Search FQXi

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

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 Fund.

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
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Paul Reed: on 11/18/12 at 14:05pm UTC, wrote Why Einstein was wrong Introduction 1 The start point is existence. ...

Paul Reed: on 10/8/12 at 9:39am UTC, wrote Roger I take it you do not have an essay in the current competition? The...

Paul Reed: on 10/8/12 at 8:13am UTC, wrote Roger Thanks, hopefully you read my post above, as although it does not...

Roger Granet: on 10/8/12 at 4:06am UTC, wrote Paul, Hi. I like your way of thinking because it gets down to real...

Paul Reed: on 10/7/12 at 9:39am UTC, wrote I am concerned about anybody who does make the effort to read my...

Paul Reed: on 10/4/12 at 9:31am UTC, wrote Sergey I have a much simpler view. The rating of an essay should be on the...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 8:39am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Yuri Danoyan: on 10/3/12 at 23:49pm UTC, wrote Dear Friend Don't forget please impartially evaluate my essay

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "'Sharp comb" and 'shredder' are used as similes and metaphors because the..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Sydney Grimm: "Lorraine, Let’s take an example: E= mc[sup]2[/sup]. It is an equation..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Jason Wolfe: "I cannot say that I am enthusiastic about where philosophy has led us. We..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Jason Wolfe: "How can there be any talk of determinism when the real world is built upon..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Georgina Woodward: "I might be able to improve on that description. It's early days.If it is a..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: ""do you agree with Davies that these questions will need new physics?" It..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Zeeya Merali: "Joe, You appear to really want to contact Dr Kuhn about his Closer to..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "(Zeeya's note: Joe I've deleted the text of this post. It appears to be..." in First Things First: The...

RECENT ARTICLES

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM
September 21, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Logic of Physical Reality by Paul Reed [refresh]

Author Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 11:20 GMT
Essay Abstract

Rather than commenting, as such, upon the validity of whatever might be some of the current basic physical assumptions, this essay does so mainly by implication. As it proposes a set of generic assumptions that physics should be based on, given how physical reality occurs. This type of analysis is usually characterised as philosophy. But it is not, because physical reality has existence; it is not an abstract concept. It results from a discernable physical process, and that can be determined once metaphysical deliberations are eradicated. Reference to these assumptions then points to the underlying flaws in the explanation of relativity which involves the spacetime model (though the original hypothesis may be valid), and the Copenhagen interpretation. Each of these being predicated on different philosophical, rather than proven physical, presumptions as to how physical reality is constituted. Which explains why they do not, and cannot, be reconciled.

Author Bio

Having obtained a BA in Sociology, which instigated thinking about the difference between objective/subjective and how perception worked, Paul joined the Metropolitan Police Force. A career change resulted in him working in several senior management roles, mainly project management/user requirement definition in automation projects, in the HQ of the Post Office. Gaining early retirement enabled him to follow a range of leisurely pursuits, of late-consequent upon reading Stephen Hawking’s latest book- one of which included an investigation of reality and the original relativity papers, the results of which are encapsulated in the attached essay.

Author Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 19:33 GMT
That came up quickly. Anyway, here is a thought about one of the many aspects not specifically covered, that i wrote up this afternoon as it was raining (again).

A Mistake

1 t = x/v is not an equation in the normal sense of the word, but an expression of what timing is. The number always equals the sum on the other side, and the property is the same on both the top and bottom of...

view entire post

Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 07:00 GMT
Dear Paul,

Like many others I was confused on what reality is? I came up with the definition as below:

Reality: That which exists intuitively to humans. Examples being space, matter, pain, happiness.

To distinguish physical reality from other experiences, I added an identity defined as;

Identity: Identity is measured reality. Examples are Length, Mass… Identity may share the name with the Reality and represent only part of the namesake. In such case, the total existential quantity of identity is Reality. Pain and happiness are not identities. The above definitions are included in my essay titles (5-Dimensional Universe).

I am interested in knowing your opinion on above.

Thanks and best regards,

Vijay Gupta

report post as inappropriate

Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 14:03 GMT
Goodmorning Paul,

My essay is finaly on-line at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1326.

You are invited to review my essay. You will find that we agree on many of the concepts on time and reality.

You will also appreciate that Pico-Physics does away with some of very basic assumptions like 3-D space, but establish the same from unary law 'Space contains Knergy'. Some important corollaries to unary law. These are;

1.- Space has three dimensions (Space Geomatry)

2.- Knergy moves at constant speed in space. (special relativity)

3.- Time is progressive and unidirectional. (Time)

4.- Knergy can be freely distributed in space.

5.- Space has affinity to possess Knergy (Motive driving universal dynamics)

6.- Space devoid of Knergy is homogenous (Space at large unpreturbed by matter)

You may also be interested in having a look at http://picophysics.org/unary-law/unary-law-corollaries/

Vijay Gupta

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 14:56 GMT
Vijay

Physical reality, which is what physics is examining, is (first sentence para 5) "all that which is potentially sensorially receivable by any organism". Which actually is not a particularly good phrase, I seem to have lost something in editing it down, although the essay makes it clear. The point being that we can only know what is sensorially available to us (direct), plus hypothecation based on that (indirect). That is, assertions based on no substantiated experienceability are not included.

On space see paras 13 & 14. On time 6-12.

I will have a look at your essay

Paul

Anonymous wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 20:14 GMT
Here is another train of thought, which was posted in JCNSmith's blog a few days ago

Eintein and an urban myth

1 It is commonly assumed that Special Relativity is that which was written in 1905. This is not so. In propounding General Relativity, Einstein had to resolve the significance of light.

2 In respect of the second postulate about light, this is correct physically,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 21:25 GMT
Dear Paul,

well done in producing an essay that clearly sets our your opinions and conclusions about reality and its representation by physics.

We have had many prolonged conversations on the FQXi blog threads, therefore much of the material is familiar to me. So I admit I have not read it from beginning to end. The format did not make that an inviting prospect, for me. It does seem a good reference document for checking your point of view on different matters and with its numbered format can be easily used for reference purposes.A dipper rather than a gripping tale.

There are many people who will not be familiar with your explanations and may therefore want to study it from beginning to end. I know it is not easy to fit a lot of information into a short essay, I appreciate the hard work involved. Good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 06:30 GMT
Georgina

Thanks, hopefully we can all get past opinions. As you may have noticed I did not regenerate our previous discussions on your essay.

