Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Peter Morgan wrote on Aug. 31, 2018 @ 23:30 GMT
"Once you start thinking of an agent as a quantum system in his or her own right, says Renner, things get complicated." The initial conditions get complicated, but the equations of motion might and presumably will still be simple, as they are in classical physics. Planck's constant, that Lorentz invariant scale of action, is still the one that rules them all when it comes to measurement incompatibility and quantum fluctuations, come whatever else may.
I look forward to them finding ways to finesse that, as if to make Planck's constant locally look as if it's smaller, even while in principle it's still a universal constant.
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Sep. 1, 2018 @ 12:52 GMT
VISIBLE reality am not a theory. The real VISIBLE earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before any theoretical physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural silly guesswork concerning abstract observers of some imaginary cat that could have been affected by some sort of burst of temporary finite invisible quantum particles. All real observers have always seen the real VISIBLE surface of every real cat they have ever seen and they have been able to deduce that the real VISIBLE surface of the cat that did not move was a pretty convincing clue that it would be a real dead cat.
This logically means that it was Nature that designed the only single structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There must have only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Finite Time cannot exist in ETERNITY. Finite distance cannot be measured infinitely.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern wrote on Sep. 1, 2018 @ 23:05 GMT
"One of the foundational insights of quantum theory is that, just by observing a system, you change it."
That is not an insight. It is a delusion. Like the famous cat, a coin is neither heads nor tails, until some observer decides to "call it", but that act of observation did not change the state of the coin - it does not collapse into a one-side coin. The observation merely changed the observer's mental state that models the coin, not the coin itself.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Sep. 2, 2018 @ 12:40 GMT
Dear Robert H McEachern,
The August 31, 2018, article Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes written by Kate Becker that was published by FQXI.org, contains this utterly incomprehensible statement:
“One way to interpret this is that the observation caused the cat’s wavefunction—the mathematical expression of the cat’s possible states and how likely they are—to "collapse" into a single outcome. But today many theorists favor a different way of thinking, called the "many worlds" interpretation. In this view of things, observing the cat makes reality branch into two separate but equally valid realities. In one, the cat lives; in the other, it dies.”
NATURAL VISIBLE REALITY am not a stupid humanly contrived theory. Nature only ever provided one VISIBLE reality. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring ETERNALLY in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 4, 2018 @ 06:44 GMT
Linguistically, live and dead cat are both the cat object. The live cat though has functioning aerobic respiration and many processes occurring in the body that rely upon that biochemistry. The dead cat is not respiring. Many processes are not functioning because of that and other biochemistry such as autolysis, the break down of cells, is happening. The live and dead cat are not the same object if the biochemistry is considered. Linguistically, broken and intact poison flask are both flask object. Their topology is very different though. Shards of glass are different objects to the intact flask if topology is considered, Linguistically, decayed and non decayed radioactive particle are both the particle. However if an alpha or beta particle is lost they are not the same object anymore. Different objects can't be in a state of superposition, only different states that might be observed pertaining to the same object. So the thought experiment is not a good analogy.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Sep. 4, 2018 @ 15:09 GMT
Dear Georgina Woodward,
Natural VISIBLE reality am not a humanly contrived imaginary abstract thought process. Please do try to understand that Nature provided one VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light BEFORE you published your finite guesswork statement at this site.
A real live cat and a real dead cat will always have a real VISIBLE surface. All real cells will always have a real VISIBLE surface. There has never been any invisible finite “processes.” Every real intact poison flask has always had a real VISIBLE surface. Every real shard of every real shattered poison flask has always had a real VISIBLE surface. Invisible quantum particles have never existed. All the lying CERN scientists have ever accomplished am to present a computer enhanced cartoon of supposedly small green finite shaped rectangles representing live quantum particles colliding and turning into smaller yellow rectangles representing decayed quantum particles. Their ridiculous search for the invisible Higgs Boson that supposedly has the least finite amount of mass am insane. Different abstract objects have different abstract finite amounts of invisible “mass.” ALL REAL OBJECTS ETERNALLY SHARE ONE VISIBLE INFINITE SURFACE THAT AM ALWAYS MOSTLY ILLUMINATED BY FINITE NON-SURFACE LIGHT.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 4, 2018 @ 21:47 GMT
If the structure and chemistry of the particle before and after decay is considered they are different objects. Yet linguistically both referred to as particle, so seemingly the same object. This may seem a bit pedantic but I think the use of language is failing to clearly categorize the objects as different things rather than same things in different observable states; before and after radioactive decay has happened, releasing the poison.
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Sep. 10, 2018 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear Georgina Woodward,
All real portions of real chemicals have a VISIBLE surface. Only one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever existed. Finite invisible quantum particles are delusions of unnatural human thoughtlessness.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on Sep. 4, 2018 @ 21:25 GMT
Infinitely trolling with a shallow running crank bait is what's visible.
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Sep. 9, 2018 @ 14:44 GMT
Theoretical physics am unnatural human guesswork. Although there are many human theories concerning the apparent finite structure of the universe and its finite duration offered by many theoretical physicists in many languages, there am only one real NATURAL VISIBLE REALITY. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Every common cockroach knows that it shares its VISIBLE surface with the VISIBLE surface that surrounds it.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Sep. 17, 2018 @ 14:26 GMT
Dear Loyal Reality Followers,
The September 14, 2018 Closer to Truth Facebook page contained this ridiculous statement:
“Stanford University has released a five-part series that outlines the ways that theoretical physicists at Stanford University have contributed to the development of the String Theory Landscape. The series includes profiles of Closer To Truth contributors Leonard Susskind, Andrei Linde, and Alan Guth.”
Naturally, I posted this sagacious comment at the website:
Provable fact: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before any Stanford University theoretical physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their utterly unnatural silly guesswork about invisible finite imaginary universes. Multiple universes would require multiple realities.
It logically follows that NATURE must have devised the only physical structure of the real Universe allowable. There must only ever have been one REAL unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, The Lone Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Sep. 18, 2018 @ 13:55 GMT
Dear Potential Realists,
Yesterday’s Closer to Truth Facebook page contained this ridiculous statement:
“Could information be the stuff of which everything is made? Information seems so abstract, not a substance or a thing, so how could it be the building blocks of reality? There are ways and reasons how information can literally be reality, some scientists claim, and their ideas are revolutionary. Cosmologist and professor Sean M. Carroll provides his perspective on our featured topic of the week in this interview.”
I have posted this comment at the website:
Unnatural humanly contrived information has absolutely nothing to do with realty. There are many types of humanly devised finite information. There am only one VISIBLE reality. INDISPUTABLE FACT: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Professor Sean M. Carroll appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural silly guesswork concerning invisible quantum particles.
Logically, NATURE must have devised the only real physical structure of the Universe allowable. There must only have ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Sep. 20, 2018 @ 14:59 GMT
Today’s Closer to Truth Facebook page contained this preposterous statement:
“Seth Lloyd is a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, and refers to himself as a “quantum mechanic”. In this interview, Lloyd makes the claim that the universe is a computer. He argues that the statement is a mathematical theorem, not a metaphor. Do you agree?”
I sensibly left this comment at the website:
There are many different types of computers. They all have one thing in common. Every real computer has a real VISIBLE surface. Every real computer programmer has a real VISIBLE surface. The only indisputable fact you ever need to know am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Professor Lloyd ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural silly guesswork concerning some sort of finite imaginary universe.
There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Sep. 21, 2018 @ 15:17 GMT
Dear Reality Brethren,
Today’s Closer to Truth Facebook page contained this codswallop assertion:
“Is it possible to believe that information is the ultimate reality when one believes in God? Don Page is a quantum physicist who believes in God. In this interview, he discusses his belief that God is the ultimate source of reality. He mentions that our conscious perceptions are more important than information, but information is a useful way of talking about the universe.”
Fortunately, for sensible folk’s sake, I left this comment at the website:
Humanly contrived finite information has absolutely nothing to do with reality. There are many levels of information about many invisible Gods, there has to be only one provable reality. Indisputable fact: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Don Page ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural inane guesswork concerning an invisible God’s effect on a finite imaginary universe.
Obviously, NATURE must have devised the only real physical structure of the Universe allowable. There must only ever have been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Truth will set you free,
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Sep. 24, 2018 @ 20:39 GMT
Today’s Closer to Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar assertion:
“What do we know and how do we know it? What is knowledge? What is belief? How is belief justified? What justifies us in believing what we believe? Andy Clark is a professor of philosophy and Chair in Logic and Metaphysics at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. In this interview, he discusses the implication for knowledge and how we have it.”
