Essay Abstract

While acknowledging the close correspondence of some aspects of nature and their mathematical description, attention is drawn to persistent errors in use of mathematics in physics. These are firstly category errors, not correctly differentiating or correctly identifying the elements of reality being considered. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is shown to foster a fundamental mis-identification, apparent via the associated paradoxes. Discussion of whether the Moon exists while not looking at it identifies lack of categorization as the fundamental problem. Schrödinger’s cat is examined with regard to category error. Mis-identification regarding polarized light and electron spin states is considered. Thus the need to categorize and clearly identify elements of reality under consideration is highlighted. Secondly error born inference from incomplete information, due to failure to reconcile elements of reality, and knowledge, across the Reality interface is considered. This is found in Quantum physics and has a parallel in the art of illusion. Entanglement is examined in this regard. An appeal is made to apply the Structure of reality as a framework in which mathematics in physics is restrained, unlike pure mathematics. Ending with the trick of taking a rabbit out of a hat without reality reconciliation, and after the Structure of reality diagram, shown with full reality reconciliation. The Reality in the Context of physics explanatory framework diagram is re-presented. Differentiating colors are used throughout to assist the reader. Lilac is just highlighting important points. Blue, yellow, orange correspond to those used on the structure of reality diagram provided. Showing which side the events and or elements of reality are located, with respect to the Reality interface and other aspects of reality. The actual structure of reality can not be simplified. I have attempted to make discussion concerning it and its use in physics clearer by use of symbolic notation, new diagram and color.

Author Bio

Biological Sciences honors graduate and fully qualified former teacher of secondary level Sciences including Physics. I have had a keen interest in the physics of Time for over 10 years. As Georgina Parry, (né Woodward), I developed the “Reality in the Context of Physics” explanatory framework approximately 5 years ago on the FQXi site. I have been a regular contributor to FQXi blog and forum discussions. Two of my previous FQXi competition essays reached the finals (and one was a near miss), including a 2014 4th prize for “Smooth Seas do not make Good Sailors”.

Download Essay PDF File

report post as inappropriate

Thank you Edwin for reading my essay and for your gracious comments. Glad to hear that you agree with those parts of the analysis you worked through, and agree that the unwritten future does not exist.

Thank you for the suggestion of reexamining the symbolic representation. I can see how a short hand version would be quicker to read and write once learned.

I will read your essay (I always do) and it sounds like this year we may have some common ground to understand and agree upon. Best wishes to you also, Georgina

Dear Georgina,

I can see you have again brought your powerful 'Object and Image reality' tool to bear on the theme of this year's essay. I think you do so quite well, at least as a number of paradoxes appear capable of being resolved.

I tried the reference to Foucault's pendulum but it took me to a different page. I will try to find a way to view it through some other means.

As Edwin Klingman observed, the alphabetic codes can be quite challenging to follow, although the color scheme does help in certain places.

All the best in the competition.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Sir,

I had no desire to dumb down what is a very precise exploration of the relationship between the different facets of reality and how errors have been built into physics. The representation of the structure of reality has been simplified in the new diagram but still the older and much more complex diagrammatic presentation, showing more, is still entirely relevant.

I have used the symbolic (alphabetic) notation to avoid overly complex sentences and to show precision in the analysis. The colors in the text are there to assist the reader relate what is being said to the diagrams and the aspect of reality being discussed.

Re your question: "Can you give any example of an actualized event (must have been measured/observed by someone somewhere to be meaningful objective reality) without any reference frame?" Your question clearly shows, by your bracketed inclusion, that you have not grasped the main idea of the explanatory framework-I.e. separate facets of reality on different sides of the reality interface, that must be considered as different and not confused. All events are actualized prior to observation and thus at that time (I.e.Object universal configuration) have no reference frame applied.

Thank you for taking a look and for taking the trouble to feed back your discontent. Regards Georgina

Dear Georgina,

I read your essay with great interest. It is very important that you are a biologist. I have three questions:

1) You write: "This is found in Quantum physics and has a parallel in the art of illusion."