Paul

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 01:32 GMT
Dear Paul

I recognize the importance of a philosophy or metaphysics of science (if that is what you do?) but I do not have a mind for it. Would you say you have a positivist philosophy? Your meticulous and systematic presentation of your ideas reminds me of the style of Al Hassan Ibn Al-Haytham (Hazen) who proved logically step by step that light goes in straight lines. I will re-read what you said about relativity.

I can also add that another ex-policeman taught the world the importance of clear thinking: George Orwell!

With best wishes,

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 06:35 GMT

"I recognize the importance of a philosophy or metaphysics of science (if that is what you do?)"

No. From postings over the past year I have recognised the need to eradicate philosophical/metaphysical presumptions, or put the other way around, identify on what basis we can establish science, hence paras 3-5.

Re policeman, it is called cold case review. Go back to the original, what is the actual evidence, what did they actually say over 100 years ago.

Paul

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 08:38 GMT
Paul

"cold case review. Go back to the original, what is the actual evidence, what did they actually say over 100 years ago"

Excellent!

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 09:08 GMT
Yes, but I don't get thanked for it. Now, I am quite happy for people to cross-check and ensure I have the quotes correct and they have not been taken out of context. Note the first two postings on here, which are effectively supplementary essays, picking up on this point. As within my main essay I almost introduce them as a throwaway line. I am about to post a better version of the urban myth one.

Paul

nmann wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 18:29 GMT
Substitute "clicks in a photon detector" (Anton Zeilinger: "Photons are clicks in photon detectors") for "points of light" and nothing has changed in eighty years:

225. A proposition, an hypothesis, is coupled with reality -- with varying degrees of freedom. In the limit case there's no longer any connection, reality can do anything it likes without coming into conflict with the proposition: in which case the proposition (hypothesis) is senseless!

All that matters is that the signs, in no matter how complicated a way, still in the end refer to immediate experience and not to an intermediary (a thing in itself).

All that's required for our propositions (about reality) to have a sense, is that our experience in some sense or other either tends to agree with them or tends not to agree with them. That is, immediate experience need confirm only something about them, some facet of them. And in fact this image is taken straight from reality, since we say 'There's a chair here', when we only see one side of it.

According to my principle, two assumptions must be identical in sense if every possible experience that confirms the one confirms the other too. Thus, if no empirical way of deciding between them is conceivable.

A proposition construed in such a way that it can be uncheckably true or false is completely detached from reality and no longer functions as a proposition.

The views of modern physicists (Eddington) tally with mine completely, when they say that the signs in their equations no longer have 'meanings', and that physics cannot attain to such meanings but must stay put at the signs. But they don't see that these signs have meaning in as much as -- and only in as much as -- immediately observable phenomena (such as points of light) do or do not correspond to them.

A phenomenon isn't a symptom of something else: it is the reality. A phenomenon isn't a symptom of something else which alone makes the proposition true or false: it itself is what verifies the proposition.

-- Wittgenstein: Philosophical Remarks, pp 282-3 1929-30

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 09:20 GMT
nmann

I think I agree with what is written here. We can only know of reality via sensory detection. That is a closed loop. However, as such it is therefore valid. We can hypothesise to overcome practical problems of sensing within that confine, ie it is based on, checked for validity against, validated direct experience. What is not accepatable, in science, is assertion based on no substantiated experienceability, or flawed models of reality (which might work intrinsically)which because of their misrepresentation of what they are supposed to be modelling, thereby generate assertions/flawed results. These models or representational devides could be maths, graphics, words.

The bottom line is to check for direct evidence of physical existence, or the validated potential thereof.

Paul

nmann wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 18:31 GMT
Should be parentheses there: (1929-30)

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 09:22 GMT
Look, I've still got a set of Immanuel Kant to get through!

Paul

J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 19:34 GMT
Hi Paul,

You wrote, "Physics must be based on assumptions which reflect how physical reality actually occurs, otherwise the resulting explanations will be flawed." I am in complete agreement with you on this, Paul. And no matter how strongly you may protest and argue that I don't agree with you, I will argue just as strongly that I do. [For the benefit of those not familiar with our previous encounters, this is a bit of an "inside" joke between Paul and me.]

Good luck in the competition!

jcns

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 09:29 GMT
JCN

Thanks. Indeed there is a slight problem here with re-running all the exchanges with many different people that have gone on over the past year.

I would not think for one moment you would disagree with that statement. The issue becomes putting it into practice. Generically, how does reality occur. Having first of all eradicated any allusions to metaphysical possibilities. We would all like to find the meaning of life, but it is not possible.

Paul

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 21:07 GMT
Hi Paul,

ps Paul, pay attention JCN Smith is from the SRI CIA !:) men in black in fact ! beautiful suit that said .

Good luck to both of you .

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 23:22 GMT
Paul

I'm not idealist. I'm believing in the materialism philosophy. However, I found myself compelled to believe the philosophy of idealism. After studying Quantum theory philosophy combining it with relativity theory, and by interpretation the most experimental results according to that, Hegel and Plato philosophy was right, and their philosophy is approaching us to the right meaning of reality. Do you know the story of Plato's Cave. We are, as physicists, doing now same as what the people in the Plato's Cave were doing in order to discover the reality? In my theory the phenomenon is existed subjective not objective. The collection of all of these subjective phenomena form the reality, and this reality existed in the comprehensive Consciousness, or by physics شس in my theory, the infinity state, which is the state of infinity energy and zero mass. As it is existed the infinity state, which is the positive infinity state, there must exist the negative infinity state. If we collect the positive infinity state with the negative infinity state, they form the same form the human brain. The human brain consists of two parts, the right part and the left part.

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 09:43 GMT
Azzam

Well, here, I am interested in three forms of physical reality: 1 That which physically existed at any given point in time. 2 That physically existent phenomenon which physically interacted with it at that point in time, 3 That physically existent effect which resulted from that interaction.

Organisms receive some examples of 3. Others get 'wasted' hitting brick walls! Sensory detection systems have evolved to make use of 3, ie it has acquired a functional role.

I am not interested in any metaphysical possibilities, because this is a waste of time. Here's an answer: reality is controlled by tiny green things with 6 heads in a vast control room. It is their game. That is as valid as any other assertion, once want wanders outside what is potentially knowable.

