Search FQXi


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

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

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
read/discusswinners

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.
read/discusswinners

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

read/discusswinners

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
read/discusswinners

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

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
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Joe Fisher: on 6/6/14 at 16:21pm UTC, wrote Jeff, Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for your gracious...

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 6/6/14 at 14:36pm UTC, wrote Joe, You have a unique perspective. I don't know if any of these essays...

Joe Fisher: on 6/5/14 at 16:54pm UTC, wrote Hello Don, Thank you for reading my essay and posted comments. Unlike real...

Don Limuti: on 6/5/14 at 3:57am UTC, wrote Hi Joe, In one of your posts you mentioned the "Abstraction Distraction...

Sebastian Benthall: on 5/30/14 at 15:03pm UTC, wrote I am having trouble following how this relates to steering the future of...

Ryoji Furui: on 5/30/14 at 6:31am UTC, wrote joe, if i find my intuitive answer to the question why time is always now...

Joe Fisher: on 5/29/14 at 16:58pm UTC, wrote Dear Lorraine, Thank you ever so much for carefully reading my essay and...

Lorraine Ford: on 5/29/14 at 8:58am UTC, wrote Dear Joe, I'm glad that you continue to point out that although "1 + 1 =...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Jorma Seppaenen: "Dear Georgina, I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Georgina Woodward: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 25, 2019

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: Reality, Once by Joe Fisher [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 11, 2014 @ 15:35 GMT
Essay Abstract

ABSTRACT OF REALITY, ONCE Hopingly, the people’s easy acquiring of a better understanding of common sense reality might be more conducive to how humanity can steer future scientific application. In an important way, the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen probably contributed more to our understanding of how the simple real Universe is occurring than Albert Einstein’s complicated theory of the imagined relativity of the abstract universe did. Andersen always commenced his fairy tales by using the words “Once upon a time …” He apparently did not realize that every real and imagined event in the whole of the real Universe only happens completely, once. The real Universe is unique, which means that it is absolutely simple for unique can never be created, or destroyed, or duplicated or analyzed, or theorized, or belong to any system, and for that reason alone, real unique can never be complicated. Although many brilliant philosophers and mathematicians and theoretical physicists have attempted to explain how the universe works, they seem to have overlooked the pragmatic imperative of uniqueness, once. The only unique event modern scientists seem to believe in is the supposed Singularity of the Big Bang commencement of the Universe. But, in trying to bolster their theory, the scientists are forced to try to explain the behavior of identical quarks, or identical atoms, or identical photons. There is no such a thing as identical uniqueness. The gap between the specialized knowledge of the credentialed scientist and the common sense of the ordinary individual has become an unbridgeable chasm. Making matters even worse, the creation of artificial intelligence spewing machines by the scientists has obliterated the need of our children to learn about anything.

Author Bio

Decrepit old self-taut (thinking makes me tense) realist.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 12, 2014 @ 04:55 GMT
Joe

I found your use of "Once upon a time.." to describe the uniqueness of things quite refreshing at a time when physicists casually bandy about concepts of multiple Universes. Particularly since I and many others believe that time is not a real dimension.

You conclude with "One thing is certain; humanity is about to find out what really does happen when the irresistible force of scientific conviction meets the immovable objection of religious belief." I think that scientific conviction does not in itself preclude an attitude of contemplative prayerful reverence for life. Nor should religious belief be so literal as to deny the truths that science has shown us about the Universe and ourselves.

Best wishes

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 12, 2014 @ 16:07 GMT
Thank you ever so much for your extremely helpful comments Vladimir.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Kimmo Rouvari wrote on Feb. 12, 2014 @ 09:51 GMT
Hi, You sounded kind of pessimistic to me, are you? Do you see any ways or methods how we should steer our future?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 12, 2014 @ 16:13 GMT
I am not in the least bit pessimistic Kimmo. The day of the realist is dawning, and I am leading the way.

Bookmark and Share



Wesley Wayne Hansen wrote on Feb. 14, 2014 @ 18:14 GMT
Joe,

Your argument with regards to the numero uno is terribly flawed! You state:

"There is no physical way to depict identical 1's. Each 1, no matter how, where, when, or by whom, it is depicted will always be unique."

You're confusing representations of something with the actual thing; this is known as an "equivocation fallacy." There are no identical representations of the numero uno. One may refer to the one distinct entity with uno, one, 1, 1^2, 3 - 2, 10 - 9, etc. but the entity to which all of these REFERENTS refer is distinct and the same no matter where presented in time or space - spacetime!

And you're hardly the first "realist" to champion the idea that reality only happens once! Philip Goyal, in his paper quotes Ernst Mach (1838-1916), a huge influence on Einstein:

"In mentally separating a body from the changeable environment in which it moves, what we really do is to extricate a group of sensations on which our thoughts are fastened and which is of relatively greater stability than the others, from the stream of all our sensations. Suppose we were to attribute to nature the property of producing like effects in like circumstances; just these like circumstances we should not know how to find. Nature exists once only. Our schematic mental imitation alone produces like events."

