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

This is an updated pdf of the diagram. Now can be viewed easily on a single page.I have used letters, numbers arrows and key to make it less cluttered.I have made some changes to the labeling which I think makes it easier to understand. I have made some slight changes to it in terms of structure which I think makes it a more accurate representation. It shows that recall is a part of observer intercepted data but not via the data pool of external reality. It also includes self generated data input which was not present on the previous diagram. I have also put potential and probability on the boundary between the open future and actualized reality. It has to exist within the actualised reality being that part of the arrangement of actualised reality that permits further change.Would be interested in any thoughts positive or negative on that alteration. I am sorry it is just a rough "handmade" version but at least it is now here.Attachment #1: reality_in_physics.pdf

No.5. Self generated data: need not just apply to biological observers but might include artifacts appearing in the output reality as a result of the function of a technology or the particular device used. Such as lens effects of cameras, film graininess, pixelation due to limitations of sensors resolution of an image, or internal amplification of interference or distortion.

Another change is that there is now an arrow from records back into the data pool, which shows records being accessed and converted back into sensory input or data that is available to an artificial device. Important because the records (past) are not a dead end but allow us to know about what was, though only when the records are accessed.It is the same as the recall arrow from memories, in that the memories only allow knowledge about the past when they are recalled, making the information available for interpretation and processing.

I think I am quite happy with that structure for now. It seems to sum up what is happening and I can not see anything else obviously missing or out of place. Still answers all of the questions that it did before but is just more precise.

I am in the process of making a quick version of the same diagram but with labels all in situ. Although it will be cluttered it will be self explanatory rather than requiring the key and notes.Which may be helpful if people would like to just look at it briefly or share it with others and are not yet familiarized with the structure and how it fits together and works to give solutions.

One thing that comes to mind is that this does have some connection with various virtual reality conjectures that have been raised in the contest. Though it is not the foundational level of reality that is virtual. That reality is more akin to the hardware necessary to run a program. The sensory data pool is more akin to the software or data input to the hardware and the space-time experienced reality is the virtual representation created by the organism or device.

There are different levels of reality here. The foundational level is the most complex, the data pool is a sub set of it, and the data available to the human observer will be a sub set of the complete data pool. The reality formed from the data following processing and interpretation will be a simplification and interpretation of the external reality. So it is at the end of the line but not a "higher" level of reality, as in superior. Rather it is the the lesser derived reality.

Imagine the bat using echoes from the surroundings to create a virtual representation of its location. In order to navigate and catch prey to survive. That representation must be functional but does not require more detail than is necessary for the survival of the organism. Likewise all of the senses will be selected by survival advantage rather than accuracy and detail for its own sake. Colour vision can be useful for determining the ripeness and edibility of fruits and so is useful to birds and apes. The accuracy of the actual colours seen is not as important as the ability to differentiate different colours. A recent news article on the BBC talked of the ability of reindeer to see into the ultraviolet range making them better able to locate lichens in the snow and see predator wolves in the snow. No survival benefit to the human so we have most likely lost this common animal ability. The colours seen are formed by the internal processing of the data and do not exist as those colours in external reality. The colour, and all sensory experience, is an output reality not an input from the external reality.

This is the revised diagram with the descriptions written on it. Not as tidy and clear as the previous one (pdf and description in the last thread), but may be more useful for immediate comprehension and sharing.I can't justify the time it would take me to produce really nice graphics but hopefully I will later on, especially if there is any indication of interest in this by anyone other than myself.

I have marked past, present and future onto the diagram to indicate how these "everyday" terms relate to this model. That is outside of the mathematical space-time/block time model of reality.I have tried to indicate how different physics models are related to this structure. (Perhaps the diagram could be called physics in the context of reality.) To reiterate for those who may not have previously read about the model shown here: It has an open future allowing partial non determinism. It has sequential actualization of reality allowing unidirectional causality. Accounting for one way time. The time dimension only exists within the manifestation of reality or Image reality, not within the object reality so overcoming the grandfather paradox.The entirety of reality is both that which is observed and that which exists unobserved.Attachment #1: Reality_in_physics_W002.jpg

and here's another song Jack Johnson -Never know.

I am thinking that "Holographic model" should also be marked on the object reality probably the part marked memories, which is a sub set of records. (That sub set "memories" is the biological records storage and not the currently experienced memories.) The reason being that there is some evidence from rat experiments for the diffuse location of memories in a network of neurons rather than any particular location, which implies possibly that the brain stores information holographically. See Karl Pibram link below. ( I think there should be a sub set marked neural structures within the object reality part of the diagram, which would have the sub set memories within.)

