Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

Peter

"that the pulses were; 'passing by' the observer"

I know. But this laser light is not observational light. For an 'observer' to be an observer, then that entity must receive light which carries a representation of events. This is what you are labelling as the "secondary scattered signals". This laser light is just a moving entity, and like any other such entity, photons interact with it thereby creating light which enables it to be seen.

"And again, I did NOT "confirm that the speed of the glass did not affect light,"

Oh, so what meant by the phrase "The speed of light through glass of n=1.55 is 120,000 miles/sec. That number is a constant. It does not matter what 'state of motion' the glass is in with respect to ANYTHING else." Either glass alone has an effect on light, or the glass and whatever speed it is travelling at, affects light. Which is it? If the speed of the glass is a factor, then I presume that this is variable? In reality I would hazard a guess that the quality of the glass has a variable effect, but I understand the notion that we can depict it as a constant. Whereas, if the speed is a factor, that is not the same.

What is this 'local frame' you then mention? All I have is a laser light and glass. I understand how glass affects light speed. How does the speed at which the glass is moving affect this laser light?

"But as I just specified, our perpendicular observer cannot and does not 'see' THAT light signal."

Nobody sees that laser light. They receive a light based representation of it. That is what observing is. The notion of beaming this laser light straight into the eyes of the crews is just confusing what is happening. There is existence, and there is a light based representation of this, which enables sight, if received. That is how reality works. Can you please set up your 'model' on this basis.

Paul

Peter

"because the particle sequence of block A are at rest"

What constitutes "at rest"? Is this the concept that there is no differential of force incurred, so although the entity is moving it is not changing momentum? And anyway, what has this state got to do with it, unless you are going to say that when under the influence of differential force, and hence caused to 'move', dimension alters?

So, how is the ""light based representation" from each block...DIFFERENT!"? Please do not answer this question in respect of some recipient observer. The question is, again, a physical one. And, as indicated before, leave aside all the technicalities around the extent to which the physical phenomenon that we know as light, accurately and comprehensively, relays every particular of the physical existence it is representing. After all, this is just a physical effect, which evolution has harnessed, there can be no assumption that, given the way the representation is created, it does a perfect job in the capture and transmission thereof. But, at the simpler level, there is a sequence in physical existence which light is replicating. So my question there is what is the physical difference between A and B which is causing this difference you allude to, and why?

By definition, the observer does not receive (ie see) the same observational light from A and B, because they are different physical existences, and as their existential sequence progresses they are interacting with photons thereby creating light. As I said in an earlier post, there is this general reference to light as if it is all one physical entity. Which it is not. Light is physically existent, etc, etc. The point is that the effect in photons, which can be interpreted upon receipt, can be the same (or as good as the same for various recipients) in different physical circumstances.

The only optical illusion I can physically find, relates to the observational light which enables sight. That appears to alter if the distance that this light has to travel is altering, thereby changing the rate of change of the sequence as received by the moving recipient. I note your word "apparent". Whatever is existentially happening, is happening. The differential is in the timing of receipt of the light based representation.

"be able to interact directly with (detect) the primary pulses themselves. This may now test you too far, but give it a go."

Yep, because you are now contradicting the nature of physical existence. This is what Einstein did. You are trying to conflate physical existence with the light based representation of physical existence which enables sight, by using something which is itself light. Thereby implying that we can see its immediate occurrence, ie eliminate observational light. How does that happen? This light pulse is not in their eyes, it is a physically existent entity, and is physically different from the entities known as observers. Observational light of this existence must be received for them to see. What you can say is that the light pulse wrt to observer, etc, etc, ie as physical entities, comparing one to another.

Paul

PS: am in a bit of a rush as going away now for a couple of days

PPS: thanks for continuing to engage

Peter

I have not "glimpsed" anything. The timing differential is one of several obvious facts which stem from another obvious fact that we sense by receiving physical input which is the result of an interaction with what occurred and is, for the recipient sensory system, a representation thereof (commonly this is referred to as light, noise, vibration, etc).

Everything is moving, so your notion that there is 'something special' about B, as opposed to A, of themselves, is not correct, unless you can explain some existential occurrence which is specifically dependent on different speeds of the glass. Even then, I suspect this would be a really technical point, because one then gets involved, as I have said before, in what constitutes light. It is an effect in photons, but how many effects in how many photons is light? Is the light that disperses in one direction identical to that which disperses in another, because different photons are involved, and it cannot all happen at the same time, so are they depictions of different existent states? Etc, etc.

