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 4/23/15 at 16:53pm UTC, wrote Dear Akimbo, Thank you for reading my essay and for rating it. Joe Fisher

Akinbo Ojo: on 4/22/15 at 19:13pm UTC, wrote My rating made only a slight difference. But as the competition ends...

Joe Fisher: on 4/21/15 at 16:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Chris, Thank you for leaving a comment. I am sorry that you did not...

Chris K: on 4/20/15 at 20:52pm UTC, wrote Joe, Your essay is poorly written, and devoid of any academic or...

Joe Fisher: on 4/20/15 at 16:49pm UTC, wrote Dear Lorraine, My essay proves that Newton was wrong about abstract...

Lorraine Ford: on 4/20/15 at 1:34am UTC, wrote Dear Joe, You seem to imply in your essay that science believes in an...

Joe Fisher: on 4/17/15 at 15:57pm UTC, wrote Real skin covers you completely. Joe Fisher

Joe Fisher: on 4/16/15 at 14:21pm UTC, wrote William, I have read the online English translation of Einstein’s 1916...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: "Coins always have two sides. Always. The fact that some observer has..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, Re.measurement being considered the cause of subsequent effect; I..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Eckard Blumschein: "Steve, Darwin contradicted to the view of Parmenides, ..., and Einstein..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe,do you understand that the universe is finite like our series of..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "this second law is so important,my theory of spherisation and these quantum..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "I must explain what is the real meaning of Spherisation in my theory.It is..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read 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
October 15, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL by Joe Fisher [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 21, 2015 @ 21:13 GMT
Essay Abstract

The most inaccurate operation that modern mathematicians have always performed was their use of an abstract zero. Competent physicists have long proven that all laboratory produced absolute zero temperature experiments confirmed that infinitesimal sub-microscopic particle motion still persisted at the lowest level that they could achieve. Some physicists speculated that a possible condition of perfect stillness might exist somewhere in the vast Universe. The fact that there was no real zero has never deterred any mathematician from using a presumed zero inches or centimeter indicator located at the left side of a straight edged ruler, or illuminated zero indicators shown on an electronic digital display instrument and pretended that they could accurately measure objects and time and temperature and speed and distance and practically anything. The most inaccurate assumption the modern physicists have always made was their thoughtless use of the three abstract dimensions of height, length and depth, and the abstract dimensions of time and space. One real Universe must only consist of one real substance once. One real Universe must be occurring in one real infinite dimension, once. A real infinite dimension lacks an ascertainable interior, an ascertainable exterior and an ascertainable duration. Once one eliminates the implausible abstract concept of space and triadic abstract dimensions and abstract time from one's real perceptions, the obvious dynamic of the real unique Universe becomes remarkably easy to understand, once.

Author Bio

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

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Demond Adams wrote on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 20:42 GMT
Joe,

We can not physically see the forces of gravity and magnetism but they exist. Furthermore abstractions are deviations from reality or approximations of reality therefore they must exist in some form logically speaking. While I agree our understanding of zero and many abstractions such as the temporal passage of time are difficult to grasp and confusing, we can predict their existence by their consistent behavior and influence on objects we are able to define as real and therefore necessary in our understandings of reality.

Best Regards,

D.C. Adams

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 23, 2015 @ 15:40 GMT
Dear Desmond,

Thank you for your comment and your rating. Any deviation from reality must be unrealistic. Force is an abstraction. Because some clever men have made real machines that can seemingly out-perform him physically is indeed impressive, But some scientists are now crazily claiming that they can “build” an artificial brain that can outthink man.



Regards,

Joe

Bookmark and Share


Author Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 23, 2015 @ 17:10 GMT
Respectfully Desmond,

Indubitably real magnetic force does exist. But to believe that each individual planet has its own dollop of gravitational force is idiotic. As I explained in my sublime essay, the surfaces of all planets travel at the same constant speed. The sub-surface of each individual planet travels at a unique speed that is less than the constant speed of surface.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Domenico Oricchio wrote on Jan. 27, 2015 @ 17:39 GMT
Thank you for reading my essay.

I think that mathematics is a language, like any other, so that the real universe can be described with each language that mimics the human thought.

Regards

Domenico Oricchio

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 28, 2015 @ 15:31 GMT
Dear Dr. Oricchio,

Thank you for taking the time to comment. Of course Mathematics is a language, but reality is not a language is it?

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share


Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 28, 2015 @ 04:00 GMT
Dear Joe,

I'm inserting this short note because I believe it to be relevant to what goes before it and the thread that follows: "Joe: I have replied to you at Gordon replies to Joe's initiative. The reply is linked to a draft work-in-progress proposal for my new FQXi signature."

…...

"Nature speaks in many ways (which can be tricky), from big bangs to the whisper of an apple falling; but just one grammar, Nature's concrete mathematics, governs all her languages: thus all her laws," Gordon Watson (2015: p.5).

With best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 30, 2015 @ 05:52 GMT
Joe, I've addressed (on my Essay Forum) the most recent comment that you left there. Regards: Gordon

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 02:55 GMT
Joe,

I have made a sincere effort to read and understand your essay. As an observation, you used the word "real" almost 150 times. You used the word abstract roughly 25 times.

If I understand what you have written, you have stated that the outer surfaces of all objects move at one speed and that the material below the surface moves at a speed that is slower than the outer surface. If this were true, wouldn't objects eventually become empty or hollow? If this were true, wouldn't it be impossible for an object to be transferred between two other objects?

Could you clarify this a bit?

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 15:56 GMT
Dear Gary Simpson,

Thank you for your comment. A real object cannot become hollow for there is no real interior space. There is no real physical difference between a surface and a sub-surface. Some real people seem to impose abstract difference on everything they sense and there is not much harm in that except as you will glean from reading the other essays in this competition, mathematicians and physicists are completely clueless about reality. They truly believe that each planet and each star and each galaxy has a discrete amount of gravitational force inserted in their interiors somewhere, (Although Newton, Einstein and Hawking have never explained how this precise unique amount of gravitational force was inserted) and they have failed to grasp that the surfaces of all of the planets and stars and galaxies travel at the same constant speed.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 31, 2015 @ 16:57 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher ! Having read your essay, I can imagine that you could be interested to study the approach of Kelvin Abraham:/ www.tetryonics.com/Best wishes: Stephen I. Ternyik

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 15:51 GMT
I am afraid your post offended me. Google had no listing for Kelvin Abraham:/www.tettyonics.com/

RATIONALSCEPTICISM did have an article about Kelvin Abraham at url http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/tetryonics-t
42862.html

How could you be so ignorant so as to believe that my explanation of reality has anything to do with Abraham's mad abstractions that are sillier than the ones you listed in your essay?

An apology would be welcome.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 16:42 GMT
At academia.edu, K. Abraham has posted his introduction to tetryonic theory. If other researchers work is to be declared as mad or silly, does not interest me.Every explanation of the real world has a limited range and there is no reason to label other approaches as pathological.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gene H Barbee wrote on Feb. 3, 2015 @ 00:51 GMT
Hi Joe,

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I understood your use of the word abstract after I read yours. Your message is an important one. Since we use tools like mathematics to help our thinking it is easy for some to start believing they represent reality. I am glad you quoted my belief that our futile efforts to understand nature are not nature. I agree with you they are abstractions. My belief that "all is information" may not convey the same idea to you but to me it means "it is an abstraction".

