WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL by Joe Fisher

Joe,

a very interesting essay to read. You are tackling some really important issues but it frustrates me slightly because you are taking a different explanatory pathway to my own and naturally want to yell "Hey Joe, this way".

Its a really good point that we [without use of x-ray machines or their ilk] only see surfaces. That is, I agree, reality but I would restrict it to Image reality, a sub set of the Entirety of reality. I think re not seeing objects moving at different speeds, we are not actually seeing substantial objects themselves but our sensory systems fabrication of images of them.

Likewise the [image of an] object can as you say get smaller [as distance between the observer and [source]object increases].Its really interesting that this facet of relativity has had little attention. Though Julian Barbour on his http://www.platonia.com/ideas.html says "Relativity of size is such an attractive principle, I long believed that a dynamics of pure shape would one day be found, but in the last two years my thinking has changed somewhat." I have only alluded to this size relativity in my own essay by indicating the relevance of projective geometry to Image reality formation.

Enough said- an enjoyable easy read, profound ideas and thoughts. I hope you find other readers who appreciate where your conclusions are coming from even if not exactly agreeing with them. Kind regards Georgina

Dear Joe Fischer,

My impression is that you refer to ontology, the nature of reality is ontic while its description is epistemic. Quantum theory happens to be epistemic and there seems to be no other way, while classical theory is ontic. May be a higher stage of mathematics is able to clarify this discrepancy (categories or so). There is an interesting essay by Laurence Hitterdale that constructively criticizes the mathematical universe hypothesis. Physical theories are recognized true if they are useful in their range of application. I tend to admit that mathematical physics is not enough to talk about the real world, if any. But I like that you strongly insist that this important question of ontology has to be investigated in physics. Do I understand you correctly?

Michel

Dear Joe

Thanks for the essay.

Is it not true, ours like "real" observers (whose are fundamentally intrinsic quantized and able only to make communications with his/her external universe only through some forms of quantized signals to have "real perceptions" about IT) could never make any to and fro communications with that conceptual "Abstract zero" or "Absolute zero", or infinity, indifferent whether that would be a mathematical or physical? How one such observer could develop a precise real perception about any of those supposed "Abstract" events which are absolutely zero communicating or receiving any signal or message?

Otherwise its Ok.

Dipak Kumar Bhunia

(A tale of two logics)

Sir, thanks so much for your comment on my essay. This was an effective invitation to read yours. Since we seemingly defend two different approaches, the confrontation could be fruitfull. The importance given to the notion of surface is very interesting and I shall certainly immerse myself with it. I could not empeach myself to put your thinking about the zero in relation with the Heisenberg's principle without being able to go further. Concerning the distinction between the abstract and the real world... it's ok except that since we have nothing else than our real brain to construct abstractions which certainly are real flows of hormons and chimical transmitters... I miss the reason why you insist so much on that point (my thesis: we don't have to care about the abstract distinction between abstraction and reality since the abstractions live in the same real world than ours!). The pragmatism and the need of realism in a scientific approach forces us to make choices (the abstractions) that we confront with the realities. Certainly is it at the end just a circular logic inside which we are testing ourself and contempling our own image... but where is the problem since we have to live and to try to understand where and who we are?

Best regards.

Joe,

You are talking about things that exist, that are real. Although I am not a philosopher, for me it refers to ontology. It is not abstract. How do you define something that is real? I know that there is objective reality that is postulated to be independent of the observer and a more subjective view where the subject takes part into what is observed. Classical physics is of the former type while QM of the latter.

What kind of philosophy do you have, is there somebody that understands you?

Michel

Dear Joe Fisher,

I found your comment on my essay but someone removed them before I was able to answer.

I'm far from any ignorance, so please write it again.

Best Torsten

Fisher,

You words are very thrilling to me! I am excised to hear anyone question Newton or Einstein. He wasn't so much different that the world of physics that he overthrew. His ingenuity made a picture that worked to his great merit, but it is one that should be constantly questioned.

Just a question. If light is recorded only as the emission of particles, say electrons getting excited and cooling, then what can be said of the light before then?

Dear abstract Mr. abstract Fisher,

Had abstract you abstract been abstract properly abstract trained abstract in abstract the abstract language abstract and abstract art abstract of abstract mathematics abstract and abstract of abstract physics (abstract abstract), and abstract had abstract you abstract any abstract concern abstract for abstract (Abstract!!) Truth abstract, abstract you abstract would abstract have abstract realized abstract that abstract your abstract "theory" abstract is abstract nothing abstract but abstract an abstract ABSTRACT abstract figment abstract of abstract your abstract imagination abstract which has nothing to do with really unique and really real and really reality, yes not twice, but once and real (not abstract!!).

Abstract Thank abstract you,

Abstractly yours,

J Pecheur

Joe,

Great essay again, and even when driving home the importance of 'abstract' it seems many simply won't be at home! You also identify (as I also do briefly) the great issue with considering 0 as a number. Division by zero is a famous 'fallacious proof' as the link I give, which can prove anything is anything. (It's even included in SR's formulations as functions with value = 0!)

I did struggle a bit to understand your 'surfaces' and inert light but just about got there (I think), or at least somewhere I've already visited but seen from a quite different angle. (A better initial specification would have helped most I think). i.e. the OAM of a subatomic particle is c wrt it's locality (i.e. a train), not c wrt the station the train is passing through, or wrt the sun the spinning planet is orbiting. All local speeds are then the same when properly measured. I hope you may thumbs up this video identifying the wide importance of that; Stunning short but desnely packed video, turn the sound up and use the slider regularly!.

Your score is stupidly derisory but I have a cool (1 shot) levitation trick to try to transform the numbers. I think and hope you'll like my essay revealing yet another about trick with numbers, all about socks, proving nature is NOT necessarily described by our mathematics. Perhaps you may then try the levitation trick yourself.

Thanks for the refreshing read. Very best of luck.

Peter

Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher