Category and Reconciliation Errors by Georgina Woodward

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,

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.

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).

Category and Reconciliation Errors

Key

A.. Actualized, a substantial element of reality.

Ab.. absolute, no singular reference frame applied.

Category error.. failure to correctly identify or discriminate between different kinds of element of reality belonging to the different facets of reality.

Definite.. certain and un-altering

EOIR.. element of Image reality.

EOOR.. element of Object reality, not same as objective reality.

Image reality.. emergent output reality from sensory data /measurement processing, Individual observer specific or objective via shared output or shared sensory data input.

L.. Limited (partial sample)

FS ...Fixed state.. a selection giving one un-altering state

MS.. Mixed state..a selection containing more than one state

Manifestation .. Output of sensory data processing

O Observable

Object reality.. foundational, source reality of substantial objects and particles and potential sensory data.

Objective reality.. Multi-observer corroborated Image reality

PSD.. Potential sensory data

R..related to

Reality interface..Interface between object reality and image reality where input sensory data is converted to output manifestations.

The Prime reality Interface is the human sensory system inc. CNS. That converts input sensory data from Object reality into experienced present manifestation.

S.. source, a substantial EOOR that is source of the potential sensory data under consideration.

Subjective reality...Personal experience of Image reality

Pre-written future.. PSD within the environment that may be received by an observer and be processed into experienced present.

Un-written future..Imaginary future that has no substantial existence.

Uni-temporal.. singular universal time of Object reality. Passage of time being the change in configuration of the Object universe, only the youngest arrangement having substantial existence. The sequence of arrangements is imaginary (it has no substantial reality).

Here I have used O for observable rather than theta used in the essay and diagram. I thought O might be confused with Object, which is S for source, but thinking about it some mire theta might be even more confusing as it already has a number of other uses in mathematics and various branches of science.

Interestingly the explanatory framework with two different facets of reality implies a wave matter duality underlying that. The matter component is the objects made of atoms, where as the wave component is the sensory data produced through interaction of the object with the surrounding environment.

For a man that is his substantial body made of atoms AND the potential sensory data emitted from his body and clothing spreading out in space around him. That can be intercepted by an observer at one of a variety of positions or by several different observers at different positions around him and be formed into a manifestation or manifestations of the man. Each manifestation giving a representation of an aspect of the topology of the man as it is made from the subset of data received by that observer at that position and time.

Both the man made of atoms and the wave sensory data are real phenomena and in everyday conversation both the Object man made of atoms, forming blood flesh bones and organs and the image manifestation of the man that is seen would be referred to as 'the man' or more likely the man's name as he is a person. There isn't in general parlance differentiation between the two phenomena, the two aspects of the wave matter duality.

For a single particle such as an electron it is likely the interaction of the effect of the particles own motion with the effect of the vibration of the atoms of the apparatus that gives the waves able to interfere and thence influence the final destination of the particle. Once again interaction of the matter with the surrounding environment.

The given framework has a place for atoms unlike the space-time continuum which only includes the observed product of intercepted em waves, thus missing one complete facet of reality.

I realize I misrepresented the space time continuum idea in that last post. It arose from Einstein's work on special relativity which is concerned with the recipient of EM sensory data and the reality output from that, manifestations. That is consistent with the explanatory framework I am setting out as it is regarding Image reality.

By 1907 Minkowski realized that the special theory of relativity, introduced by his former student Albert Einstein in 1905 and based on the previous work of Lorentz and Poincaré, could best be understood in a four-dimensional space, since known as the "Minkowski spacetime", in which time and space are not separated entities but intermingled in a four dimensional space-time, and in which the Lorentz geometry of special relativity can be effectively represented. Wikipedia, Hermann Minkowski (Best understood was Minkowski's opinion)

Einstein disliked what his former tutor had done but later found the geometrical approach helpful in developing GR

As I see it different observer reference frames give different manifestations because they are receiving different sensory data, related to different source times, at the same and only time. Not because they are slicing perpetual space-time filled with substantial objects like braided 'spaghetti' differently.( Braided spaghetti description from Gravity Probe B testing Einstein's universe.Standford.edu)

"Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence." 1952, Relativity, Einstein. Which is him accepting the wrong model -because to avoid the paradoxes of the space-time model but retain Einstein's ground breaking realization of non simultaneity of events requires 3 dimensional evolution within which potential sensory data persists -from which manifestations of former events can be formed. Braided spaghetti threading through time is only imaginary as there is only one configuration of the universe, the youngest and so there is only one absolute time everywhere, though different apparent times.