Dear Georgina,

I can see you have again brought your powerful 'Object and Image reality' tool to bear on the theme of this year's essay. I think you do so quite well, at least as a number of paradoxes appear capable of being resolved.

I tried the reference to Foucault's pendulum but it took me to a different page. I will try to find a way to view it through some other means.

As Edwin Klingman observed, the alphabetic codes can be quite challenging to follow, although the color scheme does help in certain places.

All the best in the competition.

Regards,

Akinbo

    Hi Akinbo, thank you for taking a look and for your feedback.

    I am surprised that you also have found the alphabetic representation difficult. I am just using the first letter of the words I could have used instead, which makes it considerably easier to follow whats going on than whole extremely long descriptive sentences. I accept that an even shorter notation could have been used such as Ei for element of image reality and Eo for element of object reality, and other symbols for other terms but that would require having the key close to hand or prior learning.

    I'm so glad to hear that you have found the colors helpful. I hoped it would be. The text does jump around a lot between different aspects of reality and its good to be able to keep ones bearings by noticing the color of the text. The same colors are also used on the diagrams, which can be used alongside to get ones bearings. I've just used blue for sensory data because it is a subset of object reality and its inclusion in object reality is most important.

    All the best to you too Georgina

    Dear Madam,

    Your first paragraph shows interconnectedness and as a result, interdependence, of everything with every other thing within a fixed framework. But the Grandfather paradox is fiction, because 'now' or 'here-now' is linked to 'future' in a different way than it is linked to the 'past'. Space, Time and coordinates arise from our concept of sequence and interval. When it is related to objects, we call the interval space. When it is related to events, we call the interval time. When we describe inter-relationship of objects, we describe the interval by coordinates. Past, Present and future are segments of these sequences of intervals that are strictly ordered - all of future always follows present. The same sequence is not true for past, because any past event can be linked to the present bypassing the specific sequence of its occurrence but you cannot move from past to future violating the sequence. Further, you can think of or use the information relating to past with certainty, but cannot do the same for future. This proves unidirectional time. We have analyzed Einstein's formulations in detail in our essay.

    Can you give any example of an actualized event (must have been measured/observed by someone somewhere to be meaningful objective reality) without any reference frame? You have admitted that "QM measurements do not represent objective descriptions of a systems state independent of Measurement, i.e. pre-measurement OR amalgamation of the pre-measurement state of the element of reality and the ready state of the apparatus". Measurement is a process of comparison between similars. Without the reference unit, how can we measure? We perceive by comparing the fresh impulse with similar impulse from memory as the reference. If a reference unit is necessary, that becomes the reference frame. Further, the term 'similar' implies difference from 'others' implying there is a reference frame.

    Your statement "The manifestation has a singular fixed state, produced from the sub set of sensory data received rather than many possibilities of the absolute object and pre-selection sensory data" is correct, but has to be interpreted properly. The manifestation is the 'perception of totality' of the results of measurement of various aspects or components (sub set), which is frozen for future reference. Thus, it is not a possibility, but a certainty. The barn-pole paradox arises because of the hypothecated length contraction, which we have shown in our essay is not real, but apparent. Even time dilation observed through GPS systems are due to refraction by the denser atmosphere of Earth, when light signals from outer space reenter it.

    The Andromeda paradox is more a matter of philosophy than physics. It is related to the definition of simultaneity. Nothing that happens on Andromeda today can affect anything that happens on Earth today. If observers moving at different relative velocities have different planes of simultaneity - hence different sets of events that are present - then nothing can be related to the other and the concept of relativity fails. Regarding freewill and determinism, we had written separately and you can get a copy by writing to mbasudeba@gmail.com.

    When it is possible to describe facts easily using simple statements, why do you make it incomprehensible?

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Sir,

    I had no desire to dumb down what is a very precise exploration of the relationship between the different facets of reality and how errors have been built into physics. The representation of the structure of reality has been simplified in the new diagram but still the older and much more complex diagrammatic presentation, showing more, is still entirely relevant.

    I have used the symbolic (alphabetic) notation to avoid overly complex sentences and to show precision in the analysis. The colors in the text are there to assist the reader relate what is being said to the diagrams and the aspect of reality being discussed.

