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 blogger 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 12/12/17 at 20:40pm UTC, wrote Joe, The sensory products I am referring to are related to sight. Those...

Joe Fisher: on 12/12/17 at 16:23pm UTC, wrote Dear Georgina. When I entered the words “sensory definition” into the...

Jhon Smith: on 12/12/17 at 9:25am UTC, wrote I Really like to solve Sudoku puzzle, Its very interesting and mind playing...

Georgina Woodward: on 12/11/17 at 23:27pm UTC, wrote Excluding 'Big crunch' un-creation ending from the eternal category.

Georgina Woodward: on 12/11/17 at 20:34pm UTC, wrote Joe, sensory products are what is seen. Illumination matters because it...

Joe Fisher: on 12/11/17 at 17:06pm UTC, wrote Dear Georgina, The (INVISIBLE) “sensory products” you keep writing...

Candy lol: on 12/10/17 at 23:23pm UTC, wrote I was more than happy to find this web site. I need to thank you for your...

Phuloo Nikola: on 12/10/17 at 21:52pm UTC, wrote Thanks for your marvelous posting! I quite enjoyed reading it, you happen...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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...

Scott Gordon: "This article states,"Carroll believes the misfit between the two theories..." in In Search of a Quantum...

thuy lien: "Your article completely convinced me. Thank you for sharing. vampyrgame ..." in Agency in the Physical...

thuy lien: "VAMPYR: You can feed on literally anyone in the game VAMPYR was revealed..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...


RECENT ARTICLES
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.


FQXi BLOGS
December 15, 2017

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: The Sudoku Universe, Why Real Numbers Are Not Really (Ontologically) Real, & (Not) Fine-Tuning Quantum Theory: New Podcast [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Nov. 24, 2017 @ 22:19 GMT
Wikipedia
Do we live in a giant Sudoku puzzle? Are real numbers really real? Does free will emerge from quantum mechanics? Consciousness? Agency? Is the future open, or already set? Is reality fundamentally random or deterministic? What is fundamental anyway? And what is the fine-tuning problem of quantum mechanics -- and how do we deal with it?

These are some of the questions on a special edition of the podcast, featuring interviews that Brendan and I recorded at the Emergent Quantum Mechanics meeting in London, in October.

First up, quantum physicist Nicolas Gisin, of the University of Geneva, makes an unconventional case for the mainstream view that quantum theory is inherently indeterministic. He starts by arguing that real numbers are not really (ontologically) real, but random — and as a result, both classical mechanics, which is built on real numbers, and quantum mechanics are inherently indeterministic—giving us an open future.

Free Podcast

Real numbers are not (ontologically) real, says Nicolas Gisin; living in a Sudoku Universe, with Emily Adlam; FQXi launches a new essay contest and large grant round, with Anthony Aguirre and Jan Wallaczek; & fine-tuning quantum theory, with Matt Leifer.



LISTEN:







Go to full podcast

Taking the opposing stance is Emily Adlam, an expert on the philosophy of quantum theory, at the University of Cambridge. She advocates a deterministic atemporal “Sudoku Universe.” She notes that someone trying to follow the logic of a Sudoku grid, by reading numbers from the left to right, may be fooled into thinking they are looking at an undetermined probabilistic sequence of numbers. But step back and take a view of the grid as a whole, and you will see how all the seemingly random entries are uniquely determined, by atemporal rules. Maybe our universe is similarly determined, she suggests.

In addition to the fight over the (in)deterministic status of reality, the EmQM17 meeting was especially exciting for FQXi folk because we announced a couple of new initiatives there. On the podcast, Brendan tells us more about one of them: this year’s essay contest, which asks “What is Fundamental?

FQXi’s directors Max Tegmark and Anthony Aguirre also teased the launch of the new large grant round on Agency in the Physical World, in partnership with the Fetzer Franklin Fund (FFF), at the meeting. This attempts to link consciousness, intelligence and agency to quantum theory. So, for the podcast, we asked Anthony and FFF’s Jan Wallczek what they hope to bring out with this collaboration. Does it even make sense to link these topics together?

