The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science

Hi Georgina and Mr Sturm,

Mr Sturm , sad that you have a problem with georgine, she is creative and have good ideas, we can disagree about the ideas, theories of people but we are civilised and we can discuss with respect and critic with respect, it is even in debating that we evolve at my humble opinion, it is not because we have different philosophies about the maths and physics that we must be angry or insult or this or that, it is always better to debate with respect , regards

The present state of the R.I.c.P. explanatory framework

Uni-temporal time for existing, observer independent things and happening of, among and between existing things.

Uni-temporal passage of time pertaining to change of the arrangement of existing things: accounting for; the arrow of time and causality for existing things. How physical and chemical events happen step by step as required.

Relative passage of time applying to observation products. Allows non simultaneity of same events seen by different observers. Different order of receipt of sensory information gives different order of seen semblances of events shown by the observation products generated using it.

Prevents Grandfather type paradoxes. As with uni-temporal time pertaining to existing there is only one time at which to exist, so no travel between different times is possible.

What is an observer?

Understanding an observer converts input existing, observer independent sensory 'information' in the environment into relative observation products. Different 'temporal' composites of 'information emitted or reflected at different times (i.e. different configurations of the existing)

Observer generation of observation products. The reference frame is the viewpoint of the observer, each observer producing their own from the sensory data.

Prevents bug -rivet type paradox by understanding what is an observer

By understanding the differences between absolute uni-temporal existing and relative observation product formation and it's relationship with sensory 'information' transmission through the environment, the Andromeda paradox can be understood as not a paradoxical scenario given the understanding of the difference between what's sensed and what exists, observer independent.

Observation products are within generated virtual spacetime, which appears to be exterior to the experience-er. Existing objects are not within this space only observation product semblances of objects.

Evidence is hallucination that can cause subjectivity experienced deviation of self generated and seen observation product semblances by an affected individual but the existing objects are not altered and the semblances formed by other unaffected observers, from unaffected potential sensory 'information' are unchanged.

(Light clock and twins paradox) based on different observers receiving different sensory 'information' input from the environment. This should just effect the observation products, produced from the received signals. That there is not just temporary alteration of timekeeping in plane /clock experiments indicates that the motion involved is effecting the existing material clocks. So its not just the difference of distribution of the base existence at different altitudes that effects clock function passing through, or being passed through, but how much is passed though, or passes through, at the same altitude.

Curvature of space time is not a cause of the bending of light paths it is an effect. A relation between characteristic of the existing environment and observer independent, electromagnetic radiation. The characteristic of the existing environment responsible for the deviation of electromagnetic radiation paths may have involvement with gravitational potential.

Categorization error failure to differentiate existing, absolute, observer independent things or happenings of, among and between existing things.

Feynman's steak

Is the moon there when nobody looks? or an alternative, do you think the Moon only exists when you look? Thorough analysis of the question shows that the question is inadequate as it does not differentiate observer independent existing from the observer relative seen observation product.

Light clock thought experiment-has category omission, as the seen path of the light is used in the mathematical analysis, which is an observation product.

Evidence for object permanence. Analysis of Is the moon there when nobody looks? or an alternative, do you think the Moon only exists when you look? Illusion-appearance and transformation illusions Rabbit from hat and 'fire into doves' examples. Peekaboo.

Replacement of abstract wave function in place of absolute, observer independent, unmeasured thing (with uni-temporal time pertaining to existing things, a composite/smearing of what will be and could but won't be can not be physically real) with relative, measured this way abstract outcome.

The state or value pertains to the relation between the measured and measuring apparatus or measured and protocol (if a coin toss is used as an example, it would be between the coin and whichever measuring protocol used [catch then open palm or catch flip onto back of opposite hand, expose])

The state or value is not a property owned by the measured thing itself. Its a measurement product. Not an innate premeasurement property but The existing things condition is the outcome of the particular relation with the apparatus and method used as it transpired

The replacement is solution to the measurement problem. As the wave function was never physically real it does not really collapse.

Different observers can replace the wave function at different times without paradox. Each replacement is their own relative perception. When the observer individually replaces the wavefunction predictive stand in does not cause the condition of the existing thing being considered to be actualized. The existing things condition is the outcome of the particular relation with the apparatus and method used as it transpired-Its a measurement product.

More going on here

(Light clock and twins paradox) based on different observers receiving different sensory 'information' input from the environment. This should just effect the observation products, produced from the received signals. That there is not just temporary alteration of timekeeping in plane /clock experiments seems to indicate that the motion involved is effecting the existing material clocks. Hypothesis- its not just the difference of distribution of the base existence at different altitudes that effects clock function passing through, or being passed through, but how much is passed though, or passes through, at the same altitude.

Curvature of space time is not a cause of the bending of light paths it is an effect, because seen light is a product. A relation between a characteristic of the existing environment and happening observer independent, electromagnetic radiation. The characteristic of the existing environment responsible for the deviation of electromagnetic radiation paths and effect on timekeeping, likely has involvement with gravitational potential. Hypothesis - that characteristic is due to the distribution of base existence.

