Does Objective Reality Exist? Great Mysteries of Physics Part 4 -- FQxI Podcast

    A single relative view generated from uncorrupted data, is true, as in a faithful likeness, within ts context ie. seen this way. Other views **are not,** _because of that_, **untrue or incorrect,** they must be seen in there own different ‘seen this way’ context. Rather than right and wrong _they are parts of the image of a greater objective reality_, This is not permissive, I.e. saying there is no right and wrong. It is not either saying ‘anything goes’. There can still be individual views that are not faithful likenesses of the objective reality – maybe because of malfunction of device or organism, during their production, lack of fidelity may be because of interference or other particular environmental conditions, there can be intentional fakes and lies that appear to be likenesses of objective reality but are not. 

Many relative views amalgamated, as each is true in it’s own context, doesn’t give a singular objective view but blurs the individual views where they disagree not being clearly this or that. So is an incorrect approach. More information in this case does not increase the fidelity of the semblance. In other words does not provide a clearer picture than one clear relative view from a particular viewpoint. Many individual views are better than the amalgamation. This or this or this or this etc. is correct. This and this and this and this is incorrect. Stitching images together to give a coherent singular output is okay but overlapping isn’t. Think of a hospital 3d scan output or panorama photographic picture.
To get an appreciation of the objective reality, viewpoint must change, whether by the observer moving, like the blind men walking around and feeling the different parts of the elephant. Or the object source must be moved, like tuning a sea shell in one’s hand to view all of it. Either way alters the relation of the observer with the sensory data emitted by the material source object, so that it is experienced or measured to be different. Either by; change to the data being received from the environment from a relatively stationary source. Or change to the data and distribution put into the environment by moving the source.

Georgina Woodward
I don't know what happened when I last posted. i can't correct it it seems. I meant to say
'
A single relative view is true, as in a faithful likeness, within ts context ie. seen this way. Other views are not, because of that, untrue or incorrect, they must be seen in there own different ‘seen this way’ context. Rather than right and wrong they are parts of the image of a greater objective reality, This is not permissive, I.e. saying there is no right and wrong. It is not either saying ‘anything goes’. There can still be individual views that are not faithful likenesses of the objective reality – maybe because of malfunction of device or organism, during their production, lack of fidelity may be because of interference or other particular environmental conditions, there can be intentional fakes and lies that appear to be likenesses of objective reality but are not.'
The text then contiues as posted in the main body of the previous post

Georgina Woodward
Put simply, you have turned your back on the best consensus science, and you have labelled people who accept the best consensus science as “fearmongers”.

Lorraine Ford
Whether there actually is corresponence with objective reality isn't a matter of consensus.
I have mentioned the unpredictability of chaotic systems, correlation vs causality, and absolute rather than relative truth-the whole elephant ; or drived from it ,the big picture including things discovered from ice core data, tree ring data and fossil leaf composition and so on.
This isn't saying scientists are acting foolishly, incompetantly, dishonestly. They may genuinly feel they are doing the best they can for humanity and if causing fear, it is an impetus for mitgating action, not meant badly. The media too may feel they are doing good for humanity by raising fear to spur action. Activists may feel they are doing their best to make the situation better for humanity. Politicians too may feel they are doing their best, through their words and policies. They might see getting re-elected as an imperative to continue their good work. I really don't think its good to paint people as baddies when their motives are unknown. i'd rather let them have benefit of the doubt and assume well of them. "Fearmonger' is meant in the sense of one who spreads fearful or alarming 'news'. Scaring people isn't harmless. Chronic fear/stress can cause chronic physical ill health and mental illness such as depression. It can supress the imune system and make people more vulnerable to accute illness. This has a cost to individuals and families as well as a cost to countries in providing health care and loss of productivity.

When saying viewpoint can't be added, to have a clear picture/avoid blurring, I mean they can't be superimposed. However kept as seperate viewpoints they may be joined, where viewpoint changes, as appropriate, to get a larger more complete picture. The whole picture likewise can be built up by joining individual views but not with superimposed viewpoints

Physics; Max Tegmark, in mathematical universe, identifies that if you look at the essence of what physics represents there remain abstract properties and their relations after all undefined words are removed.
That is when all word ‘baggage’ that undefined would not be understood by an alien ‘A mathematical structure S (…..) is essentially a collection of abstract entities with relations (functions) between them ... )”Max Tegmark. Arxiv 2007
He gives the example of ‘tree’ which can in current times be understood as a particular arrangement of atoms. And I would add the atoms too are particular arrangements of yet smaller particles that could theoretically be itemized and related to the whole pattern that has been isolated from the rest of reality. in thought, for particular consideration. ‘Tree ‘ is useful human scale data compression. Enabling us to know roughly the pattern of the thing we are thinking and communicating about without being encumbered by the sheer volume of individual atom position data. That perhaps a super computer could handle in a human life or less time scale, giving the output ‘tree’ but a human alone could not.
Is this representing the universe as it is or has a vital ingredient, Object reality aka, existence, aka objective (observation independent) reality, been lost in translation.
We should not reduce the pattern of existence; consisting of distribution of forms and an accumulation of substance, to mere attributes.
What is it for something to exist.

