Basudeba,

"Hence we define reality as the invariant aspect associated with all objects and consistent with other universal physical laws (existence), that can be perceived as a concept (knowability) and expressed through a language (communicability). Since the three aspects are related, anything showing these characteristics is real."

Yes. I fully understand that has been our dominant convention and familiar habit. My proposition is that this convention leaves no room for distinguishing actual physical reality (nature itself) from the systems of symbols and concepts we have invented and assigned to 'represent' it and 'model' it's evolution.

As it's been said, it will take a computer the size of the universe to precisely model the evolution of the universe. Our computers and brains are smaller, but we have grown familiar with thinking the results of computations ARE equivalent to nature. We've become so familiar with that position that it no longer occurs to us or seems reasonable that the difference may be important. I am pointing out that the difference CAN be important, so must be identified. Also then that you have not yet falsified the proposition you said was false when considering (as I specified) the strictly 'physical', as opposed to 'metaphysical' where A=A.

So I am drawing Dirac's 'Line', shocking though it may be. Can you suggest a different position for the line? Or different descriptions than 'Physical' and 'Metaphysical' to make the unfamiliar look more palatable?

Peter

Dear Astronomer Jackson,

I am stunned by your praise of my essay. Due to my abysmal lack of a formal education, although I tried as hard as I could as I read it; I did not understand any of your essay at all. I responded to the "identical states" impossibility noted in the comments posted about your essay. I accept unequivocally your solution to the unique/identical problem.

Basudeba,

This one comment; "Mathematics is not "an abstract (metaphysical) 'approximation' of nature". On the contrary, it is most precise." suggests that you may still be confused about my point. As I stated, I agree maths is indeed absolutely precise and predictable. I'm only pointing out that nature itself is not. So then maths as a 'representation' of nature cannot precisely correspond.

I'm proposing something quite new and unfamiliar, which does indeed question a (very shaky!) foundation of quantum physics.

You invoke 'times arrow' and suggest; "The examples quoted by you are not appropriate." I agree in your view they are not. Yet they are real, as ALL 'repeatable' experiments are. Can you test 2 electrons at the same time with the same equipments? You dismiss reality to insist maths is 'better'. I agree maths is more precise. That's fine. I just make the shocking proposal that perhaps it is not also 'better' at describing the 'less precise'.

I've just watched a video of a new Lee Smolin lecture. He now seems to be proposing almost precisely the same thing, that each interaction in nature is entirely unique. You have not answered my questions re discernment. If you feel maths does precisely describe nature do say so, if not perhaps offer a better discernment.

The importance of parametrising the excluded middle, to which another 'layer' of maths CAN be applied, is overcoming the assumptions that correlations and statistics as currently applied can gain access to resolution of paradox such as EPR.

Peter

"Interesting view, and I can't see how it conflicts with mine"

I did not say it did, in terms of the end conclusion.

In the simplest possible language, all you are saying is that there is only ever an A. There can be other occurrences which have similarities, but there is only ever one A. This is both correct, and a somewhat obvious statement. However, as is often the case, the logical consequence of simple facts then gets lost in the mist.

Because the question then is, so how does physical existence occur so that this is true. And the answer, which I have been stating for the past two years, is that physical existence must be a sequence of definitive discrete physically existent states of whatever comprises it. The existent state is your A. This is the only way in which existence (which is invariant) and difference (which is variant) can be reconciled.

The point about A has nothing to do with light, neither is there any need to resolve paradoxes since these are a function of flawed theories which misrepresent physical existence (eg relativity and QM). It is proven by the fact as to how physical existence, as knowable to us, must occur. Now, what actually occurs in practice is the difficult bit, I just do the easy generic stuff.

Paul

  • [deleted]

  • Post #34

Peter/Basudeba

I just thought, although this is stated elsewhere, it might be useful to back that post up with the point about the true nature of it.

We conceive of our existence from the perspective of superficial physical attributes, ie not what exists. Indeed we even contradict that. We know there is alteration, but we rationalise it by saying 'it has changed'. Bits have fallen off St Pauls Cathedral, but it is still deemed to be St Pauls. But it isn't, it is different. More importantly, we know that what constitutes what we know as St Pauls is in a constant state of change (put it under an electron microscope!). The point being that St Pauls, as such, does not exist. If one dispenses with the 'it changes' misconception, then the logic takes you to what is actually existent at any given time, which is a physically existent state. St Pauls, just like everything else, is a sequence of physicall existent states, which from a higher conception than the existent, appears to persist in the same physical form over time.

