Search FQXi

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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

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

Previous Contests

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help

QW Singularity: on 3/3/12 at 6:49am UTC, wrote OK the sale was on Zaggfolios for the IPad2, keyboard+case+stand. But...

Time's Conscience: on 2/28/12 at 1:03am UTC, wrote One-Day only sale 29% off a technology newly invented for another...

Quantum Widget: on 2/17/12 at 0:51am UTC, wrote Thx wuz hoping that would be the case. Except the cold. Good health to...

Georgina Parry: on 2/15/12 at 12:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Tommy, thank you for thinking of me. You write in a fascinating way....

Tommy Gilbertson: on 2/14/12 at 22:02pm UTC, wrote Oh, an interestingly, even though almost all of the above is speculative...

Tommy Gilbertson: on 2/14/12 at 21:53pm UTC, wrote Hello Georgina, and happy Valentines' Day! Hope your doing well. Anywayz,...

Georgina Parry: on 11/15/11 at 14:30pm UTC, wrote That latest Pdf was sent by me. Please let me know what you think.

Anonymous: on 11/15/11 at 14:27pm UTC, wrote 3D style version to show the different level of reality of the output...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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

December 15, 2017

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: What Is Reality In the Context of Physics? by Georgina Parry [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 15:58 GMT
Essay Abstract

Abstract. A discussion of the nature of reality within physics. Impinging on numerous foundational questions and paradoxes and demonstrating how they can be overcome or understood by taking into consideration the generation of the appearance of reality, as well as the appearance itself. Another look at the double slit experiment and what it indicates about unobserved underlying reality. Ending with a consideration of whether reality as discussed is digital or analogue.

Author Bio

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

Download Essay PDF File

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 22:02 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Wouldn't it be reasonable attributing reality always to an object of consideration, never to the observer, except of course if the observer himself is the object of consideration? I admit having difficulties to swallow the method synchronization which was to my knowledge introduced by Poincaré and tacitly adopted in 1905.

Kind regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 02:39 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I'm not sure I fully understand your question.

The reality observed from interception and interpretation of data depends on the frame of reference of the observer. So an object is observed as it was at different times by observers in different positions or states of motion. It has potentially multiple image realities. Only when detection occurs is the unique data that will form the image reality selected and determined.

I have to admit it is a kind of reality , as many people insist that only that which can be observed is real.(Though it is not really real in the same way as the object reality, which is the reality of the object itself rather than the construct from data.)

Independent of the observer the object itself has its own reality, only ever at a single time. Not existing spread over time, though there is photon data in the environment that will show it as it was at different times and is necessary for all observers to see their image reality version of the object.

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 09:53 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Why not taking in consideration the possibility that

- objective reality belongs to the object of consideration,

- it cannot at all be immediately observed from outside

- it must nonetheless be somehow related to something observable.

Consequences from your reasoning seems to confirm the suspicion uttered in my Appendix C.

I am just critically reading "The Special Theory of Relativity" by David Bohm, 3rd ed. 1996 London and New York: Routledge.

Kind regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 11:53 GMT
Dear Eckard,

all of those 3 statements are what I am saying also.

The objective reality, which I am calling Object Reality is the reality of the object independent of the image or reconstructed reality observed by an observer.It is what is "really real" rather than the space-time image of reality.

The observer never actually sees the object only an image or representation of the object as it -was- when the data that has been detected was formed.Not as it is.

The object reality is related to what is observed because data exists in the environment due to the emission or reflection of photons from the object. It is the interception of that data that allows the observation to be made whether by the sensory system or other reality interface.It is the image or reconstruction from data and not the object itself that is observed.

I will read your essay and appendix C.

Karl Coryat wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 03:08 GMT
Hi Georgina, as a lurker I have enjoyed your comments in the FQXi forum. I'm glad you wrote an essay. I agree with a lot of the points that you make, for example, "The curvature of space-time is an interpretation fitting the observation of image reality, not underlying object reality." However I might have said "not *necessarily* underlying object reality," because I disagree that even if this is so, there needs to be some other "cause" of gravity besides curvature. That, I think, is a philosophical issue. In my opinion, one theoretical interpretation is as good as any other so long as the interpretations are equally predictive and consistent with the observations. We needn't declare that it is the curvature itself that causes gravitation.

Since you're a biology person I hope you will check out my essay -- our ideas cross paths in several places, for instance that the future is uncertain -- that "If [the past and future] do not exist, with actual material content, but are imaginary, they cannot be visited or altered." I have a diagram showing how the present fits into my view of a digital reality emerging out of an uncertain analog nature. Also, your discussion of the digital nature of biological senses. (I talk about DNA as an example of biological digital information.) Thank you for adding another biological perspective! Best of luck in the contest.

report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 08:46 GMT
Hi Karl,

Thank you for your kind comments.

I really do mean that the curvature of space-time does not fit the actual object reality, because that underlying reality does not consist of space-time. No maybe or not necessarily about it, in my opinion. It is uni-temporal space without any temporal spread. That is necessary to overcome the paradoxes and answer the foundational questions.

The curvature of space-time is an interpretation that can be fitted to image reality, but is not a cause of gravity in itself. The curvature of space-time is describing the image that is observed not what is physically happening to the objects in uni-temporal space. So there does have to be another cause. Not for the sake of philosophy but for physics sake.

The interpretations are not equal. They relate to different facets of reality and both are needed. Space-time and relativity alone leads to paradoxes, only shows where objects will be -seen to be- and does not allow causality or free will. Whereas inclusion of uni-temporal space and objective hyper-relative position overcomes the paradoxes, will enable more objectively real positions to be determined ( when scale dependent super relative positions are used) and permits causality and free will. This is not saying that space-time and relativity are wrong but that they pertain only to image reality.

I will read your essay with interest. Good luck to you too.

Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 11:28 GMT
Happy to see you dear Georgina,

But where were you stILL hihihi ?

good luck for the contest



report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 12:27 GMT
Hi Steve,

just needed time to live my life, think and write my own essay.

Thank you for you good wishes.

T H Ray wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 13:57 GMT

I have never heard Einstein quoted as saying "reality is an illusion." Possibly you mean his statement, "time is an illusion." Einstein's physics assumes an objective reality.


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 16:51 GMT
EPR gave this telltale criterion of Einstein’s notion of physical reality:

If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity.

I guess, Einstein considered his spacetime a reality. Nonetheless, I agree with Georgina in that spacetime cannot be objectively real. You may either disprove this opinion or accept its consequences.


report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 20:04 GMT
Hi Tom,

I spent time trying to trace the original source of the quote used but despite finding countless occurrences of the quote attributed to Einstein I did not find where or when it was uttered.I could have spent longer but it did not seem a very constructive use of time. It is succinct and serves to illustrate Einstein's opinion well.It is not listed among false or mis-attributed quotes on Wikipedia.Someone may know its source and enlighten us.It was perhaps just one of many things that he said in various ways.

He did write a letter of condolence to the family of a good friend Michele Besso in which he said "for us believing physicists the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." This is quoted in E=Einstein edited by Donald Goldsmith and Marcia Bartusiak, Sterling New York/London, in the section Einstein's dilemma by Shimon Malin.

Einstein does assume space-time to be an objective reality which makes our individual experience of reality and the passage of time an illusion, in his opinion.

I do not regard space-time as an objective reality. The data in the environment(potential input allowing production of observed reality) exists in the uni-temporal reality and so does itself have objective reality.However the image or reconstruction that it enables, space-time reality, is dependent upon the subject intercepting that data and frame of reference so is a subjective image reality only.

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 23:48 GMT
Dear Eckard,

thank you for reading my essay and for your support. I do hope that my essay proves to be relevant and useful to others.

I have read your own essay but as it is largely concerned with mathematics, I will have to take time to gradually assimilate its content.I admire your knowledge and abilities and have no doubt of the very good sense with in it. Though our essays are very different in their approaches, we both share the desire to de mystify physics and restore realism. Let us hope that others will grasp the many reasons, you and I have given, for it to be so.

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 18:03 GMT
Great to see you here Georgina, I was starting to worry.

I know yours is an important essay, and I haven't even read it yet! But before I forget I would like to comment on the above.

Eckards, Appendix C I think is an unavoidable consequence of the whole truth, and I'm sure you'll agree. I have mentioned to Eckard a role for the Lorentz transformation, but it is not in exponentially suppressing abstracted points, lines and speed (not "attached to a body") on the alter of our faith. I've now found this clearly applying to the energy required (transferred between f and lambda) to accelerate a signal, or a massive body, from one inertial frame to another. look at the LHC, that's the shape of the power input curve, and it needs almost infinite power to get a decent string of 9's on 99.9999% c.

Karl was very sensible in my opinion in not falling into the 'cause and effect' trap of insisting curvature 'causes' gravity. I entirely agree with you again, except that curvature does of course have some kind of a role in this play. With your concrete reality we can define it.

perhaps it's no co-incidence that the LHC em field propagates it's own virtual electron (plasma) cloud, as well as the one round the bunch, to bend the beam round the pipe. Or that plasma in halo's and shocks diffract light entirely as it does in the lab to curve it in lensing. Both give off precisely the same syncrotron light. From optic fibre science we know em waves are propagated by atomic scattering - polarisation and re-emission by particles (PMD). We have a known working quantum process equivalent to Maxwell Einstein's weak field approximation that does precisely what we see and agrees with SR/GR.

Can I suggest there may be an argument that if it waddles, swims, quacks and goes with orange really nicely like SR/GR, it may be worth using it as a substitute, just for a while, till we manage to catch and tie down some real SR/GR.?

Do you suppose there is a chance science may get used to it and eventually grow to prefer it to the real thing?

Eckard's last words above about accepting consequences are very wise. I think I'll agree entirely with your essay, and it's consequences. I hope my own may help explain why.

I'll return after a read. Very best of luck.


report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 18:49 GMT

You've said the same thing for years, but never so well before. Congratulations.

One reason this essay is so cogent is that you focus on the 'objective world' and 'image reality', both of which exist as physically comprehensible phenomena, and you have not mentioned (except implicitly) the 'subjective world' (that we know interprets the images).

Your sequence of presentation is superb. Your explanation of 'current time' vs. 'present now' superb, and you make many sorely needed observations, such as:

"...the medium...must exist to account for observations...without having to resort to many worlds supernatural interpretations of reality or the belief that hypothetical constructs [wave functions] formed from mathematical equations without real counterpart in the object universe control the position and momentum of real particles, or that nothing is real."

You have laid it all out so clearly that I believe you may wish to look at the Maxwell-Einstein gravito-magnetic aspect of gravity [that I call 'the C-field'] --the gravitic *analog* of the magnetic B-field induced by moving charges-- as a physical field that can do duty as your 'unseen medium'. The C-field is induced locally by moving mass. It's 'wave like' existence accompanies every electron and photon with momentum and interacts with other mass/momentum in the neighborhood, including 'two slit' apparatus. It is a 'real' field, not a mathematical construct like the wave function, but it has the same mathematical description as the wave function. See figure and function at top of page 6 here.

I intended to just compliment your fine essay, but since you have 'set up' things so well I cannot resist trying to show how well the C-field fits your need for unobserved 'medium'. The existence of the C-field is not in argument, but its strength and significance is debatable.

You have, in essence, made the argument that [something like] the C-field is needed. I hope you will give serious consideration to the reality of a field that behaves as you say 'a medium' must.

You have also held up for closer examination such ideas as space-time, wave-functions, many worlds, and extra dimensions and found them lacking objective reality. That's a lot to accomplish in nine pages.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 20:47 GMT
Dear Edwin,

thank you so much for your very kind comments.

I did want to write something really foundational, that answers the foundational questions and paradoxes as well as the essay question but is also comprehensible and interesting.I am really glad to hear that you think I have succeeded in that.

Rather than just repeat everything I have said before I have also tried to extend the ideas to show how they could be useful to practical situations, conducting experiments and understanding observations, rather than being mere philosophy.

I thank Peter Jackson for his advice on fqxi blogs to highlight the non conscious aspect of image reality formation. The subjective human interpretation is a bit of "a minefield" and immediately distracts from the simple physical process that is occurring.

I will read your essay with much interest.

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 20:33 GMT

Wonderful, even better than I expected. Thank you for making me feel so good and less alone. And I'm very impressed with your courage in speaking out about the king's new clothes.

I believe you'll find Edwin's C field is an excellent approximation of the medium needed to convert from object to received reality. ..Wow, perhaps there really IS a chance we might help finally...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 21:13 GMT

thank you very much indeed for your very kind comments.

Time dilation does not "do the job". It is an interpretation of the observed image reality. So although it is an explanation that fits the evidence it is not a cause of anything. Time does not exist as a dimension in object reality and therefore can not stretch but the distribution of the data that gives the input for image reality formation can be perturbed by the trajectory of the mass through space.

Thank you very much for all of the references to look at. I have read your essay through and found it very interesting. (Also your video.) As you said I need to take time with it, which I sincerely intend to do before commenting further.

James Putnam wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 22:56 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Soon after I posted my essay I thought about you. I considered posting a message in the blogs section encouraging you and Tom to submit essays. Before I did that your essay appeared. We enterred on the same day. I printed your essay off but have not yet read it. I just wanted to say that I am glad that you enterred, but, not quite so glad to see that you quickly burried me in the ratings. Really, my message is one of 'good luck to you'.


report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 23:13 GMT
Hi James,

thank you, I appreciate your good wishes. I too was glad to see that you had entered the competition. Your essay is among the first I have read. I enjoyed reading it. There are now a lot of essays posted and I do not think I will manage to read them all.

It is good to have people's ideas collected in one place for future reference rather than just scattered over numerous blog and forum threads. I also think that all of the essays will receive more public attention than the various blog posts. So that in itself is a good thing. Good luck to you too.

