The Logic of Physical Reality by Paul Reed

JCN

"The way to converge with each other is to converge upon the truth."

Exactly.

Now that 'brick wall' is: 1. Physical reality is independent of sensory detection. 2. Physical reality involves alteration. Both of which are indisputable facts, unless one starts invoking beliefs. Therefore, the physical reality which we can know of via sensory detection, is a sequence. Sequences occur one at a time, because the predecessor must cease for the successor to occur. Which means that physical reality is that physically existent state which exists as at any given point in time.

If you can find any bad bricks or poorly mixed mortar, please let me know.

Paul

Georgina

Sorry, did not 'see' you underneath there, only had JCN's post on screen.

Fundamentally, see above.

This has nothing to do with time. It concerns the way in which physical reality occurs, when examined generically. Any points about time and timing are a consequence. As they should be, because there are only physically existent phenomena. Not change, space, time, etc, which are all artefacts in our conceptualisation thereof, although time as conceived is nonsense.

Physics is supposed to be analysing physical existence, within a verified existentially closed system. That is, it is not a religion. My specific point to JCN was that there is no such progression as 'oscillation', in the sense that physical reality is a 'one-way' sequence. The fact that some physically existent states can 're-occur', is highly likely to be superficial. That is, at the physical level, there is really likely to be not much the same. It just looks so from a higher level. But, even if the same set of elementary particle states, etc, etc, re-occurred, this is irrelevant. Because all that has happened is the same existent state has occurred more than once in the sequence. That's it. There is no form of reversal in the sequence, or causal factors operating in the 'other direction', or whatever. Just a repeat performance! There is this underlying human desire (incidentally, I am human!) to attribute 'more' with the concept of future, reaction, etc.

It all concerns a sequence. When states are compared, difference is identified. Difference involves: 1) substance (ie what it was), 2) order (ie order of occurrence), 3) frequency (ie the rate at which differences occur. That is, the number of changes, irrespective of type, which occurred in any given sequence, compared to any other number that occurred meanwhile. The latter could be in any sequence (including the former), and either occurred concurrently, or otherwise. This is timing.

For example, with a quartz device, the number of crystal oscillations is being counted whilst some other number of changes occurs. These oscillations being physically converted into a readable form (ie moving hands around), whilst expression of the result in terms of days, etc, is merely indicative of fossilised language, as the first 'clock' was earth movement. What is really happening is that X oscillations occurred whilst the elephant walked Y yards. There is no time in physical reality, because timing concerns rating change, and change involves difference between realities, not of any given reality.

This also has nothing whatsoever to do with any form of sensing. Because, by definition, the physically existent state must have occurred prior to it being sensed, otherwise it cannot be sensed (ie seen, heard, felt, etc).

Re your A B C. Yes, what, from the sensory systems' perspective are 'representations' or 'information' of A B etc, could be in existence concurrently. But unless some bizarre interference occurs in their travel, then they will reach any given sensory system in the order in which they physically occurred, etc. There is a perceptual illusion here if relative movement occurs, and that is explained in paras 28 & 29.

Paul

John

"I don't see that you make significant effort to understand where others might be coming from"

I wonder how many exchanges I've been involved with. Probably about 300 with Georgina alone. As I said in a post to you in your blog, there is a 'brick wall' (which funnily enough JCN has just made the same metaphor). Now, what am I supposed to do? Just abandon it? Obviously, if any of you can find a substantiated crack/hole/whatever in it, then please articulate that. For my part I will continue to try and explain the points with as much clarity as possible.

Otherwise, see above posts to JCN and Georgina.

Paul

Daniel

"Most arguments are presented as facts"

That is probably because once one has established the first two tenets (see my post above to JCN 19/7 14.43), they all follow on as facts, and actually there are not many of them. What the past year of posting has demonstrated is that if one does not close off all the avenues, then....Another way of putting this is, have a look at my post last night in the above thread with Peter (18/7 21.51). This is a potted version of it.

What I am getting at, in a nutshell, is that how physical reality occurs must provide the base from with physics, as an objective examination of physical reality, proceeds. And at the generic level, which allows the 'wood for the trees' saying to be practised, that demonstrate a number of facts, which then lead to the conclusion that spacetime and the Copenhagen interpretation, are not valid models of physical reality. There is a quirk with Relativity, because the fault may just be in the explanation, rather than the underpinning hypothesis. Hence my 'supplementary posts at 11/7 19.33 & 13/7 11.24.

