Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Tommaso Bolognesi: on 4/23/14 at 11:14am UTC, wrote Hello Georgina, I've quickly read your essay once, and I find it quite...

Georgina Parry: on 3/30/13 at 8:22am UTC, wrote Paul, thank you for reading my replies. I have read yours. I can not face...

Paul Reed: on 3/30/13 at 6:25am UTC, wrote Georgina “it is not the receipt that makes it a reality interface but...

Georgina Parry: on 3/30/13 at 5:17am UTC, wrote I think I must qualify "fixed actualisation" with further explanation of my...

Georgina Parry: on 3/30/13 at 0:25am UTC, wrote Paul, it is not the receipt that makes it a reality interface but the...

Paul Reed: on 3/29/13 at 7:45am UTC, wrote Georgina Re your first paragraph, I am lost. Obviously, an interface can...

Georgina Parry: on 3/28/13 at 7:05am UTC, wrote Paul, reply to your post on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 05:23 GMT in The Accidental...

T H Ray: on 3/4/13 at 11:45am UTC, wrote Georgina, I know what you mean about gymnastics. I was over 40 when I...


thuy lien: "The faction in Bannerlord: Battania King: ‘Caladog’ -partially..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

thuy lien: "Good article, thanks for sharing. hell let loose metal gear survive far..." in Blurring Causal Lines

Boyd Bunton: "Nice share! I am no able ti skip this moment without appreciating you...." in Podcast Up: Interacting...

Greg Fantle: "Brush your hair! You look like a homeless person." in The Complexity Conundrum

kurt stocklmeir: "shape of time and space around mass vibrates - some times the shape of time..." in Alternative Models of...

Gary Simpson: "Still waiting for essays to be posted. There are only 5 weeks or so left..." in What Is...

Boyd Bunton: "Its absolutely very helpful put up about the subject. All readers can be..." in Podcast Up: Interacting...

Georgina Woodward: "John, I reported your post as inappropriate as it is mostly irrelevant to..." in What Is...

click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

December 15, 2017

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong? by Georgina Parry [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 11:34 GMT
Essay Abstract

Edward de Bono’s thinking hats are ways of thinking. First his white and black hats - facts and problems are considered. Next the red hat- likes and dislikes. Knowing what must be included and what overcome, the necessary relationship of ideas to provide a working explanatory framework can be given. Having this it is possible to see some of the basic physical assumptions that have been wrong and why. That insight then allows informed consideration to be given to some interesting directions for future research and development.

Author Bio

Independent thinker and innovator. BSc Hons Biological sciences. Post graduate certificate in Education. Former High school and 6th form college teacher of the separate Sciences, human biology and general studies.

Download Essay PDF File

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 16:44 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I like this! I feel that for the first time I truly get you. I love the organization, the clarity, the style, the "hats" didactic, the ease of reading. High marks all around.

As you would expect from our previous exchanges over the years, I can't agree with everything. We've talked a lot about the paradoxes, and I don't feel any need to rehash that dialogue. I only feel compelled, in defense of Einstein, to say that space-time curvature is not presented in general relativity as the cause of gravity; in fact, that's where GR fails, at the singularity of infinite curvature. Einstein acknowledged this, and general relativity was intended to be an intermediate step toward a theory without singularities and without the need to specify boundary conditions.

No matter, though -- you've done a masterful job of exposing the big questions. I especially appreciate the "magic" section, drawing attention to the reliance on our bias that "what you see is all there is." Is that not, in fact, the basic assumption of experiments that "prove" nonlocality in quantum mechanics?

Good luck in the contest!


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 02:16 GMT
Hi Tom,

thank you very much for reading my essay and leaving such positive feedback. Having finally written something that meets with your approval feels to me like I have jumped a big hurdle. Really appreciate your comments. I'll be smiling all day, at the very least.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 22:26 GMT

I try to read every FQXi essay to determine if aspects of my essay (topic/1294) have been covered by another essay. It is inevitable that there could be some crossover with the number of issues involving assumptions.

At the bottom of page 6 of your essay, you present postulates, and postulate 3, "Time is not a dimension of independently existing Object reality but is a dimension of observer fabricated Image reality." is mathematically contradicted by the concept presented in the July/August 2011 IEEE Potentials article cited in my essay. I am sure you were not aware of the article in the IEEE publication, and your postulate 3 statement would have been correct if the concept in the IEEE paper had not been identified.

The dimension of a duration of time is one of the mathematically defined units of measure revealed in the "methodology", thus, it is part of physical law reality.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 23:19 GMT

Temperature is also a defined unit of measure. Why is it ok to conflate the measure of rate of change/time, with the measure of space, but no one conflates the scalar measure of activity/temperature with that of space? Considering there is no space without some degree of temperature and if we used ideal gas laws, it would be as easy to correlate temperature with volume, as it is to use the velocity of light to correlate duration and distance.

Time is a measure of change. Distance, area and volume are measures of space.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 02:26 GMT
Dear Frank,

I do not know if you read my essay in its entirety or just skimmed through to identify similarities /contradictions with your own. If you read the essay carefully you will see that the postulates given are not assumptions but emerge as consequences of the structure of the explanatory framework, that is necessary to incorporate the known facts and overcome the numerous physical and philosophical/theological problems.

You are correct I have not yet read your IEEE paper.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina parry replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 02:39 GMT
..that should have said the IEEE paper you have cited in your essay.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 00:40 GMT

I addressed the issue of the unit of time in the essay, temperature is not mentioned anywhere within it.

The current SI definition for temperature, the Kelvin, is not based upon any physical constants, it is based upon the characteristics of a particular molecular compound. "The kelvin, unit of thermodynamic temperature, is the fraction 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water."


It is my opinion that the scientific unit for temperature should be defined as an energy level, but SI does not have a base unit of energy to even consider a starting point.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 03:33 GMT

Sorry for not reading your paper yet, due to a lack of personal time.

Yes, temperature is generally thought of in terms of molecular activity, but it's only institutional bias that radioactive processes are not normally included. Step in a pool of radioactive water and while you may not immediately sense the burn, you will still be definitely burned.

What is the base unit of time? Some cycle or vibration of a cesium atom? So a particular duration of this atomic activity is a constant, but a scalar measure of its action wouldn't also be a constant?

The point I keep making is that while we think of duration as a kind of temporal distance from one event to another, along which the present moves, logically it is the changing configuration of what is present, so that it is the events going from being future to being past. Time then being a measure of actions occurring within the present, not external to it. Duration is a bit like the moonwalk; action without actually moving forward.


Sorry for not getting to your essay yet. Working two jobs....

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 16:21 GMT
I have replicated John Merryman's posts, that are relevant to my essay topic 1294 to my topic area. I have responded to John's last post in my topic post.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 03:47 GMT
Dear Georgina Parry,

Marvelous! You have been hard at work for a few years, and it shows. I have read a few of your comments over the last year and I thought that you were going off the track, but I now see that you were just exploring various pathways.

I think you have produced a winning essay and I hope you do. Your analysis covers a very broad spectrum, including paradoxes which you handle well. I also find interesting your observations that "Information is not conserved in Object reality." Generally speaking, I agree with most of your "wrong assumptions." Because you have done such a masterful job presenting the data as a complete picture (the essay, not the diagram) I agree with things that I would probably argue about if presented in an isolated comment, so it is very important that you have had the opportunity to paint a nine-page picture. I still have some slight problem with "no reason to assume that the Object universe does not have an eternal history", but if space-time is 'emergent' in your sense, I don't think it's worth arguing about the semantics. Also, you cover so much area that I think you chose wisely to make lists, rather than waste words in prose.

I definitely agree with your well stated paragraph on the Object universe as "...actively participating creator... preserver and destroyer of all structures and patterns." You finished with a quote from Feynman, but I think you said it better.

Congratulations, well done.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 14:26 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Bravo!! A virtuoso presentation if ever I've seen one! Congratulations on a big job well done! I'm totally blown away by your essay.

I hope Edwin will excuse me for latching onto the coattails of his laudatory comments, as it were, but I definitely wanted to echo his words of praise for your essay (and what better place to do so?). If you don't win some sort of recognition for this essay it will constitute absolute, irrefutable proof that there is, indeed, no justice in the universe! Moreover, if such an unimaginable outcome were to occur I suspect that all the other essayists would band together and hold a ceremonial burning in effigy of the competition's judges. Just kidding, of course; we're *far* too mature and sensible a group for such a childish stunt, maybe.

All that said, and while I agree with by far the lion's share of what you've written, I was puzzled by a few things. One which leaped out at me was your statement (point 13 under the heading 'Yellow hat-What works and why/advantages') ". . . Nested *if* the historical sequence is considered, as the iterations of the Object universe exist in sequence not in a continuum." If I'm reading this correctly, it sounds as though you've just unilaterally declared that reality is digital rather than analog (the topic of last year's essay competition)? Did everyone finally agree to that conclusion, or am I not reading you correctly? Not a major point, to be sure, but one on which I'd like some clarification. Thanks!

I very much like the many excellent quotes you've included, especially the Tegmark quote, "Evolution has endowed us with intuition only for those aspects of physics that had survival value for our distant ancestors, such as the parabolic trajectories of flying rocks." As someone else (Richard Dawkins perhaps?) has commented, evolution has prepared us to operate at peak efficiency in a primitive hunter-gatherer society. Modern science, on the other hand, has armed us with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons rather than stones and clubs. A dangerous mix. Advances in science and technology have, unfortunately, far outpaced advances in wisdom and common sense. We know how to promote the advancement of science (FQXi is a brilliant example), but how do we promote the advancement of wisdom and common sense? Anyone who can answer that one has a Nobel Prize waiting with his or her name on it.

Thank you again, Georgina; your clarity of thought and presentation are refreshing beyond words. I'll undoubtedly have more to say later, but already have rambled on too long here.

Best Regards,


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 23:34 GMT
Dear Edwin,

thank you for reading my essay and writing such a glowing appraisal. It does feel good to be understood. I am glad I have communicated the ideas clearly.It's also good to hear that this has put some of my blog comments into a context where they make more sense.

I agree with your slight reservation -I personally see no reason to assume the Object universe does not have an eternal history. To assume otherwise, it seems to me, just makes nonsense or insoluble problems. However I can't speak for everyone else. There may be people who wish to disagree and require, according to their reasoning, a beginning however problematic.

Thanks again, I really appreciate your very positive feedback.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 01:19 GMT
Hi J.C. N Smith,

thank you very much indeed for reading my essay and posting such a very enthusiastic review. Really glad you liked it.

Re.nested not a continuum. You will have noticed from the essay that the explanatory framework presents a different way of thinking about reality. Not just a continuum as is the space-time continuum but the output reality, the data in the environment and the source of the data. When talking about the quaternion representation in this essay I was only talking of mathematically representing the way data travels through the environment. A small aspect of the entirety of reality considered. It's a different way of thinking about Einstein's light cone idea. That's what Roger Penrose demonstrates in his lecture that I cited.