The chemical components of the brain tissue are concrete object reality and the brain activity will be occurring in unitemporal Now.) If this holographic storage exists it has to be there and not in the external data pool or in the reconstructed reality formed from received data and brain processing.

From Wikipedia June 25 2011 "The holonomic brain theory, originated by psychologist Karl Pribram and initially developed in collaboration with physicist David Bohm, is a model for human cognition that is drastically different from conventionally accepted ideas."

Comparison between Karl Pibram's holographic model and moore conventional models of neuronal computation.

I have already marked holographic model on the data pool.This is referring to the kind of ideas of physicist David Bohm and not necessarily others who also describe their models as holographic. (Would be interested in any reasons why it should not be there.) Certainly we can retrieve images from the data pool of objects that no longer have concrete existence and so are nothing but images. The objects are not there but the data necessary to form a reconstruction is.

Feedback on the diagrams produced so far would be much appreciated. It is frustrating to discover that they do need this updating upon further consideration, which is taking a while due to recent poor health. Despite not being -entirely- happy with the competition process I am very happy that my essay is here and I am able to continue developing the diagrammatic explanation of some of the ideas in the essay. Thank you FQXi. I hope the diagrams will be very useful for seeing how the parts of reality fit together into the whole that is explored by different fields of science.

I haven't read Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow's book "The Grand Design" yet but model dependent realism seems something that is compatible with the structure I have been working on. Various models of reality QM, Relativity and holographic mind and holographic universe could all co -exist as different facets of the Entirety of reality as set out on the most recent version of the diagram and described in my previous post. I will produce another updated diagram soon.

Though the models can be used individually for specific physics problems it is only by having the Entirety that the Grandfather paradox can be overcome and foundational questions can be answered. Such as how can there be causality, free will and non determinism as well as a fully existing space-time. How can there be regular passage of time but also a fully existing space time in which there is non simultaneity of events and no one absolute time when events occur. How seemingly contradictory QM and relativity can both be mathematically correct and both apply to the reality of the universe.

Thinking about the Data pool and Memory store and holograms.

The object reality existing at uni-temporal now has no time dimension but exists only within space. So the data pool, including all EM radiation which is a sub set does not exist -spread over- time either but always at a singular time (uni-temporal Now )and continuously fluctuating ( with /as passage of time). So all of that co -existing potential sensory data , potential detector input will be just within space with one less dimension than the reconstruction from received data ie.space -time.

Received data takes different lengths of time to arrive but everything arriving together is amalgamated into a space-time composite image of reality - the image reality. Which is not itself a sub set of object reality even though the biological organism or device creating that space-time reality is. That might sound a little odd so I will use an example. Though a photograph is a part of object reality because the paper molecules and silver nitrate or printer ink molecules have concrete reality. the reality -depicted- in the photograph will be a reconstructed space-time composite image which can not be a totally accurate representation of object reality because of the time delay for light to arrive from various objects.

Objects as they existed at different times are shown together in a single image. So there is spread over time and space.I won't say it is false but it is a reality that is different from the object reality. The amount of discrepancy will depend upon the differences in distances of the objects from the observer. A macro photograph will be more accurate than a landscape, especially one with night sky.

Thinking of the house which can be seen as 1cm tall from a distance or 30 ft close by. Its image does not exist at any position in space but wherever the data reflected from it can be intercepted to form an image. It is the same for the image of every object. Wherever the data is intercepted the image can be reconstructed and the object seen to exist. So the data in the pool from the object is not like a singular object anymore because there are a vast number of potential reconstructions related to the vast number of potential observer positions surrounding it. As many observers as can be packed around it from as close as possible to as far away that the object is still discernible as that object with the use of a telescope.Which is spread over a lot of space.

I don't think the data reflected from every object is spread over the whole of space because it takes passage of time to spread out across space but nor is it confined to a small local area. Which might make it holographic in a similar way to the data stored in the neural networks of the brain. I doubt that every memory is stored in every part of the brain as in a true hologram as clearly damage to certain regions of the brain can lead to memory loss but that neither is there specific locations for each memory as they are stored in a network of associated neurons which can be spread through the brain.

That would seem to make both the data pool and the memory store pseudo holographic rather than true holograms. If access to the image of an object in space is blocked at one position in space, an image of the object can still be formed from another position in space. Likewise if access to a memory is blocked via one route it might still be accessed via another route. Ie if the connection between date and time and an event is lost/broken, recall of the event might still be achieved via connection to a particular smell or sight that is still associated with it. But neither observed image of an object, nor recalled memory is accessible from everywhere, in space or in the brain respectively.