But I appreciate your relentless advocacy of the realist ideal even though I am something of an Idealist . . .

With regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 15, 2014 @ 14:56 GMT
Wesley,

You are the one who is confusing representations of things with real things. As I went to great pains to point out, no singular pixel that represented a 1 on a computer screen could be identical to the 1 it represents. Each computer screened 1 would have to contain more than 1 pixel. A typed number 1 on a sheet of paper could not possibly consist of an amount of printer's ink identical to the 1's formation. I would expect anyone with a scrap of common sense to understand that reality could only occur once. What I cannot understand is how anybody could claim that abstract equations are necessary for the understanding of science when nothing in reality equates.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 15, 2014 @ 15:00 GMT
Again this site arbitrarily logs people off without notice. That was not an anonymous posting above. That was Joe Fisher's response.

Bookmark and Share


Wesley Wayne Hansen replied on Feb. 21, 2014 @ 16:12 GMT
Okay, Joe, here's a little common sense for you. Assuming you dwell in a house somewhere in middle America, you wheel your little office chair up to your computer, input information via a keyboard. Now, never mind the fact that your input requires a keyboard representing a bunch of symbols where each symbol REFERS to an abstract concept which remains the same regardless of whether you punch it...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wesley Wayne Hansen wrote on Feb. 14, 2014 @ 18:37 GMT
You're absolutely right in your conclusion, you know; in the end it all comes down to the ever unfolding battle between the 1's (the father) and the 0's (the Holy Ghost/Virgin Mother). Unlike yourself, however, I am certain a peaceful resolution shall obtain! The 1's and the 0's will converge and information (10101010101010101 . . . ) will prevail over entropy (0001100011111111100000000001010 . . .) . . .

With regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gyenge Valeria replied on Feb. 25, 2014 @ 20:24 GMT
Dear Wesley!

Thank you for your optimism positively resolving the conflict between the 1's (the father) and the 0's (Mother)

:)

Valeria

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Feb. 16, 2014 @ 07:56 GMT
Dear Joe,

As universe is infinite, your statement, ‘1 + 1 = 2 is abstractly perfect. Reality is not perfect’, implies that the Universe is in Continuum rather than in Corpuscularianism and thus Steer the Future is much imperative, in that observational methods and technology needs modifications, as the nature of matter and time differs on this.

With best wishes, Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 16, 2014 @ 16:28 GMT
Dear Jayakar,

Thank you for reading my essay, and for taking the time and the trouble to leave such a positive comment about it.

Joe

Bookmark and Share


Jayakar Johnson Joseph replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 12:06 GMT
Dear Joe,

Thank you for visiting my page. I have responded for your opinion and hope it clarifies.

With best regards,

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gyenge Valeria wrote on Feb. 25, 2014 @ 20:14 GMT
Dear Joe!

Congratulation too for your essay and your essential understanding.

The main message of your essay sounds similar to my view disclosed in my essay.

You mention simultaneity as:

"Before one fires an arrow from a bow, one can clearly see the target eighty or so meters in front of one, When one fires an arrow from a bow, the arrow can be seen throughout its...

view entire post


attachments: polihedras_embedding.gif, Az_anyag_genezise_1.gif

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 7, 2014 @ 15:39 GMT
Dear Joe,

thank you for reading my essay and rating it so high...

that is unique, like you are...

every view is unique but its uniqueness does not mean that it is TRUE,

the unique TRUTH is not available in our causal universe,

the infinite availability of unique "Eternal Now Moments" is our source of being(I think) and because of the fact that it is my thinking it does not mean that it has direct threads with the Truth, maybe, I just don't know...

I wish you all the luck with your "realistic" unique essay.

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 11, 2014 @ 13:39 GMT
Wilhelmus,

Your graciousness is only exceeded by your writing ability. I also wish that your essay does as well as it deserves to do so in the competition.

Bookmark and Share



Ryoji Furui wrote on Mar. 15, 2014 @ 00:58 GMT
Dear Joe,

interesting essay! after read your essay, I would have two links to show you.

one is my statement about 1+1=2 at a web forum where i developed my theory several years ago. it was the moment to develop several factors at once. another is the news that hawking denied blackholes. it was at the end of january so you might already submit your essay. actually i got to know this contest already had started with this news.

thank you

ryoji

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ryoji Furui replied on Mar. 15, 2014 @ 01:06 GMT
sorry link correction below,

web forum

the news

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 17, 2014 @ 15:25 GMT
Dear ryoji,

Thank you ever so much for taking the time to read my essay and for your kind comment about its suitability.

I did read the information at the two websites you provided. Probably, due to our different grasps of the English language, I have not made my contention that reality am unique quite clear.