I can imagine a short pulse of light emitted from a source. A photon cascade spreads out spherically from the light source. As an analogy I can imagine a domino cascade, which is easier to visualise. In the space-time continuum model there would be all of the dominoes standing -and- all of the dominoes felled -and- every other intermediate stage, all in existence within the continuum. However in this explanatory framework each patten of felled and unfelled is temporary. So to consider the whole sequence of patterns historical iterations have to be combined. For data spreading out spherically, from a source in all directions, ie the progression of the photon cascade, that would be nested iterations- rather like a Russian doll. Not all simultaneously existing in space and therefore not simultaneously detectable by observers at spatial positions of the different spherical surfaces or "shells".

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 10:30 GMT

Both Relativity and QM attempt to explained what is ‘observed’ (ie measured), they are just both based on incorrect presumptions as to how physical reality (the very thing they are trying to measure), occurs. In other words, Relativity is no more a theory about observation than QM is. The point about Relativity is the use of references (frames of reference, etc) to ascertain a relative calibration, because there are no absolutes, and (allegedly) matter alters dimension and light curves under certain conditions. It is not, or at least was not meant to be, a theory about the observation of physical reality. QM, because it is dealing with quantum, does not presume from the outset to be able to ‘observe’, so it pursues measurement (ie observation) in terms of probability, ie all the features in a given circumstance cannot be observed/ measured, because the very act of doing so affects it, etc.

Now, the problem with all this is that what is sensed (observation being just one example) involves the physical receipt of a physical phenomena (it is passive and it is a physical event). And that is not the physical reality. It is the result of a physical interaction with that particular reality and other physical phenomena. That is all it is, physically. The evolution of sensory systems has involved the development of the functional use of it, but that is irrelevant to its physical existence. Or put another way around, no amount of sensing alters any form of physical existence whatsoever. Except that, upon receipt the physical phenomena cease to exist, just like they do if they hit a brick wall instead of an eye.


report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 11:26 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I was increasingly impressed with your essay. A nice take on the differnet ways of analysing the big problems of modern day physics and it's many assumptions. Excellent work and I imagine very useful to a lot of people. I found a few title headings which sounded like my own imagery-simulation-like methodology, so I was happy at the end of it. Well done and thank you for your effort.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 22:25 GMT
Thanks Alan, glad you liked it.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 13:45 GMT
Dear Ms. Georgina,

I enjoyed reading your essay ever so much.

“H-h-h-hat’s all folks.”

Avid cartoon watcher, Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 22:28 GMT
Thanks Joe.

report post as inappropriate

Frank M akinson wrote on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 18:33 GMT
Edwin Eugene Klingman,

You emphasized a particular statement from Georgina's essay, "Information is not conserved in Object reality." That statement bothered me when I first read it in the essay because the term "information" was not defined. We have a very limited viewpoint as to the information contained in the universe and we have "insufficient information" to state, or make the assumption, that the universe, as a system, does not have a feedback mechanism that exploits/processes information from some event, and adjusts.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 19:16 GMT
Dear Frank Makinson,

This is a very complicated topic, and I agree that it was not defined. I view information as contextual, and as dependent upon a codebook (which may be implemented as specific neural structures that our brain has learned from experience) and as that which literally 'in-forms' or creates 'formation' or formal structure 'inside' the brain. I view relativistic momentum (energy and 3-space momenta) as physical realities, and information as an overlay or map that is largely brain-dependent. I realize that many physicists today believe that information is physical, and some even believe that physical reality somehow 'derives from' information, but my belief is closer to what I've said in this paragraph. I just found it interesting that Georgina appears to arrive at a similar conclusion.

Thanks for your comment.

Also, I noted in jcns's comment that he picked up on a remark that "sounds as though you've just unilaterally declared that reality is digital rather than analog". If he is correct in his interpretation, then I too have reservations about that, as explained in my essay last year. Regardless, Georgina has done an excellent job, and one can agree with her without endorsing every conclusion she comes to.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 23:06 GMT
Dear Frank,

I did not define information in the essay or any of the other words used though I did offer a very brief explanation of the word "phenotype" in brackets, as I was aware that the essay would be read by non biologists who might be unfamiliar with the term. I have tried in the essay this year to keep the language simple and the sentences short and not overly complicated.

I have written word lists giving the definition of words, as I use them, with the framework to overcome problems of misunderstanding. The rules did not permit supplementary pages of written definitions, which I might otherwise have included. "Information" has not been on the word lists I produced prior to this essay competition. As I deliberately did not use it. I have, in my numerous blog comments over the last couple of years, avoided the term "information" because it does have certain meanings to physicists that I have not necessarily intended by its use. In this essay it is meant in a very broad sense.

Structures and patterns are destroyed and so anything "contained" that might generate data, or that might have been later learned from such data -ie. inform is lost from the Object universe. Structures includes neural structures permitting memory of events or facts. EM and other sensory data can persist in the environment after the source objects have ceased to exist but it is a "data pool" and not the space-time continuum past, present and future from Bang to Crunch (or whatever) in which everything is conserved. That is what was meant.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 04:27 GMT
I should add to that list, data in the environment, which might also be regarded latent information, is not conserved in this framework. Such as when a photon is absorbed by a material object and there is no emission of another. The capacity to supply information is different from energy. Energy is conserved.

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 00:22 GMT

It's really very good thinking of you. You explained the problem successfully.But the question here from where to start. There is a contradiction between quantum and relativity in concepts and principles. So, will we modify relativity theory of Einstein in order to be accepted with quantum theory concepts and principles? Or we modify quantum theory to be accepted with relativity theory concepts and principles. Einstein tried in his last years of life to proof the inconsistency of quantum theory, and then tried to interpret the physical phenomena which interpreted by quantum to be interpreted by his relativity concepts and principles, but he false. From that time, scientist did not try to interpret relativity theory by the concepts and principles of quantum....why? In 1996 I adopted the first proposal, and I modified the relativity theory of Einstein to be accepted with quantum theory (Copenhagen School) concepts and principles. I found I could solve the most problems in physics regarded to quantum and relativity. I found in 1996 it is possible measuring speeds of particles or light ray to be faster than light according to my MSRT without violating Lorentz transformation or causality, and thus according to that it is interpreting, the quantum tunneling and entanglement, without violating the Lorentz transformation or causality. Also I could solve the Pioneer anomaly exactly according to modified GR. My proposed solution relative to modified general relativity and gravity is agreed with what proposed in quantum field theory. Please can you read my paper

then we discuss?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 01:37 GMT
Dear Azzam,

I'm glad you think I have successfully identified the problems. If you read beyond the introduction you will find that I also offer, what I consider to be, solutions to a large number of problems, physical and philosophical, including the incompatibility of QM and GR. I also say which of our basic physical assumptions have been wrong and why. Given as postulates that emerge from the explanatory framework necessary to incorporate the facts and overcome the problems identified.

I am going to read a number of essays. I will post feedback on your thread if yours is one of them.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 11:17 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Good luck for this essays contest.


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 23:18 GMT
Thanks Steve.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 09:49 GMT
you are Welcome,


report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 13:41 GMT
Dear Georgina,

You sketched the problem as a thought, but as a physicists I need an answer depending on equations and the recent experimental results. For example, is light speed is constant for all inertial frames of reference as Einstein proposed? Is the physical information received to us by light itself or by the speed of light? If the information is transformed to us by light or the speed of light, how can we interpret the quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling, and what is the meaning of faster than light,and how that is related to the vacuum energy, and how the vacuum energy is related according to relativity? Is the Lorentz transformation and then the causality violated in the case of faster than light or there something wrong in SR required to modify according to quantum? There are many other questions in physics required to be answered, but as a physicists the answer must be depending on equations and the recent experimental results.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 22:42 GMT
Hi ,

Here are my equations, they help for a real understanding of the polarization m/hv.



For all physical spheres, bosonic or fermionic.

The serie of uniqueness at the quantum or cosmological scale is finite and precise with the central sphere like the most important volume.

Now the bosons turn in the other sense than a fermion, so you can see the synchronizations of evolution.Now we have the 3 motions of the spheres, so c linear velocity, o orbital vel. and s spinal vel.

You shall see the answers to your doubts !


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 23:17 GMT
Dear Azzam,

I don't think I can give you the answers you are looking for. I can not mark your mathematics.I cannot supply the kind of experimental results you require (See my biography). In the essay I have tried to express that I do not think that linear logic, building from facts (experimental results) or linear building of mathematics is enough to solve the many problems that there have been in physics.

What is the point of the most wonderful mathematics pertaining (for example) to the Big Bang and inflation, if such scenarios never happened? That would make it fantastic numerical story telling, mathematically brilliant- but not better physics than an interim verbal description that more closely matches reality. You will see at the end of the essay that full mathematical expression of the framework is a possible area for future research and development.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 09:56 GMT
Hello dear Georgina and dear Azzam,

Sorry Georgina, I don't want to utilize your thread.I d desire simply to give him a road for his understanding of his asks.

You know Azzam, Georgina is a good thinker, she can answer also to your doubts abouts several asks.

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 23:53 GMT

A tour de force bravo! I enjoyed going through your essay and should read it again for the big truths as well as the many small gems glistening between the lists. I am impressed how you have approached physics (and biology) holistically putting the observer and and thinker in her place to see a rather too complex conceptual 'reality' of theories assumptions (diagram 1) yet zeroed in on controversial physical truths I totally agree with. If you read my essay for the current fqxi contest (submitted but not yet online) you may see what I am talking about. I liked your definition of gravity as motion affecting the surrounding 'dust'. If you include under dust the vacuum ether nodes of my Beautiful Universe theory then we totally agree there!



report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 06:14 GMT

thank you very much for reading my essay and for the very positive feedback that you have written.It was nice for me to read that and also good to learn what is appreciated. I look forward to reading your own essay soon.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 02:21 GMT

You do an excellent job of dissecting the various inputs and outputs to current physics.

Tom makes an interesting point about how GR is just supposed to model gravity, not explain it. Safe to say though, that it is generally accepted as an explanation. If even Tom is willing to accept it is only a model, maybe there is hope physics will get beyond its current unicorn phase. One rather simplistic explanation for gravity might be that it's an effect of fusion. Rather than being an effect of mass, that it is a product of the creation of mass. When mass turns to energy, it expands, so might not the opposite be true, that when energy is contracting into mass, there is a resulting vacuum? From the most faint cosmic rays coalescing into interstellar gases(which would explain dark matter/excess of gravity on the perimeter of galaxies), to the creation of heavy metals in the core of stars. We could reverse Einstein's signature equation; M=e/c2.


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 06:00 GMT
Hi John,

thank you for reading it. I do appreciate your positive comment.

Yes Tom's point is interesting. Curvature of space-time is a good model for gravity, in that it corresponds to the experimental evidence. That correspondence does not prove that it is cause though. The argument I have presented shows why the experimental evidence should be expected to correspond with his model. It is only the assumption that that correspondence is showing causation of gravity that is wrong, not Einstein's model.

