I'm sorry, Georgina, but there is little chance I will understand what you're getting at unless it is stated in formal language. Do you know anyone who can translate these words ... "They co-exist while being different. Though there is a also a boundary where conversion occurs which is a reality interface ..." into a mathematical statement?

One might ask, why is that important? -- I don't know. I do know, however, that without being able to logically close the judgment, I personally won't be able to grasp it as science.

I already offered my opinion on the fundamental formal meaning of boundary conditions.

Tom

  • [deleted]

Tom,

the mathematical structure is, I think, novel.If it was ordinary and simple it would have been known about and understood long ago.

You may not understand everyday English but I think you surely must have the ability to comprehend a Venn diagram and simple flow chart.On the diagram it has been necessary to show the Image reality on a different level though it is contained within the Object reality. If you recall the earlier version that separation was not shown.

It also raises other interesting mathematical questions to do with how numbers and infinities relate to the different realities as there is the 'explicate' and 'implicate' mathematics to consider.

Georgina,

Then I'd say your best bet is to go in search of a mathematical theory to incorporate your concept. It's happened before in a dramatic way -- as when Einstein's friend Besso pointed him toward the then little known Riemannian geometry.

Sure, I understand Venn (or Euler) diagrams. The map of general relationships, though, doesn't inform one of ordered relations.

Mathematics is always explicate, never implicate. If you're thinking of the "implicate and explicate" order of Bohm and Hiley, it isn't the mathematical model that describes the dual order -- it's the reversibility of the order. Ordered relations must be constructed, not implied -- that's why we have the axiom of choice, or Zorn's lemma, to start with -- just to show you that I don't entirely disagree with your research direction, I have published a technique to construct ordered relations without the AC. Albeit in a higher dimension model.

Tom

  • [deleted]

Tom,

Now you have confused me with your language. It may have been better if I had said implicate pre space-time mathematics and and explicate space time mathematics. Yes I was making reference to the paper I have previously quoted which refers to the work of Bohm and Hiley, ALGEBRAS, QUANTUM THEORY AND PRE-SPACE by F. A. M. FRESCURA and B. J. HILEY, Department of Physics, Birkbeck College, London WC1E 7HX UK (Received In February, 22, 1984)

"6. Bohm D. and Hiley B., Generalisation of the Twistor to Clifford Algebras as a Basis for Geometry, Revista Brasileira de Physica, Volume Especial, Os 70 anos de Mario Schonberg, 1-26, 1984."

It seems to me, whether they realised it or not, that they are probably talking about a conversion of a mathematical description of the potential sensory data in a foundational reality to the mathematical description of the output observed as space-time. That also ties in with what I was saying about Roger Penrose's description of the light cone model using quaternion mathematics and possible relevance Joy Christians recent work. I realise there is still a lot of development that can be done with and around the framework. Part of that might be finding different ways to mathematically express the important relations of ideas within it, not just to aid comprehensions but to make it easily applicable to different types of physics work. Thanks for your time, considering my replies and your advice.

  • [deleted]

I'd just like to add that something both 'belonging' and 'not belonging' to a set has been known for a long time. The Liar paradox, Stanford Encyclopedia Quote: "The Liar has also formed the core of arguments against classical logic, as it is some key features of classical logic that allow capture and release to result in absurdity. Most notable are the arguments for logics that are paracomplete (e.g., Kripke (1975), Field (2008), and others) and paraconsistent (e.g., Asenjo (1966), Priest (1984, 2006), and others)"

The 'division' of reality is not exactly the same as the Liar problem because the Image reality can be part of the object reality while also not being it, so it does not have to be excluded but I think it shows that such a mathematical oddity is not unprecedented.

  • [deleted]

Re.post before last. Read: Implicate order within pre-space mathematics and explicate order within space-time mathematics.Hope that sounds right.

  • [deleted]

Tom,

Actually I would consider myself a pantheist. Absolute is basis, not apex, so a spiritual absolute would be the essence from which we rise, not an intellectual and moral ideal from which we fell. A spiritually unified state would be more the egg, than the chicken. It satifies Ockham's razor to assume all biology is inherently aware, rather than assume awarenss arose later, because it makes one mystery, not two. It also helps to explain why life is so tenacious. It also doesn't entail a spiritual split between an absent deity and wandering souls. We are the same elemental light shining through different lenses. Different cells in the same organism.