"After reading your essay, I realized that that everything you have introduced come is based on one single idea; that reality emerges from perceptible physical interactions. In other words, reality is observer dependent"

No. Exactly the opposite. Observation, or any form of sensing, is independent of reality. It must be, because it occurs and then we receive a physical input arising from its occurrence. Which we then process. The point is that knowledge of reality is dependent on validated sensory detection. We cannot transcend our own existence. This is science, not belief. Put the other way around, if all sentient organisms were wiped out tonight (preferably after I've been to a West End play tonight!), then physical reality would still exist, it would just be devoid of sentient organisms, until they re-evolved.

Paul

John

"Personally I think people can believe whatever they want to believe"

They certainly have that right, but they lose that right if they are engaged in science. They must then start from a properly validated basis. Otherwise, I can just assert that 'reality is a shoot em up game involving little green guys with 6 heads in a vast control room'. And then say: disprove it.

As I have stated so many times, what is physically driving this alteration, is a different issue, of which I have no knowledge and do not pretend otherwise. Obviously something is, because physical reality does not re-occur, differently, without a cause. But my lack of knowledge about that, is irrelevant to the "explanation of reality" (ie how it generically occurs). Again, as I have said, so many times. Once one has eliminated all metaphysical considerations (ie 'shoot em up games'), we are left with two fundamental knowns about reality. 1 There is 'something out there', ie independent of the way in which we can know of it, because we receive physical input to sensory systems (ie it comes to us/all organisms). 2 This something involves alteration (ie when we compare these inputs we can identify difference). That means reality is a sequence, which physically exists independently of our ability to know of it. We (and all organisms) are just trapped in a loop (ie sensory detection) in respect as to how we can know of it.

Paul

The Argument

Given the limitation as to what all organisms (which includes humans) can know (either directly or indirectly), which is a function of being trapped in a closed loop of sensory detection (ie sensory detection is what enables knowledge of physical existence, but it cannot be transcended), then we know two facts: 1) physical existence is independent of sensory detection, 2) physical existence involves alteration. This is so, because physically existent phenomena are received by the sensory systems (these being the result of an interaction between other physically existent phenomena), and when these inputs are processed, and hence comparison can be effected, difference is identified.

Therefore, physical existence is a sequence. And in a sequence, only one state can exist at a time, because the predecessor must cease in order that the successor can occur. So physical reality is a sequence of 'presents', a present being that state which was physically existent as at any given point in time. That point (ie unit of timing) being determined by the fastest example of change which occurs in physical reality, because timing is the rating of change.

There are only physically existent phenomena in existence (occurring). There is no form of 'time' in any given physically existent state, because this concept concerns an aspect of the difference between realities, not an attribute of a reality. Neither is there any space, as in the sense of 'not-physically existent phenomenon'. Space, as in the sense of 'not-object', is physically existent phenomena which are not constituted as per 'object'. The relative size/shape of physically existent phenomena can be conceptualised as a configuration in terms of the 'occupation' of 'spatial points'. A spatial point being the 'spatial footprint' of the smallest physically existent phenomenon.

James

""Therefore, it is the corollary of the existential conundrum which provides the basis for the scientific analysis of reality." Lots of words that I'm not sure say anything"

You may be "not sure", but it certainly does say something. And that is the sentence which follows: "That is, what could be knowable and how that is effected; as opposed to, what might be, but is never knowable anyway (either directly or indirectly)", and indeed, the whole of paras 3-5. This being critical to understanding what can constitute knowledge of reality, given that we are part of it.

Another way of responding to your comment is to bring your attention to my post above. The argument, as opposed to implications thereof, can be reduced to a few paragraphs. But then, readers, as I have found from responses to posts, would start 'wandering' off, with all sorts of questions/comments, which are not pre-empted, because of the cryptic content. So in presenting the argument one has to anticipate that.

"Your sentence is making me wonder if the same thing is happening here?"

No. Because having eliminated metaphysical concerns, that, frankly, should not be necessary, I then state how physical reality occurs, and hence what physics must assume. And, in a nutshell, that is that: there is something out there ('out' being extrinsic to sensory detection systems), and it alters. Reality is sequence. Sequence only occurs 'one at a time', because the predecessor must cease in order that the successor can occur. Therefore, there is no 'time' in reality. Timing is the rating of change, ie a feature of the difference between realities, not an attribute of a reality. We know of reality (ie sense) through the receipt of physically existent phenomena (aka light, vibration, etc).