I am pretty sure it was Einstein who made that assumption. I don't have a handy quote of Einstein saying as much to hand, but I think I'll look for one now. This is an interesting thing, written by John Archibald Wheeler "Only by understanding gravity as the grip of spacetime on mass, and mass on spacetime, can we comprehend even the first thing about the machinery of the world-" Which indicates to me how fully the assumption has been accepted.

Thanks for the food for thought.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 11:05 GMT
Hi Georgina/John,

What Wheeler is saying, is a point that I myself have been trying to get across in the FQXi forum since the beginning, and without much success. It's that one should be grounded in the fundamentals of classical physics from the bottom up (such as detailed in Einstein/Infeld, *The Evolution of Physics*), i.e., understand the mechanics of the universe before taking on the more subtle basis for the mechanics.

Wheeler, at the end of the day, was one of the first modern scientists to introduce the role of consciousness into the mechanics of creation, eventually theorizing that the world is made of information alone ("it from bit"). Rather than relying on metaphysical causation a priori to reach this deduction, however, he got there by increments, from the manifest classical mechanics of gravity in the very large, to the manifest statistical mechanics of the very small.

Uniting the machinery of the deterministic world with the machinery of quantum mechanics is yet an uncompleted task; the comprehension of what "machinery" means, though, is -- as Wheeler notes -- the essence of the problem. A classical connectedness is something we learn early -- wheels and gears and cosmic cycles -- and that's what we commonly call the machine. Digital computing has changed our notion of machine to include effects not so obviously connected. Whether this implies hidden connections (e.g., topological connectedness of the kind described by Joy Christian) that preserves determinism, or whether the world is inherently probabilistic, is the great debate among scientists and philosophers.


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 15:26 GMT

I think you are right that it was Einstein himself. Wasn't it his comment something like; " Mass and energy tell spacetime how to bend and spacetime tells mass and energy how to move." ?

Models only model. Measurement might affect, but that's more a matter of the inherent fuzziness of being part of the system being measured.

It really goes down into the whole 'Math as foundational Platonic ideal belief system.' The philosophy that denies it's a philosophy.

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 15:21 GMT
Dear Georgina : First of all a great BRAVO for your essay. It is really good thinking leading to interesting concepts. I am just struggling with my own essay and hope to submit it at the end of the month. On page 5 point 13 there are paralels with my Foam of Spheres and on page 7 : your data Pool reminds me of my Total Simultaneity. I really like your approach and wish you the best of luck with this contest.


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 02:27 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

thank you for reading my essay.I do appreciate your positive remarks about it. Glad you found some ideas in it that resonate with your own thinking.I look forward to reading your own essay when it appears.

report post as inappropriate

Russ Otter wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 15:59 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Your own essay, which is brilliant, by the way and will receive a great rating from me, argues over and over again, even with your quotes from others for my argument. And I do believe without exception, that Infinity, or Endlessness is Cruel and Malicious. I agree, as it is the ultimate mental jail, we are trapped within. If you are claustrophobic, you are in trouble. However there is one release value, and that is the endless growth of “Knowledge”, which finite sentiency is forever capable of. And must be, to justify the paradox of the finite and the infinite. Or said another way, this paradox is the essence of existence itself. As it could be no other way.

Knowledge is insatiable, due to the absolute fact that infinity is insatiable. Infinity just as knowledge is forever a ponderable and yes cruel and malicious fact – in fact. It is the one thing that assails me with fear of the trapped nature I find myself in. With exception, if I give up to the infinite, then I do not think anymore, and am no longer trapped. It is a duplicitous, and paradoxical reality, I cannot escape.

If I could escape then infinity is no more than a false and finite misnomer, and that is not possible, by its own very real nature.

I hope this explains my position in a way that marries in with your thesis, as your thesis is not in conflict, from my perspective.

It is what it is…

I wish you great success, deeply and sincerely. Albeit your work, already speaks to that fact.

Cheers, Russ

PS… I have a series of Essay’s @ Perhaps they will shed some additional thoughts as to why I believe, as I do.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 19:07 GMT
Dear Russ,

thank you for reading my essay and for your very kind remarks. I am glad you liked it and found it compatible with your own way of thinking. Thanks too for the further explanation of your thoughts and your web address.

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 17:45 GMT
Compared to mine, yours is a meticulously logical approach to the incompatibilities of GR and QM. It is easy at the surface but layers in complexity. I'll delve deeper.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 19:24 GMT
Thank you James,

I do hope you will be able to see how it all fits together. The framework might appear complicated at first but when it is understood it is really rather simple and then easy to use as an explanatory tool.I do have a higher resolution file of diagram 1, if it is too difficult to make out the words on all of the input arrows. Some quality was lost when putting it into the text file. I look forward to reading your essay.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 01:13 GMT

I am fairly certain that one cannot exploit the ability of the unconscious to logically reorder what we know without exposing our minds to multidisciplinary material.

I have known about the double helix of DNA for a long time, but it is just recent that I learned that many of the chemical structures in our body have helical/chiral properties. From the somewhat dated Whyte article, one can conclude, that, within the universe, helicity and spin extend from large galactic formations, down to diverse biological forms, and further down to atomic structures. It seems logical to me that some influence is responsible for this fairly uniform characteristic, and I can't help thinking that the mechanism that creates the force of gravity is involved.

I did not know Whyte was working on a "Geometrical Model of Electromagnetism," Ch 5, May 23, 1969, until I read his diaries several days ago.

Whyte Diary Ch 5

My essay is about a specific characteristic of electromagnetism presented in a geometric form.

I get periodic emails from the Wolfram group about cellular automata. I suspect I get the emails because I did send an email to Wolfram via his website referencing my IEEE paper, and I know my web site received a couple of hits from a Wolfram specific server. Whether Wolfram himself read my paper I do not know.

And yes, your Object Reality section points to the big picture. You quote Feynman, who considers everything being run from behind the scenes by some organisation, the same physical laws. That fits in nicely with Whyte's article on Chirality. There is a physical law and associated mechanism that produces the uniformity of chirality in so many structures.

And there is a left hand bias.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 09:42 GMT
Here is the high definition version of diagram 1. used in the essay.

Some quality was lost putting it into the text. All of the words can be clearly seen on this pdf. Easy to print out and turn around.

attachments: RICP3D_high_def_essay_version..pdf

report post as inappropriate

Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 15:14 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I read and truly enjoyed your entry. You identify and elaborate on what is, in my opinion, one of the main problem in research today. One that has nothing to do with the intelligence and technical skills of scientists but every thing to do with their mindset.

There are two main approaches to theoretical physics. One is to branch out from the assumptions of current theories, which is what that vast majority of researchers do (and should do). The other implies exploring the consequences of an original axiom set.

Those who follow the second approach are people who are willing to question the very foundation of science, even throw out the window, if necessary, theories who have proven to be successful. Those are the people who are thinking outside the box. The problem is, it's extremely difficult to think outside the box for whose mind has been trained to think in certain ways. Do we need to live outside the box, outside of consensus, to allow our minds to see approaches that would otherwise be dismissed? Do we need to live outside the box to think outside the box? History suggests that innovations come from people who actually lived outside the box (who later created new boxes for generations of physicists).

Living outside the box must certainly help setting up the creative mindset needed for the second approach.

I would like my comment with the following. A few years back, I saw a documentary which was, at least in part, discussing how biologists and engineer tried to develop a harness that frogs in the wild would not slip out of (the harness was necessary to attach a tracking device). After months of failed attempts by the scientists and engineers to create a harness frogs wouldn't shed, the problem was submitted to a fashion designer. The fashion designer solved the problem in a matter of days. So does one need to live outside the box to think outside the box? You tell me.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 22:22 GMT
Hi Daniel,

The frog story is amusing, I can imagine the researcher's frustration.

In "Teach your child how to think" Edward de Bono wrote: "Many people ask is there an 'ideal' type of thinking that can be used for all occasions. The answer is that there is not.", he then talks about a golfers many different golf clubs, the gears on a car and how a saw and glue have contradictory functions but are both useful. He writes "Thinking behaviour will often require an ability to switch methods as appropriate."

The very close relationship of modern physics and mathematics has led to predominately black and white thinking and the history of science has been rather adversarial. Specifically -How- to think and the diversity of ways that a person -can- think, is not generally taught in schools or universities. Thinking ability is assumed to be something that will just happen, is a natural gift or deficit and doesn't need cultivation. Edward de Bono strongly believes that thinking can be taught. He has given presentations on thinking techniques to companies, his ideas are used in some very large companies today and there are corporate training courses based upon his ideas. If this happens in business it could also happen within science establishments.

The usefulness of bringing together people from different disciplines or walks of life is that they are already thinking in different ways. So rather than having one versatile mind working on a problem the versatility and enhanced effectiveness comes from the combined mindsets of different people. The internet ability to bring people together can be helpful in this way. FQXi is doing this, as illustrated by the variety of talks given during its last conference.

So the answer, I think, is -No one does not have to be outside the box to think outside the box because anyone could learn other ways of thinking. However it might be quicker and easier to match the existing thinking skills and experience of someone to the problem. As illustrated by your wonderful frog harness story.

I'm glad you liked my essay, thank you.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 13:07 GMT

As per my response to your post on my essay, I at first did not want to repeat previous exchanges. However, here is a list of points I would raise (some of which to varying degrees you agree with). In other words, I sense that this correlates more with what I have said over the past year (I cannot spot any difference between the diagram and the one published in March), but there...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 20:48 GMT
Hi Paul,

thank you for reading my essay and trying to get to grips with it.

The hats were used as a systematic way of presenting the information. Black, white and red inputs and green exploratory arguments demonstrate the very clear foundation upon which the judgement of -Which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong- was based. Not just a hunch, unjustified personal opinion, or raw intuition.

Most of your list concern the black and white facts and problems. These are expressions of your opinions, in your own words. I have used the matters of fact that are widely acknowledged. Neither you or I are experimentalists or qualified theoretical physicists. There comes a point when I need to accept what others, more qualified and experienced, say and -work with- that. So I have taken and used the general consensus of many scientists as to the facts and problems, what works and does not work.

Interpretation of what the facts must mean, how they sit within the framework and can be related to the entirety of reality, and therefore which basic assumptions must be wrong, comes after analysis not at the outset.

I have not altered the diagram other than taking out unnecessary reference letters, as the accompanying definitions list was not included with the essay, and unnecessary decoration. I have not become aware of any problem that would require its alteration, although I have been distracted and not spent a lot of time considering it further. Unless I become aware of a problem with it it will not change except to add details or to express it in a different mathematical or symbolic language.

I do not wish to get into another lengthy debate with you about the linguistic descriptions I have used .The temporal differentiation I have made is very precise. I have explained to you my reason for having pre written and unwritten future on the blog threads.

