>>11974794>Let me try to dumb it down for others. Let me review your post.
>There is no singularity inside a black hole.yes, this is basically true in the sense that the holographic interpretations of black holes show that there is no place where the equations "break down" like old-fashioned GR says there is. holography implies it is all normal and fine and there is no place where things break down. OK.
>The surface, the event horizon, is all there is. It's all there can be.well, no, in holography there still is an interior. you can still fall into a black hole and a firewall doesn't kill you, in many holographic interpretations.
> And this surface, being a surface, is obviously two dimensional. This is what our universe most closely resembles.yes.
> The three dimensional space around you is nothing more than an elaborate illusion.no. it's not an illusion, it's more a dual representation of the holographic representation. the two representations are equally valid, but the normal 4D world is a bad representation when you are trying to understand space at/inside the event horizon. the normal description breaks down here and the holographic description works much much better (i.e. "all i get is infinities" versus "oh a normal thermal state.")
> The world is flat, so to speak.in a sense, yes, but anons on /sci/ are 99% likely to misinterpret what you are saying as implying something like flatearth of r/holofractal. and both of those are complete nonsense
