The Perfect First Question. by T H Ray

Hi Ray,

very well written and interesting essay. You seem to have set out the arguments very clearly and nice illustrations too.(I will read it again carefully to try to fully understand everything you are saying.) Good luck in the competition.

I find the idea of 20 questions without an original solution an interesting thought. A bit like the game where you draw the head of an animal then fold the top of the paper over and pass it on, then the next person draws the body and the next the legs and the next the feet. The outcome is something (often monstrous, often funny ) that had not been decided prior to its completion.

Your ending for some reason made me think of the end of the book "Falling for science, asking the big questions" by Bernard Beckett. The ending is a story about a little girl who is crying . An evolutionary biologist, a biochemist and a string theorist each give their scientific explanations of what is occurring. Then her 4 year old brother hands her his ice cream. Quote:" It wasn't his ice cream that fell. He wasn't that careless. Then again she is his little sister, and she is crying, and he can make it alright. He thinks about this, takes one last delicious lick and passes over the dripping cone. The crying subsides. The sister looks up and smiles. Such is the art of living."

Tom

The given is physical existence. The physical truism given that start point is that that must occur one at a time (in any given sequence). The 'first question' is therefore: what was physically existent at any given point in time. Practical problems in answering that do not detract from the fact that at any given point in time there was a definitive physically existent state.

Also, we do not sense that which was physically existent. What we receive is, of itself, a physically existent phenomenon. But it resulted from a physical interaction with that state and another physically existent phenomena. It is all physics. It is just that, with the evolution of sensory systems, what is physically received, has an acquired functional role, ie it provides a representation to the sensory system of the physically existent state which was involved in the physical interaction which resulted in the physically existent phenomenon received (notwithstanding that it may have been physically altered in some respects due to physical interactions with other physical phenomena during its travel).

On the subject of that cat. If one follows the flawed logic through, then it will be the cat that is fundamental to what occurs, not a human observer later. But sensing in no way whatsoever has any effect on what physically existed, because that is not what was received, and it occurred before it was sensed. I just find it amusing that the cat was denied its sentient rights.

Paul

Hi Tom,

I second Georgina's remarks. What a wonderfully well-written essay! I now understand your complex argument much better. In just ten pages you have managed to convey an oceanful of thoughts.

Good luck with the contest.

Best,

Joy

Brilliant Tom!

James

Tom

"the origin of the physics"

Now that is an interesting way of putting it. The origin (or the basis) of physics must be how physical reality occurs (as far as we can know it, which is a superfluous caveat, because that is all there can be, but worth noting for clarity, ie we are not involved in religion or philosophy). Which is what I referred to as the given. And in the simplest of terms: physical existence is a sequence, and it is independent of sensory detection. And by definition, for any given point in a sequence to occur, and then subsequently re-occur differently, can only involve 'one at a time', because for the latest to occur, its predecessor must cease (this presumes there is some fundamental 'stuff', which there must be, otherwise there cannot be independent physical existence, which there is).

Since physical reality is so complex, that sounds naïve, but the monitor in front of you must have had, at any given point in time, a definitive physically existent state. It would be impossible for us to discern that, with the sheer volume of data, let alone ensuring the differentiation of that state from others, which actually occurred at different points in time. But our 'failure' is just that, a failure. The physical reality is unaffected.

Development of sensory systems in organisms involves the functional use (from the perspective of the system, actually it is yet another physical process) of certain physical components of this physical existence, thereby enabling them to have an 'awareness' of it (aka knowledge).

Paul

Paul, "the origin of the physics" is the only way to put it, not merely an interesting way. I repeat -- you take too much for granted. When one assumes properties of reality (e.g., "physical existence is a sequence, and it is independent of sensory detection") especially so categorically broad that one's assumption can be demonstrated by experience alone, one risks the delusion of naive realism.

Tom

Tom, thank you for commenting on my essay. Wheeler's idea of "the game of twenty questions in its surprise version" fascinates me. I'm behind in the essays, so I've only scanned through yours, but I look forward to reading it closer. Best of luck in the competition.