Once again: To say the pre-written futures are "presents" is extremely unhelpful. They are data from former presents but that would under the conventional use of 'past', 'present', 'future', make them the past. However they are yet to become an observer's present which makes them -until receipt- a future that has not yet become present to that observer.Hence a pre-written future. Differentiated from the unwritten future, "beyond" what exists and that has not had existence I don't want to argue about it. I would like you to think about it some more and realise that it works and does not need alteration.

Thank you for having taken the time to read the essay and comment.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 06:59 GMT

I did not “try to get to grips” with it, I know what you are saying, apart from my own knowledge, I would dread to think how many exchanges we have had over the past year.

Also I am fascinated by the concept that what I say is “opinion” while what you say is “fact”. Whether something is commonly accepted does not make it fact, an examination of what the originator of the theory actually said makes it so.

“To say the pre-written futures are "presents" is extremely unhelpful”

Indeed it is, but I did not say that. The fact is I said: “These are not pre-written futures, they are sensory representations of various presents which has occurred. Only presents physically exist”


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 11:05 GMT
Dear Paul,

I did not feel from your comments that you had fully understood the choice of presentation style, the development of the ideas as the essay progresses or the reason why I say things in a particular way. Despite our many previous discussions I do still not feel that you fully comprehend what I am doing.

The black and white facts and problems were the inputs to the development that followed. They do not need interpreting in your own words according to your personal understanding. They are what they are. I have called them matters of fact because they are accepted as such by a great many scientists, they are not my personal opinion or subjective interpretation.

Thank you for clarifying precisely what you said. I do not think it is more informative or succinct or helpful.They are pre-written futures because that is what I am calling them within the explanatory framework, and I have explained why- both in my recent reply and on the blog discussion threads.

I do not want to argue Paul. It would have been nice to hear something that was good about my essay.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 14:21 GMT

It is not a matter of arguing, but proposing different views, with substantiation and trying to establish what is correct. Which includes saying, not to you personally, 'hang on a minute, Einstein said this about SR, and that about something else'. Though this is really not what is going on most of the time anyway. That is enough to deal with. You may not believe it, given the number of posts I put out, but I only type with one finger. Its hard work, as it is, without dwelling on all the things that are correct/good.


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 19:30 GMT

Wearing my Astronomer hat; Brilliant, clear, logical and consistent. From the Optics viewpoint; a sight for sore eyes, and as an Architect; excellently constructed, beautifully presented and nicely original. You must also be used to teaching some students who are maybe not the sharpest tools in the box, not only as it is among the more readable and comprehensible but because your patience in explaining the concepts is itself commendable.

I'm glad you persisted when you got tired, and really hope you get into the finals this year. I plan to read it again and maybe raise points, but 'first reads' are hard to keep up with when time just keeps going faster as space expands (doesn't it?!?)

Good score coming from me for sure. Best of luck.


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 01:24 GMT
Hi Peter,

thank you so much for prompt administration of the antidote.It was nice to read your highly complimentary comments. I am glad that even with just a quick look you can see some good points worth mentioning. I'm hoping that the simplicity of the presentation does not make readers, especially those unfamiliar with my explanations on the various FQXi blog threads, think that the essay can not contain anything of significance.There are a lot of ideas, solutions and suggestions packed into it.

The explanatory framework is still just the "bones" that give a coherent structure to physics. They can be fleshed out by looking at all sorts of different areas of research and seeing how they fit on those "bones".This was only briefly mentioned at the end as there was not room to elaborate. George Ellis' competition entry is talking about top down control of development and seems highly relevant. Also there can be development of a mathematical or symbolic representation and further understanding of the mathematical relationships of different parts of the framework itself.

Some areas of physics will not fit with the explanatory framework.It is likely that- because so many other aspects of physics will fit, and so many problems are overcome, those that can not fit are based upon physical assumptions that are wrong. The structure of the essay enables the essay question to be handled using compelling evidence and to be answered with conviction.

I have uploaded a high definition version of the diagram which is much easier to read into this discussion thread.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson replied on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 18:29 GMT

I didn't know Peter Jackson had responded to your essay, as I had not accessed your forum until just now.

I had just posted a comment to Peter's essay (topic 1330) where I quoted a statement from your essay. See Frank Makinson wrote on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 16:14 GMT

report post as inappropriate

J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 16:12 GMT
Hi Again Georgina,

I recently was reminded of a quotation by David Deutsch which made me think about your views and about your essay. Unless I'm mistaken, this is consistent with your views:

"Like an explosive awaiting a spark, unimaginably numerous environments in the universe are waiting out there, for aeons on end, doing nothing at all or blindly generating evidence and storing it up or pouring it out into space. Almost any of them would, if the right knowledge ever reached it, instantly burst into a radically different type of physical activity: intense knowledge-creation, displaying all the various kinds of complexity, universality and reach that are inherent in the laws of nature, and transforming that environment from what is typical today into what could become typical in the future. If we want to, we could be that spark." (From 'The Beginning of Infinity,' p. 75) A nice thought.



report post as inappropriate

Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 18:20 GMT
Dear Georgina

I very much like the overall way you have done this essay, using de Bono's ideas as a framework, and your overall analysis of image and reality (which is a key issue).Just one comment on that part: Tegmark is a very capable physicist but when he says "Evolution has endowed us with intuition only for those aspects of physics that had survival value for our distant ancestors, such as the parabolic trajectories of flying rocks” he is wrong - he's buying into the myth of evolutionarily determined folk physics modules, which don't exist. Actually nature has endowed us with the ability to learn from our experiences, which eventually enable us to anticipate how rocks will move - it's not innate.

The crux of your argument is your interesting diagram (thanks for the high-res version) which is in effect a model of how we create our models of reality. Where I part with you is your section "So which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong?' To my mind it goes a bit too far in emphasizing subjectivity rather than objective reality. They both exist - the issue is the relation between them. But then I am with you again in Diagram 2 (which will not surprise you).

One final comment: you say "Stephen Wolfram’s cellular automata show that complexity can arise from certain inputs and certain sets of rules, reiterated upon the output" Actually the level of complexity that can so arise is very limited. Yes his patterns are fun: but they don't begin to compare with a single living cell. They are about as complex as you can get by bottom-up processes alone. Genuine complexity requires some kind of organising principle which is in essence equivalent to a top-down effect (I know it won't surprise you that I claim this).

Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 03:30 GMT
Dear George,

thank you so much for reading my essay and taking the time to work out what the diagram 1. is showing. I would not myself word it as image and reality, but appreciate that you can see the important separation that is being made. I have, over a long time talking about these ideas on FQXi blog threads, worked out a precise way of consistently communicating the particular ideas....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 07:58 GMT
Hi Georgina

It was nice to read your essay, I found it very clever and creative in the way how you exposed your points. I think you touch some important topics. Certainly I must confess that you touch so many topics which due to the lack of space it is impossible to treat them in more detail. I just would like to make some comments about the topics that you touch.

You have listed...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 09:43 GMT
Dear Israel,

thank you for reading my essay and for your explanations. I'm glad you liked the form of presentation. I hoped to write something with much greater clarity and ease of reading than last years FQXi essay, and that other essay I sent to you. I think I have improved my writing by reading "The craft of scientific writing" by Michael alley, listening to your advice and looking at the examples of well written papers. Concentrating especially on setting out the points clearly and using simple language, grammar and sentence structure.

It was not my intention to deal with all of the points touched upon, but to answer the essay question using my own explanatory framework, (which you have seen before) as the means to accomplish that task. There is also a high resolution version of the diagram in this discussion thread. To me that framework is the most important thing in the essay. I was limited, as we all have been, by the permitted character count and so could not develop ideas or discuss them more comprehensively. Without a character limit I could easily have written an essay twice as long. However then it would then have become rambling and tedious rather than concise and enjoyable. It benefits from being less.

I've taken Brendan Foster's advice, that he gave on the blog threads, which was to the effect -if including own work to show how it is relevant and to show development. I also cited your essay, (that you sent me to look at), after my essay with other useful background material because it contains a large number of important "foundational" ideas that are clearly explained.

You make an interesting point about the difference between quantitative and qualitative matters. That other essay of mine, ( you asked me to send to you) was saying that philosophy should not be divorced from science. That it is important to find the correct relationship of ideas not just matters of fact. However I think that having the correct relationship of ideas and the matters of fact they can then be expressed in a formal symbolic way, if not a mathematical way. More so than diagram 1. Though some qualitative products of the human sensory system such as -subjective experience- of colours, sensations and emotions might not be adequately expressed through formal symbolism. These are probably not within the scope of physics. Such matters may be better left to poets, lyricists and artists whose work is able to stimulate the imagination and recreate the sensations and emotions they have expressed through their language or visual art.

report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 16:10 GMT
Hi Georgina

No problem, I think that this contest is good for all of us in the sense that one can interchange ideas, improve the quality of our works and stimulate our imagination, there is no doubt about it. This contest also makes you realize what your weak and strong points are. Indeed, I noticed that you cited my work, thanks for that I appreciate it.

I agree with you that philosophy should not be divorce from science, in particular physics. But for physicists mathematical matters are more important due to the quantitative character of this science. As I mention in my essay, what matters for science are quantitative predictions because this leads to technological applications. And this is related to the fact of how scientists work. If you would like to understand in more detail this I suggest you should read two important books from the philosophy of science: (1) The structure of scientific revolutions, the author is Thomas Kuhn and (2) Against Method, Paul Feyerabend. The first book focuses on how the changes of thought and paradigms take place in science. The second one deals with the fact that science does not follows rules. Feyerabend argues that for science to make progress, scientists have to be anarchic. A theory gains his popularity not only because it is plausible but also because it is highly promoted.

Good luck in the contest


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 02:45 GMT
Dear Israel,

yes, facilitating the sharing and exchange of ideas, (whatever they are/seem; good, bad or curious), is probably the best aspect of this competition. Unlike other competitions where only winner's essay are shared. The whole FQXi site is useful in that way too. It is a marvellous thing, especially for those who don't work in an academic environment. Who would not otherwise have access to the kinds of novel ideas shown on FQXi, and would not get feedback on their own ideas either.

Thank you for the book suggestions.

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 13:05 GMT
my dear Georgina, I saw that you answered already to Bobby Gilbertson on the thread of my essay of last year. I am awaiting now the acceptance of my new essay "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" which I hope will be soon, I am sure that is a lot to discuss together, both our perceptions of "reality" are touching each other but also flying far away. Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 00:44 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I posted new paper in, it is

in my new paper I discuss my MSRT in more comprehensive sense. How can we understand Lorentz transformation equations by a different way from Einstein SR. How my new interpretation is agreed with quantum field theory, and then how can we solving the contradiction between quantum field theory and GR by the modified General relativity according to my MSRT. In my paper I answered the question if Light bending by gravity or refracted? this is the lost key in order to unifying between quantum gravity and relativity.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 22:39 GMT
(As I have mentioned in my message to Daniel Wagner Fonteles Alves on his essay thread "Absolute or Relative Motion... or Something Else?") This paper ALGEBRAS, QUANTUM THEORY AND PRE-SPACE F. A. M. FRESCURA and B. J. HILEY Department of Physics, Birkbeck College, London WC1E 7HX UK (Received In February, 22, 1984) like my own framework, argues for different facets of reality.Called in that paper...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

J. C. N. Smith wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 11:30 GMT
Hi again Georgina,

I awoke earlier than usual this morning (my best time of day to attempt what passes here as clear thinking) and felt a burning desire to read something logical, so I read your essay again. The term "tour de force" is an apt description of your essay. And thus far it has stood the test of time.