John Merryman wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 03:50 GMT

Excellent essay. It says something about the state of physics that such a clear and well reasoned description of the relationship between objective and subjective concepts of reality bumps enough sacred cows off the road that it likely won't get the attention it deserves. We can always hope though.

Good luck and thanks for the mention.

report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 21:08 GMT
Hi John,

thank you very much indeed. This was my third attempt to produce something that was readable to the end and not indigestibly content rich. It did mean leaving out other things that I would also have liked to talk about. I feel that I have said enough to make a reasonable argument.

Our discussions on FQXi blogs, of various topics, have been helpful.In particular you have made me think hard about the direction of time, and what that means, and the concept of absolute space. What ever the outcome of the competition the ideas contained in our essays will receive wider attention. Which is progress imo. I am delighted with the feedback so far.

John Merryman replied on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 03:44 GMT

It's nice to see someone giving the idea of space as absolute some consideration. By it's nature, it's much harder to conceptually pin down than the point about time, but instinctively it fills a very large void in the theories. Pun intended.

On my previous comment about what modern physics would look like if it has originally evolved in the east, it occurs to me that it wouldn't even be called physics, but possibly "contextuality." With physics, we isolate the object and then try to place it back in context by finding an opposing particle to balance it. With an eastern view the balance wouldn't be hidden. It's yin and yang. Positive and negative. Black and white. Left, right. The opposites don't cancel each other out, they give each other dimension and balance. They not only exist in everything, they are everything.

I'm not confident of getting any attention yet. The politics is a function of complexity. Like what's going on in the Middle East, it won't be a rational evolutionary change, but a breakdown of a system under increasing pressure. Far too many people have far too much invested in the whole multiworlds/multiverses meme to drop it willingly. Given the willingness to accept all the far fetched ideas that are being taken seriously, it's safe to say their logical integrity is compromised. Having seen it in many other aspects of life, I find people are all too willing accept whatever pays the bills.

The older I get, the more bizarre the world gets and I suspect we "ain't seen nothin yet."

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 05:56 GMT

I don't agree with you on all of your technical points, but I do agree with your last paragraph (and with your last sentence.)

It appears to me that many of the people who thoroughly reject God as the creator of the universe are in process of getting ready to believe in the Computer that created the universe.

Go figure.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 03:09 GMT

If you look at spirituality as bottom up, that of the essence of awareness slowly evolving ever more complex forms, rather than the monotheistic top down version, in which we represent a fallen copy of a moral and intellectual ideal, the computer makes an extremely insightful metaphor. The primary biological control is the attraction of the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental. Amoebae act on on this and it is the basis of our primal concept of good vs. bad. We intellectualize it as yes and no and then on to the on/off switches of computers.

The classical concept of God, no matter how much power and transcendence we assign it, is fundamentally weak, since it cannot prevent injustice, keeps having to retreat into the woodwork as we gain knowledge, allows the amoral to prosper, etc.

On the other hand, if we view it as that continuously striving raw awareness, it explains these ambiguities of elemental striving and yet ever evolving knowledge to repair the damages encountered and inflicted. Death is not evil, not a necessary resetting of the system and way to clear out old ways and gain energy, so that while we become biologically and intellectually complex, we are not encased by the implicit structures, but must constantly push against all forms.

Computers are a tool and extension of this awareness, just as the simple tool is an extension of the hand and the hand is an extension of the mind.

This isn't stated as clearly as I'd like, but it's a germinating idea that I'm working through.

Sorry to highjack your thread, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 12:43 GMT
heoh dear friends, she is already married hihihih

they become crazzy Georgina, you saw now .They take gloves,hihihi they are real gentlemen wawwww

Don't be grumpy or angry ,I am laughing I am laughing.


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 12:51 GMT
I speak as a child but in fact it's true your essay is very interesting.Your relativistic vue of the space time is relevant.



report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 20:11 GMT
Hi Steve,

it is good that you feel like laughing again.

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. I am glad you think it is a relevant view point as we have disagreed in the past. That was perhaps because of my choice of description, which did not express clearly enough what I meant. I have avoided using those terms that seem divisive.

I am also glad that you found it interesting. A lot of what I said will not have been new to you but I have tried to extend the ideas to show how they can be useful to practical science.

I think I have managed to show that there most definitely is a place for relativity and that it will continue to be relevant to the observations that are made.Though it is only part of a greater reality that exists without observation. Without both aspects of reality we are left with paradox, superstition, mystery, quasi reality or non reality of everything. I suspect that some people who love the mysterious will not approve of a simple physical mechanisms that overcome the need to accept unscientific notions.

Setve Dufourny replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 10:19 GMT
Hi Georgina,

The theories evolve,it's a real road of harmonization in fact. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we desagree, sometimes, we doubt, sometimes we are sure, sometimes ....once upon a time...the sphere ...and its spheres.....and this SPHERE........

I wish you a good contest.



report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 15:37 GMT
Hi Georgina, thanks for your essay. Could an Archimedes screw be the visualisation of a particle/wave duality which is currently referred to as a paradox? Do you see what I mean?

report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 21:07 GMT
Hi Alan ,

did you read the essay? What did you think? I am a little disappointed if it only made you think of a screw.

We can of course visualise whatever we like. Visualising the particle as an Archimedes screw is still trying to retain the mysterious duality without admitting a medium.If I place a beach ball on the sea and it bobs up and down on the waves and forward and back on the tide I do not say the ball has ball/wave duality.

I was going to say more about the movement of planets and galaxies which leads on to gravity. However I avoided talking about that in the essay as it was not particularly relevant to the competition question and so is not particularly relevant now.

If you would like to -tell me- what you mean then please go ahead.

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 11:25 GMT
Ahh no, I'm not advocating the idea of a medium at all. I don't believe in Einstein's spacetime contiuum idea. I'm suggesting that the graviton can be modelled by an Archimedes screw analogy. It's the mechanical structure of reality which gives a particle a wave nature. It's this helical structure which can give a particle the ability to induce a force of attraction when it interacts with another particle. If this helical screw then travelled around a hypersphere, or wraparound universe, then it would emerge on the other side as a force of repulsion i.e. dark energy.

I'm sorry, but I was only able to skim read your essay as I have a non-mathematical background. You seemed to have the idea of visualisation of reality w.r.t the the Young's slit experiment as being of paramount importance. This is what prompted me to reply. Kind regards, Alan

report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 21:30 GMT

you may have noticed from my biography that I too have a non mathematical background and am not a physics specialist. I therefore have not taken a mathematical approach to the presentation of my ideas and argument at all.

The essay is written in plain English and I have made considerable effort, through editing, to have only a user friendly sentence structure throughout. I have also tried very hard to reduce the content so that there is a flow of ideas that make an argument rather than just bombarding the reader with information. It is still complicated because the whole subject that it is dealing with is complex.

I think you should make the effort to read it rather than dismiss out of hand.It is dealing with very important and foundational aspects of physics, answers questions and overcomes paradoxes. I have taken the foundation of the essay to be that in order to determine if reality is digital or analogue we must first ascertain what is meant by reality.Some new terminology is necessary because new ideas are being discussed which do not have counterparts in the English vocabulary.

Yes I do consider a medium to be necessary. Nobel prize winner Richard Feynman considered the understanding of this experiment to be of paramount importance to the understanding of quantum physics.I have a quote by him on my final notes page. If you wish to discuss this subject with me I suggest first you read what I have said in the essay, which will explain my viewpoint.

joseph markell wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 20:55 GMT
Hi Georgina:

I liked your essay, especially regarding the use of analogies.


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 21:17 GMT
Hi Joseph,

thank you for your feedback.I am glad you liked it.

report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 06:44 GMT
Hi Joseph ,

I should add that I am aware that analogies should be used with care as they do not always accurately demonstrate, by their use, the idea to which they are related. I did give some careful thought to the analogies used and think that they not only help to explain the ideas presented but help to break the essay up so that it is not merely a technical monologue.I am glad that you liked their inclusion.

basudeba wrote on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 10:52 GMT

Your essay is quite thought provoking. However, we find some discordant notes not because of your approach, but because of the approach of mainstream physics that needs a re-look.

You say: “The mathematical space-time model is a construct giving a mathematical representation that fits well with observations of Image reality but is not a complete model of reality. Though it...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 11:38 GMT

I hadn't heard the Eddington story and loved it, as very appropriate to Georgina's and to my propositions. I now can't recall what I have and havent read, but if I haven't read yours yet I will.


I see we're no longer side by side in the community list, so I shall give yours the exceptional rating it deserves, - against the criteria of course.

Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 12:25 GMT

thank you very much indeed. I am grateful for the very positive feedback and ideas for further reading and research that you have given me. There is too much to consider all at once though. I really do need time to consider all of the the essays I have read before allocating my votes. I will probably do this much later. I do like to take my time when thinking things over. Please be reassured that I will give your essay careful consideration.

James Putnam wrote on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 21:32 GMT

Do you know that you made the 'Front Page" of If not go to 'Home'.


report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 00:03 GMT
Hi James,

So I did! I do hope the other contestants have read the evaluation criteria and are using -them- to rate the essays.

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 08:30 GMT
Congratulations Georgina! How exciting it is that I know someone famous! :-D

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 10:11 GMT

as if, :-D

report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 21:52 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

Please call me Georgina. I refer to all other contributers by their first names unless they refer to themselves with a different name or title, so will address you in a likewise manner.

I am glad that you have found my essay thought provoking. I am not sure when you mention discordant notes if you are referring to -my essay- or just within mainstream physics. My own essay is quite a departure from current mainstream thinking and also re-looks at relativity. It finds it to be related to the -appearance- of reality but not the underlying object reality which is where causality occurs and where the data necessary for the space-time reality to be constructed is generated.

I have not yet read your essay as there are lots to read now and I have until recently been concentrating on writing my own.I will be interested in any correspondence of view between them, but also in any novel thinking. When /if I read your essay I will certainly place feedback and if I am able to clarify or constructively argue any of the points raised within it I will do so.In the meantime.. Good luck and kind regards Georgina.

basudeba replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 14:04 GMT

While addressing you, we were not referring to your persona, which is very private to you. We were addressing your intellectual acumen, which is very much in the public domain and which must be respected. It has no name.

By discordant notes we mean the tendency to follow the herd and jump where the earlier of the species jumped, even when such a jump may not be necessary and may prove fatal. The founders of modern science were great men, but they were not blessed with the tremendous advancement made by current technology. Thus, what they thought were not wrong in their context (except for some very serious mistakes, where novelty overtook correspondence to reality and manipulation overtook logical consistency). Personal standing of the scientist also became more important than theoretical deductions. We will give you a few examples to prove this statement:

1) Poincare deduced the equation e = mc^2 in 1900, but Einstein, who derived the same equation 5 years later, got the credit for the same.

2) Eddington publicly humiliated Subrahmanium Chandrasekhar thereby delaying Noble Prize for the same work by 50 years.

3) Eddington's "proof" of the victory of Einstein's theory over that of Newton was not based on facts, but because of his public standing with the media. There has been much comment on this subject lately.

4) The "proof" of time dilation of atomic clocks that was taken around the globe is a manipulated one that can be verified from the documents relating to original readings that are still available in archives.

5) The value of G measured precisely is not the same as that measured earlier. But the theories using the earlier value is still accepted without any question.

Since many theoretical scientists are leading a cozy life at public expenses by dishing our fantasies in the name of science (LHC up-gradation is one example, while Tevaton is closing down). They have a vested interest in what they call "main stream physics" and term any one deviating from that as "dirtying" their "clean" thread. This loot of public money pains us.

The need of the hour is to dump the whole of physics, list out the data made available from latest observations and reformulate the theories from the scratch. No amount of patch work will help. We are happy to find out that you have come out with some original ideas. The discordant note related to the few links in your essay to the "official" physics, some of which does not bear scientific scrutiny.

We have formulated an alternative model deriving from fundamental principles that can explain most interactions without relativity and by demystifying quantum physics. But then we are not an academician nor a research scientist.

Thanks and regads,


report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 16:13 GMT
Dear Sir, (I feel that I must likewise address your nameless intellect since you do not address me personally.I hope you were not offended by my customary familiarity.)

Thank you for clarifying your earlier message. I now understand. It is an interesting list that you have provided. You are not alone in suggesting that it is necessary to begin afresh, John Merryman has also mentioned this necessity. I certainly agree that the foundations of physics need re evaluation.

I have spent the last 5 years seriously considering time and its role in reality. I have considered the muddled concept of time to be a huge problem for a long while. And a persistent puzzlement prior to that. I am not denying the existence of time but insisting that it is put in its place and is recognized for what it is. Time is a very complicated term as a large number of concepts are lumped together within it.It has not until recently undergone the kind of scrutiny necessary for scientist to realise what they are dealing with. Many will not be interested.

I am glad that you appreciate the original ideas within my essay.They have been developed over a number of years but for this contest I have tried to show how they are applicable to practical science and are not mere philosophy.

I am trying to read and respond positively where I can on other contributor's threads. I -will- read your essay soon.

Kind regards, Georgina.

basudeba replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 22:53 GMT

We are neither the first, last nor the only proponent of re-evaluation of modern physics. In this forum, we are dealing only with physics – discussing theories that correspond to reality in all its different manifestations – and neither philosophy nor meta-physics. You must recognize that observer has an important role in quantum physics and discussion about it is not...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 17:17 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I have responded to your post on my essay page.

