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

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.

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.

smaller jpeg file

even smaller jpegAttachment #1: small_size_representation_of_differentiation.jpg

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.

I didn't really mean what works best. I meant I'd like to find what is able to most clearly represent and so communicate what I want to say non verbally.

I will continue to use the colours or type styles for differentiation where possible because I think that is helpful.

Georgina,

You ask, "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 suppose it is -- however, what I don't understand is the problem you're trying to solve, the question you're trying to answer. I think it has to be more than showing that "image reality" differs from "object reality."

Can you just state for me briefly, the problem/question?

Tom

Tom,

Thank you very much for getting back to me re the latest representation I posted. The explanatory framework diagrams that I have previously posted look complicated and intimidating to those who have not followed their development, or subsequently read about and grasped what they show. Several people have asked why it has to be so complicated and others think the explanations given are just unnecessary philosophy, not relevant to physics. Max Tegmark has called human verbal explanations "baggage" and has argued that it should be shed to get to the important relations that can be communicated and understood, whether a particular human language is known or not. I am trying to precisely condense the important essence of what is being shown:

If the output image reality is taken to be the independently existing Object reality or the sensory data in the environment,then paradoxes result. The problem: How can the very close relationship be precisely conveyed while at the same time showing differentiation and the phases of selection that occur. That selection is important because it is leading from- many different aspects of an object , some of which may be encoded in the potential sensory data in the environment (depending upon lighting and location of the object)- to selection of a small fraction of that data that is processes into an image output and a smaller fraction that may be encoded in the record (memory or other material record.)Important as that sequence is giving wave function collapse-as many possible (potential) image reality outputs are becoming one observed output and one (direct) record of that observation.