Reality Depends upon How One Defines the Architecture of Existence by Gary Valentine Hansen

Hello Gary, I liked your essay very much. It was informative and easy to read, whilst making valid fundamental points of concern. I share your opinion about the architecture of reality and have an important rediscovery to announce, namely, the Archimedes screw as a model for the graviton. It has both particle and wave properties and can be shown to induce a force of attarction when interacting with other structures. If a wraparound universe is imagined, then this graviton emerges on the otherside as an anti-graviton, i.e. DARK ENERGY. In time, I hope your architect's mind can picture the simplicity of what I'm trying to convey. Newton missed a trick imo. We would never have a spacetime continuum in the English language if Newton had hit on this simple explanation! Nevermind. Best of luck in the competition Gary. Alan

Thanks for your good thoughts Alan. By coincidence I have ventured to draw the same conclusion as you with respect to what you call "Archimedes screw" that I simply call a "Helix". This idea is expressed in some detail in "It: The Architecture of Existence", pp.7, 282, 724 and 791. (Please excuse the "plug" for my own book).

With regard to so-called "Dark Energy", I am still quite sceptical. I suspect that whaever energy is "out there" it is reducable to electricity, as I suggest all energy is. You may also be interested in my discussion of Newton's and Einstein's ideas being "upside down". This thesis rests upon the premise that gravity does not exist, but that it is simply a manifestation of "de-natured" (polluted) vacuum. (p. 285).

I'm glad you've hit upon the helix structure as a piece of the reality jigsaw Gary. You mention everything being reducable to electricity. The idea of an electric circuit is the same as a wraparound universe to explain dark energy. If you imagine you are inside a battery with a wire running from one terminal to the other in an electric circuit and now imagine a clockwise turning handle for the positive terminal. Now using your imagination, run that clockwise turning handle all the way around the circuit. When it arrives at the negative terminal, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE INSIDE OF THE BATTERY, the handle is now turning ANTI-CLOCKWISE. It sounds too simple to say anything, but in actual fact says a hell of a lot. Think about it. The spin of a particle changes when it travels around a circuit. It's the same with a graviton which travels around a hypersphere. It emerges at the end of the circuit spinning in the opposite direction. Think about it a bit. It takes time before the penny drops.

Gary,

Observable truth is not a vision from a single point but rather a composite of visions, reconciled by the minds and intellects of individuals that define reality. The more visions, the greater the potential for a higher, more definitive resolution of the subject as a whole made of parts.

The above seems to suggest analogue to me. Is it my bias?

Your last paragraph says the question is not relevant but made relevant by the answer you want?

Jim Hoover

Thanks, I get your point Jim. Perhaps I should have inserted "limited to" between "is not" and "a vision". The point that I was making was that multiple views enhance the data base upon which the premise of a truthful representation rests. A good analogy would be to compare a single snapshot of a sculpture with the multiple impressions that any number of people get from moving around it. I have not opted to deny digital or analagous foundations to reality, but rather to suggest that reality could comprise either or both, or, as you recognized in reading my last paragraph, rest upon elective alternative perceptions by individuals acting alone or in consensus.

To your last question, the theme question "Is Reality Digital or Analog?" - is only relevant if one or both of the options correspond to one's current perception that they are indeed relevant. An infinite line in time or space is neither inherently digital or analogical until we elect to divide it into useful digits, say minutes or feet, solely for the purpose of gaining some advantage. At least one end remains wild and infinite, which makes the definition of reality attending that line a hybrid.

Gary,

You know by now that I have great difficulty in following your reasoning and decoding your personal language, and therefore I will refrain from attempting to respond to your carefully crafted essay in any detail.

However I certainly agree with your conclusion that everything is relative (particularly everything we like to think of as objective). Relativity demands context for meaning, and the required context for this question is the set of ontological and epistemological premises in the mind of the questioner. Shy of that information, the question is not answerable.

quote:

Progress in human knowledge marches into virtual novelty whereby each step appears to clarify the picture but belies the constancy of inexactitude that prevails in the impressionist landscape of reality.

end of quote

What does impressinist landscape of reality have to do with either digital or analog foundation questions?

Andy

Andy,

If you extend the quote for another seven words to include "Knowledge is a state of relative enlightenment", the answer to your question is suggested by the emergence of the idea that "reality" may not be capable of being represented in absolute terms by reference to digital, analogical, or any other formal foundation.