Cheers

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 3, 2015 @ 15:02 GMT
Dear Gene,

Thank you for your extraordinary gracious comment.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 7, 2015 @ 06:14 GMT
Dear Sir,

You are right that the real universe is not mathematical in the absolute sense. Mathematics is not the sole language of Nature. It depicts only its quantitative aspect. You are also right that what we call rest is the net null sum of all forces acting on a body. Nothing is truly at rest in Nature. Every object is only relatively at rest on its ‘ground’ or ‘base’. Since...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 7, 2015 @ 17:19 GMT
Dear basudeba,

Thank you for your comment. I am afraid you did not quite grasp the point of my essay. The real Universe is real in the absolute sense of the word. No matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces. Besides seeing the apparent surface of a hologram or a mirage, you will see the partial surfaces of the real floor and real walls and real fixtures of the real room the hologram is being projected into, or you will see the surface of the real sand dunes and real sky in the desert where the mirage appears. Dream surfaces appear in dreams. Timothy Leary described the vivid surfaces he noticed in his hallucinations after taking a shot of LSD.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share


basudeba mishra replied on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 01:15 GMT
Dear Sir,

There is no difference between our views on reality. You might have noticed:"We define reality as everything that exists (has a limited structure that evolves in time), is intelligible (perceivable or knowable as the result of measurement) and communicable (describable in a language as defined in our essay: Transposition of information to another system’s CPU or mind by signals or sounds using energy. The transposition may relate to a fixed object/information. It can be used in different domains and different contexts or require modifications in prescribed manner depending upon the context)". Thus, mirages are not real. There is some real content in holograms and sand dunes, as they exist, are intelligible and can be described in communication, though their perception may contain misleading information like a mirage.

In dreams, we see the objects we had seen in wakeful state. But these images are drawn from memory. Hence they are not bound by physical laws. For example, if we have seen horses and birds flying, we may dream of flying horses, though physically it is impossible. You are also correct in this regard.

During hallucinations under influence of drugs, exhaustion, deceases or psychological factors, we are in a state of lucid dreams. Thus, we see many things that are unreal or semi-real.

We have replied to your points raised in our thread.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 15, 2015 @ 12:18 GMT
Dear Joe,

Your essay tells its story from an uncommon, although interesting perspective. However, I think you mistake the image of an object for the object itself. The image is conveyed by travelling light.

As to your question: "Where did the universe come from?"

The Universe can only come from nothing. If there was a "where" from whence the universe can come, that "where" would be the universe itself. The Universe can therefore only come from "Nowhere" if there was a beginning.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 15, 2015 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

Thank you for your comment. My essay explains how the real Universe is occurring. Reality does not have an abstract uncommon, but abstract interesting perspective. I did not mistake an abstract image of an abstract object for the abstract object itself. You did that. Abstract images may be abstractly conveyed by abstract traveling abstract light, however, real light can only appear provided it is seen as adhering to a real surface that is traveling at the constant speed of surface.

Only an abstract universe could come from an abstract nothing.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share


Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 17, 2015 @ 09:24 GMT
Dear Joe,

I left an answer to your response over on my thread. I am willing to consider your viewpoint if it provides answers to the riddles in our cosmology.

This year you have not used the words, 'unique', 'once' and 'codswallop' as much as you used to. You have instead emphasized this year on the word 'abstract'. This suggests that Joe Fisher is a manifestation of reality and is unique once and is not abstract.

If you want to argue on cosmological models then I think you can start a dialectic on the Alternative Cosmology models forum which does not require email alerts.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 08:20 GMT
The "Sunya" as it is called in Sanskrit supposedly holds the uproots to reality which when expounded given the gift of sublets of "sifr" in Arabic and "Zero" in English.

Your quest for zero is an answer for the empty space.

Great subject! Good luck!

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 16:05 GMT
Dear Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan,

Thank you ever so much for your gracious comment.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 17, 2015 @ 13:11 GMT
Dear Joe,

I read with great interest your essay, made in the spirit of profound Cartesian doubt. I only have one question: when Mathematics ("Queen and Servant") and Physics ("Princess on the pea") lost certainty and lost touch with reality?

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 17, 2015 @ 16:50 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your great question. The mathematicians and the physicists refused to believe their eyes and instead of paying attention to what they were actually looking at they asked themselves the stupid question about where whatever they were looking at came from. Insanely, Stephan Hawking insisted that it did not matter how reality might look now, it must all have commenced with an abstract explosion of abstract nothing. Like mindless sheep, all of the credentialed theoretical physicists have followed his unrealistic guesswork.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 18, 2015 @ 21:41 GMT
Joe,

a very interesting essay to read. You are tackling some really important issues but it frustrates me slightly because you are taking a different explanatory pathway to my own and naturally want to yell "Hey Joe, this way".

Its a really good point that we [without use of x-ray machines or their ilk] only see surfaces. That is, I agree, reality but I would restrict it to Image reality, a sub set of the Entirety of reality. I think re not seeing objects moving at different speeds, we are not actually seeing substantial objects themselves but our sensory systems fabrication of images of them.

Likewise the [image of an] object can as you say get smaller [as distance between the observer and [source]object increases].Its really interesting that this facet of relativity has had little attention. Though Julian Barbour on his http://www.platonia.com/ideas.html says "Relativity of size is such an attractive principle, I long believed that a dynamics of pure shape would one day be found, but in the last two years my thinking has changed somewhat." I have only alluded to this size relativity in my own essay by indicating the relevance of projective geometry to Image reality formation.

Enough said- an enjoyable easy read, profound ideas and thoughts. I hope you find other readers who appreciate where your conclusions are coming from even if not exactly agreeing with them. Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 19, 2015 @ 16:25 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Thank you ever so much for your extremely positive comments about my essay. I think that there is only one physical surface. Have you noticed that man is the only animal that covers up his own surface. He seems to invest his tattoos and clothing coverings with special power.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Author Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 23, 2015 @ 16:47 GMT
There is no way this essay will win any prize now that Eddie Redmayne, the film actor playing Shephen Hawking in the banal THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING has won the Academy Award for best actor.

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 18:16 GMT
Dear Joe Fischer,

My impression is that you refer to ontology, the nature of reality is ontic while its description is epistemic. Quantum theory happens to be epistemic and there seems to be no other way, while classical theory is ontic. May be a higher stage of mathematics is able to clarify this discrepancy (categories or so). There is an interesting essay by Laurence Hitterdale that constructively criticizes the mathematical universe hypothesis. Physical theories are recognized true if they are useful in their range of application. I tend to admit that mathematical physics is not enough to talk about the real world, if any. But I like that you strongly insist that this important question of ontology has to be investigated in physics. Do I understand you correctly?

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 14:25 GMT
Dear Michel,

Regrettably, you do not understand a thing I wrote. Reality has nothing to do with abstract ontology. Reality does not have an abstract nature. Good God, you have a real complete skin surface do you not? Every animal, insect, plant, and pot of jam has a complete real surface. No matter in which direction you look and no matter in at what time you look, you will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces. Reality is simple to understand. Count to ten Joe. Keep your temper Joe.

Flabbergasted at your obtuseness,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share


Michel Planat replied on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 18:57 GMT
Joe,

You are talking about things that exist, that are real. Although I am not a philosopher, for me it refers to ontology. It is not abstract. How do you define something that is real? I know that there is objective reality that is postulated to be independent of the observer and a more subjective view where the subject takes part into what is observed. Classical physics is of the former type while QM of the latter.

What kind of philosophy do you have, is there somebody that understands you?

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 06:07 GMT
Dear Joe

Thanks for the essay.

Is it not true, ours like "real" observers (whose are fundamentally intrinsic quantized and able only to make communications with his/her external universe only through some forms of quantized signals to have "real perceptions" about IT) could never make any to and fro communications with that conceptual "Abstract zero" or "Absolute zero", or infinity, indifferent whether that would be a mathematical or physical? How one such observer could develop a precise real perception about any of those supposed "Abstract" events which are absolutely zero communicating or receiving any signal or message?

