Reality, Once by Joe Fisher

Joe

I found your use of "Once upon a time.." to describe the uniqueness of things quite refreshing at a time when physicists casually bandy about concepts of multiple Universes. Particularly since I and many others believe that time is not a real dimension.

You conclude with "One thing is certain; humanity is about to find out what really does happen when the irresistible force of scientific conviction meets the immovable objection of religious belief." I think that scientific conviction does not in itself preclude an attitude of contemplative prayerful reverence for life. Nor should religious belief be so literal as to deny the truths that science has shown us about the Universe and ourselves.

Best wishes

Vladimir

Hi, You sounded kind of pessimistic to me, are you? Do you see any ways or methods how we should steer our future?

Joe,

Your argument with regards to the numero uno is terribly flawed! You state:

"There is no physical way to depict identical 1's. Each 1, no matter how, where, when, or by whom, it is depicted will always be unique."

You're confusing representations of something with the actual thing; this is known as an "equivocation fallacy." There are no identical representations of the numero uno. One may refer to the one distinct entity with uno, one, 1, 1^2, 3 - 2, 10 - 9, etc. but the entity to which all of these REFERENTS refer is distinct and the same no matter where presented in time or space - spacetime!

And you're hardly the first "realist" to champion the idea that reality only happens once! Philip Goyal, in his paper quotes Ernst Mach (1838-1916), a huge influence on Einstein:

"In mentally separating a body from the changeable environment in which it moves, what we really do is to extricate a group of sensations on which our thoughts are fastened and which is of relatively greater stability than the others, from the stream of all our sensations. Suppose we were to attribute to nature the property of producing like effects in like circumstances; just these like circumstances we should not know how to find. Nature exists once only. Our schematic mental imitation alone produces like events."

But I appreciate your relentless advocacy of the realist ideal even though I am something of an Idealist . . .

With regards

You're absolutely right in your conclusion, you know; in the end it all comes down to the ever unfolding battle between the 1's (the father) and the 0's (the Holy Ghost/Virgin Mother). Unlike yourself, however, I am certain a peaceful resolution shall obtain! The 1's and the 0's will converge and information (10101010101010101 . . . ) will prevail over entropy (0001100011111111100000000001010 . . .) . . .

With regards

Wesley,

You are the one who is confusing representations of things with real things. As I went to great pains to point out, no singular pixel that represented a 1 on a computer screen could be identical to the 1 it represents. Each computer screened 1 would have to contain more than 1 pixel. A typed number 1 on a sheet of paper could not possibly consist of an amount of printer's ink identical to the 1's formation. I would expect anyone with a scrap of common sense to understand that reality could only occur once. What I cannot understand is how anybody could claim that abstract equations are necessary for the understanding of science when nothing in reality equates.

Dear Joe,

As universe is infinite, your statement, '1 1 = 2 is abstractly perfect. Reality is not perfect', implies that the Universe is in Continuum rather than in Corpuscularianism and thus Steer the Future is much imperative, in that observational methods and technology needs modifications, as the nature of matter and time differs on this.

With best wishes, Jayakar

Okay, Joe, here's a little common sense for you. Assuming you dwell in a house somewhere in middle America, you wheel your little office chair up to your computer, input information via a keyboard. Now, never mind the fact that your input requires a keyboard representing a bunch of symbols where each symbol REFERS to an abstract concept which remains the same regardless of whether you punch it today or sometime in the near-distant future; according to your "philosophy" this is impossible because reality, whatever that is, only happens once. Assume that by some mysterious force of magic said input instigates a causal reaction which takes you across the internet to a science forum sponsored by FQXi. You go to said forum, and, thanks to the good graces of FQXi, you erect a little mountain perch in said forum, you climb up on said perch, and shout to the world, "I'm a Realist. Reality only happens once! Mathematicians and scientists are out to lunch and their lunch pail is full of delusions because they fail to grasp this common sense principle - Reality Only Happens Once!" But if it wasn't for those mathematicians and scientists whose lunch pail is full of so-called delusions, neither the forum containing your little perch, nor the internet and computer you used to construct said perch, would exist! So who's really out to lunch with a lunch pail full of delusion? The guy up on the mountain perch screaming, "I'm a realist!"

You know, you ask me on my own section of the forum, "How many animals do you know of who ingest drugs etc. etc.?" Well, how many animals other than human do YOU know of who have mapped their own genome, set foot on the moon, constructed relatively large structures out of refined elements found in their natural environment which can withstand 500 year storms, and I could go on and on? And guess what, none of these accomplishments would be possible without mathematics and science! Scientists and mathematicians don't get paid to create chapters in the continuing saga of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, they get paid to follow the evidence! But if the evidence leads to an understanding of the world which closely resembles Alice's Wonderland what do you expect them to do? "Oh, okay, we're done here. This contradicts the Bible and Newton's Mechanics and besides we're realists so . . . "

To conclude, I find your arguments quite entertaining and quite preposterous . . . but then I'm not really a realist, whatever that means . . .

Wesley.