Paul

Daniel

Obviously I appreciate this is your opinion, and I am grateful that you have read it, not many have. However, leaving aside the constraint of character count, which I blew on my first submission, the current amended copy is still only 8 pages. Take for example, the point you pick up on. This is a function of the fact that we are part of reality, but it (and us) is independent of sensory detection. The proof being that we receive physically existent phenomena when we see, hear, etc. Which is what I say. But for a few more words, there is no more to be said. It is an obvious truism, and I would not know what else to say. Have a look at my post above, 21/7 1056, which boils the argument, or proposition, down to 3 paragraphs.

Paul

The fundamental physical point

1 The start point for physics is that there is: a) physical existence independent of sensory detection (eg sight, hearing, etc), and b) alteration thereto. This is proven by the fact that sentient organisms receive physically existent phenomena (eg light, noise, etc, which are themselves the result of an interaction between other physically existent phenomena), and that when these inputs are subsequently processed and can be compared, difference is identified.

2 Whatever comprises physical existence, which may involve more than one type, and something not yet known, it must have physicality. That is, whether it be that which is deemed to exist, or that which is deemed to cause alteration thereto, there must always be corresponding physically existent phenomena. Nothing (entity or process) can be deemed to be physical, or have a physical effect, unless that is so.

3 Any given physically existent phenomenon cannot be in more than one physically existent state at a time, otherwise, by definition, it is not a physically existent phenomenon, it is more than one. Therefore, what is physically existent (a reality) is that state which is physically existent as at any given point in time (as in timing). A point (unit) in time being the fastest rate of change in the entirety of reality, because timing is the rating of change. And the requirement is to determine that physically existent state, in any given sequence, where no form of change is occurring, ie to differentiate one from another.

4 So reality is a sequence. There is no state which is commonly referred to as the future, because that does not exist. Hence any concept which involves the notion of change to it, or that it can have some physical impact, is incorrect, because there is nothing in existence to affect, or be able to have an effect. Neither does what is known as the past exist. Representations of it, from the perspective of the sensory systems, can exist as physically existent phenomena (eg light), but these too have a sequence. It is just that one of their features is that their physical state, from the perspective of the sensory systems, remains unchanged (or nearly so). All that exists is that which can be differentiated at any given point in time, which is commonly known as the present.

5 Notions such as oscillation, reaction, etc, are ontologically incorrect. Even at a higher level of conceptualisation, reality is in no sense occurring 'backwards'. This just involves the apparent repetition of a previously existent state, though in terms of physicality, it is probably impossible for an identical entire configuration of any given state to re-occur. For example, leaving aside the actual elementary constitution, a sequence could be represented as ABCCDBEFGGGAB....What is happening is that, at the level of differentiation being applied, A & B are re-occurring as the sequence progresses, and C & G do not change in that duration differential, G taking longer than C to do so.

6 The sequence of reality, whether considered as an entirety, or as any given physically existent component thereof, can only occur in 'one direction' because only what is known as the present is in existence. Furthermore, by definition, the actual physical state of any given present, must be a function of the previous one, because influence cannot 'jump' physical circumstance, neither can a non-existent state have influence.

7 Similarly, the explanation as to how and why that different state occurred, must ultimately be a function of the lowest level of that which constitutes the previous state. In any given circumstance, cause must ultimately be traceable to, and be a function of, the fundamental components of the circumstance which caused it. Also, any given physically existent state, must be definite, otherwise it could not occur. To physically exist inherently involves definiteness, and discreteness. Continuousness involves no change whatsoever to any given physically existent state.

8 It is probably always going to be impossible for humans to identify the precise physical constitution of a discrete physically existent state, especially if it involves any degree of complexity. Similarly with respect to differentiating the precise physical interrelationship of cause in any given circumstance which involves some degree of complexity. However, this is a 'failure' in human capability, and the issue should not be attributed to innate characteristics in reality.

Questions and Answers

As of tomorrow morning, I am on holiday until the end of August. So here is a list of the questions I would have asked in order to establish what I was saying.

1 Q: What is reality? A: It is not knowable, because all sentient organisms are a part of it, and no organism can transcend their collective existence.

2 Q: So how, and what, do all sentient organisms then know, given that they constitute an existentially closed system? A: Through the sensory systems, which have evolved to enable sentient organisms to have awareness of physical existence (which includes themselves), utilising existent physical phenomena which are physically received.

3 Q: What can they be aware of? A: That which is physically received. Which is the result of a physical interaction between other physical phenomena.

4 Q: Is objectivity possible in this circumstance? A: Yes. Because sensory detection is a valid closed system. All types of sensory detection systems are identical across all organisms, in terms of logical functionality, that being an inevitable consequence of evolution. And physical existence is independent of sensory detection, which only influences what can be known of reality, not reality itself. Furthermore, only the physical existence of one specific set of sensory systems is dependent on the physical existence of any given sentient organism.