Otherwise its Ok.

Dipak Kumar Bhunia

(A tale of two logics)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Dipak Kumar Bhunia,

I have no idea what your comment is about, but I do thank you for making it.

Warm Regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Thierry PERIAT wrote on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 09:06 GMT
Sir, thanks so much for your comment on my essay. This was an effective invitation to read yours. Since we seemingly defend two different approaches, the confrontation could be fruitfull. The importance given to the notion of surface is very interesting and I shall certainly immerse myself with it. I could not empeach myself to put your thinking about the zero in relation with the Heisenberg's principle without being able to go further. Concerning the distinction between the abstract and the real world... it's ok except that since we have nothing else than our real brain to construct abstractions which certainly are real flows of hormons and chimical transmitters... I miss the reason why you insist so much on that point (my thesis: we don't have to care about the abstract distinction between abstraction and reality since the abstractions live in the same real world than ours!). The pragmatism and the need of realism in a scientific approach forces us to make choices (the abstractions) that we confront with the realities. Certainly is it at the end just a circular logic inside which we are testing ourself and contempling our own image... but where is the problem since we have to live and to try to understand where and who we are?

Best regards.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 15:13 GMT
Dear Dr. Periat,

Thank you for taking the time and the trouble to read my essay and comment about it. If I am correct about only surface having the ability to travel at a constant speed, it means that scientists attempting to build a spaceship that would have a physical surface that could travel “faster” than that of a surface of a garbage can are engaged in an act of utter futility.

Warm Regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 15:23 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,

I found your comment on my essay but someone removed them before I was able to answer.

I'm far from any ignorance, so please write it again.

Best Torsten

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


William Amos Carine wrote on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 18:40 GMT
Fisher,

You words are very thrilling to me! I am excised to hear anyone question Newton or Einstein. He wasn't so much different that the world of physics that he overthrew. His ingenuity made a picture that worked to his great merit, but it is one that should be constantly questioned.

Just a question. If light is recorded only as the emission of particles, say electrons getting excited and cooling, then what can be said of the light before then?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 14:51 GMT
Dear William,

Thank you ever so much for your comment.

I cannot answer your question because I think it refers to abstract light and abstract electrons and abstract cooling. Real light does not consist of abstract electrons or abstract photons.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Joseph Pecheur wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 16:44 GMT
Dear abstract Mr. abstract Fisher,

Had abstract you abstract been abstract properly abstract trained abstract in abstract the abstract language abstract and abstract art abstract of abstract mathematics abstract and abstract of abstract physics (abstract abstract), and abstract had abstract you abstract any abstract concern abstract for abstract (Abstract!!) Truth abstract, abstract you abstract would abstract have abstract realized abstract that abstract your abstract "theory" abstract is abstract nothing abstract but abstract an abstract ABSTRACT abstract figment abstract of abstract your abstract imagination abstract which has nothing to do with really unique and really real and really reality, yes not twice, but once and real (not abstract!!).

Abstract Thank abstract you,

Abstractly yours,

J Pecheur

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 19:08 GMT
Dear J Pecheur

Thank you for your comment.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 15:54 GMT
Joe,

Great essay again, and even when driving home the importance of 'abstract' it seems many simply won't be at home! You also identify (as I also do briefly) the great issue with considering 0 as a number. Division by zero is a famous 'fallacious proof' as the link I give, which can prove anything is anything. (It's even included in SR's formulations as functions with value = 0!)

I did struggle a bit to understand your 'surfaces' and inert light but just about got there (I think), or at least somewhere I've already visited but seen from a quite different angle. (A better initial specification would have helped most I think). i.e. the OAM of a subatomic particle is c wrt it's locality (i.e. a train), not c wrt the station the train is passing through, or wrt the sun the spinning planet is orbiting. All local speeds are then the same when properly measured. I hope you may thumbs up this video identifying the wide importance of that; Stunning short but desnely packed video, turn the sound up and use the slider regularly!.

Your score is stupidly derisory but I have a cool (1 shot) levitation trick to try to transform the numbers. I think and hope you'll like my essay revealing yet another about trick with numbers, all about socks, proving nature is NOT necessarily described by our mathematics. Perhaps you may then try the levitation trick yourself.

Thanks for the refreshing read. Very best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
post approved

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 19:26 GMT
Dear Peter,

I am honored. Please allow me some time before I can read and comment on your essay.

Respectfully,

Jo0e Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Joe fisher troll's obnoxious spam wrote on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 04:48 GMT
Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one’s normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe fisher troll's obnoxious spam wrote on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 04:49 GMT
Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one’s normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe fisher troll's obnoxious spam wrote on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 04:49 GMT
Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one’s normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe fisher troll's obnoxious spam wrote on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 04:50 GMT
Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one’s normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe fisher troll's obnoxious spam wrote on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 04:50 GMT
Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one’s normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 19:46 GMT
Wow! Obnoxious Spam.

Do not give up hope Joe. They know not what they do.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Author Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 14:53 GMT
A bright guy sabotaged my computer. Well done.

Actually, the computer works better now. Thank you boffin!

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



adel sadeq wrote on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 20:15 GMT
Joe,

Thanks for your comments. I have one question though, what is this real surface made of and where did it come from. And if it was here from endless past, is endless past is also real once?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 14:32 GMT
Adel,

Thank you for the comment. I have no idea where surface came from. I only know that I have a complete skin surface and every other person, place and thing also has a complete surface of one sort or another. Only here and now are real.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 18:29 GMT
-1 You can’t attack Newton, Einstein etc. and continue with “I humbly present...”. Quit biting right and left..

-2 Know your field. Knowledge of the universe has a two components; A) A physical description, or the HOW things appear to work or happen (Newton, Einstein etc.=physics/science) They are very successful, proven and useful and these guys/gals are way better than you and I at the math game.. B) the logical understanding of the universe i.e. or the WHY? (natural metaphysics- substance and cause via logic) Now, this field of logic is hardly plowed, and yet just as important. This is where I am working. You too are addressing this components and it is accessible to anyone given one is careful in knowing and understanding the distinction between the two components. These two components of knowledge are complementary BUT mutually exclusive.

I am sorry but I could not make much out of reading your essay. Precise definitions of “real”, “surface” etc. in context are required. Need examples. Any new discourse must start with a truth, usually an impossibility. Show that impossibility, then derive logically the inevitable consequences of it. If you can’t prove your starting impossibility, then, make it a postulate or a declared assumption; let assume that if X was impossible, then the logical consequences would have to be.....and ...... and .... Don`t assume this to be as evident to others as it is to you. Usually my problem..

Good luck!

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 28, 2015 @ 15:24 GMT
Dear Marcel,

Thank you ever so much for your comment and for rating my essay. Please correct me if I am wrong, but do you have a real complete skin surface? Does everything you have ever seen in your life have a real complete solid, liquid, or vaporous surface? Newton, Einstein and Hawking have never written a word about the incontrovertible fact that reality consists of a real surface.

Gratefully,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Member Marc Séguin wrote on Mar. 28, 2015 @ 21:52 GMT
Dear Joe,

On my essay's page, you wrote: "All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it." I take you on your offer, and I hope you will give me fair answers!

I will not start with objections, because right now, there are so many aspects of your essay that I do not understand that I need many clarifications first. I will ask my questions one at a time, so you can give me specific answers.

OK, here's my first question!