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 19:09 GMT

You have a new post on Michael Jeub's Forum.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 23:26 GMT
Whom so ever cares,

My reply to Lorian Gray on his thread "Even the darkness is made of light" might be of interest to those who have read my essay. It sets out more clearly that we are not dealing with just one level of reality. That space-time is a higher order reality than foundational, uni-temporal, unobserved, reality and the bridge between the two is the EM field. As I explain in my essay it must in unobserved reality, if we trust in realism, be a medium that can allow transmission of EM waves through it and be perturbed by mass and the ordered flow of electrons giving gravitational time dilation and electric and magnetic fields respectively.

I have not yet read Eugene Klingman's essay in detail, as I wish to wait until I have the opportunity to devote my full attention to it. (As I also intend to do with Peter Jackson's and Eckard Blumschein's essays.) So I do not know whether the C field that he mentions is the same. It may be that it is the field, observed from a space-time perspective. I have read some posts which mention that the gravito magnetic field is well known.


Is that the complete essay? If it is I am a little disappointed as it makes such a good introduction to what could have been an interesting alternative exploration of reality and what it means for our models.

I do think that the holograph idea has a place but is once again only a partial solution to the complete problem. Realism is necessary. There has to be objects. Whether those are fundamentally different from what is in between them in a [should read -is] another question. Those objects emit or reflect EM waves whose wavelength and intensity allow sensory interpretation of the spatially separated matter. So it is the EM field, which can be perturbed by gravity, that enables space-time to be generated as a higher level reality. So this gives 3 levels of reality. The foundational objects and medium, the holographic EM field, and the space-time observer interpretation.

Unfortunately I think "Reality" by Michael Christian is a simpler and more profound entry. His entry also addresses the essay question.

If there is more to your answer than has appeared here I would be interested to read it.

Kind regards, Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 10:16 GMT
I do not name the medium or observed field in space time within my essay. It is unfortunate that I have here referred to the field through which electromagnetism passes as the EM field, as that term is used for the field produced by charged particles and -only that-. I am referring to a field that exists WHETHER OR NOT charges are present. The EM field produced by the charged particles will be just another kind of disturbance or perturbation of the -PRE-EXISTING field, as are gravity and magnetism.

The different manifestations observed in space-time depend on what is occurring within the unobserved medium of EM transmission. An idea that I first discussed in Eternity Found 2007. So the field in space time relating to the medium of EM transmission in unobserved reality needs another name or EM field is extended to refer to all manifestations of a disturbance of underlying medium. I do not yet know if Eugene Klingman's C field is the same.I will endeavor to study his essay this weekend.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 20:48 GMT
Since this won't go away I will start again and try to be clearer. At the foundational level there are what are called fermion particles.These exist in space not space-time.Though there is still passage of time in foundational space there is no geometric time dimension. Though the probability of detecting one can be described as a wave function they are not merely quasi real waves as these can...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 16:52 GMT
Hello Georgina,

Feels like picking up where we left off in our blog discussions many months ago! I certainly am with you on a call for greater 'physical realism' in physics.

Concerning your explanation of the double-slit experiment, however. I am not drawing any conclusions. I have my own explanation on this as you know. Just trying to understand your ideas better.

Is it accurate to say that you hold on to a 'particle view' of electrons etc. being 'fired' following a path trajectory to the screen? That you are adding to this view an 'unobservable ocean' (ether?) that fills space. That this 'unobservable ocean' makes the waves as the particles traverse from 'source to screen'?

If so, then a good analogy to this, I think, is the 'pattern of debris' on a sandy beach deposited there by waves washing ashore. Thus, where there is more 'wave action' on shore, you also have more deposits, while where there is less wave action you have less. If so, this idea may be verifiable by experiment, where the waves in a tank go through a double-slit and interfere, and the 'seeds' they carry get deposited on a sandy platform. Just a thought …


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 22:18 GMT
Hi Constantinos,


I think I am going to have to say it depends. That is because we can not know what an electron -is- in foundational reality, we can only imagine what it might be from our observations within space-time, on the other side of the reality interface. Also the way I visualise a particle will be different from how a quantum physicist would describe it.

There are two different facets to reality what is and its appearance. In between the two is potential data. As I have been saying it is only at a reality interface that the unique data that forms image reality is collected. So the image reality of the electron, the appearance that gives us awareness or experience of it, comes into being at detection. So perhaps the unseen electron in foundational reality should be called by another name pre-electron perhaps.

I do think we need realism. It is something that can both effect and be effected by a medium. It has mass so is something with an object universal trajectory that resists perturbation, but that can be perturbed. It behaves in a certain way and, as you say, when it is detected it is called an electron. Whether the electron that is detected is the electron that was transmitted is another question. It is the energy of the electron that causes a change in the detector so it clicks or records a hit. At what point in time does it become an electron? Is it when the researcher sees his results? when the detector clicks? when the energy change in the detector occurs? or when something is released into the double slit apparatus? That is both a philosophical question and an important question of linguistic definition.

Constantinos I am sorry if that sounds like a very woolly reply. We do not yet have separation of the identity of something in underlying foundational level reality and its counterpart in higher level space-time experienced reality. I have been trying to talk about the medium but getting a little in knots. It may be because i am tired from reading so many essays. A field experienced in space-time reality is not the same thing as a disturbance of a medium in foundational reality, though the two are related. One is the space-time experience the other is what must be to give the experience. I think the double slit already is evidence of a medium, though any further corroborating experiment would be helpful.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 02:33 GMT
What is meant by reality? when does something become real? and if it is already real before that how should we discuss and model it? These are very important questions that I have touched on in my essay.

It is the logic of the under 2s that something that can not be seen is no longer real. Even a dog can work out that the bone under a box is still there. With the problem solving intelligence of a 5 to 7 year old. So yes we do need a return to realism. I am glad to have read a number of other essays asking for the same.

Seeing the magic trick does not make the magic real because reality is more than appearance alone.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 02:59 GMT

Some parallels come to mind between your view and mine:

Whereas you speak of Objective Reality and Image Reality, I argue that before energy is 'manifested' there is an 'accumulation of energy' which cannot be directly observed (since it is below the threshold of the 'observable'). Not that what is 'unobservable' does not exist. Simply that we cannot directly observe it. This we recognize in all other experiences of the world. So why would physicists have a problem with that.

Whereas you speak of a 'medium' filling space, I argue in my essay that the 'prime physis quantity eta' fills space. Planck's constant h is such a quantity. I argue that the wavefunction is also such quantity! We both agree that something has to fill physical space. Though we can think of an abstract mathematical space which is 'empty', we can't conceive of an empty physical space. Since that flies in the face of what 'physical' means. Physical is what has substance and so also existence. Substance takes space and existence has presence. And what has presence is what happens Now! So I believe we also agree on our sense that time is Now. And any other understanding of time is an abstraction constructed by humans. Just as empty space is a human abstraction.

I believe that Thermodynamics makes our claims valid! In my essay (“A World Without Quanta?”) I show that both the Fundamental Thermodynamics Relationship, as well as The Second Law of Thermodynamics are about time. These validate my claim that time in nature is a 'duration', t-s, and not 'instantiation', t=s. This claim gives validity to the assertion that before 'manifestation' there is 'accumulation' of energy. Furthermore, the 'internal energy' that Thermodynamics speaks of can be thought as just this unmanifested energy. So there is plenty in what is already known in physics to corroborate our claims.

One troubling thought: If as we claim physical time is 'duration' and not 'instantiation', than that raises serious concerns about the use of time in GR where 'events' are just points in the spacetime continuum. GR may not be supported by Thermodynamics! And the Cosmology that GR gives rise, deeply Thermodynamical, may just be false! Just a thought! I'll let others make such determinations.


report post as inappropriate

Jacek Safuta wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 18:00 GMT
Hi Geogina,

You have started your essay with Einstein words (the same I used in mine). However, in contrary, you seem to disagree. I shall recommend you very interesting point of view on H. Being’s perception ( that seems to support Einsten’s view. The publication has amazing conclusions.

You claim: “Objects spatially separate from an observer are not sensed directly, due to transmission delay between reflection or emission of potential data and its receipt.” That is very important and it will help me to develop my concept.

You are pro in biology so the evolution theory is very familiar to you. In my essay I apply the theory to support a concept that the reality evolved from analog to digital and the common ancestor is a primordial conformally flat spacetime. I am interested in your opinion.

You are the most active in reading and commenting so the next question to you is: what do you think about the essays in general. Do they conform to the evaluation criteria: to be accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience as well as clearly written? I found somewhere an opinion that many of them do not (probably of someone from the public because I cannot find an essay by the guy).

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 21:13 GMT
Dear Jacek,

really good to hear from you. It has been so quiet here lately that I have started blithering nonsense to myself and then tying myself up in it. I am really glad if something I have said in my essay has inspired your own thinking.

I do agree with what Einstein expressed but not with the word -merely-.Einstein considered his space-time continuum to be the foundational...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

joseph markell replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 02:41 GMT
Dear Georgina:

Your second to the last paragraph in your response to Jacek is really on the mark in my own humble opinion.

Also, I think of myself as one of a "non-specialist audience" (as Jacek mentioned in the prior post) and the essays that I most enjoy reading are the ones that are looking at the universe in a novel way.

Joseph Markell

report post as inappropriate

basudeba wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 03:16 GMT

We were watching various comments on your thread. In stead of responding piece-meal, here is our response.

We are neither the first, last nor the only proponent of re-evaluation of modern physics. In this forum, we are dealing only with physics – discussing theories that correspond to reality in all its different manifestations – and neither philosophy nor meta-physics....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 08:17 GMT

thank you for your thorough consideration of my essay. I have read your own but need further time to consider all that you have said and respond. I can definitely see where our ideas agree.

I am afraid I do not agree that a conscious observer is required for the formation of an image reality with incorporated time distortion. Though the image can not be experienced by a human...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 17:52 GMT
Dear Madam,

We have gone through your comments carefully.

We never said that a conscious observer is required for the “formation” of an image reality with incorporated time distortion. All we said is that unless reality is perceived as such, it is meaningless to the external world. Since perception is a conscious function, it requires a conscious observer to be meaningful to the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 10:50 GMT
Dear Sir,

I do not know what you mean by meaningful to the outside world. I think you may be referring to consensus reality, which is an inter-subjectively corroborated experience of reality. I agree that it is not possible to have consensus reality without conscious beings that agree on what reality exists externally.

We are talking about slightly different things in our essays because I am talking specifically about the temporal distortion of that reality, which is an important step in explaining a number of foundational questions and paradoxes.I have tried to avoid talking a lot about consciousness in my essay. Though I have talked about it quite a bit on earlier FQXi blog forum posts. It falls outside of the specific ideas I wished to concentrate upon in my essay. With the aim of fulfilling the criterion of "pushing forward understanding in a fresh way with new perspective." Solving foundational questions, overcoming paradoxes and unreality and answering the contest question.

You said "we fail to see how it could “exist for all observers to have seen what they see”,"

I have given the example of air traffic control. Each radar station gives a trajectory for the tracked object. Each trajectory appears to be different because they are relative to the position of the radar station. The overlap of the trajectories allows the position that the aircraft occupies to be found. It is not where it is seen from each radar station, as the position in time as well as space will vary according to distance from the radar station. But where the trajectories overlap. That position alone allows each trajectory observation to be correct.

I am afraid I disagree with regard to Mc Taggart's description. I was very pleased to have come upon his work as I had struggled to clearly describe how the order of forms in sequence could then lead to passage of time which was a separate consideration from the time dimension of space-time. Mc Taggart's A,B, C series are clear and unambiguous.

Earlier and later are not nothing but sequence because sequence or order does not have to be temporal whereas earlier and later are. I do not agree that uni-temporal Now can not be used in physics. It is a very important distinction that distinguishes space-time from the foundational reality without temporal spread. By eliminating the temporal spread and reconstructing a reality in which data emitted together is united rather than data received together we can get a reconstruction of the former existential "terrain" and see causal interactions. Instead of working with the distorted space time reality where there is non simultaneity of events and causal relationships are thus unclear.

Thank you once again for considering the ideas in my essay and for pointing out how your own ideas are related.I appreciate the time you have spent doing so. I did enjoy your detailed essay,

Regards, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 22:48 GMT
Your reality is in the context of physics and provides a sophisticated argument that I cannot deny. Enjoyed your essay.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 20:11 GMT
Dear James,

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

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 23:26 GMT

Thank you for reading my essay and responding so beautifully. I very much appreciate your effort.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 14:11 GMT
Whew; only got about half-way thru the comments and got to the part that you were married and stopped reading! Just kidding; I will come back and finish and then enjoy your essay.

Just wanted to stop at this poin and tell you, "Way to go!" with your reply to Mr. Lowey. Made me think of a screw all right. Way to lob it way too hard back into his court!

To be continued...

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 14:17 GMT
Oops forgot to LogIn. That 'anonymous' was I. Thanx again for your comments on my essay. You do not pull punches, but more important, your concerns are salient and valid... I tried to fend you off and defend my own theses, and am quite satisfied with my rebuttal.


"A Method to Measure Consciousness, and Demonstrations of Worldly Multiplicity"

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 14:02 GMT
I Inordinately enjoyed your essay. The way you parse the metaphors with your concepts beautifully and then stop when the analogy becomes inexact is very impressive and demonstrates your command of the concepts like an excellent natural philosopher!

That being said, I do have just a couple of issues, which will have to wait until i watch an episode of Lost. lol

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 16:08 GMT
On the first page of your essay, you claim A series time is "past present future", and that B series time is "passage of time". I object that you have only introduced the technical terms for Ordinality and Duration, q.v. in another guise. and should only use those terms or more elaboration to prove you conclusions on subsequent pages. Opinoun is encouraged, but not the goal ultimately of this (or the previous two) essay competitions.

On page 2 you state, "The Image reality becomes a manifestation when the simulation is formed from the available data. It does not exist prior to that process." This is simply stated without proof and is imcomplete. This proposition leads to some subsequent statements without proof and delve into speculation unbeknownst to the author.