In the work "Modern physics and contemporary art - parallels of style" T.Romanovskaya says about the "crisis of interpretation and representation" in fundamental physics. Do you agree with this conclusion?

2) Do you agree with this inference of Albert Einstein: "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." ?

3) In my picture of the Universe as a whole category of "ontological (structural, cosmic) memory - the central core. Physics, mathematics, biologists and poets should have unifying picture of the world, filled with all the senses of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). And what is your opinion?

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Vladimir,

1/ Illusions, created by an illusionist, work primarily through cultivating misinterpretation due to incomplete information and misdirection. The essay points out these same mis-judgements in physics. There is misdirection due to category errors,( I.e. muddling up types or misinterpreting the aspect of reality under consideration) and not taking account of the Object reality source -of the observable measurements and other manifestations, (incomplete information)

I have been very precise in identifying where exactly the problems lie, thereby allowing solutions. Rather than just indicating that there are problems- in a general but indefinite way. I have not read Professor Tatiana Romanovskaya work that you cited and could not find it with a quick search. So I do not know what precisely her conclusion is to agree or disagree.Yes there are problems to do with representation and interpretation within physics and I have given specific examples.

2/ It really does depend on the circumstances, whether knowledge or imagination is more important. No one way of thinking suits all circumstances. I would like a mechanic to use his knowledge to fix my car not his imagination, though a good mechanic may be imaginative in the application of his knowledge.Where the knowledge needed to proceed is absent or inadequate, or there is no precedent imagination has an important role in generating novel outcomes and possible solutions. It can open up new paths to explore but there is no guarantee that the new path is the correct or best way to go.

3/ The essay concludes -"Physics must leave behind enchantment with mystery due to Incomplete reconciliation of information and misdirection of category errors; adopting the Essential structure of reality as a necessary framework for physics, not required by pure mathematics."

That necessary framework provides a whole facet of reality for experience generated from sensory input. Image reality - an emergent, 'other level', sub set of the Entirety of reality. Thank you for the questions. I look forward to reading your essay, Georgina

Dear Georgina,

Thank you for your comprehensive answer! Link to article Romanovskaya T.B.(in Russian). My high score.I look forward to your comments of my essay.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Your subtleness purifies the concept from veracity.

With regards,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate

Georgina,

You present an interesting concept. Many thanks. I certainly think the moon is there whether or not anyone is looking.

Since you are educated as a Biologist, I will assume that you are very knowledgeable regarding Chemistry. Would it be equally valid to apply the concept of equilibrium to quantum states? What I mean by this is that reversible conditions would have an equilibrium coefficient of 1.0 meaning that either side of the equation is equally valid. State changes that do not happen would have an equilibrium coefficient close to zero. State changes that are irreversible such as radio-active decay would have a coefficient that is extremely large.

A year or so ago, there was a "thermal event" at a low level nuclear waste storage facility. Kitty litter is used as an absorbent there and had been used to absorb an organic material or an oil or something similar. The kitty litter contained a nitrate salt. There was also some low-level nuclear waste present. The mixture was stored in a drum and sealed and placed in the storage area where it was not observed.

I don't know precisely what happened, but apparently the drum became hot. I don't know if it ruptured or caught fire or what but it became hot. My guess is that the radio-isotope decayed and released energy. The drum is large enough that the contents acted like a heat insulator. A localized spot reached a temperature that was above the ignition point for the organic-nitrate mixture and voila ... thermal event. The key point in my mind is that no one was watching the drum but Schrodinger's Cat is dead just the same.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Georgina,

Because of the speed limit of light in the universe, no two points of the moon are at the same moment. As such, it is not an object but an aggregate of matter across time.

This aggregate only becomes "Moon" when I look or consider it as being there all at once, in a moment of perception.

Yes, we make the Moon an object when it is not.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

I read Lee Smolin's interesting essay yesterday and I have just read Matt Visser's essay, which is a good, worthwhile read. His prosaic, utilitarian view of mathematics got me thinking again about my own viewpoint, i.e. is it foundational or merely representational, which is not specifically expressed in my own essay. There were other matters of importance to discuss (and my home word counter is much harsher than FQXi's.)

