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

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.

That does not mean that all sub atomic particles are mere objects. As I tried to explain in the essay they are intimately related to their environment both affecting the environment and being affected by it. So the environmental interaction might also be regarded as an aspect of the actualised reality of the particle. A detection might be picking up the energy of that environmental disturbance rather than a discreet particle as such.

The environment around a macroscopic object too is altered because of the objects presence. As well as gravitational effect there might also be magnetic effect and altered thermal energy ( as it may be absorbing or emitting heat) and visible light energy alteration as some wavelengths will be absorbed and others reflected or it might be a light emitter.

The amount of environmental energy emanating from a sub atomic particle is so small that only a single detection can be made from it (usually).And the process of collecting the energy alters the environment merely by the presence of the detection apparatus. Instead of the numerous detections made from the environment of a macroscopic object without causing any disturbance of the object. Unless it is a cautious living being, in which case it may be very difficult to get more than one sequential observation! It might even be that for some or all sub atomic particles there is only a particular disturbance of the environment and nothing more which can be regarded as manifest as particle or wave depending upon how it is detected.

I hope to have shown here that the quantum and macroscopic realities need not be regarded as so different after all and the perceived differences need not be counterintuitive.

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.

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 22:10 GMT

Dear Pentcho / All,

relativity works with space-time, a construct in which distances between objects and events can vary for different observers and each observer has his own clock.. It does not work with a space where there are fixed distances for all observers and everyone is referring to the same universal clock. It is not valid argument to explain how it would be in space with fixed distances and only universal time and then say but Einstein gets a different result therefore he is wrong. Things appear to happen differently for different observers because space and time are combined into space-time and the common sense view of absolute distances and passage of time doesn't apply. No conspiracy just a different way of describing what is going on.

Deception or self deception is possible when there is incomplete data available to an observer. It is used by con artists, illusionists, politicians, salesmen, the little boy wishing to honestly evade punishment. It is the discarded laundry that was thought to be a cat. It is a part of everyday life. Deception by incomplete data provision / acquisition is not lies or falsehood in itself. The data is correct and can be verified. However as it is incomplete it can allow misinterpretation, which is assumptions based upon the incomplete data that could not be true if the complete data was available.

That misinterpretation may be actively encouraged or promoted by provision of additional data that seems to uphold the misinterpretation. It is the observer (or analyst) who creates the misinterpretation of the underlying reality, from the true data. The truthfulness is the similarity between the output fabricated from the input data and that which existed or occurred as the source of that information. It is not in the replication of the output (Giving objective measurement) That only ensures the output has been well characterised, and such things as statistically significant trends or correlations can be identified.

It seems as if an assumption is being made in physics that if the measurements are objective then the the output of the analysis of those measurements within a mathematically correct model is the whole truth and the interpretation has been verified. Both relativity and QM work with incomplete data and therefore the likelihood of misinterpretation is high. That is not a scientific conspiracy or deliberate deception but the nature of dealing with incomplete data. Rather than being the gullible mark, taking everything on face value alone, science needs to be the street wise punter, the savvy judge, the well informed voter, or the skeptical mother, to admit that there is -more than meets the eye-. Otherwise exceptional analytical minds are deceived in just the same way as the naive and trusting clients of charlatans.

IMHO.

BARN -POLE/ LADDER/ TWINS PARADOX

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 20:50 GMT

OK Paul,

All of the paradoxes involve some kind of error of comprehension. The extreme nature of the paradox highlights the problem. They all arise because though relativity can stand alone mathematically it is an incomplete model of reality.

Both barn-pole and twins ignore the unobserved reality that exists simultaneously beneath perception. Taking observation of time dilation or of length contraction to be what is happening to the actualised object itself. The observed "object" (manifestation) is regarded as the object (actualisation). Andromeda paradox too ignores the unobserved reality and mistakenly assumes that the reality that would be formed from observation always pertains.

There is no consideration that observation from received data is creating a manifestation that is different from the -simultaneously existing- actualisation. THAT = ILLUSION !! As the concept of objects in space with absolute dimensions was superseded by relativity.

The framework I have set out allows all of these paradoxes to be overcome, as well as answering numerous other questions. Perhaps when you have worked out what Einstein was saying for yourself you will be able to appreciate my work.