Neither am I interested in what happens after 3 is received, either by a human eye/ear/etc or a bat ecolocating, or any other form of sensing by any other organism

Paul

Author Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 11:24 GMT
This replaces my post of 11 July 20.14 (ie it is a better version). In effect it is a supplementary, substantiating what had to be virtually a 'throwaway' line in the essay, and a point that keeps coming up in other blogs.

Einstein and an urban myth

Introduction

1 It is commonly assumed that Special Relativity (SR) is that which was written in 1905. This is not so. In...

view entire post

Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 16:50 GMT
Dear Mr. Reed,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your essay and I marveled at the skill and the erudition you employed to so expertly express your valid ideas. As I pointed out in my essay, Sequence Consequence, our senses only act in the immediacy of the here and the now. Our language is all over the place. One real Universe should only allow one to have one real means of expressing one’s reality. There is no way I can convey to you my truthful assertion that at this very moment I am typing, because obviously I have to complete whatever it is I am typing before I can impart that information to you. One can never comment on what one may be doing, one can only comment on what one may have done. Reality is always real. Reality should have no real need for realization for that implies some sort of completion.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 05:59 GMT
Joe

Thanks. I was known for my ability to write Board papers, not that anything then really happened, as is often the case in public service operations. And they kept making the classic mistake, promoted by vested interests, of taking the current manual processes and trying to replicate them in computer systems.

Anyway, as I have posted several times, you keep making an essentially correct point. But forget human (and indeed all organism) involvement. Having eradicated metaphysical possibilities, there is a valid closed system of sensory detection. Within this there is: 1) existence independent of sensory detection, 2 ) alteration thereto. This means sequence. And sequence can only occur one at a time, because the predecessor must cease in order that the successor can occur. That’s it. The present is that which was physically existent as at any given point in time.

Now, the other point is that sensing does not involve the reality being considered, as such. It involves a reality which resulted from an interaction with that reality, aka light, noise, vibration, etc. There is therefore a delay, etc. So it is not “our senses only act in the immediacy of the here and the now”. They are receiving, later and possibly with deficiencies, a representation (from the perspective of the sensory system) of the reality, which was, by definition, the “here and now” (ie the present) when it occurred. So, as you say, there is always a real physically existent state, the problem is discerning what it was.

Language is a real problem, its structure reflects a conceptualisation of physical reality which is ontologically incorrect. So it’s like trying to define a circle with a straight line. But then the evolution of organisms and sensory detection systems was predicated on survival, not understanding the constitution of reality, of which all organisms are a part.

Re tying: not so. I could have had direct experience of the physical circumstance, but I am in London and was not aware you were doing it. I have indirect experience of the fact that you did type, subject to some degree of verification (ie it was actually you who did the typing, etc!).

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 14:10 GMT
Dear Mr. Reed,

I have been advised by FQXi not to type my blogs in Microsoft Word then copy and paste them into the Community boards as that will cause my item to be listed as being from Anonymous, even though I am signed in. I do apologize for the repetition. I spent my formative years living in an echo chamber. I am going to have to ask you to define “sequence” Unnatural abstract sequences such as 1, 2, 3, or a, b, c, are perfect, and subject to statistical compilation and manipulation. While it might appear that sensory sequels are renewals of prior sensory sensations, I contend that all natural sensing performing in the reality of here and now is continuing to be brand new and cannot follow any sequence. The problem is with the tense structure of the English language. Although we use the term, “I see.” We actually mean I understand. It is never possible to actually explain what I saw because one can only see what one is seeing while one is seeing it.

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 18:28 GMT
Joe

Oh, well that is what I do, because this print is too small to read.

Re sequence: here is a copy of a post to John earlier on today:

Here is the argument. Eradicate metaphysical possibilities. There is only a closed system of sensory detection, that is how, and only, how, we know of reality. Some of which is identifiable directly, some indirectly as we have to overcome practical issues in the sensory process. Within this valid and unavoidable confine, there are two fundamental knowns: 1) existence is independent of sensory detection (ie a physical phenomenon is received (forget about the subsequent processing), 2) there is alteration.

This means that physical reality is a sequence, because that is the only way those two manifestations can be fulfilled. Put simply, something occurs, something occurs but is different (when compared). Sequence cannot occur unless the predecessor ceases so that the successor can occur, ie there can only be 'one at a time' within a sequence.

The sequence could be anything from the entirety of reality, to you, to an elementary particle. So it is "brand new" at every point in time, or at least a substantial part of it is, some things changing quicker than others, and point in time is driven by the quickest. In other words there is only at present in existence, which alters and there is a 'new' present. There is only the present in physical existence.

Sensing is different. This relies on pysically existent phenomena which result from an interaction with the reality. They take time in travelling, is only representational of that reality, and indeed might be deficient in some way in that respect (paras 18-23). Unfortunately(!!)we only have individual perceptions to work back from. But tha is another story, my interest finishes when the phenomena interact with a receiving organ, because this is supposed to be physics. So what we want to know is what was physically received by the sensory system, 2 what existed which, as the result of an interaction with it, instigated what we received.

Paul

Avtar Singh wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 21:48 GMT
Dear Paul:

I agree - Time does not occur in physical reality, there is only timing, a measuring system which calibrates rates of change between such realities.

But I do not agree with your statement - “So, de facto, the physically existent event known as Big Bang, occurred at one spatial point at one point in time, assuming it did occur.” The Big Bang is always associated with an absolute “MOMENTof the BEGINNING” of time i.e. Time =0 at the moment of Big Bang, which is non-existent since time, as well as space, is only a relative and not an absolute entity. Time’s perception varies according to the observer’s speed or frame of reference. There is no absolute fixed time or location in the universe to call it a Proper or Cosmic time and place of origin – Big Bang. Hence, the Big bang as strictly defined can never happen and is merely an artifact of the Newtonian mindset.

Sincerely,

Avtar

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 06:34 GMT
Avtar

The point I made was that the occurrence of any physically existent state, by definition, involves specific spatial points and a specific point in time. Otherwise it involves more than one such state. Therefore, if the Big Bang was a physically existent phenomenon, then it follows these rules. They being the very definition of physical existence.

The point had nothing to do with timing, which is a human device for calibrating the rate of change. The reason Big Bang, if it occurred, would equal a timing point of 0, is if we deem the physical existence we are involved in to ‘stop’ there.

