Dear Joe,

I'm inserting this short note because I believe it to be relevant to what goes before it and the thread that follows: "Joe: I have replied to you at Gordon replies to Joe's initiative. The reply is linked to a draft work-in-progress proposal for my new FQXi signature."

......

"Nature speaks in many ways (which can be tricky), from big bangs to the whisper of an apple falling; but just one grammar, Nature's concrete mathematics, governs all her languages: thus all her laws," Gordon Watson (2015: p.5).

With best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

Dear Marcel,

Thank you ever so much for your comment and for rating my essay. Please correct me if I am wrong, but do you have a real complete skin surface? Does everything you have ever seen in your life have a real complete solid, liquid, or vaporous surface? Newton, Einstein and Hawking have never written a word about the incontrovertible fact that reality consists of a real surface.

Gratefully,

Joe Fisher

Dear Joe,

On my essay's page, you wrote: "All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it." I take you on your offer, and I hope you will give me fair answers!

I will not start with objections, because right now, there are so many aspects of your essay that I do not understand that I need many clarifications first. I will ask my questions one at a time, so you can give me specific answers.

OK, here's my first question!

On page 1 of your essay, you start by deploring that mainstream physicists deal with abstractions (abstract object, abstract force, abstract motion) instead of "real" stuff. Yet, in the third paragraph, you admit that there is such a thing as a real object, because you write:

"Any real object can appear as a real solid, or a real liquid, or as a real vapor depending on its subjection to real extremes of real temperature. It is difficult to believe in a real object's proclivity for being at real rest or in real calculated motion when any real object's real inconsistent physical endurance is so unpredictably ephemeral."

If I understand correctly, you say that because real objects can change phase (solid-liquid-gas), it is impossible to say that they can be at real rest or that they can be in real motion. I don't understand why you say that. Imagine a brick that stays solid for many, many years (surely, it is possible?). If the brick detaches from a high building and falls to the street, why can't I say that (in Earth's reference frame) it was at real rest in the beginning and in real motion just before it crashed on the sidewalk? Surely, there was a difference between what it was doing before it detached and after?

I am looking forward to your answer to this very specific first question, before we can get to more interesting questions!

Marc

    Dear Marc,

    Thank you for answering my plea to give my essay a fair reading and for clearly asking a most important question about its applicability.

    The best way I can answer your probing question is to ask you a series of questions in return. Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does every object in the room you are presently occupying have a real complete solid surface? Obviously, all real surfaces must travel at the same constant speed; otherwise, they would not stay in position to be observed simultaneously.

    Only imaginary bricks can abstractly appear to be at abstract rest or in abstract motion.

    Gratefully,

    Joe Fisher

    Dear Joe,

    Of course I have a real surface (with 9 holes, as you often specify in your replies!), and so do the objects in the room. But you lose me right away with your statement:

    "Obviously, all real surfaces must travel at the same constant speed; otherwise, they would not stay in position to be observed simultaneously."

    I have a clock on my wall with a seconds hand, and I can clearly see that the tip of the hand does not stay in position compared to the face of the clock (if it did, it wouldn't be a useful clock!!!). To me, it clearly means that the tip of the hand is not moving at the same constant speed as the face of the clock, and yet, I can observe the tip of the hand and the face of the clock simultaneously! Your statement is clearly false... unless you somehow have a definition of "surface" and/or of "speed" that is different from the usual meaning of the words in the English language. Can you help me make sense of your statement?

    Marc

      Joe, I've addressed (on my Essay Forum) the most recent comment that you left there. Regards: Gordon

      Dear Marc,

      It is physically impossible to see an isolated surface. One always sees a plethora of surfaces. When you look at a clock, you see the position of the pointers and the dial and the background wall and mantelpiece surface that surrounds the surface of the clock. The surface of the pointers must travel at the same constant speed whether the clock is working or not. Surface always travels at the same constant speed. Sub-surface always travels at a unique speed that is less than the constant speed of surface. As the workings of a clock are always located in the interior, each clock always registers a unique time.

      Joe

      Dear Marc,

      Although there may appear to be "moving parts", you can move your arms and legs and run and jump about, your real surface can only travel at the same constant speed.

      Joe Fisher

      Joe in my wiew real universe is physical and mathematical too. Not only stone also number one is real, it exist.

      Light speed depends on the variable energy density of quantum vacuum, Shapiro expeeriment proves that.

      yours amrit

        Dear Joe,

        You say that, on a clock, the surface of the pointers must travel at the same constant speed whether the clock is working or not. I don't understand... if the clock is not working, the pointer always points to the same number on the clock face, but if the clock is working, the pointer MOVES (which means it has some SPEED) and doesn't always point at the same number... I am starting to suspect that you do not use the word "speed" in the usual way. In your system, how do you define speed? As distance traveled divided by time (like it is usually done), or in some other way?

        Marc

        Thank you for rereading my essay.

        Your previous post is disappeared from my page essay.

        I have already read all the essay, and I must say that this year the level of the best deserve a publication; and I think that the community evaluation worked well.

        Regards

        Domenico Oricchio

        Dear Marc,

        The surface of the pointer always travels at the same default constant speed that all surface travels at. This is a bit difficult to explain and in order to do so: I have to resort to abstraction.