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

I'm not sure that was clear enough .

The error is to mistake the measurement of the received data to be the existing object. IE The measurement, from the output from the received data, or calculation of the measurement that would be output from received data is not an object. -A Measurement is not an object.-

EM data in the environment can not be an object with atomic structure (though Einstein calls it a spatially extended object. The OUTPUT observed from receipt of the data INPUT is not an object with atomic structure.

So re barn pole though the hypothetical measurements can be shown to vary according to observer reference frame it is essentially an illusion. The objects with atomic structure, barn and pole have not contracted but the images seen have. This is a difference between Object (source) and Image(OUTPUT) reality. This paradox also discounts motion blur, the fact that the observer will be unlikely to produce a clearly defined image of the more distant object due to its high speed relative to the observer, giving an extended blur rather than a shortening of barn or pole, (depending upon which observer).

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 11:58 GMT

Paul (and anyone interested in paradoxes)

(Paul,the dimensions that you keep talking about are the dimensions of the output reality IMHO. Not the foundational or source reality. That should be clear by now from the discussion we have been having.)

Re the barn paradox: The short pole is formed by the processing of the received data.It is made from what would be slices of the long pole...

view entire post

Paul (and anyone interested in paradoxes)

(Paul,the dimensions that you keep talking about are the dimensions of the output reality IMHO. Not the foundational or source reality. That should be clear by now from the discussion we have been having.)

Re the barn paradox: The short pole is formed by the processing of the received data.It is made from what would be slices of the long pole as seen at different times from the other observer's reference frame.It is not a pole object actualisation but an observed manifestation. As as -I- am concerned it is resolved and I do not need to wait for someone else to understand the answer or approve it.( See diagram for terminology.)

So is the Grandfather paradox. There is no time dimension in foundational reality only uni-teporal Now and continual change, the time dimension is a transmission delay artifact. So it can not be traveled along. So no Grandfather paradox.

And the Andromeda paradox: 2.5 million years after the events occurred on Andromeda they could be observed. Walking towards Andromeda the data will be received sooner. Which means for the walking observer the battle fleet has already been launched but for the stationary observer on Earth battle plans will only just be being made.

However If the same thing is done but 2.5 million years earlier prior to the possibility of observation first the battle plans are drawn up and this is simultaneous to both Earth men regardless of their position in the universe and then the fleet is launched and that is simultaneous to both Earth men regardless of position. Because the unobserved reality is non relativistic but there is sequential passage of time (sequential change of universal arrangement).

Only observed (Image or output) reality relying upon data transmission is relativistic. So the paradox is based upon a false assumption that unobserved Object/foundational/Source) reality is relativistic and that there would be non simultaneity of occurrence of the -Source events- on Andromeda for the two men, rather than just non simultaneity due to differences in when -sensory data- is received.

For some reason it was decided that space-time exists externally to the observer and is not just "mind space", a construct that is fabricated by the function of the sensory system and brain (and other reality interfaces).I do not know if that was a deliberate decision made by Einstein or his possible indecision on the matter was overtaken by the assumptions of others. Whatever the reason for the assumption of the space-time continuum as an external reality, and not a fabrication from received data only, it is IMHO incorrect. That does not make GR or SR incorrect but incorrectly interpreted.I am not waiting for someone to give the answers. These are the answers.

Paul you said "All change is sequential, how can it be otherwise?" I answered that question... and now you are making it about causality. Yes the actualisations and their parts have relationships because of their separations and orientations and scale, which affect the magnitude and orientation of the forces that act to cause change to give the next actualisations and relationships and so on. That was something I mentioned earlier on but you seemed to dismiss as irrelevant.

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 03:15 GMT

What is wrong.

1. Barn pole: assumption that the measurement as seen by the observer -is the object- as it exists according to that observer, rather than being just a manifestation fabricated by the observer upon receipt of sensory data. It denies/ignores the independent existence of the source object from which the sensory data was produced by emission or reflection. (Also ignores motion blur.) A (HYPOTHETICAL) ILLUSION.