So to fill that gap: I confess that having 'in the past' considered mathematics merely a language, I now hold the more romantic notion that: in a changing universe, rather than just the 'stuff' it is made of, it is at least as much the totality of unmeasured 'mathematical' relations between the elements of (Object)reality- that bestows its character, and provides the specific forces for change. (I think to reading Max Tegmark's shut up and Calculate" or reference to it. As he was saying words to the effect - if we strip everything away what we are left with is relations between abstract mathematical entities.) If it was asked;' which is more important substance or relation?' it would be hard to promote one over the other. Thinking about chemistry it is the form of molecules, the internal and external relations that gives their characteristic properties and behaviour not just the constituent elements.

There is of course a difference between mathematics 'in vivo', in the wild, just as the living organism in vivo is different from the one (however accurately) described on paper.Can there be such a thing as wild mathematics rather than imagined and written,belonging to different facets of reality- I'd like to think so. Wild mathematics is the absolute relations themselves between elements of object reality independent of observation. Though there are also relations that can be discerned between the images produced from selected data, ie between elements of image reality. Perhaps this could be called 'observable' mathematics. These relations and the imagination of them leading to symbolic representation, 'captive' mathematics, belonging to knowledge on the Image reality side of the interface. Complicated by the need to further differentiate- The understanding of the symbols belongs to knowledge on the image reality side, though the ink on paper or pixels on the screen are Object reality.

The captive mathematics notation and comprehension appears on both sides the interface but truly wild mathematics, that 'runs' the Object universe, is entirely independent of observers and minds.

I suppose rather like the Moon problem before attempting to reach consensus on what mathematics is and its effectiveness it is necessary to differentiate the different meanings of the word mathematics. Do we mean: "wild'mathematical relations, observed mathematical relations, abstract mental concepts, 'captive' notations/representations and mathematical operations, or disciplines.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Georgina,

I'm glad you have brought up this important issue in your essay. I think of this issue in terms of "subjective/objective" views on reality.

I've been thinking about what you said, and you seemingly don't use the term "subject" because you are saying that there is something objectively true about subjective "image reality": is this what you are saying? Also, are you saying that there are 2 separate realities "object reality" and "image reality", or are they just different points of view in the same reality?

Another question I had was: what is going on underneath this "object reality" and "image reality" i.e. what is going on at the particle level in this situation?

I find that every essay is always a struggle to understand another person’s point of view! So I wish you could find a way to simplify your terms!

Cheers,

Lorraine

report post as inappropriate

Dear Georgina,

I am glad to see you in the contest again this year. Although I can't say I grasped all the technical details, I must say that I greatly appreciate someone of your intelligence taking a stand against determinism in physics or anywhere else.

Given my background, I wrote a more qualitative essay. Please take the time to check it out, tell me what you think, and give me your vote:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2391

Best of luck in the contest!

Rick Searle

report post as inappropriate

Dear Georgina

I just posted a reply to your comment on my essay about Platonism. It is on my own forum, under your comment. I started to read your essay and already see the same discussion can be continued on the basis of this new dimension.

Best regards

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I've read through your essay..

But I think I'll need to look at this one at least once more, to fully make sense of it, Georgina. The highlighting of various colors brings clarity in some places, and confuses or makes me wish you used yet another color in other places. In general; the message came through, but it will take time to decipher some of the abbreviations in your logical notation. You seem to be serving a noble end here, but with only partial communication of your message and perhaps a little confusion of your own.

I really like that you map out the difference between the object reality and what is observable or observed, but I see a tendency to use certain terminology of quantum mechanics in a relativistic setting and vice versa. Now, I acknowledge that there are no isolated systems and that we are operating within a quantum relativistic framework all the time, but certain concepts or descriptive metaphors have a limited range of applicability for a reason. So I'd like to ask a question relating to the opening elucidation of a category error.

In relation to that paragraph; how should we consider the size of a proton? In an abstract sense; placing it in an empty space apart from observers or interactions with other particles that could constitute measurement, it has no size. But in lab experiments an in the nucleus; we know it takes up a particular amount of space. We can probe it with a smaller particle, like an electron. However; recent experiments show that the size we obtain using electrons is a little different from the number we get when scientists use muons as a probe instead.