And finally, quantum theorist Matt Leifer of Chapman University outlines the fine-tuning problems that plague quantum theory. For instance, we know that while entanglement enables instantaneous influences between particles, this quantum property cannot be used to send useful information or signals at faster than light speeds. Yet, this feature doesn’t fall naturally out of the rules of quantum theory—or out of other theories physicists are investigating that may underlie quantum theory. Instead, this constraint has to be imposed by hand. Leifer explores possible ways around such fine-tuning issues.

So, what are your (short) answers to the questions posed in the podcast? (Long answers about what is fundamental can be submitted directly to the essay contest!)

Agents in the Physical World: Aguirre and Tegmark


this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Nov. 25, 2017 @ 02:22 GMT
Zeeya,

It is past time for an overhaul to get some protection against insertion bots that have been persistently reported as inappropriate. And have the IT people at PI also include an UNSUBRIBE option. Intellectual property is at risk, and there have been some capable of more than what they have shown here, whose personal files are sought by malicious actors. This is a serious security matter of concern to research facilities with which some respondents have conferred. Blocking access does not prevent migration through the site to a blocked address, an Unsubscribe option is a present day necessity. jrc

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 25, 2017 @ 09:56 GMT
Nothing in the podcast about this:

Program Max Tegmark (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA) Why quantum observers find lower entropy after observation and in our early universe? Anthony Aguirre (University of California, Santa Cruz, USA) Observer-dependent entropy and the Second Law

There are new developments in thermodynamics - see Zeeya's article and my comments in Nature:

Zeeya Merali: The new thermodynamics: how quantum physics is bending the rules

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 26, 2017 @ 01:41 GMT
Re. the Sudoku analogy: When it was described it sounded as if going across a row was like seeing outcomes over time which were random. So that is a temporal distribution of the entries. Whereas it was also described as atemporal. Which is a bit confusing. I think it meant that the whole grid is seemingly random outcomes that are 'big picture' (over time ) related. But I don't understand how the grid is filled. Playing the game relationships are found and then numbers are added but in this grid are they just added linearly as the initial description implied to me, and the relationships are uncovered in the process?

Sorry, it makes me think of knitting. The stitch in this row related to the stitch above in the preceding row,for example (and other non random relations to surrounding stitches), not directly causally related to that other stitch, but to ( and thereby) the knitting process. Looking at the completed garment it is possible to say why that particular stitch had to be blue and the one below red (for example) but the stitches after the blue in the same row had no relation to the future red stitch while being knitted.

The kitting though is worked to a preexisting pattern, which is not usual in nature outside of biology, I would say. Instead for the non biological majority of nature the pattern (plan) is the forces and gradients that apply within each configuration of matter as it arises, so it (the pattern /plan) co evolves with the products of it.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 26, 2017 @ 03:14 GMT
Another example of the build up of non causal relations is ridges and troughs in the sand where waves have lapped. Looking at a sand pattern one might say, 'this sand grain is at the peak of a ridge and so having examined these ridges, a sand grain 5cm from this ridge in the orientation of water flow will be part of a flat area'. The relation is not causal. The location of the first grain causes accurate prediction of the situation of the 5cm away grain but didn't in nature cause the situation of it. It was the forces exerted by the water and friction of other grains that was causal. Referring back to the podcaast; Causal influences wouldn't be part of the 'Sudoku'grid, they are invisible - so the relations that form nice patterns might be thought to have causal influence in the absence of anything else in the model, it seems to me.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 26, 2017 @ 10:51 GMT
Using cross stitch as analogy; Lets say the pattern (formed by the stitching process) is three red one blue, and the grid is filled row by row left to right. There will be an emergent pattern of diagonal lines. Though there is no rule saying make diagonal lines. It is happening because of the number of stitches across the grid, which is circumstantial. If the same sequence was carried out but the grid was a different number of stitches across the pattern could be different. So identifying the emergent pattern isn't necessarily the same as identifying a causal rule. I know that's not Sudoku but I like the idea that 'rules' can be after the fact observation rather than a causal prerequisite. How are the quantum entries to the 'Sudoku grid' physically related to each other? Are they individual runs of the same experiment?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 26, 2017 @ 20:35 GMT
Knitting the grid with the same 3,1 sequence (eg. KKKP) does also give diagonals. That is filling left to right and then right to left and so on, That's two different processes producing an emergent product with an identifiable similarity (diagonal lines) that is not the consequence of an initial condition or application of a rule.

