The Logic of Physical Reality by Paul Reed

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

Jim

Thanks for commenting.

The point you pick up on is one of a handful of key points. Because I found that in responses to me, ultimately people (or some anyway!) will agree with what I say in terms of particles (or something that has 'physical presence'), but then invoke 'something else' (fields, waves, energy, whatever). Now, the point is that nothing can have a physical effect/be deemed to exist, if it itself does not have physically existence. Or, put another way around, everything referred to must have some physical existence which corresponds with it. One cannot have physical occurrences and then 'something' which causes those/is 'additional to them', but has somehow, mysteriously, no physical existence of its own.

The importance of this being that whatever constitutes what exists as at any point in time (my best description being that that ultimately revolves around the existent state of the properties of the elementary particles which constitute physical reality, as at any given point in time), only occurs in one form/state, at a time, and that has definiteness.

Mathematics is a representational device. It is not physical reality. But its logic should correspond with reality, otherwise the mathematical system is just 'creating' reality itself. I am sure nobody using negative numbers, in whatever form, means them to convey that there is less than nothing there. In this simplistic sense it is just an extrinsic scaling device. But, whilst not trying to pretend I understand the concept i, when I came across this I could not help wondering whether maths had 'crossed the line' here, and was no longer modelling what physically exists, but creating it.

Paul

Daniel

"I guess most physicists now don´t investigate this very much"

No. Indeed, if you were to trawl back through posts over the last year, you will find at best I am told: 'interesting but this is philosophy'.

Which it is not. We, and all sentient organisms, receive physically existent phenomena (eg light, noise, etc). They are the result of a physical interaction with other physically existent phenomena (what is usually referred to as the reality). In other words, the received phenomena are, in the context of the sensory systems, representations of the reality we are trying to discern. The entire process is physical and identifiable. Therefore, before one embarks on physics, it would be best to understand how, generically, physical reality occurs.

Paul

PS: will look at your essay

Hector

Your economics model example sounds like one of those instances where the 'right' result is obtainable, albeit for the 'wrong' reason, a coincidental outcome.

Anyway, it is not so much that 'models are in agreement with empirical data' (models include assumptions and representational devices-particularly mathematical constructs in the case of physics), which is a statement of the obvious, but what can constitute empirical data/objective knowledge. That being a conceptualisation which corresponds with reality as independently manifest. So to answer that question one must examine how reality manifests and is detected. Which reveals certain 'rules' that any analysis purporting to be scientific and concerned with the nature of physical existence, must obey. The simple fact is that reality exists independently of the sensing of it, which is the only valid mechanism whereby it is knowable. It is not an abstract concept. And science must operate within that existential confine.

In a sense I am more interested in where you (or indeed anybody else) do not agree.

Paul

The fundamental problem with Physics is the misconceptualisation of time, and more generally, a failure to construct explanations based on concepts which correspond with how reality occurs and is detected. Originally, a potential variable in reality was postulated as being length dimension (which may or may not occur), but this variance then became attributed to time (which is incorrect). The essential problems with ideas about time (from Poincaré) are as follows, using extracts from: Einstein: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1905), Section 1 Part 1 Definition of Simultaneity

Para 3: "If, for instance, I say,"That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.""

Comment: Incorrect. The two events did not occur simultaneously on this basis. The train was at its specified spatial position before the hand on the watch reached its specified spatial position. Because, for a physically existent state to be observed, the photons which reacted with it (and thereby, in the context of the sensory system known as sight, conveyed a representation of it) must reach the observer. And the consequent delays involved are different, since the relative spatial positions of train and watch, vis a vis observer, are different. Indeed, the relationship of those spatial positions, ie original vis a vis on receipt of light, could alter at different rates during the delays, if the entities involved are moving at different speeds (dimension alteration could be an additional factor in this situation). Furthermore, there can be no presumption that light travelled at the same speed in both circumstances, since that can be afffected by environmental circumstances. Finally, at the practical level, the two observations would be effected consecutively, ie upon receipt of information about the train, the observer would then look at the watch.

Para 4: "but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or-what comes to the same thing-to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch." And Para 6 third part: "But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B."

Comment: Incorrect. Physically existent states do not each have their 'own' time. They exist as at a point in time. Timing being an extrinsic measuring system which, with the use a common denominator, enables the establishment of the relative relationship between occurrences (and enables comparison of rates of change).

Para 6 fourth part: "We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."And Para 7: "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if: t(b) - t(a) = t'(a) - t(b)

Comment: Incorrect. No more than one physically existent state can be in the same spatial position at a time. The concept of 'immediate proximity' is false. As at any given point in time, everything is in a relative spatial position. It is just that some entities are nearer each other than others, but there is always a distance between any two. As at any given point in time, AB is a specific distance. So whether it is measured as A to B, or B to A, is irrelvant, as too is the method used to calibrate and express that. That is, it is not necessary to use light to determine the time taken to travel that distance. And it is incorrect to assess this in terms of a relationship between the duration incurred one way, and then the duration to subsequently travel back. This introduces a factor which is non-existent, ie reifies time as a dimension, and because of the coincidental use of light speed (as opposed to any other possibility) implies a property thereof which is incorrect.

Hoang

By definition, the 'T.O.E', in the sense of one common basis to all diverse and more detailed explanations, will be that which reflects how reality occurs.

I will have a look at your essay.

Paul

Sergey

In the sense of what constitutes these physical phenomena, within the confine of our existence, I have no idea. On the basis of how reality, as manifest, must occur, and how it is detectable, I can however stipulate the following generic rules, to which any objective explanation of physical reality must conform. Otherwise it is belief, not science.

1 There is a physical reality which occurs independently of the mechanism whereby it is detected (so while knowledge is trapped in an existential loop, within that, objectivity is attainable). Also, this reality involves change.

2 Physical reality is therefore sequence, which means that only one state can occur at a time. Because for the successor to exist, the predecessor must cease. That is, reality is a sequence of physically existent states, the latter being that physical presence which involves no form of change. Or put the other way around, what occurs as at any given point in time (which has a specific definition).

3 No form of sensing (ie the mechanism which detects physical presence) can have any effect on a physically existent state, because it occurred before it was sensed. Furthermore, what is sensed is not what is usually referred to as reality (although it is a reality in itself). It is the consequence of an interaction with other physically existent phenomena.

4 In terms of interaction, physically existent states cannot 'jump' physical circumstances. So the cause of any given physically existent state must be from amongst those which were the immediate predecessors in the sequence and were spatially adjacent thereto. This applies universally, as there cannot be a circumstance where some phenomenon is deemed to have physical influence, but has no physical existence.

This is all very easy to say. In practice, I doubt if we could isolate a physically existent state (ie reality) even in the simplest of circumstances. However, that failure is not an excuse for flawed analysis which is contrary to what must occur, with occurrences being defined as realities when in fact there is a sequence of realities therein, cause being attributed to occurrences that are neither in sequence nor spatially adjacent, concepts being reified as existent, and a presumption that sensing has an effect, etc

Paul

PS: I will look at your essay, but I react to the word infinite immediately. We only know of physical presence. By definition, this is infinite. Whether it is or not, we cannot know. We cannot assert infinity.

Yuri

See above. With respect to any of these learned people, what they wrote does not determine the fundamental nature of reality. It is there. And language is irrelevant anyway, that being just a means of articulting what any given individual thought they perceived. The trick is to extroplate out of all these interferences what was physically received, and hence what occurred which caused that.

Paul