Which is What? by Paul Reed

Basudeba

"please note that information is the result of measurement"

Not necessarily. Light, etc, is inherently information, as it is a representation of something else. It does not need to be measured to be so. Neither is the generation of information solely confined to the activity known as measurement. Any judgement/statement/perception/whatever involves comparison to identify difference. The question as to whether the resulting information is correct or not, ie in correspondence with reality, is another matter.

"The field set up by our eyes is similar to the field set up by the light emitted by the object. Hence they are perceptible only to the eyes and not to the face or the wall. This is the physical circumstance"

Not so. How your eye receives the light, and then thereafter, is irrelevant. The physical circumstance is what is received. A brick in the same spatial position at the same time, ie instead of the eye, would receive the same light, it have just not got the necessary ability to process what is received. Light does not anticipate what it is going to come into contact with, neither does it only travel to entities which are capable of processing it if received. Reception is purely a function of being in the line of travel of.

"Whether space and time are continuous or not? If you say they are digital, then how are they connected to make themselves meaningful?

You have not understood what I have said. First it is not time and space, but physical existence. Second, physical existence, while it exists (ie is 'digital', but better words are discrete and definitive) is not continuous. Otherwise it would be one physically existent state ad infinitum, which it obviously is not. What is 'continuous' is the process of alteration whereby a different state occurs, which supersedes the previous one. It is sequence, with only one state in existence at a time. Look at that bush in your garden. There are visible changes to it. Put it under an electron microscope and more are revealed, etc. So what is ultimately happening? Answer: what we call bush is a sequence of physically existent states of whatever comprises it. There is only one at a time. The bush of one size, colour, leaves/berries on, etc, does not co-exist with the bush that is different, and that applies at the elementary level, not just at the level of what we can discern. What causes the alteration is another matter.

"If something connects them, that thing fills the interval. The interval itself is space and time"

Not so. There is no 'something connecting them'. Space is what is required to 'accommodate' any given physical entity, or distance is the difference between entities in terms of spatial position. These entities having to be physically existent states which are existent at the same time, because there cannot be a spatial difference between something and something else which does not exist. Time is concerned with the duration of turnover, ie the rate of change in reality.

"Similarly, the road we walk on is continuous"

Not so. We conceptualise existence at a much higher level than what occurs. That is, we conceive of things in terms of superficial physical attributes. And so long as those pertain, we deem the thing to persist in existence. Indeed, we even contradict that, since if an attribute alters, then we say the thing has changed. Which is a contradiction because it is no longer the thing, it is something different. And at the existential level, ie not the superficial categorisation, existence is constantly altering in many different ways. In other words, the concept of 'object' is ontologically incorrect. That car and that road are different physically existent states of something at different times. They just look the same thing at a superficial level.

Whether the wave comprises something which of itself alters position, or whether there is something else which transfers something, is irrelevant. My point was that the concept of wave involves different physically existent states over time.

Paul

Basudeba

"Sequence involves action or events induced by action"

Obviously, and I did not say otherwise. Now, there are two possibilities: 1 There is some form(s) of inert substance which has properties which cause alteration thereto. 2 What we conceive of as 'properties' are in fact what exists as the substance. Certainly there must be something which has physical presence, and there must be something which causes alteration. Any given reality is something in a discrete definitive physically existent state.

"Even in the space of sequence in space"

Space, as in spatial position, is non-existent in the sense that for there to be spatial entities, this just implies that there must be 'space' (emptiness) for them. Space in the sense of 'not ordinary matter' is just something existent which is different, and therefore the rules of existence apply.

"we perceive one position and then perceive the next position"

What we are doing when discerning spatial position is invoking a conceptual spatial matrix, which is located with respect to one entity. We then compare and identify difference. Since we do not recognise alteration, we do this over time, ie compare with entities which are not in existence at the same time, which is wrong.

"We did not presume that there is indefiniteness in physical existence or that measurement process disturbed the object. We only said that all that exists and all effects that influence the outcome of measurement may not be perceptible to us"

This may be what QM and relativity would like to think it is saying, but in effect it is reifying indefiniteness. Einstein, for example, never said such overtly, though he got very close (see quote below), but, because he failed to understand how timing works, and conflated reality and the light representation thereof, neither of which he realised. In effect, he reified a time differential which does occur, in the timing of the receipt of light to different observers, to being a feature which is an inherent characteristic of existence, which it is not. QM does the same. What is actually a problem with discerning any given physically existent state, becomes effectively the function of a characteristic of existence, with false notions such as the physical circumstance is alterable by measurement/observation, or it does not exist in one definitive form. If both these theories were as you suggest, ie accepting that existence is independent and definitive, but we just have practical issues discerning what occurred, then they would be completely different.

Einstein para 4 section 9 1916

"Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, ie that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in section 7) disappears".

Paul

Basudeba

"Light is only instrumental in revealing some information"

Obviously. Indeed, not only is it revealing one form of information, because it has physical properties, it is revealing that in a particular way. All of which I say, so what is your point?

"Have you seen light proper - without any object revealed by it?"

What is the point of this question? Light is obviously an existent physical effect. What any given light happens to be a representation of is irrelevant.

"However, "Reception is purely a function of being in the line of travel of", is incomplete"

Not so. Either any given light encounters something which alters the configuration of that light, or it does not. What it encounters is irrelevant.

"Viewed in this way, our positions are identical"

No they are not, and neither is it a matter of viewing things in a particular way. The only appropriate 'way' is with correspondence to 'what is'. And you write of "background structure as the analog part and your physical objects as the digital or discrete part", which is not what happens.

Paul

Akinbo

No it is not philosophical, it is a generic statement of the physical circumstances.

Para 34 is an occasion where the generic goes no further and there is a question as to what actually constitutes 'it'. Which is for physicists to find out. The point being that what manifests is the physically existent state of 'something'. But that could either be an inert substance which has the properties which alter, or the something could just be the properties (excuse the terminology, but what I mean should be easy to understand).

"From this can be inferred that at other times there can be a change of state"

Really the logic is the other way around. We know there is difference, physical existence is most definitely just in one physical state ad infinitum! So, the question is how does difference reconcile with existence, which necessitates one definitive state. And the answer is sequence. Physical existence is a sequence of definitive discrete physically existent states of whatever comprises it, that is, reality is one physically existent states at any given time. More than one d not co-exist, neither does existence involve any form of indefiniteness.

Re line, this cannot be so. To be a 'line' it must have 'breadth'. This is of course where representational devices can create problems if they do not reflect what occurs.

Incidentally, I note for some strange reason I have not read your essay. Will do so later

Paul

Helmut

There are two main strands of response to your post:

1 What is SR

SR is not 1905. SR, as defined by Einstein later, involves:

-only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary

-only fixed shape bodies at rest

-only light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed

It is special because there is no gravitational force (or more precisely, no differential in the gravitational forces incurred). In other words, it is a purely conceptual circumstance which Einstein invoked to , as far as he saw it, resolve a contradiction, ie rate of change and light speed. Note the phrase "only apparently irreconcilable" when introducing the two postulates in 1905. An amazing caveat. Here is a new theory which only rests on two apparently non controversial postulates, and yet the author has to note that they might appear to be contradictory. Furthermore, in 1905 he does not explain why. That just gets 'resolved' with SR, a meaningless concept because it is not of the real world, and then he moves on to GR, the real world, where there is gravitational force.

The point of my rambling here, is that the issue is not with SR, forget it, the issue is with the concept of relativity. And probably the best statement on this is:

Einstein para 4 section 9 1916

"Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, ie that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in section 7) disappears".

This is nonsense. Every instance of existence does not have its own time which needs referencing to some other time. Things either occur at the same time or they do not. What does vary is the receipt of light from that same occurrence by different observers, which depends, fundamentally on spatial relationships.

2 Interrelated to this is the point that Einstein did not have any observational light, so he had no observers because there was nothing to observe. His notion of frame of reference is, whether he meant it or not, therefore just a reference against which to calibrate something else. His light is just a ray of light, which is used as a constant in order to calibrate distance and time, it could have been any constant. It has nothing to do with observation.

The point here being that his second postulate as defined is irrelevant, because he did not deploy it as defined. So this effort tha has been put into resolving rate of change and light speed is a wild goose chase, the issue never existed

[Note: in response to some earlier comments about Einstein I put up a post which is the first 24 paras of another paper, see above my post 24/4 04.19)

Paul

Peter

Your addition is pointless, that was about the existentially closed system.

What happens in the brain is irrelevant to the physical circumstance. The physics stops at the point of interaction, whether it is with a brick wall or an eye. What we need to know, is what was received.

Your next reference is to the first point I posted on NPA. There are not 2 cases. Either there is relative movement in which case...as stated. Or there is not relative movement, in which case the rate of change remains constant for the recipient observer and the same as the reality (leaving aside other possible 'interferences' on light as it travels). Neither is this about the overall speed of travel, but is concerned with rate of change.

Again I am not enjoying this. The contest opened just when I had time to write something. And as I do not sleep well, it gives me something to do in the early hours of the morning, before I then go out and crawl all over my new camper van (the last one got stolen). Or otherwise go to Muswell Hill to renovate my son's new flat. But I must find a different pursuit.

Paul

Peter

It is neither arbitrary, not a belief system. Though do note that it is 'only' a generic statement.