On page 1 of your essay, you start by deploring that mainstream physicists deal with abstractions (abstract object, abstract force, abstract motion) instead of "real" stuff. Yet, in the third paragraph, you admit that there is such a thing as a real object, because you write:

"Any real object can appear as a real solid, or a real liquid, or as a real vapor depending on its subjection to real extremes of real temperature. It is difficult to believe in a real object’s proclivity for being at real rest or in real calculated motion when any real object’s real inconsistent physical endurance is so unpredictably ephemeral."

If I understand correctly, you say that because real objects can change phase (solid-liquid-gas), it is impossible to say that they can be at real rest or that they can be in real motion. I don't understand why you say that. Imagine a brick that stays solid for many, many years (surely, it is possible?). If the brick detaches from a high building and falls to the street, why can't I say that (in Earth's reference frame) it was at real rest in the beginning and in real motion just before it crashed on the sidewalk? Surely, there was a difference between what it was doing before it detached and after?

I am looking forward to your answer to this very specific first question, before we can get to more interesting questions!

Marc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 29, 2015 @ 14:25 GMT
Dear Marc,

Thank you for answering my plea to give my essay a fair reading and for clearly asking a most important question about its applicability.

The best way I can answer your probing question is to ask you a series of questions in return. Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does every object in the room you are presently occupying have a real complete solid surface? Obviously, all real surfaces must travel at the same constant speed; otherwise, they would not stay in position to be observed simultaneously.

Only imaginary bricks can abstractly appear to be at abstract rest or in abstract motion.

Gratefully,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Member Marc Séguin wrote on Mar. 29, 2015 @ 21:40 GMT
Dear Joe,

Of course I have a real surface (with 9 holes, as you often specify in your replies!), and so do the objects in the room. But you lose me right away with your statement:

"Obviously, all real surfaces must travel at the same constant speed; otherwise, they would not stay in position to be observed simultaneously."

I have a clock on my wall with a seconds hand, and I can clearly see that the tip of the hand does not stay in position compared to the face of the clock (if it did, it wouldn't be a useful clock!!!). To me, it clearly means that the tip of the hand is not moving at the same constant speed as the face of the clock, and yet, I can observe the tip of the hand and the face of the clock simultaneously! Your statement is clearly false... unless you somehow have a definition of "surface" and/or of "speed" that is different from the usual meaning of the words in the English language. Can you help me make sense of your statement?

Marc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 30, 2015 @ 15:12 GMT
Dear Marc,

It is physically impossible to see an isolated surface. One always sees a plethora of surfaces. When you look at a clock, you see the position of the pointers and the dial and the background wall and mantelpiece surface that surrounds the surface of the clock. The surface of the pointers must travel at the same constant speed whether the clock is working or not. Surface always travels at the same constant speed. Sub-surface always travels at a unique speed that is less than the constant speed of surface. As the workings of a clock are always located in the interior, each clock always registers a unique time.

Joe

Bookmark and Share


Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 30, 2015 @ 15:38 GMT
Dear Marc,

Although there may appear to be "moving parts", you can move your arms and legs and run and jump about, your real surface can only travel at the same constant speed.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share


Member Marc Séguin replied on Mar. 31, 2015 @ 03:07 GMT
Dear Joe,

You say that, on a clock, the surface of the pointers must travel at the same constant speed whether the clock is working or not. I don't understand... if the clock is not working, the pointer always points to the same number on the clock face, but if the clock is working, the pointer MOVES (which means it has some SPEED) and doesn't always point at the same number... I am starting to suspect that you do not use the word "speed" in the usual way. In your system, how do you define speed? As distance traveled divided by time (like it is usually done), or in some other way?

Marc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Mar. 30, 2015 @ 18:02 GMT
Joe in my wiew real universe is physical and mathematical too. Not only stone also number one is real, it exist.

Light speed depends on the variable energy density of quantum vacuum, Shapiro expeeriment proves that.

yours amrit

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 31, 2015 @ 15:02 GMT
Dear amrit,

Thank you for your comment.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Mar. 31, 2015 @ 16:38 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher ! Maths can be viewed as a method of measuring events as perceived by us human beings; the psychological perception of physical events is generally called human history. Abstractions of these processes, via maths or linguistics, are human attempts to give meaning to the events; a deeper understanding of our human reality cannot be disconnected from the scientific tools we use to explore the realities of life.As a result, we have to stay sane in a crazy world by writing and communicating our essays. Best: stephen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 15:27 GMT
Dear Stephen Ternyik,

Unfortunately, abstract mathematics cannot be viewed. Only real surface can ever be viewed.

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

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 31, 2015 @ 23:12 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,

Thank you for your kind comment on my essay.

Joe, you remark in your essay "each real person's brain is located in the subsurface of each real persons cranium." Although I exist and perceive myself as a biological whole, you appear to be abstracting a piece of me and calling it a "brain". Perhaps I have misunderstood you for years, but I thought that it was exactly...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 16:14 GMT
Dear Eugene Klingman,

Thank you for reading my essay and for leaving such a detailed comment about it.

Your comment is extremely difficult for me to answer, because you seem to agree with me on the major point I made about the real Universe. Of course I had to use abstract terms for brains and craniums, but I was trying to bring attention to the fact that while all surface travels at the same constant speed, sub-surface must travel at a unique slower speed than that of surface.

It is physically impossible for any working eye not too see a plethora of surfaces. Whether some part of a surface may seem to have been painted on the inside of a balloon, it is still an observable surface.

Incredibly, the only activity every man and woman has always engaged in forever is surface alteration. From applying makeup or was-paint, and wearing personal clothing to pouring concrete, and dropping bombs, all one does all day long is mess about with nature’s surface.

Gratefully,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Richard Lewis wrote on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 14:27 GMT
Dear Joe,

I like the way you emphasize the difference between the physics (the real universe) and the maths (the abstract model).

I think to fully understand any concept in physics it is necessary to create a very good description of the physics before applying the mathematical model. To have a mathematical model in which the physical description is uncertain (e.g. quantum theory) seems likely to lead to an incomplete theory.

So emphasizing the distinction between the real and the abstract is an important step that you have made.

Regards

Richard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 16:17 GMT
Dear Richard,

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

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Gary D. Simpson wrote on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 22:07 GMT
Joe,

In either your essay or your cut and paste comment, you make mention of real astronomers looking through real telescopes.

I have a simple question for you ... how did those astronomers get those telescopes?

Did you know that Newton was an astronomer? He was very pleased with the fact that he made his own instruments, and ground his own mirrors and lenses. So in Newton's case, he used his abstract understanding of optics to build a real telescope. That and the whole prism thing with light ... that was pretty cool too I guess.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 14:29 GMT
Dear Gary,

Thank you for reading my essay and for leaving such an interesting comment about it. Had Newton followed Yogi Berra’s sagacious pronouncement that one can observe a lot by watching, and concentrated on what he was actually looking at through his real telescope, he would have been acting sensibly. Instead, Newton got sidetracked devising abstract laws concerning the optional abstract motion of abstract abstract objects. Newton completely failed to realize that universal motion cannot include elements of inertia and elements of graduated motion.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share


Gary D. Simpson replied on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 17:28 GMT
Joe,

You did not answer my question.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 05:40 GMT
Oops! Sorry Joe, I forgot that you asked me to reply on your page, and posted my reply to you on my own page here. Here it is again.

