Georgina Woodward
Breaking down the production and processing of received information, in order to construct a model of the material reality human’s exist within and further realities generated through sensory input processing; Considering what sort of processes are involved in generating personal quasi reality of which we are conscious. Although the processes in vivo may not in fact be clearly separate and stratified.
That is potentially useful to physics, and in addressing current and impending challenges to human civilization; including modern day impoverishment of shared human interaction, disagreements of different groups and populations, having different worldviews, (due to differences in; faith, secular ideologies, dogma, education, life experience) with the potential to escalate to wars, and for use when carefully integrating AI and social media into human civilization.

      Georgina Woodward
      New title.for the paper
      About reailty, a model with an external existing observation independent Object reality and internal observer generated Image realities, perceptions and quasi realities.

          Georgina Woodward
          This model is compatible with Bret Weinstein's perception mediated selection, as demonstrated by bower birds and insect mimicing orchids.

            18 days later

            Dirac spinor test functions are used to construct a class of U(1)-gauge connections, which are used to construct U(1)-gauge invariant Dirac spinor test functions and U(1)-gauge invariant bivector test functions, resulting in a quantum field formalism of weakly nonlinear functionals of the Dirac spinor test functions, parallel to the informal nonlinear dependence of quantum electrodynamics on Lorentz invariant test function wave-number properties such as Mandelstam variables that determine the renormalization scale
            baju

            a month later

            Quasi reality; what is subjectively experienced by organisms and assumed to correspond to material reality external to the individual who is expriencing the quasi reality.
            Considering what sort of processes are involved in generating personal generated quasi reality. A paper called, On the perception of probable things, states ‘We have learned that the function of any area of the cerebral cortex, including that of primary visual cortex, is subject to top-down influences of attention, expectation, and perceptual task. Internal representations of the world, acquired by experience, affect our brain’s strategy for analyzing visual scenes.” [6. ] Indicating that perception is not merely objectively based only on limited input received but influenced by such things as expectation.
            That is all potentially useful to physics, and in addressing current and impending challenges to human civilization; including modern day impoverishment of shared human interaction, disagreements of different groups and populations, having different worldviews, (due to differences in; faith, secular ideologies, dogma, education, life experience) with the potential to escalate to wars, and for use when carefully integrating AI and social media into human civilization. Basement, Level 1. analysis, Level 2. association, Level 3. synthesis. Utilization of level 3 giving reasoning, interpretation or conclusions. Basement, Object reality consi. It is where production of potential sensory data i.e. potential stimuli occurs. It is non relative as this reality is observer independent. Home of whole truth, as in Object material reality, alluding to the famous tale of the blind men and the elephant.[ 7].
            This, basement level reality, (Object reality), is where such a whole, material elephant source would exist. Source of all relative viewpoints based on existing material truth.

              Georgina Woodward
              It is not useful to see the world in terms of high-level beings (e.g. blind men and elephants), or to see the world in terms of Jesuses/ Gods that are coming to save the believers while the world burns, or to see the world in (e.g. Scott Aaronson’s and David Chalmers’) terms of “whether we are living in a simulation” or not, or to see the world in terms of mathematical multiverses. All are equally nonsensical and unprovable speculations and ideas.

              Physics is about taking the real world, as found, seriously. Physics is supposed to be based on: 1) experimental results; and 2) theoretical models that try to symbolically represent experimental results in a way that ties and connects everything together using mathematical symbols and statements. Anything else is sure to lead to a type of madness, unhinged from the real moving, living, as-found world.

              The connection/ interface between high-level beings (human beings) and theoretical symbolic models of the world is that human beings create and are conscious of the symbols, human beings analyse the symbols, and human beings move and change the symbols. These very specific aspects of human beings are a necessary part of the symbolic models of the world.

                  Lorraine Ford
                  this is an extention of the RICP model, beyond thr two levels of reality identified by Kantian philosophy, namely noumenal and phenomenal reality. Taking it from basic Image reality , which can be unconsioous and generated by machines as well as organisms, to perception and then Quasi reality. Level 3 Synthesis
                  Making personal quasi reality, ‘how the world is ‘as I see it’/ What’s happening and prediction based on that, from own perspective. Models of reality and current narratives may come from; friends and acquaintances, family teaching, school teaching and further and higher education, own personal experience/ patterns of perception, traditional media, social media, learned religions sources, learned political ideology, other secular models or narratives such as by reading books. Synthesis of perception into current model of reality and narrative descriptions used. (Not actual truth, because of limitation of input and what sub set of input is sent for multiple levels of processing, as well as limitations and fidelity of current model of reality and narratives to partial Object reality.
                  On the perception of probable things, states ‘We have learned that the function of any area of the cerebral cortex, including that of primary visual cortex, is subject to top-down influences of attention, expectation, and perceptual task. Internal representations of the world, acquired by eption of probable things,2012

                      Georgina Woodward
                      It is absolutely pointless to try to interpret the world in terms of high-level beings (e.g. blind men and elephants), and their high-level highfalutin ideas: “Kantian philosophy” or “Quasi reality” or “Level 3 Synthesis” or “partial Object reality” or “the function of … the cerebral cortex” etc. If you want to interpret the world more correctly, you start with the physics of the world, which is represented via the use of mathematical symbols, including numbers.