As stated previously, but for convenience, I will repeat it here. The physical existence we are investigating is all that is potentially knowable to us (ie what we can be aware of because we can either experience it directly or can hypothesise it, which is, in effect, virtual sensing). Whether we can get to know all that is potentially available is another, secondary matter, the point is potentiality, as opposed to no potentiality. Knowability being enabled by a physical process, which involves the receipt of physical input. Which means that we are enabled to be aware of what may only be one particular form of existence, but as we cannot know (experience) an alternative this is irrelevant (hypothesis just being virtual sensing, ie it operates within the rules of sensing enabling us to state what we could have been able to sense had identifiable issues not prevented it. It is not a means of invoking which are beyond our existence). We cannot transcend our existence; we are trapped in an existentially closed system, which has as if determinant a physical process.

Now the key point here is that, therefore, physical existence is a confined, definitive circumstance. Which is why I can say I have no beliefs because my reference (context) is to physical existence as knowable to us, not some array of possible alternatives which we cannot know. It is meaningless to judge any comment against a possible alternative that we cannot know, just in the same way that it is not science to invoke such an alternative possibility. We can only attempt to explain the potentially knowable.

So, we know two key points about existence:

-it occurs independently of the mechanisms which enable its awareness, and occurrence must involve definitiveness

-comparison of inputs indicates that there is alteration, ie it occurs differently, but must be definitive in each case

This apparent dichotomy is resolved by sequence. Physical existence must be a sequence of definitive, discrete physically existent states of whatever comprises it. The important point to realise here is that objects do not exist as we conceptualise them. They are existent as a sequence of physically existent states, each one being reality at the time it occurs (there is no time in reality, only space). There just appears to be an object which persists over time, because we are defining object on the basis of superficial physical characteristics. We know there is alteration in objects, so just follow the logic through to its conclusion. Then think of sequence as 'tick'.

So, we cannot make pronouncements about occurrences outwith our existence (we have to accept the physical circumstance we are in) and the physical circumstance 'stops' with the interaction at the eye, it has nothing to do with any of the subsequent processing. I am not suggesting there is "no refraction by a lens", or whatever. This is just detail of no consequence in a generic definition. It is sufficient to say there is an interaction, in principle the same as that which occurs with a brick. The difference is that the eye/lens/whatever, is the front end of a system which can utilise the input rendered by the interaction, the brick cannot. Neither does it conflict with observation, again, in generic terms, it is sufficient to state that this involves the receipt of a physical input (known as light).

Rate of change does not only come from acceleration. Rate of change is the proper term for time, the frequency at which alteration is occurring (reality turnover rate). Again, for the generic explanation, forget all the detail about how light works, how it interrelates to what occurred, etc. The point is that there is a rate of alteration, a tick. Einstein used ageing, hand waving would have been better. Now, it does not matter if this rate is constant, slowing/increasing. It is the relative spatial relationship which matters (leaving other possible influences on light aside). Because if that spatial difference is altering, then the time taken for each 'tick', as represented by light, to reach the observer will alter. But the tick is whatever the tick is, in reality. It is not altering in the way that it appears to do so courtesy of an optical illusion. The fact (if true) that within 'each individual frame' (whatever that is) that the speed of light always calibrates to the same number, is irrelevant. What is relevant is the duration incurred from occurrence and creation of light, to receipt of light. During which time, the recipient wrt occurrence could have altered relative position. It is also irrelevant to the problem with relativity, because there is no observational light in relativity theory.

Paul

Hoang

Since the essay is supposed to be about differentiating it from bit, then it and the conclusion is too. The real message is what constitutes physical existence for us, and how does this occur.

Paul

John

"Am I misunderstanding you?"

Probably. Light is a physically existent entity in its own right. It is just that, given its qualities and with the evolution of sight, it also has a functional role as a representation of what occurred (which could be labelled the existential sequence). It is a question of "beyond what we can see" and "only detect it (reality) in part" in the following sense.

We can only be aware of existence through a physical process. So, leaving aside how good that process is at capturing and conveying it (and then how proficient we are at processing that), it is the very fact that it is, which means there is a logical possibility of an alternative. Because hypothesis, so long as it adheres to the rules, it an alternative form of sensing, ie virtual sensing. That is, based on direct sensing, we can discern the reality that, literally, we cannot sense. The point is that it is always within an existentially closed system, we cannot transcend our own existence. Reality is all that which is potentially knowable (ie detectectable). Now a lot of it we may never detect/infer, or we may get it wrong, but the potential was there.

The results are not subjective. The relativity which Einstein alluded to, is a relativity in the timing of the receipt of light, which is fundamentally a function of spatial position. The "greater system/reality" you refer to, is reality (physical existence/what occurred).

"What if the inorganic..."

What if the earth is made of blue cheese. There must be some evidence for a 'what if', otherwise you have strayed out of the existentially closed system by way of a belief. We are aware of reality because we receive a physical input, and the evidence is that others receive similar. In other words, physical existence is independent of the mechanisms which enable its detection. How, and why, this came into existence is beyond our knowledge.

Paul