Rules applying to the Sudoku grid being atenporal was mentioned in the podcast. Seems to me rules mostly are atemporal in that they rarely include a temporal component of the instruction. The rules are there and they either are or are not relevant. Parking rules do sometimes have a temporal component but the rules of physics and mathematics aren't like that.

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Nov. 26, 2017 @ 19:03 GMT
"we know that while entanglement enables instantaneous influences between particles..." We do not *know* any such thing; It has simply been falsely assumed, as part of the long standing misinterpretation of quantum theory. It has been demonstrated that classical systems, that manifest only a single bit of information, exhibit the exact same sort of entanglement correlations.

" this feature doesn’t fall naturally out of the rules of quantum theory... Instead, this constraint has to be imposed by hand"

Exactly. As I pointed out in the 2012 essay contest, all such (mis)interpretations of the theory, have simply been made-up and "slapped on"; they cannot be derived from the theory per se.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Nov. 26, 2017 @ 21:10 GMT
Robert,

"classical systems that manifest only a single bit of information, exhibit the same set of entanglement correlations."

Unfortunately it appears that the ChiCom understand that all too well. It was stunningly obvious in just the news clips of the recent state visit to China by the Trump entourage in the first public address following the exchange of portfolios after the arrival greeting, that U.S. strategic analysis of something was caught flat footed. There were not 'talking points' prepared for the President to portray a position of strength, but rather a conspicuous absence of his customary styles of extemporaneous or scripted bravado, and instead of a projection of body language his posture displayed a loss of it. Something any strategic analyst worth their salt could not fail to miss. The ChiCom "gotcha' (in their prospectus for the working groups to hammer out an itinerary for negotiations) was obviously unexpected. And that must have been some real time demonstration of success with their QUESS satellite program of quantum key encryption. Something SecDef would have been read into. Maybe now the Bell skeptics at DARPA will get a chance to challenge the "falsely assumed ... long standing misinterpretation of quantum mechanics".

Thank-you, Robert. jrc

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 27, 2017 @ 04:20 GMT
Re Nicolas Gisin's question of the ontological realism of the billionth digit. Zooming into a single cell of a human we could focus on a single ribosome. It is tiny compared to a person, approx 20nm. If the ribosomes were not functioning properly the person could be severely affected. It could be a tiny part of the ribosome malfunctioning. They are very small and very important. Not billionth digit small though. So what is there at the billionth digit of a number representing something that could have an effect? Also in a dynamic universe everything is undergoing change. As the distance from the decimal increases, getting smaller, the shorter the duration of the value. So not only is it diminutive in scale its duration of existence is too. How short an existence is existence?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 27, 2017 @ 04:46 GMT
Perhaps while very small can be very significant, like the single particle in the experiment that kills the cat, perhaps a billionth place from the decimal is too far to have enough existence in space and duration enough to do anything. Perhaps the interesting things happen when there is enough scale for differentiation, for there to be something and enough endurance of it to do something. Perhaps there is something ontologically real corresponding to the billionth digit but, extremely uninteresting, pertaining for an extremely short time.