Of course, all these words of praise should not be taken to mean that I'm in total lockstep with each and every one of your specific conclusions (I must admit to being agnostic with regard to your conclusions about gravity and space-time curvature, for example. I fear that gravity has a much firmer hold on me than I have on it), but the overall impression one is left with after reading your essay is one of having read the work of a clear thinker.

You wrote, "There is no reason to assume that the Object universe does not have an eternal history. It is always only the newest iteration of itself but containing data generated within earlier iterations." I like that. It's my own view, fwiw, that the universe has one, and only one, real history, albeit one which necessarily will be perceived differently by different observers. James Gleick, in his fascinating book 'The Information,' commented that "the universe computes its own destiny."

While I obviously can't speak for anyone else, I find myself living in an evolving three-dimensional universe. Space-time, for me, is a potentially useful but also potentially misleading mathematical abstraction having no ontological reality. It arises partly as a consequence of a faulty view regarding the fundamental purpose of clocks, which, in turn, leads to a faulty view regarding the fundamental nature of time. But as you well know, you really don't want to get me started on all that.

Always nice to drop by! Thanks again for the refreshing essay.



report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 13:53 GMT
Hi J.C.N Smith,

I am so glad you did pop by because it has been very quiet here. I will happily discuss why those particular conclusions are a necessary consequence of the explanatory framework I am using. If you look at the diagram 1., (there is a high resolution version in this thread), you can see two different facets of reality shown on different levels. One which is observer...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

J. C. N. Smith replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 04:00 GMT
Hi Georgina,

"For everyday purposes of safe locomotion and navigation, thinking of the observed reality as 3 dimensional is sufficient. However on further consideration it is clear that it takes more time (more arrangements or iterations) for light emitted from very distant objects to reach the observer than near ones. It is the data that is formed into the observed reality not the source objects. The data transmission and processing delay leads to the emergent effect of space-time.Remember we are seeing the output manifestations and not the actualised source objects."

Yes, of course. You're preaching to the choir. We're in total agreement on this. When I said I find myself living in an evolving three-dimensional universe, this is of course exactly what I'm talking about. In spite of all this, however, it's still an evolving three-dimensional universe. Let's not lose sight of that fundamental fact either.

Unfortunately, the configuration of this evolving three-dimensional universe is intrinsically unknowable to us except through sensory data as discussed in your essay. The best we can ever hope for, therefore, is our accustomed ration of out-of-date, best approximations of objective reality. But we manage to muddle through amazingly well in spite of this handicap. We're accustomed to this condition, having never experienced anything other. Had we not learned to compensate and make the best of a less than ideal situation, we'd not be here.



report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 05:11 GMT
Hi J.C. N. Smith ,

I'm sorry for telling you what you know well yourself. I am so accustomed to repeating it. (John might say banging my head against the wall.)

Whether it is best thought of as a 3 dimensional universe at the foundational level (ie. in Object reality or pre-space) is debatable. It can be thought of as such as it matches our understanding of reality from experience. However, many different observers equidistant from an object could simultaneously look at it and see it differently. Each is receiving different data emitted from the source object and imposing their own 3 dimensional structure onto the manifestation. The source object has to be the parent of all of the manifestaions not any one.

So is it a 3 dimensional source object in a single 3 dimensional space? How are the dimensions to be oriented? I don't think they can be put in one absolute orientation.John has argued for a long time that there must be infinitely many dimensions. I just think that perhaps the 3 dimensional description is inadequate and it may be better to think of objects spread out in all directions from their centres of gravity.

You make a good point about compensation for the imperfect knowledge we obtain via our senses. I think it was one of the FQXi conference lectures that touched on the way in which the human brain compensates for the mismatch of visual and auditory inputs. Might have been David Eagleman's but I will have to check that.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 00:26 GMT
This is interesting especially the fascinating video; showing creation of objects that give multiple "different output realities" The potential to produce different sets of sensory data, that will generate different image realities for the observer, is within the structure of the object. The observer's reality is produced from the data that is selected for observation.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 21:44 GMT
The stopped clock illusion

This is interesting and relevant to the point about whether a clock (or any material object we might care to name) is the unobserved object, data in the environment emitted or reflected from it or the observed output of data processing.There is currently a lack of clear differentiation of the difference in physics.

When a person looks at a clock (unobserved object) they receive sensory data emitted or reflected from it and see the out put of processing of that (the normal well understood process of vision). Though the output is a fabrication it is regarded as the source object. Yes I have experienced this illusion too.This is relevant to ideas of relativity involving clocks because they involve what an observer will -see-!!

report post as inappropriate

J. C. N. Smith replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 15:07 GMT
Hi Georgina,

"There is currently a lack of clear differentiation of the difference in physics."

Agree, and you're doing yeoman service to highlight this area in your essays. Once again, it's so very important to use our words carefully and to do all we can to ensure that we're all on the same page regarding the meaning of the words we use. Not easy, and far from "automatic"! Far too much is "taken for granted" in this regard. We're using the same words, so we *must* mean the same thing, right? Maybe, or maybe not.

Btw, I've noticed this illusion with a digital watch, too.


report post as inappropriate

Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 21:41 GMT

Lovely and even amusing essay, with an important theme consistent with others here. We're in stiff competition.

I hope youget to read mine and comment.



report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 23:14 GMT
Hi Richard, thank you for taking a look.

You comments are ambiguous to me. Perhaps they are intentionally so, like describing a red wine as reminiscent of a warm summer's evening. My essay is intended to be extraordinary rather than quaint and entertaining rather than comical. I hope you found it so. If not perhaps you would need to spend more time to fully appreciate it. There is a high definition version of the diagram 1. in this essay discussion thread.

Having only just come upon this brilliant and entertaining taxonomy of idea A (draft) taxonomy of ideas by David MacCandless I must apologise to everyone whose work I have called interesting. If it is interesting to me it is something special (meant in the best way), without associated implication of my feeling regarding current functionality.I would have 'interesting' on the conceptual structure axis, as it could apply (as I use it) to either functional or (currently, seemingly) dysfunctional ideas.

The designer doesn't have lovely or amusing on his taxonomy. Nice and funny seem the closest which, interestingly, cancel each other out on the functionality scale. Still ranking higher than interesting on the positive scale of conceptual structure. So thank you.

I will read your essay.

report post as inappropriate

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 09:35 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I have read your essay a few times and I have liked your novel point of view. Your essay is very well-written, interesting and highly relevant. I wish you good luck in the contest.

Recently, I have noticed some wild variations in community rated list of contest essays. There is a possibility of existence of some biased group or cartel (e.g. Academia or Relativists group) which promotes the essays of that group by rating them all 'High' and jointly demotes some other essays by rating them all 'Low'. As you know, we are not selecting the 'winners' of the contest through our ratings. Our community ratings will be used for selecting top 35 essays as 'Finalists' for further evaluation by a select panel of experts. Therefore, any biased group should not be permitted to corner all top 'Finalists' positions for their select group.

In order to ensure fair play in this selection, we should select (as per laid down criteria) as our individual choice, about 50 essays for entry in the finalists list and RATE them 'High'. Next we should select bottom 50 essays and rate them 'Low'. Remaining essays may be rated as usual. If most of the participants rate most of the essays this way then the negative influence of any bias group can certainly be mitigated.

I have read many but rated very few essays so far and intend to do a fast job now onwards by covering at least 10 essays every day.

Finally I wish to see your excellent essay reach the list of finalists.

Best Regards

G S Sandhu

report post as inappropriate

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 12:43 GMT
Dear Georgina,

You are also requested to read and rate my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Kindly do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.

Best Regards

G S Sandhu

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 20:38 GMT
Dear Gurcharn,

thank you for your favourable comments about my essay. I am delighted that you have spent time with it and consider it worthy of being a finalist.

Re. your concern about essay positions: Many people have not yet voted. The positions of the essays could- and probably will- change significantly between now and the end of community voting. I have read a lot of essays, commented upon some of them, and intend to read more. I expect everyone is a bit surprised by the number of entries this year.

FQXi blog comments and essay filtering are not a paying jobs though. If I had been paid for the hours spent on this site over the years I would have earned a considerable sum by now and my family would be better off and happier. I am only going to do what I feel able and happy to do at this time.I am not willing to do more. Hopefully I will get to your essay and be able to leave some constructive or positive comments.

Kind regards and good luck to you.

report post as inappropriate

Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 21:05 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I rather like your essay as it highlights the human aspect of doing science and considers how we think and approach problems and dilemmas. And we sure have plenty of those!

I had been thinking that I would have very much liked to have placed some diagrams into my essay because I imagine many readers might think it is a bit heavy on the math and dense conceptualism (that was necessary to rigorously demonstrate the findings), but there was just not enough time for that. The beautiful diagram in your essay was a real inspiration for so that I recently created and uploaded 2 diagrams explaining the essential findings of the essay (your principles in action).

If you should have to time to take a look and venture an opinion that would be very much appreciated. The topic seems to be very much in line with what you consider in your essay concerning time, space and the emergence of space-time.

With best wishes,

Steve Sycamore

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 01:43 GMT
Hi Stephen,

thank you for your feedback. I'm glad you were inspired by the diagram. To fit with the instructions given by the organisers, I used the framework, represented by that diagram to answer the specific question that was set. Rather than just discussing in detail the explanatory framework itself.

FQXi contest information -"Note: Successful and interesting essays will not use this topic as an opportunity to trot out their pet theories simply because those theories reject assumptions of some other or established theory. Rather, the challenge here is to create new and insightful questions or analysis about basic, often tacit, assumptions that can be questioned but often are not."

I hope that that is what my essay clearly does. Questioning how we think about science and, by thinking about it differently, questioning some very strongly entrenched basic assumptions that are most likely wrong.

I too hope I will have time to read and discuss your essay.

report post as inappropriate

Stephen M Sycamore replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 08:20 GMT
Yes, I've been thinking too about the wisdom of the guidelines you quoted. One important measure of relevance of each essay ought to be how many deep and pertinent questions the essay evokes and what valid approaches to possible answers may be considered without becoming fixated on any one answer prematurely.

Thanks for your excellent observation.


report post as inappropriate

Jonathan Kerr wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 23:03 GMT
Hello Georgina,

I'll respond here rather than there. Thanks, will look at your essay again, with that in mind.

Best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 21:27 GMT
Greetings Georgina!