Fortunately for Closer to Truth Facebook page readers, I left this sensible comment at the website:
Humanly contrived guesswork about whether some professors could be more capable of guessing what human knowledge might be than human dustmen are, has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
Indisputable fact: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Professor Andy Clark ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural pretentious guesswork concerning abstract human knowledge that am rationed out to humans through invisible individual consciousness.
Logically, NATURE must have devised the only real physical structure of the real Universe obtainable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light .
NATURE provided the only reality that could easily be handled by every insect, fish, fowl, and every animal except man. Man has only provided scientific, religious, philosophical, and political codswallop.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Sep. 27, 2018 @ 15:30 GMT
Today’s Closer to Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar assertion:
“Meghan Sullivan is a Professor of Philosophy and the Rev. John A. O’Brien Collegiate Chair at Notre Dame. In this interview, she lends her thoughts on epistemology through a philosophical lens. She states that she is starting to take skepticism more seriously, but says that going “full Cartesian” may not be a practical way to live your life.”
I posted this sensible comment at the website:
The only condition every human being ever born will “know” am how to behave unnaturally. The more “knowledge” any human claims to have, the more unnaturally that person will behave. There has only ever been one indisputable fact: the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Professor Meghan Sullivan ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing her utterly unnatural guesswork concerning finite invisible abstractions.
Obviously, NATURE must have devised the only real physical structure of the Universe allowable.. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light .
Humans do not have a natural habitat. They spend most of their time unnaturally sitting in unnatural cubes unnaturally thinking about what other humans might unnaturally be thinking about them.
Joe Fisher, Realist Extraordinary
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 2, 2018 @ 17:49 GMT
Today’s Closer to Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar assertion:
“Religion without God? Most people believe that God exists and religion is God's revelation. But some say religion, particularly the organization of religion into institutions, needs nothing supernatural to begin, develop and multiply. In other words, religion without God can flourish because personal psychology and group sociology drive religion. Dr Susan Blackmore is a freelance writer, lecturer, and a Visiting Professor at the University of Plymouth. Her research interests include evolutionary theory, consciousness, memes (not the kind you find on the internet), and meditation. In this interview, Dr. Blackmore provides her perspective on the topic of religion explained without God.”
I thoughtfully posted this sensible comment at the website:
There am many versions of Religion. There am only one reality. That one reality has only one visible structure. That reality has only one indisputable real fact. The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Professor Susan Blackmore appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing her religious guesswork. Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only REAL Universe allowable. There has only ever been one REAL unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 4, 2018 @ 14:45 GMT
Today’s Closer to Truth Facebook Page contains this outlandish announcement:
“Mark Vernon is a writer, broadcaster and journalist. He began his professional life as a priest in the Church of England. In this interview, Mark probes the question of what religion is even with no God.”
I immediately posted this corrective comment:
There am many versions of Religion. There am only one reality. That one reality has only one visible structure. That reality has only one indisputable real fact. The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Mark Vernon appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural religious guesswork. Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only REAL Universe allowable. There has only ever been one REAL unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Sublime Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 6, 2018 @ 12:30 GMT
Today’s Closer to Truth Facebook Page contained this outlandish announcement:
“Religion might just be a byproduct of something that was useful to us, whether or not religion is of any use to us.” - Jared Diamond
Jared Diamond is a physiologist, ecologist, biologist, geographer, anthropologist, and author. With such a eclectic background, Jared provides interesting approach to the topic of religion without God by discussing the “evolution” of religion
I posted this helpful comment at the website:
There am many versions of Religion. There am only one reality. That one reality has only one visible structure. That one reality has only one indisputable real fact. The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Jared Diamond appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural finite religious guesswork. Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only REAL Universe allowable. There has only ever been one REAL unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, the one true Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 9, 2018 @ 15:19 GMT
Today’s Closer to Truth Facebook Page contained this outlandish announcement:
“What enables structures to form in the universe? How did galaxies, stars and planets develop from the primeval plasma soup? In this interview, Abraham ‘Avi’ Loeb presents his thoughts on fine-tuning in cosmology.”
I posted this helpful comment at the website:
The real VISIBLE Universe must have only one real VISIBLE structure. The only structural fact that am indisputable confirms that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Professor Avi Loeb ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural grotesque guesswork concerning invisible finite vacuums and finite abstract cosmic constants.
Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable.
There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist Primo
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 11, 2018 @ 15:15 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook Page contained this outlandish announcement:
“What are the laws of nature that bring about these cosmic bodies and did those laws have to be just so? Is it legitimate science to see fine-tuning in cosmology? In this interview, Fred Adams expounds on the questions surrounding fine-tuning in cosmology.”
I immediately posted this sensible comment:
Humanly contrived concepts of nature can have any number of supposedly finite laws. Real NATURE has only one real law. The real VISIBLE Universe must have only one real VISIBLE structure. The only structural fact that am indisputable confirms that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Fred Adams ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural preposterous guesswork concerning invisible finite protons and photons and finite abstract black holes existing in some finite earlier version of an imaginary universe.
Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable.
There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist Extraordinary
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 12, 2018 @ 15:10 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Bernard Carr is a Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at Queen Mary, University of London. In this interview, Bernard describes the landscape of fine-tuning in cosmology, and its ranges of categories. For more on this topic.”
I immediately posted this sensible comment at th website:
Natural VISIBLE reality am ETERNAL Humanly contrived concepts of abstract cosmology can have any number of supposedly finite laws. Real NATURE has only one real law. The real VISIBLE Universe must have only one real VISIBLE structure. The only structural fact that am indisputable confirms that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Professor Bernard Carr ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural preposterous guesswork concerning his finite fine tuning of supposedly finite invisible gravitational and atomic forces that somehow affected some sort of imaginary universe.
Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable.
There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist to the Stars
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 15, 2018 @ 15:42 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“How prevalent is life throughout the universe? We now know that there are likely even more planets than there are stars. So, is life in the cosmos prevalent or rare? Either answer yields profound implications. In this interview, Mario Livio addresses these questions surrounding life in the cosmos.”
I thoughtfully posted this sublimely sane comment at the website:
Natural VISIBLE reality am ETERNAL Real NATURE has only one real law. The real VISIBLE Universe must have only one real VISIBLE structure. The only structural fact that am indisputable confirms that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Mario Livio ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural preposterous guesswork concerning imaginary planets having some sort of finite life forms.
Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable. There am only one immortal VISIBLE life form. All real fauna and flora have a real VISIBLE surface. It would be unnaturally illogical and structurally impossible if any life form surface was somehow visually separable from any non-life form surface.
Joe Fisher, Not very well known Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 15, 2018 @ 21:16 GMT
It had to happen, and it happened today. I posted the above comment on Mario Livio's Facebook page and he thanked me for leaving the comment. He is the first Physicist of the 220 I have made aware of Natural Visible Reality to ever give me a response.
I replied by posting this comment:
Just as there has never been identical snowflakes, there will never be identical planets. Therefore, unique immortal life will only ever be VISIBLE on planet Earth.
Joe Fisher, Gifted Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 18, 2018 @ 15:11 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Luke Barnes is a theoretical astrophysicist, cosmologist and postdoctoral researcher at Western Sydney University. In this interview, he discusses ideas surrounding life in the cosmos.”
I instantly posted this sensible comment:
Reality am not a theory. Natural VISIBLE reality must be ETERNAL Real NATURE must have only one real law. The real VISIBLE Universe must have only one real VISIBLE structure. The only structural fact that am indisputable confirms that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Luke Barnes ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural preposterous guesswork concerning imaginary planets having some sort of finite life forms especially created by an invisible God..
Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable. There am only one immortal VISIBLE life form. All real fauna and flora have a real VISIBLE surface. It would be unnaturally illogical and structurally impossible if any life form surface was somehow visually separable from any non-life form surface. No two snowflakes have ever been found to be identical, so obviously, no two planets could ever be identical. Life must be unique to this planet.
Joe Fisher, Realist First Class
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 19, 2018 @ 15:26 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Fred Adams is a professor of physics at the University of Michigan. In this interview, Fred expounds upon the idea of life outside of Earth.”
I posted this sensible comment at the website:
One real visible universe must only have one true determination. The only indisputable fact we all know confirms that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Fred Adams ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural preposterous guesswork concerning imaginary planets possibly orbiting fabulous stars.
Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable.
There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light.