Paul

Basudeba,

Thanks for your comment you term "clarification" re the Maxwell equations. I agree, and, as you'll see from previous essays, have gone further; falsifying the x,y,z, Cartesian co-ordinate system as not representing motion or evolution of interaction.

You did not comment on my alternative derivation of the 3D time helix from the toroid and orbital angular momentum, but somehow suggest you disappoint me. I can't see how you would, and suspect again you may not have understood my thesis. Did you follow how the helix giving the cosine curve, then the non-linear distribution at the detectors, was obtained?

I'm also at a loss over you 'name dropping' comment, but of course agree we all may be wrong and are certainly not complete!

Peter, once again you have made a valuable contribution to the essay contest. It is a pleasure to read.

I see a lot of parallels with my acataleptic universe and I am please that you have given it a view from a different angle. Godel said that things could be true or false or undecidable, but undecidability may also be undecidable. It may also be that if it is true then it is decidable but otherwise it is undecidable and that is all we can know, so there are many possibilities and they have a layered structure.

The Monte Hall problem is the same. The correct answer is not that the probability is a half or a third. In fact you don't know the probability because you don't know the strategy that the presenter is using. You might be able to estimate the probability of certain strategies and then you would have probabilities of probabilities for the answer. This is analogous to how multiple quantisation works. I'm glad you have a reference to Weizsäcker about this.

Good luck, I will return later and see how the comments are progressing.

Peter,

While I'm not schooled sufficiently on the technical aspects to judge it by its own standards, it does seem a very good take down of the mathematical view of reality.

If if I may go slightly off tangent, since there is little likelihood the establishment is going to come back from multiverses anytime soon, we may as well explore further, rather than be too concerned with being heard.

Consider your observation, "There is the REAL, which is 'entities' and 'interactions'"

What are "entities," other than a deeper level of interaction? Consider the extent to which our western object oriented thought process sets the conceptual foundation, even when we try to look beyond it. For example, consider gravity; While we know it is a property of mass and if we were to tunnel to the center of the earth, the gravitational attraction in all directions would balance out. Yet it doesn't seem as though we apply that to the galaxy as a whole, where the assumption is that we would be falling into that mathematical singularity of a black hole. Wouldn't we actually be in the center, the eye of a gravitational storm, where the primary effect would be rotation, not being sucked into some other dimension? Then spun around and shot out the poles as jets of gas?

With the idea of black holes, we are just mathematically extrapolating the attraction toward the center that we experience on the surface of the planet.

As I argued previously, gravity is the vacuum effect of radiant light ultimately condensing/fusing into cosmic rays, interstellar gases, quantum particles, atoms, matter, metals, etc. There is no dark matter, but there is an excess of cosmic rays on the outskirts of galaxies and if this is a distributed process of all the energy acting as vortices within vortices, it might well seem to have an instantaneous attraction, as everything is embedded in the flow, not just isolated centers of attraction.

What I'm getting at here is how thinking of it as one wholistic process in which "entities" are subsets of the whole and not the "entities" as foundational to a whole that is only a sum of its constituent parts. Top down as contextuality.

    John,

    "What are "entities," other than a deeper level of interaction?" Good question, but I'd say 'the distinguishable 'result' of interaction'. then that only leaves the unknowable as unknown, what is the universe ultimately made of? Certainly not 'matter' as we know it. My point was only to distinguish the 'physical' from the rest, to allow a quite new 'line' to be drawn.

    You may recall my paper on AGN dynamics ('Black Holes'), where the 'centre' is where the helical 'windings' around the toroid of matter from the accretion disc (old galactic matter) are focussed into the quasar jets, which precess around each other, finally ripping apart ('re-ionizing') the last coherent atoms. Most of that, after a few years pushing, is now becoming accepted astrophysics. I also agree the Lagrangian point at ALL centres of mass, as my 2011 essay.

    Your note on gravity is interesting. Photoionization is indeed 'pair production' of condensed fermion vorteces in the QV, which is matter from light. Again now becoming better known. It's called 'Impulsive stimulated Raman scattering' (ISRS); "expressed as a linear response to the instantaneous Stokes parameters (ISPs) of the laser pulse. These IPSs expressed in rotational coordinates are then shown to be responsible for the angular momentum transfer from light to matter." Higuchi et al. Jan 2013

    This the IS what's described as dark matter, which is what is now actually physically found by the Alpha Spectrometer and other probes, i.e. diffuse plasma. I agree it's certainly a wholistic process, the plasma is condensed at local compression points to modulate EM fluctuation re-propagation speed to c. Beautiful simplicity!

    Phil,

    Just untangled you from John.