I don't know that this is required to explain "physically real," though. You do invariably focus of whatever part of an argument isn't tied together precisely and insist that disproves the rest of the argument, as I've mentioned before and Georgina just commented on, so I will repost the body of the argument, without that offending off topic conclusion;

"That which is manifest is physically real. The problem is trying to qualify the boundaries. As I see time as an effect of action, there is no such thing as a dimensionless point in time, anymore than there is such a thing as a dimensionless apple. Anything multiplied by zero, is zero. So a dimensionless point in time would be like taking a picture with the shutter speed set at zero. Nothing exists without action. It's like a temperature of absolute zero. This means that nothing, not a quantum particle, not an automobile, not a pretty girl's smile, not a beautiful day, not a miserable day, exists independent of its action. There is no independance. When all action ceases, the manifest is no more. It cannot be measured, it cannot be seen. It cannot be felt, as all require action. Measurement is an action. So the boundary between what is and what is not, cannot be measured, because measurement must be part of that which is. As Eric Reiter shows, our ability to measure only extends to the limits of effects and effects are interaction between things that exist; The measurement device and the measured."

  • [deleted]

Quote :According to David Bohm's theory, implicate and explicate orders are characterised by:In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm 1980, p. xv) Wikipedia

"Actually I would consider myself a pantheist. Absolute is basis, not apex, so a spiritual absolute would be the essence from which we rise, not an intellectual and moral ideal from which we fell."

John, true -- while there is no permutation of the philosophy of pantheism that I know of, that includes the myth of a "fall" from the ideal -- every idea of pantheism AFAIK does posit that the ideal present throughout nature is equal in all its manifestations. Therefore, equality of manifestation obviates any "essence" idependent of the whole of nature. Once one mounts the slippery slope of differentiation between ideals (such as essence and actuality), one gets disjointed realities. I have to keep repeating Murray Gell-Mann's claim, which I find profound, that "something else" is entirely unnecessary to explain the world in which we live.

"You do invariably focus of whatever part of an argument isn't tied together precisely and insist that disproves the rest of the argument ..." No, I just look for logical consistency. Should I abandon that principle for the sake of accepting that any of these proposed disjointed realities may be physically real? So be it. I accept that. Now what?

Tom

Hi Georgina,

"The 'division' of reality is not exactly the same as the Liar problem because the Image reality can be part of the object reality while also not being it, so it does not have to be excluded but I think it shows that such a mathematical oddity is not unprecedented."

"The barber paradox" is a variation of the liar's paradox which goes something like -- if the barber shaves all the men who don't shave themselves, who shaves the barber? (If the barber shaves himself, he does *not* shave all the men who don't shave themselves.)

B. Russell denied that any such self-referential statement is more than noise. Let's take it at face value, though, and assume that your image reality (that of the observer, or quantum operator) belongs to the same set as the object reality (the barber who shaves all the men who don't shave themselves) for every act except the self-referential.

This dualism ultimately results in quantum entanglement; i.e., the operator never observes himself, and every individual (every element of the set of those who don't shave themselves) are in a superposition of states (shaved or unshaved) until "shaved." IOW, the operator only belongs to the set when shaving (observing) and at no other time. The entire reality is observer-created.

This raises the question, at what time is the shaver never shaving? -- in actuality, never.

J. A. Wheeler found a way out of this dilemma, by applying information theory to a continuously self-referential universe, objective, unitary and participatory. This restores classical orientation entanglement to quantum mechanics, and obviates quantum entanglement -- because the operator and the object (members of your image and object realities) are correlated at all times. Joy Christian realized that the critical properties of orientability and initial condition are ultimately responsible for all observed quantum correlations, and quantum entanglement is no more than an illusion caused by the assumption of nonlocal events (IOW, the assumption that there are times when the barber isn't shaving).

Point is, one cannot exclude the "barber" from the set of those being shaved without adding a layer of non-physical interpretation to the physics. A local realistic (classical) framework does not need that superfluous interpretation; there is complete 1 to 1 correspondence between elements of the theory and elements of the reality.

Tom

  • [deleted]

Well,

On the surface it seems like the eye alone must be a conscious entity that exists beside the brain, since the eye detects edges (discerns reality) without direct help from the brain.

Or, the eye is not really conscious, and consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with creating reality, whatsoever, in any way -- beyond those capabilities built into dead matter (Mercury and the Sun, as realistic objects, did just fine without us, are doing just fine without out, and will continue to do just fine without us).

It's surely all-or-nothing, and humans (well, brains) have absolutely no reason to claim that they have some kind of special role to play when it comes to pinning down reality (other than to misinterpret it, maybe).

- Shawn

  • [deleted]

(

But,

This isn't to say that there isn't a "pre-quantum" reality that exists in an ambiguous manner before observation, because there surely is (or so, the anti-"black hole firewall" / pro-"black hole complementarity" people argue).

