Relativity is a model that is not objective but based on sight of observers.
Quantum physics, particles are not generally obsevable so it is prone tiillusion due to lack of information.it also incorporates an observer or way of making a measuremet. it is necessary to have a point of view inorder to have one outcome rather than more thqan one or many.
Relativity pertaing to things of macroscopic and astronomic scasle are not prone toi llusion unless there is deliberate conceslment or disrraction , leading ther.
Macroscopic and astronomic bodies cause deformation of the enviroment around them- resulting in gravitgy.
Smaller potons do not deeform to the same extent, ,but do cause symathetic vibration of the enviroment .,making aa wave patternt that is able to be divided and interfere with itsef.
Both models give seen this way,i.e. relativde to the observers point of view result.
Georgina Woodward
That former post refers to hypothesis based on alternative interpretation of experiment and not disproven by it
Entanglement is not a material reality. We should already understand that what is thought to be depends on the viewpoint of the observer. i.e. it's not one reality to which we have sensory acess.
We could say, if moden science is described as ;"looking for a black cat in dark room, that may not be a coal celllar, that doesn't want to be found and may or not even be there, and may not actually be a black cat, while using a small laser pointer with unreliable battery. Mathewmatics might be said to be in that contextt, all of the above written in abstract, obscure language.
I watched the video explaining that Relativity is like anaudience waching a play . Each member of the audience having their own view point but the play having only one script. UsIng this idea as a 'starting place' we can insted think about a magicshow performance-a rabbit is pulled from a hat and held aloft.
All of the viewpoints of the audience members, even added together do not make a material rabbit. they corespond to the electrical activity inside each brain, within each material person that exists at the same time as the source material rabbit.
Einstein said 'is the moon there when i I don't look' or wors of similar meaning.. A BILLION OR MORE EARTHBUND PEOPLE CAN SEE A LIKENESS OF THE MOON USING THEIR VISION, . They may think different thoughts about the moon. Nevertheless even when all of it is combined it doesn't make the material moon in space.
The material moon, protons, neutrons and electrons ;forming matter is not thesame as the observation products, which are a partial only likeness generated by thei brains of individual obsevers. they are not the same despite appearance name etc,
At the time of the ERP paper Einstein wanted there to be a definite material.reality,like the singular script behind the different views of the audience using the analogy used ealier. This is despite EInstein's traIns of different lengths that he presened in ' On the electodynamics of moving bodies' There doesn't seem to be a clear undrstanding that the relastavistic physics presented is incomplete. Besso is not still alive somewhere else along a time dimension but theoretically it would be possible to see liknesses of him generated from potential sensory data.
Georgina Woodward
The material observers are within the material universe. The Object that is the source of all relative perceptions of it , is also material (matter) within the materiasl universe. The observers can recieve and process sensory data into observation products, associated with specific brain activity happening The observation products relate to when the potential sensory data was released.Though it exists within the material observer -Now. This is how virtual time becomes incorporated into the materiaL universe.
Georgina Woodward
Georgina,
I know you think you are being helpful, but “what quantumc [sic] physics says and how the world is described by Relatrivity [sic]” can’t be reconciled and explained in terms of your homespun sock analogy, or your homespun black cat analogy, or any other of your homespun analogies.
Pausing to correct your spelling, grammar and punctuation would be a good start; and pausing to think before you post your dribs-and-drabs, stream-of-consciousness comments would be a good start. I know you think you are being helpful.
………………
I’m contending that the issues of matter and time, and consciousness/ observers etc. are secondary aspects of the world that should perhaps be seen in the context of the bigger-picture, primary aspect of the world, the bigger-picture, primary aspect of the world being that the world is a genuinely self-contained and standalone system.
I.e., there is nothing outside of the world manipulating the world. Of necessity, the world is a type of thing that created its own relationships, categories and numbers; these are the aspects of the world that physicists represent with special symbols; and the category aspects of the world can be measured by physicists. Of necessity, the world is a type of thing that internally moves itself.
I’m contending that, because the world is a self-contained, standalone internally-moving viable system, these necessary foundational aspects of the world can be implied from what we know about viable systems:
Georgina Woodward
A time dimension or growing time dimension in additionj to 3 sptaial dimensions is the wrong structure.
Seen objects are obsevation products formed within materal bservers within the material universe They show liknesses that are formed udsing the data that was released into the environment, when it was releassed -not now.That is the relationship with time. Human vision comes from two overlapping images (USUALLY) from two eyes .The orthaganol to the verrtical and horiizontal dimensions is a virtual perspective dimension, and this is also the orientation of a virtual time dimension, A seen product can be formed from data released into the environment at different times, processed into a seen present existing within a material observer -Now. an observer does not have necessarily to be at a different time in material reality to experience an obvservation prouct showing a different time to another obsever. It relies upon it taking different amounts of time for the stimulus to be recieved at that locationj.
