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

Ms. Parry,

I read your essay with great interest. Glad to see that you have entered the competition. As always, we appear to be in fundamental agreement about the underlying nature of reality and about our perceptions thereof.

While not intending to be critical, I admit that I found some passages of your essay a bit difficult to follow, due at least in part to the difficulty of expressing complex ideas via the often too blunt instrument of English. It is difficult to compress an entire view of reality into the confines of a necessarily brief essay, but I think you've succeeded nicely in conveying some fundamental concepts.

Your kind mention of my earlier FQXi essay in your list of references did not go unnoticed and is deeply appreciated.

Good luck in the competition!

Best Regards,

jcns

That anonymous was me. Sorry. I guess "the system" no longer recognizes me, even when I'm logged in.

jcns

Dear Mr Smith,

very good to hear from you. Glad we seem to be in fundamental agreement and that you think I have "succeeded nicely" in conveying some fundamental concepts.

I agree the wording of the essay is difficult in places. Though it is also deliberately broken up by parts that are far easier to follow. Like the man on the hill with the barking dog. There does have to be a balance between expressing a meaning clearly and simply and being precise. I know exactly what I mean and why it is written that way but that may not be clear to someone else reading it. Believe it or not, this version is a great improvement on the earlier versions due to careful editing and revision of overly complicated expression. Now, at least, I can manage to read this version to the end myself, without having to take a break to clear my head.

You are right the word limit did make it a little difficult to say everything that needed saying. Some connected ideas had to be left out or remain mostly unexplored in the essay and others were dealt with far more briefly than was ideal. Though overall I hope I did a fair job of giving an opinion on what reality consists of and then considering whether it is digital or analogue.

Thank you very much for reading, commenting and wishing me good luck.You deserved the mention.

Georgina

Georgina,

This is kind of surreal. I'm reminded of a story, probably apocryphal but instructive, of Diderot and Euler at Catherine's court. Euler, annoyed with Diderot's militant atheism, scratched a nonsense equation on paper and handed it to Diderot, with the statement, "Therefore, God exists. Refute it!" Diderot, uneducated in mathematics, was said to slink off without reply. Michael Jeub's equation and explanation is utterly meaningless nonsense. You might as well be replying to an ELIZA program -- which is another interesting case, since I have heard of people exposed to the program who swear that ELIZA's responses are those of a real therapist and are angry to have it suggested otherwise. What that says about real therapists, or mischievous programmers, I'm not quite sure.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

I think my response was appropriate and in keeping with my level of physics/maths education and comprehension. I am glad if there is correspondence between my simply expressed ideas and what other people are finding useful in their own work.I am glad that Michael Jeub has made the effort to make contact. I think he had some interesting thoughts prompted by what I have said in my essay, and he has written a very intriguing essay.

Georgina,

I found your comments on Jeub's thread to be relevant and good. In fact most of your comments can be described as 'good', and make you appear to be a good person.

Armin pointed out that Jeub may have used a 'random paper writer' to produce the essay, but that seems unlikely to me, because he seems to include some real wit and wisdom in his writings. And if a 'paper writer' can write that M-theory "keeps governments truthful,..." then that's a helluva paper writer.

Eliza is over 40 years old, and the original naive users had no understanding of what was going on. If the software has been evolved over 40 years, I'd expect it to be quite sophisticated (in appearance) nowadays. By the way, when my kids were about ten my wife wrote a program in Basic that asked them to supply a noun, verb, etc. She stored these and them inserted them into a funny story framework. The results were often hilarious.

And I thought your guess about anonymous was correct until Tom denied it. He still seems perturbed by Jeub's writing. I rather appreciate his wit.

Anyway, it's been a pleasure interacting with you in this contest (and other blogs) and I am happy to see that you are so highly rated. You're one of our better angels.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Georgina is a good person. no question.

But are you putting me on? You really Michael Jeub is coherent?

Tom

Tom,

I think Jeub is witty. Why don't you try writing like that and see what you sound like. I see a number of clever things, (which I hope are not computer generated, that would be somewhat embarrassing. But since much of what he writes is very context specific, I doubt it.) This kind of writing can get old fast, but so far he has kept a rather low profile.

Tom, orthogonal or inverse, our minds are different. You can't see certain things, and apparently neither can I. Don't sweat it. There's no accounting for taste.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

I think this post migt be a useful clarification for other's too so I have copied it here.

Dear Eckard,

on the contrary Mc Taggart's very clear and unambiguous definition of the elements neccessary for time as we know it are very useful. The everyday notion of past, present and future is not adequate.

