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 forums@fqxi.org 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.

Forum Home
Introduction
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
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Georgina Woodward: on 11/24/17 at 21:43pm UTC, wrote Joe, your credo has very limited explanatory power and is therefore of very...

Joe Fisher: on 11/24/17 at 16:09pm UTC, wrote Dear Georgina, You wrote: “I agree that there have been surfaces prior...

Anonymous: on 11/24/17 at 16:06pm UTC, wrote Dear Georgina, You wrote: “I agree that there have been surfaces prior...

Georgina Woodward: on 11/23/17 at 19:56pm UTC, wrote Joe, I can not comment infinitely as I am a finite being with finite...

Joe Fisher: on 11/23/17 at 16:02pm UTC, wrote Dear Georgina, Which came first, reality, or humanly contrived abstract...

John Cox: on 11/23/17 at 14:14pm UTC, wrote Have a Happy Thanksgiving. jr

Georgina Woodward: on 11/23/17 at 5:29am UTC, wrote John, I said that out of frustration. I think he might have been trying to...

John Cox: on 11/23/17 at 1:57am UTC, wrote OH! OH! Ms. Woodward Ms. Woodward! I know Iknow! It's to keep you...



FQXi FORUM
November 25, 2017

ARTICLE: Quantum Dream Time [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 9, 2017 @ 20:38 GMT
Dear Kate Becker,

You wrote, “For the better part of a century, physicists have been trying to reconcile the contradictions between quantum mechanics and general relativity.” Both of these complex systems rely totally on assuming that the universe am constructed of a finite amount of matter and a finite amount of space. If that were the case, there would be a finite measurable time. Guess what? There am no space. The real visible Universe simply consists only of one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 10, 2017 @ 14:09 GMT
Correction. Light is finite, therefore, the real visible Universe consists of one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


H. G. wrote on Nov. 11, 2017 @ 15:07 GMT
Sorry, but the topic is already described and proved. It was somewhere on ResearchGate.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 11, 2017 @ 15:42 GMT
QuanTime sounds like an idea whose time has come.

With one caveat. In Quantum Mechanics, random action is assumed to be the foundational condition without any qualifying argument. It simply "is", and the preferred paradigm of an existential physical universe. For there to be a "reason" for randominity, would be to introduce a foundational causality. So we can state unequivocally that QM is "perfectly random". And that's the rub.

Psychologically we are hard-wired with an instinctive need for a sense of order, it pervades our conscious rational intellectualism as an unspoken notion. Underlying all else, there is an expectation that there must be some fundamental perfection to the universe. On one hand Quantum randominity challenges that instinctive assumption; order arises from chaos. Yet on the other hand, that very randominity is an assumed paradigm of universal perfection.

So perhaps the face on the Quantum Clock might be "imperfection". The impeccable accuracy of prediction by QM is baked into the procedural methodology by design, which assumes perfect randominity. But what if not even the universe always works perfectly, all the time, everywhere at every scale? If only occasionally, for no reason other than that inherent imperfection, some event that could, should or would happen, simply doesn't; the entire probability landscape would become profoundly altered. There would be no means of predicting where or when that imperfection would occur. But the bifurcations would become entirely different none the less. That would be truly random but not in a way that could be called perfectly so. And a causal clock could still operate properly. Just not perfectly. jrc

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 11, 2017 @ 20:01 GMT
Interesting idea. Though there is something a bit odd about the notion of perfectly random. If something is random sequences of what appear to us order can occur just like other un-ordered sequences. If there were no ordered sequences, they were all excluded, it would not be truly random. Does something profoundly different happen when order arises from chaos? Maybe. It might be an opportunity for growth of further order but it would really depend upon the particulars of the scenario. I suppose crystallization could serve as an example. A molecule moving randomly in a solution chances upon a suspended string and is stopped by it.As that continues to happen layers build up.