Essentially, I am arguing that only here and now exist and the here must be infinite regardless of whether or not one has the ability to define what a here is or is not , and the now must be eternal even if one cannot define the extent, or lack of extent of duration.

Best regards,

Joe

Bookmark and Share


Ryoji Furui replied on Mar. 25, 2014 @ 03:32 GMT
in physics, i think here and now can be shown on the coordinate set on 4d reality, (x,y,z,t)=(0,0,0,0). that is the place observer always staying. philosophically, past is memory and future is dream. here is where my mind places and not here is somewhere my mind imagines includes not reality.

and the eternity was my conclusion of physics paper posted on 2012 contest (i hope this could be the fundamental explanation of eternity). and now conclusion is expanded to what i wrote for this contest ;)

hope you grasp my meaning. (sorry i skip english correction for comment postings)

ryoji

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 19, 2014 @ 16:16 GMT
Joe,

Lots to ponder here. "The only unique event modern scientists seem to believe in is the supposed Singularity of the Big Bang commencement of the Universe." Is the singularity of the BB unique or does it reoccur with each created black hole? Are quarks making up the same element unique but with different properties? Are only events unique involving materials composed of non-unique atoms? I can see that another universe in a multiverse would have different rules and its own uniqueness.

How does "acquiring a better understanding of common sense reality" help us to steer our future?

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 20, 2014 @ 14:50 GMT
Dear Jim,

Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for leaving such probing questions about it.

Either reality is unique, once, or abstract information about reality is unique, once. Common sense ought to tell us that it must be reality that is unique, once.

Instead of being ruled by common sense, we are brow-beaten into believing that the priest and the professor have a superior grasp of knowledge that only they could possibly acquire. Does either the priest or the professor have any sensible idea about how unique reality operates? No, both of them are trying to prove that unreality existed long “before” reality did; therefore, it is more important for our children to master the intricacies of unreality than it is for our children to grasp even a modicum of reality.

Joe

Bookmark and Share


James Lee Hoover replied on May. 21, 2014 @ 03:59 GMT
Joe,

Time is running out, and I need to revisit and rate. Best luck in the contest.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alexandre de Pomposo wrote on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 17:18 GMT
Dear Joe:

I am very sorry for, apparently, you found some discomfort while reading my article. I already read yours, though I need a second view of it. Meanwhile, I allow myself to think loudly about your observations on my paper: to begin, when I say that "we all live in the present" I pretend to underline the fact that we should learn from our past experiences, that we shall orient our...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 24, 2014 @ 15:21 GMT
Dear Alexandre,

Thank you ever so much for taking the time to read my essay and for leaving such an astute comment about it.

I am afraid I have to dispute your assessment about the utility of science. As I see things, because of language, we force ourselves to ignore the natural merits of nature and we pretend to be able to acquire knowledge. For instance, natural fire is extremely helpful for natural fire only burns dead vegetation. Natural fire clears the way for vibrant new re-growth. Man believes that just because he can control fire and cause fire to burn in places of his choosing, his choice of causing fire is superior to that of nature. But man causes coal, oil and gas to burn in unnatural places for unnatural durations. Obtaining these fuels destroys huge tracts of the planet, and all of the atmosphere is now polluted.

Best regards,

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Alexandre de Pomposo wrote on Mar. 24, 2014 @ 18:06 GMT
Dear Joe,

I thank you, once again, for your reply. I think that I can see very clearly now where is the "problem": the turning point is in the difference between the concepts of "complex" and "complicated". The term "complex" denotes a property of things; so, when I say "that is complex" what I am actually saying is that such realities possess a complex nature (see below). Instead, when I declare that something is complicated, what I am pointing out is my bigger or lesser capability of understanding or dealing with reality itself.

You might be asking why do I suppose complexity as a property of reality. Well, I guess that the problem before us is like that of a jig-saw puzzle. Suppose we have a box of pieces out of which we are to construct a certain picture (in fact, what we call "nature", "reality", and so on). But the pieces contained in the box are more than can be used, an from among them we have to select those which are needed for our purpose. Furthermore, the pieces do not fit together, and they have to be reshaped. Finally, many necessary pieces are missing, and we have to supply them ourselves (hypothesis). But to offset all these difficulties, we have an outline of the picture which we are to construct... What do we want to do? Do we describe reality or do we invent it? Simplicity is the lowest degree of complexity we can understand.

Alexandre

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 12:01 GMT
Dear Alexandre,

Reality never has to be constructed for reality is unique, once. Language has to be constructed, and in every construction of language, uniqueness has to be abandoned.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 8, 2014 @ 11:01 GMT
Dear Mr. Fisher:

Math shows only 2 things in reality. Math is really basically simple. We use it all the time. I wonder if the very fundamental idea that math works to help us define observations also describe our reality.

Math consists of 2 types of consideration – discrete (counting) and continuous (geometry).