I'm not sure why Nicolas Gisin was talking about numbers in binary being in a square of space. The writing of the number is just a representation. What if the information wasn't carried by entities representing it but by the value of relations between entities? Also not considered is smaller undetectable sub information, that might have effects. Such as in half silvered mirror experiments and double slit experiments. Is an undetectable value of a number still a number?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 27, 2017 @ 21:15 GMT
There is a problem underlying writing the number in a square of space and finding it won't fit; which is, the binary notation does not have the scale dimension of the number, so putting equal sized quanta in a square to represent it isn't fully representing what it is. Comparable to that, it seems to me, would be trying to fit a sequence of clock readouts, representing different times, into a square of space and finding insufficient area. Whereas, the clocks ought to be distributed along a time line. If the square of space is 1mm and the number is 0 point something mm then it will have to fit if correctly distributed.It will never reach the 1mm limit of space.

What can be represented by a number at extreme scales? I think that the boundary of the considered thing and the boundary of the number is fractal like. The more accurately examined the larger the measurement of the considered appears to be and the larger number becomes. However there comes a limit where there is nothing, as far as we know to distinguish the considered thing from its surroundings, but a region of uncertainty between categories. Maybe numbers are too 'sharp'. penetrating the scale dimension far beyond the resolution of material reality. Also as the extremity is approached the duration of the value will get extremely small (because of ubiquitous change) and so perhaps it is averages over longer periods of time that have more relevance than absolutely precise value within an infinitesimally tiny moment.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 28, 2017 @ 21:47 GMT
For an abstract number to be ontologically real there has to be something that is not abstract that it pertains to.That is different from an ontologically real representation of the number, such as chalk on a board or a binary sequence of bits. It is an actual quantity.(Number of bits is an ontological real quantity but the abstract number represented by them by them isn't.) When it is no longer possible to differentiate the pertaining from not pertaining there is a limit to the ontological reality of the number. The ontologically real number ends in fuzziness. The abstract number could proceed further but a region of uncertainty isn't appropriate for a very precise number. Silly but I can picture reality skewered by a number which has macroscopic scenery at one end and the final quark on the other end with the number skewer carrying straight on through to indistinguishable-ness. I'll call it a fractal reality kebab, on a numerical skewer.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 27, 2017 @ 15:56 GMT
Dear Zeeya Merali,

Indisputable verifiable fact: The earth had a visible surface for over a million years before man ever appeared on its surface. Indisputable verifiable conclusive logic that can be drawn from this fact: Nature must have provided the only visible real physical construct of the real Universe obtainable. Reality consists of one single visible unified infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. My short question concerning the Podcast am: Why are the physicists trying to explain the real visible infinite appearance of reality by means of finite invisible quantum or relative accumulations?

Am my essay, REALITY AM NOT ROCKET SCIENCE ever going to be published?

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

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 29, 2017 @ 07:45 GMT
The sensory product of an observation corresponds to those parts of the source object from which EM radiation was emitted and has been received. It is limited; Limited to a particular viewpoint, limited to a range of resolution, limited to a surface view most usually when observed with 'visible light' These characteristics of 'image reality mean it can't be numerically skewered or staked in the way that was described for Object reality. The sensory product doesn't have the scale dimension quality of being all scales due to the resolution issue. Observations are conducted at a scale and do not encompass all of the scales existing simultaneously (as they are in object reality). Furthermore it, image reality, isn't 'inside itself'. Considering 3 dimensional space at a scale, all of the space within the space, along the scale dimension, might be overlooked.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 30, 2017 @ 21:18 GMT
Fill the volume with coarse gravel, then add smaller ball bearings then add sand and then add water. It all fits. Elementary but interesting that when it comes to volumes of objects the rules of addition don't always work because they (the volumes) can fit inside each other as the collections of differently sized 'particles' fit around each other. This is a characteristic of Object reality. As well as there being an inside to the volume occupied by an object that can also be considered along a scale dimension. i think this scale dimension perspective is another important way of differentiating Image from Object reality.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 1, 2017 @ 00:59 GMT
I did initially say add salt but the dissolving is an unnecessary complication, though still a way of fitting in the volume.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 29, 2017 @ 16:05 GMT
Dear Georgina,