I think you are right about psychology. I have been thinking about the way in which we think of scale, which is affected by our experience of a particular resolution of what is seen. I also wonder about those places where an outcome is not constrained to one possibility. As a human faced with multiple choice I might stop and think about the options, I might even become temporarily 'paralyzed' weighing up the value/potential harm of the choices. But the whole Object universe doesn't act with human psychology as a motivation. So i presume it just 'chooses' one option, there not being the material substance for multiple material outcomes relating to every possible choice. Yet if so how? i think it may come down to the tinniest factions of values that differentiate them, so the seemingly equivalent choices actually are not. That ties in with the Object universe being a chaotic system in which there is, ultimately, imprecise order, and complexity and organisation which are (over different time scales for different kinds of system (at different scales) ) transient states.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 11, 2017 @ 20:52 GMT
I did not mean 'tiniest' literally but in a manner of speaking. Referring to those values that are smaller than generally considered significant. So they are not considered, yet could make all the difference between one scenario or another playing out.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Nov. 11, 2017 @ 20:52 GMT
This article presents some very good technical work but does fail to mention a few interesting links and arguments. First of all, the very technical paper is arxiv:The Pauli objection and there is a nice G+ video:Criticisms to Time Quantization presentation as well.

The technical paper is difficult and the video is technical, but does explain things better. Essentially Maccone introduces a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 12, 2017 @ 05:48 GMT
Thanks Steve,

that was well and plainly written. I appreciate your providing information about Maccone's work while keeping your own interpretation aside. That's good editorial practice in my book. jrc

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 11, 2017 @ 21:05 GMT
Maybe the Object universe is 'irrational', in that there is always a difference between options at some place beyond the the decimal point- so to speak. Maybe it is a human scale issue that we see rational number solutions, overlooking the extremely tiny differences. Or tying in with John's idea that we seek order, perhaps the tiny differences are seen as inaccuracies, because they spoil the neatness. Rather than considering being them the natural 'roughness'.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 11, 2017 @ 23:42 GMT
Still not sure i said that quite right. I'm proposing that maybe there always will be a hypothetical relation value that makes a difference in likelihood of the outcome, though it may be many places away from the decimal point. I mean there possibly isn't constraint to 'finite' rational number values that must pertain. Given the irrational number sequence beyond the decimal point is infinite and the variable profile for an object will contain many different values pertaining to relations with its surroundings It is extremely likely there is a difference in likelihood somewhere in the variable profile aggregations for two seemingly (without sufficient fine detail examination and discrimination) identically likely outcomes.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 12, 2017 @ 00:01 GMT
I think i am probably saying that in a way that will make mathematicians cringe. I understand the values are finite rational numbers but the sequence of the abstract numbers from which the values of (individual variables pertaining to) the outcomes can be drawn do not have to be. They could be infinite. So there is always another very slightly different value if finer discrimination is used. As humans we are used to having a set discrimination range, that relates to the discrimination of our sensory system. When enhanced by technology it is then limited to the resolution that technology permits. Yet the Object reality is that all scales co-exist and our level of discrimination applied to a scenario is artificial.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 12, 2017 @ 00:29 GMT
How that affects determinism: Rather than many possible equally likely outcomes doing away with determinism, as i had hoped, there is with the new suggestion, determinism but in a chaotic universe. Which could give the effect of randomness because the infinitesimal differences within relation profiles are unknown. We don't know why it does this and not that but at some scale of discrimination there is a value that makes the difference. It could be thought of as the butterfly effect but operating at an extremely small scale A very small difference having a relatively large effect.

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 12, 2017 @ 06:01 GMT
Georgina,

yehh, that's the bone of contention between quantum and classical, discrete vs. continuous. From here to infinity, where does symmetry break? And, I think, it's that conundrum which persuades most to cut the Gordian Knot and just go with granular Quantum. Like Marx did after chasing a dialectic that would come full circle and make human nature ultimately beneficent, until he got finally exasperated and said, "Oh Hell! Rebel! :-)

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 12, 2017 @ 06:41 GMT
John, even accepting quantum for the states of things there still is the question of why random.

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 12, 2017 @ 18:22 GMT
Georgina,

I quite agree. Which also is why I kind of like the notion of an imperfect universe. It relieves the problem that you lay out on an infinitely long number line where a choice has to be made at some point where the value becomes so small as to trivialize out of what would be analytically a reversible computation. Imperfection suggests that it isn't so much a correlation to mathematical choice, but a random physical failure to progress. Albeit at a relatively low value of causal response at quantum scale, and at macro extremes being comparable relative to large numbers.