Time (and indeed space) is not a “relative entity”. They are not entities. Full stop. The concept of space does have physical correspondence, ie it is the corollary of physical existence-spatial footprint. The concept of time is misconceived, there is no form of it in physical reality. Realities occur, which enables comparison and the identification of difference. One of the aspects of difference (apart from substance and sequence order) is the speed at which difference (irrespective of type) occurred. Timing calibrates that, the rate of a rate, of itself. All this concerning identified difference between realities, not an attribute of one.

“Time’s perception varies according to the observer’s speed or frame of reference”

This is not correct. The perception of a rate of change can vary from the reality. This is an optical illusion (see paras 28 & 29). The speed is significant because, according to their original hypothesis, that is indicative of dimension alteration, there being a common cause. Frames of reference have nothing to do with observation, per se, but the logic of referencing. There is no absolute, so any judgement must involve a reference, but if you are not aware of dimension change then the calculations will be wrong (see my posts here 11/7 19.33 & 13/7 11.24).

Re your next point: There is no fixedness in that we cannot establish it, because we cannot externalise ourselves from reality. Physical reality occurs with definiteness, it must do in order to exist (as manifest to us). The fact that we cannot establish that because we are part of it is irrelevant to what physically occurs.

Paul

Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 11:49 GMT
Paul,

Defining reality linguistically is difficult. The language is developed by humanity to communicate human observations. Reality is part of human observations but exists beyond that.

How do we address this deficiency, is define the reality in the context of a thought process. My definition of reality shall be seen in that perspective.

Vijay Gupta

picophysics.org

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 13:41 GMT
Vijay

"How do we address this deficiency, is define the reality in the context of a thought process"

What we do is we reverse engineer the resultant individual perceptions in order to find out what physically existent phenomenon was received by the ensory system, then infer what reality occurred which caused this. If we coulderadicate all sorts of 'interference' that occurs in sensory processing, we would get there much quicker. The paradox is that we are not interested in these accretions, but it is all we can start with to discrn reality.

Paul

JCN Smith wrote on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 13:18 GMT
This is a copy of a post by JCN 18/7 12.56 in Recognising top-down (Geoerge Ellis)

Paul,

With apologies to Professor Ellis for what probably is a distraction from the main point of his essay, insofar as it may bear at least tangentially on his topic I will reply to your post here, but if we wish to pursue this debate further we should move the discussion to one of our own blogs. You wrote:

"The sequence can involve a subsequent state which is identical to a previous one, but that is not reversal."

This is the thing you've never appeared to comprehend, Paul. According to my view of time (which I believe is consistent with Julian Barbour's view, in this regard at least), a particular time is identically equivalent to a particular configuration of the universe. This is my preferred wording of the concept which Barbour expresses by stating that "The relative configurations, or shapes, of the Universe do not occur at instants of time . . . they are the instants of time."

By this way of thinking, if the configuration of the universe were, hypothetically, to oscillate between two identically equivalent configurations, then time would oscillate between those two particular times. That said, however, things would get sticky because of the momentum involved in such an oscillation. The precise moments representing the end points of the oscillatory motion would be identically equivalent configurations and identically equivalent particular times. This sort of thing is easier to envision if we think of the universe as comprised entirely of three not-further-reducible billiard balls in a not-further-reducible shoebox.

I have no desire whatsoever to belabor this argument further, Paul, here or elsewhere, but if you insist on doing so, please pick another blog (yours or mine) where we may do so. Thanks.

jcns

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 13:36 GMT
JCN

My quote: “The sequence can involve a subsequent state which is identical to a previous one, but that is not reversal."

JCN response: “This is the thing you've never appeared to comprehend, Paul. According to my view of time … a particular time is identically equivalent to a particular configuration of the universe”

And this is what I have explained, several times, is the problem with this approach. Physical existence is driving it, not timing. In any given sequence, there is the chance that what physically existed at a given point in time, could occur again at a subsequent point in time. But this is not physical existence going into some form of reverse. It is the reoccurrence of a previously occurred state. Indeed, if there is no change (or at least change that is slower than the fastest, then as at subsequent points in time, the physically existent state will be the same. It is the state of physical existence that counts, not the timing of it.

“By this way of thinking, if the configuration of the universe were, hypothetically, to oscillate between two identically equivalent configurations, then time would oscillate between those two particular times”

Not so (that’s why things get “sticky”). All we have is repetition of existent states in a sequence, with both the sequence and timing (not time) ‘moving forward’. This demonstrates what I always sensed, that despite all our exchanges, you are not fully comprehending what I am saying. Of course, that might be faulty, but a comment needs to address what I am saying.

Paul

J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 23:33 GMT
Paul,

If you prefer to think of it as me not comprehending what you've been saying, then so be it. I prefer to think of it as me comprehending what you've been saying and disagreeing with it. I also prefer to think of it as you not comprehending what I've been saying but disagreeing with your faulty concept of what I've been saying.

Regardless of which of these various ways of looking at it is more accurate, you've finally succeeded in wearing me down. Debating with you, unfortunately, has turned out to be like debating with a brick wall, and you probably feel the same about debating with me. I've really given it my best shot. And, to your credit, I perceive that you've given it your best shot, too. But I give up. I can use my time more productively than debating with a brick wall, and I suspect that the same is true for you as well. I'm sorry we could never achieve a meeting of minds, despite our best efforts.

As David Deutsch has stated, "The way to converge with each other is to converge upon the truth." ('The Beginning of Infinity,' p. 257) We have to hope that the truth is still out there somewhere waiting for us (and others) to converge on it. When we do, we'll no doubt echo Wheeler's words: "Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it -- in a decade, a century, or a millennium -- we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise?"

Good luck with your program of study and with the essay competition.

jcns

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 03:50 GMT
Paul and JCN Smith,

This is how I see it. Passage of time is the change in arrangements /configurations of the Object universe -the sequence of iterations. It could be argued that if the sequence oscillated between different arrangements then time was oscillating back and forth, agreeing with J.C.N. It depends upon whether it is thought of as a linear sequence that can only be linear or the patterns are regarded as the times and a same pattern is a repetition of the -same time- not a -new iteration- with the same pattern. It is exceedingly unlikely that the whole Object universe would recreate exactly the same universal pattern.So I do not think an important philosophical question to resolve.

