• [deleted]

  • Post #33

Dear Georgina Woodward,

There am no such a thing as an abstract finite "object." Please do try to understand that simple Naturally provided visible reality must be eternal. Please answer this question. Do you see any surface when you have your eyes open? If you do. it must logically follow that only one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light, could exist for ever. Humanly contrived abstract guesswork about invisible quantum arrangements or invisible space/time relativity are quite ephemeral and utterly unrealistic.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear Georgina Woodward and John R. Cox,

There am no such a thing as an abstract finite "object." Please do try to understand that simple Naturally provided visible reality must be eternal. Please answer this question. Do you see any surface when you have your eyes open? If you do. it must logically follow that only one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light, could exist for ever. Humanly contrived abstract guesswork about invisible quantum arrangements or invisible space/time relativity are quite ephemeral and utterly unrealistic.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

    Georgina,

    I should add, as W. Benshy points out, in some quantum mechanical interpretations such as QFT the particle exchange isn't of a real 'particle' but only of associated properties. This is where QFT and Classical come very close to agreement. And what is lacking in both is a metaphysical rendition which would provide an analytical definition of mathematic rationale which couples electromagnetic properties with gravitational action. QM in general has yet to find a gravitational theory, and the passionate dispute about 'entanglement' is due to the failure in Classical to theoretically find an empirical limit for gravitational effect, AND the profound difference between measurement systems of Cartesian Space normalized to what you refer to as Uni-Temporal time; and Relativistic Spacetime. You recall Tom Ray championing Joy Christian? that is because JC's topological model can obtain the same results in a Relativistic measurement space as QM obtains of non-local seperations in Cartesian space. Entanglement is actually realistically a connected event in Joy Christian's framework. (the technical math is still beyond my level, however) You are apprehending the outstanding questions posed, just in your own vernacular. jr

    Joe, what you persistently describe as a reality is obviously an appearance of your own, and I can understand to some extent why you might have become dependent on visual perception if what you stated is true, that you deaf. And if you did come to the States as you related, which would be like The Beatles arrival at that time, you would have witnessed modern American culture becoming ever more superficial with a progressive blurring of individual distinction amid the profusion of incessant advertising. While all along, more specialization in everything from work skills to products packaging of standardized pieces, to the modular component 'collage' of architecture and all the little boxes made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same. Yes, Joe, America has become superficial. People have become superficial, and they insist they merit praise for not knowing how a kitchen faucet is constructed but can afford to buy one that they think looks good. You haven't been able to go to a store to get anything that anyone working there can actually explain its true value, other than to show you a slick advertising display of what it looks like. People have become dependent on things working as advertised, they don't know or even want to know how and why their smart phones can make pictures move, they just want to be able to download a free app so they can charge something for free. And they all expect anyone assimilating themselves into the American culture to be and see things just as superficially as they have become. You remind me of an old Bob Dylan song...'I pity the poor immigrant-who wishes he would have stayed home'...where there was a sense of distinction of yourself and the environment in which you lived.

    But one dimension is not a surface. "am" is a first person adverb. The language to communicate in science requires learning and accepting the strictest limitations of what a word can be extended to mean. And science is a quest for the right question, not a belief in an absolute answer. john

    Quote from article" Like puzzle pieces from two different picture puzzles, quantum mechanics and general relativity just don't fit, and paradoxes peer out through the gaps." Good wording.

    QM is working with what is happening unseen. What is unseen is not within the space-time product of EM signal receipt and processing. It seems to me the actualization of a quantum state occurs with the simultaneous actualization of the entire configuration of the universe at that Now. It isn't in block space-time so there is no spatial connection with Then and Will be. It is isolated. As it has no time dimension it could be called timeless. Though a person could say that it is this or that time according to this or that local clock.

    Quote from article "Loop Quantum Gravity states that geometrical quantities, such as area and volume, have a discrete rather than continuous spectrum on small scales."

    The imagined distinct boundaries of things may be to do with the way in which we think, affected by having a sensory system with a limited range of discrimination (better wording than 'particular' as I said previously ); As well as emphasizing boundaries and lines, aiding identification. But things are not so simply confined to thing and not thing. There is ambiguity, indistinctness at the boundary which must if being highly accurate also lead to some uncertainty about area and volume. Can we be so sure about the definiteness of the boundaries of the extremely small? Seems to me the difficulty of measuring them would only add to the uncertainty.

    Dear John R. Cox and Georgina Woodward,

    Please answer just one simple question YES OR NO. Do you see ANY KIND OF SURFACE WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR EYES OPEN?

    I am not finitely "persistently DESCRIBING any bloody thing." I see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed, flat, varied colored, surfaces every time I have my eyes open and no matter in which direction I look.

    When I look upwards while outside during the day, I sometimes see the flat filled-in yellow disk surface of the sun surrounded by a flat filled-in surface of a blue sky. On other days, I see the flat gray surface of the clouds obscuring thesurface of the sun. I know from my scientific research experiments that the real Universe consists of one singular unified visible infinite surface that must be occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

    Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

    Joe, the answer is No. If we were just talking causally about things and not discussing scientific models then I might say 'yes I see 'such and such' a surface'. That would not be accurate though but a means of expressing my subjective experience in normal everyday speech. As we are talking about the science, I have to say no because what I am seeing is a product of my own sensory system using information obtained from electromagnetic radiation that has been received by my eyes. It, the sensory product, is not a surface actualized externally to me.