    Thanks. On the Monte Hall problem there's actually a more important point missed by the mathematicians, and nothing to do with host strategy. i.e. Even if a blindfold 3rd party 'opens the door', in those cases where the prize is NOT revealed, the odds remain exactly the same.

    This is what the computer programme which proved the case did. The unknown 'host strategy' (which the game show competitors were all worried about) was removed as a factor. Only then could the real hidden reason be tracked down, the invisible 'probability density' hidden in 'sample space', which the maths could not parametrise.

    Yet that REAL lesson is STILL not learned by mathematicians! in the same way many of them genuinely believe there is no need for any underlying mechanism to GR or SR! The solution to the EPR paradox proposed comes straight from this hidden 'subset' of data.

    Did you follow that?

      Peter,

      Another point would be the effort to eradicate space as a primary aspect of reality, We have the Higgs field to explain inertia and multiverses as blowback from avoiding infinities, the entire universe emerging from a point because space is treated as a measure of points, etc. I think this, the banishing of space, that will prove to be the ultimate hubris.

      Can't have a monolithic, object oriented theology in an infinite context.

      Also you seem to be more informed than I, as all I seem to hear are the howls of the old(susy, strings) crumbling, yet pushing out to ever more cosmic extremes(multiverses).

      John,

      I agree, physics is a dark labyrinth with a lot of howling and utter confusion. You have identified the magic button. The only problem with 'ether' was that it was assumed to have to be 'absolute' (i.e. one single 'frame' for the whole universe. But if 'regions' of space move with respect to other there is no problem at all. he WMAP data found just that, as Smoot's 2004 Nobel analysis (Smoot's website refers to 'ether'). But craven religious physicists were scared to death, not ready to accept ether back

      I tried to bring back 'space' with last year's essay. And what happened? Good support, finishing 7th, but completely ignored by the 'professionals'. It's also implicit this year (or 'allowed' but well hidden) but should emerge from the proof of EPR resolution. Unfortunately that appears to be beyond most to understand, certainly by the score so far!

      Cest' la vie.

      Peter,

      Keep in mind absolute and infinite are not interchangeable. Yes, absolute means an state lacking all distinction and thus not having any boundaries, so would be unlimited, but what it really refers to is the lack of distinguishing features means there cannot be motion, which requires reference. Both ether and moving frames allow motion. I'm simply talking blank, empty space. No frames or contents to move. No boundaries. Nothing.

      The alternative is to assume everything began, space included, at a singularity, which being something, needs explanation. What I'm saying is that with empty space, not ether, there is no need for explanation. It doesn't have to be balanced by an opposite effect, as it is nothing/zero. Not zero as a point, but the absence of any reference. Yet this does give it two characteristics, in that it is both absolute and infinite, which are the parameters of all.

      Even God can't beat that.

      John,

      I'm afraid God beat that hands down! His solution is far simpler. So simple, beautiful and perfect that man can hardly grasp it and make it stick to the messy neural networks in our heads. You did so once, but , as with most it slipped away. Are you willing to try again? Let's give it a go.

      1. Space is not 'nothing'. Call it what you will, but only the dense ion particle fields condensed between it's co. Moving regions are important (i.e. bow shocks).

      2. In Einstein's terms 'absolute' referred to a 'one only' background ether frame. He was right. this cannot work. However, he only had to ban the 'one only' ('absolute') characteristic not the concept of 'background' itself. (Stokes/Fresnel got close, but Lorentz/Lodge's poor understanding caused them to dismiss it.)

      3. So we DO have Einstein's (1952) "Smaller space 's' in motion wrt larger space 'S'." Earth's LOCAL ECI 'frame', including the ionosphere, is then a REAL PHYSICAL ENTITY moving wrt the barycentric frame (solar system,)

      4. EM waves 'PROPAGATE', which is a LOCAL phenomena, at c IN each frame. light the CHANGES SPEED to the LOCAL c everywhere. (scattered to c by the shock particles) there is then ALWAYS a datum for speed, as there must be. The particles are essential to implement the change. The Doppler shift of wavelength is the result, obviously limited to (so 'by') the minimum wavelength 'gamma'.

      5. Inertial systems are then real, local and mutually exclusive. They are formed by states of motion. They include all detectors 'lenses' which may be in their own rest frame. Once assimilated its simple beauty emerges.

      Now this 'discrete field' based (DFM) system works perfectly, in application it matches observation perfectly, is entirely free of paradox and resolves all known anomalies, and all it's many predictions are born out by findings. I have well over 200 papers which, between the lines, show the completed jigsaw puzzle.