Real Physicists have proven that no two real VISIBLE snowflakes of the trillions that have fallen have ever been physically identical. Logically, that means that there never could ever be identical VISIBLE physical planets, and that logically also means that only VISIBLE unique life has only ever immortally existed on part of the VISIBLE infinite surface of the real planet Earth.
Joe Fisher, Realist Extraordinaire
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 22, 2018 @ 15:04 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“God exists? God does not exist? What kinds of Gods? It's no challenge to find flaws and fallacies on all sides. Can we step away from old arguments and ask how to approach God's existence? What's the process? In this interview, we asked Jaron Lanier how we should think about and approach the question of God’s existence?”
I posted this sensible comment at the website:
Reality am not a “(finite) bundle of (finite) ideas.” There has only been one true fact about reality that everyone could understand: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Jaron Lanier ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural preposterous guesswork concerning contradictory finite humanly contrived abstract beliefs in some sort of invisible God.
Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable.
There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Special Realist
report post as inappropriate
Brian B wrote on Oct. 23, 2018 @ 01:08 GMT
"Let’s say we would like to decide whether there’s really a superposition of the dead cat and living cat," says Renner, returning to the Schrödinger’s cat paradox. "If we want to do that we have to control the system extremely well," in particular the wavefunction, says Renner. That level of control would require an exquisitely precise clock—one that might be impossible to build.
If Renner and del Rio can show that such a precise quantum clock is a physical impossibility, that would meant that there is no way to discriminate between a superposition and a mixture in a "macroscopic" object like a cat, and the difference between the two states would lose its meaning. "Then the distinction between superpositions and mixtures is just a mathematical curiosity without a ’physically existing’ counterpart," says Renner. "The paradox would dissolve."
A few questions:
1) Are they arguing that we cannot know time accurately due to the time energy uncertainty principle? If so then can they use an observable that commutes with time?
2) What is the theoretical limit of an optical frequency comb?
3) Bell's inequalities tells us there are no local hidden variables but it does not rule out nonlocal hidden variables. If the collapse of a wavefunction is a nonlocal process, like measuring the spin between two entangled particles, then how does that impact our understanding of causality and time? Is there a second higher speed limit for a collapsing wavefunction or must it be instantaneous to prevent violating the conservation of angular momentum?
4) Why is everyone obsessed with quantum gravity?
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Oct. 23, 2018 @ 14:42 GMT
Dear Brian B,
Reality am not questionable. Pretentious pseudo scientific abstract codswallop am unfalteringly suspicious. I am not obsessed with quantum gravity because I know that one real Universe must have only one real VISIBLE structure.
There has only been one true fact about reality that everyone could understand: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before any theoretical physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their utterly unnatural preposterous guesswork concerning finite invisible quantum gravity. Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable.
There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Very Patient Realist
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 23, 2018 @ 17:20 GMT
Brian,
A few answers:
1) Are they arguing that we cannot know time accurately due to the time energy uncertainty principle? If so then can they use an observable that commutes with time?
They seem to be arguing that the uncertainty principle is the ultimate limit, but perhaps other physical circumstances limit what can be done, even before the uncertainty principle limit is reached.
2) What is the theoretical limit of an optical frequency comb?
The limit of all observables is given by Shannon's Capacity Theorem, which in the case of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, reduces to the statement that, every set of measurements, must contain one or more bits of information; if you have failed to extract even a single bit of information, from within all the data bits comprising your set of measurements, then you have failed to make anything worthy of being called a measurement.
3) Bell's inequalities tells us there are no local hidden variables but it does not rule out nonlocal hidden variables. If the collapse of a wavefunction is a nonlocal process, like measuring the spin between two entangled particles, then how does that impact our understanding of causality and time? Is there a second higher speed limit for a collapsing wavefunction or must it be instantaneous to prevent violating the conservation of angular momentum?
Bell's inequality is derived from the false assumption that something ELSE always remains to be measured, after the first measurement of an entangled pair has been performed. But that is obviously false, when the entity being measured manifests only a single-bit of information - the Heisenberg limit. In this peculiar case, not only are there no hidden-variables, there are no variables (plural) at all - there is only one bit.
4) Why is everyone obsessed with quantum gravity?
Because, like oil and water, gravity and quantum theories do not mix, but everyone thinks that they should be modified so that they do.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Oct. 24, 2018 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear Robert H McEachern,
REALITY AM NOT PUZZLING.
Natural VISIBLE reality must be understood by all living creatures at all times and in all places located in the real VISIBLE Universe. That could only happen if there was only one real permanent VISIBLE universal physical structure. Do you deny that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before you appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing your unnatural supposedly finite guesswork answers concerning Brian B’s unnatural supposedly finite questions?
Do you deny that you and Brian B and every creature that has ever lived has always had a VISIBLE surface? Do you deny that everywhere you look, you only ever see surface?
There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Enduringly Patient Realist
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Oct. 24, 2018 @ 15:53 GMT
R. McEachern,
Very good and succinct answers, i through 4.
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 25, 2018 @ 20:45 GMT
Yesterday's Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“I always tell people that to be a Buddhist, it is to see the limitation of all our conceptualization, the function of the mind, but not stop there; but to break through and to beyond.”
How do we think about God’s existence? In this interview, we ask Venerable Dr. Yifa for her thoughts on how we think about God’s existence.
I posted this sensible comment:
Reality am not dependent on any humanly contrived thought process. Natural VISIBLE reality must be understood by all living creatures at all times and in all places located in the real VISIBLE Universe. That could only happen if there was only one real permanent VISIBLE universal physical structure.
There has only been one true fact about reality that everyone could understand: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Venerable Dr. Yifa ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing her utterly unnatural preposterous guesswork concerning some sort of finite invisible oriental God. Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable. Would Dr. Yifa deny that she and all of the creatures that have ever lived have always had a VISIBLE surface? Would Dr. Yifa deny that no matter in which direction she might choose to look, she would only ever see VISIBLE surface? There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light.
So far, the comment has been "Liked" three times.
Joe Fisher, Up and Coming Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 26, 2018 @ 15:22 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Hubert Dreyfus was an American philosopher and former Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. In this interview, Hubert sheds some light on God’s existence through a philosophical lens.”
I posted this sensible comment at the website:
There am myriads of humanly contrived finite conceptions concerning the influence of some sort of invisible God. Reality am not dependent on any humanly finite contrived thought process. Natural VISIBLE reality must be understood by all living creatures at all times and in all places located in the real VISIBLE Universe. That could only happen if there was only one real permanent VISIBLE universal physical structure.
There has only been one true fact about reality that everyone could understand: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Hubert Dreyfus ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural preposterous finite philosophical guesswork Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable. Would Hubert Dreyfus deny that he and all of the creatures that have ever lived have always had a VISIBLE surface? Would Hubert Dreyfus deny that no matter in which direction he might choose to look, he would only ever see VISIBLE surface? There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Long Lasting Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 29, 2018 @ 15:17 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Cosmology is the study of the structure, beginning and end of the universe, and it has been transformed from mostly metaphysical speculation to a precision observational science. We read the microwave background of the sky, a relic of the primordial big bang, and we “listen” for minute gravity waves when...
view entire post
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Cosmology is the study of the structure, beginning and end of the universe, and it has been transformed from mostly metaphysical speculation to a precision observational science. We read the microwave background of the sky, a relic of the primordial big bang, and we “listen” for minute gravity waves when distant black holes collide. Where do we go from here? What capabilities are to come? In this interview, we speak with Pedro G. Ferreira, professor of astrophysics at the University of Oxford, about the future of cosmology.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website:
REALITY AM NOT FINITE. Natural VISIBLE reality must be understood by all living creatures at all times and in all places located in the real VISIBLE Universe. That could only happen if there was only one real permanent VISIBLE universal physical structure.
There has only been one true fact about reality that everyone could understand: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Professor Pedro G. Ferreira ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural preposterous finite cosmological guesswork Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable. Would Professor Pedro G. Ferreira deny that he and all of the creatures that have ever lived have always had a real VISIBLE surface? Would Professor Pedro G. Ferreira deny that no matter in which direction he might choose to look, he would only ever see real VISIBLE surface? There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light. REALITY could not possibly have a finite future. My hope is that NATURAL VISIBLE REALITY will become acceptable, and all humanly contrived unnatural finite speculation about invisible black holes and invisible Gods will cease to be published.
