What Is Reality In the Context of Physics? by Georgina Parry

Dear Georgina

You touch very interesting points in your essay. I agree in some aspects with your work. However, I believe that the notion of reality is sometimes subjective since it depends on the knowledge that the observer posses of the world. As you say for some people time is a mere illusion, but this assertion depends much on the conception of time she/he has. In my essay I deal with the ontological notions of space and time, you may be interested in reading it. Sometimes we think that there is an underlying reality behind the "appearances" and we study the appearances to guess the "reality" as if there existed an immutable reality hidden from our sight. I think that the reality is constantly changing and we can only make guesses of our present reality. By the time we obtain a physical law that describes the preceding reality, the reality is no longer as we first believe.

Kind regards

Israel

Hi Tommy,

that you for your comments.

It was Mc Taggart who introduced the terms A, B and C series of time in his paper "On the unreality of time", which I have listed in the references. He said that for there to be change there must be a sequence of forms. That sequence of forms is the C series. If one considers the sequence (of spatial forms) then in temporal terms there are earlier and later ones in sequence, which he called the B series. He also identified another kind of time by which we identify events which is past, present and future. He realized that for the A series to exist there has to be a B series.

I have merely added the observation that Space-time only provides the A series. So it must be incomplete. I do not consider this to be merely a personal opinion but a statement of fact. Time does not pass in space-time but just -is- as a geometric dimension and is inseparable from the space-time fabric. The A series is not duration but a completely different kind of 3 fold categorization. Future(not yet experienced), present (current experience), past (former experience).

I do not consider it mere speculation that my experience of external reality occurs when photon data stimulates my sensory system and my nervous system forms a representation of that external reality. The biological process of vision is very well known and has been the subject of a great deal of scientific research. Optical illusions demonstrate very well that what we perceive depends upon the biological interpretation and not what exists externally. There is plenty of evidence that mind altering drugs and mental illness effect the perception of external reality. It is the biological organism that co-creates the external reality that is -experienced-. So it can not exists independently of that biological process.

You are mistaken if you think I am saying that nothing exists exteriorly prior to manifestation of the generated image reality. I am saying that the experienced image reality only exists at manifestation and it is not the same as the foundational reality with concrete existence. That which does exist can not be perceived -as it is- because of the transmission delay of data and the processing that occurs prior to experience. The reconstructed image reality is observed instead.

I agree that there has to be something real that provides the data for the image reality to be formed. When referring to a human being as the reality interface, then the produced image reality is the conscious experience. You and I are are not in disagreement on that point but have just worded the argument differently. I have already addressed your second assumption on your own thread.

Thanks once again. I really appreciate that you took time to read and comment on my essay. Georgina.

Dear Madam,

We have gone through your comments carefully.

We never said that a conscious observer is required for the "formation" of an image reality with incorporated time distortion. All we said is that unless reality is perceived as such, it is meaningless to the external world. Since perception is a conscious function, it requires a conscious observer to be meaningful to the external world. Regarding "a film camera recording a moving image that can be viewed later on by many observers," we hold that it "freezes" the evolutionary state of an object or objects for a designated duration and is viewed at a subsequent time when the object or objects have already developed differently and changed their state. Ye, we consider the description of such "frozen" state to describe the state of the object. We always dispute the view that it is "only consciousness that creates a macroscopic space-time reality" that is understood in the normal sense. By consciousness, we also do not mean human consciousness alone.

We agree that "an object can have a position that is not relative to any one observer", but we fail to see how it could "exist for all observers to have seen what they see", unless it has infinite dimension like space and time etc. discussed in our essay. After all, all objects are closed systems that act as a whole with its environment and the uncertainty induced due to our system of measurement makes result of observation dependent upon the environment. We have discussed it elaborately in our essay. Thus, all observers can see the same thing either from different perspectives or at different times. We understand your concept of "scale dependent super- relative position, which is more objective but not completely objective." In fact we use such a concept in our model for creation.