      So why is it not adopted? Because it is unfamiliar. To those schooled in different physics it is 'different', so is obviously wrong. I've now asked hundreds to falsify it. They try, and all fail, so revert to, "yes but it MUST BE wrong because it's 'different' to our (paradox and anomaly ridden) beliefs!"

      What somewhat confuses me is why so many NOT indoctrinated by other nonsense can't visualise the dynamics. You're far better placed than me to help by explaining what it is that prevents it appearing obvious. Can you help? I'm at a bit of a loss to be honest.

      Peter,

      I'm not saying there are not smaller frames, I'm just saying there are always larger frames. Any bounded entity/frame will have a larger context.

      For an example of both this and the unwillingness of others to consider it, here is a discussion I've been having with Cormac O'Raifeartaigh over how saying space is expanding and retaining a constant speed of light is contradictory. Suffice to say, neither you nor I have much luck peeling anyone away from the herd(headed for the cliff) and if we did, they would lose any influence on the herd, thus canceling any benefit. May as well let the wave pass and try picking up the pieces after they finally do run off the edge.

      John,

      Agreed, always a local background, an infinite hierarchy, and of something, with a 'state of motion', NOT 'nothing'.

      I suspect because everything IS observer dependent, then your argument with Cormac is rendered entirely semantic and 'trivial' (in the scientific sense) as using different datums you are both correct.

      i.e. When you measure the LOCAL propagation speed of light, i.e. wrt the local medium, you WILL still find it as c, no matter what the expansion rate. The ket to the solution is the APPARENT speed of light (c+v) when not measured in your rest frame.

      Sit on your hot air balloon watching Concord fly past. The light pulse in the plane will APPEAR to be doing c. Yet both the pulse in the plane and the light signals scattered laterally to your lens are both doing c. i.e. THERE NEVER WAS A PROBLEM!!! All observers DETECTING the light that reaches them find c. Can you see any problem? Humanity has simply been stupid!

      Put a large steak on for me.

      PS; Where on Earth do all those beans come from that the cowboys always eat?

      Peter,

      It's not really about the speed of light, but lightyears as a galactic measure. We can only measure the speed of light here on earth, but use this unit as an intergalactic yardstick. A lightyear is about 6 trillion miles. So consider we just say two galaxies x6 trillion miles apart, grow to be 2x6 trillion miles apart. That is increased distance, not "stretched" space.

      As I pointed out to Cormac, if space is what you measure with a ruler, then stretching it means stretching the ruler.

      It may be trivial, but I like my logic not to contradict, if possible.

      Peter

      The problem you have with this particular aspect of your theory is, essentially, twofold:

      -everything is observer independent, not dependent, indeed physical existence occurs independently of any form of sensing

      -it is irrelevant whether light travels at a constant speed, or apparently so, depending on what reference is chosen to calibrate its speed, in the sense that there is no issue to be resolved between rate of change (aka time) and speed of light. Einstein had no observational light. His second postulate as defined is irrelevant, because he did not deploy it as defined. His light was just a constant, used to calibrate distance and duration, it was not observational.

      Paul

      John,

      I agree you're essentially correct, but that doesn't actually quite work (even in mainstream interpretation) because there's a major factor you're not considering; that c is a 'propagation' speed. i.e. a speed through a medium, which is always c LOCALLY wherever and whenever it's detected and speed measured.

      That's all about speed being only a 'relative' concept. In this case it is relative to the local frame. Emission theory is wrong, and always inconsistent with observation, so the emitter frame cannot be used as a long distance propagation speed datum. Obviously any receiver may not exist until met, so only the medium itself can be relevant (this was Einstein's problem).

      So then you have a decision. It it the medium 'stretching', or it it the emitter and receiver moving further apart 'through' the medium while the light is travelling!? Both are less problematic than 'no medium', but not devoid!

      This is what the DFM resolves. The diffuse plasma (as found) consistently scatters all light to the local plasma's c (eventually). Near matter in motion the fermion conjugate pairs are condensed (ionized) locally BY the motion to implement the task (again EXACTLY as found!). What this means is that as space expands the propagation is continuously re-scattered to the new local c, so from our local rest frame here it will have gently 'changed speed', explaining the spectroscopic results obtained (and all the 'surfaces last scattered' of the CMB.

      I know this may sound a little complex at first but it's actually dead simple, and is the ONLY mechanism that meets all observations and resolves all the paradoxes. The only rule is; "All local electrons emit photons at c." It's never been falsified. It just seems it's too 'different' to swallow for those steeped in ancient beliefs. (or too hard to understand).

      Can you see the evolving dynamics?