    Re your question: "Can you give any example of an actualized event (must have been measured/observed by someone somewhere to be meaningful objective reality) without any reference frame?" Your question clearly shows, by your bracketed inclusion, that you have not grasped the main idea of the explanatory framework-I.e. separate facets of reality on different sides of the reality interface, that must be considered as different and not confused. All events are actualized prior to observation and thus at that time (I.e.Object universal configuration) have no reference frame applied.

    Thank you for taking a look and for taking the trouble to feed back your discontent. Regards Georgina

    Hi Joe,

    I don't consider Object reality to be abstract but "concrete", it is the substantial reality.

    I have already read and commented on your essay. Regards, Georgina

    Dear Georgina,

    I read your essay with great interest. It is very important that you are a biologist. I have three questions:

    1) You write: "This is found in Quantum physics and has a parallel in the art of illusion."

    In the work "Modern physics and contemporary art - parallels of style" T.Romanovskaya says about the "crisis of interpretation and representation" in fundamental physics. Do you agree with this conclusion?

    2) Do you agree with this inference of Albert Einstein: "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." ?

    3) In my picture of the Universe as a whole category of "ontological (structural, cosmic) memory - the central core. Physics, mathematics, biologists and poets should have unifying picture of the world, filled with all the senses of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). And what is your opinion?

    Kind regards,

    Vladimir

    Dear Vladimir,

    1/ Illusions, created by an illusionist, work primarily through cultivating misinterpretation due to incomplete information and misdirection. The essay points out these same mis-judgements in physics. There is misdirection due to category errors,( I.e. muddling up types or misinterpreting the aspect of reality under consideration) and not taking account of the Object reality source -of the observable measurements and other manifestations, (incomplete information)

    I have been very precise in identifying where exactly the problems lie, thereby allowing solutions. Rather than just indicating that there are problems- in a general but indefinite way. I have not read Professor Tatiana Romanovskaya work that you cited and could not find it with a quick search. So I do not know what precisely her conclusion is to agree or disagree.Yes there are problems to do with representation and interpretation within physics and I have given specific examples.

    2/ It really does depend on the circumstances, whether knowledge or imagination is more important. No one way of thinking suits all circumstances. I would like a mechanic to use his knowledge to fix my car not his imagination, though a good mechanic may be imaginative in the application of his knowledge.Where the knowledge needed to proceed is absent or inadequate, or there is no precedent imagination has an important role in generating novel outcomes and possible solutions. It can open up new paths to explore but there is no guarantee that the new path is the correct or best way to go.

    3/ The essay concludes -"Physics must leave behind enchantment with mystery due to Incomplete reconciliation of information and misdirection of category errors; adopting the Essential structure of reality as a necessary framework for physics, not required by pure mathematics."

    That necessary framework provides a whole facet of reality for experience generated from sensory input. Image reality - an emergent, 'other level', sub set of the Entirety of reality. Thank you for the questions. I look forward to reading your essay, Georgina

    Dear Georgina,

    Thank you for your comprehensive answer! Link to article Romanovskaya T.B.(in Russian). My high score.I look forward to your comments of my essay.

    Kind regards,

    Vladimir

    Your subtleness purifies the concept from veracity.

    With regards,

    Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

    Georgina,

    You present an interesting concept. Many thanks. I certainly think the moon is there whether or not anyone is looking.

    Since you are educated as a Biologist, I will assume that you are very knowledgeable regarding Chemistry. Would it be equally valid to apply the concept of equilibrium to quantum states? What I mean by this is that reversible conditions would have an equilibrium coefficient of 1.0 meaning that either side of the equation is equally valid. State changes that do not happen would have an equilibrium coefficient close to zero. State changes that are irreversible such as radio-active decay would have a coefficient that is extremely large.

    A year or so ago, there was a "thermal event" at a low level nuclear waste storage facility. Kitty litter is used as an absorbent there and had been used to absorb an organic material or an oil or something similar. The kitty litter contained a nitrate salt. There was also some low-level nuclear waste present. The mixture was stored in a drum and sealed and placed in the storage area where it was not observed.