The number system was created to count things. One thing plus...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 8, 2014 @ 13:59 GMT
Dear Mr. Hodge,

Thank you ever so much for carefully reading my essay, and for leaving such a detailed comment about it.

You wrote: “Math shows only 2 things in reality. Math is really basically simple. We use it all the time. I wonder if the very fundamental idea that math works to help us define observations also describe our reality.

Math consists of 2 types of consideration – discrete (counting) and continuous (geometry).”

Fortunately, reality shows only one thing, once, because reality is unique, once. All of Math is an abstraction sir and it is not unique. Simplicity is not basic. Only reality can be simple, and nothing can be simpler than unique, once.

Unique, once is not systematic. Unique, once is not demonstrable. Unique, once is not considerate. Abstract mathematics, abstract physics, and abstract philosophy have nothing whatsoever to do with unique reality.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share


John C Hodge replied on Apr. 9, 2014 @ 04:17 GMT
JF

Do you recognize the unique reality of the now is a point in time or part of an extension in time? If a point, then the 1/3 problem presents. Perhaps time is quantized. Prediction is a dream. If an extension, then a past and future flow (cause and effect) happens. (I hesitate to say a future exists.)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 9, 2014 @ 14:22 GMT
My Dear Mr. Hodge,

Time is an abstraction. Unique reality is not an abstraction. Because physicists have mistakenly concluded that it was light that was moving at a constant speed, they built ingenious timing devices in order to establish precisely what the constant speed of light was. Only the surfaces of all real objects move at the constant “speed” of light, and because of this indisputable fact, all objects are always properly present now, once.

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 9, 2014 @ 20:00 GMT
So prediction and the ability to steer our future is totally out of our hands. Indeed, the future is a meaningless concept?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 10, 2014 @ 14:35 GMT
Dear Mr. Hodge,

The problem is the English language. As I tried to point out in my essay, it is impossible for any rational person to read the bible and not be convinced that there must be a God of creation. It is just as impossible for any rational person to read the works of Stephen Hawking and not be convinced that the Universe must have commenced with the Big Bang. But unique is not a belief of perfection preparation, and unique is not a consummate certainty. I think that humanity can indeed at least make the attempt to steer its future, but it is essential that we get our understanding of reality correct first.

Bookmark and Share



William Amos Carine wrote on Apr. 10, 2014 @ 18:41 GMT
Dear Fisher,

You raise and address good questions here, the type I am always glad to see being brought forward for discussion. I am confused about what you say with your speed of light calculations. I am no calculator, and the rates fly over my head when they are not stated and are put forth in distance and times. It is tough for me to see where your argument comes from. I mean, the idea of speed of light not being constant valued at c is clear- I could imagine scenarios where it might not be, as in if the energy or frequency affected the velocity, or perhaps to state it another way, if a heavy and no as hefty body do not fall exactly level. Yet, I could use some help connecting the dots that you laid down, once!

I do not know if it is influenced, or jibes with, the meaning of your essay, but I am starting to think that humanity needs to not plan for its future. Big budget plans are sure to fall through, especially if some 200 countries each make their own. In science too, there are so many roads ordering pavement already, before they have even been cleared or walked, so many grants for research that will lead to unification, that I tend to think that any true advancement will happen from taking a step back to survey the entire lay of the land, and that is not something that can be planned. So in both, I think agendas based on thinking one even sorta knows what is going to go down can be better lead by more appropriately addressing small scale issues, the type that are on the level of attitude and not empty planning. That is just a comment that was somehow sparked from reading this wonderful entry!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 11, 2014 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear Mr. Carine,

Thank you ever so much for so carefully reading my essay and for leaving such a positive comment about it.

I use the term “speed” of light merely to make it easier for the reader to understand my theory. Actually light cannot move because it does not have a surface. Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The proof of this is easy to establish. When one looks at an active electrical light, one must notice that all of the light remains inside of the bulb. What does move from the bulb is some form of radiant. The radiant must move at a rate of speed that is less than the “speed” of light, however, when the radiant strikes a surface it achieves the “speed” of light because all surfaces can only travel at the “speed” of light. As it strikes the surface, the radiant resumes being a light.

Respectfully,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on Apr. 17, 2014 @ 23:29 GMT
Fellow Comrade,

I found your comments on walls of other authors very appealing and mature. Your points on global warming is quite contributory!

Best regards

Stay lifted!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 15:09 GMT
Thank you ever so much brother.

Stay strong

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 19:28 GMT
Dear Joe,

You have a very original look at the reality and the Universe in the spirit of Rene Descartes, his demand for "clarity and distinctness" plus his methodical doubt. You are absolutely right when they write: «The real Universe has to be utterly simple in order for it to be. Unique, once, is the only true condition of reality ».

Humanity can more reliably steer the Future if our thinking "grab" the nature of information and time, "grab" the structure of space. Knowledge needs "frame", "framework" and solid foundation. The idea of "Big Bang" - not a very solid foundation for Knowledge and for the Faith.