Yet another FQXi contest to bring us together! Thanks for your comprehensive “to do” list! I will get on with it as soon as this contest is over! Remembering how well we resonated over what physically makes sense I am once again seeking you out for your insights. The title says only part of the story, “The Metaphysics of Physics”. The Summary and Endnotes make the case for some of that story with mathematical precision. Among these I think you will find interesting my mathematical derivation of the Law of Inertia and the proof of the proposition: “If the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave”.

With this demonstration, we can put to rest the why and how of CSL. As a wave light needs a medium (ether?) to propagate and will propagate in a medium at a constant speed determined by the medium. And this speed will be independent of the 'source'. And since the speed of propagation can only be measured 'locally' to the medium of propagation, the speed will also be independent of the observer.

My essay is currently hovering between 'being' and 'not being'. With a little boost from my friends it might just make it over that hump.

Best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 21:07 GMT
Hi Constantinos,

I read your essay soon after it was posted, (as I have enjoyed your previous writing and our 'blogs' conversations very much). I have also reread it again since then. I have intended to comment but need to think more about it too. Please know that I am not ignoring you or your essay. Good luck in the competition.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:30 GMT

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !


August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 21:26 GMT
Dear Hoang Cao Hai,

I have posted a reply on your essay thread. It would be nice to have some feedback from you on my own essay. My particular interest is the explanatory framework that I use to answer the set essay question. There is a high resolution version of diagram 1 in this essay thread, which is the correct way around and it is easy to read all of the labels. I have not just presented my "pet theory" but gone through the deductive steps I consider necessary to answer which (most important) basic physical assumptions are wrong. The framework necessary to have relativity and QM without contradiction, overcome the temporal paradoxes make sense of the arrow of time etc. also necessitates that those highlighted assumptions are wrong.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 05:53 GMT
Dear Georgina Parry

I am very happy to read your comments and was very sad about the my English language.

The reason for I have no more comment because every essay gives a perspective and different measures, even though we share the same Topics.

That so,it is very difficult to get consensus on the method of settlement, which is the same as the formula E = mc2 will is how to calculate the energy for a potato or a bread?

So that, I have chosen measures is to create a specific purpose for all of us, the hope is to focus everyone's ability to gradually solve the problems really exist.

I appreciate the essay by Georgina Parry,because have not using the mathematical formula that contains many unknowns to solve the problem is still a mystery because of insufficient grounds or basis to confirmed.

I also agree with the comments for the false assumption of you, hope to contact with you then more, especially the support of the English language if do not disturb to you.

Kind regards ! Hải.Caohoàng

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 09:53 GMT

I hope you may have managed to see the play again as intended. I'd value you thoughts on the mechanism (and score!). I think this simple understanding is very important for progress; That a pair of photons 'passing by' a lens which is moving towards the source have a different distance between them and speed to the ones entering the lens medium and optical nerve. The massive implications still seem to be missed by those too indoctrinated with standard assumptions. I'm sure you can see it, if not yet the consequences for unifying SR and QM.

I'd like to see you a lot higher up and am giving you a deserved top score. I also wonder if neither of us had the min 10 scores last year, which would keep us out of consideration, so scoring is important. I wish you luck and best wishes.


report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:01 GMT
Thanks Georgina. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.


report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:44 GMT
Dear Georgina,

There are attempts to solve some your questions. For example Strong gravitation at the level of particles. The problem of 'arrow of time' must be investigated in view of the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (my essay about it) . A reason for the 'arrow of time' is different rate of time at low levels of matter. At the level of atoms time goes much more quickly then at the level of star, so any macro-event first of all take place at the low levels of matter. On one hand the physics equations are symmetrical in time, on the other hand the arrow means different probability for inverse processes. We use very simple microscopic time-reversible equations but in reality in every process take place dissipation of energy and interaction of numerous particles. If we include dissipation in equation of motion the processes will have known final and the arrow of time appears. I agree with you that gravity is not caused by curvature of space-time, and < Einsteins theories of general and special relativity are mathematical descriptions of what will be observed rather than the underlying actualisations.>

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 19:52 GMT
Dear Sergey,

My essay gives answer to many of those questions that are set out at the beginning. The questions are given because an explanation that is able provide self consistent answers to those questions is also likely to be able to highlight what basic assumptions have been wrong.I could have mentioned some others but chose to highlight the biggest most obstructive false assumption...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 22:04 GMT
Further to my previous reply I think I should just clarify a few things. When talking about a sphere of data, I am talking about a 2D surface. Also the sphere is a simple generalisation. For a source object with a non uniform form, the data that is related to a single iteration of the object is not necessarily a uniform distance from the source object. There is also in the spherical description the assumption that data can be transmitted in all direction from the surface of the source object, which might not be the case. The direction of transmission may be constrained by the environment in which the source object is located.

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 23:28 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I enjoyed reading your essay. You do a very nice job of explaining and exploring a vast array of ideas, problems, and paradoxes in a concise manner. A few thoughts come to mind:

1. Regarding your first section (facts) points 1 and 3, I would point out that general relativity works only if we assume that the phenomena we call “dark matter” and “dark...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 02:30 GMT
Dear Benjamin Dribus,

thank you so much for your comments. I really appreciate the time you have spent with my essay and your making the effort to give feedback on it. I am sorry about the diagram being on its side. I wanted to get it as large as possible so that it would be easier to read as there are a lot of labels. If printed out it could be turned around, though I have posted a high...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 01:01 GMT

For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of interest and see what responses I got to my own essay. There are over 250 entries, so I narrowed down my evaluations. For only those who responded, I decided to reread and provide my evaluations before time expired, not making it a popularity contest but keeping in mind that I entered for an exchange of interesting ideas, whether I agree or not. Some concepts are superior and more persuasively supported.


report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 03:17 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Oh, I should have explained... what you say about "order" is absolutely correct, and the relativity of simultaneity is one of the most important points... in fact, it's what I use to replace the "group symmetry interpretation of the covariance principle." I mean "generalized partial order," which exactly incorporates this kind of structure, but sometimes I get sloppy about including all the adjectives. Anyway, I do explain all this carefully in my essay. I'd appreciate your thoughts! Take care,


report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 04:16 GMT
Very respected Georgina Parry


Today, I am finished reading all of the essays in this topic.

First of all, thanks again to FQXi and the donors has facilitated for us to have the opportunity get contribute to science.

Next, would like to express to other author by the thanks for the comments that you have contributed to give me, and sincere apologies to those of you that I do not have specific feedback for your essay.The reason that is because:

The placing for issues and measures to solve for the problems of your offer is completely different from mine, so I can not comment when we do not have the same views on one matter, the purpose is to avoid the discussion became conflict of ideologies,it is will not be able to solve the problem which we are interested.

The end, I hope that : we ( who want the human to put their faith in science) will have the same fear: to someday,every people told each other that:



report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 12:55 GMT
Dear Ms. Georgina,

Thank you for taking the time and the trouble to read my essay. Thank you also for the extremely kind considerate comment you left.

report post as inappropriate

Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 12:18 GMT
Hi Georgina --

Your essay covers a lot of territory, and I found the list-structure a little bewildering, since each item on each list would take me some time to feel clear about. Similarly, there's so much going on in your diagram that I don't yet feel that I understand what it's saying, as a whole.

But this reflects the situation we're all in, if we try to envision the foundations...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 21:45 GMT
Dear Conrad,

thank you so such for reading my essay and for your very helpful feedback. I wanted to begin the task of answering the set essay question (ie identify false assumptions in physics) by looking at the problems, both theoretical and philosophical, that need to be resolved as they are indicative of foundational false assumption/s at play. The list structure was necessary because of...

view entire post

David Rousseau wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 13:42 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I like the way you connect philosophical matters with empirical ones, and agree with many of the views you defend here. Also that persistent paradoxes and anomalies are key to identifying phenomena beyond the known.

As a systems philosopher I think you are spot on when you say:

"The relationships of everything allow the Object universe to function and become, rather than just exist. The relationships are integral to the arrangement of the constituents, being the variables and parameters that produce force for change or the potential for change."

Can you send me a high-res copy of your diagram 1 please? My email address is on the 1st page footer of my essay. Thanks!

Good luck, you deserve to do well in the competition,

Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 05:50 GMT
Thank you very much indeed for your positive feedback. I have sent an email.

report post as inappropriate

David Rousseau replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 13:31 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Thank you so much for the diagrams and other info - very interesting! More feedback to follow. Have also emailed back.

Best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Chris Kennedy wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 00:28 GMT

Nice Essay and excellent choice of presentation style. I can only classify how a fan of GR and QM would attempt to explain uncertainty on the quantum level existing in block time as a conundrum. You point out so many other gems too.

Good luck to you.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 08:54 GMT
Thank you : )

report post as inappropriate

Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 11:18 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I like how you used de Bono's thinking hats. Even the most creative scientists may find help in using simple strategies to improve lateral thinking. The result is interesting and beautiful, congratulations.

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 10:00 GMT
Dear Cristi,

thank you so much. I really appreciate your positive feedback. Georgina : )

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 14:25 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I thought your essay had an interesting analysis and discussion of the situation we find ourselves in in the universe, and I liked your upbeat conclusion.



report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 09:57 GMT
Thanks lorraine,

I appreciate the feedback.


report post as inappropriate

Andreas Boe wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 21:10 GMT
I have just read your essay and I like your holistic approach.

I jumped at a couple of details that surprised me that you according to my own assumptions has got wrong. But that is the backside of trying to grasp the whole thing instead of concentrating on a single piece. It is a super-human undertaking to get everything right, covering many diverse fields.

The two things I jumped at was:

1. The Twins Paradox.

"This paradox is due to misuse of theory".

Physically, it is not a paradox at all. Clocks and chemical processes just runs like syrup at relativistic speeds. The travelling twin is preserved, because he hasn't experienced the same amount of time as the earth-bound one. This is experimentally proven with atomic clocks in jet-planes in the early 1970's.

2. Expansion of the Universe.

"The red shift evidence for expansion may possibly be due to the continual universal motion of the Earth"

I am not sure I understand your hypothesis of choice, but... no.

Several ideas has been put forward as alternative explanations for the red-shift: Light-speed is not constant, but slows down. Or: Everything shrinks and gives an illusion of distances growing. Those ideas simply does not fit observations.

These remarks is not ment as mocking. I think you have made a great contribution to the community as a fellow amateur cosmologist.

Good luck in your further studies.


I have answered your post in my essay home page.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 04:02 GMT
Dear Andreas,

thank you for taking a look at my essay. I'm glad you like the approach.

You picked out a couple of ideas that struck you as surprising. It is important to understand that that what I have said must be understood within the explanatory framework that is being used to answer the essay question.

I will explain further in a while but don't have time for a full answer right now.

Kind regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 08:48 GMT
Dear Andreas,

Some thought about the two issues you raised.

Re.the twins: Considering what time is within the explanatory framework used to answer the essay question. In Object reality there is only uni-temporal-Now, everything existing exists simultaneously. Passage of time is the simultaneous change of the whole universe, iteration by iteration, (configuration by configuration...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Andreas Boe replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 15:00 GMT
Let's drop the red-shift thoughts and take another round at the twin paradox.