Your ideas about the nature of energy are reasonably correct. We have discussed about it elaborately in a book written by us. Any change in spatial position is the effect of energy and any potential for change of spatial position is potential energy. The fundamental difference between mass and energy is the nature of their confinement. While mass is centered on a nucleus, energy does not have a nucleus - it flows from higher concentration to lower concentration. Confinement requires a central stable point around which the mass (confined field) accumulates and the external limit of the confinement which gives rise to the stabilized orbits. There is space between these two positions. This gives a three fold structure. Since inside the particle, it is all fluid or locally confined fluid (sub-systems), it is unstable. If some force is applied to move a smaller portion of the fluid, it generates an equal force in the opposite direction. This is exhibited as the charge of the particle. Where this force interacts with other forces, it may become non-linear. Otherwise, it behaves linearly. The linear behavior is known as quantum entanglement. We have discussed in our earlier post how the non-linear interaction leads to the generation of the fundamental forces of Nature.

What you call as the "Uni-temporal now" is the same as eternal analog time about which we have discussed in our essay. Though your ideas are correct, it cannot be used in physics, which is related to correspondence with reality. Since we hold that describability is one of the conditions of reality (we have discussed about it in our essay and also in other posts in this forum), describing analog time, which has infinite dimension, is impossible. Your other observations flow from the above description. Past, present and future are related to digital time that we use in physics. We do not accept Mc Taggart's A, B and C series. There is simply no justification for complicating the description by inventing avoidable classification. We have repeatedly said that both space and time are related to sequence and "earlier and later" are nothing but sequence. Now can be related to a designated instant at a designated position (or may be universal or preferred position) or it can be related to a cycle. When compared with different cycles, the later description leads to time dilation. The change in spatial sequence is not "time" proper, but is associated with time.

Regards,

basudeba

Hello Georgina,

I have read your essay and would say that our ideas are comparable. Whereas you rely on the written word, I rely more on a graphical approach. For example, what you refer to as Object Reality, I call cosmic spacetime. This is spacetime in the evolutionary sense comparable to McTaggart's B series time; and local time which is a function of both local conditions (i.e. GR) and cosmic time and would be comparable to McTaggart's A series time. Your Image Reality is represented by the light trajectories (i.e. null surface) through cosmic time. I also wanted to bring your attention to some responses on the time travel blog, since I left some ideas there that you may enjoy and that didn't make it to my essay, of which I hope you will have time to read and respond.

Best Regards,

Dan

With regard to the C series. I said Mc taggart considered the "sequence of forms" when in his actual work he says "sequence of positions". So I was incorrect in that former reply. Whether one is considering form in space or position in space it is still only a spatial consideration, not including time. The important point that I was trying to make is that the C series is non temporal sequential order.

I might be helpful to give some of Mc Taggarts thoughts in his own words,which makes it clearer. So a selection are quoted below.

"let us call it the C series -- is not temporal, for it involves no change, but only an order."

"A series which is not temporal has no direction of its own, though it has an order."

"It is only when change and time come in that the relations of this C series become relations of earlier and later, and so it becomes a B series."

" More is wanted, however, for the genesis of a B series and of time than simply the C series and the fact of change. For the change must be in a particular direction. And the C series, while it determines the order, does not determine the direction."

"We may sum up the relations of the three series to time as follows: The A and B series are equally essential to time, which must be distinguished as past, present and future, and must likewise be distinguished as earlier and later. But the two series are not equally fundamental."

The Unreality of Time By J.E. McTaggart, 1908

Published in Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy 17 456-473.

Dear Madam,

We will like to extend your ideas further for better clarification.

You are correct in not naming the field, as various forces co-exist in the same field. You are also correct that fermion particles exist in space not space-time and that though there is still passage of time in foundational space there is no geometric time dimension. In fact the term dimension has been wrongly used. Here is the correct explanation for dimension.