A real eye can only ever see a real visible surface. The amount of surface a real eye can see am infinite. Infinity cannot be finitely qualified or quantified. Again I have to point out to you that the real visible surface of the earth existed for over a million years before supposedly scientific men began guessing about whether humans had finite complex invisible “sensory “ capabilities.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 29, 2017 @ 22:33 GMT
Joe an eye by itself can't see anything. Sight involves the nervous system and brain. What is seen is a sensory product not the external actualized surface. The biology, chemistry and neuroscience of sight has been well researched and is well understood. An eye, or even complete sensory system can not see an infinite amount. The system would cease to function long before.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 30, 2017 @ 02:22 GMT
Joe, tell me, when you look in a mirror and see a reflection of yourself are you seeing a real visible surface?

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 30, 2017 @ 16:07 GMT
Dear Georgina,

A real eye has a real surface. A real eye am never by itself because the small real visible surface of every real eye am fully integrated into the one and only single unified visible infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Why on earth are you asking me what I see when I look in a mirror? Please stop assuming that I am guessing about reality. You apparently believe because of your understanding of the written English that some human brains have a superior amount of invisible intelligence than other human brains have.

Visible infinite surface has nothing whatsoever to do with MY THOUGHTS, or my finite limited use of written English.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 30, 2017 @ 20:23 GMT
Joe I asked about the reflection that you see because I thought it might be a way of getting through to you that what you are seeing isn't the external reality. There is no Joe in the mirror, yet you see 'surface of Joe'. In contradiction to your "A real eye can only ever see a real visible surface". This is how a debate is conducted. Points are made by one side and then there is a response to them, and so on back and forth. A good debate can be fun.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 30, 2017 @ 20:31 GMT
I have noted that your wording has changed to "mostly illuminated" so there has been a positive development of the idea, that makes it a smidgen more realistic, allowing for dark places.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Dec. 1, 2017 @ 16:08 GMT
Dear Georgina,

It am physically impossible for any real eye to look “in” a mirror’ All any real eye can do am see surface. One sees the surface of the mirror seamlessly immersed in the surface of the mirror frame and part of the surface of the wall the mirror am attached to. Did any dinosaur ever look in a mirror? Although I originally thought that non-surface light had to be infinite in keeping with the continuity of eternal infinite surface, I then realized that any light can be extinguished, so logically, light must be finite.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 1, 2017 @ 22:33 GMT
Joe, "look in a mirror" is the way people generally speak about looking at a reflection seen to be in a mirror. It was the seeing of a reflection that I was putting to you. When I hold up a mirror and look at it I do not see only its surface and what surrounds the surface. I think that is usual, except for vampires : ) Dinosaurs may not have been looking in mirrors but some might have looked into a still pool of clear water.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Dec. 1, 2017 @ 18:28 GMT
There are four different speakers with four different 10 minute arguments.

Gisin argues that real numbers can repeat infinitely and so even determinism is subject to the randomness of infinite repetition. This seems like an argument over the random noise of the infinitesimal since any path in space consists of an infinite number of points. So how does anything move? If instead of an...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 1, 2017 @ 23:05 GMT
Steve, while it might be impossible to do anything with the unknowable, thinking about it does make us question how do we know what we know, and what is knowing. Knowing is different from guessing or faith. Do the methods used to know affect or create the known? (rhetorical) That is not meant as creation 'out of thin air' but creating fixed limited variables, something contextual and relative that is graspable and comprehensible from out of the unknowable whole external reality. We form know-ables from be-ables by considering measurable limited contextual aspects of complete variable profiles associated with be-ables (I'd say). If not readily measurable ways can be devised to alter the 'wild' behaviour to conform to a protocol that makes it scrutable. I think that questioning of what we think we know, and what we do to know is important.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Dec. 2, 2017 @ 06:10 GMT
Exactly. We must always question the unknowable since there are many things that we just do not yet know.

Belief in what is unknowable is a critical part of our reality, but knowing what is unknowable is very difficult. Avoid words like beable since new definitions can confuse the unknowable.