So sometimes the object / observable distinction, is hard to exactly delineate. How does the above example fit your schema?

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I am grateful to those people who took the time to read my essay and comment.

Its a pity no one wanted to ask about or pick out where the explanations could have been clearer. The key for understanding the alphabetic 'equations' is on the first, new diagram. I was short of space and characters my own counter much stricter than FQXi's. It would have helped if it was given prior to using that precise shorthand code.

One good question would have been why is the live cat observable Absolute and not limited fixed state. Having thought about this I was mistaken in equating the live cat object with the observable itself. The observable is that part of the live cat from which sensory data is emitted and from which the observed manifestation will be formed. It is not the whole of the cat and is only that part from which data is received by the observer on first opening the box. Making it limited and fixed at observation- the state of the cat surface corresponding to the sensory data emitted does not change. Likewise upon reflection I would rather denote the dead cat observable, that part of the dead cat seen only, as a limited fixed state produced upon observation, rather than as the Absolute dead cat object.

This also raises the issue that this is a scenario evolving over time and so it would have been useful to mark the different times as T1 through to T5 going from initial content to output, emergent reality produced by the observer's processing of received sensory data.As I do on the attached document.

The purpose of the analysis was to show that the analogy is inadequate as a representation of superposition of states.Which I think it still does without the improvements.

attachments: Cat_in_the_box_revisited_with_times.pdf

Re.the Andromeda paradox. This explanation applies to a universe in which there is a foundational uni-temporal, absolute space Object reality (This is like Present-ism but preceding the observed present which is the output of sensory data processing and thus delayed relative to uni-temporal Now Object reality:and there is an an emergent space time reality that co-exists within Object reality as another distinct facet of reality.

The Object reality or source reality, and Image reality experienced present manifestation are not synchronized. When an event is observed via its manifestations is variable, but when an event happens in the source Object reality is definite, and uni-temporal as that event having happened in Object reality is true for all locations.

The observer walking towards Andromeda would receive the potential sensory data sooner than an Earth bound observer. So even though no invasion data is yet received as Andromeda is too far away it can be said that for the walking observer the potential sensory data emitted from the invasion events on Andromeda are nearer to him than the Earth bound observer. This does not however mean the source event occurred sooner. The source event occurs only once and the time of that occurrence (iteration of the Object universe within the imaginary past sequence of iterations is unique and unchangeable).

Category and Reconciliation Errors

Key

A.. Actualized, a substantial element of reality.

Ab.. absolute, no singular reference frame applied.

Category error.. failure to correctly identify or discriminate between different kinds of element of reality belonging to the different facets of reality.

Definite.. certain and un-altering

EOIR.. element of Image reality.

EOOR.. element of Object reality, not same as objective reality.

Image reality.. emergent output reality from sensory data /measurement processing, Individual observer specific or objective via shared output or shared sensory data input.

L.. Limited (partial sample)

FS ...Fixed state.. a selection giving one un-altering state

MS.. Mixed state..a selection containing more than one state

Manifestation .. Output of sensory data processing

O Observable

Object reality.. foundational, source reality of substantial objects and particles and potential sensory data.

Objective reality.. Multi-observer corroborated Image reality

PSD.. Potential sensory data

R..related to

Reality interface..Interface between object reality and image reality where input sensory data is converted to output manifestations.

The Prime reality Interface is the human sensory system inc. CNS. That converts input sensory data from Object reality into experienced present manifestation.

S.. source, a substantial EOOR that is source of the potential sensory data under consideration.

Subjective reality...Personal experience of Image reality

Pre-written future.. PSD within the environment that may be received by an observer and be processed into experienced present.

Un-written future..Imaginary future that has no substantial existence.

Uni-temporal.. singular universal time of Object reality. Passage of time being the change in configuration of the Object universe, only the youngest arrangement having substantial existence. The sequence of arrangements is imaginary (it has no substantial reality).