Joe Fisher, Optimistic Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 1, 2018 @ 15:27 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Joseph Silk is Homewood Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University. He has made important contributions that have transformed cosmology into a high-precision science. Joseph discusses the future of cosmology in this interview.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website:
REALITY AM NOT FINITE. Reality could not possibly have a finite future that might result in a different kind of finite reality suddenly appearing. Natural VISIBLE reality must be understood by all living creatures at all times and in all places located in the real VISIBLE Universe. That could only happen if there was only one real permanent VISIBLE universal physical structure.
There has only been one true fact about reality that everyone could understand: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Professor of Physics and Astronomy Joseph Silk ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural preposterous finite cosmological guesswork Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable. Would Professor of Physics and Astronomy Joseph Silk deny that he and all of the creatures that have ever lived have always had a real VISIBLE surface? Would Professor of Physics and Astronomy Joseph Silk deny that no matter in which direction he might choose to look, he would only ever see real VISIBLE surface? There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, The Last Hope of Mankind Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 2, 2018 @ 15:37 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Geraint F. Lewis is a Professor of Astrophysics at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy. In this interview, Geraint reflects on the future of the cosmological field, and provides both an optimistic and pessimistic approach to thinking about the future of the cosmological field.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website, on the FQXi.org Community Comments page and on my Facebook page:
REALITY AM REAL. REALITY AM NOT FINITE. Reality could not possibly have a finite optimistic, or finite pessimistic future that might result in a different kind of finite reality suddenly appearing. Natural VISIBLE reality must be understood by all living creatures at all times and in all places located in the real VISIBLE Universe. That could only happen if there was only one real permanent VISIBLE universal physical structure.
There has only been one true fact about reality that everyone could understand: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Professor of Astrophysics Geraint F. Lewis ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural preposterous finite cosmological guesswork Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable. Would Professor of Astrophysics Geraint F. Lewis deny that he and all of the creatures that have ever lived have always had a real VISIBLE surface? Would Professor of Astrophysics Geraint F. Lewis deny that no matter in which direction he might choose to look, he would only ever see real VISIBLE surface? There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, The Lonely Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 5, 2018 @ 17:24 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Parapsychologists are sure ESP is real. Skeptics are sure it is not. But if ESP is real, must explaining ESP go beyond physical laws, into unknown non-physical realms? Nothing repels scientists more than forays into the non-physical. But human concepts of reality keep expanding. We do not know any limits and,...
view entire post
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Parapsychologists are sure ESP is real. Skeptics are sure it is not. But if ESP is real, must explaining ESP go beyond physical laws, into unknown non-physical realms? Nothing repels scientists more than forays into the non-physical. But human concepts of reality keep expanding. We do not know any limits and, due to ESP, it may be foolish to impose them.
In this interview we speak with Dean Radin, a researcher and author in the field of parapsychology. He is also a Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences.”
I posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my Facebook page and on the BUG Co-Worker’s Facebook page.
REALITY AM REAL. REALITY AM NOT FINITE. REALITY has absolutely nothing to do with any imaginary finite human concept. Natural VISIBLE reality must be understood by all living creatures at all times and in all places located in the real VISIBLE Universe. That could only happen if there was only one real permanent VISIBLE universal physical structure.
There has only been one true fact about reality that everyone could understand: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Dean Radin ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural preposterous finite parapsychology guesswork Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable. Would Dean Radin deny that he and all of the creatures that have ever lived have always had a real VISIBLE surface? Would Dean Radin deny that no matter in which direction he might choose to look, he would only ever see real VISIBLE surface? There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, The Persistent Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 7, 2018 @ 17:15 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Marilyn Schlitz is a social research scientist, medical anthropologist, and writer on the subjects of consciousness, healing, and consciousness-based healthcare. In this interview, she discusses the work she has done related to ESP.”
I posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my Facebook page.
Reality has absolutely nothing to do with supposedly human finite perceptibility. Reality happens to be real at all times and under all conditions. Natural VISIBLE reality must be understood by all living creatures at all times and in all places located in the real VISIBLE Universe. That could only happen if there was only one real permanent VISIBLE universal physical structure.
There has only been one true fact about reality that everyone could understand: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Marilyn Schlitz ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing her unnatural preposterous finite imaginary human extra sensory perception guesswork Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable. Would Marilyn Schlitz deny that she and all of the creatures that have ever lived have always had a real VISIBLE surface? Would Marilyn Schlitz deny that no matter in which direction she might choose to look, she would only ever see real VISIBLE surface? There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Head Senior Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 9, 2018 @ 17:05 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“I constantly try to make my laboratory research have some relevance to real life experiences because ESP is not some exotic laboratory phenomenon. It’s something that happens to people in life.”
Charles T. Tart is a psychologist and parapsychologist, known for his work on the nature of consciousness....
view entire post
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“I constantly try to make my laboratory research have some relevance to real life experiences because ESP is not some exotic laboratory phenomenon. It’s something that happens to people in life.”
Charles T. Tart is a psychologist and parapsychologist, known for his work on the nature of consciousness. He is considered one of the founders of the field of transpersonal psychology. In this interview, Charles discusses his research on ESP, specifically citing real life experiences.
I posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my Facebook page.
It would be physically impossible for any living creature to ever have a single unreal life experience. Reality has absolutely nothing to do with supposedly human finite perceptibility. Reality happens to be real at all times and under all conditions. Natural VISIBLE reality must be understood by all living creatures at all times and in all places located in the real VISIBLE Universe. That could only happen if there was only one real permanent VISIBLE universal physical structure.
There has only been one true fact about reality that everyone could understand: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Charles T. Tart ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural preposterous finite imaginary human extra sensory perception guesswork Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable. Would Charles T. Tart deny that he and all of the creatures that have ever lived have always experienced having a real VISIBLE surface? Would Charles T. Tart deny that no matter in which direction he might choose to look, he would only ever experience seeing real VISIBLE surface? There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Benevolent Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 12, 2018 @ 17:21 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“The problem of evil troubles believers and well it should. How to explain the moral evil of human acts and the natural evil of nature? How could God be both all-powerful and all-good? Philosophers of religion offer 'defenses' (no logical contradiction between evil and God's existence) and 'theodicies' (complete...
view entire post
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“The problem of evil troubles believers and well it should. How to explain the moral evil of human acts and the natural evil of nature? How could God be both all-powerful and all-good? Philosophers of religion offer 'defenses' (no logical contradiction between evil and God's existence) and 'theodicies' (complete systems explaining why God allows evil). But do they work?
In this interview, we speak about evil and God with philosopher and professor Alvin Plantinga”
I posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my Facebook page.
There would be no rational way natural VISIBLE reality could be influenced in any way by any sort of invisible God. Reality has absolutely nothing to do with supposedly human finite consciousness. Reality happens to be real at all times and under all conditions. Natural VISIBLE reality must be understood by all living creatures at all times and in all places located in the real VISIBLE Universe. That could only happen if there was only one real permanent VISIBLE universal physical structure.
There has only been one true fact about reality that everyone could understand: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before professor Alvin Plantinga ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural preposterous finite imaginary human religious guesswork Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable. Would professor Alvin Plantinga deny that he and all of the creatures that have ever lived have always experienced having a real VISIBLE surface? Would professor Alvin Plantinga deny that no matter in which direction he might choose to look, he would only ever experience seeing real VISIBLE surface? There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 14, 2018 @ 17:27 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Eleonore Stump is the Robert J. Henle Professor of Philosophy at Saint Louis University. She is a specialist in medieval philosophy. In this interview, she discusses the problem of evil and God.”
I posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my Facebook page.
There would be no rational way natural VISIBLE reality could be influenced in any way by any sort of invisible finite God. Reality happens to be real at all times and under all conditions. Reality cannot have any real VISIBLE finite physical duality. Reality cannot contain any abstract invisible duality such as finite good and finite evil or finite sense and finite nonsense either. Natural VISIBLE reality must be understood by all living creatures at all times and in all places located in the real VISIBLE Universe. That could only happen if there was only one real permanent VISIBLE universal physical structure.
There has only been one true fact about reality that everyone could understand: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before professor Eleonore Stump ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing her unnatural preposterous finite imaginary human religious guesswork Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable. Would professor Eleonore Stump deny that she and all of the creatures that have ever lived have always experienced having a real VISIBLE surface? Would professor Eleonore Stump deny that no matter in which direction she might choose to look, she would only ever experience seeing real VISIBLE surface? There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 16, 2018 @ 16:42 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Hugh McCann was an American philosopher and professor in the Philosophy Department at Texas A&M University. In this interview, he discusses the problem of evil and God.”
I posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board:
There would be no rational way natural...
view entire post
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Hugh McCann was an American philosopher and professor in the Philosophy Department at Texas A&M University. In this interview, he discusses the problem of evil and God.”
I posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board:
There would be no rational way natural VISIBLE reality could ever be influenced in any way by any sort of invisible finite God. VISIBLE reality happens to be real at all times and under all conditions. Reality cannot have any real VISIBLE finite physical duality. Reality cannot contain any humanly contrived abstract invisible duality such as finite good and finite evil or finite meaning and finite causation either. Natural VISIBLE reality must be understood by all living creatures at all times and in all places located in the real VISIBLE Universe. That could only happen if there was only one real permanent VISIBLE universal physical structure.
There has only been one true fact about reality that everyone could understand: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before professor Hugh McCann ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural preposterous finite imaginary human religious philosophical guesswork Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable. Would professor Hugh McCann deny that he and all of the creatures that have ever lived have always experienced having a real VISIBLE surface? Would professor Hugh McCann deny that no matter in which direction he might choose to look, he would only ever experience seeing real VISIBLE surface? There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light. There am only one form of VISIBLE life. What we mistakenly think of as individuals experiencing some sort of finite death am actually Natures method of VISIBLE evolution. Just as you can only continue to live by regularly putting something that was once alive into your mouth and eating it, so too, eventually your flesh gets eaten up by maggots, and the one VISIBLE life form surface continues.
Joe Fisher, Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 17, 2018 @ 21:45 GMT
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
℅ Closer To Truth
November 17, 2018
Ref: Get out of debt suggestion.
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
As you probably know, Capital One Bank is sponsoring a one round of golf match between Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelsen to be played on November 23, 2018, at the exclusive Shadow Creek Golf Course in Las Vegas, Nevada. The winner will be paid $9 million.
I humbly suggest that a debate be arranged monitored by you, that would involve Professor Max Tegmark, arguing for the big bang creation of the universe; Professor Eleanore Stump, arguing for the Divine creation of the universe; and Joe Fisher, arguing for Natural Visible Reality. Perhaps, Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, could be persuaded to provide a $10 million prize to be given to the winner of the debate.
The debate could take place before a live audience in Radio City Music Hall in New York City, New York, on the evening of October 31, 2019, and last from 08:00 PM EST to 10:00 PM EST. The debate would obviously be televised by the PBS channel. There would be a discussion panel of experts, and even a public vote of the winner might be feasible.
Sincerely,
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 19, 2018 @ 17:47 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“The stunning realization that there may be multiple universes has progressed from speculative metaphysics (or science fiction) to serious theoretical cosmology to data-rich observational cosmology to majority-accepted conventional wisdom. Yet challenges remain and questions abound. In this interview, we speak...
view entire post
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“The stunning realization that there may be multiple universes has progressed from speculative metaphysics (or science fiction) to serious theoretical cosmology to data-rich observational cosmology to majority-accepted conventional wisdom. Yet challenges remain and questions abound. In this interview, we speak with Professor Tim Maudlin about the multiverse.”
I posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my Facebook page.
Reality could not possibly have any “stunning” revelation. Real human beings could not VISIBLY differ physically from any other real VISIBLE creatures. Each human has a VISIBLE surface from the moment of conception to his or her demise. All creatures have a VISIBLE surface for all of their lives. VISIBLE reality happens to be real at all times and under all conditions. Reality cannot have any real VISIBLE finite physical duality. Reality cannot contain any humanly contrived abstract invisible duality such as finite good and finite evil or finite meaning and finite causation either. Natural VISIBLE reality must be understood by all living creatures at all times and in all places located in the real VISIBLE Universe. That could only happen if there was only one real permanent VISIBLE universal physical structure.
There has only been one true fact about reality that everyone could understand: The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Professor Tim Maudlin ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural preposterous finite imaginary multiverse guesswork Obviously, NATURE must have produced the only real VISIBLE structure of the real VISIBLE Universe obtainable. Would Professor Tim Maudlin deny that he and all of the creatures that have ever lived have always experienced having a real VISIBLE surface? Would Professor Tim Maudlin deny that no matter in which direction he might choose to look, he would only ever experience seeing real VISIBLE surface? There has only ever been, and there will only ever be, one real unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one real infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by real finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 28, 2018 @ 17:38 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Andy Clark is a professor of philosophy and Chair in Logic and Metaphysics at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. His work includes the study of consciousness, embodied cognition and extended mind. In this interview, he discusses the potential for virtual immortality, specifically the idea of uploading first person consciousness to non-biological media.”
I have posted this sensible comment on the website and on my Facebook page and on the FQXi.org Community Board page:
Reality must be naturally provided universally. There has only ever been one irrefutable fact concerning reality. The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Andy Clark ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural preposterous finite invisible human consciousness guesswork. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one natural VISIBLE infinite surface occurring ETERNALLY in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. The naturally provided VISIBLE surface of the stars and the planets and the mountains and the oceans and the clouds and the good green earth am real. Humanly contrived guesswork about invisible finite gods, and invisible finite black holes, and finite invisible quantum particles am unnatural, unreasonable and completely UNREALISTIC.
Joe Fisher, Profound Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 30, 2018 @ 17:44 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Raymond Tallis is a retired physician and neuroscientist. Raymond rejects the idea of virtual immortality and transhumanism. Hear his thoughts on this topic in this interview.”
I have posted this sensible comment on the website and on my Facebook page and on the FQXi.org Community Board page:
The problem with humanly devised “virtual reality” am that it aspires to have finite components. The problem with humanly contrived mathematics, or physics, or philosophies am that every one of those disciplines am supposed to contain ascertainable finite qualities and quantities. But Natural VISIBLE reality am infinite. The only irrefutable fact anyone needs to understand am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Raymond Tallis ever set foot on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural preposterous invisible human consciousness guesswork. Obviously, NATURE must have devised the only VISIBLE reality allowable. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Dec. 3, 2018 @ 17:16 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“What happens when deep questions of God are addressed by the precise methods of analytic philosophy? It’s not about “proving” the existence of God. It is about clarifying the attributes and doctrines of God. So why is analytic theology controversial?
Oliver D. Crisp is a British theologian who currently works as a Professor of Systematic Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. He specializes in analytic, philosophical, and historical theology. Watch his interview below.”
I posted this comment at the website and on the Community Board of FQXI.org.
Natural reality am ETERNALLY VISIBLE, that am the principle reason one never has to prove that natural VISIBLE reality exists. There am only one fact one need know about reality and it am the irrefutable fact that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Oliver D. Crisp ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural finite copied preposterous guesswork concerning some sort of invisible finite God. Obviously, nature must have produced the only kind of VISIBLE reality allowable, and that one VISIBLE reality must be fully evident to all creatures in all places at all times. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Dec. 5, 2018 @ 17:05 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Eleonore Stump is the Robert J. Henle Professor of Philosophy at Saint Louis University, where she has taught since 1992. Eleonore's areas of specialization include medeival philosophy, philosophy of religion, and metaphysics. In this interview, Eleonore explores the idea of analytic theology by discussing the differences between theology and philosophy.”
I have posted this sensible comment on the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board:
There cannot be any differences in VISIBLE reality, because VISIBLE reality must be the same for all creatures in all places at all times. The only irrefutable fact you will ever need to know about VISIBLE reality am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Eleonore Stump ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing her unnatural preposterous guesswork concerning the supposedly finite abstract differences between human invisible finite philosophical and finite Christian religious beliefs. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Dec. 7, 2018 @ 16:49 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“What is analytic theology, and what is the whole process? We pose this question to Sarah Coakley, an Anglican systematic theologian and philosopher of religion.”
I posted this sensible comment at the website and on the Community Board of FQXI.org.
You do not have to spend a single moment of your time on earth searching for the truth about VISIBLE reality. There cannot be any mystery about VISIBLE reality, because VISIBLE reality must be real for all creatures in all places at all times. The only irrefutable fact you will ever need to know about VISIBLE reality am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Sarah Coakley ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing her unnatural preposterous guesswork concerning finite abstract humanly contrived invisible finite philosophical and finite invisible Christian religious beliefs. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Lee Bloomquist wrote on Dec. 8, 2018 @ 00:49 GMT
Our understanding of wave function collapse uses the language of “standard analysis,” which is not a good language for talking about existence— which is the problem here. Instead of a “limit”, which necessarily involve statements about numbers on a real number line— which therefore say that before the”Limit” can exist, there must first exist this number line stretching in front of...
view entire post
Our understanding of wave function collapse uses the language of “standard analysis,” which is not a good language for talking about existence— which is the problem here. Instead of a “limit”, which necessarily involve statements about numbers on a real number line— which therefore say that before the”Limit” can exist, there must first exist this number line stretching in front of and in back of me who is, on the number line, performing this algorithm for “limit”. The pre existing number line goes into the vanishing points on both horizons.