Put simply, whatever is enabling the physical phenomenon known as light has physical properties. Whether these are capable of perfectly carrying out the acquired functional role (of representing physical existence both accurately and comprehensively) due to the evolution of sensory systems is an open question.

So, until someone knows down to the last photon exactly what is physically happening, then really, all that is different is that B is altering spatial position wrt observer. A is not. So it is taking ever longer for the light which enables sight of this B sequence as it progresses to be received by the observer.

I am not interested in Wittegenstein, just facts.

Paul

Paul,

Possibly the most important words of Einstein were; "we don't yet understand 1,000th of 1% of what nature has revealed to us".

You say; "I have not "glimpsed" anything." Not the meaning indeed. But of course you have glimpsed it just not recognised it. The real problem is only in recognising what we glimpse.

All I need to show to allow science to make it's long overdue paradigm leap is that what the observer sees from B is at all DIFFERENT to what he sees from A, and that difference is due to the difference in A and B's state of motion.

You certainly glimpsed that, but did not recognise it as, not consistent with current interpretation and in fact, the 'holy grail' allowing unification. Very few have even glimpsed it. None have recognised it, so you are in the vast majority. I, simply, must still look for ways of pointing out the secret hidden in the place all spies now is the best, right in front of our eyes.

Any who ARE interested in Wittgenstein's analysis of how we use our brains, and how we should use our brains, will have the chance of recognising it. It seems those who don't will have close to none.

Interestingly part of Wittgenstein's philosophy was that it is useless to tell people when they don't understand something. No wonder he's considered the father of modern analytical logic. If you can derive the importance of the proposition without thinking less linearly then you may be more a genius than he!

Best wishes

Peter

Peter

"Possibly the most important words of Einstein were; "we don't yet understand 1,000th of 1% of what nature has revealed to us".

Taken in terms of its intended point, this is true. So what? I am not saying what physical existence ("nature) is (a point I made to Tom, again, yesterday). I am saying what the generic form of it must be. How that manifest in any given circumstance is to be identified.

"You say; "I have not "glimpsed" anything." Not the meaning indeed. But of course you have glimpsed it just not recognised it. The real problem is only in recognising what we glimpse."

Quite the contrary, which was my point. Generically, we know we (and all other organisms capable of doing so) receive physical input, which is the result of an interaction which something else that was physically existent. The recipient sensory system is able to utilise this, ie it is a physically existent representation of what was physically existent. So, apart from knowing that there are, in effect two 'realities, we know that receipt of the representation occurs after a time delay wrt the existent occurrence it represents. At the generic level, this is knowledge, no "glimpsing" or failing to understand "meaning". That is what has happened with physics, because it has failed to identify first the form of what it is investigating. And since that is existence, then that can easily lead to problems.

"All I need to show to allow science to make it's long overdue paradigm leap is that what the observer sees from B is at all DIFFERENT to what he sees from A, and that difference is due to the difference in A and B's state of motion."

But it is not due to A & B's state of motion. It is due to the changing relative spatial position of observer vis a vis A & B and the resulting effect on time delay in the receipt of observational light. Well, at least I have not seen any argument that the difference is in physical existence. And indeed, if there was some physical effect, so be it. So what? The speed as well as the quality, etc, of glass has an effect on light. And...Furthermore, all that that means, generically, is that whatever the effect is, the observational light which is received and enables sight of this will relay that effect, it will not be altered as such. In other words, if there is some factor which can have a physical influence on light, then any resultant alteration in sequence will be transmitted, as is, by the observational light. Which will be subject to the same optical illusion re changing distance and time delay.

"the 'holy grail' allowing unification"

That will occur when the nature of physical existence is first understood. In effect, what prevails at the moment is a religion, with various sub-branches, dependent on their presumptions about the nature of existence.

"Any who ARE interested in Wittgenstein's analysis of how we use our brains, and how we should use our brains, will have the chance of recognising it. It seems those who don't will have close to none."

And here is one such sub-branch. The subsequent processing of the physical input received is irrelevant to physical theory. That is supposed to be explaining physical existence, which includes what was received and what caused that. The output of the subsequent processing is knowledge or not-knowledge (belief), physics is not concerned with this. Neither can this process have any effect on physical existence, which is why physics is not concerned with it, because the physical input was received. Just in the same way as the chair next to me is currently receiving photon based representations of the waste basket. But unlike me, the chair is not able to subsequently process this.

