Dear Joe, I too am a self-taut (thinking makes me tense) realist.

It was explained to me and I realized what a three-dimensional space, when I was 20 years old.

When a child first opens his eyes again, he sees a flat picture of the world. When he makes the first step, we again see a flat picture of the world, but only different. Making a lot of...a lot of steps in his mind there is an objective world, but he sees it always flat. No matter what the two eyes of man giving him the amount of the world, but it is only close to, but away we again see a flat picture. If we fly in an airplane from new York to Moscow, we will perceive that we are moving over a flat surface and only when necessary can recall the learned in school that it is convex, but again only in the imagination.

Joe, you are right, in reality, we exist on an infinite plane. Everything else is a figment of our imagination. You're also right that this infinite plane cannot have a void, the Earth must be immersed in something. This is consistent with New Cartesian Physic, which is based on the formula of equivalence of mass-energy makes the conclusion about the equivalence of space-matter. Space is matter, matter is space. Thus, our infinite plane out into the Universe.

An essay is a literary genre, not a scientific report. It requires a description of something personal, Frank. You got it perfectly. I will give you the highest rating.

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko. (Note that I did not know English and use online translator)

â--¢

    Dear Vladimir,

    Simplicity cannot be simplified. There are not different types of surfaces for that would mean that there would also have to be different types of separations of surfaces. That would also give rise to the possibility of there being some sort of anti-surface.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Уважаемый Р'РѕСЂРёСЃ,

    благодарю вас за прочтение моего эссе и для понимания его.

    Р"жо Фишер, реалист

    Joe, your theory is similar to projective geometry - there is a science, she engaged serious people. Christian artists who paint icons, paint their way back prospects. The modern French painters are also in fashion to paint the world flat, with no desire to show its volume.

    Levitation, which I gave a materialistic explanation in his essay, is also a movement on an infinite plane. Read it again and evaluate from the point of view of traffic on an infinite plane.

    Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

    Dear Boris,

    It is not my theory. The fact that only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it, and the fact that the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light, am irrefutable.

    Joe Fisher, Realist.

    Dear Koorosh,

    Simplicity cannot be simplified. All of the physicists and philosophers who have ever lived have overlooked the fact that one real visible Universe must have only one ascertainable physical aspect and that real observable aspect must be infinite in all of its singular representation.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Dear joe,

    I think you are trying to tell a same case repeats at two different stages through your words-'Newton was clearly implying that there was more than one state of physicality'. But in reality it is never possible to be so...according to my concept there is vast difference between my and Newtonian concept...see my essay "Newtonian Dynamics: An explicit diversion from reality"

      Dear Bishhal,,

      I am not trying to describe different "stages" of anything. Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

      The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

      Joe Fisher,

      Joe Fisher,

      I gave you a 10 because you intuitively grasped the concept of protective geometry (the one infinite dimension). So, I think this is great achievement. So, I think you must look for everything related to protective geometry and studied with a great care. If you do, you will eventually find algebraic geometry. Keep advancing. You will achieve great heights.

      As for all living things have eyes, I agree. Eyes, as in the ability to perceive the environment through electromagnetic spectrum is common to all living beings. It is also by the EM field that all cell machinery works. In the end, only reduces to 1 measurement (which requires some kind of information processing, even in virus) in the EM field.

        Dear Joe Fisher,

        Thank you very much for your comment on my essay. I am a great fan of simplicity myself. simplicity on the far side of complexity.

        You have asked me to comment on the merit of your essay and I have in the meantime taken the time to read through it and vote. In your words, "Everything should be made as simple as possible", so I was excited to expect a simple, concise elucidation on the emergence of aims and intentions from the universe that you describe. Perhaps it is not such a simple concept and I may have missed the mark. Would you be so kind as to clarify on this point when you have some time.

        Regards,

        Robert

          Dear Joe Fisher

          You start with a finding: all our eyes see from the outside world is surface. Ok. Then I was expecting that you developed the reasoning, go beyond what eyes can see. But I did not find that. The universe is not just what we see, or touch, or ear or taste or smell. Our senses gave us an initial information and our aim is to find what is behind that. That is what allows us to predict how systems evolve; and when we predict it correctly, we assume that to a certain extent we have approached the reality.

          Therefore, here you present your starting point; now I would like to see the continuation.

          Best regards

          Alfredo Oliveira

            Dear Robert Groess,

            Simplicity cannot be simplified. As I have carefully explained in my essay: Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it, and the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. All of the theoretical physicists and philosophers who have ever lived have been wrong about the visible real Universe because they have only described what they thought it consisted of instead of believing what they actually saw.

            Joe Fisher, Realist

            Dear Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira,

            Simplicity cannot be simplified. As I have carefully explained in my essay: Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it, and the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. All of the theoretical physicists and philosophers who have ever lived have been wrong about the visible real Universe because they have only described what they thought it consisted of instead of believing what they actually saw.

            Joe Fisher, Realist

            Dear Joe Fisher

            On seeing the comments to your essay, i got a suspicious, but I do not want to be unfair, so I am here to ask you: is it true that to those that comment favorable, you give a high vote, no matter their essay; and to those that are not so favorable, you vote "1"?

            Alfredo Oliveira

            Hi Jo I read your well-written essay, enjoyable for that and for the delightful pun " self-taut " great!

            As an artist I could well understand the logic of accepting the reality of only what is literally seen at any one time. In Mideaval art each figure and shape is seen solid and whole, but the trend since the Rainnescance has been to only see from one viewpoint - and necessarily surfaces.

            However..

            if you look at a video of a baseball being manufactred like this one you can see all the stuff filling its insides. What happens to that material to justify your saying only the surface exists? Another problyem is with transparent materials such as a vase. Inside you can see a solid spca full of flower stems, water bubles and so forth. You will prbably say we are only seeing the surface of that.

            OK no problem thanks to FQXI we are tfree to express our ideas here whatever they are.

            Keep well

            Vladimir