Tom

""the origin of the physics" is the only way to put it".

I agree.

"you take too much for granted. When one assumes properties of reality (e.g., "physical existence is a sequence, and it is independent of sensory detection")"

I do not agree. This is the given, the origin, the basis. Without that, we should all pack up and go home.

Forget all metaphysical possibilities, this is science. So:

1 Something physically exists independently of sensory detection, because not only is a physically existent phenomenon received (NB: physically received) by the sensory system, but also it is the result itself of an interaction between two other physically existent phenomena. The processing of this is irrelevant, the point is about what physically occurs extrinsic to any given sensory system. I am not interested in psychology, physiology, biology, sociology, and certainly not philosophy.

2 There are differences. There is an occurrence, then another occurrence. When compared, differences are identified.

3 For difference to occur, then at the very least, the same physically existent something must be involved in one difference.

Put simply: physical existence is a sequence. And a sequence can only occur 'one at a time', the predecessor must cease so that the successor can occur.

A sequence could be anything, the entirety of reality, you, the moon, St Paul's cathedral, an elementary particle.

Paul

Hi Tom,

I don't think the book "Falling for science, asking the big questions" by Bernard Beckett, is your cup of tea. It is to do with the questions of being alive, relevant to the finale of your essay, I thought - but the emphasis is on the search for meaning and therefore is a somewhat sceptical look at science, and the stories that we tell ourselves. Quote- "There is a world of difference between understanding the physics involved in floating, and lying back in a sparkling bay, soaking in the sun and feeling at peace with the world" Bernard Beckett.

I also didn't explain the game very well. The game ends when the paper is unfolded and the complete animal, which no one has previously seen or chosen, is revealed to everyone. The amusement is partly in the surprise, which would not happen if anyone knew what the other participants had drawn.If there is ever a dull moment to fill.....

Not important, but I didn't want to feel that you had been mislead by my earlier comments. I hope your essay gets lots of interest and positive feedback, which it deserves. Good luck.

Tom

Why is "this going nowhere" and what I write "strong opinions"?

Having properly ignored all metaphysical possibilities, there is something which is physically existent, it re-occurs. It is a sequence. That's it.

Sensory systems have evolved to take advantage of certain components of this something, which enables the identification of difference with the comparison of occurrences, and the order of occurrences. By definition, theses sensory systems are independent of physical existence, they just enable the possessor thereof to have a representational awareness of it.

I fail to understand where the "opinion" or the "naive realism" is in this, as a generic statement about what is, and how it is not foundational to physics, since that is supposed to be objective knowledge about what is. Starting on any other basis is doomed to failure, because that is how physical reality occurs (in simple language).

"what kind of sequence?" A sequence of physical existence, which is what I said, and you quoted, before then asserting it was a "nonsensical statement", and then asking this question. A sequence is an order, that is the definition of it. Obviously it is not "duration", that is a feature of the sequence as such, ie the rate at which difference occurs irrespective of the characteristic of the change. As I said, by definition, because it is all sequence, its "members" can be anything you wish to define ("A sequence could be anything, the entirety of reality, you, the moon, St Paul's cathedral, an elementary particle").

"what is the origin and how does one know?"

By definition, we cannot know. As I said above "having properly ignored all metaphysical possibilities". We can only scientifically investigate physical reality as manifest to us (much of which is not directly manifest because of practical problems in the sensory detection process, not metaphysical concerns), not what it might be on the basis of some belief.

Paul

Tom,

Was re-reading your essay. A thought occurred to me. What is one example of what you might have included if the page limit was sufficiently larger?

James

FQXi you merit better. Mr Tegmark, take your responsabilities and forget the false friends !!! It does not exist an universal faith for people loving the opulences and the lies !

Wake up Mr Tegmark !!!I know that you you are not a pseudo ! make a sorting in your team please, don't be troubled by their strategies and their plays.They are not real universalists!

Regards