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

Tom,

I would like to add that you merely say that the grandfather paradox is science fiction. You adhere to the experimental evidence of non locality and the theory of quantum indeterminacy but do not adhere also to the experimental evidence and theory of relativity which would indicate that time reversal is a justifiable proposition. Therefore you are not dealing with the two models in the same way. It is relativity and space-time that has stood the test of time for longer and has not been dis-proven,

I am clearly demonstrating that foundational reality and space-time are not on the same footing as one is what -is-, the foundation and the other is an emergent higher level reality. I have explained why the time dimension does not exist in foundational reality and why what happens in foundational reality does not directly relate to space-time experience. The time dimension of space time is an artifact of transmission delay of data and is not actually a geometric component of foundational reality. That explanation is not nothing. It is important and I find your attitude hard to comprehend.

If it was not still a puzzle to many scientists why do questions keep being asked? Why are they trying to fit foundational models into space-time ? Why are they asking about time reversibility? Why are they treating space time as if it is foundational reality? etc etc. The case is not closed so I don't like you dismissing my contribution out of hard as the product of an irrational obsession.

Dear Georgina:

Your second to the last paragraph in your response to Jacek is really on the mark in my own humble opinion.

Also, I think of myself as one of a "non-specialist audience" (as Jacek mentioned in the prior post) and the essays that I most enjoy reading are the ones that are looking at the universe in a novel way.

Joseph Markell

Hi Alan,

thank you so much for taking the time to read my essay. I really do appreciate it. I am aware of how time consuming it is to work through other people's essays and take in what they are saying and the way they are saying it.

I am always interested in ideas. I will take another look. Through there are also a number of other papers that I need to spend time on, as I have said that I will.

Madam,

We were watching various comments on your thread. In stead of responding piece-meal, here is our response.

We are neither the first, last nor the only proponent of re-evaluation of modern physics. In this forum, we are dealing only with physics - discussing theories that correspond to reality in all its different manifestations - and neither philosophy nor meta-physics. You must recognize that observer has an important role in quantum physics and discussion about it is not philosophy.

We are only pointing to the blurring of the diving lines between education, knowledge and science. You can try to educate somebody. But you cannot make him learn. The purpose of education is to educate - receiving/imparting (and as a consequence also receiving) information that can be stored in the memory and retrieved as and when necessary to initiate the required mechanism for getting the desired outcome. Thus, it is related to the potential for using information efficiently and has nothing to do with knowledge or science per se (an Engineer and a mechanic can perform the same task with equal efficiency), though we use science as a tool for imparting education. Unfortunately, the present education system has degenerated to memorization and reproduction of certain facts in an expected manner and the potential for the same has been linked to knowledge.

Knowledge is related to unification of the various sensory impulses to create a stable memory. None of the fundamental forces of Nature in isolation is useful for creation. Only collectively they can create stable systems. Similarly, knowledge, which unifies the different perceptions, is stable. Science is related to the opposite process of individuation - of processing or analysis of individual sensory impulses with the help of memory. Processing here is nothing but measurement, which in turn is comparison between similars. Individual sensory perceptions are not knowledge, but evolution of knowledge in limited directions, which has the potential to change the nature of the world around us in desired directions (sometimes in disastrous directions). The purpose of our writing this is to focus the discussion on the failure of theoretical scientists to lead the experimental scientists. As we can see, without theoretical guidance, the experimental scientists are creating Frankenstein's Monsters, which will gobble us all.

You have raised an important question relating to time. You say: "Time is a very complicated term as a large number of concepts are lumped together within it". This because of two reasons: reductionism and lack of an unambiguous and precise definition of time. Regarding the first point, we will quote an anecdote. Six blind persons went to "see" an elephant. They touched one of its limbs each and described the elephant based on their perception. According to reductionism, each description is scientifically proved. But even if you combine all their statements, one who has not seen an elephant can never have a complete picture of the animal. On the other hand, one who has seen the animal can easily appreciate the correctness of the statements. Something similar happens in the case of time. We do not consider all aspects of time, because we have not defined time unambiguously and precisely. Do it and see for yourself - all the anomalies vanish. We have done that and the results can be seen in our essay and various other posts by us under different threads here - specifically those of Mr. Biermans and Mr. Castel.

