Sue Lingo
Hi alias BronzeLamprey...
sl Thank you for your thoughtful response and probing questions.
You write:
"one must first define the physical...i.e. in order to make a distinction between the physical and the non-physical, one needs a model of reality in which the physical can be objectified.
sl More accurately stated:
The "model" as a logic construct... i.e the source code installed on the physical mechanisms of cognition... with which one perceives one's environment, and "reality" is what one calls one's perception of one"s environment.
I can agree with this statement, in fact, one should agree on a common understanding of reality if one has previously realized that reality is the reference point of all cognition.
sl Is "reality" as one's perception of one's environment, a valid reference point for an understanding common to all observers?
sl If "model" is a logic lens through which cognitive processes establish one's perception of one's environment... i.e "reality"... then depending on the logic lens installed, the same environment can yield different realities,
sl Makes me wonder whether the Neanderthal thought Homo Sapiens were aliens?
However, in doing so, one must be careful that an idea does not once again become the standard of reality (which is a hallmark of metaphysics), but that reality remains the standard against which ideas - better, hypotheses - are measured.
sl "Idea" as synonymous with "model"?... or "idea" as a "perception " ??
sl As a "perception", the "idea" that physical and metaphysical can be unified, presents no threat of the "idea" becoming a "hallmark of metaphysics, but if one's source code does not facilitate the "idea" of physical and metaphysical unification the source code needs to be tweaked.
In your comment you take the example of space, without question a real phenomenon.
sl "Real" as the set of all agreed "perceptions" of environment?
~ sl "Phenomenon" as a categorical "perception" of environment.. i.e. an event as a consequence of substance dynamics within a structure, rather than structure or substance?
~ sl Events are "perceived" as having a spatial location, but what constitutes "space"?
Ref. "Physical Space and Physical Time:What are they?"- D. Oriti
sl The conundrums of language have dictated my preference for graphic illustration -CAD Simulation for process analysis.
You then state:
"A unit of occupancy for an entity would depend on the minimal/indivisible spatial quantization unit (QE) of the model, which at present can only be conceived theoretically ...i.e. is not measurable."
sl More accurately stated:
If the "model" defines a unified minimum/indivisible unit... i e. quantum... of space (QI), then all unit campsites are measurable in such units, but to convert QI to minimum units of an observer's perception of physical differentiation, requires enhanced conceptual tools -specifically a non-peturbative analysis environment.
A unit that is ... not measurable?
Isn't that a bit metaphysical?
sl Planck's length as a theoretical minimum unit of physical measurement... i.e. spatial differentiation... was derived by mathematical analysis of sequenced measurements of a physical phenomenon... i.e. temperature... and is only conceptually measurable.
sl The QI is also a minimum unit of physical measurement, which is only conceptually measurable, but was derived from a structural geometry analysis of Space-Time Energy emergence.
sl The difference being that Planck's derivation utilized a perturbation logic lens which gives credence to an "other than physical" domain, and the logic lens I am investigating as a source code upgrade... i.e. structural change in human consciousness... is non-perturbative, and eliminates the necessity for an "other than physical" domain.
Isn't measurement, i.e., comparison with reality, the important feature of physics?
sl Comparison with a "reality" perceived through a logic lens in which one's "idea" of minimum physical unit is constrained by current human capacity to perceive physical differentiation?
I think most physicists are bad meta physicians (e.g. Einstein "God does not play dice" or Schrödinger "What is life"). And they should not therefore, when the going gets tough, resort to metaphysics.
sl. The god of Spinoza... i.e. Einstein's god... was fundamental process... i.e. not an entity... and I admit it would be tough for me to deny that I have observed phenomena that exhibited process without measurable substance and structure.
In my text I did not offer a solution for these real difficulties, - this is indeed probably not the right place here -, but I advocated to include the topics, which are blocked or occupied to some extent by metaphysics, into the physical, not metaphysical consideration.
sl "How can Science be different?
In that one's "reality"... i.e. perception of one's environment... is dependent on the logic "model" installed to process perception, my rejected 2023 FQXi Essay (https://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php) proposes a graphically illustrated, non-perturbative logic framework, in which scientist of all disciplines could seamlessly mesh their measurements as perceptions of environment, and therein establish a "theory of everything".
I argue that reality should not be tied to individual observational dimensions such as space or energy, but to methodological requirements along the lines of: measurable states given boundary conditions independent of location, time, and observer with a reasonable error interval. And there hypotheses must deliver correct predictions.
sl To facilitate relative measurements, space as structure is required, and to facilitate states of energy substance is required.
sl To derive intelligence from the dynamics of substance within structure, one's observations must be processed by a valid "model"... i.e. source code that facilitates an unbroken kinematic logic chain from substance emergence within the structure, to event observation.
S. Lingo
