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

Continuing from argument set out in previous post ....

The production of potential sensory data is something very different from the receipt and processing of the data. So I would not regard shaving as being the analogy of production of the data which is continual but the analogy of the act of receiving and processing the data from the external environment which can be intermittent. The shaver is not shaving when the observer is not looking. Analogy:'Lens cap on'.

You wrote, Quote " Point is, one cannot exclude the "barber" from the set of those being shaved without adding a layer of non-physical interpretation to the physics." I can quite easily exclude him by not having him look in a mirror and observe himself. I do not see the great problem in that.

If I recall correctly the barber paradox can be overcome by having a third person shave the barber under instruction from the Barber himself. So whether the barber is or is not shaving himself becomes a matter of opinion, it depends, rather than being definitely one or the other. There is a similar 'grey area' if one consider's whether the observer is or is not seeing himself when he looks in the mirror. So upon reflection : ), I think the barber problem is quite a good parallel of the necessary oddity in the construction of the RICP framework. The oddity is not a fault in the framework but a reflection of the nature of reality and truth which is not as simple as appearances and 'naive' logic suggest.

Hi Georgina,

"If I recall correctly the barber paradox can be overcome by having a third person shave the barber under instruction from the Barber himself. So whether the barber is or is not shaving himself becomes a matter of opinion, it depends, rather than being definitely one or the other."

That doesn't resolve the paradox of self-reference. The paradox *can* be resolved if the barber is a woman or a young man who doesn't shave -- because the barber is then a member of the set who don't shave themselves. All of this can be formally expressed in set theory.

The real point is, though, that there will always remain paradoxes of self-reference in physically real theories, that can't be resolved. (See e.g., Michael Goodband's book, *On the incompleteness of physically real theories.*)

And "physically real" is what physics is concerned with.

"There is a similar 'grey area' if one consider's whether the observer is or is not seeing himself when he looks in the mirror. So upon reflection : ), I think the barber problem is quite a good parallel of the necessary oddity in the construction of the RICP framework."

Yes, it's in the class of logical paradoxes of self reference.

"The oddity is not a fault in the framework but a reflection of the nature of reality and truth which is not as simple as appearances and 'naive' logic suggest."

Right. One has to include the metaphysically real in order to account for all of the physically real.

Tom

Incidentally, Russell developed "type theory" because of this paradox. But, of course, it's not actually implemented in standardized fashion by physicists, which is why 95% of arxiv is inconsistent nonsense -- no type safety or other automated consistency checks that have been implemented in computer science (the only science hard enough to be automatically self-correcting) for, oh, decades and decades and decades now. All they got is just raw prejudice. :)

- Shawn

(To be fair, vixra and FQXi are at least trying to do something about that prejudice, though in the same relational format as arxiv. It's very sad to see the physicists squirm and say stuff on their blogs like "nothing of historical value will come from either", because clearly that's not true. Maybe I should donate my Movember funds to help eradicate the scourge of professional myopia that plagues this world!)

Shawn,

thank you for your reference to type theory. I think you are correct in that there are logic errors in physics because of the omission of the kind of type safety or consistency checks used in computing to prevent bugs, that you have mentioned. Computers programmers presumably do not think it an unnecessary luxury or encumbrance but essential for correct functioning.

I have often said, in various ways, that physicists must be aware of which aspect of reality they are dealing with and not confuse them. I can now see that as an appeal to have 'types' assigned to different 'ideas of things' and to ensure that different types are not used interchangeably. There are 3 distinct types that I have focussed upon; 1.matter, 2. potential sensory data,3.output of sensory data processing. The hierarchy being that the data is formed from the emission or reflection from material sources and the output formed from the processing of data. To illustrate the problem; the name of a thing can refer to its material form made of atoms, it can also refer to the data encoding the form of the thing within the environment and it can refer to the observed manifestation of the thing. The manifestation is just an image and does not have the same atomic structure as the material form, or the spatially extended nature and many 'possibilities' within the potential sensory data.

Rather than it being seen as a terrible thing that physics requires 'de- bugging' to remove logic errors it could be seen as a marvellous opportunity that will keep physicists busy for some considerable time. There are a lot of papers to go through and analyse. Though some work will have to go on the scrap pile because the errors can not be easily rectified, other work could be 'tweaked' into shape or reinterpreted to give a useful outcome or insight for further development. I don't think AI is yet sufficiently capable of decoding natural language to manage the task alone.

Tom,

thanks for the opportunity to discuss the issues you raised. It has been helpful and informative for me. That there is correspondence with known mathematical oddities does not trouble me as I think it demonstrates that the structure is as it should be. Thanks for the reference too.

I think Shawn's insight has been helpful as well. The Object and Image reality sets do not fit neatly together because they are fundamentally different kinds of things, different types. The Image reality is illustrated in a way that is neither fully contained by the Object reality nor not contained but shown instead on a different level. That is not due to an error in the framework but the nature of reality and truth that becomes a problem when trying to represent it in an easily comprehensible diagrammatic form, and has been even harder to clearly explain verbally.

Hi Georgina,

I am a little more hopeful about the AI. I will probably discuss this in a year or two, and maybe even release the code that I have. I call it Dali.

- Shawn

Georgina,

In my highschool yearbook, I used the quote, 'Argue your limitations and sure enough they are yours.' Since then I've come to realize it is what sets our limits and how we respond to them that is what makes us who we are. Today it was occuring to me the most important and most taken for granted barrier is not the walls around us, or the ceilings over our heads, that both protect and also limit us, but the floor under our feet. For without it being solid, we cannot push upward and outward.