Whereas in my Essay p. 3 equation {1} I prove that: Your "manifestation" (which i call consciousness techncially) is always the result of a detection of matter "real", not "becomes real". and sometimes the manifestation is a wave (is not real--or does not exist). Not "It does not exist prior to that process". Which is simpler stated as "becomes real).

Thank You.

My only assumptions are two: the results of the various YDS experiments, and taht something cannot exist and not exist at the same time...

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 04:32 GMT
Hi Tommy,

that you for your comments.

It was Mc Taggart who introduced the terms A, B and C series of time in his paper "On the unreality of time", which I have listed in the references. He said that for there to be change there must be a sequence of forms. That sequence of forms is the C series. If one considers the sequence (of spatial forms) then in temporal terms there are earlier and later ones in sequence, which he called the B series. He also identified another kind of time by which we identify events which is past, present and future. He realized that for the A series to exist there has to be a B series.

I have merely added the observation that Space-time only provides the A series. So it must be incomplete. I do not consider this to be merely a personal opinion but a statement of fact. Time does not pass in space-time but just -is- as a geometric dimension and is inseparable from the space-time fabric. The A series is not duration but a completely different kind of 3 fold categorization. Future(not yet experienced), present (current experience), past (former experience).

I do not consider it mere speculation that my experience of external reality occurs when photon data stimulates my sensory system and my nervous system forms a representation of that external reality. The biological process of vision is very well known and has been the subject of a great deal of scientific research. Optical illusions demonstrate very well that what we perceive depends upon the biological interpretation and not what exists externally. There is plenty of evidence that mind altering drugs and mental illness effect the perception of external reality. It is the biological organism that co-creates the external reality that is -experienced-. So it can not exists independently of that biological process.

You are mistaken if you think I am saying that nothing exists exteriorly prior to manifestation of the generated image reality. I am saying that the experienced image reality only exists at manifestation and it is not the same as the foundational reality with concrete existence. That which does exist can not be perceived -as it is- because of the transmission delay of data and the processing that occurs prior to experience. The reconstructed image reality is observed instead.

I agree that there has to be something real that provides the data for the image reality to be formed. When referring to a human being as the reality interface, then the produced image reality is the conscious experience. You and I are are not in disagreement on that point but have just worded the argument differently. I have already addressed your second assumption on your own thread.

Thanks once again. I really appreciate that you took time to read and comment on my essay. Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 01:07 GMT
With regard to the C series. I said Mc taggart considered the "sequence of forms" when in his actual work he says "sequence of positions". So I was incorrect in that former reply. Whether one is considering form in space or position in space it is still only a spatial consideration, not including time. The important point that I was trying to make is that the C series is non temporal sequential order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 22:07 GMT

I should have said thank you very much indeed. I am so glad you enjoyed the essay. I have never heard myself likened to an excellent natural philosopher before, so I am feeling flattered. :) Thats me smiling.

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 16:11 GMT
T. Gilbertson (that was the author) of Anonymous above...


report post as inappropriate

Chris Kennedy wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 16:58 GMT

Excellent essay. I have particular interest in double-slit, EPR topics. I think the physics community should devote much more thought to those important issues. It seems there are several possible scenarios relating to double-slit: Wave only (as in Copenhagen Interpretation). Electron plus wave is another but the origin and role of the wave has some sub possibilities. Does the wave originate at the exact time the electron begins flight? is it already in place as a medium? If it does originate with the movement of the electron - does it jump ahead of the particle to create a pattern or does the particle ride the leading edge of the wave front and gravitate toward positions that will coincide with bands on the detector side? In my essay, I point out that if we accept the Copenhagen Interpretation, then the moment of collapse that produces the electron at a specific location results in all other locations instantly knowing not to produce an electron. This is not unlike the entanglement issue.

Keep up the good work.


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 10:03 GMT
Dear Chris,

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

Thanks again. Good luck, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez wrote on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 00:02 GMT
Dear Georgina

You touch very interesting points in your essay. I agree in some aspects with your work. However, I believe that the notion of reality is sometimes subjective since it depends on the knowledge that the observer posses of the world. As you say for some people time is a mere illusion, but this assertion depends much on the conception of time she/he has. In my essay I deal with the ontological notions of space and time, you may be interested in reading it. Sometimes we think that there is an underlying reality behind the "appearances" and we study the appearances to guess the "reality" as if there existed an immutable reality hidden from our sight. I think that the reality is constantly changing and we can only make guesses of our present reality. By the time we obtain a physical law that describes the preceding reality, the reality is no longer as we first believe.

Kind regards


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 19:52 GMT
Dear Israel,

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

Kind regards, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 21:10 GMT
Dear Georgina

I agree with you.We should all agree in our notions, then later we can discuss whether something is real or not.

Kind Regards

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 00:33 GMT
Hello Georgina,

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

Best Regards,


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 19:39 GMT
Hello Dan,

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

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

Anticipating an interesting and enjoyable read, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 20:29 GMT

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

Have a great day,


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 16:27 GMT

Looks like we're on a bit of a joint charge in the community rankings! I've also just encouraged someone to give you a public vote as that was languishing way too low! I don't think we can be browbeaten in the Time Travel blog, only ignored!

Very best of luck


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 01:09 GMT
Hi Peter,

I haven't forgotten you or your essay. I was reading it again yesterday.I was making a list of what I like about it, which is a lot. I am very familiar with my own ideas and explanations but need to get my head into your way of thinking. My poor head is suffering from reading too many essays in a short space of time and not enough sleep.I will post positive feedback on your thread soon and give a good vote before the deadline. Thats not being tactical but unsure and indecisive.

I didn't really want to get distracted by the time travel blog but couldn't resist trying once more to be convincing. It never gets anywhere. After the contest maybe I will just concentrate on predictions and experiments.I've spent too long saying the same things to no avail and I've said enough.

The public voting has been rather erratic from a low of 3 to a high of 10. Thank you for helping to get it moving it in the right direction. Though I really hope we both make it to the final, I think the community voting might get a little mad towards the deadline and anything could happen.

The very best of luck to you too. Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 05:29 GMT
The public votes have been 8, 4, 3, 10 and 6. Which firstly makes me think not many members of the public bother to read the essays let alone vote. Then secondly they either really like or dislike my attempt. Though I don't actually know if they have read it. I don't see how someone who has read it could mark it a 3 when I have fulfilled the competition criteria.

It is relevant, it is foundational, it is groundbreaking, it is accessible to a well educated but non specialist audience as requested, it is clearly written, it does not assume knowledge of PhD level physics or a mathematics degree, where analogy is used it is done sparingly and with clear purpose, it is rigorously argued and addresses the competition question. I haven't just written about my favorite topic but have followed a line of reasoning that is relevant to the question, pushing forward understanding in a fresh way with fresh perspective as requested. Leaving out other interesting things that would be less relevant.

The competition question asks "is reality digital or analogue" so my essay starts by looking at what reality is, which is something that has to be done. Otherwise different people may be working with different incompatible notions of reality. The essay ends by addressing the second part of the question. It looks at a number of relevant issues when it comes to determining if the different facets of reality, discussed in the essay, are digital or analogue.

ion. That has to be worth a decent mark.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 04:34 GMT
I think I may have been incorrect about the individual public votes. I hadn't been keeping track of the score but tried to work out what it must have been from memory. Thinking some more it might have gone 8,4 1, 9... instead. Which is actually worse!!! The actual numbers don't really matter it is still erratic voting that counts for nothing in the end. So if a member of the public wants to make a valid point about the quality of the essay why haven't they commented?

Why not leave a comment?

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 21:21 GMT

We can't complain about human failings, but we can help people to overcome them!

I was secretly really pleased about your essay as I was cramming in too much logic and evidence already to mine and really hoping I could rely on you to cover the key difference between perceived and concrete reality. You did better than I'd ever hoped, well done. It's all about 'observer frames' Only one is relevant to physics, there could be 100 other observers flying about all over the place and they'd all measure different things. It's unbelievable that physics so often forgets that, normally in blindly applying mathematical abstraction.

You may have seen my last post on the 'time' blog. I've mounted my white charger and honed the sword in support of John, and looking for bony fingers to chop off. We mustn't back off but must keep speaking the truth with confidence. My motto is "I have the strength of 10 men as I am pure in heart" I try not to be bombastic, but blinkers need ripping off sometimes. Do let me know if you think I'm getting OTT. (Email atop my essay m'lady). Your own calm quiet style is wonderfully complimentary to that. Never give up!

Best of luck


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 21:29 GMT

I hope you saw my reply to you and not just my moan about the public voting.

I really am glad that you liked my essay.Your encouragement is appreciated.

I guess its good that you are so enthusiastic.I am also passionate about this topic but I don't really see it as a battle of truth against lies but trying to find the very best explanation, which is probably still inadequate.

Its like chipping away until the argument can no longer be refuted and so has been expressed in a fully acceptable manner. I keep thinking that if I can say it in the right way then - eventually other people will agree. The blog forum disagreements or reluctance to accept what is said as valid is actually useful because it highlights where gaps in the argument need filling or expressing differently or I need to reconsider the ideas. I don't really want to antagonize those that disagree with me because they may come around to my way of thinking and even if not I would like to still be on speaking terms. It is a pity that those who have given me a low public vote have not commented on why they think that is all it deserves.

I am addressing the experimental question. It seems clear that although observed objects do not have absolute positions in space time, their position depending on observer perspective, they must have (scale dependent) super relative positions in space otherwise air traffic control would not be able to tell where the different aircraft are and they would be smashing into each other. They are not where they are seen by any one observer, (as the observers see images as they were at different times), but they are where they are at uni-temporal, objective Now.

I want to be fair and give other people the same consideration that I would like for my essay but it is impossible to read them all and impossible for me to fully grasp what is said in many of them. Not quitting yet but tired from reading too many ideas in such a short space of time, trying to make sense of it all. Too much coffee and not enough sleep.

Best of luck to you, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Constantin Leshan wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 06:12 GMT
Dear Readers,

There are three kinds of the essays in our contest: 1) the essays with original physics research where all physics' information was created by their authors. Often such essays seem to have errors because they often contradict orthodox theory. 2) There are essays-stories about physics which contain generally known physics' information copied from the textbooks or papers and author's commentaries (for example Jarmo Makela, Ian Durham, and so on). Such essays have ARTISTIC VALUE only but not scientific value; usually these essays-stories do not have any errors by definition because all physics' information was copied from the textbooks and other published papers. 3) There are essays of mixed type containing mixed information. It is clear that the authors of the essays-stories have advantages because their essays rarely contain errors since all Physics' information was copied from the textbooks.

What kind of the essay must FQXi community support? If we support the essays-stories, we'll transform FQXi into the entertainment community. For example, instead of my ''interpretation of quantum mechanics'' I could send the jokes about Bohr, Einstein or stories like Gamov's ''Mr. Tompkins in paperback''. It would be very interesting and fun. Another option is to create artistic essays-discussions with Einstein, Bohr, or Aristotle following the example of Jarmo Makela. In this context, the next logical step is to organize a banquet for the authors of essays where we tell jokes and funny stories about physics. What is our purpose?

Since the goals of the FQXi (the "Contest") are to: ''Encourage and support rigorous, innovative, and influential thinking about foundational questions in physics and cosmology; Identify and reward top thinkers in foundational questions'', therefore I ask readers to vote for essays with original research rather than for essays-stories. In this way we'll encourage the fundamental physics research but not entertainment essays.



report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 11:50 GMT
Constantine, that's a very brave thing to have said and which has a distinct ring of truth about it. I can't help but agree with your sentiments and rather heartily at that. Best wishes, Alan

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 21:22 GMT
Dear Constanin,

You are correct. Under the 2/3 marks for interest it says that an original and creative essay is one that pushes forward understanding in a fresh way with new perspective.As it does also have to be technically correct and rigorously argued it is not just pulling those ideas out of thin air and throwing them together. As you have pointed out not all of the well written, accessible and technically correct essays are doing that.

The voting system is imperfect as there is no guarantee of consistency in how the essays are ranked by different voters and no one voter can thoroughly read and vote on all of them. However it is really good that the essays are available for everyone to read comment and vote on, rather than it being entirely conducted behind closed doors. We will at least know what the judges have to consider.I understand from Florin's comments in the blog forum that the community voting score is not visible to prevent some of the worst tactical voting that has occurred in previous competitions. It will be really interesting to see what the community has voted as the top essays when community voting closes. Potentially useful information for future competitions.

I gratefully take your post as support for my essay. Thank you very much.

Good luck, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 16:58 GMT
this is the direction his community should support. as of 5 Mar2011, it is my opinion that Georgina's placement in the Ratings is correct and quite high lol.

mine is not but I think bcause i wuz a late entry. there will be more contests. and our deep-thinkings in these threads, if worthy, shall remain Immortal...

I am happy to pretend I belong here temporarily, amoung these lofty smarty-pantses (or smarty-skirtsof Minimal length) etc.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 11:55 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I wish to ask you a rather off-beat question, but it may help you somehow:

Q: Is there a bird species which only has the female migrating south for the winter, which leaves the male able to occupy and defend the best nesting site ready for the female and young the following summer?

Is this not a potentially rewarding strategy which an avian species seems to have yet discovered?

Best wishes, Alan

report post as inappropriate

Joseph Markell replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 02:10 GMT
(This comment is respectfully offered in response to several previous posts)

An off-beat answer and question in the same thread:

Some species of penguins go north.

When walking above the huge, 2200 acre single living fungus in Oregon, is it possible to have some unknown energy between the fungus and human interact or occupy some of the same space? (I think so, and why not on a much grander, (universal) scale?)