As I have tried to explain in my essay for the distant observer events that have already occurred and are to the near man already the past, are yet to be experienced and are in that distant observer's future. Though beyond what has already occurred everywhere (even though it has not been experienced) the future is un-written. So you see from this that some parts of the future, not yet experienced, are preordained, as they have already happened, and others are not.So there is partial determinism allowing causality and free will.

The everyday notion of a present experienced by all simultaneously is not sufficient to explain observations, where there is observed to be non simultaneity of events. (See the dog on the hill example in the essay.) However simultaneity is necessary at the foundational level to permit causality.The differentiation of (Foundational)object and (Reconstruction from received data)image reality allow both to co-exist without contradiction or paradox.

The experienced present is formed from the data that is -received-, not the objects or events that exist or the data immediately it is formed. So objective or uni-temporal Now (Where foundational objects exist and interaction occurs) is different from the experienced space-time present. There is transmission delay according to distance from object or event which causes temporal distortion of the image reality experienced.

Best regards, Georgina.

Georgina,

I hope you end up over the line at the end of the day. I tried to get you there and believe your essay deserves it.

Peter has posted some of your remarks about QM not being counter-intuitive. With respect to this I have some good news on the C-field front!

The 12 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science News' has two articles on the C-field:

The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to light passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. Martin Bojowald suggests upgrading most telescopes to search for more of this.

The second article (p.20) on quantum vortices has Kerson Huang of MIT speculating that the vortices in the (C-field) 'superfluid' after the big bang may be responsible for the gaps of empty space between galaxies.

From 'Fly-by' mysteries to spinning Black Holes to the Big Bang, the C-field is being recognized as having physical reality responsible for observable effects. I believe it also provides the 'pilot wave' associated with locally real particles.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Now that Eckard Blumschein looks to be a certain finalist perhaps his opinion will carry more weight.

On his thread he wrote "So I consider Georgina utterly remarkable not just because she is one of at best a few female contestants here, maybe even the only one. Maybe she is the only women to be mentioned in connection with Albert Einstein after Milena, Elsa, and Itha. Hopefully, she will give rise to getting rid of several paradoxes and unjustified speculations."

......................................................................

I am of course flattered but also take this as a serious positive appraisal of the arguments set forth my essay.

Georgina

May I vouch for the accuracy of Eckard's analysis and comments. He's not one to accept illogical science or maths. If only that were more generally the case!

It's a massive shame you didn't get in the last 35, I did my best for you too. I did an interesting quick logical analysis (with sums, now the contest is over!) in my string.

But I'm sure you know it really means little as the main task remains. I hope you're up for it. Where in the country are you? Do send me a mail.

Very best wishes

Peter

Georgina

I'm invited to do part of a GUT publication with some space for a couple of other angles, hopefully including at least a short precee/update from you on the perception aspect. Let me know. (Email is on my essay).

Peter

Wow! Great job, Georgina...

Dear Georgina,

Milena managed getting divorced from Albert. His cousin Elsa nursed him when he was ill and married him. What about Itha Juenger who was a 14 years old school girl when Schroedinger made her admiring him as someone who will get and actually got a Nobel price, you will find the exemplary tragedy of her aborted son in the book Schroedinger - Life and Thought.

I did not mention Cynthia Whitney and Galilean electrodynamics because she failed so far making a less idolized picture of AE accepted in public.

I was hoping you could live up to this role because I am convinced, consequent dealing with the question whether or not spacetime is real is at odds with this picture.

Maybe we can learn from Hehl. I gave a link to premetric electrodynamics in my thread.

Best regards,

Eckard

Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria - suggestions for improvement.

Madam,

We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

"We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay contest "Is Reality Digital or Analog". Our Essay under the same name was published on 29-12-2010. We were associated with Academic Administration as a part of our profession before retirement. From our experience, we were concerned about the problems and directions of current science. One example is the extended run and up-gradation given to LHC, (which was set up to finally prove that Standard Model and SUSY were wrong), even when Tevatron is closing down. Thus, after retirement, we were more focused on foundational works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or "ultimate" nature of reality.

Specifically we were concerned about the blind acceptance of the so-called "established theories" due to the rush for immediate and easy recognition even on the face of contradictions raising questions on the very theories. One example is the questions being raised on the current theories of gravitation after the discovery of Pioneer anomaly. While most students know about MOND, they are not aware of the Pioneer anomaly. Most of the finalists of this contest have either not addressed or insufficiently addressed this question. We hold that gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. This way we can not only explain the Pioneer anomaly and the deflection of the Voyager space-craft, but also the Fly-by anomalies.

Similarly, we were concerned about the blind acceptance of some concepts, such as inertial mass increase, gravitational waves, Higg's boson, strings, extra-dimensions, etc. Some of these are either non-existent or wrongly explained. For example, we have given a different explanation for ten spatial dimensions. Similarly, we have explained the charge interactions differently from the Coulomb's law. We have defined time, space, number and infinity etc., differently and derived all out formulae from fundamental principles. There are much more, which we had discussed under various threads under different Essays. We are the only entrant who defined "reality" and all other technical terms precisely and strictly used this definition throughout our discussion.

Though our essay was on foundational concepts and we derived everything from fundamental principles, it was basically alternative physics. Moreover, we are not known in scientific circles because we did not publish our work earlier. Hence it is surprising that even we got a community rating of 3.0 and (12 ratings) and Public Rating of 2.5 (2 ratings). We have no complaints in this regard. However, we have serious reservations about the manner in which the finalists were chosen.

A set of thirty-five finalists (the "Finalists") have been chosen based on the essays with the top Community ratings that have each received at least ten ratings. The FQXi Members and approved Contest entrants rate the essays as "Community evaluators". Since many of the FQXi Members are also approved Contest entrants, this effectively makes the contestant as the judge for selection of the finalists. This process not only goes against the foundational goals of the Contest, but also leaves itself open for manipulation.

Most contestants are followers of what they call as "mainstream physics". Thus, they will not be open to encourage revolutionary new ideas because it goes against their personal beliefs either fully (like our essay) or partially (like many other essays that did not find place in the final list. One example is Ms Georgina Parry. There are many more.) The prime reason for such behavior is cultural bias and basic selfish instinct of human beings. Thus, truly foundational essays will be left out of the final list.

In support of the above, we give a few examples. While there are some really deserving contestants like Mr. Julian Barbour, who really deserve placement in the final listing, the same cannot be said for many others. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists, says that whether reality is digital or analog "refers, at least implicitly, to the 'ultimate' nature of reality, the fundamental layer." He admits that "I do not know what this could mean, nor I am at ease with thinking in these terms." Then how could he discuss the issue scientifically? Science is not about beliefs or suppositions. His entire essay exhibits his beliefs and suppositions that are far from scientific descriptions. He admits it when he talks about "speculative scenario". Yet, his essay has been rated as number one by the Community.

The correspondence between us and Mr. Efthimios Harokopos under his Essay and our comments under the various top ranking finalists show the same pattern. One example is Mr. Paul Halpern. We have raised some fundamental questions under the essay of Mr. Hector Zenil. If the answers to these questions are given, most of the finalists will be rejected. If the idea is to find out the answers to these questions, then also most of the finalists will be rejected.

The public that read and rated the essays are not just laymen, but intelligent persons following the developments of science. Their views cannot be ignored lightly. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 35th place in public rating. Mr, Tejinder Singth, who is 7th among the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 25th place in public rating. If public rating is so erroneous, it should be abolished.

Secondly, the author and interested readers (including FQXi Members, other contest entrants, and the general public) are invited to discuss and comment on the essay. Here personal relationship and lobbying plays an important role. An analysis of the correspondence between various contestants will show that there was hectic lobbying for mutual rating. For example: Eckard Blumschein (Finalist Sl. No. 15) had written on Mar. 15, 2011 to Mr. Ian Durham (Finalist Sl. No. 3) "Since you did not yet answered my question you give me an excuse for not yet voting for you." There are many such examples of open lobbying. One of the first entrants visited most contestants and lobbied for reading his essay. Thus, not only he has received the highest number of posts under his Essay, but has emerged as one of top contenders.

The above statement gets further strengthened if we look at the voting pattern. More than 100 essays were submitted between Feb.1-15. Of these 21 out of 35 are the finalists. Of these the essays of 14 contestants were published in 5 days between Feb. 14-18. Is it a mere coincidence? For some contestants, maximum rating took place on the last day. For example, on the last date alone, Mr. Paul Halpern rose from 14th place to 5th place, Mr. Donatello Dolce rose from 35th place to 14th place, and Mr. Christian Stoica came into the top 35. All these cannot be coincidental.

Thirdly, no person is allowed to submit more than one essay to the Contest, regardless if he or she is entering individually or as part of a collaborative essay. Yet, we suspect that some have indulged in such activities. For example, we commented below the essay of one contestant on March 4. We got a reply from the next contestant the same day. The correspondence continued. The original contender has not replied to us. In fact he has only replied twice in 20 posts. This is surprising.

In view of the above, we request you to kindly review your judging process and forward all essays to an independent screening committee (to which no contestant or their relatives will be empanelled), who will reject the essays that are not up to the mark and select the other essays without any strict restriction on numbers to the final judges panel. This will eliminate the problems and possibilities discussed by us. This will also have the benefit of a two tier independent evaluation.

Our sole motive for writing this letter is to improve the quality of competition. Hence it should be viewed from the same light".