There is something else called a pseudohologram (see links) so maybe a different word is required to represent the "partially distributed" data found in the natural Data pool and the brain.

Polivisor pseudohologram in RussianInteresting to see the demo and where the guys are working but a translation would be helpful.

Polivisor pseudohologram in English Too cutesy but some basic explanation in English give.

Talking about the potential sensory data in the environment has made me think some more about the difference between macroscopic and quantum reality. The question has been asked "why are they different?" Why does macroscopic reality appear to have just one certain existence whereas quantum reality is uncertain and there are only probabilities of being in any location?"

Firstly the difference is in the way the reality is detected. Quantum measurements are made by direct interaction with the entity under consideration. It interacts with the detector and a change occurs which is registered as the presence of the entity. The entity itself is usually destroyed by the interaction. So its confirmed existence is also its annihilation. So no further detection of it can be made. Whereas in macroscopic realm we generally do not detect objects directly but indirectly through the interception of data that has been emitted or reflected from the object and can be interpreted as the presence of the object.

As the object is not destroyed in that interaction it can continue to emit or reflect potential sensory data. Also only a sample of sensory data is received by the observer leaving much more potential sensory data still available in the environment for detection by other observers or detectors. So the macroscopic object does not have just a singular manifestation of its reality, like the quantum object, but potentially numerous manifestations encountered by numerous different observers and artificial detectors. This allows non simultaneity to occur as different observers may form the manifestation of the object ( Or an event in which the object participates) at different times. Whereas this can not occur for a quantum object because it has only one manifestation upon detection and then ceases to exist (at least in the form it had prior to the detection.)

The quantum object has an uncertain position as would a macroscopic object placed in an empty room with a blind folded disoriented observer who can only detect it by blundering into it. There is similar uncertainty of location. However un blindfolded, reflected em can be intercepted at any position in the room and the object identified as having a certain position relative to the observer.If 10 observers were packed into the room surrounding the object they could each form their own manifestation of the object from the particular data they have received without having any effect on the manifestation observed by the other observers or altering the object in any way.

If the observed manifestation is considered reality then it can be said that the macroscopic entity has as many different realities as observers who observe it. Though only one unobserved actualization. The "observed" quantum object has only one manifestation and so only one observed reality, which is the singular detection. Though it too has just the singular actualisation which can not be refined from the probability of its location until the detection occurs. This might seem odd at first but it is just like the macroscopic example of having blindfolded eyes and so being unable to know the precise whereabouts of an object until the blindfold is removed or the object is blundered into, and the detection is made. There is a definite actualisation but it can not be known from the probability of any location in the room by the sightless observer, until an observation is made.

Why are macroscopic and quantum objects different? We experience them differently because they are detected differently. If they were detected in the same way by direct interaction alone, resulting in annihilation of the entity (eg find the china cup by smashing it with a hammer while blindfolded )they would be the same.Only one detection would be possible rather than many and there could be no non simultaneity of occurrence of the the event because there is only one detector. Why does macroscopic reality have a certain existence, not distributed probability? It also has a distributed probability of location when its location is unknown. But by intercepting environmental data the object can be remotely detected and its relative position known without direct interaction with it. Via the reconstruction of an image reality of it, its manifestation.

To clarify: I said the macroscopic object has as many realities as observers. That only takes into account the manifestations of the object in the image reality of the observer though. Each object also has another reality, its actualization in unobserved object reality that exists prior to detection.

The quantum object has one manifestation its detection, and there can be some debate as to whether what is detected does directly relate to -something discreet- actualized prior to that detection or whether the thing regarded as a discreet particle is formed at detection by sufficient accumulated (continuous) energy activating the detector. Constantinos' essay talks about this.

Copied here from blog thread as useful clarification.IMO.

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 2, 2011 @ 22:29 GMT

Tom,

there is no demarcation between biology and physics of the concrete reality that exists without observation. Physics happens within the biological organism just as everywhere else. The fractal like forms of and within biological organisms and elsewhere in nature demonstrate the physics occurring through sequential ongoing iteration of the Object universe.

