Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong? by Georgina Parry

Hello Georgina,

It appears you are still in the game. Good to see you made the finals (assuming there are no more chaotic oscillations). May the judges treat your work kindly, and see the value you bring to the table.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Georgina,

I see you perhaps a bit too nice. In other words, I would rather like you to not praise Einstein's relativity as an unquestionable fact but declaring externally existing foundational spacetime wrong. Minkowski credited Einstein, and he could also have credited Poincaré. I do not see any chance to ignore their redefinition of time and space and be nonetheless a good relativist fellow.

Relativity, in your opinion, is all about what will be observed and not about what is occurring at the foundational level of reality. You also think it is necessary to separate ageing from passage of time. In the explanatory framework you are using there can be no difference in time for anything as there is only one time to be at, which is the uni-temporal-Now.

Your essay is not the only one I see maneuvering between orthodox relativists and own more ore less common sense arguments. While your idea to alternatively explain redshift will perhaps not enlighten anybody, I very much appreciate and support your intention.

My own suggestion for resolving the matter is slightly different and definitely hurting to many: Observers and subject reality do not play any central role in it. You know, I am distinguishing alternatively between what has already become irreversible reality and what might possibly happen.

Spacetime is always thought like a model that is based on experience, i.e. its explanatory and predictive power necessarily relates to the past because it is obviously impossible even at the most basic level to know and consider all possible influences. You did perhaps mean about the same when you called spacetime emergent.

Best wishes,

Eckard

Dear Eckard thank you so much for your feedback.I will answer in two parts because of the length.

My highlighted basic false assumptions make it clear that I consider externally existing foundational space-time to be wrong.

Here they are listed again as in the essay....

1. Space time exists externally ﾃ--

2. Space-time is foundational ﾃ--

3. Time is a dimension of external reality ﾃ--

4. Gravity is caused by curvature of space-time ﾃ--

5. The visible Image universe (as seen) has material existence ﾃ--

6. Space and time began at the Big Bang ﾃ--

7. The universe is the space-time continuum past, present, and future fully formed by inflation from a singularity ﾃ--

Then I have another list of what must be correct assumptions:The first few here:

From what is known and what is required for a fully functional explanatory framework, without contradictions or paradoxes, these postulates can be given-

1. Space-time is an output from processing data that has undergone transmission delay of varying amounts.

2. Space-time is emergent.

3. Time is not a dimension of independently existing Object reality but is a dimension of observer fabricated Image reality.

It is clear from those lists that space-time is not supported as the foundational reality in which physics is occurring. Having said that Einstein's relativity and Minkowski space-time works to predict what will be observed and so are still useful. Though I understand that Hamilton's quaternion arrangement is more useful for example for navigation by jet pilots. I think both kinds of mathematics are dealing with potential sensory data transmission and how that data will be intercepted, rather than the arrangement of foundational sources of data that are existing in uni-temporal-Now.

Dear Eckard, Continuing my reply to you:

Your second paragraph does correctly summarize my stance on those matters.

With regard to my suggestion about red shift; I don't have enough personal knowledge of astronomy to have to hand the kind of evidence that would support the proposed cause. The proposed explanation does fit with the explanatory framework. It might be useful for me to examine which astronomical evidence -is- consistent with the scenario I have put forward and what would contradict it.

The very ideas that the Earth is the centre of an expanding universe seems to me to indicate that it is a 'subjective' perspective. Arising from the relationship between the Earth and the sensory data that is being received. The Earth is, I will argue, not a passive, static observer in an expanding universe but a moving observer moving away from the origin (source position at original emission) of the majority of the data received. I have previously likened it to looking out of the rear view window of a moving car. Collecting evidence for and against the static observer in expanding universe hypothesis and the moving observer 'rear view window' hypothesis might show that the latter one is more consistent with the evidence, rather than an unsupported theoretical alternative. Or it might not.