5 Q: Given that this process of sensory detection is at the level of individual organism, how can objectivity be established? A: With a combination of reverse engineering of the process in order to establish what was received, and consequently what caused that, and cross-referencing to eradicate any effects arising from individualism, both in terms of sentient organism and specific physical circumstance.

6 Q: Why will this ensure objectivity? A: Because, assuming due process is adhered to, what exists, and is therefore potentially knowable, does so independently of sensory detection. So, while the subject matter is definite, because no sentient organism can have an effect on it, the issue, in terms of analysis, is to infer that, given that the start point is individual perception and physical circumstance.

7 Q: Does this mean that knowledge of physical existence is limited to the processes of sensory detection? A: No. Because there are many reasons why what is received directly might not be an entirely accurate and/or comprehensive representation for the sensory system of what physically occurred, anyway. In addition, there are many occasions when it is not possible even to effect direct reception. So it is therefore necessary to overcome these identifiable practical problems in the process of sensory detection, with the development of knowledge which is not directly substantiated by validated direct sensory experience. But it must still, ultimately, be subservient to that, and not become assertion based on no substantiated experienceability whatsoever.

8 Q: Given the valid existentially closed system, and how objective knowledge is thereby establishable, what are the fundamental knowns about reality as manifested to sentient organisms? A: Physical existence: a) exists independently of sensory detection, and b) alters. Which means that it is a sequence.

9 Q: What is the fundamental property of sequence? A: A sequence only occurs one at a time, because the predecessor must cease for the successor to occur. So, for physical existence to occur, and then re-occur differently, there must be a definitive discrete state at any one time. There cannot be different forms of any given component of the sequence in existence at the same time. And that form must be definitive, otherwise it cannot be physically existent.

10 Q: Given the complexity of physical reality, how does this rule of 'one at a time' apply? A: In exactly the same way in any given circumstance. Apart from the entirety of reality, any component thereof can be conceived of as a sequence, in itself.

11 Q: Does sequence apply to all physical existence? A: Yes. Because there must always be physicality. There cannot be a circumstance where there is deemed to be a physical effect, but its cause does not, of itself, have physical existence. Therefore, the discrete state of physical existence is likely to revolve around the existent state of the properties of the elementary components which comprise it.

12 Q: Given sequence, does what is known as the future exist? A: No.

13 Q: Given sequence, does what is known as the past exist? A: No. What does exist is a certain type of physically existent phenomena, which as such, occurs in accordance with the 'one at a time' rule. But, there is a component of them which, by virtue of the way it physically exists, endures in the same (or nearly so) physical form. That is what is received by the sensory systems, and from the perspective of the sensory systems, is a representation of a previously physically existent state.

14 Q: Given sequence, what does exist? A: A definitive and discrete present, ie that which physically existed as at any given point in time. Which includes the present state of the physical phenomena described in Q13 above.

15 Q: How is this present identifiable? A: By differentiating any given sequence into its discrete component states, using a measuring system which rates change (ie of itself, irrespective of type), with a unit of reference which is the fastest change in reality. This process is commonly known as timing.

16 Q: Given sequence, what are notions such as oscillation, feedback, etc? A: They are re-occurrences of a previously existent state. Sequence only progresses 'one-way'. Although, it is highly likely that this is only an apparent, rather than an actual re-occurrence, anyway. That is, physical characteristics are being conceptualised at a higher level than what actually occurs. Physically, it is probably impossible for the entirety of any given physically existent state, to re-occur identically.

17 Q: Given sequence, what constitutes cause? A: What constitutes the physically existent state of any given present, must be a function of the previous one, because influence cannot 'jump' physical circumstance, and neither can a non-existent state have influence. Similarly, the explanation as to how and why that different state occurred, must ultimately be explainable as a function of the lowest level of that which caused it (ie the previous state). In any given circumstance, by definition, cause must ultimately be traceable to, and be a function of, the fundamental components of the circumstance involved.

George

Just got back from holiday.

Your first link did not work, and I'll take a proper look at your essay later.

Whilst this may sound dreadfully arrogant, I know I am right. There is no other way. Physical reality as we experience it, a) exists independently of that process, b) alters. It is therefore sequence, and so only one form of it physically exists at any given point in time (the latter being a measuring system). Also, this existence is definite, whether we are able to discern it, is irrelevant, and it occurs before we experience the consequences of it. So observation (experience) cannot affect it. Finally, this logic applies to all physical reality. There cannot be a situation whereby something is deemed to have a physical effect but not have physical existence in itself.

Paul