    It is said that a precise coastline can not be drawn because of the coast line paradox. While it is true that the boundary line will vary in length depending upon the scale of discrimination, being more convoluted at smaller scales and that will also affect the area that is enclosed by the line, I think precision fails because of the indistinctness at the very small scales. It will not be possible to put some pebbles and some grains of sand on a definite side if the line, further complicated by varying tides and weather effects on where the ocean water goes. We get to the questions what do we mean by (dry)land?, what do we mean by ocean?, how wide is the boundary region where the separation is uncertain and or variable? should it be some kind of average or allow for extremes of low and high tides? This isn't paradox but lack of definite, defined boundary.

    I meant by that- Beyond the 'paradox' of increasing boundary length with scale of consideration there is an inability to continue with increasing precision due to lack of definite, defined description of what is and isn't in the categories differentiated by the boundary; and lack of precision in regard to what to do about the region of uncertainty where precise differentiation is not possible..

      Dear Georgina,

      How were you able to respond to my comment if you did not see my comment clearly displayed on a surface? All of my scientific research has concluded that finite humanly contrived science am only abstract guesswork about finite invisible influences. Naturally produced reality am not finite guesswork. Only one real single visible unified infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever existed, and will continue to exist for ever.

      Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

        Georgi,

        I like to phrase it that; 'light' is just as dark as any other region of the spectrum'. It's the response of our retina's that begins the process of perception we call sight. The final answer to how that happens as a matter of consciousness remains a puzzle.

        Where I think the right question might be found about differentiating between matter and energy, that boundary you seek, is where gravitational action is present throughout regions of intense electric and/or magnetic response, but those responses do not extend all the way through the gravitational domain. The physical rotational axis of the 'hard' part of a particle might well be coupled with that of another gravitationally, yet beyond the electromagnetic distance of separation. It would then be a case that the characteristic properties of primary forces are a physical consequence of energy density, how it behaves across density, and that we have it backwards... gravity only seems to be the weakest force. At the quantum level where energy density becomes extreme, the gravitational response is at its greatest! :-) jr

        Gee Joe,

        If you are correct in that there aren't any unseen things that ever exist; then how could I possibly see what you write unless I watch you write it?

        Joe i saw the product of my sensory system which showed me the instructions because there had been differences in intensity of the light received from the black and white areas of the screen display. The sensory product was categorically different from the surface of the screen from which the light was emitted.

        Georgina,

        Yes, I'd say that illustrates it well and then indefinite might go to imperfect. And there is also the indefinite interface of oceanS, begetting laminar flow. Indefinite perfection might be seen as a result of an exponential opportunity for imperfection as scale ON a continuum becomes smaller. Imagine a very 'edge' of the universe that was at a physically least density of energy which would seek the absolute void but is constrained by light velocity limit and the scale seeking zero. The energy continuum would become so imperfect that it would not retain cohesion and thus form an indefinitely perfect boundary.

        Gads! that is getting 'out there'. :-)

        Dear John and Georgina,

        There are no abstract invisible "things." You do not have to watch me writing. All you have to do is answer yes or no when I ask you if you have ever seen any kind of a surface when you looked around you. If you answered yes, then you only have to ask yourself: Was the surface I saw infinite or finite? Obviously, as whatever surface you saw was constantly changing, the surface you saw must have been infinite. Infinity must only ever be singular. That iam why I am confident that my research of reality am boilerplate correct: The real Universe consists only of one singular unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

        It is physically impossible to see any kind of infinite surface with any sort of finite abstract "product of any (invisible) sensory system ."

        Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

        Joe,

        I think I ought to word my reply my precisely.

        I saw the product of my sensory system which showed me the instructions, appearing black and white to me, because there had been differences in intensity of the light received from different areas of the screen display. The sensory product was categorically different from the surface of the screen from which the light was emitted. Clarifying that the black and white are attributes of the sensory product.

        How do you see Joe?

        Dear Georgina,

        Reality has got nothing to do with how I try to roughly describe it by using the finite constraints imposed on me by my use of the English language. Please answer this question. Do you think that the earth had a surface a million or so years ago when dinosaurs (each of whom also had a complete surface) existed on the planet? You will have to answer "Yes," because only one single unified visible infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light could ever have existed.

        Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

        Joe, language and how it is used is important for conveying meaning. 'Surface' has a meaning to me. I can contemplate a surface without it being infinite or eternal just by the fact of it being a surface. Yes I do think there have been surfaces that have existed prior to the ability of humans to produce sensory products that enable their perception. I do think there are surfaces that exist independently of human, and other sentient being (or device's) sensory detection, and from perception. As we understand the external world by differentiating objects we also differentiate their surfaces. That does not mean that there might not be continuity between them rather than any utterly empty space. Which would help with explanation of of foundational forces. However that continuity of something-ness does not make the surfaces of all differentiated objects one surface.

          solving the conundrum may additionally require appreciating ambiguities approximately the belief of time in quantum concept. even though time is an essential component inside the equations of quantum mechanics, academic dissertation writing assistance there is no definition that's natively quantum, says Maccone. instead, time is whatever the clock on the lab wall says it's far.