This kind of language doesn’t help me to see “what exists” in that imagined point on a number line of time, along which travels the wave function.
So when the wave function “collapses,” I am stuck with the language of standard analysis and therefore “limits” on pre-existing “number lines,” to say, first, “what existed,” and so “what collapsed.”
Rather, the language of nonstandard analysis give me something that exists at the imagined “limit”— “the monad.” On which, one can build a mathematical game, called “the Born Infomorphism.” Possibilities exist in the “nonstandard future” part of the monad. The scoreboard exists in the nonstandard past. It is just David Bohm’s model of the computer guided ship guided by radio waves to its slip upriver. In nonstandard proper time— “properTime = (now, properTime)”— one player is the radio antenna, who places possibilities in the nonstandard future. In the standard present instant at the core of the monad, the other player in the game— the quantum particle— chooses where to move. After the move, the quantum particle finds whether or not the radio tower in the game wanted the quantum particle to move to that configuration, or not. And that information is placed in the scoreboard, which exists in the nonstandard past. Since after each move the radio tower lets the quantum particle know where it would have liked the quantum particle to have moved, whether it did so or not— the probability with which the radio tower selects a possibility will match the probability with which the particle chooses that possibility. It’s an old laboratory finding called “probability learning,” which is explained by regret….
In each monad, a play of this game of existence is a “collapse” of the wave function. The particle jumps from trajectory to trajectory in those computer generated graphics in Bohm and Hiley’s book. When it happens to hit the detection screen, who knows what trajectory it would have been following? The distribution follows the Schrodinger equation.
In language involving nonstandard analysis, non-wellfounded sets, mathematical games and “infomorphisms”, the phrase “wave function collapse” means something else.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 9, 2018 @ 20:03 GMT
"The particle jumps from trajectory to trajectory in those computer generated graphics in Bohm and Hiley’s book." But there remains no good reason to suppose that any such jumping happens in reality.
"When it happens to hit the detection screen, who knows what trajectory it would have been following?" No one, precisely because no one ever even attempted to follow it.
"The distribution follows the Schrodinger equation." Precisely, because, rather than attempting to follow anything along any trajectory, the equation, together with the Born Rule, merely describes the detection statistics that can be observed, by a set of stationary detectors, sitting wherever the equation happens to specify. An animal-trap, does not reveal the path the animal took to arrive at the trap. The problem arose when Schrodinger switched from using a single equation/wavefunction to describe a single particle's trajectory, to using the same, single equation/wavefunction to describe something (He knew not what) about ALL particles simultaneously. This does not work correctly - precisely because the latter enables the "jumping" in the solution (entirely due to noise), that does not correspond to any phenomenon in the real world; the "cost-function" being minimized (least-squared error), behaves differently (produces a very different solution to the equation - one enabling "jumping") in the case of ANY noise in ANY measurement or ANY error in ANY potential used in the equation. It will drive ALL and ALL errors to zero, via the "jumping".
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 10, 2018 @ 04:28 GMT
How to interprete a "wave function collapse"? Robert McEachern has the most convincing to me answer: The many delusive worlds of wave function models are turning out to be conceptually different from just one reasonably assumed obvious reality. We don't need non-standard analysis as to understand this and related weirdness.
Having looked in Robert's power point presentation, I just criticize his naive use of Fourier transformation with integration from minus infinity to plus infinity over time. Shannon understood that the definitely real unchangeable past is essentially different from the many predictable and influencable possible futures which are permanently collapsing with growing time. Really already elapsed (past) time is not delusive.
Every human so far was born from exactly one woman and one man, no matter whether or not his family tree is known. Theoretically he has a huge number of ancestors after millions of generations. However, the hypothetic family tree of his grand-grand-grand children will collapse as do wave functions.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 10, 2018 @ 15:28 GMT
Eckard,
"I just criticize his naive use of Fourier transformation with integration from minus infinity to plus infinity over time."
Perhaps it is not quite as naive as it appears. As you know, physics seeks to discover and model predictable phenomenon. So, if perfect predictions are possible, it would enable perfect predictions of the past and future, from a finite duration set of observations. So instead of just integrating over the finite duration of actual measurements, one could integrate over the infinite duration predictions made by the model. This is why the process works for predictable phenomenon. This is why there is an "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" when applied to perfectly predictable phenomenon. And it is also why it is, rather less effective, when applied to unpredictable phenomenon. The latter, is what Shannon's theory is all about.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 11, 2018 @ 17:29 GMT
Rob,
PREdiction of the past did imply reversed direction of time. Claude Shannon was not naive. He didn't accept Laplace's determinism instead of common sense. He meant that the past is known in principle but cannot be changed while the future can be influenced but is not known for sure.
I consider you one of the few who understand that reality is quite different even from the best theory. If one integrates as if there was no fundamental difference between past and future, then one ignores that the restriction to the limited number of Laplacean initial conditions implies the loss of the perhaps infinite amount of unconsidered influences.
In case of analysing measured data, measured future data are not yet available.
Perfect PREdictions may only seem possible to the extent one feels safe to exclude unseen erratic influences. In other words, perfectly predictable phenomena are belonging to models, not to reality.
Maybe, you mistook my criticism. I didn't blame you personally but Laplace, Fourier, and current mainstream physics. Integration either from minus infinity to t=0 in case of analysis or from t=0 to plus infinity would not ignore the conceptual difference between past and future of reality. Both of these half-sided integrals are likewise infinite.
In contrast to Wigner, I don't see an unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. Decomposition into Fourier components is equivalent to decomposition into Cosine components, even if this looks stunning.
Of course, we certainly agree:
Actual measurements imply additional deviations from reality: They are restricted to finite duration and to a finite number of sampled data.
And Shannon's theory contradicts to Laplace's determinism of future.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 12, 2018 @ 14:57 GMT
Eckard,
As you may recall from my 2012 FQXi essay, I make a big distinction between computational models and physical models of reality. I think things like Fourier transforms are very useful as computational models/tools. But, like you, I believe they are not good physical models. The actual, physical processes occurring in the world, are not based on any infinite, orthogonal functions. Attempting to interpret them as if they are, is a long-standing problem.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 12, 2018 @ 18:37 GMT
Rob,
On 28.12.2012, my last sentence was: "Again: Do not confuse mathematics with reality. A vector may be useful to mathematically describe reality. It is not reality." I am still claiming that FT, DFT, CT, DCT and even filter banks are just models of reality, not the reality itself.
Could you please specify on which page of your 2012 essay you "made the big distinction between computational and physical models of reality"?
FT and DFT certainly very useful to some extent models. I merely criticize that they ignore what worried the late Einstein seriously: the now. Outside tradition, there are uncommon models that don't ignore the now, i.e. the distinction between past and future, in particular CT on R+.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 12, 2018 @ 21:24 GMT
Eckard,
The distinction between computational and physical models of reality, was the subject matter of the entire essay:
On the first page, the sub-title of the essay is "Confusing Mathematics for Physics"
On the second page: "Physicists fail to distinguish between the properties of the "reality" they are attempting to describe, and the properties of their mathematical "descriptions of that reality"."
More of the same can be found in
this slideshowRob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 13, 2018 @ 08:53 GMT
Rob,
Because you distinguished "between the properties of a mathematically
constructed map describing a territory, and those of the territory itself", I guess, you didn't clearly separate the "physical models of reality" from "reality itself" which I consider a ubiquitous conjecture.
I see a filter bank a physical model of conjectured as reality function of cochlea in contrast to the (ironically thought as underlaying) FT description. Physical in this case means, it consists of lumped elements like R and C, the combination of which is thought to behave according to FT. I see, however, a serious difference:
Such concrete physical model doesn't ignore the difference between past and future which is missing in the mathematical FT model due to abstraction. A mathematically "implemented" filter bank is in this respect also unrealistic.
You are dealing with realistic band-limited signals. Filterbanks are always band-limited. I understand you.
My criticism of not completely appropriate mathematics arose from awareness of a few, denied by the mainstream theory up to now, misconceptions, I had to teach for decades.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 13, 2018 @ 15:18 GMT
Eckard,
"A mathematically "implemented" filter bank is in this respect also unrealistic." A cochlea filter constructed from lumped elements is also unrealistic. The physical ones are built from things like neurons. The math is just being used to describe some approximate aspects of their behavior.