The term dimension is applied to solids that have fixed spread in a given direction based on their internal arrangement independent of external factors. For perception of the spread of the object, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the object must interact with that of our eyes. Since electric and magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both are perpendicular to the direction of motion, we can perceive the spread only in these three directions. Measuring the spread is essentially measuring the space occupied by it. This measurement can be done only with reference to some external frame of reference. For the above reason, we use axes that are perpendicular to each other and term these as x-y-z coordinates (length-breadth-height). These are not absolute terms, but are related to the order of placement of the object in the coordinate system of the field in which the object is placed. Thus, they remain invariant under mutual transformation. If we rotate the object so that x-axis changes to y-axis or z-axis, there is no effect on the structure (spread) of the object. Based on the positive and negative (spreading out and contracting in) directions from the origin, these describe six unique positions (x,0,0), (-x,0,0), (0,y,0), (0,-y,0), (0,0,z), (0,0,-z), that remain invariant under mutual transformation. Besides these, there are four more unique positions, namely (x, y), (-x, y), (-x, -y) and (x, -y) where x = y for any value of x and y, which also remain invariant under mutual transformation. These are the ten dimensions and not the so-called mathematical structures. These are described in detail in our book. Since time does not fit in this description, it is not a dimension.

Regarding photons, the right description is to treat these as stationery particles in a wave. Standing near a sea, just look at a pebble that lies on the way of the wave. It stands out while the wave passes by. If we are traveling with the wave, we will feel that it is rushing past us. It is the wave that makes the innocuous pebble conspicuous. Photons behave in the same manner. Since we are all submerged in the field and moving with it, we perceive anything stationery as rushing out with great velocity. Only this way we can explain the limiting velocity of light. If the pebble is below the surface, it will not be visible. The same is true for photons.

Elsewhere we had shown that manifestation of magnetic and electromagnetic effects and gravity are related to the nature of charge of the particle. We had also shown that these arise out of difference in density, inertia of motion, inertia of restoration (elasticity) and the nature of local confinement of the field. This proves your statement that: "The medium carries EM radiation but also leads to the manifestation of magnetic and electromagnetic effects and gravity when it is disturbed by the "organized" flow of many electrons or the trajectory of a large body through it. "

Soon we will come out with the complete theory.

Regards.

basudeba.

Dear Sir,

thank you for once again pointing out where our ideas overlap and explaining your understanding. It is clear that you have given the ideas much thought. I hope their continued development is fruitful for you.

Regards Georgina.

Hello Dan,

I am glad you explained that your cosmic space-time evolves like Mc Taggart's B series. It is good that we both recognize this as a foundational reality, even though we have confusingly chosen very different names. You have said "your image reality is represented by the light trajectories (ie null surface ) through cosmic time." Ok but the image reality that I am talking about does not exist until it is reconstructed using the data. Though the data received will depend upon the light trajectories.

It is good that there is some agreement between our views. I certainly would like to read your essay and will endeavor to do so soon. (There are still a couple of other essays that I need to carefully consider and respond to. It is very time consuming and requires concentration.)

Anticipating an interesting and enjoyable read, Georgina.

Dear Israel,

thank you. I agree that the notion of reality is often subjective. That is why it is important that scientist think about what is meant by reality in the context of physics, rather than everyday life and individual subjective experience or imagination. I am interested in your viewpoint.

Kind regards, Georgina.

Georgina,

Yes, regarding image reality being "represented by the light trajectories (ie null surface ) through cosmic time." , the point is that all objects existing in our universe exist at the same moment of cosmic time (13.7 billion years) immaterial of the rate of their local clocks, and at that particular moment of cosmic time, what we observe is dependent on the finite velocity of light. The universe does not exist as a "block universe", except in the Platonic sense. I left the argument for this on my thread, in case you couldn't find it on the time travelers blog. It was edited from my original draft due to the essay length constraints.

Have a great day,

Dan

Dear Sir,

I do not know what you mean by meaningful to the outside world. I think you may be referring to consensus reality, which is an inter-subjectively corroborated experience of reality. I agree that it is not possible to have consensus reality without conscious beings that agree on what reality exists externally.

We are talking about slightly different things in our essays because I am talking specifically about the temporal distortion of that reality, which is an important step in explaining a number of foundational questions and paradoxes.I have tried to avoid talking a lot about consciousness in my essay. Though I have talked about it quite a bit on earlier FQXi blog forum posts. It falls outside of the specific ideas I wished to concentrate upon in my essay. With the aim of fulfilling the criterion of "pushing forward understanding in a fresh way with new perspective." Solving foundational questions, overcoming paradoxes and unreality and answering the contest question.