Measurement is the key to agreement about what is real and without measurement and observation, there would be no wisdom. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is our creation and it shows us what we can be.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 2, 2017 @ 20:48 GMT
Steve, I think your "simply suppose that there are a very large but finite number of particles or aether" is a fudge ( not the sweet sticky kind) because there is then space between the aether particles and the problem is back. Unless you propose that the aether particles fit seamlessly together without space between. It seems to me that the time it takes to travel smaller and smaller distances at a constant speed is not talked about in regard to this puzzle. I haven't come across it. As the distance becomes vanishingly small so to the time taken to traverse it. I think in nature it becomes blurry because objects vibrate and the boundary of their surface is not clean and definite. When these are put into the problem it can be seen that when the vibration of the object or uncertainty of its boundary exceeds the distance to be traveled it is unclear if it has or has not. It ends in smudge not fudge.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Dec. 2, 2017 @ 17:40 GMT
Dear Georgina and Steve,

For the umpteenth time, the real surface of the earth existed for over a million years before man ever appeared on its surface. The only thing modern man has produced am finite abstract information. No amount of finiteabstract information could possibly have anything to do with infinite reality. Steve wrote: “Exactly. We must always question the unknowable since there are many things that we just do not yet know.” There cannot be any abstract finite invisible ‘things.’ There am only one single real unified visible infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. I am accurately describing that each real eye would only ever see real visible surface. A supposedly finite look by any real eye at the surface of a mirror am not definitive of visible reality. Why do you refuse to know about visible reality?

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 2, 2017 @ 20:22 GMT
Joe, you have written "A supposedly finite look by any real eye at the surface of a mirror am not definitive of visible reality." A reflection might not be typical of all that is seen but my point is it is seen, even though it doesn't actually exist as a surface inside the mirror.

"Do people see reflections when they look in a mirror or not Joe? Do the ones seeing reflections have unreal eyes, in which case what is a real eye? Is a real eye seeing infinity of surface eternally, like a god's eye? If so I din;t understand how it does that while embedded in the surface itself.

The whole surface of the Earth today is very different from a million years ago. The surface that did exist back then no longer exists as it did.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Dec. 3, 2017 @ 14:54 GMT
Dear Georgina,

One single VISIBLE unified INFINITE surface occurring in one single infinite dimension am infinite in all aspects including eternal duration. Infinity cannot be finitely altered. Your finite comment about : “The whole surface of the Earth today is very different from a million years ago. The surface that did exist back then no longer exists as it did” am utterly illogical. Only finite misinformation can be different in finite interpretation. Please explain to me how any VISIBLE infinite surface could be “different” in any finite way at any finite time.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Dec. 3, 2017 @ 21:47 GMT
Joe, If using eternal-ism to describe the universe everything is fundamentally frozen in time and does not change. However that does not correspond to what I see and I have noted that you frequently use what is seen by 'a real eye', as an argument for your version of reality. My notion that the Earth surface has changed is not illogical. I am using a uni-temporal model not one that falls into the category of eternalism.

Do people see reflections when they look in a mirror or not Joe? Do the ones seeing reflections have unreal eyes, in which case what is a real eye? Is a real eye seeing infinity of surface eternally, like a god's eye?

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Dec. 4, 2017 @ 16:42 GMT
Dear Georgina,

It is only you that am using finite words in order to write: “eternal-ism to describe the universe everything is fundamentally frozen in time and does not change.” There am no finite abstract “everything.” There am only one single unified VISIBLE INFINITE SURFACE occurring eternally in one single INFINITE dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Humanly devised finite descriptions of the abstract invisible universe can change. Infinite VISIBLE surface must be eternal. You cannot possibly exist in a “fundamental” reality, that was somehow only rationally explicable linguistically. The real VISIBLE surface of the earth existed long BEFORE man and his complex FINITE GUESSWORK about how a finite INVISIBLE VOID might have preceded the finite creation of the Universe.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 4, 2017 @ 20:22 GMT
Joe, how do you know what you know, as you consider yourself a part of a single surface with no brain, and no nervous system internal structure? (Fitting your 'explanation' of only the visible surface existing.) Or is Joe the exception?