You discuss observed Image reality and unobserved Image reality. By this we understand directly perceptible and indirectly perceptible or inferred. You have rightly clubbed them into one group. We call this group existence.

You say: "Where and when an image appears to exist is dependent upon the observer reference frame and is not intrinsic to the object itself." We agree and only add that the external environment introduces an element of uncertainty due to its effect on perception by the observer. We have discussed this aspect elaborately in our essay. From this we infer that uncertainty is not a law of Nature. It is a result of natural laws relating to observation that reveal a kind of granularity at certain levels of existence that is related to causality.

You say: "The description of reality is affected by the methods of investigation used, the pre-existing concepts applied and mathematical modeling employed." Unless the perception (results of measurement) is described in communicable language, (or self realized) it does not make any sense. Hence, we call these as describability.

You say: "If a description requires acceptance of paradox, unreality of all things, quasi reality or supernatural agents or realms, yet is a description that fits with observation, it must be incomplete if not incorrect or non science". This shows that there is a limit on our ability to "know". Hence, we call these as knowability. We combine these aspects and define reality that satisfies these criteria.

You say: "The mathematical space-time model is a construct giving a mathematical representation that fits well with observations of Image reality but is not a complete model of reality." We have shown in our essay that Nature is mathematical only in specified ways. Regarding space, time, space-time and arrow of time, we have discussed briefly in our essay and in our comments under the threads of Mr. Biermans, Mr. Castel, etc. We have written a book in which we have discussed on this subject in detail.

We agree that: "Image reality is a means of amalgamating information that arrives together, rather than that which was generated together." But we do not agree with your description that it does not require a conscious observer. In fact we call the agency that amalgamates the information as the conscious observer. You say that this information can be amalgamated by a mechanical detector. But then the resultant information is in a superposition of all possible states, because the so-called wave function collapse can occur only after it is measured (perceived) by a conscious observer. Thus, ultimately, we have to admit the conscious observer.

You say: "The data contained in the image is not from contemporaneous origin so the image is not temporally homogeneous." We agree and have discussed it at various places. The data (result of measurement) is the description of the state at a designated instant. We do not agree that "present is a composite formed from data, experienced simultaneously". We posit that all systems are dynamical systems. Present is a designated instant in analog time that depicts the temporally evolved state of a dynamical system at that designated instant. Thus, we cannot agree that: "The Image reality becomes a manifestation when the simulation is formed from the available data. It does not exist prior to that process." It certainly existed prior to that process, though in a different state. Further this proves the existence of the conscious observer. Otherwise, your statement that it will "...becomes a manifestation" becomes meaningless.

When you differentiate between "current time" and "Uni-temporal, or Objective, Now", you are leaving out the definition of time from the above description. Both space and time are related to sequence. Time is the ordering of the interval between events just like space is the ordering of the interval between objects. Both are indirectly perceptible through events and objects only. We take a segment of this interval, which is fairly repetitive and easily intelligible, and call it the unit. We compare this unit with the interval between objects and events and call these as space and time. Since space and time are indirectly perceptible, they are described through alternative symbolism by describing the objects or events associated with these. We can choose a segment from any or all event sequences without interfering with the laws of physics. When we restrict our description to a single sequence, it is "current time". When we widen our choice to encompass the whole universe, we call it simultaneity or "Uni-temporal, or Objective, Now".

