The Castle and elephants; Indescribable, undecidable, un-computable, and unpredictable by Georgina P. Woodward

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.

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.

Thank you James. I appreciate your comments.

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.

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.

I've just found this site, which has lots of information on image formation, projection,transformations, perspective, human and camera vision Perspective projection| Robot Academy

Professor Peter Corke, Professor of Robotic Vision at QUT, explains on the QUT Robot Academy web site, that when there is perspective projection from the 3D [outside] world to a 2D image, one dimension is in his words lost. Looking at the Human 3D perception page a number of ways in which that 'lost' dimension is 're-imagined' are listed. "Occlusion, height in visual field, relative size, texture density, aerial perspective, binocular disparity, accommodation, convergence and motion perspective. Each of these is explained on the afore mentioned site. I think it fair to say that in these ways a virtual-spatial perspective dimension is perceived. Virtual in the sense of a virtual image that seems to be in space where the brain thinks it should be from the input received. Vertical and horizontal dimensions are actual spatial dimensions of the image. As the 3rd 'spatial' dimension of the image is virtual the imagined apparent 3D space shown by the image is virtual-Image reality space-time. That is the seen present and that differs between different observer perspectives. I think this must have some relevance to Relativity and how the transforms are conducted to give the different observer viewpoints. They are not different present slices of an external space-time continuum but clearly observer generated products.

The seen present is not an image of a singular uni-temporal time. There is an (I suppose it should also be called virtual) time dimension, in the same virtual orientation as the virtual perspective dimension. Related to transmission time of the signal from which the image is formed. Not related to foundational passage of time (change in the configuration of all existence.). As this is seen the relationship to foundational passage of time is indirect. Being related by updating of the seen visual field image. Which is not done all over at once.. So there will be further disparity between the arrangement of the content of external space and the perceived. What the individual's attention is focused on (affecting updating rate) is particular to that individual and the circumstances being observed. If a device, the updating may be all at once but vary in rate for different devices. Whether organism's visual system or device's the different iterations sequentially produced do not match exactly the material configurations that are sources of the EM inputs.The products are not 3D Cartesian, nor such Euclidean space with 4th perpendicular time dimension, nor Minkowski space-time. That circles in the external material reality can be seen as ovals and parallel lines be seen as converging, and foreshortening of seen 'objects' seem important when thinking about what different observers of the same events will see.

How is the translation between what are the different inertial observer's views, with their particular samplings of foundational time (samples of signals received from the ever changing configurations of existence) to be reconciled with motion perspective and transmission time dimension?