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

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?

Hi Zbigniew,

Thanks for the link to the article about Julian Barbour's work. I have read some articles about it here on FQXi, watched the videos,read his FQXi essay competition entries, read his web site and he did briefly explain some of what he was doing on the blog forum. Which I appreciated very much. He does explain things very patiently and clearly. Interesting, educational and thought provoking. I understand what he is doing a lot better now but our 'visions' are not, as I see it, entirely compatible. Which does not imply that I do not respect his abilities and what he has achieved or underestimate its potential usefulness.

Thank you very much for taking a look at my essay.

I've been thinking aloud on this web site for a number of years. The explanatory framework, as presented in diagram 1, was developed and discussed after the last essay contest. The development of the diagram can be seen on the discussion thread of last year's competition entry. Thinking about the problems that require resolution and how that can be achieved, talking, 'listening', reading, evaluating has sort of gone hand in hand with the development of the solution. The online feedback I have received from posting on this site, the many articles and resources too have been useful. It has made me think carefully; evaluating my thoughts and opinions and looking at things in different ways. I have considered what problems it solves as evidence in favour of its correctness.

I did, of course, also do some preparation for writing the essay which including discovering what professional physicist consider to be the big problems in need of resolution, giving me a more comprehensive list. The red hat dislikes are personal, what I feel about the status quo. Related to my life and learning about religious and spiritual matters rather than physics.

At this time I consider the solution, the explanatory framework, far more interesting, exciting and amazing than the problems it solves. But that was not what the essay was about because we were reminded that the essay contest should not be used as an excuse to just present our own pet theories.

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

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

Paul, you will now LEAVE ME ALONE! I have wasted far too much time on you and I am astounded by your insensitive attitude. As you have ignored my polite hint in plain English that further communication from you is unwelcome,I will request that any further posts from you are removed from this thread by the site Admin. Hopefully you are capable of understanding that. .... ... .....

Thank you for suggesting this- Argument Clinic, Monty Python. You tube video ...Can't stay angry, not even with myself, while laughing.