BITTERS by Joe Fisher

Joe:

I read your essay and agree with the aspect that we tend to think of whats abstract as real.

Your essay if judged outside the ideas we are familiar with sounds good.

If judged from physics of our current understanding then there are big contradictions.

An example of the speed of light - FTL faster than light exists at

3.4818 x 10^12 m/s

However within the paradigm of your approach I have no disagreement.

At the end of the day as we move from this life to the next round - all that matters is - love

The technical game is just a trap if we cannot share and play to win and aggrandize.

Kind Regards

Francis V Fernandes

Joe

I enjoyed your refreshingly original essay; your unique examples and insights certainly illuminate the question about what makes up the physical universe, about information and the uniqueness of individual things and events. Your abstract mentions Hans Christian Andersen - if I had to choose a character from one of his stories to describe your way of thinking it would be the kid in the Emperor's New Clothes. Only he was honest enough to say it like it was. Bravo.

Hmmm.

Some reservations: our physical laws such as E=mc^2 are unique absolute logical and mathematical constructs. And according to you every event in the universe is also absolute. Why should'nt the laws apply absolutely each time? Are you speaking of experimental errors?

I found the title BITTERS interesting because it contains both IT and BIT.

Cheers

Good luck!

Vladimir

Dear Sir,

Your essay is very interesting and thought provoking. We will like to add some constructive suggestions.

You are right that "all real actions are unique". But it is not "because GOOGLE is constantly updating all of its information garnered from all over the world", as there is the universe besides GOOGLE. When you talk in general terms, you should use universal terms. Your subsequent description shows that you meant only the actions of the search engine. And there you are right. The principle followed by GOOGLE is the universal principle. Everything is constantly changing - temporal evolution. The only difference is that the changes in GOOGLE are mediated by some conscious agents, whereas most actions in the Universe are perpetual reactions to the interplay of various forces. This includes our reactions to the external stimuli based on our internal dynamics.

When you say or type "toe" or "logic", what is the content of the messages for the receiver? All sounds or impressions or symbols do not convey a message. When you say "toe" or "logic"- these are sounds symbolizing few letters (symbols) arranged in a particular pattern? To someone who can't hear or does not know English or have not heard these words or heard it by some other name, the words do not make any sense. If he has come across these words earlier and has known to relate the sound to the object or idea, only then he can think that "It is like the one I had seen earlier, which was called a toe. Hence it is a toe". Thus the actual content of any word is the concept of a known object. The same word can signify different concepts in different contexts. Being an intelligent being, you can choose a specific meaning or object signifying that concept. But the computer has not been programmed to be so choosey. It simply does not know your specific "desire". Hence it presents everything before you to choose from (act). Here also, only the concept is displayed and not the object. You have to relate that concept (knowledge) to a physical object - the human toe. This is possible only by intelligent beings or to some extent those which mimic intelligence.

We wish you would have used generalities like the "observer", the "observable" and the "mechanism of observation" instead of "light, matter and space". When you say space, you imply an ordered sequence of at least two objects (matter), whose interval is called space. It can have meaning only if one of the two is an intelligent being - the observer, making the other the observable. Light is used in the mechanism of observation. You have correctly put these as the three inseparable aspects of a single real element.

When you say: "The real Universe only deals in absolutes", you must be cautious. Reality must be invariant under similar conditions at all times (absolute). The validity of a physical theory is judged by its correspondence to reality. In a mirage, what one sees is a visual misrepresentation caused by the differential air density due to temperature gradient. All invariant information consistent with physical laws, i.e. effect of distance, angle, temperature, etc, is real (absolute). Since the perception of water in the mirage is not invariant from different distances, it is not real.

The uniqueness of each snow flake is not really unique, as no two things are similar in internal arrangement, though everything is constituted of the same primary substances. If you look at the internal arrangements, you will find three distinct categories: (1) the macro objects, which are like a mixture of protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. (2) quantum particles, which are like compounds of quarks, and (3) the constituent of quarks that are indiscernible and absolute. Only the numbers and sequential arrangements change in each case. The macro objects describe the physics (shape) and the quantum objects describe the chemistry only due to the number and internal arrangement of the indiscernible and absolute stuff.

When you say: "the real Universe does not allow anything real or imagined to occur more than once", you refer to the unidirectional time. Consider an example: A B → C D. Here a force makes A interact with B to produce C and D. The same force doesn't act on C and D as they don't exist at that stage. If we change the direction of the force, B acts on A. Here only the direction of force and not the interval between the states before and after application of force (time) will change and the equation will be: B A → C D and not B A ← C D. Hence it does not affect causality. There can be no negative direction for time or cause and effect.