Its an interesting idea, and I do agree that excluding at least a philosophical rationale for randominity is an Achilles Heel for QM. jr

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 12, 2017 @ 15:27 GMT
Dear Georgina Woodward and John Cox,

Reality does not consist of humanly contrived finite abstract complex ideas. Please try to remember that Nature must have built the only eternal simplest construct of the real visible Universe obtainable millions of years before man ever appeared on the planet. There am only one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate


W. Benshy wrote on Nov. 12, 2017 @ 17:58 GMT
The notion of spacetime doesn’t imply that phenomena and spacetime are identical manifestations of an underlying reality. In QFT we have the conviction that the main quantum fields (existent everywhere in the universe) create reality (observable and non-observable phenomena). The Planck-Einstein relation – energy of the electromagnetic wave related to frequency – shows that the wave length is a constant. Thus the wave length of every electromagnetic wave is a multiple of the “standard length”. The consequence is that time is a constant too.

However, what is the cause of relative time? That is really simple because the invariance of the speed of light, length and time shows that the conservation of energy is also a conservation of all the quantum transfer in space. Thus the amount of quanta transfer is related to volume (space). And that’s just what we observe when an altering particle has a velocity of nearly the speed of light. The “internal” alterations of the particle are slowed down because of the conservation of quanta transfer in space. In fact, annihilation shows that mass is a number of concentrated quanta. The reason that mass carrying particles don’t move with the speed of light has the same cause, the conservation of quanta transfer in space.

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 12, 2017 @ 19:32 GMT
W. Benshy,

In any given Quantum Field which might be any given multiple of Planck Value energy, does QFT view that 'internal' alteration at velocity in terms of density variability? And Does QFT provide a volumetric for a unitary Quantum Field at relative rest, and how does one field volume meld with the energy quantity(s) of surrounding field volumes? In short, has QFT advanced to where a Quantum Field can be defined as a volume of energy creating a specific spherical boundary within which energy density varies continuously between empirical upper and lower bounds in accord with inverse square law? Thanks, jrc

report post as inappropriate


W. Benshy wrote on Nov. 13, 2017 @ 11:16 GMT
@John R. Cox,

I am not a native speaker of the English language so maybe I misinterpret your comment partly.

There is no consensus about the exact structure of the main quantum fields but at least there must be 1 scalar field and 1 vector field. The structure of the combined field – in relation to the volume of the universe – is fixed. Thus there are 2 kinds of alterations:...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 13, 2017 @ 14:58 GMT
W. Benshy,

Thank-you very much. That was very helpful. Regardless of anyone's preference of paradigm, it is most important to understand what the professional consensus of any discipline technically amounts to. And QFT, though lacking an "exact structure of the main quantum fields", has proven very productive in both cosmological and particle physics. The announcement at the beginning of this year of the consensus of discovery of the last elements in the seventh row of the periodic table, would be a QFT analytical result from the properties of disintegration products.

The argument in Relativistic Field Theory, which also lacks an exact structure of main unitary fields, is that time and space are not invariant but that same transfer at constant light velocity is. Personally I feel that it is possible to define a unitary quantum field using either measurement scheme if we accept an added degree of freedom where energy density varies in direct inverse proportion to velocity. This would mean that the vector of a particle would be determined, and be theoretically measurable, by the change of density from the upper bound and the shape of the denser regions. The "internal alteration" made real. The spacetime of the particle field itself would not need reference to another to "know" its own velocity.

Thanks again for the concise tutorial. jrc

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 13, 2017 @ 15:33 GMT
Dear W. Benshy and John Cox,

It is clear that Nature must have fashioned the only structure of the real visible earth obtainable because the earth existed millions of years before man appeared on its surface. All we need to do now is to open our eyes and report truthfully what we see. Any open eye can only see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed, flat, touching, varied hued, surfaces. There am no visible space. Because there am no visible space, it logically follows that there am no Space/Time. The real visible Universe must consist of only one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate


W. Benshy wrote on Nov. 13, 2017 @ 17:21 GMT
@Joe Fisher,

The geometrical presentation of reality was described by natural philosophers centuries ago (if I remember well). It is true that when we cut an object in 2 halves we only see surface area and no volume. But when we are within an atmosphere we can see “through” the atmosphere and that’s why we can observe the moon (an object within a volume). So the geometrical presentation of reality is not only the surface area, we can experience a volume (space) too.

Although I don’t agree with your limited concept of reality I have to admit that local topological deformations of an invariant volume will result in local alterations of the internally surface area of a spatial structure (spatial units of a field). So when we want to express the energy in every point of the volume of our universe, we can describe the relations between all these points with the help of the local quantity of surface area in a perfect way (static description). From this point of view your opinion about the importance of surface area is correct (within the right context). However, the scientific research to clarify and describe reality isn’t possible when scientists deny everything except surface area. So you have to extend your hypothesis when you want that people are curious to read about it.

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 13, 2017 @ 19:59 GMT
W.

Excellent point about the measurement flexibility of topology. The simply connected relations of n-dimensional vector space on the surface of a parallelized 3-sphere allows the static description you describe, which can be likened to a 'snap shot' of an evolving form. jrc

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 14, 2017 @ 15:45 GMT
Dear W. Benshy and John R. Cox

One more time. Nature must have devised the only structure of reality that would allow whatever that structure was to persist eternally. The structure of the earth was here millions of years before man ever appeared on the planet. There am no way that Natural singular reality could ever be an invisible finite abstract humanly contrived speculation such as the one you wrote about when you wrote: “The (finite) geometrical presentation of (finite) reality was described by (anonymous finite) natural philosophers (finite) centuries ago (if I remember well).” Nature never structured visible reality to be invisibly mysterious. An open eye, will always see a plethora of flat, seamlessly enmeshed, varied colored surfaces. Although they seem to be seamlessly enmeshed, it logically follows that there must only be one singular visible unified infinite surface occurring infinitely in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 14, 2017 @ 16:45 GMT
rubbish

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 14, 2017 @ 21:15 GMT
John, two thoughts occurred to me regarding scale and numerical values. The first the further the position from the decimal place (related to scale) the smaller the duration of that digit value if the relation of object to other things is considered in a universe where everything is n motion. Even when things seem still there is a lot of motion at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles. So the further from the decimal point the less duration in which to exert that value of influence.

The other though was about how we regard things and phenomena as distinct . I think that may be to do with the way in which our sensory system not only has a resolution but also emphasizes boundaries and lines helping us be aware of potential resources and hazards. However, phenomena aren't distinct. I was thinking about a river and how at a small scale how does one classify the water that is spray in the air and moisture on the rocks. Is it still river or just part of the air and just moisture on the rocks, indistinguishable from moisture due to condensation or rainfall? Another thought was a tornado. It doesn't have a 'clear' boundary dividing the air into tornado air and not tornado air, at some distance from the eye there will be ambiguity. Is this just an air current affected by the tornado or is it part of the tornado? Perhaps it is the same at the atomic and sub atomic scale. It isn't that there is a definite boundary but neither is it really infinite in diminution of scale but it just 'peters out ' into ambiguity, so to say.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 14, 2017 @ 22:21 GMT
Objects too are phenomena, happening not just existing. Consider a sheep object. Lets say it is a self shedding variety. When the fleece starts to come away from the body, at what point does the fleece stop being a part of the sheep object? Is it only when it has completely separated? What about when it is held on by a few hairs? How many hairs must be attached to the sheep for the fleece to be sheep not separate fleece object? It is indistinct. If a skin cell is shed but then after re-adheres to the surface by the oils present, is it a part of the body or not? Same for atoms of metal rubbed from a machine surface but then stuck in lubricating oil. Machine or not? Seems to me our thinking about object things and phenomena is more black and white than the Object reality. We seem focused on the distinct categories and don't consider the limits of their existence. Which seems to be without definite boundary but not continuing in infinitely continuous smallness. Rather where does it end, and not it begin is indistinct. With the additional issue of the existential values of variables altering; The faster the further the existential equivalent (scale-wise) of a digit from the decimal point, with smallness of scale, as things move. So the object/phenomenon can't be pinned down. Where its existence ends is indistinct and even if it could be decided wherever that was it isn't anymore because it has changed in location or configuration. As for what happens it doesn't matter what category the boundary regions are placed .If the air currents around a tornado are called tornado or just currents doesn't alter their effect.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 14, 2017 @ 23:30 GMT
Maybe it would be helpful to consider that objects and phenomena do not just end at a boundary or continue endlessly at smaller and smaller scale but are surrounded by regions of influence which are affected by the object or phenomenon but are perhaps not quite the object or phenomenon. The categorized thing blurs into that region and the region gradually diminishes in distinctness from what surrounds it, moving out from the central region of the phenomenon or object. Eg. Surrounding a living person there would be a region of higher temperature, higher Co2 concentration, odours (various), and detectable electric field. Maybe for atoms and sub atomic particles there also isn't absolute firm boundaries but bluing into a region of influence, blurring into indistinguishable from surroundings.