Verily I say unto thee (I always wanted to use that expression), WELL DONE! Many thanks for saying my essay's engrossing and exceptionally well written. I had to read your essay a second time to appreciate its real value. You’ve stimulated me to write a lot,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 14:32 GMT
Dear Rodney,

Thank you tons for leaving such a splendid comment.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Angel Garcés Doz wrote on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 17:37 GMT
Dear Joe:

reading his essay, honestly you enter a contradiction; since denying the validity of mathematics to understand quantitatively and qualitatively the universe; you use the mathematical concept of surfaces throughout your essay. And every surface is measurable, mathematically. For this reason when you use recurrently in his essay; the mathematical concept of surface, yourself shows...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 3, 2015 @ 15:42 GMT
Dear Angel,

Thank you for leaving such an interesting comment about my essay.

Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does the room you are in have a real complete floor and ceiling and walls surface? Does each of the items in the room where you are right now have a complete real surface? Does the building you are in not have a real surface, and does that surface not rest on the real surface of the earth?

Reality is not optional Angel. It is physically impossible to measure real surface for surface has no commencement. It is physically useful to draw real accurate scaled maps and blueprints of selected areas of surface because all surface travels at the same constant speed.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Alexander Soiguine wrote on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 18:15 GMT
Dear Joe,

It was a great pleasure to read your assay. The issues you are discussing are mainly of ontological nature I think. Science modifiers like Newton or Einstein could find a proper balance between reality and mathematical abstractions, the later could be used as basis of formal tools of reasonable complexity, giving at the same time the results experimentally verifiable. We can think about all such things as a two way process: run experiments more and more close to the abstracting assumptions and, oppositely, make mathematical tools more sophisticated and closer to reality.

A. Soiguine.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 3, 2015 @ 15:53 GMT
Dear Alexander,

Thank you for reading my essay and for leaving such a positive comment about it.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to understand the true revolutionary importance of my essay. I think I have proven that Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of abstract NOTHING. Their false teachings must now be abandoned.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Sylvain Poirier wrote on Apr. 3, 2015 @ 08:57 GMT
Dear Joe,

Just wondering : why did you forget to write in your comment to Ed Unverricht's essay that you thought his essay was exceptionally well written and that you hope it fares well in the competition ? Is it because it surprised you by its exceptionally-more-exceptional-than-exceptional way of not being too abstract for you ?

Now if you wonder why I don't take the time to examine and comment your essay in details, please understand that what is way too far from science is just hopeless trying to deal with (it would just not make any sense), as I explained there. Moreover, the pseudo-scientific stuff that is not even famous outside science (I mean here in community rating) loses the sociological argument against concluding that it would be wasteful trying to dedicate any scientific expertise replying to it.

The fact you seem to have nothing more interesting to do in life than spamming people the same ridiculously fake compliments as if it made less impolite your ridiculous insults that often come next, and other absurd stuff to request them to read your essay, cannot be a good reason for putting you on top of my priority list, as I replied to many essays and want to continue with other ones that look more worthy than yours.

Hope you understand, but even if you don't, it's not my problem.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 3, 2015 @ 16:17 GMT
Dear Sylvain,

Due to the fact that I think I had a relapse of my Asperger's Disorder, a comment I posted on some of the esteemed essayists sites was woefully contemptuous. The recipients rightfully complained about the inappropriate nature of the comment and the Moderator removed some of them. Unfortunately, the Moderator classified the useful part of the comment as Obnoxious Spam. I have proven that Newton was wrong about abstract gravity, Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about then explosive capability of NOTHING.

You hate that proof. That is your option.

Admirably

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Paul Merriam wrote on Apr. 3, 2015 @ 22:16 GMT
As I see it, you are talking about abstract mathematical models of physical reality as opposed to physical reality itself. Cool.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 4, 2015 @ 17:19 GMT
I am indeed doing exactly that, and I am doing it quite well. Thank you Paul for getting the point of my essay.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Steve Agnew wrote on Apr. 4, 2015 @ 15:19 GMT
Your essay is very difficult to comment on since nearly everything you state seems wrong to me. The fact that what you state does not seem wrong to you means that my comments will likely have no meaning for you.

Math is so obviously useful for predictions of action that I would not know what to do without math. In that sense, math represents our Cartesian reality quite well.

However, the Cartesian world that we imagine with our neural computer and our math is much different from the relational world of sensation. Belief is a much more important anchor for the relational world of sensation, but the reason of math works quite well for our Cartesian world nevertheless.

If that is what you are trying to articulate, then I agree. If not, then so be it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 4, 2015 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear Steve,

Thank you for reading my essay and for leaving an honestly felt comment about it. Reality is not optional. Only abstraction can be abstractly right or abstractly right.

Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does every single thing you have ever seen in your life have a real complete solid, liquid, or gaseous surface? Can I predict with absolute certainty that every object that will ever come into existence will always have a real complete surface? Yes I can and I do.

One needs a real surface to practice mathematics on. Please name me one event that mathematics can predict.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Paul N Butler wrote on Apr. 4, 2015 @ 15:23 GMT
Dear Joe,

I thought that I already had received a comment on my paper from you and had commented on your paper in response on my paper’s page, but if I did, it disappeared somehow, so I will post it again here on my page and also on yours as you requested. I added a few additional observations for further thought. I hope you will get something productive out of it.

I am sorry...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 4, 2015 @ 18:25 GMT
Dear Paul,

Real surface is not an abstract concept. Real surface is what each real eye sees no matter in which direction that real eye looks. Even dreams have dream surfaces. Even mirages have miasmic surfaces. Even taking hits of LSD, always produces psychedelic surfaces.

One real Universe can only exhibit one real physical condition. One real Universe must only have one real surface. You have a real complete skin surface. Every real object you look at definitely has a real complete surface. Please forget about abstract light “photons.” Real light cannot have a real surface, because that would mean that an identical physical duality could exist.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share


Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 00:29 GMT
Mirages do not have smelly surfaces. I used the word "miasmic incorrectly.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share


Paul N Butler replied on Apr. 10, 2015 @ 20:56 GMT
Dear Joe,

You are right that my example of the piece of wood was based on what I believe would be the result if you actually took a real piece of wood and covered it as I described in my comment to you based on my past experience with real things and was not based on an actual experiment done at that time on real pieces of wood. I, therefore, did a real experiment with real things to see...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Thomas Erwin Phipps wrote on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 21:47 GMT
Joe,

You started off your essay in a way that made me think you were going to criticize the loose use of language in physics (an approach shared with Wittgenstein and the logical positivists). But before long it became clear you were being quite careless about language yourself. For instance you repeatedly spoke of all surfaces as moving at "constant speed," but never said speed with respect to what. Moreover your whole concept does not jell. Consider a sphere, real or abstract. Suppose it is spinning on a fixed axis. Now all parts of the surface are in motion. But at constant speed? I think not. The Earth's oblateness is due to the higher rotary speed at the equator than at the poles.

Tom Phipps

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 14:27 GMT
Dear Tom,

All surfaces must travel at the same constant speed no matter the apparent separation and seeming solid, liquid or vaporous physical conditions of observed surfaces.

It is physically impossible for one to see a real complete sphere spinning. All one can see is the facing real surface of a ball seamlessly immersed in what is called a background surface. In the case of a small ball, one also sees the partial surface of the table the ball may appear to be resting on, plus the partial surfaces of the walls, door, window and other objects in the room, and a bit of one’s nostril’s surface.

One must only be able to see real surface. Dreamers can only ever see dream surfaces. Alert mirage watchers can only ever see mirage surfaces. LSD shooters can only ever see psychedelic surfaces.

Gratefully,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Jean-François Geneste wrote on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 18:20 GMT
Joe,

I read your paper and was not really able to understand what you mean with your surfaces. Since this is your major point, I am affraid I cannot really comment your paper.

There however is an exception. I do not share with you at all your point on the existence or not of the zero. Just imagine you are counting real matches. Then if there are no matches, then there are zero matches and this zero is physical.

