Georgi,

wise, I agree. This is not the venue for interminable debate. Incidentally, as there is no edit tab for comments on essays I should clarify; I found your arguments of QM Spin States consistent with Shannon.

I'm fond of history as its very instructive of how people thought and how much change there has been in usage of language. Also, there are many ideas and approaches that would have been very relevant to the prevalent thinking of the times, and which simply are not considered today because they were not in vogue in their day. The 'meme' creating the narrative. Fun fact about Newton, if you have seen the TV sitcom 'Big Bang Theory', Newton was the same sort of socially naive curmudgeon as the Sheldon character, he reputedly keep a cat in his rooms at Trinity and had a small hole cut in the bottom of the door so that the feline could go freely in and out. When the cat dropped a litter, he had the carpenter cut smaller holes, one for each of the kits. His idea of immutable physical laws was such that he expected the kittens to follow them.

Q: When do you take an elephant on holiday? A: When a suitcase just won't do. :-)jrc

Dear Georgina P. Woodward, my perseverance comes from the desire to consolidate in your subconscious the identity of Descartes' space and matter, according to which physical space moves, since it is matter. It is possible that someday it will affect the course of your thoughts, and you will become a supporter of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics.

Regards, Boris Dizhechko.

Hi John, thanks. It takes all sorts too make a world. The Newton and kittens story is amusing but it seems the tale has somewhat of a life of its own. G.

10 days later

Georgina,

Thanks for you quick comments, my post was barely warm. I am printing out several, including yours to read.

Jim Hoover

4 days later

Re: An observation product is generated by processing the input; with semblance to the external source (of the signal) reality but differing in significant ways. That differing allowing it to be identified as product not source; Image reality rather than observer independent Object reality.

I argue that truly objective Object reality is without any applied perspective. However it is usual to consider material reality as having 3 space dimensions.Perpendicular and of the same kind. That gives mapping of Euclidean space. The 'block universe' has another dimension perpendicular to the others, giving traditional space-time. Seen Observation products or those generated by a camera have a different arrangement of dimensions. There are 3 spatial dimensions; but not all of the same kind. The perspective space dimension goes directly away from the observer as it looks 'into the distance'. The height/vertical and length/horizontal dimensions are proportion spatial dimensions . Meaning an element of Image realities position on the perspective dimension will be proportional to the seen height and length. Rather than being perpendicular the transmission time dimension overlaps the perspective spatial dimension. Giving space-time but not as it has been known. As the spatial dimensions do not form Euclidean space and because of the overlapping spatial perspective and transmission time dimension.

Re.the camera's product. The photo, material object(Object reality), is two dimensional if its thickness is ignored. The Image reality depicted by the content of the photograph is not two spatial dimensions but perspectival space-time, as described in my previous post.

Another way that observation products differ from material objects; an observation product,element of Image reality with the semblance of material object is only a partial view of the exterior surface, (unless the object is translucent or transparent). Surfaces obscured from view and the interior of the object are not a part of the observation product. That is because EM radiation received by an observer comes only from part of the surface of the Source material object.

I'm reminded of an episode of "Father Ted" Hat Trick Productions for Channel 4, in which Ted is trying to explain to Father Dougal, saying "these are very small" referring to some plastic toy farm cow, and then saying "very far away" referring to the live cows in the distance.

Georgina,

The indescribable is a good addition, considering the non-relativistic view we still have toward observable objects. Currently Betelgeuse is ding weird things, many not seeing it as an object from some 700 years ago, which you points out.Given such ancient data, how can the 3 "Us" apply in any meaningful fashion. Your classification of objects as well as the observer for each is "U" is helpful. Your discussion of the quasi superpositions of Schrodinger's cat is of interest since I have always felt that a superposition representation of a macro object gives a wrong impression. That's why the quantum and macro linking experiment I cited perked my interest. Your discussions were likewise were interesting and informative. I liked your agency and consciousness comments on the unpredictable, certainly putting humans in the equation enters an irrational element.

Jim Hoover

    Pleistocene Park There is a documentary on this page , about restoring the grassland ecosystem to prevent catastrophic greenhouse gas emission from permafrost melting. Including removal of dark 'lifeless' forest for more reflective grassland.Including the restoration of mammoths ("fat, hairy elephants would do") to the ecosystem.

