Quantum Dream Time

Dear W. Benshy and John Cox,

It is clear that Nature must have fashioned the only structure of the real visible earth obtainable because the earth existed millions of years before man appeared on its surface. All we need to do now is to open our eyes and report truthfully what we see. Any open eye can only see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed, flat, touching, varied hued, surfaces. There am no visible space. Because there am no visible space, it logically follows that there am no Space/Time. The real visible Universe must consist of only one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

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

Dear W. Benshy and John Cox,

It is clear that Nature must have fashioned the only structure of the real visible earth obtainable because the earth existed millions of years before man appeared on its surface. All we need to do now is to open our eyes and report truthfully what we see. Any open eye can only see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed, flat, touching, varied hued, surfaces. There am no visible space. Because there am no visible space, it logically follows that there am no Space/Time. The real visible Universe must consist of only one single unified visible infinite surface 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 Fisher,

The geometrical presentation of reality was described by natural philosophers centuries ago (if I remember well). It is true that when we cut an object in 2 halves we only see surface area and no volume. But when we are within an atmosphere we can see "through" the atmosphere and that's why we can observe the moon (an object within a volume). So the geometrical presentation of reality is not only the surface area, we can experience a volume (space) too.

Although I don't agree with your limited concept of reality I have to admit that local topological deformations of an invariant volume will result in local alterations of the internally surface area of a spatial structure (spatial units of a field). So when we want to express the energy in every point of the volume of our universe, we can describe the relations between all these points with the help of the local quantity of surface area in a perfect way (static description). From this point of view your opinion about the importance of surface area is correct (within the right context). However, the scientific research to clarify and describe reality isn't possible when scientists deny everything except surface area. So you have to extend your hypothesis when you want that people are curious to read about it.

W.

Excellent point about the measurement flexibility of topology. The simply connected relations of n-dimensional vector space on the surface of a parallelized 3-sphere allows the static description you describe, which can be likened to a 'snap shot' of an evolving form. jrc

Dear W. Benshy and John R. Cox

One more time. Nature must have devised the only structure of reality that would allow whatever that structure was to persist eternally. The structure of the earth was here millions of years before man ever appeared on the planet. There am no way that Natural singular reality could ever be an invisible finite abstract humanly contrived speculation such as the one you wrote about when you wrote: "The (finite) geometrical presentation of (finite) reality was described by (anonymous finite) natural philosophers (finite) centuries ago (if I remember well)." Nature never structured visible reality to be invisibly mysterious. An open eye, will always see a plethora of flat, seamlessly enmeshed, varied colored surfaces. Although they seem to be seamlessly enmeshed, it logically follows that there must only be one singular visible unified infinite surface occurring infinitely in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by finite non-surface light.

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

Dear W. Benshy and John R. Cox

One more time. Nature must have devised the only structure of reality that would allow whatever that structure was to persist eternally. The structure of the earth was here millions of years before man ever appeared on the planet. There am no way that Natural singular reality could ever be an invisible finite abstract humanly contrived speculation such as the one you wrote about when you wrote: "The (finite) geometrical presentation of (finite) reality was described by (anonymous finite) natural philosophers (finite) centuries ago (if I remember well)." Nature never structured visible reality to be invisibly mysterious. An open eye, will always see a plethora of flat, seamlessly enmeshed, varied colored surfaces. Although they seem to be seamlessly enmeshed, it logically follows that there must only be one singular visible unified infinite surface occurring infinitely in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by finite non-surface light.

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

rubbish

John, two thoughts occurred to me regarding scale and numerical values. The first the further the position from the decimal place (related to scale) the smaller the duration of that digit value if the relation of object to other things is considered in a universe where everything is n motion. Even when things seem still there is a lot of motion at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles. So the further from the decimal point the less duration in which to exert that value of influence.