You said "we fail to see how it could "exist for all observers to have seen what they see","

I have given the example of air traffic control. Each radar station gives a trajectory for the tracked object. Each trajectory appears to be different because they are relative to the position of the radar station. The overlap of the trajectories allows the position that the aircraft occupies to be found. It is not where it is seen from each radar station, as the position in time as well as space will vary according to distance from the radar station. But where the trajectories overlap. That position alone allows each trajectory observation to be correct.

I am afraid I disagree with regard to Mc Taggart's description. I was very pleased to have come upon his work as I had struggled to clearly describe how the order of forms in sequence could then lead to passage of time which was a separate consideration from the time dimension of space-time. Mc Taggart's A,B, C series are clear and unambiguous.

Earlier and later are not nothing but sequence because sequence or order does not have to be temporal whereas earlier and later are. I do not agree that uni-temporal Now can not be used in physics. It is a very important distinction that distinguishes space-time from the foundational reality without temporal spread. By eliminating the temporal spread and reconstructing a reality in which data emitted together is united rather than data received together we can get a reconstruction of the former existential "terrain" and see causal interactions. Instead of working with the distorted space time reality where there is non simultaneity of events and causal relationships are thus unclear.

Thank you once again for considering the ideas in my essay and for pointing out how your own ideas are related.I appreciate the time you have spent doing so. I did enjoy your detailed essay,

Regards, Georgina.

Dear Georgina

I agree with you.We should all agree in our notions, then later we can discuss whether something is real or not.

Kind Regards

Tommy,

I should have said thank you very much indeed. I am so glad you enjoyed the essay. I have never heard myself likened to an excellent natural philosopher before, so I am feeling flattered. :) Thats me smiling.

Georgina

Looks like we're on a bit of a joint charge in the community rankings! I've also just encouraged someone to give you a public vote as that was languishing way too low! I don't think we can be browbeaten in the Time Travel blog, only ignored!

Very best of luck

Peter

Hi Peter,

I haven't forgotten you or your essay. I was reading it again yesterday.I was making a list of what I like about it, which is a lot. I am very familiar with my own ideas and explanations but need to get my head into your way of thinking. My poor head is suffering from reading too many essays in a short space of time and not enough sleep.I will post positive feedback on your thread soon and give a good vote before the deadline. Thats not being tactical but unsure and indecisive.

I didn't really want to get distracted by the time travel blog but couldn't resist trying once more to be convincing. It never gets anywhere. After the contest maybe I will just concentrate on predictions and experiments.I've spent too long saying the same things to no avail and I've said enough.

The public voting has been rather erratic from a low of 3 to a high of 10. Thank you for helping to get it moving it in the right direction. Though I really hope we both make it to the final, I think the community voting might get a little mad towards the deadline and anything could happen.

The very best of luck to you too. Georgina.

The public votes have been 8, 4, 3, 10 and 6. Which firstly makes me think not many members of the public bother to read the essays let alone vote. Then secondly they either really like or dislike my attempt. Though I don't actually know if they have read it. I don't see how someone who has read it could mark it a 3 when I have fulfilled the competition criteria.

It is relevant, it is foundational, it is groundbreaking, it is accessible to a well educated but non specialist audience as requested, it is clearly written, it does not assume knowledge of PhD level physics or a mathematics degree, where analogy is used it is done sparingly and with clear purpose, it is rigorously argued and addresses the competition question. I haven't just written about my favorite topic but have followed a line of reasoning that is relevant to the question, pushing forward understanding in a fresh way with fresh perspective as requested. Leaving out other interesting things that would be less relevant.

The competition question asks "is reality digital or analogue" so my essay starts by looking at what reality is, which is something that has to be done. Otherwise different people may be working with different incompatible notions of reality. The essay ends by addressing the second part of the question. It looks at a number of relevant issues when it comes to determining if the different facets of reality, discussed in the essay, are digital or analogue.

ion. That has to be worth a decent mark.