Jean-François.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 15:21 GMT
Dear Jean-Francois,

Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does every real object in the real room you are presently in have a real complete surface? Does a real match have a real complete surface? Newton and Einstein were both completely wrong about the abstract motion of abstract objects. All surfaces must travel at the same constant speed otherwise, it would be physically impossible to see a plethora of surfaces instantaneously and simultaneously.

Counting the number of real matches you can see does not require an abstract zero. Seeing real surfaces does not require any mathematical ability at all.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



lutz kayser wrote on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 07:40 GMT
Dear Joe,

what you write about zero makes sense. We all would like to know what sort of zero energy fluctuations let things happen.

Good luck

Lutz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 15:26 GMT
Dear lUTZ,

tHANK YOU FOR AGREEING WITH ME ABOUT ZERO.

jOE fISHER

Bookmark and Share



Member Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano wrote on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 16:18 GMT
Dear Joe,

I read your abstract, and have a look at your essay. I cannot follow your logic, and I disagree on most of your conclusions. Besides, we are on opposite faces of the universe: you are a realist, and I am an informationalist.

Have happy time within your universe.

My best regards

mauro

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Mauro,

Thank you for your honest comment.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Patrick Tonin wrote on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 18:50 GMT
Dear Joe,

I have seen your last message on my blog.

I have already commented on an early message from you (remenber the man shouting in a cardboard box ?) but the whole conversation seems to have disappeared from my blog ...

Cheers,

Patrick

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 14:59 GMT
Dear Patrick,

You did indeed post a comment earlier. I am sorry for bothering you again.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



LLOYD TAMARAPREYE OKOKO wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 10:32 GMT
Dear Mr.Fisher,

Thanks for your thought provoking arguments.

But can one without hesitation conclude

"that mathematics has nothing to do with the

manner in which the the real Universe is

occuring"?Why are you bodered about the

"general relativity" of mathematics?Why not

see it as an asset; the way Newton regarded

geometry as a branch of mechanics.Or is their

any social benefit that constitute the

RATIONALE FOR A STRUGGLE FOR SUPREMACY

between mathematics and physics?

Maybe as a word of advice let me reiterate

Wagner's assertion that "the enormous

usefulness of mathemaics in the natural

Sciences is something bordering on the

mysterious and that there is no rational

explanation for it".

Keep on flourishing.

Lloyd Tamarapreye Okoko.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 15:23 GMT
Dear Lloyd,

Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does the room you are presently in have a real complete floor, ceiling and walls surfaces? Does every object in the room have a real complete surface? Does everything you have ever seen have a real complete surface? Have you never noticed that no matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of partial surfaces that meld seamlessly into one surface?

Obviously, you do not need to know anything about abstract mathematics and abstract physics in order to be able to see real surface.

Einstein was completely wrong about abstract Relativity. Eugene Wigner was completely wrong about the real utility of abstract mathematics. And you will be wrong if you continue to try to understand meaningless abstractions.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



David Frederick Haight wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 15:51 GMT
Dear Joe:

I am responding to your request for a reply to your paper.

First of all, I do not understand why all surfaces must be travelling at a constant speed and all subsurfaces at a unique lower speed. Can you further explain your reasoning here? Assuming that what you say is true, the generalization or abstraction that only surfaces and subsurfaces are real becomes what defines ultimate reality.

Secondly, realism also makes the reality/appearance distinction an abstraction that raises the abstract question, why is reality, including the sciences that misinterpret it, so deceptive? Even sense-perception requires some pattern recognition or levels of abstraction. Blind people whose sight has been physically restored still cannot see very well because they do not know how to see or to abstractly process visual simulation. Without contrast and abstraction (concepts), we cannot perceive, let alone think about, the world. Percepts without concepts are blind. Monistic realism undermines its own abstract foundation since foundations are themselves abstract.

Sincerely, David Frederick Haight

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 14:12 GMT
Dear David,

Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does the room you are presently in have a real complete floor, ceiling and walls surfaces? Does every object in the room have a real complete surface? Does everything you have ever seen have a real complete surface? Have you never noticed that no matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of partial surfaces that meld seamlessly into one surface?

Obviously, you do not need to know anything about abstract mathematics and abstract physics in order to be able to see real surface.

I cannot make any sensible assessments of whatever reality a blind person might experience.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share


Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 14:25 GMT
You must have a real sub-surface to house your brain, blood and organs. Valid scientific investigation has confirmed that each person’s real dollop of DNA is unique. That must surely also confirm that the speed of each person’s sub-surface material must also be unique. Physical laws are universal. All surface travels at the same speed. Each sub-surface travels at a unique speed.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Louis Hirsch Kauffman wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 16:38 GMT
Dear Joe,

If you take the position that the Universe, prior to our observing it, has no distinctions (is a unity), then the mathematics that we find in relation to it is part of our description of the Universe. But we are not separate from the Universe and so our mathematics is part of the process of the Universe.

The Universe has the property that she acts (through us at least) to conceptualize, abstract and describe herself. In that way mathematics and Universe are inseparable. There is no reason to assume that the Universe is made entirely of mathematics!

Best,

Lou Kauffman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 14:53 GMT
Dear Lou,

Even an abstract universe could not exist prior to an abstract duo abstractly observing it.

No matter in which direction a real eye, or a working fabricated camera or radar sensor points, it will only encounter surface.

Unfortunately, all of the philosophers and physicists who have ever lived have never paid any attention to reality. If every single real thing you look at now has a real complete surface, due to the universality of the abstract law that abstractly governs the real Universe, complete surface, and only complete surface must exist whether it is observed or not.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ted Erikson wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 16:52 GMT
Dear Joe:

I am responding to your request that I review your essay. Words, words, words, mean different things to different people, whether meant to be abstract or real. The key to look "underneath the surface" implies it is viewable, and obviously it is not.

BTW, there is some arithmetic error in my essay, it is a work in progress. But the simple approach of defining two things that exist, i.e. mass as an inscribed stable sphere within the energy of an unstable regular tetrahedron that surrounds it …which interacts to shield mass from the surroundings. In short, surface-to-volumes of spheres and tetrahedrons differ and are at war for their existence as energy gains and losses fight with mass growths and decays, e.g., the ratio of Pressure =E/V and surface tension = E/A to produce A/V. that implies "action energy gains/losses" at small sizes or the inverse, V/A implying "action mass growth/decay".. One must always balance the other to exist or eliminates the other. Like electrons to protons… or males to females, or government to people..

Good luck to you. You are passionate about your ideas, not the usual essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 15:11 GMT
Dear Ted,

Words do indeed mean different things to different people. But No matter in which direction a real eye, or a working fabricated camera or operational radar sensor points, it will only encounter surface.

Please stop wasting your time trying to calculate the abstract mass of an abstract sphere. Place a real cannon ball on your lawn and next to it place a real air-filled party balloon. Now saunter towards the two real spheres. You must notice that both spheres grow in size as you approach them, as does the blades of lawn grass and the mail box and all other nearing surfaces. You cannot isolate any of the seeming expanding items. Reality is inseparable.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Janko Kokosar wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 18:36 GMT
Dear Joe

I read your essay. I seems to me, that you have a similar approach as I had 30 years ago: ''mathematics is not the most essential for physics, but the most essential is our feeling and insight of physical world.'' I do not think so anymore, math is essential for me. But not 100%. I think that the only nonmathematical element of physics is panpsichism. Mostly you can see my view in my essay. From reading essays here, for instance Maluga, Smolin, Woit etc, I make still some corrections.

