to life?

For instance, the heavy phenomena we face—worries, stress, like “gravity”—might actually be complex projections of simpler dimensional information, merely “appearing heavy.” Rather than solving problems three-dimensionally (by confronting them head-on), rewriting the “information” (our perceptions or assumptions) that serves as their projection source could potentially change reality in an instant. The holographic principle offers this meta-cognitive perspective.

The “assume it’s a sphere” approach, not “counting passengers”

Professor Hashimoto’s story about crowded trains, illustrating a physicist’s way of thinking, was particularly fascinating. Faced with the emotional cry of “dying on a packed train,” a physicist first reframes the question as “how many people are on it?” and then approximates humans as “spheres” for calculation.

“The essence of physics is this: when a question arises, you must refine it properly into a definable form usable in physics. […] Let’s assume humans are spheres. Then the problem becomes: how many spheres can be packed into the rectangular box that is a single train car?”

Koji Hashimoto

At first glance, this might seem like a cold, impersonal approach. Yet it contains a crucial wisdom for solving complex problems: the power of abstraction and approximation.

We often get bogged down trying to grasp problems in excessive detail. Questions like “Why is that person in a bad mood?”, “What will happen to my pension?”, or “What is the meaning of this job?” become overwhelming when we try to hold onto them as a jumble of variables. Our brains would simply overload.

But by making bold approximations, like physicists who “assume humans are spheres,” we can extract only the problem’s skeleton and reduce it to a computable state. This isn’t “cutting corners”; it’s a technique for “seeing through to the essence.”

Insight Dot’s proposed “lightweight thinking” aligns with this. Rather than attempting to process 100% of all information, we boldly “approximate” and process everything except the parameters crucial to us. This reduces the computational cost of thought, freeing energy to focus on more essential questions. The physicist’s approach to thinking can be seen as a powerful life hack for navigating our information-saturated modern world.

Learning Physics: The Future Where AI Transforms “Understanding”

The discussion on “Machine Learning Physics” in the latter half of the video presented shocking content that foreshadows the future of intelligence. It involves using the principles of physics to understand AI (neural networks) and, conversely, attempting to discover new physical laws using AI.

Particularly striking was the observation that the deep learning process of neural networks shares mathematical similarities with gravitational theory (the structure of spacetime).

“A black hole is the surface of space. Once you enter, you cannot escape. Neural networks also have an output for data. (…) We build theories by thinking of them as being the same kind of thing.”

Yukishi Hashimoto

The “learning” process occurring within our brains might be described using the same mathematical principles as the formation of the universe’s “gravity” or “spacetime.” This is the moment where the “micro (brain)” and “macro (universe)” connect, evoking a mystical intuition akin to “as above, so below.”

The discussion then moves to the topic of the Singularity: “What will humans do when AI creates intelligence surpassing our own?” Professor Hashimoto’s perspective is remarkably calm and hopeful.

“Suppose AI proves a theorem. If that theorem becomes so long that humans couldn’t read it even in a lifetime, humans couldn’t participate in that process, right? (…) But we can simply increase the portion humans can understand.”

Koji Hashimoto

What this forces us to confront is a redefinition of the concept of “understanding.” Science until now has been about translating nature into forms humans can comprehend (mathematical formulas and logic). However, the laws and proofs AI discovers might be far more high-dimensional, potentially exceeding the cognitive capabilities (and biases) of the human brain.

The video posed this question: If AI created a movie 100 times more interesting than The Godfather, but it took 300 years to watch it, could humans still call it “interesting”?

Rather than dismissing this as “unfathomable” or “boring,” we should instead see it as an opportunity to glimpse previously unseen aspects of the universe through the “new eyes” of AI. Letting go of our anthropocentric obsession with “understanding” and accepting coexistence with an unknown intelligence—that may be the scientific attitude of the next generation.

Free Will and Determinism: Is Everything Predetermined?

A mention of “free will” in the conversation, delivered casually yet deeply resonant, stood out. Professor Hashimoto stated unequivocally, “I believe free will does not exist.”

“(I believe there is no free will). I do think that. It does cause problems in daily life, though. If you say something like that, people think you’re crazy (laughs).”

Yukishi Hashimoto

From a physics perspective, once the initial conditions of the universe are set, the subsequent motion of elementary particles is entirely determined by physical laws (like the Schrödinger equation). Since our brains are also made of atoms, the firing of their electrical signals is entirely governed by physical laws. This view holds that there is no room for a subject called “I” to freely choose anything.

So, if there’s no free will, are we just mere “puppets”? Does that mean effort and reflection are meaningless?

The crucial point here is whether we perceive the absence of free will as “nihilism” or as “acceptance.”

If everything is predetermined, we needn’t excessively regret our failures or past actions. Regrets like “If only I had chosen the other path back then” are merely suffering born from the illusion of free will. We can also become more tolerant of others’ actions. Their behavior stems not from “malice,” but from the physical outcome of countless overlapping factors.

As Professor Hashimoto stated, “considering it as a systemic problem”—this perspective focuses not on blaming individual intent, but on adjusting the inputs (environment or mechanisms) that produce such outputs (actions). Isn’t this a remarkably rational and compassionate approach to solving all problems in modern society?

Admitting “there is no free will” is not an abdication of responsibility. Rather, it is the path to the ultimate “mindfulness” – shedding the burden of an uncontrollable self and living as part of this vast cosmic flow, observing phenomena calmly yet with deep interest.

Conclusion: The Joy of Solving the Cosmic Puzzle

What struck me most through this video was the profound depth of physics as a discipline and the intellectual integrity of researcher Dr. Koji Hashimoto.

The mysteries of the universe deepen the more we solve them. Dark matter beyond the Standard Model, the dimensional riddles hinted at by the holographic principle, and the human-less science AI is pioneering. Yet, faced with this “unfathomability,” physicists don’t despair; instead, their eyes sparkle like young boys.

“If the logic holds, we accept it—even if it defies common sense.” “It’s precisely because there are things we don’t understand that it’s fascinating.” This attitude may be the most crucial lesson we should learn.

Our daily lives, too, are filled with unpredictable chaos. We don’t know what tomorrow will bring, and the inner workings of others’ minds are essentially unknowable, like black holes. Yet, rather than letting this “uncertainty” breed anxiety, we should embrace it as a puzzle to solve. When we encounter situations where our common sense (three-dimensional thinking) fails, we should find it intriguing and think, “An interesting hypothesis has emerged.”

This is precisely where Insight Dot’s pursuit of “consciousness transformation through intellectual inquiry” lies. Contemplating theories about the edge of the universe is the ultimate tool for reinterpreting the everyday reality right here, right now.

Next time you’re clutching a strap on a crowded commuter train, pause and consider: “Perhaps this packed train is just a projection of two-dimensional plane information.” Doing so might make the discomfort of being crammed together feel slightly detached, or perhaps like an intriguing physical phenomenon.

The world is a far stranger, freer, and more beautiful place than we imagine.