The two men at the excercise bikes in your example experience time the same because the electrons move around the cesiums atoms in their bodies the same number of times per second. But if the peddling mans feet peddle the bike very fast, the electrons around the cesium atoms in his feet will move a little slower, so that he ends up a bit older than his feet. That is in a physical, chemical and ultimately biological sense. There is still a common now for both men, but the ticks of Universal time ticks away faster in the slower moving mind of a moving person.

(I promise to question myself if this is a wrong assumption of mine, I am sure to learn something new from it).


Cesium may not be very abundant in human flesh, but I used to live down wind from Chernobyl, so I know at least me and my brother have some of it. He can be the peddler and I the paper-reader :->

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 02:40 GMT
Hello Georgina,

It appears you are still in the game. Good to see you made the finals (assuming there are no more chaotic oscillations). May the judges treat your work kindly, and see the value you bring to the table.

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 00:10 GMT
Hi Johnathan,

thank you for your good wishes.I received confirmation that I am a finalist from Brendan, when I enquired. Lets hope the work of all finalists is thoroughly considered against the judging criteria. Also taking account of other guidance to all competitors given on the FQXi site.

Good luck and all the best to you too. Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 12:44 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I see you perhaps a bit too nice. In other words, I would rather like you to not praise Einstein's relativity as an unquestionable fact but declaring externally existing foundational spacetime wrong. Minkowski credited Einstein, and he could also have credited Poincaré. I do not see any chance to ignore their redefinition of time and space and be nonetheless a good relativist fellow.

Relativity, in your opinion, is all about what will be observed and not about what is occurring at the foundational level of reality. You also think it is necessary to separate ageing from passage of time. In the explanatory framework you are using there can be no difference in time for anything as there is only one time to be at, which is the uni-temporal-Now.

Your essay is not the only one I see maneuvering between orthodox relativists and own more ore less common sense arguments. While your idea to alternatively explain redshift will perhaps not enlighten anybody, I very much appreciate and support your intention.

My own suggestion for resolving the matter is slightly different and definitely hurting to many: Observers and subject reality do not play any central role in it. You know, I am distinguishing alternatively between what has already become irreversible reality and what might possibly happen.

Spacetime is always thought like a model that is based on experience, i.e. its explanatory and predictive power necessarily relates to the past because it is obviously impossible even at the most basic level to know and consider all possible influences. You did perhaps mean about the same when you called spacetime emergent.

Best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 22:27 GMT
Dear Eckard thank you so much for your feedback.I will answer in two parts because of the length.

My highlighted basic false assumptions make it clear that I consider externally existing foundational space-time to be wrong.

Here they are listed again as in the essay....

1. Space time exists externally ×

2. Space-time is foundational ×

3. Time is a dimension of external reality ×

4. Gravity is caused by curvature of space-time ×

5. The visible Image universe (as seen) has material existence ×

6. Space and time began at the Big Bang ×

7. The universe is the space-time continuum past, present, and future fully formed by inflation from a singularity ×

Then I have another list of what must be correct assumptions:The first few here:

From what is known and what is required for a fully functional explanatory framework, without contradictions or paradoxes, these postulates can be given-

1. Space-time is an output from processing data that has undergone transmission delay of varying amounts.

2. Space-time is emergent.

3. Time is not a dimension of independently existing Object reality but is a dimension of observer fabricated Image reality.

It is clear from those lists that space-time is not supported as the foundational reality in which physics is occurring. Having said that Einstein's relativity and Minkowski space-time works to predict what will be observed and so are still useful. Though I understand that Hamilton's quaternion arrangement is more useful for example for navigation by jet pilots. I think both kinds of mathematics are dealing with potential sensory data transmission and how that data will be intercepted, rather than the arrangement of foundational sources of data that are existing in uni-temporal-Now.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 23:22 GMT
Dear Eckard, Continuing my reply to you:

Your second paragraph does correctly summarize my stance on those matters.

With regard to my suggestion about red shift; I don't have enough personal knowledge of astronomy to have to hand the kind of evidence that would support the proposed cause. The proposed explanation does fit with the explanatory framework. It might be useful for me to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Chris Fields wrote on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 23:35 GMT
Dear Georgina,

As far as I can tell, what you are here calling "image reality" is any finite description recorded using classical information. If this is the case, the relationship between image reality and "object reality" is a semantic relationship: the former describes the latter in the formal sense of being a mapping from the latter to some collection of classical symbols that are...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 04:41 GMT

thank you very much for taking a look. The image reality is an output from processing of received data. It can have different forms depending upon what the observer is and thus how the data is processed into that output.A human observer's experienced reality is different from a photographic image. However both amalgamate data arriving together into a single output. Giving an image showing temporal as well as spatial spread. That's the important difference between the two sides of the reality interface. The Object reality is uni-temporal, the Image reality has temporal spread.

The Object reality is only ever the youngest version of itself. So space-time is not simply a map of that Object reality. A sequence of iterations of Object reality, which is an abstract concept not something having existence could be mapped to space-time. As the space-time fabrication is made up from data that has originated in different iterations of the Object universe and has taken different lengths of time to arrive.

How EM data and sound data travel though the environment is important as it is the data that is intercepted by the observer that is fabricated into his/her /its Image reality. That's where Hamilton's quaternions, or related maths may come in useful as they can describe the data spreading out (over a sequence of iteration of the object universe) from the source in space rather than on a flat space-time manifold.

I'll make this reply in two parts, so its not too much to read all in one go.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 05:52 GMT
The Image reality output is whatever is produced. Eg. specks giving hue/ shade/intensity in the visual field or on a screen or photo -identified as objects. The output can be described mathematically. Which is another step away from the Object reality. That's what I think Minkowski space time is, IE a description of the Image reality OUTPUT or what will be observed. You will notice on the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 29, 2012 @ 22:41 GMT
first steps towards a truly immersive virtual reality

Which makes me think it should be possible to feel something in a completely different part of the house, or even the world. If sensors are used to ascertain the feedback that would be generated by touching an object, that can then be transmitted to the remote observer who could then feel that input safely via the virtual hand. The...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

J. C. N. Smith wrote on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 13:34 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Congratulations for having moved on to the final phase of competition . . . very well deserved! I'll be looking for you among the ultimate winners.

Thanks for your kind words over on my blog. Much appreciated. At the risk of repeating something I may have mentioned to you in an earlier post, I hope you'll add Sir Arthur Eddington's book 'The Nature of the Physical World' to your list of "must read" books, in case you've not already done so. Written in 1928, it is a wonderful look into many of the topics near and dear to our hearts, and offers a bit of a "time capsule" of thinking from that era. The book is available from Amazon, among other sources. George Ellis recommended it to me, for which I owe him a debt of gratitude.

Best of luck to you for the future, here and elsewhere, Georgina!


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 10:59 GMT

This is something you might be interested in:

You are far more organized than I, so I would just like add the basic germ of my own point, in terms of how reality/energy goes past to future, as information/structure goes future to past.

Just a thought.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 21:49 GMT
Hi John.

I think it is a good choice for FQXi to be concentrating on information as that is key to understanding the connection between what is going on and what is observed/measured forming our experienced reality.

Re.The "physical information" and recent discussions elsewhere.It isn't necessary to accept block time just because there is experimental evidence in favour of the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 04:03 GMT

A big part of the problem is that our brains are based on this process, so it becomes a bit of a hall of mirrors. The conceptual issue here is that the act of mentally focusing is equivalent to shorter waves and they, if we try to mentally freeze them as a bit of information, appear to be particles. To really encompass how this action contracts and dissipates, we have to essentially unfocus our minds. Think of your mind as focused, being the trunk of the tree. Now to perceive the many things(all that energy/information) being one thing, you have let your mind spread out like the branches. This takes some practice, because the mind is naturally spring loaded, in that as soon as some particular point of reference dings the sub-conscious, the mind zeros in on it. Survival instinct.

Another analogy is of awareness being like light and consciousness is a lens. When we use that lens to focus the light on a particular point, it creates shadow around that point, creating the effect of the point being alone and isolated. It is only when the lens is flat that the light shines over everything and it is continuous with the surrounding light/consciousness.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 06:24 GMT

that's a lot of analogy in one small post! You make a good point, which seems to me to be, that having a holistic perspective can be useful. I'm OK with the idea of all of the potential sensory data 'information' being regarded as one thing. In diagram 1 it's the data pool. I think it might also be thought of as the foundational reality corresponding to the the hypothetical universal wave function, as all of the ways in which the universe can be observed are simultaneously encoded in that potential data.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Oct. 30, 2012 @ 20:30 GMT
This may be useful background context, which may assist readers to gain better understanding the relationships shown on the explanatory framework diagram;The relationship between Object reality and Image reality has some similarity to the description of implicate and explicate orders decribed in this paper -


view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 20:43 GMT
This is continuing from the discussion on George Ellis' essay thread from Thomas Howard Ray Nov. 5, 2012 @ 11:23 GMT to Georgina Parry Nov. 7, 2012 @ 20:13 GMT

Concerning the logic of the RICP framework Cf liar paradox and Barber variant. Which is a continuation from earlier discussion on George Ellis's thread

Tom ,

I'm not sure the Barber problem is an exact parallel I'll...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 20:59 GMT
Continuing from argument set out in previous post ....

The production of potential sensory data is something very different from the receipt and processing of the data. So I would not regard shaving as being the analogy of production of the data which is continual but the analogy of the act of receiving and processing the data from the external environment which can be intermittent. The shaver is not shaving when the observer is not looking. Analogy:'Lens cap on'.

You wrote, Quote " Point is, one cannot exclude the "barber" from the set of those being shaved without adding a layer of non-physical interpretation to the physics." I can quite easily exclude him by not having him look in a mirror and observe himself. I do not see the great problem in that.

If I recall correctly the barber paradox can be overcome by having a third person shave the barber under instruction from the Barber himself. So whether the barber is or is not shaving himself becomes a matter of opinion, it depends, rather than being definitely one or the other. There is a similar 'grey area' if one consider's whether the observer is or is not seeing himself when he looks in the mirror. So upon reflection : ), I think the barber problem is quite a good parallel of the necessary oddity in the construction of the RICP framework. The oddity is not a fault in the framework but a reflection of the nature of reality and truth which is not as simple as appearances and 'naive' logic suggest.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 14:15 GMT
Hi Georgina,

"If I recall correctly the barber paradox can be overcome by having a third person shave the barber under instruction from the Barber himself. So whether the barber is or is not shaving himself becomes a matter of opinion, it depends, rather than being definitely one or the other."

That doesn't resolve the paradox of self-reference. The paradox *can* be resolved if the barber is a woman or a young man who doesn't shave -- because the barber is then a member of the set who don't shave themselves. All of this can be formally expressed in set theory.

The real point is, though, that there will always remain paradoxes of self-reference in physically real theories, that can't be resolved. (See e.g., Michael Goodband's book, *On the incompleteness of physically real theories.*)

And "physically real" is what physics is concerned with.