The demarcation is between the product of processing of sensory data either obtained through the sensory system, the Prime Reality Interface, or an artificial device designed to capture data. That output is not the same as the source of the input. There is no way that the thing I am seeing can be identical to the existential object when what I am seeing is the product of electrical activity within the brain. Likewise the photograph of a dog captured by a camera is not a dog. Objects themselves are not observed, data is captured and the reality the data represents is simulated into something comprehensible. The simulation is not the object. The mathematical representation on paper or computer screen is not the object.The reconstructed Image Universe is not the Object Universe. You said "No such demarcation is known." Yes it is known because I have been -publicly- talking about it for years. I have talked to you about it on this web site and explained it thoroughly.

Tom you are one of those who has insisted that perception is reality. "Seeing makes it real" -remember you own words. I have accepted that it must be -considered- real, taking into consideration the criticism given, and have tried to find some clear way to verbally differentiate the two differently real facets of reality. I have recently settled upon Object reality and Image reality. The mathematical distinction, according to my current way of thinking, I have already mentioned to Eckard on this site.

I experience space-time. The things around me are temporally separated not just spatially. It takes time to reach any distant object, and due to the limitation of the speed of light it takes time for the light to reflect from it. That is the reality that the space-time geometry models, objects spatially and temporally seperated. Space-time models the experienced reality or what will be observed by an observer, not what is. I'm pretty sure the mathematics were not just pulled out of thin air for no good reason and just happened to seem like a jolly good idea. It is repeatedly not disproved by correlation with -observation-. So what is observed -is- taken to be real within science and a necessary test of the mathematical theory.

The duel faceted reality that I have set out allows the mysterious incompatability of space-time and quantum physics to be excplained. Macroscopic space time is not just a bigger scale of quantum space. It gives a non counterintuitive explanation of what happens upon observation to make the unobserved and unknowable become observed and known. It allows causality and non simultaneity to both exist without contradiction. It gives partial non determinism so there is possibility of some degree of free will as the future of the Object universe is "unwritten". While still allowing distant observers to await experience of "pre-written" and unchnageable events that have already occurred for near observers. The quasi reality of space-time within this duel reality model makes time dilation and space contraction less counterintuitive. It allows non locality within space-time while not denying the real/concrete existence within unobserved space. It overcomes the Grandfather paradox and allows the unidirectional progression of time to be understood.

Copied here from blog thread as useful clarification. IMO.

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 2, 2011 @ 23:57 GMT

Dear Eckard,

thank you for your reply. I do not entirely agree with Einstein that there is no distinction between past, present, and future. I hope I can clearly explain both how I agree with him and disagree. I think he believed his space-time construct to be existentially real and not just a model of perception via the interception and processing of data from the environment. He thought that it is all concretely out there, past, present and future preordained, unchanging, forever.In my previous post on this thread I have set out my opinion on that matter.

On my essay thread I have put a number of versions of a diagram showing how I veiw the organization of reality. There is both a concretely real reality and an image space-time reality formed by the observer from received data. It shows that the past does not exist as a concrete reality it only exists within records including memories. These records are a part of the object reality, the concretely real stuff but is not the past itself. The future does not exist as a concrete -object- reality. There is only potential and probability of becoming within the arrangement of the Object Universe. Therefore there is only one existential time which I am calling uni-temporal Now. It would correlate to the tip of every light cone, where potential sensory data is produced, the causality front. But not only there because the data produced persists in the environment, so many light cone cross sections might be imagined co-existing within the one time, representing different stages of development or spread of em data.

The data persisting in the uni-temporal environment permits reconstruction of images of events -that have already occurred- (and so might be considered-the past-)such as the images of the stars. The present(-now) is an image reality currently experienced by the observer. The product of brain activity processing received data. There is also data within the environment from events that have occurred that might have already been observed in a present-now by a near observer and are yet to become the present-now of a distant observer.That might be considered -the future- for the distant observer. So in -that- regard past, present and future all are formed from the data existing within the environment that is and so are not different. It is all just data and its designation of past, present and future only depends upon how it is regarded. It is all there so there is no point like border between present and future within experienced space-time. However there is in Object reality because only the one time, uni-temporal Now exists. There is no future only a causality front when/where the sequential iterations of the Object Universe are formed. There is no concrete past. There is only the one time in Object reality.

Copied here from blog thread as useful clarification IMO.

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 3, 2011 @ 23:14 GMT

Dear Eckard,

thank you for giving the definition of reality that you are using. That You, I and Tom are all using different definitions of reality highlights the great importance of there being some clarity on the matter of what is and is not reality in the context of physics. So that all are working with the same meaning of the term thus what is said by different people is comparable and without ambiguity.