Eckard, I too think it is very important to make the distinction between what has occurred in foundational reality and what has not yet happened. At that level of reality there is only that which exists, which I say is actualised. The Open future is nothing, it is absolutely empty. I mean by emergent that the space-time reality is the -output- of data processing. That involves amalgamation of data that has taken different lengths of time (number of iterations of the Object universe) to arrive.So the seen parts are spread over time and space in that manifestation. It is a fabricated reality not the actualisation that exists independently of observation.

I hope these replies have clarified my position and you are able to see where our opinions align. Thank you for considering my essay, I am grateful. Georgina.

Hi Johnathan,

thank you for your good wishes.I received confirmation that I am a finalist from Brendan, when I enquired. Lets hope the work of all finalists is thoroughly considered against the judging criteria. Also taking account of other guidance to all competitors given on the FQXi site.

Good luck and all the best to you too. Georgina.

Dear Georgina,

As far as I can tell, what you are here calling "image reality" is any finite description recorded using classical information. If this is the case, the relationship between image reality and "object reality" is a semantic relationship: the former describes the latter in the formal sense of being a mapping from the latter to some collection of classical symbols that are related by some set of consistency rules.

If we suppose multiple instances of observation that occur in sequence (however the sequence is defined), then the sequence of resulting classical descriptions can be considered the execution trace of a virtual machine, i.e. as a set of representations generated by some algorithm or other. The task of reverse engineering is to discover the class of algorithms that could have generated any given sequence of descriptions. Even if a particular fixed input (e.g. "0") is assumed, this class is infinite; hence the practical task is to discover the smallest, or the handful of smallest, algorithms that will do the job. These algorithms are our theories - they are models of the unknown device (the object reality) with which we are faced.

Physics has set itself the task of developing a single model that generates all current observations, and moreover correctly predicts all future observations, at some uniform level of abstraction. One can ask, as I think you are, whether this is a reasonable goal. My own opinion is that it remains unreasonable until we have a far better understanding of our own characteristics as observers, i.e. a better understanding of the object-to-image mapping, than we have today. Obtaining such an understanding requires assuming large chunks of our current best model - for example, all the bits about brains and about how fMRI machines work - so the process is at best a quite uncomfortable bootstrapping. But I remain convinced that thinking about how we (and all of our ancillary apparatus) work as observers will eventually enlighten our physics.

Cheers,

Chris

Chris,

thank you very much for taking a look. The image reality is an output from processing of received data. It can have different forms depending upon what the observer is and thus how the data is processed into that output.A human observer's experienced reality is different from a photographic image. However both amalgamate data arriving together into a single output. Giving an image showing temporal as well as spatial spread. That's the important difference between the two sides of the reality interface. The Object reality is uni-temporal, the Image reality has temporal spread.

The Object reality is only ever the youngest version of itself. So space-time is not simply a map of that Object reality. A sequence of iterations of Object reality, which is an abstract concept not something having existence could be mapped to space-time. As the space-time fabrication is made up from data that has originated in different iterations of the Object universe and has taken different lengths of time to arrive.

How EM data and sound data travel though the environment is important as it is the data that is intercepted by the observer that is fabricated into his/her /its Image reality. That's where Hamilton's quaternions, or related maths may come in useful as they can describe the data spreading out (over a sequence of iteration of the object universe) from the source in space rather than on a flat space-time manifold.

I'll make this reply in two parts, so its not too much to read all in one go.

The Image reality output is whatever is produced. Eg. specks giving hue/ shade/intensity in the visual field or on a screen or photo -identified as objects. The output can be described mathematically. Which is another step away from the Object reality. That's what I think Minkowski space time is, IE a description of the Image reality OUTPUT or what will be observed. You will notice on the diagram 1. though Image reality itself -is- a type of reality, the space-time mathematics is a purely theoretical thing and so is outside of Object and Image reality. It only represents the Image reality, it is not the reality itself.

I agree knowing more about human perception may assist the development of physics, especially as it provides evidence that perception is not of the external reality itself but constructed by the function of the brain working with the input received. Though very interesting research,most observations in physics are not carried out by human beings but by far simpler artificial devices, and how they function to give an output is not difficult to comprehend.

