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

Georgina,

Since I don't think the BBT is valid, I don't see the universe as evolving upward and outward in some four dimensional cone of evolution. I think complex structures have always developed to whatever levels of detail they can sustain, before collapsing back down, folding into themselves and leaving seeds of complexity to sow the next reality. Reductionism and wholism are two sides of the same coin and no matter how much division is incorporated, it's still all connected. Structure is quantified, but the dynamic unifies it, thus it seems indeterminately fuzzy. Physics is determined to clear the fuzziness, but it is a feature of the energy. Empiricism is its own religion.

I know this is a little off topic from your model, but my brain is mush at the moment.

John,

I understand what you are saying and agree that that kind of recycling must be happening in the foundational material reality. I agree, due to the continual changes that are occurring it can't be absolutely and precisely pinned down like something static and unchanging. The change or energy is as much what it is as the material substance there.

Yes, processes that can be usefully reduced to make sense of them exist along side processes that are better understood as holistic, with a total function irreducible to the working of parts in isolation. Greater than the sum of the parts because of the complex interdependence and relationships between parts that give functions not possible by the parts alone.I.e. Organisation.

Kind Regards, Georgina

Georgina,

I think a significant understanding issue is that entropy applies to closed systems, which is any system in isolation, but that the wholistic reality is not a closed system and recycles all energy. Order amounts to a closed system, since it requires some framing device.

Georgina,

I guess I missed your kind thoughts further up this thread. Thank you very much. It has been a surreal couple of weeks around here. Got the daughter back in school today and had discussions there. Had the riding school open for the first time yesterday, fingers crossed. Lots of help. Lots of confusion. I'm used to seeing a very limited number of people in a usual day, so this has all been somewhat overwhelming in so many different ways. Would post some links, but don't have time to learn windows and don't have my imac. You could google "Frances Merryman Tackntrot baltimore," if you want. Not sure what will come up though. Thanks.

John,

I came upon this quote today from Ralph Waldo Emerson;

Quote: "Do the thing and you will have the power."

Seems appropriate for your current situation. The head of our local primary school bought the children some unicycles and just left them in the playground. The idea was if the children learned that they could do the seemingly impossible and ride them, they would also learn that they can, with perseverance, do anything they set their minds on, even if it seems impossible. A number of the children taught themselves to ride them and do tricks extremely confidently without any instruction. I think that shows both great subtle leadership and the power of perseverance and self reliance. Good luck.

This is continuing from the discussion on George Ellis' essay thread from Thomas Howard Ray Nov. 5, 2012 @ 11:23 GMT to Georgina Parry Nov. 7, 2012 @ 20:13 GMT

Concerning the logic of the RICP framework Cf liar paradox and Barber variant. Which is a continuation from earlier discussion on George Ellis's thread

Tom ,

I'm not sure the Barber problem is an exact parallel I'll have to think about it.

Yes the Barber is part of the Object reality as he is a flesh and blood organism so made of atoms -a material thing. He is not a part of his own image reality unless looking in a mirror. So I suppose looking in the mirror is like the act of shaving himself and yes only at that time is he part of his own image reality.

Re. The Image reality: it is as you have stated Quote: "The entire reality is observer-created". The sources of the data though and the data itself that will form that manifestation have independent existence in the environment. What will become the manifestation depends upon what data is received and that relies not just upon the observer's actions but the physics of how potential sensory data spreads through the environment. Whether he is or is not part of the observed manifestation is a matter of choice to look or not to look in the mirror.

We might consider the supposition of states that you mention -if a second observer is brought in to observer the first observer; first observer is seated in front of a mirror and may have eyes open or closed. Rather than blinking maybe he is tired and shuts his eyes every so often for a few seconds. Now the second observer does not know if first has eyes open or closed until he looks and fabricates an output manifestation from the received data showing the state of the first observer.

There is a supposition of states because within the external environment there is data that will give eyes open manifestation and data that will give eyes closed manifestation. Which data is received depends upon where the second observer is and when he looks. So determined not just by the first observer data source and second observer data recipient but also by the way in which the data is distributed through the environment.

The wave function collapse occurs when we stop considering the observer independent external environment and consider the singular output manifestation of the second observer. If second observer sees a manifestation of eyes closed he thinks that the first observer is not seeing himself within his Image reality and if there is a manifestation of eyes open he will assume first observer is seeing himself in his own image reality.

Though the truth will depend upon the correlation between what is observed and what is occurring in Object reality, as there may be a transmission delay that causes the second observers manifestation to be out of synchronisation with the Image reality perceived by the first observer. For example if the second observer is remotely located and viewing a video feed. It is not a simply that the manifestation and the 'knowledge' it provides is true or false but it depends. I think this is highlighting a problem with naive 'black and white' assumptions. The truth is not just in the appearances alone but correlation of the image with the foundational reality.

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?

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.