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

    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.

    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

    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. .... ... .....

      3 months later

      Made this to try to emphasise and clarify the need for differentiation between different aspects of reality. Though it was meant to be simple, I thought it also needed explanation of its intended meaning. As I am not sure whether I had succeeded in conveying that. I also included an example to show how it works.So it looks quite busy. There may yet be mistakes in it but I am quite keen to share it and see if anyone has any comments on it, such as obvious errors or whether it is at all helpful.

      To ensure differentiation is maintained throughout a piece of work. I thought basic printing colours could be used but it may not always be possible to have colour printing which is why I suggested different type styles be used. The little diagram at the bottom is just a reminder that the image reality is a subset of the object reality but separated by a reality interface.I think I should now go back to the explanatory framework diagrams and change the colours to match this differentiation.

        I was worried that the image would be too small or too fuzzy but it looks fine at that size and resolution. Any comments will be much appreciated, so long as they are constructive, as this is a first attempt at something like this. I'm really interested in looking into different kinds of representation and it may be that there is something better already out there that would do the job.Any thoughts /ideas on the representation, or on what it is saying?

        Tom,

        I have read your reply to William where you mentioned responsible propositions. I would very much appreciate your opinion. I have tried to express the need for differentiation of types of reality; Or perhaps I should say -different categories of information- in a precise way. Showing the origin of the information and the layers of selection of it that occur subsequently. Is that adequately conveyed by the representation, do you think?I included verbal explanation of the intended meaning in case it is not clear from the representation alone.

        I do intend to learn more about different kinds of abstract representation that could be useful for this kind of task and have thought that this may be something that category theory might handle well but I will need to familiarise myself with the subject. Am I just reinventing the wheel with this notation? What do you think? Any constructive feedback would be very much appreciated.

        Hi Georgina,

        I'm a bit pressed right now to offer a substantial reply. Meanwhile, have you given any thought or study to Lev Goldfarb's research program?

        Lev is expert in recognition algorithms, and looking for ways to guarantee subtle differentiation of objects in an entirely new and computable formal representation. Perhaps you can mine some insight there.

        Tom

        Thank you Tom,

        Lev Goldfarb's work did come to mind briefly. As he shared a little of how to represent changing -structures-, with structs, in the FQXi discussions of his book draft.Though I could not see how it would fit with the differentiation between types of information I wanted to emphasise.

        It can be seen from what I drew that there is a relationship all the way from Actualised Object to observation of a Manifestation of it produced from memory, or other record but it is definitely not -the same- thing, and so should not be treated as if it is.

        Admittedly I know very little about Lev's work and other capabilities it might have, so I will look into it some more also.

        Tom

        Lev Goldfarb has written on his homepage, www.cs.unb.ca/~goldfarb" A crucial feature of the ETS representation that we have proposed is related to the observation that all objects in nature (including mental objects) have a formative history. We have gradually realized that the concept of formative object history and the concept of object representation are very similar. Thus, a 'true' representational formalism must provide a unified formal structure for capturing an object's formative 'history': both, complete history (as in Nature itself) or subjective (as perceived by an agent)."

        Formative history sounds good but the history I want to represent is the history of the information content not just history of an actualised material object or history of object manifestations. The shared relationship between object, sensory data, manifestation and record.It might be thought of as 4 sets of transformations carrying the information, driven from the foundational object (material) reality. (Perhaps it might be written like 4 parallel sets of structs all having some information in common but with "temporal separation",changes in arrangement of the object universe, between them. I'll learn more about the formalism then maybe I will be able to draw what I mean.)

        I'd like to look at many different ways of representing the process and differentiation within it, before deciding what is best.In the meantime I think the different colours or type styles are helpful to indicate that although the information content might have close similarity they can not be thought of as the same or used interchangeably.Important to avoid paradoxes.