An Accidental Universe

Paul,

I was referring to the unseen arrangement of the potential data in the environment which is what I have taken your term "existent representation" to mean. Hence all of our previous conversation about the inappropriateness of the term in my opinion. The arrangement of the potential data in the environment can alter prior to receipt, that is what I meant. Are you now saying that the "existent representation" is the data that impinges upon the photo-receptor or sensitive material? Or only that which can be detected? Is that rather than it being the data in the environment prior to receipt?

Paul that post was the reply to your post of 24/3 05.27. I've accidentally put it in the wrong place.

Paul,

I must agree with Edwin that you ought to familiarize yourself with the concept of the space-time continuum and its implications.

I will not explain in detail the concept of a reality interface here as it is off topic.I am surprised that it is not apparent to you after so many conversations. Reminder-,organism, device or sensitive material. Please refer back to the high res. RICP diagram in my essay thread or the previous versions you have been shown.

Paul,

The order in which data is received depends upon the position of the observer in space not just the order in which the potential data was produced. Using sound as an example because it is easy to give an "everyday" kind of scenario. There is a thunderstorm overhead for observer A and a distant dog. For observer B his dog is close by and there is a distant thunderstorm. A hears a clap of thunder and then a dog bark, he might think the dog barked because of the thunder clap. B hears the dog bark and then the thunder, he might think his dog has the power to foretell the future

Georgina

"I must agree with Edwin that you ought to familiarize yourself with the concept of the space-time continuum and its implications"

Really? It would be good if you just responded to the points I make, rather than dodging them. And in respect of the 'space-time continuum', I am as familiar with it as I need to be. Because the model is an incorrect depiction of physical existence, as time, or more precisely alteration, is not a feature of any given physically existent state, but a characteristic of the difference between them, ie the rate at which the alteration occurs. In other words, physical existence is a purely spatial phenomenon which alters over time. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that there is a one to one relationship between a unit of space and a unit of time, which is what the model presumes. Indeed, the whole argument about the space-time model is entirely circular (as set out, for example, in Cox & Forshaw, Why does E=mc2 ). All of which I covered in a post on my blog, which resulted from an exchange with Jonathan Dickau and others last October.

I am fully aware of your diagram, as you correctly point out. But did not understand what your concept of 'reality interface' could be. Whilst 'off topic', presumably it would have only taken a sentence or two to define.

"The order in which data is received depends upon the position of the observer in space not just the order in which the potential data was produced."

I have said the former countless times, and did not say the latter. Indeed, the most important point is that for the physically existent representation to be received, an entity which can enable the subsequent processing of that physical input must be in the line of travel of it. In the case of light, for example, this means your eye, not your mouth, or the brick wall behind you. As for your dog in a thunderstorm. I am not interested in what people think. There was a physical circumstance, both in terms of occurrence and the consequent generation of physically existent representations of that. Full stop. You argue that what happens internally in any recipient sentient organism, if in receipt of the latter somehow has an effect. Which it cannot. It has an effect on the perception of what was physically received. As I keep on pointing out, but you do not explain how it possibly could. Indeed, the last time you eventually got upset and told me off for not respecting your model which you had worked on for years...as if I am supposed to bend the rules of existence .

Paul

Paul, I did not want to give you lessons on space-time (I have on previous occasions recommended books covering the subject that I have found useful and thought you might too.)I wrote about the thunderstorm and dog to try to lead you in the right direction nevertheless. It would help a great deal if you really understood concept of non simultaneity of events which is valid whether the continuum is thought of as potential sensory data or [incorrectly imo] as actual material events.

I did previously also provide a word list that had definitions of all of the terms I use when talking about the explanatory framework.It says "In this explanatory framework the "reality interface" is an object, system, material, device or organism that converts received input that is unobserved to different observed or observable output. The "Prime reality interface" [is] The human sensory system and central nervous system that converts received sensory data input into observed /experienced output reality." Between the two "levels of reality" shown on the diagram there is always a reality interface of some kind.

