WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL by Joe Fisher

Your essay is very difficult to comment on since nearly everything you state seems wrong to me. The fact that what you state does not seem wrong to you means that my comments will likely have no meaning for you.

Math is so obviously useful for predictions of action that I would not know what to do without math. In that sense, math represents our Cartesian reality quite well.

However, the Cartesian world that we imagine with our neural computer and our math is much different from the relational world of sensation. Belief is a much more important anchor for the relational world of sensation, but the reason of math works quite well for our Cartesian world nevertheless.

If that is what you are trying to articulate, then I agree. If not, then so be it.

Dear Joe,

I thought that I already had received a comment on my paper from you and had commented on your paper in response on my paper's page, but if I did, it disappeared somehow, so I will post it again here on my page and also on yours as you requested. I added a few additional observations for further thought. I hope you will get something productive out of it.

I am sorry that it has taken so long to get back to you, but I have not had good access to the internet for the last couple of weeks.

I have found that the concept of a real surface is not as most people consider it to be. If you look at a polished piece of metal, you will see a solid looking smooth surface, but as you magnify it you will see that it is not a smooth continuous surface, but is instead composed of metal crystals with visibly defined interfaces. You could consider each metal crystal to have a surface, but once again as you magnify it enough you see that the surface is actually composed of small spherical objects (atoms) with space between them, which is not a solid smooth surface at all. You might say that the atoms appear to have solid smooth spherical surfaces, but if you could magnify them enough, you would see that their apparent surfaces are actually caused by light photons bouncing off of the electrons that are moving around the atoms', nucleuses. There is no actual surface to the atoms. If you could magnify one of the electrons, you might consider that it would be a spherical object with a surface, but if you magnified it, you would see that it is just an energy photon traveling around in a three dimensional path much like the electrons traveling around the atom. If you could then magnify the energy photon, you could possibly see an actual surface, but man on this planet does not at present have the observational data to in any way prove or disprove that at this time, so I won't go into that now. The point is that most of the things that we see as solid with surfaces are actually mostly empty space with various motion interactions generating what we see at our limited size scale range as solid objects with solid surfaces. When looked at closely their surfaces are not really solid, but are composed of smaller and smaller continuous cyclical motion interactions.

Why do you believe that light does not have a surface? Do you have any actual observational evidence of that being the case?

I looked at your paper and have a few questions about the concepts presented in it.

1. Why do you believe that all surfaces must travel at the same speed when they appear by observation to be traveling at different speeds relative to each other? It would seem to me that due to the finite speed of light, there is always a delay from the time that light is reflected from or emitted by an object to the time that ours eyes interact with those light photons and we perceive the object. If light photons are continuously leaving 2 objects and traveling to our eyes, we would continuously see both objects simultaneously (at the same time) once light from both objects reached our eyes. If both objects were not in motion relative to us and each other and each of the objects aimed a light source at our eyes and if both lights were turned on simultaneously, we would see the light first from the closest object since the light from that object would travel a shorter distance to reach our eyes. If both objects were traveling straight toward us at different speeds and they both turned on their lights simultaneously just when the faster object pulled up beside the other object so that they were both the same distance from us, and if the light always travels at the same speed to all observers, we would expect the first light from both objects to reach us simultaneously. If in the observational test above, the light from the faster object is speeded up by its faster speed so that its speed is greater than the speed of the light from the slower object, we would expect that the first light from the faster object would reach us first. Observational evidence suggests that the speed of light is the same regardless of the direction and speed that the object is traveling when it emits the light photons. This suggests that when the object is moving in the same direction as the emitted photons, the extra linear motion of the object is transferred to the photons' fourth vector (dimensional) motion, which would increase the photons' frequency and dynamic mass effects and would decrease the wavelength effect of the photons, thus creating a blue shift effect. If the object is traveling in the opposite direction of the emitted photons, the decrease in the motion of the photons that would be expected is also transferred to the photons' fourth vector motion, which would decrease their frequency and dynamic mass effects and increase their wavelength. This would generate a red shift effect. This suggests that the photon's fourth vector motion acts as a motion sink that servos the photon's linear speed at the speed of light by either transferring motion to the linear motion to increase it up to the speed of light or by transferring motion from the linear motion to decrease it down to the speed of light.

2. Please explain why you believe that if all surfaces were not traveling at the same speed it would be physically impossible for one to observe them simultaneously?

3. Why do you believe that a sub-surface must travel at a speed that always remains lower than the constant speed of the surface and why it can only travel in or out?

4. If light cannot travel, what happens when a moving surface intersects a stationary light photon? Does the surface get stopped by the stationary light photon? Does the surface just pass through the stationary photon without any effect on either one or does some other action or effect occur?

5. You say that real objects have surfaces. If you take a 1ft by 1ft by ½in piece of wood, it would be a real object and its top, bottom, and sides would be surfaces. If you lay it on a larger piece of wood, its bottom would then become a sub-surface. If you placed 1/2 in thick wood pieces against all of its sides, its sides would become sub-surfaces also. If you then placed a large piece of wood on top of it, the top would also become a sub-surface. At this point it would no longer have a surface because they would all have been changed into sub-surfaces. Would it still be a real object without any surfaces or would it now be unreal, etc.?