The definition you are using is similar to the first definition in the Collins concise but uses "imagines" rather than "wishes to be". Using "your" definition would deem perception unreal because imagine is defined in Collin's concise as "1. to make a mental image of 2. to think, believe, or guess". Now the reconstruction experienced as present-now qualify as a mental image(1). But it is not merely an (uninformed) thought, belief or guess(2).Whereas a wish is defined as "1.to want or desire something (often that which can not be or is not the case)". Which is very different from a mental image formed from the input of -independently formed- data rather than internally generated.

The physical reality you describe is what I am calling Object reality. It is what exists without human awareness, the foundational reality. The function of biological sensors to create an output can be likened to the function of artificial detectors to produce an output, in that the output of organism or device can not be the source of the input. So -that which is inferred- from the output is an image (or seeming likeness) of reality rather than an actual Object reality.

I agree entirely with your second paragraph. The mental image of the dog produced by input of sensory data via the visual system of the human organism , like the -image on the photograph-,is not the object itself but a reconstructed likeness, so quasi real or a seeming (Definition: 1. apparent but not actual or genuine.2.outward or false appearance) likeness (Definition:1. the condition of being alike, similarity...3. an imitative appearance:semblance.)of an actual Object reality. IE. Not really real( a seeming likeness that is not itself unreal) unlike object reality which is really real. IE. Actual.(definition:1.true existence:reality. 2.A fact or condition that is real. (I have previously used the term "concrete" but it has many meanings, some which are applicable to my desired meaning and some which are not.) and so is unhelpful.

Science can not discount all evidence from perception, whether initially generated by the human sensory system or artificial devices if science, as science, is to survive. As it relies upon the scientific method of objective experimentation to test its hypotheses against the -observed- reality rather than the foundational Object reality. To avoid error or being deceived the information from which a notion of reality is constructed must be complete. Though in practice this is not possible to acquire. Therefore there is -always- the possibility of being deceived by appearances of reality. Therefore scientists must be skeptical and not assume acquired knowledge is certain reality.IMHO. As no one has complete knowledge.

I also agree with your last paragraph. You say "Since there are no traces of something that belongs to the future, future events are no immediate basis for abstraction". To find a trace of something would make it present-now or past ergo it is impossible to find something that belongs to the future. I agree future events, IE that which has not yet happened in Object or foundational physical reality are no basis for abstraction. However as I explained in my last post to you, some data that relates to an event that has occurred might not yet have been received by the distant observer and might therefore be -considered- in the future of -that- observer.It might be said that whether the event is currently considered to have happened, or not, is a matter of when /if the data to confirm it has been received. Rather than whether or not it has occurred in Object(foundational physical) reality. Therefore some data might be used in theoretical considerations that might be regarded as future data. Whether it is past, present or future depends upon how it is regarded IE.the hypothetical perspective of the observer being considered.

Also due to transmission delay there is an interval between the event occurring in Object reality and awareness of it via transmission of a signal following detection, making an image reality. The event thus has an ambiguous status. Is it an (object reality) past, a former actual event, because it has occurred in foundational reality? or future because knowledge of it does not yet exist as a present-now (image reality )observation, but will exist when the signal arrives? This is the problem when the two facets of reality are muddled together. The temporal language lacks clarity.

Perhaps image and object might help indicate the facet of reality under consideration. I would say that the past (image) reality is that which has been experienced as a present-now (image) reality and is stored in records or memories and that is -not- identical in meaning to the events that have actually already occurred in Object reality. That which has not yet been observed but will when the data arrives must be regarded as the (image reality) future, though it is only the image that will be constructed when the data to form is intercepted from the (uni-temporal) environment. Not an existential actualised reality that still exists independently of the observer.

I am sorry this post is so long. These are complicated but IMHO very important matters to clarify.

Dear Georgina,

Who am i?

I am digital, I is anolog

I am relative reality, I is absolute truth.

Love,

Sridattadev.

I am a thought and the thought is whatever I think it to be.

Word List and definitions.

These definitions are given to avoid ambiguity of meaning which can cause the explanatory framework to be misunderstood. It can be used as a reference to check that the same meaning of the word is being used and applied.Attachment #1: Definitions_for_explanatory_framework3.pdf

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 20:34 GMT

Paul,

I am not talking about how individuals understand or think about the data they have received because of education, upbringing or social environment. You are bringing all that to the table. I have been talking about a simple physical process of input and output. Same for a camera, input and output.