Mathematics is related to numbers, which is a property of particles by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one. If there are similars, it is many. Depending upon the times of perception, many can be 2,3,4....n, Infinity is like 1 - without similars. But while the dimensions of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not perceptible. Hence it is not a number.

Often the number sequence is plotted in a graph as suggested by you: n...2,1...0..-1, -2, -n. But graphs represent fields and fields have no numbers because we can't differentiate between similar fields, which are the characteristic of numbers. Fields have no rigid boundary (dimension). If we add two volumes of water, we get a higher volume (mathematics); but now we can't differentiate between the two volumes (physics). Fields reveal different forces that co-exist but unlike mass, they are not linearly additive. Their interaction is in the realm of beyond the quantum.

Further, 0 is not the same as a very small number. It is the temporal (physical) absence of some object, whose concept presents itself. If we do not have the concept of the object, we cannot feel its absence - hence no 0. Since numbers are always associated with physical objects (number of something), and in isolation, the word "number" is meaningless, 0 cannot be a number in that sense. You had expressed these ideas while writing the number in a peculiar style.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

We admit our limitations and ignorance and understand your avarice to criticism, but since you cannot avoid it, you should take it in the constructive way. We are discussing science to find out the TRUTH and it can be done without clashing egos or bitterness.

You assert that your essay was on reality and we have no ability to understand reality. We accept it and request you to kindly define reality, so that we can try to understand it. This is necessary because there are a large number of different approaches to the foundations of QM. Each approach is a modification of the theory that introduces some new aspect with new equations which need to be interpreted. Thus there are many interpretations of QM. Every theory has its own model of reality. There is no unanimity regarding what constitutes reality. But none of the theories say "WHAT" reality is. Hence kindly define reality.

If "only unique ever exists once" and if "Unique has no connections, affiliations, attachments or relatives", when how do you explain interaction, including the creation event?

We have truthfully quoted your statements without distortion. However, you have inserted words like "abstract" and "absolute" to our quotes, which distort its meaning. Let us be truthful.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

Instead of personal insinuations, would you please define reality?

Regards,

basudeba

Joe,

More praise here too. Your essay sums up the primary foundational point of my own essay, as you noticed on my string, with beautiful direct clarity. I think what I then go on to do is prove that thesis scientifically, and evidentially including by showing it's consequential resolving power. But about yours; my most favourite line was;

"A real toe is not made up of a binary code."

I'm struggling to explain that to Basudeba on my blog. The reactionary forces will not fold easily! I got a community 2 score almost the minute the essay appeared, probably from the abstract alone! I suspect yours will get a top score from me, including for my other favourite lines like;

"Real snowflakes are unique. Real toes are unique. I presently possess a set of real toes no other person who has ever lived, who is presently alive, or who will ever live anywhere in the future, had, has, or will ever come to possess."

"It seems to have escaped everyone's attention that the Universe and everything real and imagined in it is unique."

"Mathematicians totally ignore the reality of once.

Also your comment to Christi above; "

"The real Universe is not mathematical. Each real snowflake is unique once, therefore, each real particle of matter must be unique once. Abstract mathematics pays no attention to the reality of the unique, once."

Great essay. I wish I'd keep mine a bit simpler!

Best of luck.

Peter

Peter

Hmm, but as I explained to Joe some time back, neither is a toe a toe. Existentially, it exists as a sequence of discrete definitive physically existent states. That is what is unique

Paul

Joe

It is not a 'version'. As I said in my original comment, fundamentally your point about uniqueness is correct, but you do not follow it through to its logical conclusion. Your toe alters, you know that. So there is no existent, unique, 'thing' toe, but whatever physically existent state it is in at any given time. That is what is unique.

Paul

Joe

"My real toe is unique once"

Not so. Your toe, as defined does not exist. It is a sequence of physically existent states, which, from a superficial level give the appearance of the same thing.

"Although your version of existentialism..."

As I said, it is not a version. There is uniqueness so there is only one form of existentialism that is correct. The issue is to resolve how existence (which is unique) and difference (which is another unique) both occur. And the answer is sequence.

Paul

Joe

"Uniqueness can only occur once"

Indeed, but in existence there is alteration. Existence does not just occur in one state. So it is a sequence of unique states, as I said. And your toe, or anything else, is not such a state. It is a conceptualisation of a sequence of such states which have similarities at that level of conception, ie it appears to persist in existence, but actually, does not. And in order to rationalise this flawed conception, we speak of 'it changing'. Which is a contradiction in itself, because if there is change it is no longer the previous it.

Paul