My Reference No.3 elaborates upon the notion of "impressions" vis a vis "expressions" of reality, as follows:

"In Philosophies des Als Ob Vaihinger argued that human beings can never really know the underlying reality of the world, and that as a result we construct systems of thought and then assume that these match reality: we behave "as if" the world matches our models. In particular, he used examples from the physical sciences, such as protons, electrons, and electromagnetic waves. None of these phenomena have been observed directly, but science pretends that they exist, and uses observations made on these assumptions to create new and better constructs."

Gary

A beautifully philosophical essay. I suppose both being trained as Architects (and I'm also a yachtsman) our thought patterns are broader yet match more closely together than most.

I've extended your question of the Catesian point to include the also non existent line, so useful as an abstraction of a boundary in Architecture. But you and I can't just theorise, we have to build things. Einstein specified the x,y,z as attached to a BODY, a 3D entity, and maths abstracted and lost that reality.

I hope you'll read my essay because just that correction can re-unite Relativity and QM, but it needs a very logical not mathematical mind to follow the empirical reasoning. But if you do, please read it slowly and take in the implications or the ground shaking conclusion will not build.

You must be able to visualise and manipulate a number of moving volumes and observers in your mind, which perhaps only architects can do successfully. Please do ask questions if you need to. In any case I feel worth are both worth a good score and hope you agree.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter

Thanks for your gracious comments.

We do indeed have many common interests; the UK, conscientious objection, architecture, philosophy, physics, yachting - and writing essays!

Picking up on your point that you and I can't just theorise, we have 'to build things', this is certainly so in the field of architecture. In the realms of mathematics and physics the imperative seems to be the need 'to prove things'.

However, each profession relies upon philosophy to guide it in taking succeeding steps into the unknown as articles of faith.

For myself, ideas are infinitely more attractive than explanations. I wrestle with them until I see light at the end of the tunnel, at which point I tend to lose interest and take on another - but then I have little vested interest in exploiting self-defined realities to my personal advantage.

I shall pick up on discussion of your essay in a 'post' under your title shortly.

Hopefully we will 'talk' again. Good luck!

Gary.

Dear Sir,

We congratulate you for your brilliant analysis of historical developments and guided tour of the reality domain.

Unfortunately, we have deviated widely from the concept of Descartes that "a clear understanding of the nature of each part, its relation to other parts and the sequence by which the parts needed to be assembled in order to arrive at the intended end condition." While we are emphasizing each part, we generally ignore its relation to other parts and the sequence by which the parts needed to be assembled making reductionism a bane for scientific progress. Thus, we find so many interpretations of quantum, which in essence are different contradictory theories. Your example of "there is no general consensus among physicists as to what time is" also another instance of the same problem. In fact this is one of the most troubling aspects of modern physics: do not define anything precisely - give only an operational definition that can be manipulated to suit one's convenience. Thus, in our essay, we started out with precisely defining reality. While doing so, we have also precisely defined space, time, etc. You are welcome to peruse it.

While respecting your views, we define the implications of "To be or not to be" slightly differently. In modern parlance, you can equate it to the concept of eigen-values. Certain things may exist by itself, but any combination between them may be restricted. For example, helium contains equal number of protons and neutrons. But the ratio gradually comes down as we go up in the atomic ladder. For the lower atoms it is to be. For higher one's it is not to be. Similarly, energy comes in quanta only. Fractions of quanta are not to be. Electrons exist in specified orbits. Though they lump through the intermediate space, they cannot stop their - it is not to be. As you point out, "All existences assume forms and all forms transform!" But certain transformations are not to be.

We agree that: "The character of quantity is represented by numbers." We define number as a characteristic of substances by which we differentiate between the perception of similars. If there is no similar perception, it is one. If there are, depending upon the sequence of perception, we assign different names to such perception and call these the number sequence. Thus, we do not admit the validity of ""imaginary", "quarternion", "hyper-complex" and "transcendental" numbers."

Measurement is a comparison between similars. Comparison is a physical action. Thus, measuring time using "imaginary" numbers is not feasible, since these numbers are un-physical. For this reason, complex numbers are not used in computing without which modern scientists cannot survive! This is where they thrive through reductionism: do not link imagination to practical experience - keep dreaming.

Opposites serve as counterweights in an eternal self-correcting system because equilibrium is the law of Nature. It is evident from the laws of inertia - specifically: elasticity, which we call the inertia of restoration. When this equilibrium is disturbed by a mechanism not being discussed here, inertia of motion and inertia of restoration come into operation that leads to breaking the linearity of interactions. This process gives rise to the fundamental forces of Nature. We treat gravitation as a stabilizing force that stabilizes all orbits: be they planetary orbits or atomic orbits. This way we can combine the forces of Nature: by resolving gravity into the other forces and vice versa. Thus, "the predominant collective bias works towards the resolution of forces and unification, while the bias of each individual force is directed towards an extremity of experience and the promotion of imbalance."