I have to say, my floor did somewhat give away, but I'm not sure if I'm only falling, or I am starting to fly.

Georgina,

I have browsed through your essey, and I am quite surprized that I agree with you so much. Your diagnosis of the PROBLEMS is very perceptive and I wonder how you arrived at those ideas?

As to the SOLUTIONS that you proposed, I will not comment.

Zbig www.worldsci.org/people/Zbigniew_Modrzejewski

Is Einstein's Greatest Work All Wrong--Because He Didn't Go Far Enough?

Georgina

As per your last post on Ben's blog.

How do what you call Object & Image Reality have a physical relationship?

And incidently, the point I made thre was not about time, it was about existence, ie the 'future' does not physically exist.

Paul

Paul,

there is nowhere for the Image reality to be other than within the Object reality. It is Image reality because it is the product (output) of amalgamation of sensory data that has been -received- together, or in close 'temporal 'proximity' i.e. received in the same iteration or over a short sequence of iterations of the Object universe. (Not necessarily emitted from its origin together or in close 'temporal proximity'.) We are within the Object universe but view the Image world and Image universe.

I thought the temporal panorama photographs that I linked to on Jiggling Atoms:The art of Physics were really interesting because they show a different kind of image also formed from received data but looking at the changes to small slice of 3D space 'over time', laying out the sequence; not data sampled over a larger area of space and received together or in close 'temporal proximity''. It looks very strange because that is not how the world is usually seen. Interesting how the length of the 'objects' seen in those panoramas depends upon the speed at which they pass by the observer.

The relationship of image and object reality is also very interesting from a mathematical point of view. Difficult to represent with sets because the Image reality is within the Object reality spatially but is also something different, a different type of reality compared to the Object reality. That difference is represented by the different level in diagram 1.

Georgina

You have not answered my question, which was: How do what you call Object & Image Reality have a physical relationship?

Paul

Paul,

I do not know what you require. I have answered -how- they are able to have a relationship - they are both within the Object reality despite being differentiated into different aspects, or types, of reality. It is difficult to represent that diagrammatically. Not a trivial matter nor a misunderstanding on my part. I have previously, on numerous occasions, described their relationship, (i.e. What it is).

Perhaps you have some specific meaning of the word 'how' that you want addressed , if you could explain what that is perhaps I can answer your question satisfactorily .

Georgina

"I do not know what you require"

An answer to my question: How do what you call Object & Image Reality have a physical relationship?

You are describing various forms of relationship, which may or may not be correct, but I am not interested in those, because they are not physical.

Paul

Dear Paul,

I have really tried. You do not have to like what I have written. Goodbye and good luck.

Georgina

It is not a case of whether I like what you have written, just the same as what label you chose is irrelevant.

The answer to my question is that there is no physical relationship between what you call the image and object realities. There cannot be a physical relationship between perception/knowledge and a physically existent reality, because perception/knowledge is not physically existent.

And that is the whole point, in this context. Perception/knowledge, ie what results from the processing of physically received input, and indeed the processing itself, is irrelevant to a physical theory, which is supposed to be explaining physical existence physically. Not explaining it on the basis of quirks in the retina, or memory, or different sides of the brain, or early learning procedures, etc, etc. And if a physical theory is reliant on such variables, then it is invalid. Physics is physics. Not physics with a sprinkling of biology, psychology, etc.

Paul

No Paul you are so wrong.

Here is some experimental evidence to show that the output even when it is located in a person's brain has a physical existence underlying the manifestation being observed. If that were not the case it would not be possible to use the physical changes that are occurring during perception or thought to manifest that output in another form.

mindreading software could record your dreams

Mind Reading from Brain Recordings? 'Neural Fingerprints' of Memory Associations Decoded

scientists invent mind reading system that lets you type with your brain

mindreading scan locates site of meaning in the brain

That is just a small selection of very many articles available on the web concerning the subject. Interdisciplinary science is the future because the separation of nature into the separate sciences is an artificial division.

You demonstrate very clearly time and again a lack of understanding of my work. I do not care for any more of your imposing destructive criticism and inconsiderate, incorrect opinions.I hope to hear no more from you.

Georgina

"Here is some experimental evidence to show that the output even when it is located in a person's brain has a physical existence"

Yes it is electrical impulses, or whatever. Just like books are physically ink and paper. And in a computer it is......

The output is perception/knowledge, ie whether it is subjective or objective is irrelevant to this point. It is thoughts. These are not, other than in the sense noted above, which is not your argument, physically existent. Another way of putting this, which you have agreed with previously, is that perceptions/knowledge can have no effect whatsoever on physical existence, because a) all forms of existence occurred before processing, b) the front end of that processing does not physically interact with what is commonly referred to as reality, but with a physically existent representation of it (in the context of the sensory systems), usually referred to as light, c) and the only effect the front end of the processing has on that physically existent input is to cause its cessation. In just the same way as the physically existent state of light ceases in that form when it hits a brick wall as opposed to an eye.

Interdisciplinary science is certainly not the future, in the way you present it. It is the recipe for complete confusion. Because, contrary to what you assert, separation in nature which can be reflected in the separate sciences, and that is not an artificial division. As I said in Jonathan's blog, and elsewhere, it would be of interest, obviously, to understand this processing. But it can only be irrelevant to physical theories, because as I have just pointed out (again) the processing does not impinge upon physical existence. It affects perception/knowledge thereof, which we then have to counteract, etc in order to establish what occurred physically.

Paul