You say: "Change or potential for change can be regarded as energy." What you are describing here is the effect of energy, which you are confusing with energy proper, which is the cause. We agree that "Energy is never destroyed. So change is continual and inevitable." But what is energy? We hold the homogeneous primordial field as the back ground structure of creation. By a mechanism which we are not discussing here, instability in the medium leads to a chain of events giving rise to "time", as we know it. This created inertia of motion, which was opposed by the inertia of restoration (elasticity) of the medium. This interaction, according to the same mechanism led to the density variation. This also leads to local confinement, which became the particles. Generation of particles led to further density variation. The inertia of restoration then pushed the particles around, which is seen as the effect of energy on those particles. This effect is experienced at two levels: proximity or intra-particle and distance or inter-particle. Depending upon the proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-proximity and distance-distance variables, the effects are experienced as strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and radioactive disintegration forces. Gravity is a composite force that stabilizes: the orbits of planets and stars and the orbital of atoms. Since stabilization depends on density distribution, gravity is related to mass. Since density of intervals between objects is relatively less, in a closed system like Earth-Moon or Sun-planets, the density of the medium appears homogeneous. Hence, gravity is related to distance. The inter-relationship appears as the gravitational constant. Thus, you are right that: "Energy is never destroyed. So change is continual and inevitable."

Your description of air traffic control hints at a few fundamental principle. If you accept space as the ordering of the interval between objects, then position becomes a function of (or relative to) the ordering you choose. But this description can be meaningful only between the two objects that are joined by the interval. Thus, they belong to a specific frame of reference. If we want to relate their relationship with that of another object, then the other object must be within the same frame of reference or the frame of reference (interval) must be enlarged to bring the other object within it. This is what Einstein describes in his 30-06-1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies":

1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.

2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.

Here clock at C is the privileged frame of reference. Yet, he tells the opposite by denying any privileged frame of reference. Further, his description of the length measurement is faulty. Here we quote from his paper and offer our views.

Einstein: Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-

(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.

(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with §1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod".

In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a) - we will call it the length of the rod in the moving system - must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.

The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system". This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.

Our comments: The method described at (b) is impossible to measure by the principles described by Einstein himself. Elsewhere he has described two frames: one fixed and one moving along it. First the length of the moving rod is measured in the stationary system against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then the length is measured at a different epoch in a similar way in units of velocity of light. We can do this only in two ways, out of which one is the same as (a). Alternatively, we take a photograph of the rod against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then measure its length in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:

• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.

• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the camera and the picture we get will be distorted due to the Doppler shift of different points of the rod. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

Here we are reminded of an anecdote related to Sir Arthur Eddington. Once he directed two of his students to measure the wave-length of light precisely. Both students returned with different results - one resembling the accepted value and the other different. Upon enquiry, the student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the other, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, he applied length contraction to the scale treating Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. Eddington told him to follow the operation as at (a) above and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of light is infinite. To a surprised Eddington they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light.

Some scientists try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of travel. If we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of travel, then there will be no length contraction for the rod. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding it in a transverse direction to the direction of travel. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference what-so-ever. Thus, the views of Einstein are contrary to observation. Regarding the other points raised in your essay, we have discussed many in our essay. We will be happy to offer further clarification.

Regards,

basudeba.

Sir,

thank you for your thorough consideration of my essay. I have read your own but need further time to consider all that you have said and respond. I can definitely see where our ideas agree.

I am afraid I do not agree that a conscious observer is required for the formation of an image reality with incorporated time distortion. Though the image can not be experienced by a human observer until it is observed by a human sensory system. It is not the sensory system and human consciousness alone that is capable of causing an image with temporal distortion. Think of a film camera recording a moving image that can be viewed later on by many observers. I have said this is relevant to decoherence because it is a -departure- from the widely accepted assumption that it is only consciousness that creates a macroscopic space-time reality. I have deliberately avoided talking about human consciousness in this essay because it is not necessary to do so and only confuses matters.

I am trying to show a way that an object can have a position that is not relative to any one observer, but is one that must exist for all observers to have seen what they see.It is not obtained by measuring a single distance, but from trajectory information from many different ones which will allow the trajectory through space time not the position in space-time of an object to be found. Which can then be used to find a scale dependent super- relative position, which is more objective but not completely objective as it is not possible to have a universal perspective.

Re. energy I am thinking about what it is at its must fundamental level. When I say change I do not only mean an effect of energy but a change in spatial position. Any change in spatial position must be energy and any potential change of spatial position must be potential energy.I was not clear enough about this but it is something I have spoken about a lot and perhaps wrongly assumed others would understand my intended meaning.

