Hi Steve,

good questions about one can be curious to know the answers. Needless to say that i really have no clue how to finally answer them, but that does not mean that there are no answers. We can only see what the future brings and continue to think about every facet of them.

Hi John,

ah, now i got it.

I like your idea of a symbiosis between cubical space and round space, because cubes so nicely could illustrate Boolean logic with its adverse values whereas round things seem (to me) to more represent the consistency aspects of logics with its starting and endpoint that can be put anywhere on a circle.

Stefan,

thanks for the nod, it can go a lot of ways. But then for me, physics and especially theory in any field is not a search for an absolute answer, but more a quest for the right questions. best for now - jrc

"The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the

principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define

as follows:-- 1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of

two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion." Einstein, On the electrodynamics of moving bodies-- However, because of the prescription of method a) This experiment is not comparison of two different EMr informed observations a) and b) for which 1. is relevant. Method a) puts material measuring rod directly upon the measured material rod. The length of this rod depends upon the atomic structure and properties of the material of the rods. b) the seen image of the rod depends also upon how the reflected EMr is received ( and anything affecting it before receipt.) In this experiment it is not just the co-ordinate system being changed. (A no no.)

Maybe I should have previewed, and said that better. Yes of course observer a) sees the marks on the rod -

but the rod isn't measuring a seen observation product.) b)'s rod is doing that.

Hi John,

I agree that what physics says about the microscopic realms is often not comprehensive if one compares it to the macroscopic realm. For achieving a more comprehensive picture (if possible) one either had to question our intuitive explanations that we think hold for the macro realm (for example forces, cause and effect) or question the current descriptions of the micro realm (or both). The relation between particles vs. differentiated fields is perhaps the most prominent example of an appearing antagonism that one wants to have explained. I do not exclude that there is a proper explanation that could solve what we currently perceive as an antagonism. So I do not say that your thoughts and questions about the nature and workings of electromagnetism are ill-defined. I consider these questions themselves to be absolutely legitimate. It is only that I cannot contribute much to come nearer to an answer for them. There are many attempts to explain what goes on at the micro level more realistically. Maybe one of them will succeed or at least already has convinced you. My attempt was to somehow figure out how such attempts would relate to our macroscopic feeling of free will and the fact that there is consciousness (and presumably some intelligence - whatever it is) in the world that can cause some differences in the course of events for the non-conscious parts of the world, compared to the counterfact that there wouldn't be any consciousness in the world.

In a) It is material juxtaposition of ends of the measured rod and marks on the material measuring rod that makes the measurement.

Important for understanding the nature of the paradoxes of Relativity. Different observers see different 'manifestations' according to how the EMr is received and amalgamated; (Individually produced products). Seen 'manifestations' are categorically different from material objects, There should not be the expectation they will necessarily appear like the corresponding material objects in form.

[ The material object does not have a time dimension, the observation product does-which can lead to a deformed appearance when inputs to the observer at different times are amalgamated into the product.]

Re physics versus the upcoming COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow:

Let's not forget that physics models of the world say that people can have no genuine effect on the world. Physics models say that the laws of nature determine every number for every variable that represents every aspect of every outcome in the world.

According to physics, people are 100% a product of these laws of nature, i.e. people are mere epiphenomena that can only ever have the superficial appearance of responsibility for outcomes. Physics models say that the world is such that people can have no genuine responsibility for outcomes, and no genuine effect on the climate.

Physics says that the world is such that the laws of nature determine every number for every variable that represents people's own brains, hands, arms, legs and vocal cords. Physics says that the world is such that people can't assign any numbers to any of the variables that represent their own brains, hands, arms, legs and vocal cords.

So how could people be responsible, how could people have any effect on outcomes, if people can't assign numbers to their own variables? How could people have any effect on outcomes if it's the laws of nature and nothing but the laws of nature that are responsible for every number for every variable?

I hope that there will be some straight-talking physicists at the conference, soothing and reassuring the participants, and telling them not to worry, because physics models of the world say that whatever happens is inevitable: the laws of nature are responsible for every outcome, and people are mere epiphenomena that have no ability to have any effect on outcomes.

(But clearly, physics models of how the world works are wrong: the world is such that people ARE assigning numbers to their own variables.)