1. Form; An existing thing has the pattern formed by its constituents, of this rather than that, another kind of pattern, named as something different.
2. Substance; To exist a thing must be different from the base substance, like base of a soup, To exist as something, thought of this way, is not the difference between some particular accumulation of substance and absence of substance but being different from that which is not part of the pattern of existing things itself but in the gaps.
   Merriam Webster: ‘Entity’; being, existence; especially; independent or self contained. The existence of a thing as contrasted with it's attributes.

Georgina Woodward
Your philosophical viewpoint on the world seems to involve elephants, the physicist Max Tegmark, and aliens. But the upshot seems to be that you reject the consensus opinion of the majority of climate scientists.

In a real world of specialists, like doctors, nurses, physicists, car mechanics, are you also philosophically questioning everything that these specialists say, or is it only climate scientists? In the real world, do you also refuse to accept the consensus opinion of other professions, or is it only climate scientists?

The only real-world issue is that you refuse to accept the consensus opinion of the majority of climate scientists, and you label those people who accept the consensus opinion of the majority of climate scientists as “fearmongers”.

Georgina Woodward '
'Pattern' is not really sufficint to convey the eaning intended here. It is like -geoeetry but not a singular viwpoint or singular .................keyboard issue -to be continued.

@"Georgina Woodward"#p1677
As I was saying......not a singular veiwpoint or from singular mesuments but the Orientation and separation in relation to other existing parts.

Georgina Woodward
In the real world, the real world of specialists like the doctors and nurses who are currently attending to you in hospital, the real world of physicists, and car mechanics, are you also philosophically questioning everything that these specialists say and do, or is it only the climate scientists you are picking on?

In the real world, the real world of specialists like doctors, nurses, physicists, and car mechanics, do you also refuse to accept the consensus opinion of other professions, or is it only climate scientists you are picking on?

The only real-world issue is that you refuse to accept the consensus opinion of the majority of climate scientists, and you label those people who accept the consensus opinion of the majority of climate scientists as “fearmongers”.

PicoPhysics: It is seen that the issue of Reality being discussed at multiple forums post 2022 Nobel price, At the core of this issue is Probability vs Possibility. When you throw a dice the probability of one the face at the top is 1/6. So if you throw the dice 6 million times, a particular face will appear a million times. This can be predicted to an accuracy of say 0.001%. This is devoid of reality of the dice, its structure, (say the Face-1 is lighter then others, then it will through up more often then others). Similar issues are seen in many aspects contemporary science. PicoPhysics is a deterministic theory based on single truth statement "Space Contains Kenergy". It is very specific in interpretation of Observations on Nature in all branches of science.

The essential element of the PicoPhysicst thought process is reality exists irrespective of Observer. Observation is a projection of reality on the Observer. So once an entangled pair is produced - irrespective of the time of measurement on individual particles the result will be the same. The measurements can be performed simultaneously, or with a gap in space and time, it can not affect the result. The observation on "Quantum Entanglement" establishes reality is not affected by observation. The uncertainty principle must be seen in this perspective (Impact of observation on reality).

Let us say we have conservation of charge as a fundamental reality. A neutral particle " say a photon > 1.04 Mev" splits to form two particles that fly apart in space. At any time in the future. if one of the particles is detected to be +ive, the other can be inferred to be -ve. Now this proves a reality. However in the case of entanglement due to our preconceived notion of interpretation of Schrodinger's equation, we talk in terms of probability (ruling out nothing at any time) the characteristic on the companion particle has to be physically determined and not inferred. Hence the determination of +ive charge on one particle transmits through space to other particles to be determined -ive. These Entaglement observations are similar. It proves the reality of entanglement rather than mystifying the universe further. Scherodinger's equation when derived from Unary Principle (Space Contains Kenergy) the wave function is K-energy density - a function of space and chronological variable. And interpretation of the probability of finding an object at a location is replaced by the possibility of finding the object at that location. In PicoPhysics Universe is composed by two identities Sapce & Kenergy. The relationship between the two is enunciated by the Unary Principle "Space Contains Kenergy". While primary interaction between Space and kenergy manifests in the phenomenon we observe as the Refraction of light.

Quantum Entanglement experimental proof establishes a deterministic nature in line with the thought process of PicoPhysics. While modern science deals with uncertainties and probabilities, PicoPhysics explains observations on the universe with determinism and Possibilities.

I’ve nearly finished reading ‘Fossil Future” by Alex Epstetein. A premise examined throughout the book is that there are two competing ideologies that are generally used in characterizing nature and how mankind’s energy use fits with the chosen ideology.

One of the ideas, said to be anti human in the book, characterizes nature as a delicate nurturer of living things. In delicate balance, easily becoming dangerous, when impacted by man. Tends to favour relatively unreliable wind and solar energy production. Paying attention to their benefits, but not negatives, such as the need for fossil fuel built distribution infrastructure, production of wind or solar farm materials, lack of recycling, unfair incentives, or side effects. Pointing out possible harms of fossil fuels while ignoring the many benefits and climate adaption they make possible.

The other idea, said to prioritize human flourishing, is that nature has always been a challenge to the survival and flourishing of mankind . Though fossil fuel use mankind has been able to flourish by precaution, and adaption to environmental challenges. Increased food production. Sanitation, clean water, heating/ cooling, building materials and construction for resilience and insulation, affordable clothing, materials and pharmaceuticals

Shows the dilemma is not about facts alone