6. You say: "Real light cannot have a surface for the only way light can be seen is if it adherers to a real surface". It makes sense according to your theory that the side of the light that adherers to a real surface would be a sub-surface, but why couldn't the light possess a side that is not adhering to the real surface that has a surface on it, thus making the light also a real object? Also, how can a stationary light photon adhere to a moving real surface? Wouldn't it be left behind as the real surface passed by its stationary position? Also, would the part of the real surface that the photon is adhered to become a sub-surface or is that only the case when 2 real surfaces come together?

7. It would seem to me that the air (gas) that covers the planet earth is (according to your theory) a real object and the top or outside side of it is a surface. The bottom of it that touches the other objects on the earth below it would be a sub-surface and all of the parts of those surface objects that contact the air are also sub-surfaces. Most of the other surfaces of those lower objects that are not in contact with the air are in contact with other objects and are, therefore, also sub-surfaces and not surfaces. This means that most of the earth objects except for the air do not have real surfaces and, therefore, are not real objects unless real objects can exist as real objects when they do not have any surfaces.

8. You say "There cannot be a real vacuum anywhere in the real Universe." Any empty space of any size could be considered to be a vacuum. The only way that there would be no vacuum would be if all of space is completely filled. If the invisible undetectable sub-microscopic particles that you mention completely filled all space that was not being filled by matter particles, etc., that could possibly eliminate all vacuum, but then all of the surfaces of all of those sub- microscopic particles would be making contact with other sub- microscopic particles or other larger matter particles, etc., so their complete surfaces would be turned into sub-surfaces and they would then have no surfaces. All of the larger matter particles surfaces would also be completely in contact with the sub-microscopic particles or with other larger particles and would, therefore, also become sub-surfaces. This would effectively get rid of all surfaces in the universe leaving only sub-surfaces remaining. According to your theory, a real surface can only be a surface when it is not up against anything. This requires that a vacuum exists around the surface because anything else in contact with the surface changes it into a sub-surface.

So far it appears to me that your theory does not fit well with observational data and possibly in internal structure as well, but maybe I am missing some details of it, maybe you can clarify it for me.

Sincerely,

Paul

Joe,

You started off your essay in a way that made me think you were going to criticize the loose use of language in physics (an approach shared with Wittgenstein and the logical positivists). But before long it became clear you were being quite careless about language yourself. For instance you repeatedly spoke of all surfaces as moving at "constant speed," but never said speed with respect to what. Moreover your whole concept does not jell. Consider a sphere, real or abstract. Suppose it is spinning on a fixed axis. Now all parts of the surface are in motion. But at constant speed? I think not. The Earth's oblateness is due to the higher rotary speed at the equator than at the poles.

Tom Phipps

Joe,

I read your paper and was not really able to understand what you mean with your surfaces. Since this is your major point, I am affraid I cannot really comment your paper.

There however is an exception. I do not share with you at all your point on the existence or not of the zero. Just imagine you are counting real matches. Then if there are no matches, then there are zero matches and this zero is physical.

Jean-François.

Dear Joe,

what you write about zero makes sense. We all would like to know what sort of zero energy fluctuations let things happen.

Good luck

Lutz

Dear Joe,

I read your abstract, and have a look at your essay. I cannot follow your logic, and I disagree on most of your conclusions. Besides, we are on opposite faces of the universe: you are a realist, and I am an informationalist.

Have happy time within your universe.

My best regards

mauro

Dear Joe,

I have seen your last message on my blog.

I have already commented on an early message from you (remenber the man shouting in a cardboard box ?) but the whole conversation seems to have disappeared from my blog ...

Cheers,

Patrick

Dear Mr.Fisher,

Thanks for your thought provoking arguments.

But can one without hesitation conclude

"that mathematics has nothing to do with the

manner in which the the real Universe is

occuring"?Why are you bodered about the

"general relativity" of mathematics?Why not

see it as an asset; the way Newton regarded

geometry as a branch of mechanics.Or is their

any social benefit that constitute the

RATIONALE FOR A STRUGGLE FOR SUPREMACY

between mathematics and physics?

Maybe as a word of advice let me reiterate

Wagner's assertion that "the enormous

usefulness of mathemaics in the natural

Sciences is something bordering on the

mysterious and that there is no rational

explanation for it".

Keep on flourishing.

Lloyd Tamarapreye Okoko.

Dear Joe:

I am responding to your request for a reply to your paper.

First of all, I do not understand why all surfaces must be travelling at a constant speed and all subsurfaces at a unique lower speed. Can you further explain your reasoning here? Assuming that what you say is true, the generalization or abstraction that only surfaces and subsurfaces are real becomes what defines ultimate reality.

Secondly, realism also makes the reality/appearance distinction an abstraction that raises the abstract question, why is reality, including the sciences that misinterpret it, so deceptive? Even sense-perception requires some pattern recognition or levels of abstraction. Blind people whose sight has been physically restored still cannot see very well because they do not know how to see or to abstractly process visual simulation. Without contrast and abstraction (concepts), we cannot perceive, let alone think about, the world. Percepts without concepts are blind. Monistic realism undermines its own abstract foundation since foundations are themselves abstract.

Sincerely, David Frederick Haight