Paul,

Arbitrarily deciding where physics starts and stops is an interesting new approach, but it only seems to be a belief system you've built as it conflicts with observation and seems to have no scientific basis.

You are suggesting that there is no refraction by a lens, or at least that when we look through a telescope or microscope we will never 'see' anything because the physics has 'stopped' at the surface of the lens! This is completely contrary to all contemporary optical science. That view entirely missing the relevance of the process of refraction, which changes the speed of the signal to c/n ONLY in the frame of the eye lens.

Are you seriously suggesting an instrument with a lens moving at 0.2 c 'towards' a light source will "see" precisely the same spectroscopy as an adjacent lens moving 'away from' the source? If so you are missing a whole tract of fundamental A level science needed to even get INTO a college course! That is not to say that many at college are not indoctrinated with inconsistent theory, but it does however explain the inconsistencies in your comments.

Also 'rate of change' only comes from acceleration of course, not relative motion per se. If you read what you wrote you will see the apparent confusion there too.

I think you may enjoy this more if you did a little more research late at night before rushing too rapidly into writing. I spent over 40 years untangling the deep mess of complexities before a broad consistent ontology started to emerge, then more checking it's predictions before I published my first paper.

Peter

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

17 days later
5 days later

I agree with many points that you bring up here. There is indeed a reality beyond the Observer, and we are involved in the field of observation and can therefore only detect it in part. I think that in your consideration of light, however, you put this aside (I'm not sure why) and become concerned with the 'reality' of phenomena beyond what we can see.

Am I misunderstanding you?

I mean, relativity is not an optical phenomenon: it is perceivable reality from a given location in space-time. Of course, the results are subjective - and would be different for the citizens of two planets that are distant from each other; but we can only be at one location at a time, so the point is usually moot.

There is a greater reality, but we are subjective to it.

We are subject to evolution, as you correctly point out: 'It must not be assumed that what is physically received is an entirely accurate, and/or comprehensive, representation of even the form of existence we can know.'

And you very meticulously enunciate the nature of our partial perception of the greater system.

You conclude: 'Whether the information is, of itself, physically existent or not, is irrelevant.' I take another view - that the nature of information fundamentally affects its relation with the field of observation, and defines out nature as evolving creatures.

What if It and Bit are correlated? What if the inorganic, organic, and sensory-cognitive spheres are simply 'moving together' over the course of evolution, because of their very similar interaction with an all-encompassing energy field (possibly the Higgs Field)?

In my essay, I extend the concept of our subjectivity, as I believe you implicitly do, so as to define reality in terms of a 'Species Cosmos.'

I present a paradigm that describes these three realms (Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive) as correlated but distinct fields, interacting directly with a greater field of energy. I show that the correlation of these three fields produces the perceived Cosmos - a Human Species Cosmos that includes the Observer.

I think you might find much to interest you in this view; I have rated your essay, and hope to hear back from you.

All the best!

    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

    Dear Paul,

    I very much liked your very pragmatic and sensible essay, which I was prompted to read by your posts, specifically in Lev's thread. I agree with your position that light for us represents the ultimate source of information. I also heartily agree with your statement that "unless proven to the contrary, it must not be assumed that what is physically received is an entirely accurate, and/or comprehensive, representation of even the form of existence we can know." In my essay I claim that our knowledge of the world is necessarily limited by the type of information our senses and sensors can capture. I allude that there are other types of info waiting to be discovered with either improved or entirely new technology.

    My position resonates very well with your ideas that "The ontological/epistemological conundrum is that we cannot transcend the form of existence available to us, and we receive only representations of that. ... There is no something immediately available to us." and that "That is, it always has to be assumed that there is a possibility of more knowledge.."

    I also hope that you find my take on SR refreshing, for I propose that it is, first of all, the theory of relativity of information, caused by the inherent limitations in the medium that carries the signal to various observers. I hope you will find time to read my essay and comment on it :)

    take care!

    -Marina

      Dear Paul,

      Great question, great, deep systematic answers. It is written in the spirit of Rene Descartes: "clearly and distinctly", very good language.

      The most important for understanding the nature of the information - light:

      «Of all the types of representation received, light is the most important. It is a

      physical effect in photons which enables sight. As light results from an atomic

      interaction, the speed of the physical phenomenon which the photons interact with is irrelvant, unlike in a collision. Thus the start speed of any given light is always the same, and as with any existent entity, it will continue to move at that speed unless impeded. Also, there is a relentless sequence of such interactions, and light travels in all directions. »

      You've given a lot of concepts that give a clue to the nature of the information. You are quite right: «The ontological / epistemological conundrum is that we cannot transcend the form of existence available to us, and we receive only representations of that.» Here the key concept of «the form of existence». Just need to add - "absolute (unconditioned) forms of existence." The goddess form -Eydoteya gives us a clue as to catch Proteus Nature (matter in all forms of its existence). You and I are close in spirit to the reserch. I put the rating of your essay "eight." Please look at my essay and fair vote.

      Best regards,

      Vladimir

      Dear Sir,

      This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

      Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic - "complex, even inexplicable behavior". Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of "the deer population in Northern Michigan", is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.

      Infinities are like one - without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others - every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.

      Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,...n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use "a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers", you do just that through "comparison and exchange instructions". You develop these by "inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by 'mating' parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated" and repeat it "thousands upon thousands of time" till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought "evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible". After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.

      Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area - the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.

      The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.

      However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally 'illuminates' the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.

      Regards,

      mbasudeba@gmail.com

      Hello Paul,

      You are frequent and valued contributor on this forum. It appears that "strange reason" you mentioned June 2 still makes you not to read my essay yet? :)

      I hope you can do so. Since submitting my essay, additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, made me to do a follow up on my blog by writing the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT. You may view that as well.

      Best regards,

      Akinbo

      6 days later

      Dear Paul,

      I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

      I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

      You can find the latest version of my essay here:

      http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

      (sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

      May the best essays win!

      Kind regards,

      Paul Borrill

      paul at borrill dot com