A perspicatious view might offer a quicker and/or complementary resolution of a problem than a single focused direction. I'm glad variety is accepted into this contest. Thank-you FQXi.

Joseph Markell

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 04:09 GMT
Hi Alan,

I will keep it for future reference and if it proves useful I will have you to thank!! Lots to think about at the moment including your Archimedes screw, so I won't get sidetracked by puzzling over how it could be helpful right now.

Hi Joseph,

I agree the variety of entries is really good. Not just variety in how the competition question has been addressed but also the variety of style in which it has been done. However it has been done though, it ought to fulfill the competition criteria to score highly.It is good that FQXi has been so inclusive.

Yes there are two different ways of looking at a problem, breaking it down,and dealing with individual parts or looking at the big picture, how things are related and then dealing with what you have. Both can be successful. Perhaps in physics it is the relationships that have been somewhat overlooked in favour of the parts.

The fungus kingdom is a very weird collection of life forms. I haven't personally experienced an "unknown energy" between myself an a fungus but know that some have mind altering abilities. Have you come across this really bizarre one?


report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 11:25 GMT
Fancy you should mention penguins Joseph. I was pleasantly mystified by your post and can't help but think that you've been influence by the Oregon vortex perhaps?! As to my quandry with migrating birds, I have a hunch that a species would have developed this strategy on the continent of Antarctica during it's course of drifting over the south pole. It would be worth migrating the 6000km fom one side of the landmass to the other when the sun finally dipped below the horizon.

Georgina: thanks for the link. Excellent new site for me to explore!

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 16:49 GMT
Dear Georgina:

Yours is one of the few essays I will take the time to seriously re-read. and mr. barbours and mr. rickles and maybe two or three more n the little timeleft to vote in the contest.

I do remember your threads past. they were insightful and inspired me to enter verry very late like the white rabbit.

anyway i vote for you now, and I vote high...



Please see threads for my final equation on thematter. and for this conttest. for the next is already written....

than x again for you wise commenatry on my own meagre offerings.


report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 17:04 GMT
Or Facebook. Or I'm easy...

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 10:15 GMT
Dear Georgina:

Some other members have brought to my attention that they felt I was antognistic and intemporate in some of my threads to your essay.

I'm very sorry about that: I thought I was being clever, cheeky and ironic but apparently it came off as 'hostile'?

Again that was not my intent. Really I was just trying to find fault with an essay that didn't have many. It's hard to give decest criticm to an essay you secretly admire lol. All I can do is convince others of my sincerety by my content in future threads.

Good Luck again...

And that would indeed supply the motive for the nice little skirmish that has me embattled in my own thread, that seems to have nothing to do with reason and everything to do with personality.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 11:53 GMT
Dear Tommy ,

Please be reassured that I am not offended by anything that you have said on this thread. You have a very informal and open style of communication and I have taken your messages to be humorous and well intended. I am delighted that you consider my essay worth re-reading and to be placed along with with Julian Barbour and Dean Rickles in having that honour. I really liked both of their essays.

It is also flattering to think that I have been at all inspirational. I think it is great that you entered your essay, what ever the final outcome. Don't put your self down. Your ideas have been read by far more people than if you hadn't entered and you will get further opportunities to fine tune them in the future. Everyone who has entered should be congratulating themselves for making a positive effort, having a go.Its better than not writing an essay and then just criticizing those that have.

Kind regards, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 22:46 GMT

I've been hearing of (and encouraging) support for your essay, I think Joel Mayer scored it well. If I may I've just posted something on Dan Brugers string mentioning it, which I'd like to repeat here;

POST (Edited); Consider Einsteins "We should be able to explain physics to a barmaid." Grab a glass of beer and consider this;

A light pulse will go through the glass in say 1ns. If you're on a boat, a train or a planet light still takes 1ns to go through it. If you slide it along the bar, or move the light source, light takes 1ns to go through it. If you film it as it slides past you on the bar, you'll find the speed of the glass is added (or subtracted) to the light pulse speed. But as we can only see light at max 'c' SR says the glass has to shrink form our viewpoint as it goes past.

Hold on a mo! The light we see is that scattered by the beer molecules, and it travels to us at 'c', and we measure it at 'c'! Nothing breaks 'c' without needing length contraction!? Only ONE reference frame is valid, the same one as the glass, i.e. if you slide WITH the pint you're in the same frame so can't see it doing more, and WON'T see it doing more!! this is the same with a glass (n=1.55) of gas, plasma or a vacuum. There are infinite possible other observer reference frames, and as Einstein said "Infinitely many 'spaces' in relative motion." This gives local reality with no inequality issue. (It's also consistent with the Postulates & Principle of SR, and Equivalence).

We've not fully understood inertial reference frames and the importance of observer frame. (read Georgina's important essay about concrete and 'apparent' realities.) Now trimmed with Occams razor they are intuitive. It's also consistent with the essays of Edwin Klingman, Constantinos Regazza, Robert Spoljjaric, Dan T Benedict, Rafael Castel and a number of others.

The consequences are quite massive and this 'discrete field' model seems able to remove paradoxes, offer solutions to a number of anomalies and explain how SR and GR can work with a quantum mechanism. It's difficult to visualise due to the additional dynamic variables, but the main problem we may have is 'belief'. It seems we have another picture engraved in our brain pattern which is difficult to let go of while considering other options.

For those interested the essay is at

Thank you Georgina.


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 21:27 GMT

I have been having some discussion with Tom on the FQXI Time travel blog forum, and it is relevant to the viewpoints expressed in my essay.I think this post is particularly relevant, so I have copied it here.It demonstrates how failure to differentiate observed image from unobserved object leads to the apparent strangeness of space-time and quantum mechanics. "Image" is a reconstruction or representation formed from received data.


Ken did a very good job of explaining static space-time, which was handy. I agree with you that mathematics alone does not obviously suggest the need for duel facets of reality. The world does.

If you look at the structure of the eye, peripheral nervous system and the CNS it is obvious that the cup that is observed via those systems can not possibly actually be the cup-object. Likewise the photograph of a cup can not be the cup-object. The observed image has to be a reconstruction from received data with time delay.

Therefore if it is always the reconstructed time delayed image that is observed, the object itself -can not- be seen. That does not mean that there is no object and -only- orphan images that materialise, with the appearance of an object, when the observer looks or that the cup-object exists spread continuously over time. If the image of an object is represented in the mathematics as the object then the -interpretation- will be incorrect, even if the mathematics itself is not incorrect.

report post as inappropriate

Michael Jeub wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 23:51 GMT
is an equasion giving more detail to your explanation, of course all the variables need to be defined and described where the F=ma has evolved into something much richer. This equasion is easy to remember and incorporates scalar vector tensor like objects in the brackets and various expectation values or ghosts in the other part. I use this as a general conspectus in an abstract way to describe volution (involutes and evolutes). Eugene Winger wrote a paper about the unreasonable effectiveness of math.

Recently I was thinking about GPS and your radar station idea came up. One used to need great circles to locate a position with a parallel, meridian and elevation, but one also needs scale, a state or init to start off, so in this way one really needs exactly four GPS satellites to give positioning based on convergence of signals rather than great circles. If one thinks of grad, dot, cross and del being the arbitrary assignments of generalized positioning in reality....or as Newton's first and ultimate ratios bundled with root and square. The essential layers of analysis only go like this: delta, likelyhood, power, and power squared. Functions or signals propositions give a consonance to our basic vowels of representation of the fundamental stuff.

Any object of our reality should be able to have the exact sequence of four of those positioning steps. The object, its inverse, its transpose, then the object itself but not in the same place it was before. It is though the use of rising and falling factorials that we can get close. If Newton forgot to do anything with his third law which is represented by the formula above, he forgot to compaction the entire instant of universal time. I enjoyed sharing with you some thoughts prompted by your essay. This is the first fourmula in latex that I ever wrote. I think that it is so cool that we can do this in posts!

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 00:27 GMT
Its reassuring that my explanation does fit with something you use.

I haven't thought about GPS much or how it works, or should work! Thank you- I have now had the delight of discovering pseudoranges and how they are currently used for global positioning (and algebraically proven by trilateration). I gather 4 satellites in range is ideal, to give best results from pseudorange intersection...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 16:42 GMT

This is kind of surreal. I'm reminded of a story, probably apocryphal but instructive, of Diderot and Euler at Catherine's court. Euler, annoyed with Diderot's militant atheism, scratched a nonsense equation on paper and handed it to Diderot, with the statement, "Therefore, God exists. Refute it!" Diderot, uneducated in mathematics, was said to slink off without reply. Michael Jeub's equation and explanation is utterly meaningless nonsense. You might as well be replying to an ELIZA program -- which is another interesting case, since I have heard of people exposed to the program who swear that ELIZA's responses are those of a real therapist and are angry to have it suggested otherwise. What that says about real therapists, or mischievous programmers, I'm not quite sure.



report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 21:10 GMT

I think my response was appropriate and in keeping with my level of physics/maths education and comprehension. I am glad if there is correspondence between my simply expressed ideas and what other people are finding useful in their own work.I am glad that Michael Jeub has made the effort to make contact. I think he had some interesting thoughts prompted by what I have said in my essay, and he has written a very intriguing essay.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 02:23 GMT
Ms. Parry,

I read your essay with great interest. Glad to see that you have entered the competition. As always, we appear to be in fundamental agreement about the underlying nature of reality and about our perceptions thereof.

While not intending to be critical, I admit that I found some passages of your essay a bit difficult to follow, due at least in part to the difficulty of expressing complex ideas via the often too blunt instrument of English. It is difficult to compress an entire view of reality into the confines of a necessarily brief essay, but I think you've succeeded nicely in conveying some fundamental concepts.

Your kind mention of my earlier FQXi essay in your list of references did not go unnoticed and is deeply appreciated.

Good luck in the competition!

Best Regards,


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 03:14 GMT
Dear Mr Smith,

very good to hear from you. Glad we seem to be in fundamental agreement and that you think I have "succeeded nicely" in conveying some fundamental concepts.

I agree the wording of the essay is difficult in places. Though it is also deliberately broken up by parts that are far easier to follow. Like the man on the hill with the barking dog. There does have to be a balance between expressing a meaning clearly and simply and being precise. I know exactly what I mean and why it is written that way but that may not be clear to someone else reading it. Believe it or not, this version is a great improvement on the earlier versions due to careful editing and revision of overly complicated expression. Now, at least, I can manage to read this version to the end myself, without having to take a break to clear my head.

You are right the word limit did make it a little difficult to say everything that needed saying. Some connected ideas had to be left out or remain mostly unexplored in the essay and others were dealt with far more briefly than was ideal. Though overall I hope I did a fair job of giving an opinion on what reality consists of and then considering whether it is digital or analogue.

Thank you very much for reading, commenting and wishing me good luck.You deserved the mention.


report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 02:26 GMT
That anonymous was me. Sorry. I guess "the system" no longer recognizes me, even when I'm logged in.


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 21:56 GMT
I think this post migt be a useful clarification for other's too so I have copied it here.

Dear Eckard,

on the contrary Mc Taggart's very clear and unambiguous definition of the elements neccessary for time as we know it are very useful. The everyday notion of past, present and future is not adequate.

As I have tried to explain in my essay for the distant observer events that have already occurred and are to the near man already the past, are yet to be experienced and are in that distant observer's future. Though beyond what has already occurred everywhere (even though it has not been experienced) the future is un-written. So you see from this that some parts of the future, not yet experienced, are preordained, as they have already happened, and others are not.So there is partial determinism allowing causality and free will.

The everyday notion of a present experienced by all simultaneously is not sufficient to explain observations, where there is observed to be non simultaneity of events. (See the dog on the hill example in the essay.) However simultaneity is necessary at the foundational level to permit causality.The differentiation of (Foundational)object and (Reconstruction from received data)image reality allow both to co-exist without contradiction or paradox.

The experienced present is formed from the data that is -received-, not the objects or events that exist or the data immediately it is formed. So objective or uni-temporal Now (Where foundational objects exist and interaction occurs) is different from the experienced space-time present. There is transmission delay according to distance from object or event which causes temporal distortion of the image reality experienced.

Best regards, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 19:53 GMT

I hope you end up over the line at the end of the day. I tried to get you there and believe your essay deserves it.

Peter has posted some of your remarks about QM not being counter-intuitive. With respect to this I have some good news on the C-field front!

The 12 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science News' has two articles on the C-field:

The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to light passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. Martin Bojowald suggests upgrading most telescopes to search for more of this.

The second article (p.20) on quantum vortices has Kerson Huang of MIT speculating that the vortices in the (C-field) 'superfluid' after the big bang may be responsible for the gaps of empty space between galaxies.

From 'Fly-by' mysteries to spinning Black Holes to the Big Bang, the C-field is being recognized as having physical reality responsible for observable effects. I believe it also provides the 'pilot wave' associated with locally real particles.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 21:42 GMT
Dear Edwin,

thank you once again for your good wishes and encouragement. Whatever happens I have been very pleased with the excellent feedback and pleasant comments I have received.

I am glad that evidence in favour of your ideas continues to accumulate. It has been a pleasure meeting you here. Wishing you the very best of luck.Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 22:42 GMT
Now that Eckard Blumschein looks to be a certain finalist perhaps his opinion will carry more weight.

On his thread he wrote "So I consider Georgina utterly remarkable not just because she is one of at best a few female contestants here, maybe even the only one. Maybe she is the only women to be mentioned in connection with Albert Einstein after Milena, Elsa, and Itha. Hopefully, she will give rise to getting rid of several paradoxes and unjustified speculations."