Lorraine Ford
Some people like analogies, as a way of rellating to ideas. Some people enjoy making analogies. Sometimes they might work to help understanding; as a different way of looking at an idea. Sometimes they are just funny, to the creator if not a particular recipient, Some people are humourless, and different people think in differnt ways. Maybe i's not written with you in mind.
I'M NOT TRYING TO DISRESPECT ANYONE, BUT I CAN'T HELP IT IF MY WRUTING IS TAKEN IN A WAY UNINTENDED. .'SOCK' IS ADOUT ORIENTATION. A SOCK WUTHOUT A FOOT CAN BE FLAT AND SHAPELESS. MANAKIN LEGS, SEPARATELY ORIENTATED , IS A STRANGE AND BIZARRE SUBJECT TO ME. I FOUND ITAMUSING TO WRITE.
Georgina Woodward
FYI Lorraine, anticipating your further disaproval, I am not shouting in my previous post. I just had CAPS lock on and at that time didn't think it mattered enough to turn it off.
Georgina Woodward
I'M NOT TRYING TO DISRESPECT ANYONE, BUT I CAN'T HELP IT IF MY WRITING IS TAKEN IN A WAY UNINTENDED .'SOCK' IS ADOUT ORIENTATION. A SOCK WITHOUT A FOOT CAN BE FLAT AND SHAPELESS. MANAKIN LEGS, SEPARATELY ORIENTATED , IS A STRANGE AND BIZARRE SUBJECT TO ME. I FOUND IT AMUSING TO WRITE.
Mathematics is a language. It can be used to describe the position of something,or distance beteen things, if used with a co-ordinate system or a reference frame. But application ,That is ABSTRACT superimosition, of the co-ordinates or referernce frame on the material world. It is not objective ; That is what is shown by the different findings for train length found in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Lorraine seems to think that that is higher level psycology taking that fact into account. As if there is just one true objective measurement that can be made. This mistake is similar to the posititon taken by the ERP challenge to quantum physics.
Despite giving us Relativity , Einstein wants a singular predetermined objective reality. SR is incomplete and qantum physics (not its only problem) is too because this is missing.
Related to this problem, to do with using ( abstract ) nunbers; that are only fixed and unitary when the co-ordiate system or reference frame to which they belong is selected , to describe existential material reality; is what is called the measurement problem of quantum physics,; this at what stage in the theoretical proccess the wave function of an object under consideration colllapses or decoherence actually happens. At which point matter having definite form and location, rather than a superositionof possibilities postulated by the theory.
Georgina Woodward
That is the connecion with consciousness., often but not necessarily it is a conscios human organism' s point of veiw that is imposed. THE OBSERVER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE CONSCIOUS , they could be a device with circuits or any device capable of coversion of a sensory input to a different product. Which makes it an obsever and not just an object.
Georgina Woodward
Lorraine , you keep mentioning numbers jumping, however seem to ignore thw artificil quality of imposing the (artiticial) hypothetical dimensions onto reality. I have endevoured to explain why we choose to impose the dimensions that we do, although the sitiuation given the physical processes and biological processes actually happening is dfifferent Evidence from robot vision can help with this, I think.
Georgina Woodward
In anticipation ofd your disapproval; I have made spelling corrections though out recent posts but the changes have not all been accepted. It may be because it was too late to make changes, despite the edit button working to bring up a copy of the text to edit.
Should be corected to say 'the artificial quality'
If, unlike George Ellis, one looks at the BIGGER picture, one arrives at a very different view of the world (i.e. the universe).
In the BIGGER picture, way before there was something describable as “physics” or time or space or matter, something moved and created categories (like energy, mass or position), something moved and created relationships between the categories (i.e. laws of nature), and something moved and created numbers and assigned the numbers to the categories.
This is what genuine causation is all about: creating the basic elements of the real-world system, e.g. creating new numbers and assigning them to existing categories, just like what happens in quantum events to this day. Genuine causation has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the action/ reaction that is due to existing laws of nature in an existing real-world system; however, George Ellis seems to think that action/ reaction is causation because he doesn't look at a bigger picture of the world.
One can claim that an external God, or something else external to the world exists (George Ellis seems to think that an external-to-the-world Platonic realm exists), and this external thing has the causal power to create the categories, relationships, and numbers, and assign the numbers to the categories.
OR, more realistically, one must consider that nothing external to the world exists, and that what actually exists is a world which is a totally self-sufficient type of thing, i.e. the world itself has the causal power to create its own categories, relationships, and numbers, and assign the numbers to the categories.
Note that this causal power to create CAN’T be explained as being due to the categories, relationships and numbers that were created by the causal power; and so a different set of symbols is required to represent causal power/ free will.
Georgina Woodward
For clarity , it is not enogh to choose which viewpoiint,. It must qlso be applie,d to have theoretical wave function collaspse That is to say an outcome must be found.