Here I have used O for observable rather than theta used in the essay and diagram. I thought O might be confused with Object, which is S for source, but thinking about it some mire theta might be even more confusing as it already has a number of other uses in mathematics and various branches of science.

Interestingly the explanatory framework with two different facets of reality implies a wave matter duality underlying that. The matter component is the objects made of atoms, where as the wave component is the sensory data produced through interaction of the object with the surrounding environment.

For a man that is his substantial body made of atoms AND the potential sensory data emitted from his body and clothing spreading out in space around him. That can be intercepted by an observer at one of a variety of positions or by several different observers at different positions around him and be formed into a manifestation or manifestations of the man. Each manifestation giving a representation of an aspect of the topology of the man as it is made from the subset of data received by that observer at that position and time.

Both the man made of atoms and the wave sensory data are real phenomena and in everyday conversation both the Object man made of atoms, forming blood flesh bones and organs and the image manifestation of the man that is seen would be referred to as 'the man' or more likely the man's name as he is a person. There isn't in general parlance differentiation between the two phenomena, the two aspects of the wave matter duality.

For a single particle such as an electron it is likely the interaction of the effect of the particles own motion with the effect of the vibration of the atoms of the apparatus that gives the waves able to interfere and thence influence the final destination of the particle. Once again interaction of the matter with the surrounding environment.

The given framework has a place for atoms unlike the space-time continuum which only includes the observed product of intercepted em waves, thus missing one complete facet of reality.

I' m posting these relevant posts about time here with my essay so they do not become lost in the mass of discussion pages. I think they are further indications of the utility of the explanatory framework and of the problem with accepting mathematical theory at 'face value'. This understanding of time overcomes Grandfather, barn pole, Andromeda, and Man riding light beam paradoxes.

The first reply comes after a discussion of a man riding a light beam.

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 24, 2015 @ 01:01 GMT

Akinbo, All

Akinbo you make a good point regarding the existence of a photon when "time stops". I will address that issue.

The problem here is lack of differentiation of different kinds of time.

There needs to be at least 4 kinds acknowledged and differentiated in physics, though there are more kinds of time if we include different representations of time such as time that only exists mathematically, internal biologically time, as kept by circadian rhythms adjusted by light exposure times: important for biological organisms, and "Father time" that only exists symbolically and mentally.

The kinds of time important for physics are:

1. time in foundational Object reality, that is passage of time synonymous with the sequential change in configuration of the Object universe. OR.configuration time. Any highly regular sequential change with unchanging accuracy of repetition can be use to represent this such as clock time but only very close to the position of a stationary observer, to avoid significant data transmission and processing delay and affects of motion upon the timekeeping of the clock. This can be likened to "Proper time".

2. time information carried by potential sensory EM data primarily (but also other forms of sensory data ) in Object reality, OR. data time.

3. The time as experienced by an organism or displayed by a processing device. Which is Image reality time. It may be helpful to split that time into outputs that retain the data receipt order and those that do not necessarily.

That's a Basic IR. time and a subjective IR. time.

Now as regards the "stopped" photon. That it is stopped is the relative perception of the observer travelling with it. Yes from that perspective the photon ceases to have a frequency or wavelength because the observer is travelling with the wave keeping pace with it. But the photons in the beam are not themselves changed. There is no Basic IR. or subjective IR.Passage of time that can be formed from the photons in that reference frame.So in that respect there is no time. However the photon beam is still carrying OR. data time that could give Basic or subjective IR. time output to observer's crossed by it's path not travelling with it. Also there is still the foundational OR. configuration time: Object universal passage of time in which these scenarios are happening, that is independent of relative perceptions and data transmission.

That time is both stopped and not stopped is only paradoxical if no differentiation between kinds of time is made.

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 24, 2015 @ 06:34 GMT

I just need to add to my previous post that: OR.configuration time is not affected by gravitation or motion , unlike Einstein's proper time. OR.data time and subsequent Basic IR. time is affected due to the curving of the EM data paths within a gravitational field and the Doppler effect. If substantial atomic clocks themselves are running slow when in motion as shown by a permanent change in time shown compared to a relatively stationary clock it is necessary to separately categorize clock time, for moving clocks.