Tom has explained to me on several occasions what I said to you about unmeasurable reality. I respect his opinions, even though I frequently disagree with him.

Scientist -are- interested in the underlying physical (measurable )production of observed phenomena, but not in hypothetical unmeasurable causes or sources of measurable phenomena. That has been the difference.If it can be measured it can be put into a maths model if it can't, it can't and it may as well not exist. That keeps out the wishes, spells and miracles.

The "magic" rabbit is interesting once it is out of the hat. Undetectable concealed inside the hat it is unmeasurable and therefore might only have at best a probability of existing somewhere in the hat assigned to it. It might be considered both existent and non existent, similar to the famous live-dead cat. If the rabbit can be revealed there was a rabbit, if not there wasn't a rabbit. Only upon observation is the rabbit thought to exist as a rabbit, rather than a probability wave of a rabbit.

Whereas, and this is my reasoning, it -had to be- an actualised rabbit- with existence, to become a manifestation. IE the source object had to exist for the data to be produced so that the manifestation can be observed. Which means the actualisation, the existing rabbit, had to precede the observed manifestation.

Rather than being an existent non existent rabbit within a multiverse the rabbit was an existent rabbit within the continually changing object universe, if it was later revealed. Actualizations preceded manifestations. Which seems at odds with the widespread view that it is the past that becomes the present. That is only the case for actualisations which become new actualisations, the former becoming the what is. When it comes to observation it is what has happened unobserved (producing the pre-written future , data already within the environment ) that becomes the observed present. That is another answer.

You are right "as seen" is not good enough. There is more than meets the eye. Not admitting this, in order to keep out wishes, spells and miracles, allows magic and deception in and that leads on to supernatural explanations.

IMHO.

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 23:08 GMT

I think that reply to Paul might be of interest to others too. Please take a look and tell me what you think. It raises an interesting epistemic question about what should be admissible within a scientific model of reality.

Deeming the rabbit to have had actualised existence prior to observation, when the manifestation is observed seems reasonable to me. Prior to observation its being in a supposition of states would only be a representation of lack of complete knowledge not the state/whereabouts of the rabbit. An abstract mathematical representation not something that exists within reality. Within reality it is either in the hat as an actualised rabbit, with chemical structure, prior to observation, or not.

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

In the post Oct. 31, 2011 @ 20:34 GMT

I said "that keeps out the wishes, spells and miracles". Actually, to be more precise it keeps out anything that is conjecture or imagination or wishful thinking rather than that for which there is empirical evidence.

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 09:01 GMT

Pentcho,

You asked Do rods and clocks behave "as they do"? That is, can arbitrarily long objects be trapped inside arbitrarily short containers? Can a bug be squashed according to one observer and alive and kicking according to another? If not, can light "have the same speed in each inertial frame"?

Pentcho,

the answer to this question must depend on what is regarded to be the rod and the clock.

1. an object with an existence independent of the observer.

2. spatially extended data spread within the environment.

3. Or the processed output produced, observed and measured by an observer.

If the answer given in the case of these paradoxes is 1. then it gives nonsense. Independent inanimate objects such as rods and clocks do not change in response to being observed in different ways. They have a chemical structure and associated internal forces that determines the form and function.

Answer 2.is closest to Einstein's idea of an object. In his opinion it is spread over (externally existing) space-time, in his words spatially extended, and how it interacts with the observer, ie which parts of the data are received when determines how it is seen.

3.It is the output formed by the observer from the received data. That output does not exist externally but is an internal fabrication representing the external reality. It is perfectly reasonable that different observers fabricate and so see different things according to their particular position or reference frame, determining what data is input when.

The object-data-image thing is all 3. of those things. An independent actualised object (or former object), data spread within the environment and output manifestation. Any one of its aspects might be referred to by the name of the object leading to confusion. What is observed 3.is possible because of 2. and 2. exists because of the source 1.

The paradox is not unresolved. It is only nonsense if using 1. as the idea of an object 1.2.and 3.can fully explain why it is seen as it is and why it is not nonsense as the independent object is not the observed manifestation or the spatially extended data.

An analogy is foreshortening. Something well known to artists. A foreshortened object has not become shorter as a independent object in space but the manifestation observed is. That is not seen as a great paradox but something like perspective which is necessary for realistic representation of objects in art. If the object is considered an independent thing with fixed dimensions then drawing it as it is -not- makes it appear more realistic. But it is all of those things the object with fixed dimensions, the sensory data conveyed to the artist and the foreshortened manifestation observed and represented in the realistic painting.