    I don't know precisely what happened, but apparently the drum became hot. I don't know if it ruptured or caught fire or what but it became hot. My guess is that the radio-isotope decayed and released energy. The drum is large enough that the contents acted like a heat insulator. A localized spot reached a temperature that was above the ignition point for the organic-nitrate mixture and voila ... thermal event. The key point in my mind is that no one was watching the drum but Schrodinger's Cat is dead just the same.

    Best Regards and Good Luck,

    Gary Simpson

      Gary thank you for taking a look at the essay.

      Both you and Edwin say that you think the Moon is there when you are not looking. I agree but only if talking about the substantial actualized object, that does not require observation to exist. The manifestation of the moon, that is seen, is not there when not looking- as it has not been fabricated by the observer's sensory system. The pedantic analysis was to demonstrate that the noun 'Moon' alone is insufficient to precisely address the question. The Moon that is seen, a 2D glowing disc is not the same thing as the absolute actualized source object.

      I'm not sure what you mean by equally valid, if you mean the same thing I must disagree. Is this considering the whole solution as a superposition of states, because it is a mixture of them, and then selecting a particular molecule to sample? If so there is a switch going on there, some slight of hand, from something capable of being both states at once to something that can not. It is lack of knowledge of which molecule will be sampled that gives a quasi superposition of states for the individual molecule .I.E it could be represented as a superposition but in reality it isn't, only the whole mixture is both states at once. The falling coin is all states, heads tails and everything in between at once as no reference frame has been applied prior to measurement. I think they are superficially similar, both could be represented with probabilities of the different outcomes, but what is going on in foundational reality is quite different.

      For an irreversible reaction such as radioactive decay there is no superposition of state but a definite change in Object reality from one to the other without the necessity of observer interaction, as described in the discussion of the cat, and your example of the heating barrel.I would be interested to know where and when that occurred as it is a nice illustration of the independence of the radioactive decay.

      For a change that does not occur "apples into bananas" there is no superposition of state, it is what it is, an absolute actualization in Object reality, all that the apple 'might be seen to be' but not at all banana.

      Thank you very much for the question. Regards, Georgina.

      Here is a URL with some info on the nuclear waste leak. I originally saw it on the Drudge Report. I found the link below by using Dr Google with keywords nuclear waste leak kitty litter.

      http://www.theskepticsguide.org/did-organic-cat-litter-cause-a-nuclear-waste-leak-scientists-are-still-unsure

      At another level, I think the question of observation vs non-observation is a question of energy exchange. Do I change as a result of absorbing a photon or other energy emitted by a source? Does the source change when the photon is observed?

      Regards,

      Gary Simpson

      Hi Gary,

      Thanks for further info. I will have to read your essay to fully understand your viewpoint on energy exchange.

      It seems to me the observer may be significantly changed by absorption of a photon.With some provisos. It would have to be of the correct frequency for the particular cell to respond, as they contain different pigments and there would need to be sufficient quantity of them for a response to the event to occur.This particular photon could be the one 'tipping the balance' in favour of response. Can we see a single photon? It is a chemical change in the pigment within the rod or cone cell. Which can be the start of a series of events leading on to vision.

      Does the source change when the photon is observed? According to my explanatory framework no, the source does not change upon observation but is entirely independent, on the Object reality side of the reality interface. The observer can use the sensory data received to update the Manifestation of the source that it fabricates, on the Image reality side of the reality interface. The Manifestation and the Absolute Actualized source object are not the same thing but different categories of elements of reality, belonging to separate facets of reality.

      Regards, Georgina

      Georgina,

      Because of the speed limit of light in the universe, no two points of the moon are at the same moment. As such, it is not an object but an aggregate of matter across time.

      This aggregate only becomes "Moon" when I look or consider it as being there all at once, in a moment of perception.

      Yes, we make the Moon an object when it is not.

      Marcel,

        Hi Marcel, good to hear from you.

        Points separated in space are separated in time if talking about a space-time universe such as the space time continuum.

        However the framework that I am demonstrating works with a uni-temporal, same time everywhere, Object reality universe. Passage of time is change of that entire universe, configuration by configuration as described by J.C. N. Smith in his essay "Rethinking a key assumption about the nature of time",referenced at the end of my essay. There is only ever one time to be at, the configuration of the universe that exists. Future configurations have not come into existence and former configurations have been replaced by the one that exists at uni-temporal Now.