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 13:42 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you ever so much for your careful reading of my essay, and for leaving such a wonderful positive comment about it.

With warmest regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 02:07 GMT
Hi Joe,

You've set out your conviction very clearly. That's not what I liked most though. I really liked the comparison of Big bang 0 and Creation 1. Also really liked how you have woven the interpretation of climate change by religious and scientific viewpoints and expectations into answering the essay question; in a last minute dash for the finish line. Though I agree investment in climate research is vital there has been ongoing research for the last 30 years. When I was at university 30 years ago we were taught that by the time the conclusive data on global warming was in it would already be too late to prevent the foreseen consequences.My own view is that we should not just be looking at what is going to happen but be building the resilience, adaptability and infrastructure we will need. Good luck, Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 13:47 GMT
Dear Georgina.

I am truly grateful that you took such care to read my essay, and for your extremely graceful positive comments about its utility.

With utmost regard,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 18:08 GMT
Dear Joe,

You brilliantly underscore the difficulties of understanding and explaining "reality" through abstract concepts, such as language and mathematics. Once upon a time, we lived in simpler times, but those times led to now, the here and forever. In a way, it is comforting to know that the future is assured, because we have the past and present to back it up. Even if the future for each of us micro-pixels might not be one we would desire we can always hope -- believe, even -- that all is for the best.

Therefore, best wishes always,

Walter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 14:33 GMT
Dear Walter,

Thank you ever so much for reading my essay, and for leaving such a gracious comment about it.

My very best regards,

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 01:45 GMT
Glad to meet you - Dear Author Joe Fisher

The fact is the judgment of the Truth

Best wishes with the highest score for the passion and enthusiasm of you

Hải.CaoHoàng

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 14:36 GMT
Dear Hải.CaoHoàng,

I am extremely pleased that you read my essay, and I do thank you ever so much for leaving such a positive comment about it.

Regards,

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Christine Cordula Dantas wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 21:00 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher:

Thanks for reading my essay (I replied to your comment over at my entry post).

Concerning your essay, I would like to comment that, in physics, microscopic particles are indistinguishable if they have the same mass and quantum numbers, such as spin and charge. It comes as an empirical fact, and supported by statistical quantum mechanics, that such particles, belonging to the same "species", will behave as having absolutely the same physical properties. As long as this is observed to be so, they will be treated as identical.

Now, your essay brings the issue of how far can we be absolutely sure that they are fundamentally identical? Maybe there will be an experiment someday that will show otherwise, but for now what is supported by scientific facts and theory is that indistinguishable particles exist and must be treated as such so that theory and experimentation fit together. However, I do like to think about the idea that somehow everything is distinguishable in a more fundamental way, as you seem to propose. But there is nothing I can add for now.

Good luck,

Christine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 12:54 GMT
Respectfully Professor,

all of the so-called physics particles are abstract. I contend that all of space must be jam-packed with trillions and trillions of real particles. A considerable number of these real particles must be millions of times smaller than the postulated abstract Higgs Boson. All of these particles must have an infinitesimally small surface and a sub-surface. Because they have a surface, they all travel at the constant “speed” of light. Their sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent speed that is less than the constant “speed” of light. This is why each of these real particles is in a different place. This is why no two real particles could ever be identical.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



murat Asgatovich gaisin wrote on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 07:23 GMT
Dear Joe,

You have a unique approach to understanding reality that in itself is interesting.

Regards,

Murat Asgatovich Gaisin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 12:57 GMT
I am honored. Thank you ever so much for your comment.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Ross Cevenst wrote on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 07:44 GMT
Hi Joe,

I remember reading some philosophy that argued that numbers were not real, but were the purest abstractions (with all specific content removed) and therefore the most removed from reality of any concept or representation. Your essay seems to explore this topic in some depth. I'm not sure where I stand on this but thanks for discussing an interesting topic.

Ross

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 13:00 GMT
Ross,

Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for freely admitting that you found some important interest in it.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



KoGuan Leo wrote on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 17:53 GMT
Joe, you wrote profoundly about reality occurs only once! You wrote beautifully: "Well the real Universe does not allow anything real or imagined to occur more than once. While perfect abstract energy might abstractly be equal to perfect abstract amounts of abstract mass times perfect amounts of abstract light perfectly squared, any number of supposed times, real energy always consists of unique...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 12:07 GMT
Dear Professor KoGuan,

You have paid me the greatest honor I will ever receive. There is no way that I could express my gratitude adequately. Thank you ever so much.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Ajay Bhatla wrote on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 22:02 GMT
Joe,

I came to your essay after you left a comment on mine and I must say I was very pleasantly surprised. I was expecting all sorts of theories and analogies on light and matter but got a wonderful introduction to the concept of reality and its uniqueness.