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 15, 2017 @ 04:25 GMT
Georgina,

All three of your posts taken together go to what W. Benshy posted to me on Nov 13 in this Topic, and my response. As yet there is no general consensus in either classical or quantum physics, nor across disciplines, that defines what a particle actually exists as, as an object. Characteristic 'properties' parameterized from observation of interactive behavior is the best we have to go on. And then there is the dispute between classical and quantum as to how action is transferred.

Classical holds that it is transferred either by a wavelike action of a physical energy field, or as a projected burst of physical energy though no classical consensus stands as to what the real physical shape might be.

Quantum holds that the energy field is made up of discrete quantum unit species and that action is tranfered by particle exchange.

Both recognize and operate on the observation that the macro phenomenon you describe are boundary conditions of properties associated with the ambiguous 'particulate matter', as those properties become altered with energy transfer. And Both recognize and operate on the observation that energy transfer is directly detectable only at the receiving end, and can only be theorized on the emission end [as in Bohr's famous but ad hoc instantaneous Quantum Leap]. What is accepted is that a receiver will react at a rate of change of energy which will either follow a ballistic (parabolic) curve associated with inelastic collision, or at a rate that will follow a hyperbolic curve associated with an inelastic collision or sinusoidal wave.

That's the challenge as it currently stands, and woe to those whom come up with solution. If it satisfies one paradigm it disgruntles the other. All I can say is; Good Luck. :-)

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 15, 2017 @ 16:07 GMT
Georgina,

I should add, as W. Benshy points out, in some quantum mechanical interpretations such as QFT the particle exchange isn't of a real 'particle' but only of associated properties. This is where QFT and Classical come very close to agreement. And what is lacking in both is a metaphysical rendition which would provide an analytical definition of mathematic rationale which couples electromagnetic properties with gravitational action. QM in general has yet to find a gravitational theory, and the passionate dispute about 'entanglement' is due to the failure in Classical to theoretically find an empirical limit for gravitational effect, AND the profound difference between measurement systems of Cartesian Space normalized to what you refer to as Uni-Temporal time; and Relativistic Spacetime. You recall Tom Ray championing Joy Christian? that is because JC's topological model can obtain the same results in a Relativistic measurement space as QM obtains of non-local seperations in Cartesian space. Entanglement is actually realistically a connected event in Joy Christian's framework. (the technical math is still beyond my level, however) You are apprehending the outstanding questions posed, just in your own vernacular. jr

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 15, 2017 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Georgina Woodward and John R. Cox,

There am no such a thing as an abstract finite “object.” Please do try to understand that simple Naturally provided visible reality must be eternal. Please answer this question. Do you see any surface when you have your eyes open? If you do. it must logically follow that only one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light, could exist for ever. Humanly contrived abstract guesswork about invisible quantum arrangements or invisible space/time relativity are quite ephemeral and utterly unrealistic.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 15, 2017 @ 19:32 GMT
Joe, what you persistently describe as a reality is obviously an appearance of your own, and I can understand to some extent why you might have become dependent on visual perception if what you stated is true, that you deaf. And if you did come to the States as you related, which would be like The Beatles arrival at that time, you would have witnessed modern American culture becoming ever more...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 16, 2017 @ 04:05 GMT
Quote from article" Like puzzle pieces from two different picture puzzles, quantum mechanics and general relativity just don’t fit, and paradoxes peer out through the gaps." Good wording.