- Shawn

)

  • [deleted]

My "anonymous" reply was incomplete. I have to admit that I did not yet reveal possibly overlooked consequences of what I demonstrated in my Figs. 3 and 4 in Feynman's lectures. When I looked in vain for how F. defined velocity, I felt distracted by verbosity including the mentioning of Zeno's turtle, a policeman joke, the distinction between velocity and speed, and the vague hint in 8-1 to subtleties due to the theory of relativity. F. states at the end of 8-1: "Who once drove knows what velocity is." F. introduced xyz-coordinates and the measured time t.

He introduces a relativistic equation 10.7 like something to swallow, without immediate justification. When he reiterates this indoctrination with 15.1, he does still not yet clarify what v and c refer to. I see this deficit at the heart of SR and related to my Fig. 5.

Eckard

  • [deleted]

Tom,

It's monotheism which has the myth of the fall: Ref. Adam, Eve and the apple.

Obviously both the chicken and the egg are of the same essence. The point is that if one is looking for the pure, unified state, it would be the more elemental and undifferentiated one, not the more complex and differentiated state. In other words, even spirituality can be discussed in terms of bottom up vs. top down.

I agree we don't need "something else" to explain nature, even multiverses.

As to my prior point, I said "I argue measurement is a consequence of reality." I didn't say I could prove it, because one can only prove what is testable. Similarly one cannot prove the opposite; That there is no physical reality beyond what is testable. Therefore there is that grey area between what is and what is not.

  • [deleted]

Tom, I will reply to your last post on my own thread as I think we taken up more than enough of George's thread already and my reply is quite lengthy , as I need to go through the argument step by step to make it clear.Thank you very much for your reply, giving me the opportunity to do that.

Hi Shawn, your thoughts on that reply are also invited. @ Which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong. Georgina Parry

  • [deleted]

George,

Please forgive me. I cannot resist commenting off topic on what Tom wrote: "One of the reasons that we use mathematical language to represent a fundamental phenomenon, is that it removes ambiguities". Let me clarify first that I agree with Tom on that there is only one reality. However, my search for weaknesses in the famous Feynman lectures did also remind me of how the use of complex calculus does not remove ambiguities but it is on the contrary to blame for causing ambiguous redundancies. The more often I am reading the lectures, the more I enjoy how naively the author unintentionally demonstrates several weak points in commonly believed tenets.

Eckard

  • [deleted]

And the apple was from the tree of knowledge.

  • [deleted]

Shawn,

"On the surface it seems like the eye alone must be a conscious entity that exists beside the brain, since the eye detects edges (discerns reality) without direct help from the brain."

Think in terms of someone on the other side of a glass wall, trying to get your attention. Obviously they are conscious, but you cannot sense that consciousness, only its actions. Compare that to the sense of knowing someone, but not being able to place them. Somewhere in your mind, there exists that conscious knowledge, but it's like the person on the other side of the wall. The brain is very much like that. There are separate areas of consciousness, but the act of being "awake" is an overide mechanism which keeps only one unified sense of self in control. Sometimes, on the edge of sleep, I find different areas of my mind operating separately, but quickly recede into the sub-conscious, as the awake sense of being focuses on this situation. I think consciousness can be inherently diffuse, or directed. It's just that as intentional, predatory creatures, our minds are evolved primarily to focus. I think that eventually the fractal evolution of life on this planet is creating a form of unified central nervous system, with humanity as the medium. I suspect it's many generations in the future though. This might seem deeply socialisitic, in our current political mindset, but remember, we are both most individuals and most part of a larger community, among those we know. The political philosophy of individualism mostly just leads to a culture of atomized and anonymous citizens and consumers subsisting in a branded environment. Eventually we will come out of those shells and see ourselves as a larger process and not just objects.

Georegina, Tom,

It seems verbal paradoxes are similar to C.S. Escher's waterfalls and stairways that go in circles. They work because they are lacking full dimensionality. Being reductionistic, logic does create these conundrums.

  • [deleted]

" ... there is that grey area between what is and what is not."

Not in rational science, John. I keep pointing out your contradictions, and you keep ignoring them. The conclusion you make above, follows your statement: " ... there is no physical reality beyond what is testable. Therefore ..."

It is the test, the measurement, that demarcates "what is" from "what is not." A click, a flash, or other means of particle detection tells us what is, and its absence tells us what is not. Though quantum mysticism allows that "grey area" -- many researchers, including Joy Christian, Michael Goodband, and myself -- find that all physics is local, just as Einstein averred.

"And the apple was from the tree of knowledge."

Actually, it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Without the ability to discern ("Who told you that you were naked?" as God asked after the forbidden act), we are not the humans we are, and science is impossible. Many anti-science attitudes of of people who take their religion literally can be traced to this myth.

Tom

  • [deleted]

That last was mine.