It is possible to have both QM and relativity working together so long as it is understood that they are on different sides of a reality interface and need to be treated differently. The physics occurring at the foundational level is occurring in a "pre space-time" space ahead of the space-time reality that is observed /experienced. That might by the traditional way of thinking be considered the future. It is not. Space-time output lags behind the foundational actualisation of objects and co-occurrence of events. What is observed happening and what -is- happening are different. They are both in the same and only time but on different sides of the reality interface. !!!! One side is creating new potential input, and is also the data pool, and the other is the manifesting of the post processing output!!!!

The wave function can then be understood as a mathematical representation of the potential sensory data spread in the pre-space-time environment that might be formed into an observer's Image reality. For a macroscopic object the wave function relates to a real existing thing in the environment but for a single particle it relates only to the possibilities that might be observed, as which possibility is the undetected particle is not known. De-coherence or wave function collapse is then the switching from consideration of what is (or might be) as unobserved data in the foundational Object reality to what is observed, as a manifestation from the processing of received data.The string like paths of fermion particles and objects through the imagined sequence of Object reality iterations might also be theoretically considered. Though they only exist as those particles and objects in the youngest most recent iteration of they object universe.

I couldn't thoroughly explain the framework in the essay. Not only because of the character limit but because we were told not to make it about our "pet theories". Hope these posts help make it clearer. Thank you for your interest. Regards Georgina

Hi Georgina,

Congratulations for having moved on to the final phase of competition . . . very well deserved! I'll be looking for you among the ultimate winners.

Thanks for your kind words over on my blog. Much appreciated. At the risk of repeating something I may have mentioned to you in an earlier post, I hope you'll add Sir Arthur Eddington's book 'The Nature of the Physical World' to your list of "must read" books, in case you've not already done so. Written in 1928, it is a wonderful look into many of the topics near and dear to our hearts, and offers a bit of a "time capsule" of thinking from that era. The book is available from Amazon, among other sources. George Ellis recommended it to me, for which I owe him a debt of gratitude.

Best of luck to you for the future, here and elsewhere, Georgina!

jcns

Georgina,

This is something you might be interested in: http://fqxi.org/grants/large/initial.

You are far more organized than I, so I would just like add the basic germ of my own point, in terms of how reality/energy goes past to future, as information/structure goes future to past.

Just a thought.

Georgina,

A big part of the problem is that our brains are based on this process, so it becomes a bit of a hall of mirrors. The conceptual issue here is that the act of mentally focusing is equivalent to shorter waves and they, if we try to mentally freeze them as a bit of information, appear to be particles. To really encompass how this action contracts and dissipates, we have to essentially unfocus our minds. Think of your mind as focused, being the trunk of the tree. Now to perceive the many things(all that energy/information) being one thing, you have let your mind spread out like the branches. This takes some practice, because the mind is naturally spring loaded, in that as soon as some particular point of reference dings the sub-conscious, the mind zeros in on it. Survival instinct.

Another analogy is of awareness being like light and consciousness is a lens. When we use that lens to focus the light on a particular point, it creates shadow around that point, creating the effect of the point being alone and isolated. It is only when the lens is flat that the light shines over everything and it is continuous with the surrounding light/consciousness.

John,

that's a lot of analogy in one small post! You make a good point, which seems to me to be, that having a holistic perspective can be useful. I'm OK with the idea of all of the potential sensory data 'information' being regarded as one thing. In diagram 1 it's the data pool. I think it might also be thought of as the foundational reality corresponding to the the hypothetical universal wave function, as all of the ways in which the universe can be observed are simultaneously encoded in that potential data.

Georgina,

Another way to explain this is in terms of the distinctions between eastern, context oriented philosophies and between western object orient philosophies. Thislink only gives a very brief exposition, mostly focused on the construct of western thought, but it points in the direction of this dichotomy. Basically it's the difference between distinctions and how concentrating on them is reductionistic, as opposed to considering the connections and how this supposes holism.