Do people see reflections when they look in a mirror or not Joe? Do the ones seeing reflections have unreal eyes, in which case what is a real eye? Is a real eye seeing infinity of surface eternally, like a god's eye? How does it do that while embedded in the surface?

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Dec. 5, 2017 @ 16:03 GMT
Dear Georgina,

It would be physically impossible for me to ever see my supposedly finite self. The words “brains” and (invisible) “nervous systems” are merely humanly contrived finite fanciful expressions that have absolutely NOTHING to do with NATURAL PHYSICAL REALITY. A real surgeon can slice off bits of the surface of any real brain AN INFINITE NUMBER OF TIMES. All the real surgeon will uncover each time he or she slices, am another layer of surface. That am because only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever existed.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 5, 2017 @ 19:32 GMT
Joe, I didn't ask if you could see yourself, I asked how you know what you know. You have a lot of certainty about it, how do you know with certainty? After all you have said reality has nothing to do with what you think and now say it has nothing to do with brains and nervous systems. So presumably it is independent of sight despite your emphasis on being visible, illuminated and the role of real eyes. Who are real surgeons that can slice a brain an infinite number of times? That sounds very unnaturally fiddly and time consuming.

Do people see reflections when they look in a mirror? Is a real eye seeing infinity of surface eternally, like a god's eye? How does it do that while embedded in the surface?

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Dec. 6, 2017 @ 16:29 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I know that the real VISIBLE Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light because no matter in which direction I look, I only see a seamlessly enmeshed plethora of flat, filled in, varied hued surface. I find it doubtful that Nature would have given just this singular observational capability to only me, so I am confident that any real eye could only ever see a seamlessly enmeshed plethora of flat, filled in, varied hued surface. There are an infinite number of mirrors, therefore there are an infinite number of reflections that any real eye might perceive when looking at the surface of any real mirror. I am confident that the real eyes of the real dinosaurs only ever saw a seamlessly enmeshed plethora of flat, filled in, varied hued surface no matter in which direction they looked during their whole lifetime. As this happened over a million years before man appeared on the planet, I KNOW THAT ALL THE INFORMATION WRITTEN BY MAN CONCERNING VISIBLE REALTY AM UTTERLY WRONG.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 6, 2017 @ 21:53 GMT
Hi Joe, thank you for your clarification. Your explanation of the visible universe is based upon what you see and then extended to what all eyes see or have seen. You emphasize that all that can be seen is surface. I agree that the visible universe is a product of the sense of sight. I would include the products of devices such as cameras and radio telescopes. That are 'seeing' in their own way.

That only surfaces, most usually, are see-able (as most materials are opaque and densely packed) is important. For me that indicates a categorical difference between the visible and what exists. That more exists than is see-able, is knowable using other senses. Eg. using touch I can feel that there is more than i can see. Also general knowledge that externally and internally there is not just surface is helpful. More than surface is needed for function.

Eyes do not perceive, functioning brains and visual system do. It is all required even though it isn't externally see-able except for the eye surface. I'm saying that to try to convey that there is more that exists than the visible surface. So although the emphasis on only surface being visible is useful, it can not be useful when tied to the condition that it is all there is.

When it comes to what is visible I would not say that what is seen is eternal, ( as I am a uni-temporalist), but that there is endurance of electromagnetic signals that can enable the seeing of former things. Not seen as separate but as part of the visual product and identified as separable know things. The em radiation i am talking about is light but not yet received, nothing peculiar.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Dec. 7, 2017 @ 15:26 GMT
Dear Georgina,,,

Only one single unified VISIBLE APPEARANCE has ever existed and the only way that one single unified VISIBLE APPEARANCE could have APPEARED was if there had only ever been one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one single INFINITE dimension that was ETERNALLY mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. ALL humanly contrived FINITE information concerning INVISIBLE senses and finite mathematical guesswork AM UTTERLY WRONG.

