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

Thank you again Tom,

One question was; does this adequately convey what I wanted to say? , which you answered. Thank you. Another is is it pointless reinvention of the wheel because there are far more suitable representational formalisms that would express that easily and be easier for others to understand? Maybe there isn't an answer to that. Just different ways of saying the same thing and different people have different preferences, most probably liking that which is most familiar to them.

I don't have a background in mathematics or higher physics, so I am pretty ignorant about the different kinds of mathematics there are and their use. That doesn't mean I don't want to be precise and use the most appropriate mathematics, or abstract representational language, to achieve that. Exploring the possibilities and suitability of different kinds of formalism seems a way that I could improve communication of the explanatory framework but as I will be like a duck out of water (at least initially) the attempts will probably be inelegant. Same goes for gymnastics, its far easier to explain what I want to see than to do it.

The paradoxes are the Barn pole, Grandfather, Andromeda types. I didn't mean that an obvious paradox will be observed but that it is incorrect and is the assumption in common under which all such paradoxes arise.

Georgina,

I know what you mean about gymnastics. I was over 40 when I took up golf, and my nephew -- a low handicap golfer -- taught me that even though I thought I knew nothing about swinging a golf club, the golf swing is identical to the swing of a baseball bat, just in a different plane. I can relate to that, since I grew up playing baseball.

You're right -- the language that one uses to explain must have some familiar hook to effectively communicate an idea. If one speaks the language of physics, one speaks in mathematical terms; that doesn't obviate a different kind of familiarity that one might express in non-mathematical terms of dynamics and kinetics, such as inherent in gymnastic moves. Be aware though, that it is far harder to do it this way, than in abstract symbols, and in the end you will probably find that the symbols say exactly what you wished to say in the first place. After all, though I understand the physics of the golf swing, I am still not a very good golfer.

I won't comment on the paradoxes, except to say that most relativists can easily resolve those that deal with the simultaneity of events. The grandfather paradox is weird; even that, though, is resolved when the many worlds hypothhesis is introduced -- and there are signs, such as Albrecht's research, that the hypothesis is compatible with relativity.

Tom

Paul, reply to your post on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 05:23 GMT in The Accidental Universe

A reality interface can be an inanimate object or sensitive material too because that is how it has been defined. It is the change it facilitates, from unobservable input to observable output, that makes it a reality interface. The output of that change is observed OR is observable. That is how I have defined it.

In the sentence; "The Object reality sequence and the image reality sequence are not the same thing. They are on different sides of the reality interface".It is the sensory system. or artificial device, or sensitive material that converts the input to output that I am talking about.

I now understand that your existent representations are the light impinging on an organic detector and not processed output. IE prior to all of the sequence of events leading to the output that is observed.That does not fit the definition of an Image reality as I am using that term. I refer to the potential sensory data in that way because while it's in the environment it only has the potential to become sensory data. I don't call it a 'representation' because IT is not seen by anyone /anything while still out in the environmet

Georgina

Re your first paragraph, I am lost. Obviously, an interface can be any of the points at which there is physical interaction. But I cannot follow your use of the word observed, given how physical existence is constituted. What occurred is never sensed (one form of sensing being observation). Every entity receives these physically existent inputs. In the context of the sensory systems that can process this, that is an independent (ie from the processing) representation of what occurred. The receipt, literally, could be labelled 'observation'. I do not care, what matters is what is what, not what label we choose to denote it. That physical input is then processed, the output being a perception of what was received. One could call that process observation, again I do not care, so long what is happening is defined in accord with how it happens.

As I have said on several occasions, whilst it is detail, your differentiation of inanimate entities which convert input is not correct. They alter it to some other form. It is still a physical input when ultimately received by a sentient organism, which it must be, otherwise it is never known.

"I refer to the potential sensory data in that way because while it's in the environment it only has the potential to become sensory data"

So do I. Indeed, the vast majority of what is physically existent is never received by an entity which can then utilise it. This is my point when I talk about brick walls/mouths receiving light. Which leads me back to the sentence : "I now understand that your existent representations are the light impinging on an organic detector and not processed output" Apart from the fact that I have never said anything which could be construed as light being the processed output, I have also never said anything which implies light is limited to that which impinges on a sentient organism. Light is a physically existent entity. Whether it is received or not is irrelkevant to what it is. We, and everything else, are bathed in the stuff! The point is that, consequent upon the evolution of a sensory system known as sight (which has manifest in many different ways, but is generically identical), light has acquired a functional role. That is, its physical characteristic has not altered, neither is it altered if a sensory system receives it. All that has happened is that if it is received by a certain entity, it can then be processed, causing the possessors of that entity to be aware that something occurred. "the sequence of events leading to the output" is irrelevant to the physical circumstance.

"That does not fit the definition of an Image reality as I am using that term"

Indeed, but any of us using 'terms' should do so in accordance with what happens.