Just as a fun prank, here's another thing for you to consider: How do we ever know what the unique reality really ever was? For everything we see, hear or otherwise measure is, in-fact, a time-delayed, space-manipulated or otherwise modified measurement!

All we really have to work with are simply, perceptions. And we all know how error-prone they can be.

But, does that really mean we cannot do anything if we don't know reality to its finest detail? Don't we, whether we are scientists, theologians, mothers or fathers, always reach a personal point of "now, that's good enough" and proceed to act from there?

We are all realists, but different in unique ways, no doubt!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 12:25 GMT
Ajay,

The unique reality of here and now allows everyone the freedom of behaving realistically. Instead of enjoying this freedom of reality, everyone including me, would rather belong to an agreeable group. Chronic informania infects us all. It is the pleasantest of sensations for one to pretend to know more than one's fellow man.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Margarita Iudin wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 02:06 GMT
Hello Joe,

I read your submission and I would like you to read mine. I did not really understand what you wanted to say - maybe because you made too many points. I appreciate you being self-taught and your admiration of philosophy and exact sciences. I am too always have questions.

In my essay I write about the imagining, analogous imagining and how people think. I believe that the imagining of the future is the key to the future.

You may or may not find my essay interesting. The essay is a part of the collection of the futuristic essays, including one essay concerning the design of the physical world.

You can look at my entry about imagining the future. I hope my essay will encourage you to learn more about ways of knowing and to apply analogous imagining in your field of interests.

Please disregard any typo mistakes you may encounter.

Cheers,

Margarita Iudin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 12:31 GMT
Dear Margarita,

Thank you ever so much for taking the time to read my essay. I only wish that you had gained some helpful insight from reading it. I will read your essay and leave a comment about it.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Denis Frith wrote on May. 1, 2014 @ 11:26 GMT
I am puzzled by this discussion! The question is how can humanity steer the future. Humanity to decide how the natural systems and technological systems can best be steered. Rational discussion of that question needs to take into account the infrastructure and services that are available to society. For example the continuing availability of electricity will have a profound influence on what people can decide to do.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 12:41 GMT
Dear Mr. Frith,

Thank you for leaving a comment about my essay. I believe that we can best steer the future by educating everybody about reality. For instance, a human brain can only be born, not manufactured. Natural reality is not optional. As natural reality can only be beneficial, it follows that all technology must be destructive. To continue to only teach the monstrously flawed abstractions of Newton, Einstein and Hawking at every level of education is utter folly.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 10:27 GMT
Hi Joe,

you have written the essay you wanted to write about a subject that is your current passion but haven't addressed the essay question. I was wondering how you were going to weave in the answer. Reaching the end where you mention global warming I thought there would be a last minute reveal but you basically said we will see.If just sharing your ideas was your aim, well done. Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 12:33 GMT
Dear Georgina Parry,

I tried to warn the reader that there is no way we can do anything about the future by continuing to only teach abstractions in our schools. Machines can handle abstractions far more proficiently than we ever could. Most of the other essayists seem to have taken the position that only more proficient technology can "save" us. I disagree. I am convinced that the truth will set us free. I hope the day will come when a child can go to school to find out how reality actually works, once. Presently, children are being sent to school to only memorize how inferior they are compared to the God of abstraction Albert Einstein.

Many thanks for the comment,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 16:43 GMT
Joe,

What a joyous essay to read, reality! at a science site! whatever next. Coherent science?! Yet some peoples idea of 'reality' is 1=1, or A=A as I laboured so much in my last years essay. No two physical entities in the universe are identical. A simple concept so why so hard to grasp the implications? I see your score creeps down as mine has. A heap of points on the way to counter that, hold on tight for a mo.. (I need some too if you have any spare).

Out of interest; absolutely nobody has yet come back and claimed the prize for my challenge, to find two identical grains of sand (or letters 'A'). So this year I've explored a very important implication;

You'll recall the '3-filter' case, where the 45 degree filer slipped I between the two at 90 degrees 'releases' the blocked light. that's 'quantum non-commutativity'. (Filters; A,B does not = B,A) I've shown now that's a REAL 'CLASSICAL' effect, consistent with 1 does not = 1 and there's a higher order distribution between.

Of course it's just be ignored. I noticed you say, ..."it would appear that the fastest way to save the planet might be to get rid of all of the scientists and their unnatural science." If science stays stuck in this rut due to inertia it seems that may indeed end up as the only answer (says he passing the parcel and quickly donning his Architect hat)!

I hope you enjoy/ed mine. Just fully understanding it may be a mission!

But yes, Bob and Alice rediscover each other, and when they get back.....

I'll reveal the rest of ending to any that ask later.

Well written. I think you got the point across!

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 12:35 GMT
Peter,

There is no way that I could adequately express my gratitude for your glowing review of my essay.