    Maybe it should be said that some material objects do have a 'time dimension' to their form (While Still being wholly existent at one time.) E.g. The cut trunk of a tree showing growth rings, Spatial position on the surface relates to a particular period of growth. Similarly other objects showing simple periodic growth such as a dipped candle or Gobstopper, un-contorted or otherwise disturbed sedimentary rock layers. These are exceptional. Development is often not spread evenly in a simple temporal-geometric relation. Material form also does not depend on relation to an observer.

    For observation products temporal/spatial-material origin of received signal and relation to the observer is (ignoring possible perturbation of signal) resulting in the geometric form of the product (seen wholly in the Present).

    I don't fully agree. While its true we construct similar observation product in the same environment, the product is not all there is. He is leaving out the mechanism of sight. In order to see, rather than just hallucinated product, reflected or emitted photons must be received and processed. A camera can stand in as the observer and will record a similar scene showing it is not hallucinations. The Moon really is there as source of EMR. That men can walk on it is pretty good evidence it is materially real. The observation product I generate using EMr input is neither there when I"M not looking nor materially real..

    Being seen wholly in the Present isn't a particularly helpful thing to say.-Observer generated spacetime images with semblance of objects are experienced in observer generated spacetime environment. The observer being a material object is not smeared out over time but is and has all parts existing (present tense) at the same time; Uni-temporal Now. This gives an unusual set structure that has all observer generated Virtual spacetime within Uni-temporal Object (material) reality space. The apparent higher dimensional spacetimes are within a singular lower dimensional space. I think this is strange and interesting.

    Here's some questions. Sets contain objects, Can the entirety of a seen Present qualify as an object or just individual experienced space-time (images of) objects? Likewise the object reality: instead of its entirety should just a single element such as one person be considered?

    This still puts higher dimensional experienced objects within the lower dimensional person set. If this is not allowed mathematically it makes experienced (images of) objects a special class of objects that can't be put into sets OR we have to pay attention to category and not combine or use together sets of observation product and set/sets of material objects. This will prevent the mathematical nonsense that the philosophical or metaphysical structure presents. Does there need to be a new mathematical rule for this situation, do existing rules have it covered or do we just allow and enjoy the paradox.

    Who or what is responsible for outcomes in the world, i.e. what's moving the world?

    When it comes to the question of what's moving the world (representable as what's moving the numbers for variables like position or energy), I suppose that you've only got 3 choices. Keeping in mind that, at a foundational level, the numbers don't smoothly change, they "jump", the choices seem to be:

    (1) No entity is jumping the numbers for the variables, the numbers just jump.

    (2) The law of nature relationships are a type of entity that jumps the numbers for its own variables.

    (3) Matter is an entity that assigns new numbers to some of its own variables.

    But there's a problem here: why do the numbers for the variables always conform to the law of nature relationships between the categories of variable. Once again, I suppose that you've got 3 choices:

    (A) Nothing has any oversight, but miraculously the numbers always conform to the law of nature relationships between the categories of variable.

    (B) An entity has mathematical oversight, making sure that the numbers always conform to the law of nature relationships between the categories of variable.

    (C) No oversight is required: the numbers are relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out; when some of the numbers for the variables "jump", i.e when new number relationships are created, other numbers for other variables are passively changed due to the law of nature relationships between the categories of variable.

    (3C) describes a type of world where people and other living things are genuinely responsible for outcomes.

    I see where I'm going wrong here. The structure I'm thinking of is not a Venn diagram. If it was the set of experienced objects and the set of material objects would not intersect. Unless we specify members of the set of material objects or experienced images of objects sharing a name with members of the other set (than its own.)In which case the two sets overlap. Showing an issue for clear thinking.

    The structure with higher dimensional space inside lower dimensional space is more like a map, showing a relation between a 4 dimensional virtual space-time to (assumed to be) 3 dimensional or no assigned dimensionality (as no singular observer viewpoint can be assigned) space...shown in 2 dimensions.

    I think" no assigned dimensionality (as no singular observer viewpoint can be assigned)' could be important for understanding some quantum superpositions. Where the found state depends upon imposing an observer's relative perspective.

    Thank you Georgina. Maybe this will work, maybe not:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355169846_Gravity_as_a_4