I am of course flattered but also take this as a serious positive appraisal of the arguments set forth my essay.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 11:51 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Milena managed getting divorced from Albert. His cousin Elsa nursed him when he was ill and married him. What about Itha Juenger who was a 14 years old school girl when Schroedinger made her admiring him as someone who will get and actually got a Nobel price, you will find the exemplary tragedy of her aborted son in the book Schroedinger - Life and Thought.

I did not mention Cynthia Whitney and Galilean electrodynamics because she failed so far making a less idolized picture of AE accepted in public.

I was hoping you could live up to this role because I am convinced, consequent dealing with the question whether or not spacetime is real is at odds with this picture.

Maybe we can learn from Hehl. I gave a link to premetric electrodynamics in my thread.

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 22:19 GMT

Certainly the women in Einstein's life did not fare well.It seems he was incapable of showing empathy, dedication or fidelity to those women. They were as a result neglected and withered in his shadow, failing to fulfil their personal and scientific ambitions. Which must be regarded, as in large part, due to the failure of Einstein to sufficiently care for them.

Some insight...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 17:06 GMT

May I vouch for the accuracy of Eckard's analysis and comments. He's not one to accept illogical science or maths. If only that were more generally the case!

It's a massive shame you didn't get in the last 35, I did my best for you too. I did an interesting quick logical analysis (with sums, now the contest is over!) in my string.

But I'm sure you know it really means little as the main task remains. I hope you're up for it. Where in the country are you? Do send me a mail.

Very best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 10:38 GMT

I'm invited to do part of a GUT publication with some space for a couple of other angles, hopefully including at least a short precee/update from you on the perception aspect. Let me know. (Email is on my essay).


report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 13:11 GMT
Wow! Great job, Georgina...

report post as inappropriate

basudeba wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 06:22 GMT
Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria – suggestions for improvement.


We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

“We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 06:53 GMT
Ho There, Basuudeba ...

They have still to select the non-proffered. prizes....

We've still a hope...

Now is our time to be magnanimous an d sportsperson-like....


report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 07:05 GMT
Dear Sir,

We are not interested in the prize. We are concerned the way science is heading. It is not a question of being sportsman-like when spot-fixing is ruining the game. It is not a question of being magnanimous when fraudulent activities are condoned. We believe not opposing a wrong is equal to committing a wrong. Kindly point out if we have written anything wrong. If not, please join us in protesting wrong doing.



report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 23:44 GMT
You don't even seem to realize that we are all oon the same side here, thru purest billigerence..

Even if I could point to an error of yours, sir, it would have naught to do with any sort of frauduleTnt activites due to the Community. There is certainly no position-fixing.


Please read the Rules carefully, sir, for there you shall be illumined as to the other portion of the Position-number you speak of. And that is RElevance. That is yet to be Judged! How relevent is your Essay and your Threads as a Body of work entire?

We are of Peace Always,



report post as inappropriate

basudeba wrote on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 07:00 GMT
Dear Madam,

Mr. Peter Jackson, one of the finalists had asked us some clarifications. We think it may be of interest to you. Hence we post the reply to him below your Essay.

First let us answer to your question regarding how direct observation could be different. Since you are fond of spectroscopy, we will give you an example from that branch. Look at the mechanism behind the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 21:40 GMT
Who knows where the time goes? Fairport convention.

report post as inappropriate

Russell Jurgensen replied on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 20:34 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Your last post prompted me to write and say hello. A corollary might be,

"We have all the time there is." -- Charles Ingles in Little House on the Prairie.

Time is a thought provoking and valuable thing.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 2, 2011 @ 01:55 GMT
Hello Russel,

Sandy Denny's beautiful voice is a hard act to follow. Though I do like "We have all the time there is." It works on many levels. Thank you. I can also think of many occasions when it would be useful to remember it.

Perhaps time has just been too baffling, and so has not been given as much thought as it has deserved over the last 100 years. Many people just seem to give up and say "we can't understand it, so why bother thinking about it?"

It does not seem to be any -thing- at all of itself. Even aging is being gradually deciphered as various structural material changes rather than inevitable, irreversible, process linked to time. Which seems to make time a very valuable, irreplaceable, nothing, which is still not as generally thought provoking as it ought to be...

Kind regards, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Russell Jurgensen replied on Apr. 3, 2011 @ 07:33 GMT
That is an incredible song! It communicates that our true reality may be in the relationships with those around us. Thank you for posting the link! And, good points about aging not being purely linked to time.

What actually produces time is a different kind of reality. No one knows for sure, but there is an interesting idea worth exploring. Perhaps in the last 100 years we have had the data to define time all along, and there may be yet another angle that can help figure it out. I'm thinking specifically of the well-known mass-energy equation, E = mc2. If we look at the units of c2, they are length2/time2 -- the units of motion. The mass could be considered a scalar modifying a maximum possible motion.

Now if we change our view a little more, we might consider c2 to be a potential within the quantum vacuum that actually drives the motion of mass, which is made of particles with internal motion, to produce energy. If this is an accurate viewpoint, the potential then defines length and time.

Surprisingly, Einstein's equation could help explain quantum mechanics after all as the potential drives internal particle motion. What defines the potential? That could possibly be the limitation of what can be known in physics.

Well, I don't know, but that gives a simplified idea. There are so many aspects of how to look at reality. Your link to the song provides a great example of that.

Kind regards, Russell

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 3, 2011 @ 21:25 GMT
I am posting this here as I put it in the wrong place on the Digital or Analogue thread and do not want it just getting lost. I think it might be useful. I would appreciate any constructive feedback.

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 3, 2011 @ 20:51 GMT

Talking of terminology past, present, and future are insufficient and confusing as terms in physics imo. They refer to space time experience which can be different for each observer, according to reference frame. The relative quality of those terms is often not fully appreciated and the present may be assumed to be and used as if singular and absolute when it is not. How can this be improved. My current thoughts are ...

There needs to be the equivalent of a future which is nothing but potential and probability, nothing existing that has been actualized, P.stage (Potential, probability). Then there needs to be actualising reality. This is where spatial material changes occur sequentially, the causality front, or unitemporal time. A.Stage,(Actualisation). Then comes the receipt of the data from the actualised reality, giving a manifest appearance. This is the equivalent of the present, which is different for each observer due to different transmissions delays for each reference frame and position, M stage(Manifestation); and then the stage of storage of events in memories or data banks etc. The equivalent of the past. R stage,(Records).

Quantum physics is dealing more with P and A stage but trying to relate it to M stage. Relativity is dealing with M stage and R stage and does not assume any P stage or A stage , as everything, past, present and future is modeled to co exist in space-time.As it is using individual observer experience of manifest reality for the model.

The sequence is P, A , M, R. Potential, Actualisation, Manifestation, Records. As data accumulates in R it can be seen to build up but is not building up -from- there. The only place where material spatial change is occurring is at A, the receipt of data giving M stage is also occurring within A.

To tie in with John's point, does tomorrow become yesterday? Yes because tomorrow is first potential and probability, then actualized events, then manifest events and then records of events. Does yesterday become today -no not really. What still exists from yesterday is part of today. It was actualised and has remained actualized so it is a continuation rather than a becoming.It may exist both in R and at A because it was formerly actualised and manifest and is still actualised.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 02:40 GMT
Actualisation has to come before manifestation because data must be transmitted to the detector, (which is not instantaneous) and then the manifest reality must be formed by the observer from the received data, (which is not instantaneous). The manifestaion that is observed is created by the observer from the received data and does not prexist that occurrence.(Cf. wave function collapse.) The actualised but unobserved reality must preexists the observed manifestation enabling data to be available from which the manifestation of reality is formed.

Relativity is only concerned with the manifestation of reality, so can not account for such things as causality, non determinism, it does not have an open future.Quantum physics is concerned with probabilities becoming actualized and manifest reality and does not fit with space time. It is dealing with P stage becoming A stage and attempting unsuccessfully to fit with space-time M stage.

Having the whole sequence of stages P, A , M, R, allows the relationship between QM and relativity to be seen in a new way. What is happing at the P to A stage of reality will not fit observation of the M stage, because it is not the same phenomenon at all.Sequential actualization allows passage of time. There is no passage of time in relativity as such only observer perspective giving the manifest reality.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 23:25 GMT
I am going to try to attach a diagram which sets out the explanatory model of reality under discussion in my essay and shows how QM and relativity are related to it.It is a useful summary and helps to clarify the relationship of the ideas.

I hope this demonstrates more clearly that this is not at all woolly or unclear thinking, or entirely abstract and irrelevant to QM or relativity.It clearly shows how the two physics models are looking at different aspects of reality and therefore can co-exist without being contradictory.

Please excuse the homemade quality of the diagram. I could have spent longer on making a beautiful professional quality graphic but it would not convey any more information.

attachments: diagram002.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 23:32 GMT
Actually that really is the homemade version. I had a better one which I had cleaned up!! Still it shows that cut and stick is still alive and well in the digital age.

This is the cleaned up version.

report post as inappropriate

Russell Jurgensen wrote on Apr. 5, 2011 @ 17:22 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Marvelous outside the box thinking, and I have to say I agree. There is one thing I wonder about. Is there something, that we have not yet identified, necessary to keep it all going?

Kind regards, Russell

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 6, 2011 @ 03:42 GMT

thank you so much. I am so glad to hear the words "I agree".It is a rare treat.

Re keeping it going, a few thoughts. The expanding universe, and its cold death are ideas that have come from observation of the manifestation of reality (image reality) rather than being the object-universe at unitemporal Now. So it is a giant conceptual error imo.

In nature the rotation of the earth, affect of the sun and moon lead to currents of air and water that give heat flows that would not be predicted for an isolated system without those inputs. Likewise in nature small changes can build into much larger ones as seen in weather systems, which might seem to be working against increase in entropy. This sort of thing makes me think that the whole object-universe may be a giant feedback loop and to abuse Newtons first law -A universe in motion continues in motion (unless acted upon by universe stopping force!)I don't think anyone is turning the handle.

I am also interested in hearing where your wondering may have taken you.

report post as inappropriate

Russell Jurgensen replied on Apr. 6, 2011 @ 18:40 GMT
Dear Georgina,

We need more agreement on the good points don't we!

Your Potential, Actualisation, Manifestation, Records sequence makes good sense and makes a nice framework. In particular the Potential and Actualisation aspects are where my wondering has taken me. Roger Penrose is suggesting we look at existing data from new angles to see if new results natuarally fall out. It seems like that is what you are doing as well. Very interesting stuff!

Kind regards, Russell

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 6, 2011 @ 22:32 GMT
Dear Russel,

I see that your whole essay is about a preliminary theory of what "keeps it going." I am sorry I have not read it earlier. There were just too many essays to read all of them. Now that the community voting stage of the competition is over I have lost the motivation to keep on reading essays, though I know there are lots of good ideas in them.

I will comment on your essay, on your thread, when I have had time to read it thoroughly. For now, I liked the fan analogy and the diagrams make it very clear. I have talked about a 4th dimension on this web site quite a bit, so I understand exactly why you are talking about it and why you have considered it necessary. Though my opinion has changed slightly over time. I now think it has to do with relative perspective and the 3 dimensional framework not allowing for continuous spatial change that is not directly observed. So it is quite probably a representational problem rather than an actual extra spatial dimension,imo. Anyway give me some time to carefully read and think and I will get back to you.

Kind regards, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 15, 2011 @ 22:22 GMT
Dear Georgina,

This is in response to your comments on the "Standard Model Begger" blog.

I had posted the following statements:

1. In a complete theory there is an element corresponding to each element of reality.

2. QM has ONE element of reality, the wavefunction.

3. QM addresses 'particle/wave' physics, which has ONE element of reality.

4. 'Particle plus...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 05:09 GMT
Dear Edwin ,

Thanks for taking a look. I did not want to interfere with the great discussion occurring on that thread but it seemed relevant at that point. I am not sure what each of the different theorists mean by "The Universe." They might be talking about all of the potentially observed universe or all that exists in time and space? They are, it can be seen from the diagram, different things- both with the potential to be regarded as The Universe, in their own right. Which is the real Universe? The one that can be observed or the one that is? Well it is both, so there two versions of The Universe.

The whole Object-Universe could potentially be described by a universal wavefunction but it does not take account of the other version of The Universe which is formed by the observer from received information. So it has to be incomplete. Down the bottom of the diagram it shows the overlap of QM with observed reality which has been called wave function collapse. The local particle is manifest within the Image- reality formed by the observer. Which is not a part of the Object- reality that exists without observer interaction. Most importantly this allows both QM and relativity to be mathematically correct, as has been found- without contradiction.

The particles (whatever they are) and medium are within the object reality but undetectable, this, I think, also might be described by your local particle plus c field. Most mainstream physics has come from observation of the manifestation of reality, Image reality. So we know the manifestaion of them but not their origin. I have speculated the fundamental forces are a disturbance or perturbation of the medium of object reality (which you are calling the c field.)

I have a nasty cold?flu bug and chest infection so haven't felt up to improving the diagram presentation or describing what it shows. I think its pretty straight forward and nothing that I haven't talked about before. If you can just get the time to familiarise yourself with it it might not seem so complicated. I acknowledge that it initially looks complicated but actually it is also fiendishly simple.It is just the combination of sets and flow chart that Ray suggested I produce a very long time ago. Which makes it easy to follow at a glance compared to longer verbal description.

report post as inappropriate

John S Minkowski wrote on Apr. 27, 2011 @ 21:39 GMT

Thank you for your kind words on my semi-satirical essay. Your metaphysics are also most interesting. The important thing is to keep the pressure on the mainstream: they never seem to get it right. It's the outliers (Black Swans) that seem to make the differences, even though "There are no loner penguins." I posted one more time about the so-called constant c, because this penguin's intuition is that it's a singular non-homogeneity.