I cannot help noticing that the voting of my fellow essayists at the site seems to have no bearing on the actual scientific utility of any particular essay. Your contention in your previous essay that no two grains of sand could be identical was a vital piece of scientific information. Obviously, if physical things cannot be identical, it ought to follow that perfect abstract genes cannot be identical. Perfect abstract atoms cannot be identical. Perfect abstract quarks cannot be identical.

Your contention in your present essay that an awful lot of so-called scientific certainty is actually based on faith was even more important. It fortified me no end.

Thank you ever so much.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Petio Hristov wrote on May. 4, 2014 @ 18:14 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,

I read your essay with great interest. It is without doubt that uniqueness is the manifestation of the general principles and laws. Our essays express the same thing in two totally different ways and they are unique in there unity. With pleasure I confirm the content of your essay with the words: The Universe is controlled by a very simple law – the law of Conversion.

The nature of conversion originates from the understanding that unity can exist only between opposites. The basic opposites are the circular [0] and lineal [1] configuration. The passing of matter from one configuration to another is expressed by the law of Conversion.

I believe that this does not contradict your essay but only confirms it and I also believe that the unity between the abstract and diametrically opposite states – 1 and 0 are the conditions for the creation of the Universe’s uniqueness which exists everywhere simultaneously.

I share your relation with the Big Bang theory and the model of the Universe by Stephen Hawking and the Friedman model.

I consider the model of the Universe that I have suggested which sees the Big Band as a point of conversion from circular to lineal configuration, as an abstract physical model, which takes place in the real Universe from the General theory of Unity’s point of view.

Isn’t in possible to suppose the existence of an absolute (1), primordially (1), the idea of this (1) to be manifested in the real Universe as the existence of abstract configurations [1] and [0]?

Entropy is one of the manifestations of the law of Conversion. It is a continuous process, which changes its direction and its magnitude in the different moments of its own development.

I believe that your essay deserves a very high rate and I wish you the best of luck in the competition.

Best regards

Petio Hristov

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 12:46 GMT
Petio Hristov,

Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for leaving such a positive comment about it. Please do not think that I am being critical, but unique does not have an opposite. An abstract Big Bang is not unique. Unique is not an abstract conversion.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Andrej Rehak wrote on May. 5, 2014 @ 11:03 GMT
Dear Joe

Original approach.

1+1=2 might be the fundamental operation of addition. However, 1=1, from which it implies 1=1/1 and 1=1*1 is the fundamental operation of relation. We can write c= 299.792.458/1 or 9,807/ 0,00000003271263081608 or 0,20864557555013600000/ 0,00000000069596672625... You might notice that the second and the third time value correspond to the dilatation measured in Pound-Rebka experiment, or calculated by Schwarzschild's formula for gravitational time dilatation.

Independent of space-time position and independent of scale, Pi is the ratio of all circles with their diameters while square root of two is the ratio of a diagonal of all squares with their sides. Constants in geometry so as constant in "physical" world are in fact scalar values. Each universal entity is unique indeed. However, their dynamic uniqueness and diversity is governed by a single scalar law. Every wave length in its wave time, measures unchanged speed of light. Everything is a change except the law of that change.

Regards

andrej

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 12:51 GMT
Andrej,

Thank you for leaving a comment about my essay. Reality is unique, once. Mathematics is not unique. Mathematics is unrealistic.

Regards,

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Charles Gregory St Pierre wrote on May. 8, 2014 @ 01:12 GMT
Dear Joe,

You are right. Everything is unique. Even 'identical' particles are each unique, or, by symmetry, they would be one and the same particle.

Since everything is unique, everything happens once.

The 1 and 0 stuff seems a little mystical. Have you ever read Kaballah?

I don't think all Christians... "will all be transported up to Heaven intact

quite soon." I don't think their Redeemer looks kindly on their part in befouling this magnificent earth they were already given. I think we, and they, have to make heaven of this earth, and if, with global warming, we make it hell instead, then that is what we will get.

Charles Gregory St Pierre

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 13:41 GMT
Dear Charles Gregory St Pierre,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your agreement of its most important point. I have not read the Kaballah. Religion is not unique, that is why it is unrealistic. Nobody is going to Heaven. Everyone of us will be chewed by maggots and life will go on as usual.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Thomas Howard Ray wrote on May. 9, 2014 @ 14:38 GMT
Joe, you are right that mathematics isn't real. That is why mathematics is independent of science. Even if one is a mathematical Platonist (also known as a mathematical realist), believing that something called the mathematical world is a real structure just like the physical world we inhabit -- in order for a scientific theory to be valid, there has to be a measured correspondence between the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 15:51 GMT
Tom,

Thank you for reading my essay and for posting such a thoughtful comment about it.

It may be harder for you to say "once and only" because of its tautological impropriety.