        This is almost but not quite Presentism. The uni-temporal Now is 'in the future' relative to the experienced present because it takes time for light to travel between Source object and observer and be processed into observed output. That gives another facet of reality which consists of the space-time outputs fabricated from sensory data. Separated by the reality interface, where the processing from Object reality to Image reality occurs.

        Within this explanatory framework the Object Moon has no temporal spread existing wholly and only at one time. There may be some slight temporal spread within the image reality manifestation of the Moon as data arriving at approximately the same time may be amalgamated into a single image. I don't have the information to hand to be more precise on that 'temporal window'. Though I am sure there is "batch processing" of received information, not a separate output for each minuscule instant of time.

        As always we have our own incompatible viewpoints. I will enjoy reading your essay, Georgina

        I read Lee Smolin's interesting essay yesterday and I have just read Matt Visser's essay, which is a good, worthwhile read. His prosaic, utilitarian view of mathematics got me thinking again about my own viewpoint, i.e. is it foundational or merely representational, which is not specifically expressed in my own essay. There were other matters of importance to discuss (and my home word counter is much harsher than FQXi's.)

        So to fill that gap: I confess that having 'in the past' considered mathematics merely a language, I now hold the more romantic notion that: in a changing universe, rather than just the 'stuff' it is made of, it is at least as much the totality of unmeasured 'mathematical' relations between the elements of (Object)reality- that bestows its character, and provides the specific forces for change. (I think to reading Max Tegmark's shut up and Calculate" or reference to it. As he was saying words to the effect - if we strip everything away what we are left with is relations between abstract mathematical entities.) If it was asked;' which is more important substance or relation?' it would be hard to promote one over the other. Thinking about chemistry it is the form of molecules, the internal and external relations that gives their characteristic properties and behaviour not just the constituent elements.

        There is of course a difference between mathematics 'in vivo', in the wild, just as the living organism in vivo is different from the one (however accurately) described on paper.Can there be such a thing as wild mathematics rather than imagined and written,belonging to different facets of reality- I'd like to think so. Wild mathematics is the absolute relations themselves between elements of object reality independent of observation. Though there are also relations that can be discerned between the images produced from selected data, ie between elements of image reality. Perhaps this could be called 'observable' mathematics. These relations and the imagination of them leading to symbolic representation, 'captive' mathematics, belonging to knowledge on the Image reality side of the interface. Complicated by the need to further differentiate- The understanding of the symbols belongs to knowledge on the image reality side, though the ink on paper or pixels on the screen are Object reality.

        The captive mathematics notation and comprehension appears on both sides the interface but truly wild mathematics, that 'runs' the Object universe, is entirely independent of observers and minds.

        I suppose rather like the Moon problem before attempting to reach consensus on what mathematics is and its effectiveness it is necessary to differentiate the different meanings of the word mathematics. Do we mean: "wild'mathematical relations, observed mathematical relations, abstract mental concepts, 'captive' notations/representations and mathematical operations, or disciplines.

          10 days later

          I wrote the following over on Sylvia Wenmackers thought provoking essay. She had talked of us only being able to think the thinkable, and the corresponding impossibility of thinking the unthinkable.It may be helpful to readers of my own essay, as it is about absolute actualizations, objects existing independently of observation.

          [Re thinking the unthinkable- I think we can think about the unthinkable without actually being able to think it : ) If I look at a cup I see one viewpoint of it. However emanating from its surface is potential sensory data- that has the potential to give many different views. The whole truth of what it, the object, is would be like taking all of that data at once, not a tiny sub set, and forming an image. If an amalgamated manifestation is formed showing all viewpoints at once, the many different outputs would not allow clear definition of any singular form -too much information at once would cause the image to be a blur.

          So while we can imagine viewpoints not seen individually we can not imagine all of them at once. The source of all potential manifestations, the object, is not altered by which manifestations of it are or are not fabricated. So the source object might be considered to be before and after observation in a superposition of all orientations, relative to all possible observers. Only when a manifestation is formed by an observer is it thought to be as it is seen -one viewpoint rather than all. This is a transition across a reality interface, the observers sensory system in this case, ( that transition corresponding to hypothetical wave function collapse ) from what is independent of observation to what is observed to be. Leaning not towards an abstract Platonic realm of perfect mathematical objects, that you mention, but a realm of concrete absolute source objects and complete information.]G.W.