Regards,

Basudeba.

Eckard,

Certainly the women in Einstein's life did not fare well.It seems he was incapable of showing empathy, dedication or fidelity to those women. They were as a result neglected and withered in his shadow, failing to fulfil their personal and scientific ambitions. Which must be regarded, as in large part, due to the failure of Einstein to sufficiently care for them.

Some insight into why they did not thrive in his company is given in the book E=Einstein by Donald Godsmith and Maria Bartusiak, also given as a reference following the essay.

It says " Certainly Einstein displayed a particular dislike for intelligent women. In Berlin he told Esther Salaman, a female physics student that "very few women are creative".Salaman objected noting that Marie Curie was surely an exception. Einstein, who perhaps failed to recognize his own brand of single-focused genius when encountering it in a woman, dismissed the female Nobel laureate as having "the soul of a herring." "By the end of his life his sister, Maya, is said to have been one of the only women Einstein treated with consideration and respect."

"Following the death of his wife Elsa he wrote to a friend "I have settled down splendidly here [at Princeton]", Einstein wrote "I hibernate like a bear in its cave, and really feel more at home here than ever before in all my varied existence. This bearishness has been accentuated by the death of my mate, who was more attached to human beings than I."

Whether or not space-time exist as a concrete reality of the universe or only in "mind-space" also bothered Einstein. Though it seems that it was later fully accepted as the reality of the universe by both Einstein and the scientific community. Which I think was due to lack of clear differentiation between what is observed and what must be. Accepting it as the concrete reality of the universe is a philosophical interpretation and to deny its concrete reality is also a philosophical interpretation. It is not a case of suddenly introducing philosophy where there has been non. This resurrects the doubts that initially worried Einstein and surely must have worried many in the scientific community when his ideas were first introduced.

It is not the external concrete reality that actually exists without an observer, IMO. That is not saying that it is not at all real or to deny relativity. It is saying that it relates only to what will be observed due to receipt of data and not the material condition of the universe at Objective uni-temporal Now. I am saying yes it is real, so all of the experimental results confirming it are not denied but also no it isn't a concrete object-reality, for the reasons outlined in the essay ie it is not "really real". Which necessitates recognizing two facets of reality; the object-reality and the image-reality formed from received data, which is subjective, (though the subject could be an artificial detector). (I am no longer using the term subjective reality as it leads to arguments about this being an irrelevant discussion about psychology and not physics.)

I'm not trying to break any new ground, I'm only trying to fit for my own mind what is proper scientifically. Neither of my parents were engineers or scientists so I'm at a great disadvantage. I am fending for myself and I'm seriously not trying to be "witty" but what I want to do is learn this stuff better because ti is the only thing that satisfies me. I admit that i am very self taught and alien, and probably not of great talent, but I do possess a curiousity and an active mind in these subjects. Why put me down with folly? I need guidance and nurturing if I am to help young people get a better grasp of what is so obvious to everybody else. I feel rather like a child in this business, but I feel good about winning points rather than running into obstacles that would turn me away from this pursuit. I am not at all sure what kind of writing I should aim for. I have other styles and may be able to refine my essay for next year since I will have much longer time to produce something of interest. This last essay I only spent a few days writing and looking over a few notes. I'm very flattered that one could possible think that It was the product of AI. I'm a great fan of AI and insist that it should be used at all times, but I am also a real person and am very fortunate that Georgina respects me in the general accounting of taste. One thing that I have overcome that I am very proud of, is that I no longer need to be embarrassed about my thoughts. This I needed to do. There are many ways to skin a cat, and I am not the first fool to think that he can think of some new way to do it.

What kind of "profile" am I supposed to have, other than "low"? My ambition is to become a full fledged member, so I hope that I can somehow prove myself worthy of doing something better than just being witty. I have never been witty my whole life. In fact I've always been sort of slow and not witty. We all contain a reality that is pretty amazing, and I did really enjoy sharing what that was about at the time for me. I am thinking about making my personal notes of struggles with understanding maths and physics as available on line just to show that there is room for someone like me in the sciences.

I'll stay cool and cultivate whatever I can from the situation. Thanks for halfway sticking up for me Eugene, and thanks for fully supporting me Georgina. It seems that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but so is a lot of knowledge too. I do not like this kind of situation, but at least now I don't have to make any more apologias. I think that my appreciation of reality is far greater than my abilities to depict it properly in an essay, and I will endeavor to dot more i's and cross more t's and basically try to follow standard protocols in addressing the subject matter if at all possible. We will stop here.

Michael

Ho There, Basuudeba ...

They have still to select the non-proffered. prizes....

We've still a hope...

Now is our time to be magnanimous an d sportsperson-like....

gl