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

          Hi Lorraine,

          thank you for reading the essay and for your questions.

          Object reality is the concrete reality of actual particles and actualised (made acual) objects. (Not to be confused with multi or inter -subjective objective reality.) Object reality is not directly accessible because we have to explore it via our senses and sometimes also via apparatus of some kind. The output of our senses and output of devices such as a camera is a different facet of reality. For one difference, data that has taken different lengths of time to reach the observer organism or device together, or very close together, is amalgamated into the output. Making a space-time output rather than a space output. The output contains temporal spread. I.E. not all things seen in the same image were at the same time ( within the same configuration of the Object universe) when the data was produced. That's a very significant difference.

          Object reality isn't a point of view, it can not be sensed as it is and having no observer point of view imposed is absolute, all potential views exist simultaneously as source object and E.M (and other sensory) data in the environment if the object is illuminated. Though as I said we could not see all views simultaneously as they would just become a blur rather than one definite structure.

          Image reality is formed from a sub set of all data pertaining to an object giving just one definite view. So there is a switch from considering all that something can be to what it is seen to be. Not really wave function collapse in reality but switching from one side to the other side of the reality interface. The reality interface in the case of a human being is its sensory system. In the case of a digital camera its mechanism, in the case of light sensitive film the material itself.

          You ask, is it all the same reality? Well the image reality is emergent from sensory data processing but the Object reality exists independently of sensory data processing and perception. However the Image reality has to still be within the Object reality because its manifestation, image in the visual cortex or photograph on paper as examples are within Object reality. They are actual not abstract. Just as the characters in a book are part of their fantasy realm but also within the book, which is a part of the actual concrete reality. Its a complex situation.

          Preceding development of the second diagram which is the older one of the two in the essay I drew one in which the Image reality is a sub set of Object reality but it doesn't capture the "other", emergent level of that reality clearly enough. Which is why it is shown above Object reality (in the more complex diagram in this essay).An emergent reality within the concrete foundational reality.

          Re.whats underneath? Object reality is the necessary precursor of Image reality. Virtual realities and self generated alternative realities do also exist and can be considered as special cases. Without evidence to the contrary Object reality can be considered "ground level" reality, (which is not to say it certainly is). Thank you for your interest. Kind regards Georgina

          Dear Georgina,

          I am glad to see you in the contest again this year. Although I can't say I grasped all the technical details, I must say that I greatly appreciate someone of your intelligence taking a stand against determinism in physics or anywhere else.

          Given my background, I wrote a more qualitative essay. Please take the time to check it out, tell me what you think, and give me your vote:

          http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2391

          Best of luck in the contest!

          Rick Searle

          Dear Georgina

          I just posted a reply to your comment on my essay about Platonism. It is on my own forum, under your comment. I started to read your essay and already see the same discussion can be continued on the basis of this new dimension.

          Best regards

          Peter

          I've read through your essay..

          But I think I'll need to look at this one at least once more, to fully make sense of it, Georgina. The highlighting of various colors brings clarity in some places, and confuses or makes me wish you used yet another color in other places. In general; the message came through, but it will take time to decipher some of the abbreviations in your logical notation. You seem to be serving a noble end here, but with only partial communication of your message and perhaps a little confusion of your own.

          I really like that you map out the difference between the object reality and what is observable or observed, but I see a tendency to use certain terminology of quantum mechanics in a relativistic setting and vice versa. Now, I acknowledge that there are no isolated systems and that we are operating within a quantum relativistic framework all the time, but certain concepts or descriptive metaphors have a limited range of applicability for a reason. So I'd like to ask a question relating to the opening elucidation of a category error.

          In relation to that paragraph; how should we consider the size of a proton? In an abstract sense; placing it in an empty space apart from observers or interactions with other particles that could constitute measurement, it has no size. But in lab experiments an in the nucleus; we know it takes up a particular amount of space. We can probe it with a smaller particle, like an electron. However; recent experiments show that the size we obtain using electrons is a little different from the number we get when scientists use muons as a probe instead.