Paul

Paul,

it is not the receipt that makes it a reality interface but the change that it facilitates. It changes meaningless bits of information into potentially meaningful output. The sensory system and CNS is unlike a wall in that respect. A artificial device that is an information gathering and utilizing system, GUIS,( Murry Gell-Mann and Jim Hartman) is more like the human sensory system and CNS than a wall. A simpler device or sensitive material can still convert meaningless information into observable -potentially- meaningful output.It is like the cipher necessary for meaning to be extracted; whether its a radio telescope or a photographic film.

I think I have defined very carefully what is what in the framework I do not quite follow why you can not understand what I am saying and why you do not care about labels. The labels I use (separately defined) are for succinctly and clearly communicating ideas, they are very important. I am using terms that fit what I consider to be happening , they just happen to be different labels from your own , which has caused us to be confused about each others ideas.

Now it seems your "physically existent representations" are just light anywhere and not just light received by a sentient organism. OK then, that is what I am calling "potential sensory data". It is only potential and not a -fixed- material actualization (IE it can undergo change) and its not an output manifestation. That is why I can liken it to a wave function. I have given the dictionary definition of observed in an earlier post. Receipt alone is not observation. If I receive a message within a letter but do not open it I have not observed the message.

I think I must qualify "fixed actualisation" with further explanation of my intended meaning. Solid and semi solid actualisations; arrangements, patterns and structures made of atoms, have forces that act between the atomic quanta and give some stability. There are not the same forces acting between the light quanta and so it is not fixed in the same way but prone to transformation, along with the transformation of the medium in which it is propagating, or with the density changing. There is a fundamentally different relationship between light quanta and between the "fixed" atomic quanta.It follows that (for example) the train Object and "train" EM potential sensory data are very different phenomena and should not be muddled.That is relevant to the paradoxes of relativity.

Georgina

"it is not the receipt that makes it a reality interface but the change that it facilitates"

Er, but there has to be receipt for that change, subsequently, to happen. The interface is the physical interaction between that which was received and that which received it, not what happened later. Neither is it a change, in the sense that it altered physical form. On being received, what was existent, in terms of being usable by a sensory system, just ceased to exist. And that is exactly the same, whether it was received (ie was in the line of travel with and interacted with) a brick or an eye.

"It changes meaningless bits of information into potentially meaningful output"

Not so. If received by the appropriate entity, then some aspects of the received physical input are processed into a perception of what was received. Physically, it is what it is. Reception is irrelevant.

"Now it seems your "physically existent representations" are just light anywhere and not just light received by a sentient organism.

Obviously. I am not sure where the "now" comes from. I have always said that. It is not 'potential', in the sense that there is some difference. It is an independent, physically existent, representation of what occurred. Whether received or otherwise, and whether received by an entity which can process it or otherwise. Whether you can "liken it to a wave function" or not , I do not know. And what the purpose of so doing is, I do not know either. Of course, I could ask, what is a wave, which has caused people problems when I have asked before, but will refrain from doing so, as this is a side issue.

Re your second post. The extent to which any given light remains in its original form is an entirely different issue. Light is just an existent entity. It is therefore susceptible to influence during its existence. However, the indications are that the physical aspects which can be utilised, if received, do not change, or very nearly so. Apart from anything else, as I said in a post to Rob, if that did, then the sensory system of sight would not have developed in the first place, because it would be useless. As the physical input would be completely unreliable as an indication as to what is happening.

I am fully aware of what Einstein did wrong (ie conflated reality and light reality and did not understand timing), and therefore what is wrong with the concept of relativity. There are no paradoxes, the concept is incorrect.

Paul

Paul, thank you for reading my replies. I have read yours.

I can not face going through your reply and addressing each criticism that you have made. From previous experience, I know It would be a thankless, unrewarding and ongoing task if I allowed it. Instead I will put that effort into preparing to write a new essay on the new topic that has been set. More enjoyable and educational for me. Perhaps I may even be able to write something more lucid and acceptable than my previous essay attempts.

Happy Easter. Georgina

Hello Georgina,

I've quickly read your essay once, and I find it quite original and entertaining. Your style of presentation is cute.

At a quick glance, there are two aspects in your described potential future that do not look too attractive to me.

The first is that there appears to be a clear separation, even more marked than now, between the good inhabitants of the sanctuaries, and the criminals, terrorists and debris (that pose a threat to the ventilation shafts and logistics portals, or threaten exchange mission among sanctuaries).

The second, in part related, is the overall impression that the life in the sanctuary system is based on regulations imposed from above by some authority hidden behind the scenes. Because your text is very suggestive, even visually, it may be that it has induced in my imagination some unintended resonance with some common place science fiction scenarios, as seen in some science fiction movie (does `Zardoz` ring a bell?), or read in some book.

Nevertheless, I wonder (i) whether you feel that any future stage of humanity will unavoidably have to cope with a percentage of bad guys, and, perhaps less naively, (ii) how you imagine the transition from our present world to the sanctuary system could take place (e.g., whether peacefully or not).

Tommaso

PS1. Humans are becoming symbiotic residents of living man made hosts. Sometimes, when queuing in my car along the highway, I feel we have already got to that point.

PS2. I see you have a lot of comments above, which I could not read. If you feel my points are already covered in some previous post, let me know, and I might stick in at the right place.