One your claim is non uniqueness of physics. But, if mathematics predicted almosti all movements with a few laws, that mathematical part is not unique.

Another your claim is about surfaces ... You should also respect that two photons can interact with each other, according to QED, but very rarely. Some your claims about empty spaces seem similar as Mach principle. (Despite of General relativity it seems to me, that this still ever exists, for instance if we remove all matter from the universe, universe will not exist.)

Thus in principle I do not completely exclude all your ideas, because, I feel at you my way of thinking many years ago. But you should merge them with math.

I also do not like ideas of many physicists, that all except of math is useless in physics.

Best regards,

Janko Kokosar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 15:20 GMT
Dear Janko,

Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does the room you are presently in have a real complete floor, ceiling and walls surfaces? Does every object in the room have a real complete surface? Does everything you have ever seen have a real complete surface? Have you never noticed that no matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of partial surfaces that meld seamlessly into one surface?

Obviously, you do not need to know anything about abstract mathematics and abstract physics in order to be able to see real surface. Real light does not have a surface. Real light does not consist of abstract photons.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share


Janko Kokosar replied on Apr. 11, 2015 @ 14:28 GMT
Dear Joe

I cannot follow you, what is the point that skin is not a complete surface?

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 15:57 GMT
Real skin covers you completely.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 19:49 GMT
Hello Joe,

Referring to your essay, it is not bad to be skeptical about assertions of others that one has no rational basis for confirming to be true or false. The world of relativity appears to deny the absolute. In using the adjective "abstract" we need to understand from what the abstraction has been separated from - matter or practice or particular examples. Similarly, in using the noun "abstract" we need to know the entity of which an abstract is the essence, a summary, an idea or a term.

We need to define what we mean by "real" before we use the term (e.g. being objective, natural, sincere, etc.) A "real" belief is not synonymous with the truth, it is merely a state of temporary acceptance pending the receipt of a more persuasive alternative. Your notion of "reality" appears to be applied solely to objective matter. Thus it cannot be applied (for example) to an idea. You use the term "real" (or reality) 158 times in your essay!

Insofar as all ideas (represented by words) exist, it is the form of such existence that is critical to qualifying as being "real". Believe it or not, the only form that God can be confirmed to exist is that of an idea.

It is inconclusive and unproductive to assert that certain ideas are "wrong" in the absence of a convincing argument to that effect - and a viable alternative.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 15:33 GMT
Dear Gary,

Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does the room you are presently in have a real complete floor, ceiling and walls surfaces? Does every object in the room have a real complete surface? Does everything you have ever seen have a real complete surface? Have you never noticed that no matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of partial surfaces that meld seamlessly into one surface?

Obviously, you do not need to know anything about abstract mathematics and abstract physics in order to be able to see real surface. Real light does not have a surface. Real light does not consist of abstract photons.

I honestly used the word real in my essay. Only 90 year old Nuclear Physicist Dr. Thomas Erwin Phipps used the word abstract correctly. All others neglected to mention that multiverses and photons and black holes and mass are abstractions that do not exist in the real Universe.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 11:20 GMT
Joe,

the boundary of a 3D object is a surface. In this point I agree with you. Of course this is the reason why we see only surfaces at the first. But at the other there is a lot of experimental evidence for three (space) dimensions. I would expect that it is part of reality too.

I'm quite sure that at the fundamental level (around Planck length) the world is 2D. But I remember on former discussions...

Torsten

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 15:36 GMT
Dear Torsten,

Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does the room you are presently in have a real complete floor, ceiling and walls surfaces? Does every object in the room have a real complete surface? Does everything you have ever seen have a real complete surface? Have you never noticed that no matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of partial surfaces that meld seamlessly into one surface?

Obviously, you do not need to know anything about abstract mathematics and abstract physics in order to be able to see real surface. Real light does not have a surface. Real light does not consist of abstract photons.

I honestly used the word real in my essay. Only 90 year old Nuclear Physicist Dr. Thomas Erwin Phipps used the word abstract correctly. All others neglected to mention that multiverses and photons and black holes and mass are abstractions that do not exist in the real Universe.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 18:33 GMT
Interesting essay Joe,

I think your writing has gotten more polished, as this one is more easily readable than past attempts. I agree entirely with a portion of your thesis. A value of zero is just as elusive and unphysical as a value of infinity. Though these numbers exist in the abstract, and though they tell us something useful when they pop out of the Math, they are not part of our...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 10, 2015 @ 14:24 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Dear Jonathan.

All real things have a real surface. Real light does not have a real surface. Real light does not consist of abstract photons, or abstract plasmons. It is physically impossible to create a real light by means of manipulating an abstract photoelectric effect.

Proof that real light did not have a real surface was established by the slit test. When the pre-light emission struck the first surface, real light appeared on all of the area of the surface, except of course where the slit, or slits had been cut. The pre-light emission flew through the slit or slits and when they struck the surface behind the slits they had to produce a real light effect that was different than the real light showing on the first surface.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Mary Ann Slaby wrote on Apr. 10, 2015 @ 17:31 GMT
Ok Joe: You have asked that I read and comment on your essay, here goesy review.

You keep begging the existence and dimension from the eye to surfaces and subsurfaces, with the objection, as I understand it, that in your reduction one can go to one dimension and abstraction. Yea this is great for philosophers, but in the real world we need to live, eat, sleep & predict to make the best of life. When we can apply a math formula and get out a car that runs, or a house that is protecting from the absence of heat, we are happy and think we have mastered the Universe. If you want to take us to the nexus of existence and the issue of reality as posed by this essay, kindly read the Einstein, Rosen, Podolsky Experiment regarding whether the cat is alive or dead following a correlated event. You will have to decide if life has something different about it and how the subspace changes. It forces you to be practical rather than philosophical. At the most minute level we don't know; at the faster than light we don't know either; at below zero we are also ignorant. However, for what we know that we can predict, Einstein and Newton were brilliant and giants intellectually. You also seem to possibly be of the philosophical persuasion that when the lights go out, the Universe disappears. If so, I cannot speak to your truth, which does come from your senses and not mine. You DO have a point, but it won't go anywhere nor work for you to advance in life, Or a deep understanding of the Universe, I think.

Mary

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 11, 2015 @ 16:17 GMT
Dear Mary Ann,

Einstein and all of the philosophers were complet6ely wrong about reality because they only attempted to abstractly describe an abstract universe.

Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does the room you are presently in have a real complete floor, ceiling and walls surfaces? Does every object in the room have a real complete surface? Does everything you have ever seen have a real complete surface? Have you never noticed that no matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of partial surfaces that meld seamlessly into one surface?

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Laurence Hitterdale wrote on Apr. 10, 2015 @ 18:15 GMT
Dear Mr. Fisher,

I think most people, though not all, would agree with you that existence is concrete, not abstract. Most people would also agree with you that physical existence and mathematical structures are two different things. The deep question is what relationship between the two allows study of the latter to be useful in understanding the former. Would you perhaps contend that mathematics is of no use at all in physics?

Best wishes,

Laurence Hitterdale

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 11, 2015 @ 18:49 GMT
Dear Professor Hitterdale,

Corporate Communism has corrupted all aspects of American life. Reality is free and accessible for everybody. Scientific projects are extremely expensive and obtainable by the fortunate few. Providing mathematicians continue to provide seeming logical hints for the existence of the big bang creation of the universe that allows the physicists to borrow billions of dollars to seek alien life and attempt to build time trave4lling machines, the relationship between mathematics and physics will be very close and comfortable.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Apr. 11, 2015 @ 03:10 GMT
Dear Joe

I have read through your essay and agree that much of physics is abstract as opposed to the real. But abstraction is what gave power to the laws of physics! Reality has too many confusing details and aspects. Without abstract concepts like mass, speed, gravity and so on Newton's laws, for one, could not have been so effective in creating the technological miracles of the Industrial Revolution. Abstraction, however can go too far, and String Theory is a case in point.