In simple physical terms, these opposites are analogous to contraction and expansion and this leads to the dichotomy of mass/energy, as mass gravitationally contracts into points of reference, while energy tends to expand holistically and become "entangled," leading to ever larger "wholeness."

It's difficult to "see" both sides of the coin at the same time. Mostly it's about keeping in mind that the opposite does exist and this relationship flips back and forth, wave-like.

Georgina,

Another important point is how the hemispheres of the brain reflect this dichotomy, with the left, rational hemisphere processing information, while the right, intuitive side absorbing the energy of the present. Previously I pointed out has the left, serial side amounts to a clock function, while the right, parallel side is a form of thermostat.

I don't know if you have seen this famous TED talk by Jill Bolte Tayler, but it describes my point far better than I could.

She is a neuroanatomist who suffered a stroke in her left hemisphere and lived to tell about it.

Hi John,

thanks for your further thoughts. Yes I have seen that marvellous video.

Near the end of my essay I have tried to show that reductionism does not necessarily provide all of answers and that there are other ways of looking at science that can be fruitful or lead on to fruitful developments. The ones that I chose to highlight were Chaos theory, Wolfram's cellular automata, and Category theory. These could be regarded as ways of trying to interpret what is happening at the foundational level of reality but on a larger scale; incorporating relationships and their development through continual feedback or relationships of 'groups' and how these 'evolve'.

In the (RICP)explanatory framework the foundational reality exists over all scales and the emergent 'continuous' classical space-time reality is built up from the discreet input of photons (and other sensory data) to the sensory system or device. The difference is not just one of scale. I have talked a bit about the scale at which processes are considered and how the larger scale view can sometimes have more explanatory power than the reductionist view, an example being natural selection of individuals or populations. George Ellis's essay takes that idea further and is about that topic of how larger scale structure and higher levels of organisation affect causality.

Both the reductionist and holistic approaches are valid and useful,and as shown by the explanatory framework quantum and classical physics models are both valid and useful and not incompatible. The question might be asked which scale of analysis has the greatest explanatory power for this particular phenomenon or scenario? While not forgetting whether one is dealing with the emergent output or the foundational source reality.

Taking your "It's difficult to "see" both sides of the coin at the same time." out of context, I think it is quite easy for both sides of the coin to be seen simultaneously because it is only a matter of where the sensors that will receive the photon data emitted from the coin are located. If the simultaneous detections are relayed to split screen both sides will be seen together. The split screen would just make it easier to watch than having the coin images superimposed. What would usually be considered mutually exclusive states in superposition are formed into two different but co-existing observed Image realities.

Here's an amazing, brilliant video. Femto-photography Quote "Ramesh Raskar presents femto-photography, a new type of imaging so fast it visualizes the world one trillion frames per second, so detailed it shows light itself in motion." You tube.

More info. on the technique used for visualising light at a trillion frames per second.Camera culture MIT media lab. Interesting FAQ near the bottom of the page. Lots of other fascinating photography related projects and talks available via that site.

Georgina,

"The question might be asked which scale of analysis has the greatest explanatory power for this particular phenomenon or scenario?"

I think this is a very important observation, in that it arises from the dynamics of observation. We are constantly expanding or narrowing our fields of view in many different ways to describe and explain various aspects of reality. The result is in itself a kind of wave action, because like a gravitational black hole, too much focus and we lose all contact and perspective with context. Conversely a too broad view and the result is a dissipation of perspective that becomes too generic and flat. So we are constantly having to modulate our perspective in a dynamic fashion that is not always accepted by an establishment that needs some agreed on framework to exist. These accepted frames are necessary, but go through their own wave-like lifecycle, as they first grow in explanatory effectiveness and then become institutionalized, defensive and eventually isolated from the context and so wither away.

I guess I should have phrased the coin analogy as that we can't be two sides of the coin at the same time. In the wave analogy, we can't be going both directions at once.

In Jill Tayler's talk she makes this observation, " And I look down at my arm and I realize that I can no longer define the boundaries of my body. I can't define where I begin and where I end. Because the atoms and the molecules of my arm blended with the atoms and molecules of the wall. And all I could detect was this energy."