Paul , you wrote " You argue that what happens internally in any recipient sentient organism, if in receipt of the latter somehow has an effect. Which it cannot." Yes the processing does have an effect on what is observed. If considering the human visual system there is filtering, as there are thresholds of intensity needed for activation of a signal; and different cells respond to different frequencies; there is amalgamation of data into channels, patching of gaps, emphasis of lines and boundaries. All have an effect on what is seen, it is a fabrication not a faithful reproduction made just of the data impinging upon the eyes.

Paul,

I might still not have made that final point completely clear. It is always the output 'Image reality' that is observed and measured not the object source or the potential sensory data in the environment.

Observe:1. to see, perceive, notice 2. to watch (something) carefully, to pay attention to (something); abbreviated from "The New Collins concise dictionary of the English language".

A very simple device or sensitive material may just have two states, a detection or no detection, but it will still act as a filter of the potential data because it will detect only certain kinds of stimuli, such as a particular range of frequencies of EM radiation. It will also only show detection above a certain threshold of intensity- unless there is amplification to increase the signal to a detectable level.

Georgina

"I wrote about the thunderstorm and dog to try to lead you in the right direction nevertheless"

How?

"It would help a great deal if you really understood concept of non simultaneity of events"

What can this concept refer to? If different existences occurred at different times, then they did, so what? If different physically existent representations of the same existence are received at different times, then there is physical explanation. The concept of simultaneity expoused by Poincaré, and copied by Einstein is wrong. It demonstrates a failure to understand how timing works and usually involves the conflation of the reality which occurred and the light reality which resulted from this occurrence.

In the post above you write: "the "reality interface" is an object, system, material, device or organism that converts received input". Actually, it cannot be anything inanimate, because inanimate entities cannot process. All they do is alter the physical input to another form of physical input. Ultimately there must be a sentient organism to receive the physical input. However, this is detail. The point here being that "reality interface" here refers to the receipt of physical input.

Now go back to the post where you used this phrase which caused me to ask what it could be. You wrote: "The Object reality sequence and the image reality sequence are not the same thing. They are on different sides of the reality interface". Indeed, the occurrence and the physically existent representation resulting from it, are not the same thing. But what interface are you referring to? The sentient organism receives the physically existent representation, which is then processed. There is no 'interface' between the actual existent reality and the sentient organism.

"Yes the processing does have an effect on what is observed. If considering the human visual system..."

Exactly. The processing of the physical input is about the creation of a depiction of that input. Because this is at the individual level, and because it involves a process, then what was received and the resultant depiction thereof are different. This processing needs to be understood. But it is not physics. Because the processing did not affect physical existence. Physics is endeavouring to understand what was received and therefore what occurred which caused that.

"It is always the output 'Image reality' that is observed and measured not the object source or the potential sensory data in the environment"

Now I am starting to get confused with your labels. I think this statement is wrong. The output image reality is not observed, this is what we think we received as a result of the sensory system/brain processing. What we observed, ie received, was the physical input, eg light, or in your words 'potential sensory data' (why not just call it what it is?).

Paul

Paul, I will reply a few of those questions on my essay thread. I don't want to get really off topic here.

We cannot (and do not) experience outer space. Because, do (and can) we actually/really/truly, fully/directly (including seen, felt, and touched), experience outer space AS IT IS? The answer is no.

Outer space destroys and precludes our experience and thought. Alas, sorry, the understanding of outer space is significantly limited. Think about it...the feeling of gravity is gone, AND we are not touching anything, and the space is black. It all makes sense.

The true/real equivalency and balancing of inertia, gravity, and electromagnetism (INCLUDING THEORETICALLY/THOUGHTFULLY) will never (and can never) be in outer space. True/real quantum gravity will never be in outer space.

Vision begins invisibly in the eye/body. Space is also invisible. The ground is visible, and the body is visible. Think! Visual, tactile, AND felt ideas matter in physics. They matter alot. Do they not?

Importantly, outer space involves FULL inertia due to the impossibility of our DIRECT physical experience of outer space (thoughtful/theoretical, touched, seen, AND felt). Inertia and gravity must both be at half strength/force in order to unify and balance them. Full gravity involves full distance in/of space (touched, seen, AND felt). FACT !!

Gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing is required for true/real quantum gravity. The middle distance in/of space unifies physics fundamentally.

The true/real equivalency and balancing of inertia, gravity, and electromagnetism (INCLUDING THEORETICALLY/THOUGHTFULLY, plus seen, felt, AND touched) will never (and can never) be in outer space. Visual, tactile, AND felt ideas/experience matter in physics. They matter alot.

Language and Facts--Logic and Mathematics

What about the languages of mathematics and logic, appar-ently the most strict and unequivocal of all languages? Are they not--through their strictness and unambiguity--completely non- magical, perfectly coherent and "objective" (devoid of acci- dental and subjective "contaminations")? Do they not--through sharply defined, discrete objects and rules--describe the world in an absolutely certain way, devoid of any doubts? Well, it de- pends on how one looks at this problem. Many mathematicians and logicians believe that their disciplines and objects they deal with (such as logical syllogisms, numbers, sets, functions, various kinds of arithmetic and geometry) exist independently of the material reality and human mind, in the world of ideal Platonic entities. However, if somebody thinks (as I do) that the Platonic world is an illusion, an empty name, then the language of logic and mathematics would be (in a sense at least) the most magical of the languages known to us, as it brings into exis- tence entire independent universes. Let us start with logic. Its rules seem to be obvious and even trivial. For instance, the law of transitiveness of identity that says: "if A is identical with B and B is identical with C, then A is identical with C", or the postulate saying that the sentence "the quantity (number) B of A is located within C" is either true or false. So far, everything seems to be all right. The problem begins at the moment, when one starts to substitute real or thinkable objects for A, B and C. Let us consider the sentence "A is identical with B". What does it mean "identical"? If one apple differs from another by at least one atom, is it identical with it or not? And if the atomic com- position is actually the same, does the spatial location still not make a difference? After all, such a difference means a differ- ent situation in relation to various objects, different gravita- tional and electrical field intensity, different quanta of electro- magnetic radiation (photons) reaching the surface of an apple and exciting atoms entering into its composition, and so on. Anyway, the notion of "identity" of two apples does not make any sense, because of quantum indeterminacy. It allows for an infinite number of combinations of locations of particular atoms and elementary particles in apples. Quantum mechanics is sta- tistical in its essence and therefore two apples on principle cannot be identical! As it is discussed above, the property of identity cannot be applied even to single elementary particles, including those entering into the composition of apples under consideration. And therefore, the above-quoted, apparently in- nocent sentence is in fact nonsensical, simply impossible to be correctly and logically formulated. The situation described by the analyzed statement can occur only thanks to the magic of languade

Ant Ter,

"The problem begins at the moment, when one starts to substitute real or thinkable objects for A, B and C. Let us consider the sentence "A is identical with B". What does it mean "identical"? If one apple differs from another by at least one atom, is it identical with it or not?"

If I say that A is an apple, and, then say that B is an apple, then, I can correctly state that A is identical to B. If I add in specific characteristics about apple A, then my statement is not about the lone identity of 'apple', but, rather about a specific type of apple. Those specifics or others are not a part of the logic statement until I introduce them into the logic statement. Your thoughts?

James Putnam

I would like to comment on the issues relating to time in the early universe and propose that the rate of passage of time was affected by the spacetime curvature of the early universe. In general relativity the effect on time of acceleration and gravitation is to slow the rate of passage of time.

The description of the evolution of the universe according to the spacetime boundary model is available here:

The evolution of the universe

My view is that there are universal fundamental laws that apply throughout space and time. At the small scale it is the variation in the rate of passage of time that leads to the property of electric charge. See:

The unification of physics

Richard

A unifying foundation would need an understanding of that upon which we float. This does not mean we cannot create tools to manipulate the media in which we cannot connect with directly.

http://jamesbdunn2.blogspot.com/2014/05/big-bangs-explained-from-non.html

Causality is supported by an underlying foundation. So we should be as a minimum able to characterize physics in terms of causality.

It is an utter mistake to compare universe and life with man-made machines which are ruled by second law of thermodynamics.