    Hi Georgina,

    As always I have read your essay with much pleasure. You have the same problem as I have, we are writing about a "model" and that means that there are too many subjects to treat. I hope you will find some time to read my interpretations.

    best regards

    Wilhelmus

      Thank you Wilhelmus. I think I am scene setting and then trying to push forward understanding within that context. I've added some thoughts to the comments. I didn't want it to be a wall of words but something more penetrable and enjoyable.

      I've started reading yours...

      H.H.J. Luediger replied on Mar. 6, 2020 @ 18:15 GM:"als regards e.g. C14: this method to determine the 'age' of certain materials not only builds on a vast range of theories but also requires experimental measurements. These decay measurements in turn require man-made machines called clocks, which measure 'time' in fractions of the rotation period of the Earth or other periodic=geometric systems. Isn't the question "how many seconds per second?" the proof of the illusionary nature of 'time'?

      The material reality is there are differences in proportion C14 incorporated in different material samples. Whether that can provide reliable 'age ' of the material is another question. The age obtained from measurement and processing of the data is observer generated 'Image "reality"', a product. G.P.W.

      H.H.J. Luediger replied on Mar. 6, 2020 @ 18:15 GMT: 'Time' is a psychological not a physical dimension. It passes the faster, the more disorder there is. In physics there is 'phase' and 'constellation' - not 'time'.

      I agree that there is no time dimension to the material universe. No material past, no material future. Just a singular material configuration of all that is existing. There is a time dimension to observation products, as it takes different amounts of time ( change to the configuration of existence) for the sensory stimuli or device inputs to arrive at the observer location together.It is not just psychological as that is so for inorganic observation devices.Though David Eagleman has shown by experiment, that processing of sensory input by a human being can alter the perception of the timing of events.

      As there is only one time of existence in this explanatory framework, there can not be different passage of time happening in different parts. It is differences in the amount of spacial change within the singular uni-temporal configuration. If time was passing differently the different parts would end up in different times. That can't be as there are no different times to be at.

      I agree the speed of time does not really make sense. If considering the material universe, change is continually happening but it does not have a singular direction or velocity that could be used to calculate a speed. If talking about the perception of passage of time: What an observer sees(the generated visual product) can be called the present. When that product is updated there is a new experienced present. Complicated by the updating not being of the entire view and variable according to attention.This can be shown by watching a clock with a noticeable tick movement.The mechanical tick movement is regular, which is important for time keeping. However if it is stared at without blinking, sooner or later, an irregularity of the tick movement can be seen. This is due to delay in updating the visual image. G.P.W.

      P.S. I will read your essay.

        Novel input is more likely to be amalgamated into the conscious experience as it may be relevant to survival (or reproduction). Whereas 'uninteresting' input, already deemed unimportant by the subconscious is passed on with less reliability/urgency. That is why repetitive input, of benign origin, such as from the whir of an fan or even tick of a clock, may cease to be heard, after a period of hearing sound generated from processing the input. The sound waves are still being received but the information that would be experienced as sound is not amalgamated into the conscious experience of the present.

        For clear distinction between source of stimulus and the generated experience; Rather than "such as from the whir of an fan or even tick of a clock", it would be better to say- such as from the rotation of fan blades or even tick motion of a mechanical clock.

        Georgina,

        how do you make sure or what convinces you that physics (EMR, sound waves, etc.) isn't just another observer perspective?

        Heinz

        P.S. Doesn't it trouble you that you (we) need language to describe the universe? Would ANYTHING remain without it?

        Heinz thanks for the questions. Our words and comprehension of the potential sensory stimuli you mention are of course 'man-made' and not the electromagnetic radiation or the sound waves themselves, in the environment external to the thinking brain. In my essay I say that the external material reality is non perspectival. When investigating a context is applied, 'what aspect of the external reality will be measured or observed'.Then a perspective is applied,' seen this way' or 'when measured this way'. Doing this, the external reality is not seen or measured as all it can be. A partial viewpoint is obtained. This is relevant to both relativity and QM. The measurement or observed state obtained pertains to the relationship established between observer and observed, or between observer and potential sensory information in the environment. The outcomes are not showing a singular inherent state or measurement possessed by the thing investigated when not observed or measured- i.e. without applied context and perspective.

        8 days later