As far as the "difference between past and future" is concerned, with regards to filtering, bear in mind that a simple delay-line can be used to effectively shift the dividing line between the past and future, relative to the time at which the filter is functioning. The use of "window" functions also effectively changes an infinite transform into a finite one; the infinitely long tails of the windowed transform, contribute nothing to the final result. This is an example of a computational model that may exactly reproduce a physically observed behavior, but represents an "unphysical" model of how nature goes about producing those same behaviors. From an engineering standpoint, the "unphysical" computational model may be highly-superior to the actual physical-model, since algorithms like Fast Fourier Transforms can be used to reduce the computational burden by many orders of magnitude. But from the physics perpective, it is important to remain cognizant of the fact, that nature does not appear to ever employ such algorithms. I think this is related to why so few people understand the actual physical mechanisms that underie either color or acoustic-pitch perception.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 13, 2018 @ 17:40 GMT
Rob,
Output before any input is to be seen more or less obviously in FFT based spectrograms. It is unrealistic IN RESPECT OF causality, and is missing with models consisting of lumped physically real elements.
Can "a simple delay-line be used to effectively shift the dividing line between the past and future"? No. Such delay doesn't change the border between past and future in reality, given in the original signal. It may merely more or less delay the arrival of it. By the way, in reality, there are no negative delays even if the difference between two delays of the same original may be considered as negative.
"The physical ones are built from things like neurons." In my understanding, OHCs, IHCs, and the BM are not neurons. I know a lot of specialists worldwide who understand the physiology of cochlea pretty well. Of course, cochlear function doesn't yet directly explain pitch perception.
Did you already try and deal with MPEG and Fast Cosine Transformation / DCT instead of FFT / DFT?
A symmetrical time window that includes not just the existing traces of the past but also future data is not convincing to me. I was happily not forced to touch such incomprehensibilities with my students.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 13, 2018 @ 22:01 GMT
Eckard,
Buffering up a signal, in order to have enough data to perform any fast transform, is a form of delay, that makes it possible to compute a transform that is impossible to compute in "real-time", since the data being transformed does not yet exist, in the unbuffered, "real-time" scenario.
"Of course, cochlear function doesn't yet directly explain pitch perception." Because it is performed by neuron processing of the cochlear output, rather than the cochlea itself.
"Did you already try and deal with MPEG and Fast Cosine Transformation / DCT instead of FFT / DFT?" Many times. They all have their uses.
"A symmetrical time window that includes not just the existing traces of the past but also future data is not convincing to me." Perhaps you have never encountered a situation in which they are highly advantageous. I have.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 14, 2018 @ 01:56 GMT
Rob,
As you admitted, buffering up signals requires introducing artificial delays. They hide the fact of causality which was formulated by Claude Shannon in terms of past and future. You are following Einstein's mainstream dogma that the distinction between past, (present), and future is just an albeit obstinate illusion. While Einstein took Fourier's mathematics for reality, Shannon obeyed common sense.
If you really were open minded and made comparisons between FT in IR and CT in IR+, you should know that the latter omits redundant non-causal data, merely fictitious data that are not anchored in measurable samples out of reality.
"Perhaps you have never encountered a situation in which they [you meant not yet existing data] are highly advantageous. I have."
Professionals like us who dealt thoroughly with signal processing for decades should respect each other. Being well aware of the benefits of FT and all that, and even in position to causally explain them, I merely hope getting your support when I take the view of Shannon over the belief of Einstein. Let's not take any mathematics for reality. I see non-causal physics as closer related to mathematics rather than as to reality.
Hopefully you understand me, although my command of English is poor.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 14, 2018 @ 14:31 GMT
Eckard,
All filtering processes delay signals. There is nothing artificial about that. My only real disagreement with your position, is that I do not believe that a cosine transform is any more "physically real" than a Fourier transform. I have never encountered any evidence of nature employing any orthogonal functions. Mother nature does not appear to have ever discovered such things, and consequently does not use them anywhere. The problem is, orthogonal transforms require maintaining precise phase relationships between their different components. Nature does not seem to be able to do that. Consequently, it has always puzzled people, why senses like vision and hearing seem to be so insensitive to phase, when all the mathematical models that they have developed in an attempt to explain sensory signal processing are very sensitive to phase. The resolution to this problem, seems to be that nature employs an entirely different principle, to INFER (not measure) "frequency" like color and pitch, by transducing pairs of amplitude measurements made at the output of discrete, bandpass filters, like the cone-cells in the retina of the eye.
A similar problem with phase, is at the heart of the misinterpretation of quantum theory. The wave-function has a phase, so people have come to believe that the phase really matters. But computing the sum of the squares of the real and imaginary parts (Born rule) eliminates the phase information. The phase ultimately does not matter. Only signal amplitudes matter - because that is the only thing nature "knows" how to process.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 14, 2018 @ 19:11 GMT
Rob,
You hit a decisive coffin-nail on the head. Decades ago, I wondered why the ear is well known to be pretty phase-deaf. Does it disdain half of the information it receives? Steven Greenberg argued that the mere spectral analysis in cochlea cannot account for the huge richness of audible signals. He invited me to a NATO Advanced Study Institute on Computational Hearing, about twenty years ago in Il Chiocco, Italy where I met most of the belonging leading experts.
In my FQXi essays, I repeatedly tried to explain that and how Fourier analysis introduces fourfould redundancy. Realvalued Cosine transformation (CT) avoids these redundancies. Therefore I consider CT as well as a real filter bank more similar to reality than FT. Many physiological facts show: Cochlea can definitely not perform a complex analysis. You are right: Cochlear function evolved by trial and error in combination with subsequent neural time (alias phase) coincidence detection to a performance that is still superior to non-causal complex theory of signal processing. Oliver Heaviside cheated us.
This doesn't mean that complex calculus isn't computationally very elegant.
I appreciate your hint to Born's rule as a key to dissolve quantum paradoxes.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 14, 2018 @ 20:14 GMT
Eckard,
"the mere spectral analysis in cochlea cannot account for the huge richness of audible signals." That is because neither vision nor hearing operate anything like a spectrum analyzer. They operate as AM and FM modulation detectors, in which the FM is derived from pairs of AM detectors! The latter principle was one of the earliest forms of FM radio demodulators, long before things like phase-locked-loops were invented. At typical signal-to-noise ratios, the "instantaneous" frequency can be estimated several orders of magnitude more accurately than is possible via standard Fourier Analysis (picking the bin-frequency with the most power in an FFT).
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 15, 2018 @ 09:12 GMT
Rob,
Hopefully you will be ready to question assumptions that are basic to your modulation interpetation too: In reality, no signal extends over time from minus infinity to plus infinity. Mirror symmetry between past and future and negative frequencies are also just fictions. So I see your view and arXiv: 1801.06347 (by Adan Cabello) close to a final solution but perhaps not yet fundamental enough. A nail is not yet the whole coffin.
What about hearing, I wonder if there is physiological support for your idea that it may operate as A and F demodulator. So far, all evidence confirms strong tonotopy from cochlea to CN and beyond. While your hypothetical carrier for AM is unknown at least to me, the temporal structure of the signal remains available for also confirmed subsequent neural coincidence detections.
I guess, physicists will not benefit from being confronted with technical terms like modem, PLL, etc. instead of truly elementary insight based on common sense.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 16, 2018 @ 16:09 GMT
Eckard,
"truly elementary insight based on common sense" That is exactly what the early FM radio engineers had, that physicists, enamored with Fourier analysis and orthogonal functions, have missed.
It is as simple as this:
(1) if a frequency-modulated signal is sent through a filter (like a resonator) with a sloping (non-flat) amplitude-vs-frequency response curve, then any change in frequency will be TRANSDUCED into a change in amplitude.
(2) This makes it possible to DETECT small frequency changes, without ever actually measuring either frequency or phase. Only simple-to-make amplitude measurements are necessary. But the output is ambiguous; a changing input amplitude, and not just a change in frequency, will also produce an change in the output amplitude.
(3) A simple procedure to eliminate this ambiguity, is to employ a pair of filters, with opposite slopes; taking the ratio of their output amplitudes will cancel out the effect of changes in the input amplitude, leaving a frequency-change as the only cause for a detector-output-amplitude change.
(4) This is how two-cone cells in the retina can produce the sensation of color, that is highly correlated with input frequency, even though the cone-cells are only sensitive to slow amplitude changes.