Even if it was decided that passage of time could be said to reverse and repeat, the perceived arrow of time is not exactly the same as passage of time. There is one way input to the observer's image reality. The observer experiences a sequence of presents, that are patchwork amalgamations from data originating from different iterations, received from the data pool within the environment- Those experienced outputs do not precisely match (in perceived content) the content of the underlying sequence of iterations. So it might be experienced as an odd occurrence within the experienced time that still seems to be progressing one way.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 16:18 GMT
Paul,

"Yes, the present that subsequently occurs is different from what it would have been. But what it would have been never existed."

That is one of the observations in my essay; When we view time as moving from a determined past into a probabilistic future, the math seems to say the reality branches out into all possibilities, ie. multiworlds. On the other hand, if we view time as emerging from physical activity, it is the collapse of these probabilities into one sequence of occurrences. The physical occurrence is what determines whether the cat lives or dies. Future becomes past, rather than present moving from past to future.

"As above, reactions are the next actions, the fact that I used the plural form of these words is irrelevant. My point was a repetition of the above. While they can be depicted as reactions, there is no form of reversal of physical existence. Everything could be described as a reaction to something."

I never said there is any physical reversal and I certainly accept everything is a reaction to cumulative inputs. My point has been that all this activity results in changing configuration and since there is only the physical presence, prior configurations fade away, as they are continuously replaced by subsequent forms. Our point of disagreement seems to be that you think there is a specific present attached to every configuration, while I feel there is only one present and it changes form.

"Brains are physically existent, not a "reflection" of it, so are eyes, ears, etc. We are not somehow external to physical existence. What is different in sentient organisms that they possess a processing capability that enables them to be aware of the physical existence."

Brains are information sponges and develop according to what they absorb.

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 18:15 GMT
John

My point is not what you describe so it cannot be an observation in your essay, on that basis.

Anyway, my point is that the ‘future’ does not physically exist. When, subsequently, any particular state does exist, it is a present. Only presents occur. Your broken leg does not alter anything, because it does not exist to be altered. What happens is the subsequent sequence of presents is different from what would have otherwise occurred. It has nothing to do with time. Physical existence is a sequence, it ‘goes’ ‘one way’, it is not ‘reversible’, and it ‘goes’ one at a time. That is what a sequence is.

There are no possibilities physically existing, which then “collapse”, a physical phenomenon that somebody really needs to substantiate. There is no existent future to become a past. There is a present, which is then superseded by another one, the predecessor ceasing.

No, I know you did not say ‘physical reversal’, that is why I said, ‘some form of’. What you were implying, as above, is that there is some form of ‘backwards’ (ie feedback). Whereas it is ‘one directional’ (I don’t like that phrase), alteration after alteration. Prior configurations do not “fade away”, they cease. Mind, brilliant Stones song, and I went to a celebration of their first gig 50 years ago last week!

What brains and eyes functionally do is relevant to the sensory process, they are physically existent, a component of physical reality.

Paul

John Merryman replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 03:19 GMT
Paul,

Since I am of the opinion there is only what is physically real and it is dynamically changing, entities do "fade away," as they loose more substance than they gain.

While I do make some degree of effort to see your view, even though I don't see what creates the necessary change, I don't see that you make significant effort to understand where others might be coming from and don't try to unravel what others are trying to say. Since I only see reality as action in space, it is meaningless to say I'm arguing for a physically extant future. By " feedback," I mean within that current context. For example, if a ship is moving through the water, due to the water being pushed out of the way in front of the ship and filling in behind it, effectively an amount of water equal to the displacement of the ship is moving in the opposite direction. This applies to most action, in that the total environment compensates by moving an equal amount in a non-linear fashion, in the opposite direction, creating an overall equilibrium, even though the effects might be distributed far away from the action in question.

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 15:28 GMT
John

"I don't see that you make significant effort to understand where others might be coming from"

I wonder how many exchanges I've been involved with. Probably about 300 with Georgina alone. As I said in a post to you in your blog, there is a 'brick wall' (which funnily enough JCN has just made the same metaphor). Now, what am I supposed to do? Just abandon it? Obviously, if any of you can find a substantiated crack/hole/whatever in it, then please articulate that. For my part I will continue to try and explain the points with as much clarity as possible.

Otherwise, see above posts to JCN and Georgina.

Paul

Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 17:54 GMT
Paul

Contradictions are the locks on the doors to reality. We surely can't find truth by avoiding not facing apparent anomalies. You say " I look forward to your attempt to prove how my essay is contradictory." I did not of say your essay is contradictory, but that in your mind it is not, and the greatest value is from identifying and resolving apparent contradictions.

As far as...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 19:22 GMT
Peter

1 Re contradictory: what you wrote to Georgina was: “It seems Paul has a different definition of 'subjective' to it's common use in science, which is implicit from his essay, appearing wholly contradictory but obviously not as understood by Paul, so apparent directly conflicting views may not really be so”

2 Re Edwin’s view: I do not care who’s view you defer to, what...

view entire post

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 21:51 GMT
Peter (and indeed anybody else)

Having just watched Operation Mincemeat, all about decption (The man who never was), I thought i would have a go at 'deciphering'. Here is a stripped down version of the argument.

Simple explanation

1 Leaving aside all metaphysical possibilities, since this is science, what we can know of reality can only be based on what is potentially...

view entire post

Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 00:49 GMT
Dear Paul,

I have tried my best to understand your essay, but I have a hard time understanding what you're getting at. Most arguments are presented as facts, not hypotheses, and I fail to find in any of them how the conclusions logically follows from the premises. Maybe it's me, but the essay reads like a cross between metaphysical premises and religious prescriptions.

After reading your essay, I realized that that everything you have introduced come is based on one single idea; that reality emerges from perceptible physical interactions. In other words, reality is observer dependent.

It is important to discuss how reality is experienced and perceived (that it, by the way, the very definition of metaphysics), but affirming that reality must be perceived negates the existence of an objective reality. Reality, as understood as being the sum of all physical objects and processes, existed billions of year before there was any observer (it took billion of years before the conditions necessary for something as complex as observer to emerge).

Closer to home, atoms, particles and the biological processes that is life existed before there were perceived. They exist today for most people regardless of them being aware or not of their existence. Objective reality, which is something you seem to discuss, is observer independent.