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

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 7, 2017 @ 20:11 GMT
Joe, I have tried to differentiate where you have the kernel of a good insightful idea and where you are talking nonsense. When you say things like, quote: "ALL humanly contrived FINITE information concerning INVISIBLE senses and finite mathematical guesswork AM UTTERLY WRONG" you are talking in an arrogant and ignorant way that just alienates people. If you are able to demonstrate that certain scientific 'facts' are incorrect, that is have some kind of solid argument or proof then it is very worthwhile discussing it. I'm right and you are all wrong because I know over and over isn't helpful. I think it was Steve who told you that a single dimension in mathematics is a line, so a surface doesn't fit that description. Rather than use that helpful feedback you have continued to make the same error over and over again.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Dec. 8, 2017 @ 16:06 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Real VISIBLE singular unified infinite surface occurring eternally in one singular infinite dimension that am eternally illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light can be verified by anyone using any real eye. Humanly contrived information purports to suggest that there could be right and wrong information. It am the scientists who have arrogantly proclaimed that they alone know where and when the universe came into being, even though they have never produced any VISIBLE proof that could be verified by any real eye. Please let this be the last time I have to inform you of this fact, the real surface of the earth existed for over a million years before man appeared on it and devised his finite misinformation systems.

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

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Dec. 9, 2017 @ 07:57 GMT
The sensory products are always produced in the -Now, represented by the outer (most recent/ youngest time) imaginary numbers plane. I.e. the 3D space comprising the outermost sphere of the hypersphere representation. As that is the only region of the model that pertains to ontological reality.The sensory products themselves are their own different space-time representation related to when the signals from which the information used in their generation was reflected or emitted from the material 'source' objects. They have a time dimension as the temporal origin of the contained information is not usually completely homogeneous. It is abstract as the existing product at any one -Now does not actually contain different times, only images pertaining to different origins.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 10, 2017 @ 21:47 GMT
This poor orphan belongs in the thread started here 'Steve Agnew wrote on Dec. 1, 2017 @ 18:28 GMT' after 'Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 9, 2017 @ 01:48 GMT'. I think I should have moved it but a bit late now.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Dec. 9, 2017 @ 13:44 GMT
Dear Georgina.

There are no abstract INVISIBLE human “sensory products.” There am only one real single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am eternally illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light. This natural real VISIBLE physical construct was in effect on earth a million years before man appeared on the earth’s surface. It would have been totally irrational for Nature to have altered its original eternal real VISIBLE physical construct in order to somehow comply with the finite complex humanly contrived abstract guesswork concerning JNVISIBLE phenomena.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 9, 2017 @ 21:01 GMT
The sensory products I am talking about in regard to vision are visible. Whereas external surface/s themselves are not. Light (EM radiation) has to be received in order for sight to happen, excluding direct brain stimulation, and phosphenes seen when rubbing one's closed eyes for example.

If you mean a plane or realm why not say so rather than repeating "single dimension" after being told several times that that denotes a line not a surface.

I can't be convinced about your visible surface since you deny the necessary means for vision, whereby it is visible and not just there, unsee-able.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 9, 2017 @ 21:15 GMT
Joe, you mention illumination. Why is illumination important do you think? How does it make the surface visible?

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Dec. 11, 2017 @ 17:06 GMT
Dear Georgina,

The (INVISIBLE) “sensory products” you keep writing about are purely informational.. The earth had a real visible surface a million years BEFORE man, and ALL HUMANLY CONTRIVED information ever appeared on the planet. There am no logical way Nature would have arranged for a different real visible surface AFTER man appeared on the planet.

You persist in writing INFORMATION about humanly contrived FINITE diagrams of “planes” and “realms.” One real VISIBLE Universe could only ever eternally exist in one single INFINITE dimension.

I use the word “illumination” because it is infinite surface that am eternally being visibly illuminated.

Joe Fisher, Realist

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.