Cherished Assumptions and the Progress of Physics by Jonathan J. Dickau

Hi Jonathan,

I think you are making an important point. That our normal perception of the way things are is due to the development of the brain and its capacity to make sense of the sensory data it receives from the environment.

However , you wrote: "It is now known that neonatal infants do not distinguish between themselves and their surroundings or environment." I wonder whether that is a false notion based upon attempted interpretation of responses. There is not yet the ability to read a newborn's mind.

Like a number of other people, I have retained some pre-birth and very early life memories. My personal realisation of the limits of my existence occurred in utero. Prior to that I was self aware but with no perceived spatial limits. I can't of course prove that, but I do know it. I presume the transition in awareness was around the same time as the nerves from my fingers and toes began sending sensory impulses to the brain, which could be interpreted by it as being from my extremities. So subsequent to a certain level of development of the nervous system. I was most definitely aware of my separateness and individuality and the separateness and individuality of other people in my local environment at the time of birth.

Jill Bolte Taylor's video is very interesting giving an account of a perspective that thankfully relatively few of us get to experience. I.e. To have conscious awareness of the unprocessed (,or ill / under processed) sensory data input during a stroke. It is good evidence of the 'division' between the material world and the image that we have of it. Which provokes the question -what is each area of physics modelling? The perceived image, the sensory data, or the material sources of data.

Jonathan,

I have disagreed with your portrayal of the newborn's cognition following your earlier reply to Paul. However I am not disagreeing with the important point you are making about the necessity of learning about geometry and spatial relations of things. That growing cognition goes along with development of motor skills to interact with the environment, exploring, experimenting and building mental models.

I was looking for the sensory deprivation experiment done on kittens, who were shown only vertical lines, resulting in a kind of blindness to horizontal lines presented later on. Found This- Slideshow re. Perception I think that summary clearly shows that the mental models that are built, though enabling us to function well in our environment, are not infallible representations of the external material reality.

Jonathan

All this concern over how the processing of received physical input works is irrelevant to a physical theory. A physical theory, which is an attempt to explain physical existence physically, cannot be reliant on the vagaries of how sensory receptors decode what is received, brains interpret, memory, cultural influences, etc, etc. It is relevant in that, as with anything, it would be good to have an answer. That is, when in receipt of physically existent entity X, what happens in a generic human being, or a bat, or a plant (the latter alludes to another tendency to only consider humans, and in respect of observation). The point, as it should do, applies to any sentient organism, and any sensory capability.

Another way of putting this is that following on from an exchange initiated in Ben's blog, I have asked Georgina in her blog: "How do what you call Object & Image Reality have a physical relationship?"

It is not "pre-filtering or pre-processing". I am just stopping at the point in time when the physically existent phenomena are received, since that interaction also results in the cessation of those physical phenomena. That's the physics. So contrary to your next assertion: "which we do not confuse with the issue of subsequent processing as you seemingly do", I am the one not confusing perception/knowledge with reality. More importantly, I am the one differentiating a 'representational reality', which is a physically existent phenomenon, from (for want of a better label) existential reality. In simple terms, there is light, nose, vibration, heat, etc and there is (or more precisely was) what caused that.

Neither am I a "victim perhaps of a confirmation bias" because all I am doing is confirming the existentially closed system we are trapped in. Indeed, here is the fundamental argument (again), if you can see any presumption, please let me know:

1 There is existence of some form or other.

2 We are enabled to be aware of existence via certain physical processes.

3 We are therefore aware of what must, logically, be presumed to be only one possible form of existence. However, that is irrelevant in so far as we cannot transcend our existence, ie we cannot know, either directly or indirectly, something we are not capable of knowing. So, whilst we must assume we are trapped in an existentially closed system, within that we can potentially know everything. The basis of validation being those awareness processes, preferably when effected directly, but properly derived indirect 'awareness' is acceptable.

4 There are two key features of the form of existence that we can know:

a) it exists independently of the processes which detect it

b) there are differences, ie there is alteration.

This means the form of existence we can know (call it physical existence) is existential sequence.

5 In such a sequence, for any given successor to exist, the predecessor must cease to exist. That is, in physical existence, there can only be one physically existent state of the elementary substance which comprises it, at a time.

6 The physical processes which enable awareness have evolved using certain physically existent phenomena which have a particular generic characteristic. So, while they are part of physical existence, from the perspective of the recipient detection processes, they are representations of (what might be labelled) existential reality). That is, they resulted from a physical interaction with that existential reality. Indeed, if it was not for the evolution of those detection processes, they would be of no significance. In fact, if intercepted by an inanimate object, as opposed to the receptor device of any detection system, then they cease to exist and have had no significance.

End of.

The subsequent processing of this physically received input is irrelevant to the physics. Unfortunately(!) it is the only source from which to start determining what actually happened.

Paul

Jonathan

"In constructive geometry nothing is assumed to exist, besides an unbroken space of unknown dimension"

But is this a proper representation of physical existence? Because we do not know that 'nothing exists'. What we do know is that there is 'stuff', of different types, and depending on what we define, then there is 'space or 'distance' between those 'stuffs(!)'. But this space or distance is not, of itself physically existent, it is the different (in respect of a certain attribute, ie spatial rather than (say) colour) between what does exist. Differences do not physically exist. Indeed, that particular difference, can only be identified when the entities concerned are physically existent at the same given time. There is no spatial difference between something which exists and something else which does not exist. Put two jars on the table. There is a distance. Take one away. There is no distance. [That is the key flaw in relativity, because if that is not understood, then distance acquires duration via an incorrect application of x=vt]

The other question could be along the lines of what have spheres got to do with it, what is the justification of using spheres to represent physical existence? But that is detail.