          So sometimes the object / observable distinction, is hard to exactly delineate. How does the above example fit your schema?

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

            Hi Jonathan,

            many thanks for reviewing the essay.I will give a two part answer. General matters here and then re. your measurement question in the next.

            I'm glad the highlighting was at least partially useful. I haven't used the full range of colours on the diagrams in the text. Most important for me was clarifying the Object / Image reality distinction. As for the data pool information the important matter for me was that readers grasp that it is on the Object reality side, so not its own separate colour. There were many draft versions and despite many checks it is also possible that error may have crept in.

            Re the abbreviations. They serve two functions. One is they allow things to be said that would be unwieldy written out in full sentences. Using alphabetic abbreviation of the terms allow far more succinct expression. They could be even further abbreviated to be even more succinct. I have written over some of the terms when they are fist used to elucidate the meaning, there is also a key for the terms on the first diagram.It may have been helpful if that key was replicated at the beginning of the essay. The second reason for the alphabetic 'equations' is to show precision in what is being argued . That it isn't just irrelevant, imprecise, philosophical waffle, as this kind of argument has in the past been characterized by some people.

            I accept the partial communication criticism. Partly the character count limitation and partially wanting to be succinct may have left some matters unexplained in the essay. I have thoroughly discussed many of the ideas in the FQXi blog discussions and forums and feel that I have a thorough grasp of the subject. If you could point out specific places where you feel I am confused I could take another look.

            By certain terminology of quantum mechanics do you mean superposition of states?A macroscopic object such as a cup in a relativistic setting is the image produced from a limited sub set of sensory data, giving one relativistic view. The absolute cup object, as not observed, is not a singular view but the source of all potential views. That superposition is not in a relativistic setting but an unobserveable absolute setting. It is that unobserved absolute state of a macroscopic object that is being compared to an object prior to quantum measurement, with the additional step prior to observation being constraint of the output to the observables formed at interaction with the apparatus or measurement protocol.

            .

            Hi Jonathan, part two.

            The Object reality should not be confused with objective reality. It is perhaps unfortunate they sound similar- I've been using the term for too long to change it now. Objective reality is multi or inter-subjective Image reality , where many measurement or observations by one or many observers gives a 'reliable' output. Eg. many measurements of a single dimension with a ruler of any object will generally be regarded as an objective, reliable measurement.(I'll come back to that idea later)

            The outcome of measurements are on the Image reality side, they are what we see. As you have probably experienced trying to measure the height of a liquid in a measuring flask, where the observer is situated relative to the scale can affect the outcome, as can the judgement of where on the meniscus to measure. It should always be read at the bottom of the meniscus at eye level-but the point is its a subjective call.As is the measurement of a quantity on an analogue weighing scale. The measurement is relative to the observer position.

            You own examples of measuring coast lines illustrates another facet of the subjectivity of measurement. Outcome depends upon the scale of the measuring device. There has to be a subjective call as to what scale of measurement is good enough. Coming back to the objective ruler measurement- the result though objective can not be considered absolute reality because the measurement may have been in inches, what if its done in cm? or mm? or microns? or angstroms? A convenient scale can be selected if the aim is only gross comparison of something against other things measured at the same scale. But as you and others demonstrate the greater the complexity of an object's perimeter the greater its length if measured at an appropriately small scale. The complex Object does not have just one measurement that fully describes what it is like. Not only is the scale of measurement important but where on the object the measurement is made. As over or past this or that bump, and into or past this or that crevice could make a significant difference to the outcome.

            We see images of things, and can have knowledge of things because output is fabricated from sensory data input. If it is necessary to produce data (as in your proton experiment example) in order to 'see' or measure a thing then the output is Image reality. The representation fabricated is not the Object itself. Just because a measurement is objective we should not regard it as absolutely true but only representative- and relative to how the measurement was made.

            Thank you for bringing up the subject of scale and measurement as without your prompting I would most probably not given it so much thought.