I assure you that I have spent a lot of time considering the matter of time and have listed its different types both on fqxi forum and elsewhere.I am very familiar with the subject.In the essay I am differentiating between experienced present and objective uni-temporal Now. Uni-temporal now is a -spatial- configuration but it is also continuously changing arrangement, so there is a sequence of change or passage of time, as earlier and later can be assigned to the arrangements in retrospect.(Though the sequence does not exist in foundational reality only the single arrangement at uni-temporal Now.) There is no temporal spread so only the one arrangement exists and no longer exists when the new arrangement is formed.

This is different from space-time in which past, present and future all exist. The change in spatial sequence is Mc Taggart's C series. The earlier and later kind of time is the B series and the past, present and future is the A series of time. Although I have not directly mentioned the c series I have talked about change in sequence of spatial arrangements.So I think that is pretty well covered and comprehended. I have a reference to Mc taggart's paper on the unreality of time in my reference list.

My essay, through considering foundational and higher level reality and how they are related, presents solutions to a number of foundational questions, overcomes paradoxes and also addresses the competition question.

Thank you once again. I will post a reply on your thread, when I am ready. Until then, regards Georgina

Since this won't go away I will start again and try to be clearer. At the foundational level there are what are called fermion particles.These exist in space not space-time.Though there is still passage of time in foundational space there is no geometric time dimension. Though the probability of detecting one can be described as a wave function they are not merely quasi real waves as these can not produce observed effects in higher level space-time reality.

Next there is data carried by emitted and reflected photons which are waves within a medium. 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. It is not a field in foundational reality but is experienced as a field in higher level space-time reality.The medium is completely inert and undetectable , so forms no part of image reality.

I do not know whether it is justified to consider this data pool which is a link between foundational and higher level reality a hologram. Certainly light scattered form objects persists and can be intercepted and formed into an image of a former event. I normally like to be precise and I do not know if it fulfills the requirements for description of holographic so perhaps I should have just said similar to a hologram. What this medium at the foundational level, and collection of fields at space-time higher level reality, should be called I do not know. It is a single medium but the various kinds of disturbance and perturbation that give the manifestation of different fields in space-time.

At an inorganic reality interface the intercepted data will cause a recorded change. For film it will be darkening of silver nitrate grains. This is the unique event that causes the image reality to be formed as it is the data received together that is formed into the record of present reality, not data emitted together. -So the temporal distortion of space-time is created.-

At the higher organism reality interface there is also unique change at the receptor cells but then there is processing, amalgamation of signals , amplification, filtering prior to transmission of signal to the CNS for further processing and production of the experienced reality. Although there is a greater level of processing it is still a space-time reality with temporal distortion as it is data arriving together that is processed together into a single present. That data is not that which was produced together.

This can then be considered a multilevel reality.Though I have previously just concentrated on the two facets object and image reality.The image reality can not be formed without the data so perhaps that needs greater recognition. The foundational level is the fermions in a medium, the next level can be considered data from the foundational level in a pool which could be similar to a hologram and finally there is the space-time reality produced from interception of the data from the pool and creation of a temporally distorted image from it.

That previous post by anonymous was me.

Much appreciated Georgina. Your thoroughness should be complimented.

KInd regards, Alan.

Your reality is in the context of physics and provides a sophisticated argument that I cannot deny. Enjoyed your essay.

Georgina,

Thank you for reading my essay and responding so beautifully. I very much appreciate your effort.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Whew; only got about half-way thru the comments and got to the part that you were married and stopped reading! Just kidding; I will come back and finish and then enjoy your essay.

Just wanted to stop at this poin and tell you, "Way to go!" with your reply to Mr. Lowey. Made me think of a screw all right. Way to lob it way too hard back into his court!

To be continued...

Oops forgot to LogIn. That 'anonymous' was I. Thanx again for your comments on my essay. You do not pull punches, but more important, your concerns are salient and valid... I tried to fend you off and defend my own theses, and am quite satisfied with my rebuttal.

TMG

"A Method to Measure Consciousness, and Demonstrations of Worldly Multiplicity"

Dear Tom,

thank you for your reply. I have only just come upon it having been busy reading and commenting on other essays. I really do appreciate the time you have spent. I did not -accuse- you of not reading it but said I was uncertain that you had. I like to think that I can explain things well and having read it you would grasp what I am trying to convey.

