Category and Reconciliation Errors by Georgina Woodward

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 Future configurations have not come into existence and former configurations have been replaced by the one that exists at uni-temporal Now.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.

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.

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 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

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.

I should have been more precise-

I wrote "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." Perhaps I should have written 'past [concrete event itself]..and preordained [concrete future] already ......'

Data within the light remains after the event from which Image reality manifestations (observed/experienced reality) can be formed. Even so, actualised concrete objects can not be constructed from received light. They are a different category of reality. So past events themselves ie the configurations of concrete elements of Object reality are not within the hypothetical space-time continuum or the pool of electromagnetic potential sensory data. And can not be visited by time travel. The arrangements of matter and particles that were the source event may go onto form other relationships in the uni-temporal Object universe.

I have just read today about a scientist who has spent his life since age 11 trying to build a time machine to warn his dad of a heart attack. He is using lazer rings to try and create disturbances in the space-time continuum , even obtaining large sums of money to pursue a feasibly study of his goals.Scientist building a time machine Unfortunately this kind of research is misguided, due to the inbuilt category error, that I point out, not having been identified.

It also doesn't alter time ( it seems from the article that the scientist's hypothesis is that it is space-time 'Out there' and so disturbing space is also disturbing time).I disagree. It is uni-temporal space within which there is potential sensory data giving space-time output when processed. Evidence for that being that that allows the barn pole type and Andromeda paradoxes to be fully intuitive and Grandfather paradox to be negated without contrived prohibition rules or many worlds world line jumping.

I am grateful to those people who took the time to read my essay and comment.

Its a pity no one wanted to ask about or pick out where the explanations could have been clearer. The key for understanding the alphabetic 'equations' is on the first, new diagram. I was short of space and characters my own counter much stricter than FQXi's. It would have helped if it was given prior to using that precise shorthand code.

One good question would have been why is the live cat observable Absolute and not limited fixed state. Having thought about this I was mistaken in equating the live cat object with the observable itself. The observable is that part of the live cat from which sensory data is emitted and from which the observed manifestation will be formed. It is not the whole of the cat and is only that part from which data is received by the observer on first opening the box. Making it limited and fixed at observation- the state of the cat surface corresponding to the sensory data emitted does not change. Likewise upon reflection I would rather denote the dead cat observable, that part of the dead cat seen only, as a limited fixed state produced upon observation, rather than as the Absolute dead cat object.

This also raises the issue that this is a scenario evolving over time and so it would have been useful to mark the different times as T1 through to T5 going from initial content to output, emergent reality produced by the observer's processing of received sensory data.As I do on the attached document.

The purpose of the analysis was to show that the analogy is inadequate as a representation of superposition of states.Which I think it still does without the improvements.Attachment #1: Cat_in_the_box_revisited_with_times.pdf

Also of relevance is the following:

Wave function collapse is switching from a theoretical superposition of isolated observables (outcomes), not yet formed, as a Definite Fixed State observable is produced upon observation; to a definite limited fixed state manifestation in space-time, emergent, reality. What exists in Object reality, prior to measurement, are proto- observables conjoined with the carrier.

The (Definite Fixed State) observables do not exist in space-time prior to the observation. Space-time is the output of sensory data processing that one fixed viewpoint formed from the sensory data received. The proto-observables conjoined with material-wave carrier exist in absolute Object reality space (no singular reference frame)for which there is uni-temporal (same time everywhere) passage of time.It is interaction with the apparatus and or measurement protocol that forms an observable from a proto-observable.

For the unseen spinning falling coin example the proto-heads observable can have many different orientations in absolute space that are within in the repertoire allowed by the flux. Absolute (source reality for all reference frames), Not definite as no reference frame and no measurement yet applied and not fixed as in flux but the output observable produced by the measurement protocol has only one orientation in space-time, heads up seen by the observer. The definite limited fixed state has been produced by the measurement protocol it is not representative of the absolute actualized (substantial) proto-observable- matter-flux carrier ensemble pre-measurement. The superposition of outcomes in a 2D mathematical space is an impoverished model compared to the variation of the proto-observable during the material-flux(or wave) carrier interaction.

The hidden variables that make the outcomes deterministic rather than merely probabilistic are substantial and unseen in absolute space. The foundational space that is the source reality for (definite, limited view) space-time emergent reality. The outcomes of the many experiments remain probabilistic despite the deterministic flux of the proto-observables because 'starting state' of a particle or other unseen object is never known. Thus representing variability of states, rather than uniformity within the population.

In the case of the unseen spinning, falling coin the possible outcome states are conjoined with the substantial matter of the coin and its flux as it falls and spins. The Object reality of the coin is thus providing real, substantial, carrier wave of the proto-observables. That upon interaction with the measurement protocol gives just one definite observable because the material-flux carrier relationship is destroyed. The coin is halted (carrier wave ceases to exist)and the material coin is fixed in a limited state (only one surface potentially visible. On observation an observer reference frame is imposed switching from the abstract theoretical observables superposition to the Image reality Definite Limited Fixed State output of sensory data processing,

In the case of the electron in the double slit experiment:It can be supposed that there is also a substantial carrier wave interaction prior to outcome observation. Prior to observation the electron is influenced by the waves produced from the vibration of the atoms of the apparatus [combined also with the effect of its own motion]in unseen Object reality. The interaction of the carrier waves with each other producing the interference pattern and the electron's final position on a screen being affected by the environment produced by the carrier waves. This model of the double slit experiment put forward in my FQXi essay What Is Reality In the Context of Physics? by Georgina Parry (created by Georgina Woodward • Feb. 7, 2011 @ 15:58 GMT)

These models of substantial carriers as the influential environment in which proto-observables actually exist are the realistic counterpart to disembodied observable superposition in a mathematical space. The models give the environment that makes wave-function collapse intuitive and overcomes any requirement for many worlds explanations as why this outcome and not the other is fully explained by the absolute environment in which the observable was formed. The observables in superposition model is useful but unrealistic as the outcomes do not exist until measurement they are not free but constrained by their carrier. Probabilistic outcomes from that deterministic picture are due to not having/knowing a starting state for a particular reference frame of any individual proto-observables-carrier ensemble.So the outcome that will be obtained can not be calculated with certainty.

See [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2501#post_116203] for further discussion

Re.the Andromeda paradox. This explanation applies to a universe in which there is a foundational uni-temporal, absolute space Object reality (This is like Present-ism but preceding the observed present which is the output of sensory data processing and thus delayed relative to uni-temporal Now Object reality:and there is an an emergent space time reality that co-exists within Object reality as another distinct facet of reality.

The Object reality or source reality, and Image reality experienced present manifestation are not synchronized. When an event is observed via its manifestations is variable, but when an event happens in the source Object reality is definite, and uni-temporal as that event having happened in Object reality is true for all locations.

The observer walking towards Andromeda would receive the potential sensory data sooner than an Earth bound observer. So even though no invasion data is yet received as Andromeda is too far away it can be said that for the walking observer the potential sensory data emitted from the invasion events on Andromeda are nearer to him than the Earth bound observer. This does not however mean the source event occurred sooner. The source event occurs only once and the time of that occurrence (iteration of the Object universe within the imaginary past sequence of iterations is unique and unchangeable).