"Virtual reality" is not a substitute for direct experience, because it is designed or programmed by persons, who do not have a complete knowledge of how the world mechanism and their perception work. Thus, the results are bound to mislead. Hence we must be extremely careful in analyzing virtual reality analysis data.

You have correctly pointed out "the homocentric nature of reality as defined by each of us. Individual mentality is to cause as individual action is to effect!" It is also true that "the absolute truth is absolutely inaccessible." While the objects of perception may be different, contents of their perception as such is the same. Similarly, while all objects evolve with time, the results of the measurement of their state at a given instant is used by all of us subsequently in equanimity. This hints at an underlying deep reality, which has been revealed to us only partially. Thus, we do not exactly agree that: "reality is "digital" or "analogical" is a non sequitur." It is analog like eternal time, of which we use different segments like measured time and call it digital.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Gary,

I liked your essay, Architecture of existence. This raises the question who is the architect? On close examination it translates to Who am I? I or Singularity in all of us "is" the architect of existence. If you are interested you can find the article Theory of everything that I have submitted in this contest. I wish you all the best in your pursuit of truth.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Here I am still looking in vain for starting points how to possibly get rid of paradoxes and inconsistencies in theories. Shouldn't we question the most fundamental tenets with the intention to find out obvious mistakes?

Dear Gary,

According to my reasoning, the concept of block-spacetime is logically flawed as I explained appendix C of 833 and in my recent reply to John Merryman. Do you consider it part of the architecture?

Regards,

Eckard

Gary,

I loved your essay and its historical perspective. It obviates that humanities quest to understand his surroundings is ultimately an attempt to understand what we ourselves are.

Thanks for writing it.

Pete

Gary,

I don't have the most scientifically trained mind and so have not finished reading as many of these essays as I've started, but I did read yours through to the end. It is a quite professional and well written examination of the the history and context of physics, but sort of fades when coming to the question of what is next. In the blogs discussions at FQXI, there are a number of participants arguing for such a bottom up review of physics and where the field might be off track. While not necessarily a grand vision of where we are all going with this, is does tend to suggest there is a need to review where we have been and might affect some changes. If you have the opportunity, you might want to look in.

As an example of some of my own views, this was a reply to Thomas Ray, in the Time Travel by Teleportationdiscussion:

Tom)Identifying abtstract scientific models with concrete objects is nearly always wildly inaccurate, considering that almost all of what we know objedtively about the physical world is counterintuitive.

Me)Ok, let me try another analogy: Math is the nerd and reality is the pretty girl.

Yes, math is counterintuitive. The problem is that reality is counter-rational. Go back through history and consider every model of reality ever to be considered, from the most primordial religions, up through all the various political, economic and social isms of the last few centuries. They all start out with some basic and useful rules and principles and then try to build out from there. Unfortunately a little of something good doesn't mean that lots more is that much better. All these systems kept encountering realities which did not fit their model and were forced to compromise, or be eliminated.

Reality is not fundamentally linear and when you push any argument to its limits, it starts to break down. Consider perfectly rational arguments about how to incorporate elements of evolution into social engineering and its culmination in World War Two. Consider Game Theory and the ways in which one player's ideal moves can be countered, or prove destructive to larger interests.

The problem with math isn't that it's too complicated, but that in many respects, it isn't complicated enough. Consider the four dimensional description of space and time. How did that evolve, but from the perspective of one individual viewing its larger context and how that model could be applied to any individual. The complication is that while it might be a conceptual ideal for everyone, when everyone applies it, it makes each of us the center of our version of reality. Put this in the context of competing groups of people, say the Israelis and Palestinians. They both frame the same space using different coordinate systems, with separate narrative timelines to validate their two models of reality.

What math misses, by not being intuitive, is that it loses that natural "renormalization" function when theory and reality get too divergent. It functions as that right brain parallel processor that looks at a picture cumulatively and not linearly. A good example was that Supreme Court Justice who once said in reference to the distinction between art and pornography that he didn't can't describe where that line is, but he knew it when he saw it. It's a bit like when I, or someone else similarly skeptical, hears about multiworlds, or multiverses, or inflation, etc. Maybe we don't have the mathematical experience to argue it, but we know, instinctively, intuitively, that someone has been drinking too much of their own bath water. Or in this case, the feedback loop among a particular group of people has spun out into the nether regions.