QM is working with what is happening unseen. What is unseen is not within the space-time product of EM signal receipt and processing. It seems to me the actualization of a quantum state occurs with the simultaneous actualization of the entire configuration of the universe at that Now. It isn't in block space-time so there is no spatial connection with Then and Will be. It is isolated. As it has no time dimension it could be called timeless. Though a person could say that it is this or that time according to this or that local clock.

Quote from article "Loop Quantum Gravity states that geometrical quantities, such as area and volume, have a discrete rather than continuous spectrum on small scales."

The imagined distinct boundaries of things may be to do with the way in which we think, affected by having a sensory system with a limited range of discrimination (better wording than 'particular' as I said previously ); As well as emphasizing boundaries and lines, aiding identification. But things are not so simply confined to thing and not thing. There is ambiguity, indistinctness at the boundary which must if being highly accurate also lead to some uncertainty about area and volume. Can we be so sure about the definiteness of the boundaries of the extremely small? Seems to me the difficulty of measuring them would only add to the uncertainty.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 16, 2017 @ 16:05 GMT
Dear John R. Cox and Georgina Woodward,

Please answer just one simple question YES OR NO. Do you see ANY KIND OF SURFACE WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR EYES OPEN?

I am not finitely “persistently DESCRIBING any bloody thing.” I see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed, flat, varied colored, surfaces every time I have my eyes open and no matter in which direction I look.

When I look upwards while outside during the day, I sometimes see the flat filled-in yellow disk surface of the sun surrounded by a flat filled-in surface of a blue sky. On other days, I see the flat gray surface of the clouds obscuring thesurface of the sun. I know from my scientific research experiments that the real Universe consists of one singular unified visible infinite surface that must be occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 16, 2017 @ 23:36 GMT
Joe, the answer is No. If we were just talking causally about things and not discussing scientific models then I might say 'yes I see 'such and such' a surface'. That would not be accurate though but a means of expressing my subjective experience in normal everyday speech. As we are talking about the science, I have to say no because what I am seeing is a product of my own sensory system using information obtained from electromagnetic radiation that has been received by my eyes. It, the sensory product, is not a surface actualized externally to me.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 17, 2017 @ 00:10 GMT
It is said that a precise coastline can not be drawn because of the coast line paradox. While it is true that the boundary line will vary in length depending upon the scale of discrimination, being more convoluted at smaller scales and that will also affect the area that is enclosed by the line, I think precision fails because of the indistinctness at the very small scales. It will not be possible to put some pebbles and some grains of sand on a definite side if the line, further complicated by varying tides and weather effects on where the ocean water goes. We get to the questions what do we mean by (dry)land?, what do we mean by ocean?, how wide is the boundary region where the separation is uncertain and or variable? should it be some kind of average or allow for extremes of low and high tides? This isn't paradox but lack of definite, defined boundary.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 17, 2017 @ 02:44 GMT
I meant by that- Beyond the 'paradox' of increasing boundary length with scale of consideration there is an inability to continue with increasing precision due to lack of definite, defined description of what is and isn't in the categories differentiated by the boundary; and lack of precision in regard to what to do about the region of uncertainty where precise differentiation is not possible..

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 17, 2017 @ 16:07 GMT
Georgi,

I like to phrase it that; 'light' is just as dark as any other region of the spectrum'. It's the response of our retina's that begins the process of perception we call sight. The final answer to how that happens as a matter of consciousness remains a puzzle.

Where I think the right question might be found about differentiating between matter and energy, that boundary you seek, is where gravitational action is present throughout regions of intense electric and/or magnetic response, but those responses do not extend all the way through the gravitational domain. The physical rotational axis of the 'hard' part of a particle might well be coupled with that of another gravitationally, yet beyond the electromagnetic distance of separation. It would then be a case that the characteristic properties of primary forces are a physical consequence of energy density, how it behaves across density, and that we have it backwards... gravity only seems to be the weakest force. At the quantum level where energy density becomes extreme, the gravitational response is at its greatest! :-) jr

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 18, 2017 @ 03:43 GMT
Georgina,

Yes, I'd say that illustrates it well and then indefinite might go to imperfect. And there is also the indefinite interface of oceanS, begetting laminar flow. Indefinite perfection might be seen as a result of an exponential opportunity for imperfection as scale ON a continuum becomes smaller. Imagine a very 'edge' of the universe that was at a physically least density of energy which would seek the absolute void but is constrained by light velocity limit and the scale seeking zero. The energy continuum would become so imperfect that it would not retain cohesion and thus form an indefinitely perfect boundary.