That said, I agree you, at least in part, when you say that knowledge of reality must be based on physical processes. Yet, none of your affirmations are based on observed or inferred physical phenomena.

Maybe the affirmations you made are truly based on physical reality (whatever definitions you may use), but I fail to see that in the essay.

One last note, presenting affirmations as truths leaves very little space for critical thinking or discussion. You might want to introduce a few "ifs" , "maybes" or "in my opinion." After all, yours are opinions, aren't they?

I hope you will my comments useful.

Regards,

DLB

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 15:47 GMT
Daniel

“Most arguments are presented as facts”

That is probably because once one has established the first two tenets (see my post above to JCN 19/7 14.43), they all follow on as facts, and actually there are not many of them. What the past year of posting has demonstrated is that if one does not close off all the avenues, then….Another way of putting this is, have a look at my post last night in the above thread with Peter (18/7 21.51). This is a potted version of it.

What I am getting at, in a nutshell, is that how physical reality occurs must provide the base from with physics, as an objective examination of physical reality, proceeds. And at the generic level, which allows the ‘wood for the trees’ saying to be practised, that demonstrate a number of facts, which then lead to the conclusion that spacetime and the Copenhagen interpretation, are not valid models of physical reality. There is a quirk with Relativity, because the fault may just be in the explanation, rather than the underpinning hypothesis. Hence my ‘supplementary posts at 11/7 19.33 & 13/7 11.24.

“After reading your essay, I realized that that everything you have introduced come is based on one single idea; that reality emerges from perceptible physical interactions. In other words, reality is observer dependent”

No. Exactly the opposite. Observation, or any form of sensing, is independent of reality. It must be, because it occurs and then we receive a physical input arising from its occurrence. Which we then process. The point is that knowledge of reality is dependent on validated sensory detection. We cannot transcend our own existence. This is science, not belief. Put the other way around, if all sentient organisms were wiped out tonight (preferably after I’ve been to a West End play tonight!), then physical reality would still exist, it would just be devoid of sentient organisms, until they re-evolved.

Paul

Author Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 10:56 GMT
The Argument

Given the limitation as to what all organisms (which includes humans) can know (either directly or indirectly), which is a function of being trapped in a closed loop of sensory detection (ie sensory detection is what enables knowledge of physical existence, but it cannot be transcended), then we know two facts: 1) physical existence is independent of sensory detection, 2) physical existence involves alteration. This is so, because physically existent phenomena are received by the sensory systems (these being the result of an interaction between other physically existent phenomena), and when these inputs are processed, and hence comparison can be effected, difference is identified.

Therefore, physical existence is a sequence. And in a sequence, only one state can exist at a time, because the predecessor must cease in order that the successor can occur. So physical reality is a sequence of ‘presents’, a present being that state which was physically existent as at any given point in time. That point (ie unit of timing) being determined by the fastest example of change which occurs in physical reality, because timing is the rating of change.

There are only physically existent phenomena in existence (occurring). There is no form of ‘time’ in any given physically existent state, because this concept concerns an aspect of the difference between realities, not an attribute of a reality. Neither is there any space, as in the sense of ‘not-physically existent phenomenon’. Space, as in the sense of ‘not-object’, is physically existent phenomena which are not constituted as per ‘object’. The relative size/shape of physically existent phenomena can be conceptualised as a configuration in terms of the ‘occupation’ of ‘spatial points’. A spatial point being the ‘spatial footprint’ of the smallest physically existent phenomenon.

james r. akerlund wrote on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 05:25 GMT
Hi Paul,

Reading your paper I am reminded of certain people who have lots of words, but actually say nothing. I'll give you an example from your essay.

"Therefore, it is the corollary of the existential conundrum which provides the basis for the scientific analysis of reality."

Lots of words that I'm not sure say anything. A bunch of years back a computer scientist wrote a program that randomly assembled words together to write a paper. This programmer then submitted his creation to a pier reviewed journal. The journal accepted his paper and printed it. The article was well received by some of the journal readers. A couple of months later he revealed his rouse and this caused a minor uproar in that journal readership. Your sentence is making me wonder if the same thing is happening here? Are you busy defending your computer program? Here is one example of a fake paper (not the one I was talking about) on the web.

ml

Jim Akerlund

report post as inappropriate

james r. akerlund replied on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 05:30 GMT
Hi Paul

That wed address didn't copy right.

html

Jim Akerlund

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 06:11 GMT
James

“"Therefore, it is the corollary of the existential conundrum which provides the basis for the scientific analysis of reality." Lots of words that I'm not sure say anything”

You may be “not sure”, but it certainly does say something. And that is the sentence which follows: “That is, what could be knowable and how that is effected; as opposed to, what might be, but is never knowable anyway (either directly or indirectly)”, and indeed, the whole of paras 3-5. This being critical to understanding what can constitute knowledge of reality, given that we are part of it.

Another way of responding to your comment is to bring your attention to my post above. The argument, as opposed to implications thereof, can be reduced to a few paragraphs. But then, readers, as I have found from responses to posts, would start ‘wandering’ off, with all sorts of questions/comments, which are not pre-empted, because of the cryptic content. So in presenting the argument one has to anticipate that.

“Your sentence is making me wonder if the same thing is happening here?”

No. Because having eliminated metaphysical concerns, that, frankly, should not be necessary, I then state how physical reality occurs, and hence what physics must assume. And, in a nutshell, that is that: there is something out there (‘out’ being extrinsic to sensory detection systems), and it alters. Reality is sequence. Sequence only occurs ‘one at a time’, because the predecessor must cease in order that the successor can occur. Therefore, there is no ‘time’ in reality. Timing is the rating of change, ie a feature of the difference between realities, not an attribute of a reality. We know of reality (ie sense) through the receipt of physically existent phenomena (aka light, vibration, etc).

Paul

Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 18:45 GMT
I think the problem is that the essay is a series of propositions that are not developed into coherent arguments. For instance, the idea we are "trapped in a closed loop of sensory detection" would require an full essay to properly established and argued. Without fully developed arguments we are left with is an enumeration of topics, a kind of table of content, but the content is still missing.

So, in my very personal opinion, it would have been better to have one proposition fully developed than so many ideas as you have crammed in such little space.

Again, this is only one man's opinion. Take or leave what you feel is appropriate.