"There is a similar 'grey area' if one consider's whether the observer is or is not seeing himself when he looks in the mirror. So upon reflection : ), I think the barber problem is quite a good parallel of the necessary oddity in the construction of the RICP framework."

Yes, it's in the class of logical paradoxes of self reference.

"The oddity is not a fault in the framework but a reflection of the nature of reality and truth which is not as simple as appearances and 'naive' logic suggest."

Right. One has to include the metaphysically real in order to account for all of the physically real.


report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 15:32 GMT
Incidentally, Russell developed "type theory" because of this paradox. But, of course, it's not actually implemented in standardized fashion by physicists, which is why 95% of arxiv is inconsistent nonsense -- no type safety or other automated consistency checks that have been implemented in computer science (the only science hard enough to be automatically self-correcting) for, oh, decades and decades and decades now. All they got is just raw prejudice. :)

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

Zbigniew Modrzejewski wrote on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 22:38 GMT

I have browsed through your essey, and I am quite surprized that I agree with you so much. Your diagnosis of the PROBLEMS is very perceptive and I wonder how you arrived at those ideas?

As to the SOLUTIONS that you proposed, I will not comment.


report post as inappropriate

Zbigniew Modrzejewski wrote on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 23:00 GMT
Is Einstein's Greatest Work All Wrong—Because He Didn't Go Far Enough?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 28, 2012 @ 00:54 GMT
Hi Zbigniew,

Thanks for the link to the article about Julian Barbour's work. I have read some articles about it here on FQXi, watched the videos,read his FQXi essay competition entries, read his web site and he did briefly explain some of what he was doing on the blog forum. Which I appreciated very much. He does explain things very patiently and clearly. Interesting, educational and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed wrote on Nov. 28, 2012 @ 06:20 GMT

As per your last post on Ben's blog.

How do what you call Object & Image Reality have a physical relationship?

And incidently, the point I made thre was not about time, it was about existence, ie the 'future' does not physically exist.


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 28, 2012 @ 07:42 GMT

there is nowhere for the Image reality to be other than within the Object reality. It is Image reality because it is the product (output) of amalgamation of sensory data that has been -received- together, or in close 'temporal 'proximity' i.e. received in the same iteration or over a short sequence of iterations of the Object universe. (Not necessarily emitted from its origin together or in close 'temporal proximity'.) We are within the Object universe but view the Image world and Image universe.

I thought the temporal panorama photographs that I linked to on Jiggling Atoms:The art of Physics were really interesting because they show a different kind of image also formed from received data but looking at the changes to small slice of 3D space 'over time', laying out the sequence; not data sampled over a larger area of space and received together or in close 'temporal proximity''. It looks very strange because that is not how the world is usually seen. Interesting how the length of the 'objects' seen in those panoramas depends upon the speed at which they pass by the observer.

The relationship of image and object reality is also very interesting from a mathematical point of view. Difficult to represent with sets because the Image reality is within the Object reality spatially but is also something different, a different type of reality compared to the Object reality. That difference is represented by the different level in diagram 1.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 29, 2012 @ 09:00 GMT

You have not answered my question, which was: How do what you call Object & Image Reality have a physical relationship?


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 29, 2012 @ 23:09 GMT

I do not know what you require. I have answered -how- they are able to have a relationship - they are both within the Object reality despite being differentiated into different aspects, or types, of reality. It is difficult to represent that diagrammatically. Not a trivial matter nor a misunderstanding on my part. I have previously, on numerous occasions, described their relationship, (i.e. What it is).

Perhaps you have some specific meaning of the word 'how' that you want addressed , if you could explain what that is perhaps I can answer your question satisfactorily .

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed wrote on Dec. 2, 2012 @ 09:32 GMT

“Here is some experimental evidence to show that the output even when it is located in a person's brain has a physical existence”

Yes it is electrical impulses, or whatever. Just like books are physically ink and paper. And in a computer it is……

The output is perception/knowledge, ie whether it is subjective or objective is irrelevant to this point. It is thoughts. These are not, other than in the sense noted above, which is not your argument, physically existent. Another way of putting this, which you have agreed with previously, is that perceptions/knowledge can have no effect whatsoever on physical existence, because a) all forms of existence occurred before processing, b) the front end of that processing does not physically interact with what is commonly referred to as reality, but with a physically existent representation of it (in the context of the sensory systems), usually referred to as light, c) and the only effect the front end of the processing has on that physically existent input is to cause its cessation. In just the same way as the physically existent state of light ceases in that form when it hits a brick wall as opposed to an eye.

Interdisciplinary science is certainly not the future, in the way you present it. It is the recipe for complete confusion. Because, contrary to what you assert, separation in nature which can be reflected in the separate sciences, and that is not an artificial division. As I said in Jonathan’s blog, and elsewhere, it would be of interest, obviously, to understand this processing. But it can only be irrelevant to physical theories, because as I have just pointed out (again) the processing does not impinge upon physical existence. It affects perception/knowledge thereof, which we then have to counteract, etc in order to establish what occurred physically.


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Dec. 2, 2012 @ 11:21 GMT
Paul, you will now LEAVE ME ALONE! I have wasted far too much time on you and I am astounded by your insensitive attitude. As you have ignored my polite hint in plain English that further communication from you is unwelcome,I will request that any further posts from you are removed from this thread by the site Admin. Hopefully you are capable of understanding that. .... ... .....

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Dec. 5, 2012 @ 03:12 GMT
Thank you for suggesting this- Argument Clinic, Monty Python. You tube video ...Can't stay angry, not even with myself, while laughing.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 09:34 GMT
Made this to try to emphasise and clarify the need for differentiation between different aspects of reality. Though it was meant to be simple, I thought it also needed explanation of its intended meaning. As I am not sure whether I had succeeded in conveying that. I also included an example to show how it works.So it looks quite busy. There may yet be mistakes in it but I am quite keen to share it and see if anyone has any comments on it, such as obvious errors or whether it is at all helpful.

To ensure differentiation is maintained throughout a piece of work. I thought basic printing colours could be used but it may not always be possible to have colour printing which is why I suggested different type styles be used. The little diagram at the bottom is just a reminder that the image reality is a subset of the object reality but separated by a reality interface.I think I should now go back to the explanatory framework diagrams and change the colours to match this differentiation.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 10:03 GMT
smaller jpeg file

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 10:14 GMT
even smaller jpeg

attachments: small_size_representation_of_differentiation.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 19:11 GMT
I was worried that the image would be too small or too fuzzy but it looks fine at that size and resolution. Any comments will be much appreciated, so long as they are constructive, as this is a first attempt at something like this. I'm really interested in looking into different kinds of representation and it may be that there is something better already out there that would do the job.Any thoughts /ideas on the representation, or on what it is saying?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 07:05 GMT
Paul, reply to your post on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 05:23 GMT in The Accidental Universe

A reality interface can be an inanimate object or sensitive material too because that is how it has been defined. It is the change it facilitates, from unobservable input to observable output, that makes it a reality interface. The output of that change is observed OR is observable. That is how I have defined it.

In the sentence; "The Object reality sequence and the image reality sequence are not the same thing. They are on different sides of the reality interface".It is the sensory system. or artificial device, or sensitive material that converts the input to output that I am talking about.

I now understand that your existent representations are the light impinging on an organic detector and not processed output. IE prior to all of the sequence of events leading to the output that is observed.That does not fit the definition of an Image reality as I am using that term. I refer to the potential sensory data in that way because while it's in the environment it only has the potential to become sensory data. I don't call it a 'representation' because IT is not seen by anyone /anything while still out in the environmet

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 07:45 GMT

Re your first paragraph, I am lost. Obviously, an interface can be any of the points at which there is physical interaction. But I cannot follow your use of the word observed, given how physical existence is constituted. What occurred is never sensed (one form of sensing being observation). Every entity receives these physically existent inputs. In the context of the sensory...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 00:25 GMT

it is not the receipt that makes it a reality interface but the change that it facilitates. It changes meaningless bits of information into potentially meaningful output. The sensory system and CNS is unlike a wall in that respect. A artificial device that is an information gathering and utilizing system, GUIS,( Murry Gell-Mann and Jim Hartman) is more like the human sensory system and CNS than a wall. A simpler device or sensitive material can still convert meaningless information into observable -potentially- meaningful output.It is like the cipher necessary for meaning to be extracted; whether its a radio telescope or a photographic film.

I think I have defined very carefully what is what in the framework I do not quite follow why you can not understand what I am saying and why you do not care about labels. The labels I use (separately defined) are for succinctly and clearly communicating ideas, they are very important. I am using terms that fit what I consider to be happening , they just happen to be different labels from your own , which has caused us to be confused about each others ideas.

Now it seems your "physically existent representations" are just light anywhere and not just light received by a sentient organism. OK then, that is what I am calling "potential sensory data". It is only potential and not a -fixed- material actualization (IE it can undergo change) and its not an output manifestation. That is why I can liken it to a wave function. I have given the dictionary definition of observed in an earlier post. Receipt alone is not observation. If I receive a message within a letter but do not open it I have not observed the message.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 05:17 GMT
I think I must qualify "fixed actualisation" with further explanation of my intended meaning. Solid and semi solid actualisations; arrangements, patterns and structures made of atoms, have forces that act between the atomic quanta and give some stability. There are not the same forces acting between the light quanta and so it is not fixed in the same way but prone to transformation, along with the transformation of the medium in which it is propagating, or with the density changing. There is a fundamentally different relationship between light quanta and between the "fixed" atomic quanta.It follows that (for example) the train Object and "train" EM potential sensory data are very different phenomena and should not be muddled.That is relevant to the paradoxes of relativity.

report post as inappropriate

Member Tommaso Bolognesi wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 11:14 GMT
Hello Georgina,

I've quickly read your essay once, and I find it quite original and entertaining. Your style of presentation is cute.

At a quick glance, there are two aspects in your described potential future that do not look too attractive to me.

The first is that there appears to be a clear separation, even more marked than now, between the good inhabitants of the sanctuaries, and the criminals, terrorists and debris (that pose a threat to the ventilation shafts and logistics portals, or threaten exchange mission among sanctuaries).

The second, in part related, is the overall impression that the life in the sanctuary system is based on regulations imposed from above by some authority hidden behind the scenes. Because your text is very suggestive, even visually, it may be that it has induced in my imagination some unintended resonance with some common place science fiction scenarios, as seen in some science fiction movie (does `Zardoz` ring a bell?), or read in some book.

Nevertheless, I wonder (i) whether you feel that any future stage of humanity will unavoidably have to cope with a percentage of bad guys, and, perhaps less naively, (ii) how you imagine the transition from our present world to the sanctuary system could take place (e.g., whether peacefully or not).


PS1. Humans are becoming symbiotic residents of living man made hosts. Sometimes, when queuing in my car along the highway, I feel we have already got to that point.

PS2. I see you have a lot of comments above, which I could not read. If you feel my points are already covered in some previous post, let me know, and I might stick in at the right place.

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.