Gads! that is getting 'out there'. :-)

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 17, 2017 @ 15:33 GMT
Dear Georgina,

How were you able to respond to my comment if you did not see my comment clearly displayed on a surface? All of my scientific research has concluded that finite humanly contrived science am only abstract guesswork about finite invisible influences. Naturally produced reality am not finite guesswork. Only one real single visible unified infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever existed, and will continue to exist for ever.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 17, 2017 @ 20:34 GMT
Gee Joe,

If you are correct in that there aren't any unseen things that ever exist; then how could I possibly see what you write unless I watch you write it?

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 17, 2017 @ 23:57 GMT
Joe i saw the product of my sensory system which showed me the instructions because there had been differences in intensity of the light received from the black and white areas of the screen display. The sensory product was categorically different from the surface of the screen from which the light was emitted.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 18, 2017 @ 13:56 GMT
Dear John and Georgina,

There are no abstract invisible “things.” You do not have to watch me writing. All you have to do is answer yes or no when I ask you if you have ever seen any kind of a surface when you looked around you. If you answered yes, then you only have to ask yourself: Was the surface I saw infinite or finite? Obviously, as whatever surface you saw was constantly changing, the surface you saw must have been infinite. Infinity must only ever be singular. That iam why I am confident that my research of reality am boilerplate correct: The real Universe consists only of one singular unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

It is physically impossible to see any kind of infinite surface with any sort of finite abstract “product of any (invisible) sensory system .”

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 19, 2017 @ 01:37 GMT
Joe,

I think I ought to word my reply my precisely.

I saw the product of my sensory system which showed me the instructions, appearing black and white to me, because there had been differences in intensity of the light received from different areas of the screen display. The sensory product was categorically different from the surface of the screen from which the light was emitted. Clarifying that the black and white are attributes of the sensory product.

How do you see Joe?

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 19, 2017 @ 13:41 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Reality has got nothing to do with how I try to roughly describe it by using the finite constraints imposed on me by my use of the English language. Please answer this question. Do you think that the earth had a surface a million or so years ago when dinosaurs (each of whom also had a complete surface) existed on the planet? You will have to answer “Yes,” because only one single unified visible infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light could ever have existed.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 21, 2017 @ 03:33 GMT
Joe, language and how it is used is important for conveying meaning. 'Surface' has a meaning to me. I can contemplate a surface without it being infinite or eternal just by the fact of it being a surface. Yes I do think there have been surfaces that have existed prior to the ability of humans to produce sensory products that enable their perception. I do think there are surfaces that exist independently of human, and other sentient being (or device's) sensory detection, and from perception. As we understand the external world by differentiating objects we also differentiate their surfaces. That does not mean that there might not be continuity between them rather than any utterly empty space. Which would help with explanation of of foundational forces. However that continuity of something-ness does not make the surfaces of all differentiated objects one surface.

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 21, 2017 @ 14:55 GMT
Well put, Georgina. jrc

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 21, 2017 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Georgina and John and Andrew,

Humanly contrived language am an abstract finite code that only concerns supposedly finite invisible influences. I did not ask you if you or I thought that the earth could have had a visible surface a million or so years ago when dinosaurs existed on the planet. Obviously, the real earth did have a real visible surface at that real time as did each and every one of the real dinosaurs. All of the many finite languages have only ever been produced by man, and every one of those finite abstract languages have always been in a constant INFINITE state of changes. My scientific research has concluded that there must only be one single unified visible infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 21, 2017 @ 20:09 GMT
Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 19, 2017 @ 13:41 GMT: "Please answer this question. Do you think that the earth had a surface a million or so years ago when dinosaurs (each of whom also had a complete surface) existed on the planet?"

Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 21, 2017 @ 15:50 GMT: "I did not ask you if you or I thought that the earth could have had a visible surface a million or so years ago when dinosaurs existed on the planet."

This kind of contradiction makes it impossible to carry on a reasonable conversation with you. A scientific model has to be open to scrutiny and defended on its superior merits, and the failings of those arguments that oppose it, not mere refutation and word games.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 22, 2017 @ 15:42 GMT
Dear Georgina,

All finite language am contradictory. Reality has nothing whatsoever to do with what you or I think it might be. Let me try another track. Please name for me one real finite activity that could be carried out only by any single real visible living organism that did not require the direct observation of any single finite part of a real visible surface.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 23, 2017 @ 01:51 GMT
Dear Joe, if reality has nothing to do with what you think it might be, why are you wasting everyone's time telling them what it is?

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 23, 2017 @ 01:57 GMT
OH! OH! Ms. Woodward Ms. Woodward! I know Iknow!

It's to keep you reacting to him. jrc

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 23, 2017 @ 05:29 GMT
John, I said that out of frustration. I think he might have been trying to convey the idea that there is something that exists that is separate from vision and thought, that cannot be adequately described with language. A bit like:

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao

The name that can be named is not the eternal name

The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth

The named is the mother of myriad things" from Tao Te Ching (Classic text)

Once we start differentiating objects and naming them, the external world becomes somewhat understandable to our feeble senses and minds. Yet the categorization is based on our perception and likely inadequate to fully represent what is there. Then again he may have meant nothing of the sort as I have so far failed to find any agreement with Joe.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 23, 2017 @ 16:02 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Which came first, reality, or humanly contrived abstract thought? What am the only logical way reality could have been operational before humanly contrived thought became evident? It would have to be because reality was structured eternally. Humanly contrived thought has a finite discriminating quality about it. What do you see when you look at the real skeleton of the former real dinosaur in the real museum? You see that each real bone has a real visible surface. It logically follows that the real visible earth that the real dinosaurs existed on over a million years ago had to have had a real visible surface. It am physically impossible to think about reality because all thoughts are supposedly finite . I only see surface no matter in which direction I look. I cannot possibly be unique. My cat Greyson must also see surface no matter in which direction he looks. The dinosaurs must have only ever seen misty surface no matter in which direction they looked. We can comment INFINITELY on whether or not I am right or not.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 23, 2017 @ 19:56 GMT
Joe, I can not comment infinitely as I am a finite being with finite patience. I agree that there have been surfaces prior to the existence of humans but that realization doesn't provide a very useful physics model by itself.

You wrote " It am physically impossible to think about reality because all thoughts are supposedly finite ." It is not possible to hold in the active mind all possible orientations of an object simultaneously. We can deal with one orientation at a time and switch between orientations. That means we can not visualize the entirety of the surface/s of objects that exist externally to us at any time. I would say that that all orientations condition is the reality that exists independently of vision and thought. The seen is different, a limited sensory product.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 24, 2017 @ 16:09 GMT
Dear Georgina,

You wrote: “I agree that there have been surfaces prior to the existence of humans but that realization doesn't provide a very useful physics model by itself.” Reality am not an abstract finite physics model. Nature must have eternally produced only one single unified visible infinite surface. I have a surface. You have a surface. All God’s chillum done got surface. One does not have to realize surface. One does not have to visualize surface. One does not even have to idolize me for being brave enough to maintain that there must have only ever been one single unified visible infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light .

I am baffled by the ease with which the physicists were able to convince scientists of the importance of their being able to supposedly accurately measure and describe the utterly complex finite behavior of invisible finite atoms, compared to the difficulty I am having in my presentation of the obviousness of the simplicity of the common observation of visible infinite surface.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 24, 2017 @ 21:43 GMT
Joe, your credo has very limited explanatory power and is therefore of very limited usefulness to people seeking to understand the physics of the universe/ World. Other ideas are more interesting as they are not such short intellectual dead ends. I have considered that you might have been trying in vain to express something more profound and interesting, but it seems not. Why not take a break from it for a while and come back to it refreshed- perhaps with a fresh, more open mindset.

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.