Evidence for independent existence of objects (without observation) can be found within magical illusion, as the illusionist "manipulates" existing objects unobserved, to control perception. The audience observes a significantly different reality (from the reality known to the illusionist), formed from received data alone.

2.Grandfather: assumption of a time dimension in foundational reality rather than it being a transmission delay artifact incorporated in the output observed reality. MISINTERPRETATION OF EVIDENCE.

3.Andromeda paradox: assumption that unobserved foundational reality is relativistic rather than just the output reality from observation. MISUSE OF THEORY (applying it to a situation in which it is not relevant/appropriate.)

All 3 paradoxes are overcome by using the explanatory framework as summarized on the diagram provided.

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 05:04 GMT

In barn pole: To be clearer I should have said "manipulates" existing objects unobserved"...by the observer in the audience.

Hi,

I am interested in any feedback on the words chosen and their descriptions. There comes a time when without any helpful input further consideration is only my own procrastination rather than useful reflection. It would be better to press ahead with a firm and final decision on terminology, even if it turns out to need adjustment later on. I think the time taken has been useful as the"mechanism" has become clearer to me over that time, which means I can explain it better.

I would also be very interested in any opinion on the arrangement of the sets. Though I can justify the image reality being within the object reality I am not sure whether it is actually helpful to show it that way or if it would be better to have them separated. Which way depends upon how it is thought about. Other people's brain activity exists whether I observe them or not but any brain activity giving experienced manifestation output only exists if the observer is receiving and processing input (so it is not independent of observation.) Likewise photographic images capturing a space-time reality snap shot exist whether I regard them or not-(independent) but they can only exist because the camera/film or camera/computer interaction with EM input -(observer dependent).Perhaps both are required and an explanation of the difference in how the observer's reality is being considered.

I'm over trying to convince people who are incapable of comprehending the work, or people who consider it a philosophical irrelevance, or not what science wants and so a pointless endeavor , or the product of misguided ignorance. The explanatory framework functions whether science wants it or not, and whether it is understood or not, and despite its "simplicity". Further invalidation on FQXi blogs is just wearisome. I have worked hard to keep it sensible, avoid unnecessary speculation, to extract from the framework those ideas that I can't adequately describe at this time. But still want to. Constructive direction or advice or query would be appreciated. What is missing? What is unclear/ what is ambiguous?

I know there are people who understand what I am talking about.

These word lists might seem unnecessary triviality. However If I tell you how I am using the words then it isn't my "private language" as Ludwig Wittgenstein would have said, -you are invited to share it. Then we can really understand each other as the words are -clearly- transmitted ideas.

As a word is separately defined -for this purpose- then it is not open to interpretation according to another person's general usage of the words or or ad hoc interpretation due to context. Then it -can- be used for discussion of the physical and metaphysical realms because the words are -strictly attached to the ideas- by the definitions or descriptions given. They will (once finalized) no longer be mutable by those using or receiving them, in this particular context.... Like descending into the cave with a safety rope! I'm not going to loose anyone because the words won't allow it.

I see no option but to set out a strict vocabulary that will have to be learned for use with the explanatory framework, as I can not rely on everyday usage of the words to give the necessary clarity and lack of ambiguity. Bother! but better now than just have widespread dissent and confusion. Helpful input would be very much appreciated.

Hi,

Here is an updated computer graphics version of the diagram that helps understanding of the explanatory framework. Hope you like it better than the earlier ones.

Please let me know if you can see any mistakes or improvements that need to be made.It hasn't got a key with it yet to explain with more details the parts and processes. I'll try to do that tomorrow.

If you would like to say something nice you don't have to say it behind my back.I have been searching -a lot- (yes thats me) for any indication of any positive feedback or response outside of the fqxi blogs.It would save me a lot of trouble if someone who actually understands this would just talk to me about it. I'm the impatient kid with hand in the air.If its good -good, if it can be improved i'll correct it.

To whom it may concern, I can't stop you data mining but as you are please keep it all encrypted or keep it safely to yourselves.I didn't mean it personally when I said *******. But you saw me, watching you, watching me and changed the responses.ICU2.

This is a small version of the file.

OK This is a tiny JPEG.Attachment #1: TINY_NEW_RICP_DIAG.jpg