You seem to think that I am speaking out against quantum mechanics or relativity, when I am just looking at an alternative interpretaion of them.I am showing how they work together. The question is often asked why don't quantum mechanics and space-time fit together? I am not denying relativity. I don't know where that came from. I am just saying that space-time is the appearance of reality and not its foundational concrete arrangement.

I am deliberately not concentrating on human perception but it is still relevant to the discussion. I talk about a man on a hill but he could just as well be a tape recorder. As I have explained in the essay a reality interface, as I am using the term, is something that combines data received together rather than emitted or reflected together and thus creates a temporally distorted image reality. It does not require a human consciousness to do this. A photographic film will do the same thing.

There might be a photo of a nearby dog, distant hills, and very distant stars all together. As the light from more distant objects will take longer to arrive due to the greater distance traveled, the image will be of the object further in the past than the image of near objects. So a space-time image is formed.

I do think consciousness and neurobiology and the sensory system is important when considering reality but it not what I am "all about". Yes there is something different between an inanimate sensory device and a human awareness. There is a far greater level of data processing and association of the input with prior information that has been learned. We put meaning on to observations. Also because of filtering, amalgamation of signals, amplification, gap filling and association we are not mere passive recipients of the experienced image reality (as the inanimate device is)but co-creators of it.

Primarily my area of concern is the comprehension of time and it has been for the past 5 years. So your intended encouragement to concentrate on consciousness comes across as dismissal of the things I have to say about time as uninteresting and unimportant to physics. The Internet is not good at conveying the intention of the person sending the messages. With regard to reading everything, without filtering and prioritizing of information it becomes hard to see the wood for the trees. It provides a possible explanation as to why I am seeing something in my writing that you are not.

I wish you the very best too Tom and apologize if I have unintentionally offended you. Regards Georgina.

I Inordinately enjoyed your essay. The way you parse the metaphors with your concepts beautifully and then stop when the analogy becomes inexact is very impressive and demonstrates your command of the concepts like an excellent natural philosopher!

That being said, I do have just a couple of issues, which will have to wait until i watch an episode of Lost. lol

On the first page of your essay, you claim A series time is "past present future", and that B series time is "passage of time". I object that you have only introduced the technical terms for Ordinality and Duration, q.v. in another guise. and should only use those terms or more elaboration to prove you conclusions on subsequent pages. Opinoun is encouraged, but not the goal ultimately of this (or the previous two) essay competitions.

On page 2 you state, "The Image reality becomes a manifestation when the simulation is formed from the available data. It does not exist prior to that process." This is simply stated without proof and is imcomplete. This proposition leads to some subsequent statements without proof and delve into speculation unbeknownst to the author.

Whereas in my Essay p. 3 equation {1} I prove that: Your "manifestation" (which i call consciousness techncially) is always the result of a detection of matter "real", not "becomes real". and sometimes the manifestation is a wave (is not real--or does not exist). Not "It does not exist prior to that process". Which is simpler stated as "becomes real).

Thank You.

My only assumptions are two: the results of the various YDS experiments, and taht something cannot exist and not exist at the same time...

T. Gilbertson (that was the author) of Anonymous above...

thanx

Georgina,

Excellent essay. I have particular interest in double-slit, EPR topics. I think the physics community should devote much more thought to those important issues. It seems there are several possible scenarios relating to double-slit: Wave only (as in Copenhagen Interpretation). Electron plus wave is another but the origin and role of the wave has some sub possibilities. Does the wave originate at the exact time the electron begins flight? is it already in place as a medium? If it does originate with the movement of the electron - does it jump ahead of the particle to create a pattern or does the particle ride the leading edge of the wave front and gravitate toward positions that will coincide with bands on the detector side? In my essay, I point out that if we accept the Copenhagen Interpretation, then the moment of collapse that produces the electron at a specific location results in all other locations instantly knowing not to produce an electron. This is not unlike the entanglement issue.

Keep up the good work.

Chris

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.