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 06:04 GMT
Daniel

Obviously I appreciate this is your opinion, and I am grateful that you have read it, not many have. However, leaving aside the constraint of character count, which I blew on my first submission, the current amended copy is still only 8 pages. Take for example, the point you pick up on. This is a function of the fact that we are part of reality, but it (and us) is independent of sensory detection. The proof being that we receive physically existent phenomena when we see, hear, etc. Which is what I say. But for a few more words, there is no more to be said. It is an obvious truism, and I would not know what else to say. Have a look at my post above, 21/7 1056, which boils the argument, or proposition, down to 3 paragraphs.

Paul

Author Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 06:42 GMT
The fundamental physical point

1 The start point for physics is that there is: a) physical existence independent of sensory detection (eg sight, hearing, etc), and b) alteration thereto. This is proven by the fact that sentient organisms receive physically existent phenomena (eg light, noise, etc, which are themselves the result of an interaction between other physically existent...

view entire post

Author Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 07:40 GMT

As of tomorrow morning, I am on holiday until the end of August. So here is a list of the questions I would have asked in order to establish what I was saying.

1 Q: What is reality? A: It is not knowable, because all sentient organisms are a part of it, and no organism can transcend their collective existence.

2 Q: So how, and what, do all sentient...

view entire post

Avtar Singh wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 00:26 GMT
Dear Paul:

I agree with your conclusive statement – “37 Physics must be based on assumptions which reflect how physical reality actually occurs, otherwise the resulting explanations will be flawed.”

However, the challenge is to collect whatever facts can be collected via sensory loop and then use intuition, intelligence, and experience to extrapolate and explain reality that cannot be directly measured or sensed.

In any case, any scientific approach to describe what actually occurs must be calibrated and validated against what is observed or measured. Without such validation, there is no credibility in the approach, theory, or assumption. Even if what is measured is not the ultimate reality, it provides an objective evidence to point and extrapolate to describe the ultimate reality.

How do you validate your stated approach to reality, space, and time to verify its credibility?

I would appreciate your opinions regarding the perspective of reality described in my paper - “ From Absurd to Elegant Universe

Regards

Avtar

report post as inappropriate

George wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 06:31 GMT
Dear Paul,

You are in right way!

Check please this, if you find time.

Ethical decay in science

and mine work:Rethinking the Formal Methodology

Regards,

George

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 07:23 GMT
George

Just got back from holiday.

Whilst this may sound dreadfully arrogant, I know I am right. There is no other way. Physical reality as we experience it, a) exists independently of that process, b) alters. It is therefore sequence, and so only one form of it physically exists at any given point in time (the latter being a measuring system). Also, this existence is definite, whether we are able to discern it, is irrelevant, and it occurs before we experience the consequences of it. So observation (experience) cannot affect it. Finally, this logic applies to all physical reality. There cannot be a situation whereby something is deemed to have a physical effect but not have physical existence in itself.

Paul

james r. akerlund replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 12:09 GMT
Hi Paul,

I was just reading through the comments to your paper and one of your comments struck me as certifibly wrong. Here is your comment. "There cannot be a situation whereby something is deemed to have a physical effect but not have physical existence in itself."

Have you ever heard of math? Well, in math is a symbol i, it means the square root of negative one. Math has had problems in that concepts that advance math, the mathematicans themselves don't believe they exist. Negative numbers themselves went through centuries of non-belief before acceptance. In the 19th century a very respectable mathematican by the name of Kronecker argued that i doesn't exist. The problem with his argument is that he is right, i doesn't exist in reality. It is physically impossible for you to show me i. But the problem if you eliminate i from math then this is what goes away in reality that I know of; relativity, quantum mechanics, and electric circut design. To put this in other words, the very computer you are now using is based on something that doesn't exist in reality. Welcome back from holiday!

Jim Akerlund

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 14:01 GMT
Jim

Thanks for commenting.

The point you pick up on is one of a handful of key points. Because I found that in responses to me, ultimately people (or some anyway!) will agree with what I say in terms of particles (or something that has ‘physical presence’), but then invoke ‘something else’ (fields, waves, energy, whatever). Now, the point is that nothing can have a physical effect/be deemed to exist, if it itself does not have physically existence. Or, put another way around, everything referred to must have some physical existence which corresponds with it. One cannot have physical occurrences and then ‘something’ which causes those/is ‘additional to them’, but has somehow, mysteriously, no physical existence of its own.

The importance of this being that whatever constitutes what exists as at any point in time (my best description being that that ultimately revolves around the existent state of the properties of the elementary particles which constitute physical reality, as at any given point in time), only occurs in one form/state, at a time, and that has definiteness.

Mathematics is a representational device. It is not physical reality. But its logic should correspond with reality, otherwise the mathematical system is just ‘creating’ reality itself. I am sure nobody using negative numbers, in whatever form, means them to convey that there is less than nothing there. In this simplistic sense it is just an extrinsic scaling device. But, whilst not trying to pretend I understand the concept i, when I came across this I could not help wondering whether maths had ‘crossed the line’ here, and was no longer modelling what physically exists, but creating it.

Paul

DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 14:27 GMT
Dear Paul

I found your essay very interesting and thought provoking. Congratulattions!

I see you focus on the nature of reality. I guess most physicists now don´t investigate this very much (being concerned solely with unambiguous empirical experiences; questions of reality, truthness, etc are considered fruitless). But I personally believe (meaning this what my intuition tells) that someday physics as rigorous science will be advanced to a point to objectively investigate all of this. My essay deals with the nature of space, time and begins by presenting different ontologies of motion. I think an analysis of it from your perspective would be very helpful.

Best regards, Daniel

report post as inappropriate

DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 14:30 GMT
Sorry, wrong link above. Here it is.

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 06:56 GMT
Daniel

“I guess most physicists now don´t investigate this very much”

No. Indeed, if you were to trawl back through posts over the last year, you will find at best I am told: ‘interesting but this is philosophy’.

Which it is not. We, and all sentient organisms, receive physically existent phenomena (eg light, noise, etc). They are the result of a physical interaction with other physically existent phenomena (what is usually referred to as the reality). In other words, the received phenomena are, in the context of the sensory systems, representations of the reality we are trying to discern. The entire process is physical and identifiable. Therefore, before one embarks on physics, it would be best to understand how, generically, physical reality occurs.