As for: “There are many forms of "realist" in philosophy. So I am not quite sure what you mean when you call yourself a realist. Judging from what you apparently believe is an objective world with finitely many differentiated objects, I expect you to be what is called a "metaphysical realist" (as am I).” I know the real Universe is unique, once. Metaphysics are not unique. As I pointed out in my essay, the biggest hindrance to the understanding of reality is the English language. Reality only occurs here and now, once. Unreal abstractions about reality can occur constantly countless times.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Israel Perez wrote on May. 14, 2014 @ 02:11 GMT
Hi Joe

Just to let you know that I have read your essay, it is well written and organized, although I do not see a clear connection with the topic of this contest. Could you please make some comments about this.

I have also studied the veracity of 1+1=2. Indeed, Russell wrote a long book to demonstrate this, but Poincaré claimed that that's not a proof but a verification. The truthfulness of this mathematical statements relies only in common sense and experience.

On the other hand, I consider myself an expert on the topic of the speed of light. If I may, I would like to make some corrections to some of your comments.

For instance you say that the equation e=mc^2 is Einstein's mass-energy relation. This is widespread myth. Einstein in his paper of 1905 only discovered that mass and energy are related, the expression he derived was just an approximation. Einstein did not developed relativistic dynamics alone, but several physicists contributed to this field. The famous "Einstein's expression for mass-energy" was discovered independently by Planck, Lewis and Tolman in 1908.

You also mention that: Fundamental to the practice of physics is the contention that there is a fixed constant speed of light. Hundreds of experiments have been performed by credentialed expert physicists.

What physicists have measured is the two-way speed of light. The one-way speed of light has never been measured. This implies that the second postulate of special relativity has never been tested.

Finally, the value for the speed of light 299 792 458 m/s was defined by BIPM, but the measured two-way speed of light is about 299 792 458 +/- 1 m/s.

I hope this information could be helpful for you.

Good luck in the contest

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on May. 14, 2014 @ 14:18 GMT
Dear Israel,

There is no way for anybody to steer any future unless the majority of folk are aware of the exact point that they are steering from. Frighteningly, most all of the other essayists have only written erroneous, abstractions filled essays that have nothing to do with reality. They can only repeat abstractions. They do not know what reality is.

There is no such thing as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti wrote on May. 18, 2014 @ 04:40 GMT
Hi Joe,

I ran across a quote of yours, that I find very clear. "I believe that the real universe is beyond all facets of human conjectural hypotheses."

However, the quote itself is a human conjectural hypotheses! Yes, thinking has its limits.

I appreciate your inimitable way of reminding us of this.

From one who thinks a lot (and is frustrated by its limits),

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 13:28 GMT
Dear Don,

That is a great quote, but it is not mine. Reality is unique, once. "All facets of human conjectural hypotheses" cannot be unique, therefore, they must always remain unrealistic.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Orenda Urbano Hernández wrote on May. 19, 2014 @ 22:36 GMT
Mr. Fisher,

Reality Once an appropriate title to highlight the nature of uniqueness and the importance of a field called space for the interactions of this system with the whole machinery of reality. A clever way to direct attention into a comprehensible way to explain the nature of universe and at the same time a way to defragment the nature of space to make comprehensible. The continuous...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 14:27 GMT
Dear Orenda,

I am truly humbled that you took the trouble to read my essay with such care, and for your rating it so highly.

With the highest of regards,

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 08:58 GMT
Dear Joe,

I'm glad that you continue to point out that although "1 + 1 = 2 is abstractly perfect. Reality is not perfect". I interpret this to mean that reality is not like the type of pristine complete and perfect system that a physicist, mathematician or philosopher might dream up.

I also liked "the Bible seems to be arguing in favor of an original 1, and Hawking is in favor of an original 0...As best as I can make out, according to the scientific websites, no actual nothing has ever been detected". I'm also "in favour of an original 1", although I don't believe in the bible.

Best wishes,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 16:58 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

Thank you ever so much for carefully reading my essay and for leaving such a considerate comment about it. Reality cannot have had a commencement. Only abstraction could possibly have abstractly commenced.

With the highest of regard,

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Sebastian Benthall wrote on May. 30, 2014 @ 15:03 GMT
I am having trouble following how this relates to steering the future of humanity. - s

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 03:57 GMT
Hi Joe,

In one of your posts you mentioned the "Abstraction Distraction Disorder". Vladimir Tamari thought it deserved a Nobel Prise. I agree. I think you should perhaps make a 12 step program for this malady. Let me know when you do this and I will consider signing up.

Abstraction Distraction is also an pop music album by Elliott Sharp.

FYI,

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 16:54 GMT
Hello Don,

Thank you for reading my essay and posted comments. Unlike real alcoholism, Abstraction Distraction Disorder is incurable by any means.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 14:36 GMT
Joe,

You have a unique perspective. I don't know if any of these essays answered how we should steer the future. Your essay seems to be a critique on how we understand the universe.

Hope your essay does well,

Jeff Schmitz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 16:21 GMT
Jeff,

Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for your gracious comment.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



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.