If I could be bothered, I suspect I would find the flaw in Wittgenstein.

Paul

Peter

Ha, I did have a look, but when confronted by a string of propositions, had no motivation to go any further. And none of this has anything to do with the point here anyway, ie that there is physical existence and a physical representaion of that, which is what every entity receives. Sentient organisms being able to process that, though this is irrelevant to the physics of the circumstance.

Paul

Peter

"You must recognise that most were where you are long ago, and few are arguing"

Really? I think in the first instance you had best just write a couple of paragraphs which summarise "where I am", so that we can test this assertion. Because although you were the only one who I felt made an effort to read my essay properly, you translated it. Admittedly it could have been better written, but it was good enough.

"Wittegenstin; 'nothing in our mind exists, and cannot be created until we have received the information to create it in our minds." i.e. what we are 'seeing' is a representation we construct from physical signals."

Now this is an interesting quote to post, because not only is this assertion incorrect, it gives me an indication of what you think I am saying, but am not.

Wittegenstein is incorrect because he has failed to differentiate existential existence, from the photon based representation thereof, from the perception resulting from the subsequent processing (that actually occurs in a number of stages, but for the sake of this argument can be treated as one). In being existent, any given physically existent state causes physically existent effects by virtue of an interaction with certain physical phenomena which are not part of the existential sequence (cause and effect). If received, ie in the line of travel and therefore interact with, by certain entities (aka sentient organisms), that can be subsequently processed. In other words, the physical effect has acquired a functional role due to evolution, and is, in that context, a representation of what existed. Put simply, an inanimate entity also receives these physical effects, but cannot subsequently process them.

Physics is concerned with what was physically received, and what physically existed to cause that. Not the subsequent processing of it. There is then a physical issue with what is received. This revolves around the fact that the physical phenomena which have acquired this functional role have physical properties, which means that it cannot be assumed that the representation is, based on an understanding of how the physical interaction works, either perfectly accurate and/or comprehensive. This can be summarised as:

-non receipt: eg no recipient sentient organism was in the line of travel of the effect, or it ceased to exist en route due to interaction with another existent phenomenon first, or it has not yet reached any known organism. Another possibility is that the reality has a property which does not interact with the phenomena involved, ie nothing is generated as a result of the interaction.

-alteration: the effect has been altered in some way, en route, ie it is not in its original state when received. This could involve delay, distortion, partial elimination, diversion from the original line of travel, etc.

-deficiency: this could revolve around the occurrences within any given physically existent state being too much, or too small, or changes being too frequent, etc, so the physical phenomena involved cannot cope, ie they are unable to properly differentiate all that existed.

"He also said something like; "Nobody can think for me as nobody can doff my hat." Which means we all interpret slightly differently and always will."

Apart from being a statement of the blindingly obvious, this is irrelevant. Physics is not concerned with the vagaries of the subsequent processing of the physical input received.

"Bohr; Copenhagen interpretation; "the observer is a part of the 'system' and dictates what is 'observed' by him."

This is nonsense. The observer does not even receive physical existence, but a physical representation of that. And the only physical effect is that it ceases to exist in that physical form on reception, just the same as if the receipt had been with an inanimate entity. Sensing (ie receipt and the subsequent processing) cannot have any effect on either what physically existed, or what physically existed, and was subsequently received, as a result of an interaction with it.

Paul

Peter

Have you got an answer to this then? And please no more philosophers.

The key point here is that there is an existential reality (which is sequence)and a photon based representation (which is also physically existent) of that which a) must be received to enable sight, b) must incur a time delay between time of existence and time of receipt of photon representation of it.

Simple phyics, I don't do philosophy.

Paul

Peter

Let go of what?

To be able to be an observer, that entity must receive a photon based representation of what physically occurred. The subsequent processing of it is irrelevant to the physical process. A brick receives a photon based representation of what physically occurred, it just cannot process it, because inanimate entities were not involved in the evolutionary process of sensory detection systems which utlises certain pre-existent physically existent phenomena to enable awareness of physical existence.

This has certain obvious consequences, a) there must be observational light, b) there must be a delay between the time of physical occurrence and the time of receipt of a photon based representation of that, c) sensing cannot affect physical existence.

Now, instead of referring to all these people who have got it wrong, can you please tell me why this extremely simple physical statement on what is happening is incorrect?

Paul

My father taught me this game when I was quite little. So tempted to answer that question Peter but it would be interesting to see Paul's opinion.

The Monty Hall problem.