Georgina

We can't complain about human failings, but we can help people to overcome them!

I was secretly really pleased about your essay as I was cramming in too much logic and evidence already to mine and really hoping I could rely on you to cover the key difference between perceived and concrete reality. You did better than I'd ever hoped, well done. It's all about 'observer frames' Only one is relevant to physics, there could be 100 other observers flying about all over the place and they'd all measure different things. It's unbelievable that physics so often forgets that, normally in blindly applying mathematical abstraction.

You may have seen my last post on the 'time' blog. I've mounted my white charger and honed the sword in support of John, and looking for bony fingers to chop off. We mustn't back off but must keep speaking the truth with confidence. My motto is "I have the strength of 10 men as I am pure in heart" I try not to be bombastic, but blinkers need ripping off sometimes. Do let me know if you think I'm getting OTT. (Email atop my essay m'lady). Your own calm quiet style is wonderfully complimentary to that. Never give up!

Best of luck

Peter

Peter,

I hope you saw my reply to you and not just my moan about the public voting.

I really am glad that you liked my essay.Your encouragement is appreciated.

I guess its good that you are so enthusiastic.I am also passionate about this topic but I don't really see it as a battle of truth against lies but trying to find the very best explanation, which is probably still inadequate.

Its like chipping away until the argument can no longer be refuted and so has been expressed in a fully acceptable manner. I keep thinking that if I can say it in the right way then - eventually other people will agree. The blog forum disagreements or reluctance to accept what is said as valid is actually useful because it highlights where gaps in the argument need filling or expressing differently or I need to reconsider the ideas. I don't really want to antagonize those that disagree with me because they may come around to my way of thinking and even if not I would like to still be on speaking terms. It is a pity that those who have given me a low public vote have not commented on why they think that is all it deserves.

I am addressing the experimental question. It seems clear that although observed objects do not have absolute positions in space time, their position depending on observer perspective, they must have (scale dependent) super relative positions in space otherwise air traffic control would not be able to tell where the different aircraft are and they would be smashing into each other. They are not where they are seen by any one observer, (as the observers see images as they were at different times), but they are where they are at uni-temporal, objective Now.

I want to be fair and give other people the same consideration that I would like for my essay but it is impossible to read them all and impossible for me to fully grasp what is said in many of them. Not quitting yet but tired from reading too many ideas in such a short space of time, trying to make sense of it all. Too much coffee and not enough sleep.

Best of luck to you, Georgina.

Dear Readers,

There are three kinds of the essays in our contest: 1) the essays with original physics research where all physics' information was created by their authors. Often such essays seem to have errors because they often contradict orthodox theory. 2) There are essays-stories about physics which contain generally known physics' information copied from the textbooks or papers and author's commentaries (for example Jarmo Makela, Ian Durham, and so on). Such essays have ARTISTIC VALUE only but not scientific value; usually these essays-stories do not have any errors by definition because all physics' information was copied from the textbooks and other published papers. 3) There are essays of mixed type containing mixed information. It is clear that the authors of the essays-stories have advantages because their essays rarely contain errors since all Physics' information was copied from the textbooks.

What kind of the essay must FQXi community support? If we support the essays-stories, we'll transform FQXi into the entertainment community. For example, instead of my ''interpretation of quantum mechanics'' I could send the jokes about Bohr, Einstein or stories like Gamov's ''Mr. Tompkins in paperback''. It would be very interesting and fun. Another option is to create artistic essays-discussions with Einstein, Bohr, or Aristotle following the example of Jarmo Makela. In this context, the next logical step is to organize a banquet for the authors of essays where we tell jokes and funny stories about physics. What is our purpose?

Since the goals of the FQXi (the "Contest") are to: ''Encourage and support rigorous, innovative, and influential thinking about foundational questions in physics and cosmology; Identify and reward top thinkers in foundational questions'', therefore I ask readers to vote for essays with original research rather than for essays-stories. In this way we'll encourage the fundamental physics research but not entertainment essays.

Sincerely,

Constantin