                      But a system of mathematical or other symbols, including number, word, and sentence symbols, is not a standalone system, because symbols always require the logical connections provided by people. So, a system of symbols needs, in addition to the symbols themselves: 1) something that recognises/ is conscious of the symbols; 2) something that interprets the symbols; and 3) something that changes or moves the symbols.

                      As computer programs have shown, to more correctly represent any moving or living system, you need to represent the above three aspects, which in the past were provided by people who were mostly not conscious that they themselves personally were providing the necessary aspects that were missing from the symbols alone: it is these three necessary aspects which make a symbol system work.

                      So, I think where you are going wrong Georgina, is that you have unconsciously assumed that these three aspects of the world exist, but you have failed to identify that they are necessary aspects of a moving, living world.

                        Georgina Woodward
                        Also, your blind man and elephant analogy is wrong:

                        From only small visual glimpses from various angles, and sights, sounds, smells, and other clues, people and other animals need to be pretty good at identifying what things they can eat, and what things can eat them. For most intents and purposes, the light and sound waves, and the molecules in the air, after interacting with different eyes, ears and noses, will have provided a pretty much identical basis for further analysis by the person or other animal. Aside from animals that live in special conditions, like cave animals, blind and/or deaf animals don’t survive to tell the tale. And non-blind, non-deaf animals that can’t correctly analyse the light and sound waves, also don’t survive to tell the tale.

                        But in order for life to exist in the first place, any potential proto-life needed to have pre-existing properties: the proto-life needed to be able to recognise/ be conscious of/ interpret its surroundings, and the proto-life needed to be able to move its internal and external position as required. Just like how the movement of cellular automata is symbolically represented: to represent the consciousness-of-surroundings aspect of life, and to represent the free-movement, non-law-of-nature aspect of life, requires the use of logical connective symbols, as well as the usual symbols representing categories, equations, and numbers.

                          The elephant and blind men is a parable ,a way of teaching a concept by story telling, and not a literal event that occured. We may assume that the men in the story had never before encountered or heard about an elephant before.. it is useful for differentiating absolute material truth from a viewpoint erxtrapolated from limitred ,relative information.
                          Rules and laws are interpreted within an explanatory framework that comprises the metaphyscal context eg.. How do time and space work, what is being considered as reality.how many dimensions, what are their relationship? We should not assume that we can just gather quantative information and it will lead to a useful intepetation of itsself without the context in which it aplies,

                            Georgina Woodward
                            As I have explained, your blind man/ elephant story doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny as "a way of teaching a concept". Contrary to what you say, I have explained why living things could never have survived for very long if they were not able to deduce the truth of a matter from limited information about their surrounding situation obtained via their eyes, ears and noses.

                            Your "explanatory framework that comprises the metaphyscal context" (sic) does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny. In any case, as I have explained, it is absolutely pointless to try to explain the world (e.g. "How ... time and space work") in terms of these types of high-level highfalutin ideas.

                                Lorraine Ford
                                One meaning of truth has to do with fidelity of reproduction. A portrait that looks like the person is said to be a true likeness. A witness in court retells what happened and the likness to the actual event that occured is truthfulness. An animal needs to find food and avoid predators to surnive. It is only able to use the information it has recieved to know something about what is external to it. High fidelity sensory reproduction may have energy and time costs making it not worthwile.in comparison to a lesser fidelity system that non the less functions to aid survival . Even a simple eye is better than none. Not all organisms use high fidlity sensory reproduction, even the best use limited input-ie they could, in theory, do better. Though it would provide no advantage re. survival.

                                  Georgina Woodward
                                  “[A]ncient wisdom” is not useful if you want to send a spacecraft to Mars. We now have physics because “ancient wisdom” didn’t work as a way of explaining the world. Physicists use mathematical and other symbols to represent relationships that have been found to exist in the world.

                                  This general way of representing the fundamental-level world is correct because it works: we can now send spacecraft to Mars, and do all sorts of other amazing things because we are using our knowledge of how the world works at a fundamental level. This knowledge can only be represented via the use of mathematical and other special symbols.

                                  However, these symbols that we have invented are not the actual reality. These mathematical and other symbols merely very usefully represent very basic aspects of reality. Obviously, we can never quite know the actual reality that underlies the symbols. But we need to use symbols to represent the world to ourselves and others: there is no other way. There is the actual world, and there are symbols that we use to represent the world.

                                      Re. Extrapolation from limited, relative input does not produce an exact reproduction of the original, Taking an evolutionary view point, a higher fidelity sensory system has to confer a selection advantage to the possessor, in order for the genetic code to incrrease in the population. Otherwise it is non useful cost and so a disadvantage..