Simplistically, our left brain makes distinctions and our right brain makes connections. Obviously we need both, but while the distinctions are fundamentally necessary to have structure, the particular distinctions are subjective. The lines are like horizons; quite clear at a distance, but fade on examination. So the reality requires both sides of this coin and they are a larger whole, they still need to be separate, like polarities.

My brain is starting to go in several directions on this and I have to go to work,....

Georgina,

I kind of wandered off into the multitude of dichotomies there.

I do think some of the implications of what Dr. Talyor is saying have to be taken into consideration, not just from a physics standpoint, but a in psychological context as well. Consider:

"when you look at the brain, it's obvious that the two cerebral cortices are completely separate from one another.... The two hemispheres do communicate with one another through the corpus collosum, which is made up of some 300 million axonal fibers. But other than that, the two hemispheres are completely separate. Because they process information differently, each hemisphere thinks about different things, they care about different things, and dare I say, they have very different personalities.

Our right hemisphere is all about this present moment. It's all about right here right now. Our right hemisphere, it thinks in pictures and it learns kinesthetically through the movement of our bodies. Information in the form of energy streams in simultaneously through all of our sensory systems. And then it explodes into this enormous collage of what this present moment looks like.

Our left hemisphere thinks linearly and methodically. Our left hemisphere is all about the past, and it's all about the future. Our left hemisphere is designed to take that enormous collage of the present moment. And start picking details and more details and more details about those details. It then categorizes and organizes all that information. Associates it with everything in the past we've ever learned and projects into the future all of our possibilities.....But perhaps most important, it's that little voice that says to me, "I am. I am." And as soon as my left hemisphere says to me "I am," I become separate. I become a single solid individual separate from the energy flow around me and separate from you."

Think about that in the context of these paragraphs from the link I posted above:

""Good science" was therefore perceived as hypothesis testing and any theoretical statement is only valid if it can be empirically tested and verified (the verifiability principle). Karl Popper is reported as stating it was the wish to distinguish Einstein's theory from that of Freud, Adler and Marx, that led him to propose falsifiability as the criterion for separating science from pseudo-science. http://www.iep.utm.edu/cr-ratio/

This philosophical view of empirical testing was adopted by the Behaviourists such as B.F. Skinner, whilst psychoanalytic theories, amongst others, were dismissed as "untestable" or "unfalsifiable" and therefore without value. The logical positivist approach, whilst so widely adopted within scientific research, effectively dismissed all metaphysical and also theological statements as meaningless, along with phenomonology."

Now think of where the study of physics is now. It's all about information, measurement and statistics. The idea of the present as being physically real, as opposed to a relative point in a four dimensional geometry, is considered naive. Because energy cannot be completely defined, it is demoted to second order to information. Meanwhile math, the study of order and information, is effectively deified. Among the cognoscenti every variation of every concept is credited to whomever first espoused it and thus is differentiated. Any cross referencing of these ideas has to follow protocol. A recent example I have of trying to cross reference is a discussion I had with Lawrence on his thread, where I compared time and temperature to frequency and amplitude. Suffice to say, it was not an acceptable formulation. I've often had similar conflicts with Tom about very simple ideas, such as my observation about time. You might say the entire field has locked itself in the left brain and barred the door. Yet no matter how many 11 dimensional multiverses they spin out, it is perfectly ok, because there is a logical thread that can be drawn through all the steps. That the result might be a form of C.S. Escher sketch of stairs or waterfalls, isn't a problem, because if the math works, it must be real.

Which is to say this is not a situation which will succumb to reason. Something will have to happen, some observation or failed experiment that is so large it cannot be swept under the rug. Given all the dark energy, inflation, wormholes, multiworlds, etc. already under the rug, it will have to be huge. Then again, it might be just time. Future generations are not going to spend their careers worshiping at the alter of untestable theories and can only pick at the threads holding this picture together. We can only hope to give them something to think about.