The other though was about how we regard things and phenomena as distinct . I think that may be to do with the way in which our sensory system not only has a resolution but also emphasizes boundaries and lines helping us be aware of potential resources and hazards. However, phenomena aren't distinct. I was thinking about a river and how at a small scale how does one classify the water that is spray in the air and moisture on the rocks. Is it still river or just part of the air and just moisture on the rocks, indistinguishable from moisture due to condensation or rainfall? Another thought was a tornado. It doesn't have a 'clear' boundary dividing the air into tornado air and not tornado air, at some distance from the eye there will be ambiguity. Is this just an air current affected by the tornado or is it part of the tornado? Perhaps it is the same at the atomic and sub atomic scale. It isn't that there is a definite boundary but neither is it really infinite in diminution of scale but it just 'peters out ' into ambiguity, so to say.

Objects too are phenomena, happening not just existing. Consider a sheep object. Lets say it is a self shedding variety. When the fleece starts to come away from the body, at what point does the fleece stop being a part of the sheep object? Is it only when it has completely separated? What about when it is held on by a few hairs? How many hairs must be attached to the sheep for the fleece to be sheep not separate fleece object? It is indistinct. If a skin cell is shed but then after re-adheres to the surface by the oils present, is it a part of the body or not? Same for atoms of metal rubbed from a machine surface but then stuck in lubricating oil. Machine or not? Seems to me our thinking about object things and phenomena is more black and white than the Object reality. We seem focused on the distinct categories and don't consider the limits of their existence. Which seems to be without definite boundary but not continuing in infinitely continuous smallness. Rather where does it end, and not it begin is indistinct. With the additional issue of the existential values of variables altering; The faster the further the existential equivalent (scale-wise) of a digit from the decimal point, with smallness of scale, as things move. So the object/phenomenon can't be pinned down. Where its existence ends is indistinct and even if it could be decided wherever that was it isn't anymore because it has changed in location or configuration. As for what happens it doesn't matter what category the boundary regions are placed .If the air currents around a tornado are called tornado or just currents doesn't alter their effect.

Maybe it would be helpful to consider that objects and phenomena do not just end at a boundary or continue endlessly at smaller and smaller scale but are surrounded by regions of influence which are affected by the object or phenomenon but are perhaps not quite the object or phenomenon. The categorized thing blurs into that region and the region gradually diminishes in distinctness from what surrounds it, moving out from the central region of the phenomenon or object. Eg. Surrounding a living person there would be a region of higher temperature, higher Co2 concentration, odours (various), and detectable electric field. Maybe for atoms and sub atomic particles there also isn't absolute firm boundaries but bluing into a region of influence, blurring into indistinguishable from surroundings.

Georgina,

All three of your posts taken together go to what W. Benshy posted to me on Nov 13 in this Topic, and my response. As yet there is no general consensus in either classical or quantum physics, nor across disciplines, that defines what a particle actually exists as, as an object. Characteristic 'properties' parameterized from observation of interactive behavior is the best we have to go on. And then there is the dispute between classical and quantum as to how action is transferred.

Classical holds that it is transferred either by a wavelike action of a physical energy field, or as a projected burst of physical energy though no classical consensus stands as to what the real physical shape might be.

Quantum holds that the energy field is made up of discrete quantum unit species and that action is tranfered by particle exchange.

Both recognize and operate on the observation that the macro phenomenon you describe are boundary conditions of properties associated with the ambiguous 'particulate matter', as those properties become altered with energy transfer. And Both recognize and operate on the observation that energy transfer is directly detectable only at the receiving end, and can only be theorized on the emission end [as in Bohr's famous but ad hoc instantaneous Quantum Leap]. What is accepted is that a receiver will react at a rate of change of energy which will either follow a ballistic (parabolic) curve associated with inelastic collision, or at a rate that will follow a hyperbolic curve associated with an inelastic collision or sinusoidal wave.

That's the challenge as it currently stands, and woe to those whom come up with solution. If it satisfies one paradigm it disgruntles the other. All I can say is; Good Luck. :-)

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.