I must admit I do not understand your concept of surface, subsurface and their constant speed. No matter, others seem to have understood. Having said that I like that you have dared to present a completely new unified way of looking physics. Much of physics needs exactly that sort of sweeping rethinking from new first principles. At any rate you are thinking about the Universe and mathematics indicates a far from decrepit mind as you claim! With very best wishes,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 11, 2015 @ 19:02 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you ever so much for your comment.

Reality is not in the least confusing. Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does the room you are presently in have a real complete floor, ceiling and walls surfaces? Does every object in the room have a real complete surface? Does everything you have ever seen have a real complete surface? Have you never noticed that no matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of partial surfaces that meld seamlessly into one surface?

Obviously, you do not need to know anything about abstract mathematics and abstract physics in order to be able to see real surface. Do you have a real sub-surface that contains your brain and heart and skeleton? Does not every animal?

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Pankaj Mani wrote on Apr. 12, 2015 @ 14:55 GMT
Dear Joe,

I went through you essay and would like to keep some points in favor and rest against.

As you mentioned " Although the real substance of the real Universe appears to us as seeming to consist of varying amounts of solid, liquid and gaseous properties, it must be re-emphasized here that all appearances are deceptive. The real Universe is not apparent and this is why it is not...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 13, 2015 @ 15:54 GMT
Dear Pankaj,

The Universe is real. You have a real surface, so you are real. Please start thinking for yourself. Professor Hans Peter Durr was completely wrong for thinking that “Modern quantum physics could reveal that (abstract) matter was not (abstractly) composed of (abstract) matter, but (abstract) reality was merely potentiality.” This is codswallop.



Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



William T. Parsons wrote on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 16:00 GMT
Hi Joe--

You asked me to read and comment on your essay. I do so now, as promised.

I agree with the main thrust of your title. I, too, believe that the real universe is not mathematical. By "not mathematical", I specifically mean that I disagree with the doctrine known as "Mathematical Platonism". As I see it, physics is engaged in the business of identifying regularities in Nature. These regularities are often codified in terms of mathematics and then are called "laws of physics". These laws are necessarily of an abstract nature. As to the reason why such regularities exist, I have not a clue.

I was interested in your use of infinity. For example, on page 6 of your essay, you say "abstract least is finite", but then add that "Real infinity has no least constituent". Does this mean that you believe that real universe is infinite in scope, extent, and/or duration?

Best regards,

Bill.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 18:21 GMT
Dear Bill,

One real Universe can only be occurring in one real infinite dimension. Unfortunately, scientists insist on attempting to measure the three abstract dimensions of height, width and depth, with completely unrealistic results. The real Universe must be infinite in scope and eternal in duration.

Gratefully,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Jose P. Koshy wrote on Apr. 15, 2015 @ 14:21 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,

As requested by you, I read your essay. You have a different world view. As you would have read my essay, you would be knowing that our word views are different, though we agree that there is something wrong with the mainstream world view.

The mainstream represents the view of the majority. And it is not without any reason. The mainstream view has many merits. But, even while agreeing that the mainstream has merits, we can have some disagreement with the main stream. But the problem is that we have to show that our word-views have more merits compared to the mainstream. And, that is not so easy.

You argue that your world-view is logical by putting forth questions. But you do not try to show that your world-view has any relative merits.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 15, 2015 @ 15:20 GMT
Dear Jose,

Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does the real room you are presently in have a real complete floor surface, a real complete ceiling surface, and four real complete wall surfaces? Does everything in the room have a real complete surface? Did everything you have ever seen, whether it was real, or seen in a dream, or hallucinated about have a surface? This is not my minority point of view. All of the philosophers and all of the mathematicians and all of the physicists were wrong. Their absurd abstract musings concerned only an abstract universe. Unfortunately, the credentialed people at this site cannot deal with the truth. The majority of them will not vote for truth. The majority of them will not even read the truth.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



William Amos Carine wrote on Apr. 15, 2015 @ 19:18 GMT
Joe,

Wow! very insightful and fiery commentary there about Newton and Ein. Newton is wrong i believe in his world view. Einstein if you read his layman's relativity book and also go through some of his quotes admits his system isn't much better than Newtons. I think his words were close to that space-time and the warp of his dynamics took the place of the ether, but that even a space-time fabric could be just as arbitrary as the ether. You thoughts sparked some in me. First a question that i doubt goes anywhere but might be worth a fun thought. Is light in transmission a real thing? Or is it just that we have reasonable cause for it's existence because this energy sytem (for example a star) lost energy in the amount that was picked up by some intrument distant from it. In other words, do we indirectly or directly observe and have evidence for light? I like that you say the universe is understandable once. Can't be too optimistic. I would look at the role of information more closely. You speak of nothingness with some disdain. What science has yet to pick up on is that nothingness is a great potential.But to have a zero state nothingness like Hawking promotes does seem far fetched. I think whether nothing exists, some zero state or a "something" before this universe existed, whether that nothingness is real or not is a great point to think about for this time in science. Your essay does this, so thank you sir!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 14:21 GMT
William,

I have read the online English translation of Einstein’s 1916 book Relativity: The Special and General Theory, and in my estimation, it is the most unrealistic book that has ever been written. Einstein has an imaginary passenger throwing an imaginary rock off an imaginary train while an imaginary observer on an imaginary embankment watches to see if the phantom rock arcs in flight.

Does everybody at this site not realize that I have proven that Einstein was completely wrong about the real Universe? You people are supposed to cherish truth above all things, yet you all ignorantly refuse to credit me with my momentous discovery.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 01:34 GMT
Dear Joe,

You seem to imply in your essay that science believes in an abstract realm that underlies everything and explains everything. I think that what you say is correct: much of science DOES believe in an abstract realm, though the people involved would claim otherwise.

However, it is not necessary to believe in an abstract reality to do science. You yourself represent your thought-experience of reality (e.g. a real elephant) with symbols (i.e. the spoken word or written word "elephant", or even a stick-figure drawing of an elephant). Similarly, scientists represent their experience of reality with written and spoken symbols. Both the symbols and the thought-experience are as physically real as the actual elephant: they are physical reality - they are not abstract.

The problem occurs when scientists or philosophers mistakenly think that the symbols or the thoughts are disconnected from physical reality. I concur with your conclusion: "The real Universe am".

Cheers,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 16:49 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

My essay proves that Newton was wrong about abstract gravity, Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING. All of the philosophers were wrong about their abstract musings. Pathetically, none of the folk who have read my essay seems to understand its real importance. Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org monitor of the contest labeled part of a comment I posted on some of my fellow essayists sites: “OBNOXIOUS SPAM.”

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Chris K wrote on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 20:52 GMT
Joe,

Your essay is poorly written, and devoid of any academic or intellectual merit, or insight. I would posit that you are confusing the term 'realist' with 'fantasist.

I point you to the following blog, as I have no doubt its contents will pique your interest: http://www.physicsgroupie.com/2009/07/physics-crackpots.html


Humbly,

Chris

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 16:48 GMT
Dear Chris,

Thank you for leaving a comment. I am sorry that you did not understand my essay.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 19:13 GMT
My rating made only a slight difference. But as the competition ends congrats for looking at and commenting on many essays even if we don't agree on all points.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 16:53 GMT
Dear Akimbo,

Thank you for reading my essay and for rating it.

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.