John M.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on May. 5, 2011 @ 09:34 GMT

thank you for your messages here and on your own thread. I am very glad that you have found my ideas interesting.I have tried to pin them down in an understandable, correct and acceptable way. I may still not have succeeded yet. I hope the diagram I have posted on this thread might be a way for the more mathematically minded to easily access ideas and how they fit together. I intend to make a smarter looking diagram that fits the page soon. (Still recovering from a nasty cold.)

Your remark concerning Black swan theory is relevant. Who knows when the Black swan will appear, or be recognized for what it is? I think Max Tegmark's opinion "it is much better that we bark up many trees rather than all barking up the same tree." is also very relevant. Some will be barking up the wrong trees but there is no shame in that. It is just the nature of the hunt for something very elusive and difficult to capture in adequate words or mathematics.Of course I think there might be something "really real" in mine, but thats only natural!

Georgina parry.

report post as inappropriate

John S Minkowski replied on May. 9, 2011 @ 22:46 GMT

Exactly right regarding the search for the veritas (the right tree) - who knows which one it will be. You have a gift for phrasing and idea density which I find most admirable and interesting. I hope you are or will become a mentor or teacher (professor) of these metaphysics for those younger than us. Well done. John M.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on May. 19, 2011 @ 02:22 GMT
I have noticed an error on the diagram that I posted. The recall arrow should feed directly into "processing and interpretation" and not into "data intercepted by the observer" because "data intercepted by observer" has been drawn as a sub set of the EM data pool, which is the pool of all sensory data in the external environment.

Alternatively the data intercepted pool could be drawn so that it intersects the EM pool but also has a portion outside of that representing data that has not been acquired from external reality, but has been internally recalled. That is my preference. I will produce an updated corrected version soon.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Jun. 5, 2011 @ 07:08 GMT
This is an updated pdf of the diagram. Now can be viewed easily on a single page.I have used letters, numbers arrows and key to make it less cluttered.I have made some changes to the labeling which I think makes it easier to understand. I have made some slight changes to it in terms of structure which I think makes it a more accurate representation. It shows that recall is a part of observer intercepted data but not via the data pool of external reality. It also includes self generated data input which was not present on the previous diagram. I have also put potential and probability on the boundary between the open future and actualized reality. It has to exist within the actualised reality being that part of the arrangement of actualised reality that permits further change.Would be interested in any thoughts positive or negative on that alteration. I am sorry it is just a rough "handmade" version but at least it is now here.

attachments: reality_in_physics.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jun. 6, 2011 @ 04:00 GMT
No.5. Self generated data: need not just apply to biological observers but might include artifacts appearing in the output reality as a result of the function of a technology or the particular device used. Such as lens effects of cameras, film graininess, pixelation due to limitations of sensors resolution of an image, or internal amplification of interference or distortion.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jun. 7, 2011 @ 21:23 GMT
Another change is that there is now an arrow from records back into the data pool, which shows records being accessed and converted back into sensory input or data that is available to an artificial device. Important because the records (past) are not a dead end but allow us to know about what was, though only when the records are accessed.It is the same as the recall arrow from memories, in that...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

georgina Parry wrote on Jun. 8, 2011 @ 00:09 GMT
This is the revised diagram with the descriptions written on it. Not as tidy and clear as the previous one (pdf and description in the last thread), but may be more useful for immediate comprehension and sharing.I can't justify the time it would take me to produce really nice graphics but hopefully I will later on, especially if there is any indication of interest in this by anyone other than myself.

I have marked past, present and future onto the diagram to indicate how these "everyday" terms relate to this model. That is outside of the mathematical space-time/block time model of reality.I have tried to indicate how different physics models are related to this structure. (Perhaps the diagram could be called physics in the context of reality.) To reiterate for those who may not have previously read about the model shown here: It has an open future allowing partial non determinism. It has sequential actualization of reality allowing unidirectional causality. Accounting for one way time. The time dimension only exists within the manifestation of reality or Image reality, not within the object reality so overcoming the grandfather paradox.The entirety of reality is both that which is observed and that which exists unobserved.

attachments: Reality_in_physics_W002.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jun. 8, 2011 @ 00:57 GMT
and here's another song Jack Johnson -Never know.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jun. 25, 2011 @ 12:27 GMT
I am thinking that "Holographic model" should also be marked on the object reality probably the part marked memories, which is a sub set of records. (That sub set "memories" is the biological records storage and not the currently experienced memories.) The reason being that there is some evidence from rat experiments for the diffuse location of memories in a network of neurons rather than any particular location, which implies possibly that the brain stores information holographically. See Karl Pibram link below. ( I think there should be a sub set marked neural structures within the object reality part of the diagram, which would have the sub set memories within.)

The chemical components of the brain tissue are concrete object reality and the brain activity will be occurring in unitemporal Now.) If this holographic storage exists it has to be there and not in the external data pool or in the reconstructed reality formed from received data and brain processing.

From Wikipedia June 25 2011 "The holonomic brain theory, originated by psychologist Karl Pribram and initially developed in collaboration with physicist David Bohm, is a model for human cognition that is drastically different from conventionally accepted ideas."

Comparison between Karl Pibram's holographic model and moore conventional models of neuronal computation.

I have already marked holographic model on the data pool.This is referring to the kind of ideas of physicist David Bohm and not necessarily others who also describe their models as holographic. (Would be interested in any reasons why it should not be there.) Certainly we can retrieve images from the data pool of objects that no longer have concrete existence and so are nothing but images. The objects are not there but the data necessary to form a reconstruction is.

Feedback on the diagrams produced so far would be much appreciated. It is frustrating to discover that they do need this updating upon further consideration, which is taking a while due to recent poor health. Despite not being -entirely- happy with the competition process I am very happy that my essay is here and I am able to continue developing the diagrammatic explanation of some of the ideas in the essay. Thank you FQXi. I hope the diagrams will be very useful for seeing how the parts of reality fit together into the whole that is explored by different fields of science.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jun. 27, 2011 @ 10:02 GMT
I haven't read Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow's book "The Grand Design" yet but model dependent realism seems something that is compatible with the structure I have been working on. Various models of reality QM, Relativity and holographic mind and holographic universe could all co -exist as different facets of the Entirety of reality as set out on the most recent version of the diagram and described in my previous post. I will produce another updated diagram soon.

Though the models can be used individually for specific physics problems it is only by having the Entirety that the Grandfather paradox can be overcome and foundational questions can be answered. Such as how can there be causality, free will and non determinism as well as a fully existing space-time. How can there be regular passage of time but also a fully existing space time in which there is non simultaneity of events and no one absolute time when events occur. How seemingly contradictory QM and relativity can both be mathematically correct and both apply to the reality of the universe.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 5, 2011 @ 23:34 GMT
Talking about the potential sensory data in the environment has made me think some more about the difference between macroscopic and quantum reality. The question has been asked "why are they different?" Why does macroscopic reality appear to have just one certain existence whereas quantum reality is uncertain and there are only probabilities of being in any location?"

Firstly the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 6, 2011 @ 01:45 GMT
That does not mean that all sub atomic particles are mere objects. As I tried to explain in the essay they are intimately related to their environment both affecting the environment and being affected by it. So the environmental interaction might also be regarded as an aspect of the actualised reality of the particle. A detection might be picking up the energy of that environmental disturbance rather than a discreet particle as such.

The environment around a macroscopic object too is altered because of the objects presence. As well as gravitational effect there might also be magnetic effect and altered thermal energy ( as it may be absorbing or emitting heat) and visible light energy alteration as some wavelengths will be absorbed and others reflected or it might be a light emitter.

The amount of environmental energy emanating from a sub atomic particle is so small that only a single detection can be made from it (usually).And the process of collecting the energy alters the environment merely by the presence of the detection apparatus. Instead of the numerous detections made from the environment of a macroscopic object without causing any disturbance of the object. Unless it is a cautious living being, in which case it may be very difficult to get more than one sequential observation! It might even be that for some or all sub atomic particles there is only a particular disturbance of the environment and nothing more which can be regarded as manifest as particle or wave depending upon how it is detected.

I hope to have shown here that the quantum and macroscopic realities need not be regarded as so different after all and the perceived differences need not be counterintuitive.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 8, 2011 @ 06:28 GMT
To clarify: I said the macroscopic object has as many realities as observers. That only takes into account the manifestations of the object in the image reality of the observer though. Each object also has another reality, its actualization in unobserved object reality that exists prior to detection.

The quantum object has one manifestation its detection, and there can be some debate as to whether what is detected does directly relate to -something discreet- actualized prior to that detection or whether the thing regarded as a discreet particle is formed at detection by sufficient accumulated (continuous) energy activating the detector. Constantinos' essay talks about this.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 4, 2011 @ 02:13 GMT
Copied here from blog thread as useful clarification.IMO.

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 2, 2011 @ 22:29 GMT


there is no demarcation between biology and physics of the concrete reality that exists without observation. Physics happens within the biological organism just as everywhere else. The fractal like forms of and within biological organisms and elsewhere in nature...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 4, 2011 @ 02:15 GMT
Copied here from blog thread as useful clarification. IMO.

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 2, 2011 @ 23:57 GMT

Dear Eckard,

thank you for your reply. I do not entirely agree with Einstein that there is no distinction between past, present, and future. I hope I can clearly explain both how I agree with him and disagree. I think he believed his space-time construct to be existentially real and not just a model of perception via the interception and processing of data from the environment. He thought that it is all concretely out there, past, present and future preordained, unchanging, forever.In my previous post on this thread I have set out my opinion on that matter.

On my essay thread I have put a number of versions of a diagram showing how I veiw the organization of reality. There is both a concretely real reality and an image space-time reality formed by the observer from received data. It shows that the past does not exist as a concrete reality it only exists within records including memories. These records are a part of the object reality, the concretely real stuff but is not the past itself. The future does not exist as a concrete -object- reality. There is only potential and probability of becoming within the arrangement of the Object Universe. Therefore there is only one existential time which I am calling uni-temporal Now. It would correlate to the tip of every light cone, where potential sensory data is produced, the causality front. But not only there because the data produced persists in the environment, so many light cone cross sections might be imagined co-existing within the one time, representing different stages of development or spread of em data.

The data persisting in the uni-temporal environment permits reconstruction of images of events -that have already occurred- (and so might be considered-the past-)such as the images of the stars. The present(-now) is an image reality currently experienced by the observer. The product of brain activity processing received data. There is also data within the environment from events that have occurred that might have already been observed in a present-now by a near observer and are yet to become the present-now of a distant observer.That might be considered -the future- for the distant observer. So in -that- regard past, present and future all are formed from the data existing within the environment that is and so are not different. It is all just data and its designation of past, present and future only depends upon how it is regarded. It is all there so there is no point like border between present and future within experienced space-time. However there is in Object reality because only the one time, uni-temporal Now exists. There is no future only a causality front when/where the sequential iterations of the Object Universe are formed. There is no concrete past. There is only the one time in Object reality.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 4, 2011 @ 02:21 GMT
Copied here from blog thread as useful clarification IMO.

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 3, 2011 @ 23:14 GMT

Dear Eckard,

thank you for giving the definition of reality that you are using. That You, I and Tom are all using different definitions of reality highlights the great importance of there being some clarity on the matter of what is and is not reality in the context of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on Aug. 11, 2011 @ 14:21 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Who am i?

I am digital, I is anolog

I am relative reality, I is absolute truth.



report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 1, 2011 @ 11:49 GMT
I am a thought and the thought is whatever I think it to be.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 22:57 GMT
Word List and definitions.

These definitions are given to avoid ambiguity of meaning which can cause the explanatory framework to be misunderstood. It can be used as a reference to check that the same meaning of the word is being used and applied.

attachments: Definitions_for_explanatory_framework3.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 7, 2011 @ 21:43 GMT

I am interested in any feedback on the words chosen and their descriptions. There comes a time when without any helpful input further consideration is only my own procrastination rather than useful reflection. It would be better to press ahead with a firm and final decision on terminology, even if it turns out to need adjustment later on. I think the time taken has been useful as the"mechanism" has become clearer to me over that time, which means I can explain it better.

I would also be very interested in any opinion on the arrangement of the sets. Though I can justify the image reality being within the object reality I am not sure whether it is actually helpful to show it that way or if it would be better to have them separated. Which way depends upon how it is thought about. Other people's brain activity exists whether I observe them or not but any brain activity giving experienced manifestation output only exists if the observer is receiving and processing input (so it is not independent of observation.) Likewise photographic images capturing a space-time reality snap shot exist whether I regard them or not-(independent) but they can only exist because the camera/film or camera/computer interaction with EM input -(observer dependent).Perhaps both are required and an explanation of the difference in how the observer's reality is being considered.

I'm over trying to convince people who are incapable of comprehending the work, or people who consider it a philosophical irrelevance, or not what science wants and so a pointless endeavor , or the product of misguided ignorance. The explanatory framework functions whether science wants it or not, and whether it is understood or not, and despite its "simplicity". Further invalidation on FQXi blogs is just wearisome. I have worked hard to keep it sensible, avoid unnecessary speculation, to extract from the framework those ideas that I can't adequately describe at this time. But still want to. Constructive direction or advice or query would be appreciated. What is missing? What is unclear/ what is ambiguous?

I know there are people who understand what I am talking about.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 8, 2011 @ 02:48 GMT
These word lists might seem unnecessary triviality. However If I tell you how I am using the words then it isn't my "private language" as Ludwig Wittgenstein would have said, -you are invited to share it. Then we can really understand each other as the words are -clearly- transmitted ideas.

As a word is separately defined -for this purpose- then it is not open to interpretation according to another person's general usage of the words or or ad hoc interpretation due to context. Then it -can- be used for discussion of the physical and metaphysical realms because the words are -strictly attached to the ideas- by the definitions or descriptions given. They will (once finalized) no longer be mutable by those using or receiving them, in this particular context.... Like descending into the cave with a safety rope! I'm not going to loose anyone because the words won't allow it.