Reality has nothing to do with assumptions. The only thing science has done is make money. Science has never made real sense. The classic case of this is the fact that the white government of the United States has spent millions of dollars on machinery that only white scientists believe well detect humanly recognizable intelligence in outer space. That each person has unique real fingerprints, unique real DNA and real unique RNA, and is uniquely real, once is immaterial. White scientists would have us believe that human intelligence can be measured using postulated identical numbers. All measurements are perfectly abstractly identical. All reality is unique, once.

Dear Joe!

Congratulation too for your essay and your essential understanding.

The main message of your essay sounds similar to my view disclosed in my essay.

You mention simultaneity as:

"Before one fires an arrow from a bow, one can clearly see the target eighty or so meters in front of one, When one fires an arrow from a bow, the arrow can be seen throughout its flight, until it strikes the target, which means that the arrow, the bow, and the target and everything within visible range must all be travelling at the real default speed of light because all can be seen simultaneously. "

I quite agree, it is factually true, but count on a little delay one's conscious consideration whether he wants that target to be shot or not and also estimating the effects. We are humans equipped with higher cognitive functions for reasoning.

But, we consist of ...

You mention too:

"Although I cannot quite grasp how a zero sized infinitely hot universe could double in size so as to be able to exactly half its infinite heat... "

It is not because of your abysmal lack of academic education. But a lack of understanding what perhaps several of academically educated ones also do not quite understand without some esoteric study about how the elemental forms are derived from each other, albeit Plato described them as polihedras embedding.

Let us see the truly unique element as tetrahedron which should represent as an abstaction of the elemental fire in the nature. Can you grasp the elemental fire as a singularity, black or white hole how much hot or destructive can be without a double so it need to be exactly halved cancelling its probable effects. (I will put an attachment of some pictures as per my present understanding how the 0 mother, 1 father fires and how they can sum as 2 and even more they are as many quarks, sparks, any how named objects expanding in hyperspace :)

You mention also:

"The real Universe must presently, always has been, and ever will always be in its simplest real state of being unique, once. Thanks to the English language, one can easily think up abstract absolutes that would appear to describe an abstract universe quite adequately: One (1) real Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually travelling at one real speed of light through one real infinite dimension once. One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Universe is the absolute of energy. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Travelling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history."

Due to the differences between our mother languages your one is probably the English, but mine is Hungarian, so there can be little discrepancy in the interpretation of the meanings of certain terms.

Because I'm Hungarian I should be a bit lucky thanks to my mother language. Because it distinguishes two words concerning 'realitás = should mean things being in actuality' and 'valóság = what should mean ISness'. So the latter most closed to similar meaning in English as existence.

As per my development of understanding, I'm a bit precautious with my statements even if that convey similar meaning as yours, but that can contain lot of things under yet conscious considerations. But I agree with you in that, every moment we experience real-time that is unique and unreproducible in its every aspect. Just is how can I understand what you mention the 1 pixellated infinity should not reach equally same 1, that should mean observing the probable approximations of the right moment happening quite identical in its all aspects never occurs. (I note, this allows emerging time-travelling concepts to change the things. However in what a quantum computer can fail even if it is programmed no to do any fault it can hesitate between two of states while a human has a capacity to decide real-time either making error or not. The latter allows much development into a right direction which can be at best balanced between two of states but keeping a human attitude and look. Thus I agree the reality is not perfect, as how a human also not even if the nature can be absolute in the meaning of its unconditional existence, and can be balanced which does not mean something or anything to be perfect. :)

You write:

"The Great Redeemer could indeed return in one's lifetime and fulfil the great prophecy that is the only motivating factor all Christians live for. They will all be saved. They will all be transported up to Heaven intact quite soon.".

I deeply respect your religious attitude and belief, however I think, unfortunately you are not right in that. If we are waiting for a Great Redeemer without looking for HIM/HER inhabiting all his/her power and knowledge recognizable in us we won't be saved anyhow. All what a Great Redeemer could give us putting us equal with him/her as his/her likeness are the capability for thinking and acting balanced at that place where we are, so let there be reached a peaceful Heaven on Earth.

Jesus once upon a time said: You had all power to do it. Behold yourself was the only key given for our path.

With all of my best wishes for your life and on this essay contest.Attachment #1: polihedras_embedding.gifAttachment #2: Az_anyag_genezise_1.gif

Dear Wesley!

Thank you for your optimism positively resolving the conflict between the 1's (the father) and the 0's (Mother)

:)

Valeria

Dear Joe,

thank you for reading my essay and rating it so high...

that is unique, like you are...

every view is unique but its uniqueness does not mean that it is TRUE,

the unique TRUTH is not available in our causal universe,

the infinite availability of unique "Eternal Now Moments" is our source of being(I think) and because of the fact that it is my thinking it does not mean that it has direct threads with the Truth, maybe, I just don't know...

I wish you all the luck with your "realistic" unique essay.

Wilhelmus

Dear Joe,

interesting essay! after read your essay, I would have two links to show you.

one is my statement about 1+1=2 at a web forum where i developed my theory several years ago. it was the moment to develop several factors at once. another is the news that hawking denied blackholes. it was at the end of january so you might already submit your essay. actually i got to know this contest already had started with this news.

thank you

ryoji

sorry link correction below,

web forum

the news