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

Dear James,

I am delighted whenever someone "gets" what I am saying.So thank you very much for reading my essay and for your much appreciated feedback.

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.

Dear Madam,

We have gone through your comments carefully.

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

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

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

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

Regards,

basudeba

Hello Georgina,

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

Best Regards,

Dan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Madam,

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

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

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

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

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

Soon we will come out with the complete theory.

Regards.

basudeba.

Dear Sir,

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

Regards Georgina.

Hello Dan,

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

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

Anticipating an interesting and enjoyable read, Georgina.

Dear Israel,

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

Kind regards, Georgina.

Georgina,

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

Have a great day,

Dan

Dear Chris,

Thank you very much for your positive comment on my essay and for your encouragement. Yes I agree that the double slit experiment is very important. I have not yet read your essay but I will be interested to read your viewpoint on that experiment when I do.

Thanks again. Good luck, Georgina.