I see no option but to set out a strict vocabulary that will have to be learned for use with the explanatory framework, as I can not rely on everyday usage of the words to give the necessary clarity and lack of ambiguity. Bother! but better now than just have widespread dissent and confusion. Helpful input would be very much appreciated.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 6, 2011 @ 02:27 GMT
Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 20:34 GMT


I am not talking about how individuals understand or think about the data they have received because of education, upbringing or social environment. You are bringing all that to the table. I have been talking about a simple physical process of input and output. Same for a camera, input and output.

Tom has explained to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 6, 2011 @ 08:01 GMT
Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 09:01 GMT


You asked Do rods and clocks behave "as they do"? That is, can arbitrarily long objects be trapped inside arbitrarily short containers? Can a bug be squashed according to one observer and alive and kicking according to another? If not, can light "have the same speed in each inertial frame"?


the answer to this question must depend on what is regarded to be the rod and the clock.

1. an object with an existence independent of the observer.

2. spatially extended data spread within the environment.

3. Or the processed output produced, observed and measured by an observer.

If the answer given in the case of these paradoxes is 1. then it gives nonsense. Independent inanimate objects such as rods and clocks do not change in response to being observed in different ways. They have a chemical structure and associated internal forces that determines the form and function.

Answer closest to Einstein's idea of an object. In his opinion it is spread over (externally existing) space-time, in his words spatially extended, and how it interacts with the observer, ie which parts of the data are received when determines how it is seen.

3.It is the output formed by the observer from the received data. That output does not exist externally but is an internal fabrication representing the external reality. It is perfectly reasonable that different observers fabricate and so see different things according to their particular position or reference frame, determining what data is input when.

The object-data-image thing is all 3. of those things. An independent actualised object (or former object), data spread within the environment and output manifestation. Any one of its aspects might be referred to by the name of the object leading to confusion. What is observed possible because of 2. and 2. exists because of the source 1.

The paradox is not unresolved. It is only nonsense if using 1. as the idea of an object 1.2.and 3.can fully explain why it is seen as it is and why it is not nonsense as the independent object is not the observed manifestation or the spatially extended data.

An analogy is foreshortening. Something well known to artists. A foreshortened object has not become shorter as a independent object in space but the manifestation observed is. That is not seen as a great paradox but something like perspective which is necessary for realistic representation of objects in art. If the object is considered an independent thing with fixed dimensions then drawing it as it is -not- makes it appear more realistic. But it is all of those things the object with fixed dimensions, the sensory data conveyed to the artist and the foreshortened manifestation observed and represented in the realistic painting.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 6, 2011 @ 08:05 GMT
Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 22:10 GMT

Dear Pentcho / All,

relativity works with space-time, a construct in which distances between objects and events can vary for different observers and each observer has his own clock.. It does not work with a space where there are fixed distances for all observers and everyone is referring to the same universal clock. It is not valid argument to explain how it would be in space with fixed distances and only universal time and then say but Einstein gets a different result therefore he is wrong. Things appear to happen differently for different observers because space and time are combined into space-time and the common sense view of absolute distances and passage of time doesn't apply. No conspiracy just a different way of describing what is going on.

Deception or self deception is possible when there is incomplete data available to an observer. It is used by con artists, illusionists, politicians, salesmen, the little boy wishing to honestly evade punishment. It is the discarded laundry that was thought to be a cat. It is a part of everyday life. Deception by incomplete data provision / acquisition is not lies or falsehood in itself. The data is correct and can be verified. However as it is incomplete it can allow misinterpretation, which is assumptions based upon the incomplete data that could not be true if the complete data was available.

That misinterpretation may be actively encouraged or promoted by provision of additional data that seems to uphold the misinterpretation. It is the observer (or analyst) who creates the misinterpretation of the underlying reality, from the true data. The truthfulness is the similarity between the output fabricated from the input data and that which existed or occurred as the source of that information. It is not in the replication of the output (Giving objective measurement) That only ensures the output has been well characterised, and such things as statistically significant trends or correlations can be identified.

It seems as if an assumption is being made in physics that if the measurements are objective then the the output of the analysis of those measurements within a mathematically correct model is the whole truth and the interpretation has been verified. Both relativity and QM work with incomplete data and therefore the likelihood of misinterpretation is high. That is not a scientific conspiracy or deliberate deception but the nature of dealing with incomplete data. Rather than being the gullible mark, taking everything on face value alone, science needs to be the street wise punter, the savvy judge, the well informed voter, or the skeptical mother, to admit that there is -more than meets the eye-. Otherwise exceptional analytical minds are deceived in just the same way as the naive and trusting clients of charlatans.


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 6, 2011 @ 09:01 GMT

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 20:50 GMT

OK Paul,

All of the paradoxes involve some kind of error of comprehension. The extreme nature of the paradox highlights the problem. They all arise because though relativity can stand alone mathematically it is an incomplete model of reality.

Both barn-pole and twins ignore the unobserved reality that exists simultaneously beneath perception. Taking observation of time dilation or of length contraction to be what is happening to the actualised object itself. The observed "object" (manifestation) is regarded as the object (actualisation). Andromeda paradox too ignores the unobserved reality and mistakenly assumes that the reality that would be formed from observation always pertains.

There is no consideration that observation from received data is creating a manifestation that is different from the -simultaneously existing- actualisation. THAT = ILLUSION !! As the concept of objects in space with absolute dimensions was superseded by relativity.

The framework I have set out allows all of these paradoxes to be overcome, as well as answering numerous other questions. Perhaps when you have worked out what Einstein was saying for yourself you will be able to appreciate my work.


I'm not sure that was clear enough .

The error is to mistake the measurement of the received data to be the existing object. IE The measurement, from the output from the received data, or calculation of the measurement that would be output from received data is not an object. -A Measurement is not an object.-

EM data in the environment can not be an object with atomic structure (though Einstein calls it a spatially extended object. The OUTPUT observed from receipt of the data INPUT is not an object with atomic structure.

So re barn pole though the hypothetical measurements can be shown to vary according to observer reference frame it is essentially an illusion. The objects with atomic structure, barn and pole have not contracted but the images seen have. This is a difference between Object (source) and Image(OUTPUT) reality. This paradox also discounts motion blur, the fact that the observer will be unlikely to produce a clearly defined image of the more distant object due to its high speed relative to the observer, giving an extended blur rather than a shortening of barn or pole, (depending upon which observer).

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 6, 2011 @ 09:18 GMT
Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 11:58 GMT

Paul (and anyone interested in paradoxes)

(Paul,the dimensions that you keep talking about are the dimensions of the output reality IMHO. Not the foundational or source reality. That should be clear by now from the discussion we have been having.)

Re the barn paradox: The short pole is formed by the processing of the received...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 14:49 GMT

Here is an updated computer graphics version of the diagram that helps understanding of the explanatory framework. Hope you like it better than the earlier ones.

Please let me know if you can see any mistakes or improvements that need to be made.It hasn't got a key with it yet to explain with more details the parts and processes. I'll try to do that tomorrow.

If you would like to say something nice you don't have to say it behind my back.I have been searching -a lot- (yes thats me) for any indication of any positive feedback or response outside of the fqxi blogs.It would save me a lot of trouble if someone who actually understands this would just talk to me about it. I'm the impatient kid with hand in the air.If its good -good, if it can be improved i'll correct it.

To whom it may concern, I can't stop you data mining but as you are please keep it all encrypted or keep it safely to yourselves.I didn't mean it personally when I said *******. But you saw me, watching you, watching me and changed the responses.ICU2.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 15:08 GMT
This is a small version of the file.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 15:27 GMT
OK This is a tiny JPEG.

attachments: TINY_NEW_RICP_DIAG.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 02:48 GMT

I agree it is rather beautiful because its all there and it all works together but its very simple. When its understood other words -can- be used to describe it without altering the meaning. So I don't -want- to be giving English lessons to people who don't need them. However if someone can't make sense of it despite extensive explanations then they must be thinking about it in the wrong way and need strict guidance to get it right, it seems. "Electromagnetic destiny" is a very nice phrase for that pre-written future . No complaints about that.

Can't show the former sequence of arrangements of the object universe on the diagram. As they no longer exist they will fall outside of the uni-temporal existing reality, becoming something theoretical or imagined. I think it is probably OK to call that a past multi verse because each arrangement is different and it is not just progression along a dimension of something that wholly exists unchanging.

Yes it is exclusive to FQXi at the moment. Doesn't get any positive feedback though, as you have noticed. So the ideas of spreading memes from the blog and essay alone is pretty much a failure. (May be I should print some T shirts.) I was very pleased that Edwin said I might be thinking along the right lines though.

Yes I do always add my name to my anonymous posts etc, etc. You probably know me well enough already by now. Yes I was finding several coherent sentences at a time and single additional words till you noticed. Enough for now, has given me hope.

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Feb. 14, 2012 @ 21:53 GMT
Hello Georgina, and happy Valentines' Day! Hope your doing well. Anywayz, I appropriated you thoughts, transported them into the context of a future conversation between ai's in a blog? Let me know if you are ok with that? Not sure where this blog will go, but I'm thinking now the QW ai can speculate on colour. It being an It 8.0 Consciousness version (me and you and everybody else an It 1.0 original biiological software conscious intelligence). I'm borrowing a little from both a lot of new hard SF I'm reading and Mr. Barbour's developments on the it from bit question.

So an It 2.0 version consciousness is a copy of the original, in a machine, brain in a tube, clone. etc. It 2.0 is simply a protocal for pointing to the physical location in spacetime of the consciousness. It 3.0 intelligences, are versions of software used to 'point' to the physical location of a consciousness when there are more than one copy.

Etc. etc. in the conversation of the future, your thoughts on colour perception, and timeless critical frank feedb ack to my essay could very well be your it 8.0 copies response to these It 8.0 ai.s from a website no less..

Thats about it from my readings and thoughts on the matter: except It 4.0 points to a physical location of a character in a virtual game, while also keeping track of the It 3.0 consciousness's location in the physical universe where the game is being played.

It 5.0 is more difficult to imagine what it's pointing to, and probablility comes into play.

It 6.0 consciousnesses are identical with quantum mechanical measurements.

It 7.0 is all of the above complexity, plus SuperSymmettry

It 8.0 is the realm of communication where your avatar has interposed her? own 'thoughts'... to be continue along this general vien...

This Blog is Worthlesser than Yours

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Feb. 14, 2012 @ 22:02 GMT
Oh, an interestingly, even though almost all of the above is speculative fiction (hard SF), the part about the It 6.0 Consciousness is actual published fact. It is proved in my essay: In words, the resulting equation representing consciousness is, "Consciousness is always the result of the detection of a particle". 'Detection of a particle' is defined as a Measurement...

So in fact not only does quantum mechanics provide us with a equational definition (which equation is derived in the essay--not incorporating commutatitity--so technically it is only a classical analogue for "Consciousness" so far), but quantum mechancics now apparently gives us a defiinition for an It 6.0 consciousness correlated to an It 1.0 (what we think of as our actual consciousness when we use the word commonly).

So this blog is going to be Interesting Times for sure, as fact and fiction mingle and distort one another?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 15, 2012 @ 12:43 GMT
Dear Tommy,

thank you for thinking of me. You write in a fascinating way. I am honoured if you have found what I have said useful in your creative endevours.It sounds very interesting but my head is a bit too fuzzy to fully get it at the moment, because I have a bad cold.

I have also been having a lot of trouble with a misbehaving badly corrupted computer, which is now just beginning a new life with half of a reformatted "brain" and it doesn't really know what its doing! Will check out your site again soon. Best regards.

report post as inappropriate

Quantum Widget wrote on Feb. 17, 2012 @ 00:51 GMT
Thx wuz hoping that would be the case. Except the cold. Good health to you. And drink plenty of water...

report post as inappropriate

Time's Conscience replied on Feb. 28, 2012 @ 01:03 GMT
One-Day only sale 29% off a technology newly invented for another technology, on something we already already have (and want to keep nice, new and functional)! is where you will find the blog (Time's Conscience).

Incidentally, because of synchronicity and your graciously allowing part of your thread ib our blog on (ThisBlogisWorthlesserThanYours), the Time's Conscience blog was started, because of a post on Alastair Reynolds blog about a new sci fi anthology from ARC. You were partly at fault (in a good way) for that, and for me unexpectedly seeing that on tumblr arc also has a writers competition for sci fi. Do you write? And is it hard science fiction? If you write, your voice would make some good short stories, I think! In your threads you sound to me like Ursela K Le. Guin or other female sf writers, so maybe you can try? I'm going to lol, if i can shut up and tell an intersting story.

So anyway, thought i'm pass that along. Seems like a lot of work though. For example, if you turn in a short story by Apr 8 you could win 500 pounds, and 200 pounds for the top five. That's--like--not a lot in american bucks. So maybe it's only for real writers that do it regularly. Oh, forget the whole thing!!!

29% off. Protect the things (that aren't alive) you love and use everday, so you can use them far into the future and stop upgrading every 6M and getting more riduculous contracts! Protection: a mostly good idea...

report post as inappropriate

QW Singularity wrote on Mar. 3, 2012 @ 06:49 GMT
OK the sale was on Zaggfolios for the IPad2, keyboard+case+stand. But since I just saw on CNN tonight, they are coming out with IPad 3. Information flux insanity: give us a break developers, and let us get used to our new cool devices instead of introducing new ones before we even get used to the ones we got. Eh, nobody listens to me, literally. So count on 29% off protection for the IPad3 shortly after its invention and introduction. And before the 4 comes out! Sheesh, whatta world!

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.