        You see the surface of the pointer and you know that the surface of the pointer is on top of part of the surface of the dial of the clock. When the surface of the pointer moves, because the clock is working, it uncovers the same area of the surface of the dial that it was originally hiding. Although the seconds hand pointer appears to be "moving" faster than the minutes hand is, the surface speed of the pointers and the dial are identical. Every minute, the surface area of the seconds pointer covers the surface area of the minutes pointer, which in turn covers its surface area part of the surface of the dial. As the seconds pointer continues spinning around the dial, it simultaneously uncovers part of the surface area of the minutes pointer and a part of the surface area of the dial.

        Obviously, the surface speed of a clock with a digital reader remains at the same constant speed of surface regardless of which numbers it desplays.

        Respectfully,

        Joe Fisher

        Dear amrit,

        Thank you for your comment.

        Joe Fisher

        Dear Joe Fisher ! Maths can be viewed as a method of measuring events as perceived by us human beings; the psychological perception of physical events is generally called human history. Abstractions of these processes, via maths or linguistics, are human attempts to give meaning to the events; a deeper understanding of our human reality cannot be disconnected from the scientific tools we use to explore the realities of life.As a result, we have to stay sane in a crazy world by writing and communicating our essays. Best: stephen

          Dear Joe Fisher,

          Thank you for your kind comment on my essay.

          Joe, you remark in your essay "each real person's brain is located in the subsurface of each real persons cranium." Although I exist and perceive myself as a biological whole, you appear to be abstracting a piece of me and calling it a "brain". Perhaps I have misunderstood you for years, but I thought that it was exactly this abstracting a unique unity of existence into some pieces, which is what the physicist does, that you objected to.

          Reading your essay and your remarks, it seems that you are propounding a theory of physics when you discuss the surfaces and sub surfaces. But physics theories are typically created for the purpose of predicting either properties or behaviors. It is not clear to me exactly what you predict from your theory.

          You have over the years been very kind to me in your remarks, so I bear you no ill will whatsoever, and often enjoy your remarks, but it's difficult to tell when you are being consistent or inconsistent with your own approach to abstraction. Sometime it seems that the safest approach to communicating with you is in Joseph Pecheur's comment above.

          You mention above that, taking LSD, Timothy Leary still saw surfaces. But it's also reported by people who have taken Salvia Divinorum that their visual perception of their surroundings is as if it were painted on the inside of a balloon into which their eyes were peering. I don't know if you get this picture, but it essentially is one in which everything they see is simply one surrounding surface 'painted' on the inside of the 'balloon', including when they look down at themselves; what they can see of their own (front) surface appears to be 'painted' on the interior of the balloon, and there is the perception that they are literally connected to everything 'outside' of the balloon, ie., everything they cannot see. My point is that subjective perception of surfaces is not even universal in the sense that you seem to insist upon. In the Salvia perspective, the only relevant surface would seem to be the one at their retina [if I may make an abstraction].

          I am much more comfortable with your insistence that the universe is one and unique. Surfaces seem to me to include more complexity than you have outlined. Certainly by all appearances everything has a surface, although the surface of a cloud is not as abstractly simple as the surface of you or an insect or a turtle.

          In your essay you remark that "The real Universe is real in the absolute sense of the word." and I agree that "One real Universe must consist of only one real inseparable substance." And I very much like your summary statement: "The real Universe am."

          I think you're right about that. There is a story about a group of philosophers asking the Zen teacher DT Suzuki about a table. They asked in what sense is the table real. Suzuki replied, "In every sense."

          My best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Joe,

            I like the way you emphasize the difference between the physics (the real universe) and the maths (the abstract model).

            I think to fully understand any concept in physics it is necessary to create a very good description of the physics before applying the mathematical model. To have a mathematical model in which the physical description is uncertain (e.g. quantum theory) seems likely to lead to an incomplete theory.

            So emphasizing the distinction between the real and the abstract is an important step that you have made.

            Regards

            Richard

              Dear Stephen Ternyik,

              Unfortunately, abstract mathematics cannot be viewed. Only real surface can ever be viewed.

              Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and leaving a comment about it.

              Joe Fisher

              Dear Eugene Klingman,

              Thank you for reading my essay and for leaving such a detailed comment about it.

              Your comment is extremely difficult for me to answer, because you seem to agree with me on the major point I made about the real Universe. Of course I had to use abstract terms for brains and craniums, but I was trying to bring attention to the fact that while all surface travels at the same constant speed, sub-surface must travel at a unique slower speed than that of surface.

              It is physically impossible for any working eye not too see a plethora of surfaces. Whether some part of a surface may seem to have been painted on the inside of a balloon, it is still an observable surface.

              Incredibly, the only activity every man and woman has always engaged in forever is surface alteration. From applying makeup or was-paint, and wearing personal clothing to pouring concrete, and dropping bombs, all one does all day long is mess about with nature's surface.

              Gratefully,

              Joe Fisher

              Dear Richard,

              Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for leaving such a positive comment about it.

              Joe Fisher

              Joe,

              In either your essay or your cut and paste comment, you make mention of real astronomers looking through real telescopes.

              I have a simple question for you ... how did those astronomers get those telescopes?

              Did you know that Newton was an astronomer? He was very pleased with the fact that he made his own instruments, and ground his own mirrors and lenses. So in Newton's case, he used his abstract understanding of optics to build a real telescope. That and the whole prism thing with light ... that was pretty cool too I guess.

              Best Regards and Good Luck,

              Gary Simpson