          Georgina,

          Thanks for your kind comments on my blog. I see you now have a far better fundamental understanding of the propositions of QM.

          You suggested you had a different explanation of the '3 Filter' experiment. I confess that worried me as the Zeilinger et al analysis is finally coherent. It seems however your description remains consistent with that, which is good, but that your viewpoint of it is different (also good!). As we agree; if nature is a mountain then each person viewing it will see it from a different position, so have his own subjective reality.

          Your reversion to your own well developed thesis may be seen by some to be too my much of a departure from the central theme of the essay. You don't 'touch base' with maths very often, however I see your fundamental approach as producing the structure which mathematics should follow, which I think IS the important issue here.

          One thing I was left uncertain of was whether or not you had seen that some peculiar 'mechanism' is needed beyond the basic particle interaction, socks and spin flip components, to actually reproduce the key "non-local state reduction" correlation findings of QM. I may have missed it as I've only read it properly once, but it didn't emerge. That's not a 'problem' as it's slightly aside from the topic, though an important aside. Edwin and Alan Kadin also address it. However I'm not sure you spotted the revelation of the 'con trick' that our present use of maths has been pulling on us, by switching sock colour when we weren't looking or accounting for it.

          Then if Zeilingers lenses were in motion, say on some spinning planet, do you think the light re-emitted would do c wrt the lens? or wrt some other datum? Therein is the key to unification which solving the trick reveals.

          Well done for a sound, well thought through, readable and and well organised essay on an important topic, and which I think should be higher placed.

          Peter

            Hi Peter,

            thank you so much for taking a look at what I have produced this year. I was beginning to think that I wouldn't get any more readers.

            I have concentrated on two fundamental errors in the application of mathematics to physics. Category error and reconciliation errors.

            Category error in relativity leads directly to the Grandfather paradox. Recognizing this allows simple non contrived negation of it. No need for special rules of non interference or branching into alternative world lines.

            Though I have keep the essay matter of fact and not ventured into related psychological and emotional territory I will say here - The Grandfather paradox and the whole idea of the past remaining in the space-time continuum, and for that matter a preordained future already within the space time continuum is utterly abhorrent and needs to be shown as the falsehood that it is.

            Abuse, torture and atrocity were not woven into the fabric of the space time continuum at the beginning of time to be encountered there, and remaining there, but are conducted in the here and -Now by humans with some degree of self determination and ability for self restraint. Perpetrators can excuse their actions,saying it is preordained and victims find it very hard to express self determination when told it doesn't exist. Hard determinism is anathema to personal morality and responsibility. A very, very bad foundation for society.

            The determinism I talk of the "pre-written future" is not of that kind as it relates only to events that have actually already occurred in the Object universe not events yet to come to pass.I also don't deny that we very often act 'on autopilot', "thinking fast" as Daniel Kahnman says, as many of our actions do not require thinking effort. The majority of humans also have the ability to "think slow", censoring speech and actions to fit within societal norms, if they choose to do so.

            The other matter is the incompleteness of our models and how that skews our thinking about reality. The explanatory framework provides the missing environment in which foundational physics is occurring, overcoming magical thinking and the contradiction of relativity and quantum physics.

            I didn't go into Bells experiment specifically but did show a rabbit magically appearing from a hat when there is no reconciliation with an observer independent Object reality. A different trick. And as you say, I have produced the structure mathematics should follow -if it is describing the reality we inhabit corporeally and mentally. That is an advance over anywhere the maths goes.

            Hi Georgina,

            I'm glad you have brought up this important issue in your essay. I think of this issue in terms of "subjective/objective" views on reality.

            I've been thinking about what you said, and you seemingly don't use the term "subject" because you are saying that there is something objectively true about subjective "image reality": is this what you are saying? Also, are you saying that there are 2 separate realities "object reality" and "image reality", or are they just different points of view in the same reality?

            Another question I had was: what is going on underneath this "object reality" and "image reality" i.e. what is going on at the particle level in this situation?

            I find that every essay is always a struggle to understand another person's point of view! So I wish you could find a way to simplify your terms!

            Cheers,

            Lorraine