The other point is about observation. Somewhat obviously, the physical entity that enables observation (aka light) must be 'coming towards', ie it and the front end of the sight sensory system (aka eye) must coalesce in their line of travel. Otherwise that particular light will not be 'seen' (which really means decoded), it will interact with the brick wall beside you perhaps. Or if it had been travelling in another direct, it might hit another observer, or another brick wall, or continue on in the general direction of the Andromeda Galaxy, etc, etc. The point here is that this entity, commonly known as light, is a different entity from what the original photon reacted with, which is commonly known as reality. What we physically receive, is not reality, but a reality which, in the context of the detection systems (commonly known as senses) provides an independent, physically existent, representation of that existent reality. After that it is a nightmare! commonly known as processing what was physically received, but that is not physics.

The reality of light, is different from the existential reality. Though, obviously, both need to be understood (as does the reality of noise, vibration, etc, etc). The fatal trap is not to differentiate these two. [Which is what relativity does to rationalise time which has been incorrectly introduced as a variable through the misunderstanding of how to measure distance]. However, I would just say, as I have before, that one then needs to be practical. For many occasions, can we just carry on with the science on the basis of a simplification, ie conflating physical existence, with the observable reality of physical existence (ie light reality = existent reality, and the 'nightmare' is neutralised, that is individualistic variations, etc, are eliminated). But that has to be a conscious decision, and when appropriate, that differentiation must be maintained.

Paul

Jonathan

I think it is sufficient to say that this all concerns processing-see above.

On the subject of my supposed 4 or 5 assumptions, I have somewhat pr-empted that with a restatment of the argument above, though I did react to some of your original articulation as to what you thought my presumptions were.

Anyway.....but do remember, we have to start somewhere, so one cannot just declare it a presumption because it was the start point, as such. And, as I said previously, what is more important is, does it work and do hypotheses based on alternatives not work?

Paul

Jonathan

I am still being patient!

I think though, while obviously a response to my particular points above is good, a better approach might be to respond to something where I articulate most of them in a cohesive statement which addresses, in detail, the fundamental error, ie the misuse of x=vt. This was posted on my blog in mid November, but if you send me a link to paulwhatsit@msn.com, I will send you a copy (it's only 12 pages).

Paul

Jonathan

This might help you understand where I am 'coming from'.

Assuming there is 'something wrong', the following are immediately apparent:

1 The theory 'works', which means if there is something wrong, then there must be compensatory errors or the incorrect attribution of a real variable.

2 If there is something wrong, it has nothing to do with the subsequent processing of physical input received. Nowhere is this the argument advanced, and it must not be that anyway, a physical theory cannot be a function of the vagaries of sentient organisms. Physical existence is independent of that.

3 In any practical sense, light travels at near enough a constant speed, so approximating to such, cannot cause a logical issue. Which indicates that the real problem is, if there is one, something else associated with light.

Then when one reads the originals, which are simple narratives (the maths does not matter in the first instance), two features 'jump' off the pages:

-that the two postulates deployed, which are singularly non controversial, are "only apparently irreconcilable". This is a bizarre statement, new theory, just two postulates, and yet......

-the pre-occupation with 'stationary' and non-stationary motion, and how something occurs in the latter circumstance which renders previous methodologies inadequate. What is this new feature that has been missed previously? How does being caused to move at a relatively different speed result in some physical effect which needs to be factored in when calibrating motion?

The answer lies in the hypothesis of dimension alteration. The twist in the story is that they ultimately ignored it, and accounted for the real variable by wrongly attributing its cause. Dimension alteration just affected their train of thought, and was the background to this preoccupation with stationary/non stationary movement. Now, it may just be that the dimension of all (some types) entities is affected by differential force incurred, but that is a separate issue...

Paul

Dear Jonathan,

Recently, a price was awarded for hearing aids that mimic binaural signal processing already before the neural cross-links between left and right cochlear nuclei. The solution by Siemens uses em waves for performing the due transfer between left and right side as to improve spatial hearing of elderly people and their ability to suppress noise (cocktail party effect) by means of coincidence detection between the binaural signals. The perception of elevation in space is more difficult.

I vaguely recall a report that unborn babies are already able to hear. Anyway, the interplay between left and right auditory pathway is definitely to be found already in embryos.

I admire your patience with Paul.

Best,

Eckard

Eckard

How sentient organisms process what is physically received is irrelevant to a theory of physical existence. It enables a better understanding of what was received, and the elimination of influences introduced in that processing. But physics is explaining, on the basis of what was physically received, what physically occurred.

And the same point is that Einstein never said it was anything to do with the processing of what was observered, just that it was observed, ie light was received. Problem is, he did not differentiate that 'reality' from the existent reality that is represents, in the context of the recipient sight sensory system. And therefore attributed the ever present time delay, whilst light trvels, to the wrong factor.

Paul