Paul

PS: will look at your essay

Member Hector Zenil wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 06:56 GMT
Dear Paul,

You bring up some assumptions that are generally overlooked in science. One of which is really important, and that is models that are in agreement with empirical data. As you may know, for example, in economics it is the case that models assume a Brownian motion of price changes, when this is obviously not the case, leading to a model that works well when it is not needed, but it does not when most needed (in turbulent economic times). I am not sure I can tell I agree with you in other accounts but I think I agree with you in this one.

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 08:15 GMT
Hector

Your economics model example sounds like one of those instances where the ‘right’ result is obtainable, albeit for the ‘wrong’ reason, a coincidental outcome.

Anyway, it is not so much that ‘models are in agreement with empirical data’ (models include assumptions and representational devices-particularly mathematical constructs in the case of physics), which is a statement of the obvious, but what can constitute empirical data/objective knowledge. That being a conceptualisation which corresponds with reality as independently manifest. So to answer that question one must examine how reality manifests and is detected. Which reveals certain ‘rules’ that any analysis purporting to be scientific and concerned with the nature of physical existence, must obey. The simple fact is that reality exists independently of the sensing of it, which is the only valid mechanism whereby it is knowable. It is not an abstract concept. And science must operate within that existential confine.

In a sense I am more interested in where you (or indeed anybody else) do not agree.

Paul

Author Paul Reed replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 12:03 GMT
The fundamental problem with Physics is the misconceptualisation of time, and more generally, a failure to construct explanations based on concepts which correspond with how reality occurs and is detected. Originally, a potential variable in reality was postulated as being length dimension (which may or may not occur), but this variance then became attributed to time (which is incorrect). The...

view entire post

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 05:15 GMT
Dear Paul Reed

Very interesting to see your essay.

Let relax and you might consider and make suggestions for the ABSOLUTE theory is "a draft for proposal of T.O.E " of me in this topic (topic/1417- outside of my essay)

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 07:36 GMT
Hoang

By definition, the 'T.O.E', in the sense of one common basis to all diverse and more detailed explanations, will be that which reflects how reality occurs.

I will have a look at your essay.

Paul

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 09:39 GMT
Dear Paul,

I suppose there is a lack of substantial models of particles in quantum mechanics. How can we understand the point like particles (electrons, quark and so on) in the theory? Some answers are in the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (my essay). I hope you can analyze it in order to extract its logic in the way as in your nice essay.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:38 GMT
Sergey

In the sense of what constitutes these physical phenomena, within the confine of our existence, I have no idea. On the basis of how reality, as manifest, must occur, and how it is detectable, I can however stipulate the following generic rules, to which any objective explanation of physical reality must conform. Otherwise it is belief, not science.

1 There is a physical...

view entire post

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 00:07 GMT
Paul Reed wrote:

Yuri

"Man, or any sentient organism, is part of reality, it cannot be transcended. So the issue becomes what can constitute objective knowledge given this confine."

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world"

Tractatus logico-philosophicus, 5.6

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:44 GMT
Yuri

See above. With respect to any of these learned people, what they wrote does not determine the fundamental nature of reality. It is there. And language is irrelevant anyway, that being just a means of articulting what any given individual thought they perceived. The trick is to extroplate out of all these interferences what was physically received, and hence what occurred which caused that.

Paul

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 17:57 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 20:45 GMT
Dear Paul,

Conscience or soul is the reality or absolute truth and hence the cosmological constant. Consciousness as you mentioned is the extent to which we realize that truth. You are right again by saying that we are not creating that "absolute" reality, which is eternal, rather just gaining a perspective of it through our sensory existence.

I "am" born to die, but i lives for ever.

Love,

report post as inappropriate

George wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 02:18 GMT
Dear Paul,

Thanks for essay. You are right - the physics can't be without logic! The realistic science must to be based on 3 points - experiment, logic and quantitative analyze. I am going apprised your work as hight. Please to check and apprise mine essay,

in which you can find acknowledgment to your viewpoint.

Best wishes

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 23:49 GMT
Dear Friend

Don't forget please impartially evaluate my essay

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:39 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:31 GMT
Sergey

I have a much simpler view. The rating of an essay should be on the basis of its accordance with facts and the extent to which it, correctly, reveals new information. I am not sure that the views of other contestants, for a number of somewhat obvious reasons, can correlate with this. The whole process should be left to an panel of independent and knowledgeable individuals.

For my part for example, having gone on holiday, which is what most people do at this time of year, I neither now have the time, nor the enthusiasm, to delve through what had since become hundreds of essays. No form of meaningful exchange can take place with that many possibilities.

Paul

Author Paul Reed wrote on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 09:39 GMT
I am concerned about anybody who does make the effort to read my submission, 'wasting their time'when a better version is available. So here are the first 22 paras rewritten.

The Logic of Physical Reality

Introduction

1 By establishing how, generically, physical existence is detected and must occur, a set of principles which underpins physics can be derived. Despite being...

view entire post

Roger Granet wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 04:06 GMT
Paul,

Hi. I like your way of thinking because it gets down to real fundamentals like existent states, changes/alterations, sequences of events, etc. I think sometimes people argue too much about what exactly everything is made of at the most fundamental level; that is, is it a it information?, is it a causal set?, is it a "quantum fluctuation"?, is it a mathematical construct of some...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Reed replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 08:13 GMT
Roger

Thanks, hopefully you read my post above, as although it does not convey anything different, it is expressed better.

Below I will comment only on what is written here, and then go elsewhere.

1 In respect of your general first paragraph:

Yes, the whole point of my paper is to deconstruct, generically, physical existence on the basis of two fundamental questions: a)...

view entire post

Author Paul Reed replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 09:39 GMT
Roger

I take it you do not have an essay in the current competition? The comments below relate to your previous essay, Why do things exist?, as on the ‘ralph’ website. Following the sequence of the essay, but without referring to it, and only picking up the main points (otherwise this post is going to be 20 pages long!):

1 What exists are the physical phenomena which have the...

view entire post

Author Paul Reed wrote on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 14:05 GMT
Why Einstein was wrong

Introduction

1 The start point is existence. But nothing other than our own existence is knowable, since we cannot transcend it. So we can only know a particular form of existence, ie what is potentially detectable by any sensory processes, as these are what enable awareness. Our reality therefore comprises those existent phenomena which are potentially...

view entire post