The idea called 'entanglement':

E. Schrödinger introduced the term 'entanglement' to describe the seemingly odd connection between quantum systems of created particle pairs. It seem to be unexpected and in need of explanation is due to the theory being employed. By employing that particular reasoning; as the state outcome or value (Which is relative to observation viewpoint or measurement technique) does not pre -exist the measurement (correct), and there is no accounting for absolute unseen, unmeasured, existing and happening, there is the assumption that each outcome should be random but are found to be sometimes correlated exceeding , the two random events, expectation, according to that theory. Quantum theory makes the problem.

The expectation of random outcomes for each member of the pair comes from the idea that the measured thing becomes real only at measurement, (Instead a relative measurement context is being applied allowing a relative measurement product, relative state or value to be acquired.) Applying to each particle. The whole prior absolute, evolving relation, of each absolute existing/happening particle and absolute, existing apparatus is not accounted for using that model. Instead the idea of Object permanence, with existing things and happenings pre-measurement, with absolute being, including orientation can be used. Absolute because there is no relative context yet applied that can be used to describe it as a singular state or value. From the one absolute particle, many different measurement products are possible but not realized, each outcome depending on the particular relative measurement relation established, that gives the one relative measurement product.

Each partner of a created pair is forming relation with measuring apparatus according to its own absolute orientation consequence of the absolute condition obtained at creation of the pair, and absolute orientation of the apparatus, Correlation are to be expected as are found. The correlation frequency, above chance alone, is due to the pair formation process, making a pair with an enduring relation between their absolute conditions. Upon separation they act as individuals uninfluenced by the other currently but the absolute relation remains until measurement and relative measurement products are individually produced.

Probability: Imagine a six sided die, solid object. It is cuboid, having six numbered 'faces', I.e. flat square areas. It is most likely that the die when rolled will land flat on one of the faces, and the face opposite will be uppermost. (I have once in my lifetime seen a die stop rolling on an edge, so it is possible, perhaps because of a crumb on the surface rolled upon, or other uneven-ness.. This and any other kinds of miss roll will be ignored.) The probability of any of the six sides being seen uppermost, that is the relative observation product, giving the outcome number (state), is 1/6.

Due to the rules of die rolling only the number of the uppermost surface will be considered as the outcome. There is the potential many different relative observation products could be displayed, but only one relative observation product will be formed. The total probability is 6 x 1/6. The object can be said to be multi-potent. One of the numbers will be later identified as the outcome, the rest will not. So the probability before the roll is a combination of what will and what won't be found after the roll.

The multi-potent die is an actualized, existing, material object. The probability is not as it pertains to what has not yet happened and what will not happen. After the roll there is the decision to replace the probability with the outcome state-just the outcome number obtained from the relative observation product, when looking at what surface is uppermost. The die has not changed into a single face it is still a multi -portent object.

A choice has been made to replace prior consideration with the relative singular viewpoint derived outcome number. So a new abstract entity (the number which is the outcome state) pops into consideration. People may say words like 'I've thrown a six, or the 'dice' is a six, neither of which is precisely accurate. Six alone can not be thrown, the six face is attached to the rest of the die, and the die object is never just the number outcome state. Now liken the procedure of swapping probability for singular outcome state in quantum mechanics.

In quantum experiments using particles, there won't be swapping with a singular relative outcome state obtained from forming a relative observation product but instead there will be formation of a singular relative measurement product. i.e. outcome relative to this apparatus and method 'way of enquiry into what's there'

On obtaining the singular, relative, measurement product it replaces the earlier representation in the model.(The product is formed by the particular relations between particle and a apparatus.) The replacement can't happen until the measurement product is obtained by the scientist or other. They will continue using the former representation until they know it has been superseded. Different observers will have different opinions about when the change happens. That they have different viewpoints isn't paradoxical. it depends on the when of information receipt, which is like ordinary relativity depends upon the when of sensory information receipt. This is the solution to the measurement problem. The observers do not have knowledge of objective observer independent relations formed and happenings happening. So they can not replace the former representation with the new abstract measurement product until they personally have acquired it.

There have been notable contributions to science and in particular Metaphysics by Langan, myself and others over the past six years. We have furthered humanity's quest for knowledge in these areas. I aim to unite science and religion. I have always laid claim to the fact that I have two different intelligences. One merely moderately gifted the other unprecedented in human history.

One X, Therefore One God

X = matter or non-object. Information can have meaning without matter. This is how a misunderstanding of reality can be created by mind. Reality is comparable to self-configuration. Wisdom is information coming from a single source (reality). Meaningless information comes from many (objects).

My belief was incorrect we create meaning, just as our minds contain a self-configuration of reality, which is self-configurating along with reality (psychologists are still unclear as to what the mind is). Where the mind is not static and therefore not concept, it is self-configuring and therefore unbound. The SCSPL is intrinsic as well as is spacetime due to structure S which distributes over S (self-distributive). Spacetime is thus transparent from within. Where objects in reality are s, possessing the structure of one that merges the concepts and is self-dynamic and self-perceptual that is S. S is amenable to theological interpretation.

A clear metaphysics of truth is absent from science. It has been unclear what exactly the ‘truth’ means in the context of science. While there are common sense notions about correspondence with fact, this then poses the question-What is a fact? Facts correspond to actual things - actualizations i.e. absolute existing things, and absolute relations between them and absolute change, happenings. Pertaining to either current or former actualization, their relations and happenings. Actualizations are only at uni-temporal Now. Always current. Facts however can relate to former configurations of existence, former relations and happenings.