(5) What type of resonator-like bandpass filter has the minimum-possible time-bandwidth product? A Gaussian filter.
(6) How accurately does a pair of Gaussian filters, employed as above, enable the estimation of an input frequency? Exactly, unlike most other filter-types, that only yield an approximate estimate.
(7) This is all related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Shannon's Capacity theorem, both of which are concerned with minimal time-bandwidth processes.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 17, 2018 @ 01:24 GMT
Rob,
The Gaussian filter is non-causal which means the filter window is symmetric about the origin in the time-domain. This makes the Gaussian filter physically unrealizable.
Karl Weierstrass, teacher of G. Cantor, didn't influence mathematics by own scientific papers but rather by lessons he gave for a crowd of his students.
I hesitate accepting him since he e.g. allegedly meant "it is impossible to distinguish two infinitely large numbers a and b from each other". In my understanding, infinity is a property, not a number, even if engineers like me often benefit from using it as if it was a number.
Admittedly, I am only familiar with cochlea, not with retina. I nonetheless guess in (4) "cone-cells" is correct. Could "two-cone cells" be a typo?
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 17, 2018 @ 14:53 GMT
Eckard,
A truncated, FIR filter approximation to an IIR Gaussian filter is perfectly causal, when the FIR filter taps are applied to buffered samples in a "tapped delay line"; this is the actual, physical structure of the synaptic-connections between neurons - neurons implement FIR filters via a tapped-delay-line architecture. Here is a
graph depicting color perception based on a pair of such filters.
In the retina, the three cone-cells can form a blue-green pair and a green-red pair.
Note that by simply making a change of variables (relabeling the axis) from "frequency" to either "log(frequency)" or "mel-scale-frequency", the same technique will compute pitch estimates like those observed in the auditory system. Note also that it is trivial to process multiple audio harmonics, to produce a single pitch-estimate, by summing the high or low filter output amplitudes, from harmonically-tuned filter pairs, and then estimating the pitch from the pair of sums. This is why "missing harmonics", including the absence of the fundamental, nevertheless yield the same perception of pitch, as when the harmonics are present. Longer (narrow bandwidth) filters result in longer delays, that are reflected in the delayed perception of their outputs. Such delays are observed in auditory perception experiments.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 18, 2018 @ 18:39 GMT
Rob,
You "do not believe that a (real-valued) cosine transform is more "physically real" than a (complex) Fourier transform". This is indeed almost unbelievable, but I keep it for justified.
You also wrote:"... phase, is at the heart of the misinterpretation of quantum theory. The wave-function has a phase, so people have come to believe that the phase really matters. But computing the sum of the squares of the real and imaginary parts (Born rule) eliminates the phase information. The phase ultimately does not matter. Only signal amplitudes matter - because that is the only thing nature "knows" how to process". Here we might be close to each other.
I just doubt that arbitrarily chosen phase reference, arbitrary truncation in case of choosing a window and FIR and the like reflect something physically real.
Couldn't the huge diversity of remedies not just in signal processing indicate that non-causal theories may suffer from arbitrarily added redundancies. You are certainly aware of Kramers-Kronig relations. Wasn't Kramers bound to tradition when he was involved in Heisenberg's approach?
I see the reality of past time more immediately anchored to the admittedly uncommon range of just positive elapsed time in IR+ rather than to abstract time in IR where time and absolute phase are arbitrarily shiftable.
Can we make the Gaussian bellshaped filter causal? Years ago I had the idea of enforcing zero future time by assuming a mirror at the border between past and future that adds the time reversed caudal part. Perhaps there is a better solution. Isn't CT simpler than FT in that it immediately provides its own inverse? In any case, the modified Gaussian bell shape cannot be symmetrical on ordinary scales of time and frequency.
By the way, instead of critical remarks on your interpretation of hearing I reveal favoring Tukey's cepstrum.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 18, 2018 @ 23:26 GMT
Eckard,
"I just doubt that arbitrarily chosen phase reference... reflect something physically real" I agree. But, you have not taken that far enough: since all orthogonal transforms are based on just such phase references (between the orthogonal basis functions themselves), none of them seem to correspond to any process in the physical world. I have never seen Mother Nature do either a Fourier Transform, a cosine transform, or anything else of similar ilk.
"I see the reality of past time..." as nothing more than previously acquired, stored values, that PRESENTLY exist, and thus enable processing, in the present moment. We cannot process past events, that we failed to acquire and store, at the only moment at which they were actually present. The only things that can ever be processed, is whatever exists at the moment. If stored memories of the past exist, then they can be processed just as current measurements are processed.
"Can we make the Gaussian bellshaped filter causal?" Absolutely, if you truncate it, and align the resulting FIR with past data values, stored in a memory.
Nothing ever has to worry about processing a value "from the future", since, if you wait long enough (add sufficient delay), everything needed for processing what had once been "future" will have already transitioned to being "past" and consequently, if stored in memory, can be processed NOW.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 19, 2018 @ 07:42 GMT
Rob,
While it depends on the chosen reference whether a sinusoidal function sin(x+phi) is called e.g. a sine or a cosine function, only the sum of positive and negative cosine components, not sine components, may realistically describe a (bound to reality) signal which can be physically different from zero at its beginning (t=+0).
Perhaps in contrast to you, I consider phase up to complex calculus an appropriate and very useful description of a RELATION between two physical quantities. However, the only objective reference point for time and phase is the now, the ignored by abstract theory of physics border between past and future. When the late Einstein seriously worried about the now, he suspected it something outside science. I prefer distinguishing between the level of abstract laws and the underlying reality.
Instead of "aquired and stored values" I prefer speaking of traces that allow to reconstruct what happened to some extent. Objective history, as Shannon understood it too, exists unchangable for good, no matter whether or not is known.
Deliberately fuzzy expressions like at the very moment, today, nowadays, or in this millennium must not be misused in physics as to attribute existence only to a timespan called present between past and future.
Truncation and FIR are no non-arbitrary basic alternatives to the symmetry of Gauss's bell. Also, it is silly to wait long enough for the NOW.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 19, 2018 @ 15:28 GMT
Eckard,
"I consider phase up to complex calculus an appropriate and very useful description of a RELATION between two physical quantities." I do to. It is very useful as a computational device and in the analysis of many man-made communication systems etc. I just don't find it to be a good model for very many natural, fundamental, physical phenomenon. For example, while a water wave may exhibit interference, and that interference may be usefully described via phase, the underlying interactions between water molecules, that are the ultimate cause for the existence of the waves, are not fundamentally due to phase. The molecules do not "know" anything about the "big picture" in which the waves appear.
"it is silly to wait long enough for the NOW" Every time I order a meal in a restaurant, I have to wait for the moment it will arrive. It is no different with data collection and analysis - I have to wait for the data to arrive, before I can analyze all of it, as a complete set. Some processes, such as the IIR filters you prefer, may commence processing some of the data, before all the data that will influence the output has arrived. But if, for any reason, you wish to have all such data available, before the analysis even begins (as is necessary with most orthogonal transform algorithms) then you will have to wait, until all the data has arrived.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Dec. 19, 2018 @ 17:34 GMT
Rob,
My dictionary tells me: A phenomenon is something that is observed to happen or exist. Phenomena is the plural of phenomenon.
Largely agreeing with you, I'll give a different example for the "inability" of nature to know a human choice: Whilen the ear can sense RELATIVE phase, it is definitely unable to "know" the reference of agreed GMT used in science. This deficit indicates that science is sometimes too much abstracted from reality.
Do I have "to wait for the data to arrive, before I can analyze ALL of it, as a complete set"? No. Of course, I can only analyze data that already arrived. However, what means ALL data, what constitutes a complete set?
If something commences, it begins. I don't wish commencing to analyse data before they are available. Is it really necessary for me with CT to cheat myself in Heaviside's manner? Or is CT not an orthogonal transformation?
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 19, 2018 @ 21:14 GMT
"Whilen the ear can sense RELATIVE phase" Can it? Detecting a time delay, which the auditory system can certainly do, is not the same physical process as detecting a corresponding phase delay. Can the auditory system sense the difference between sin(?t) and cos(?t)? No.
"However, what means ALL data, what constitutes a complete set?" Whatever is required to complete the task at hand. In the case of an FIR filter, you cannot complete the computation of an output point, until you know the data sample to be multiplied by each filter coefficient.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 20, 2018 @ 03:31 GMT
Rob,
Anonymous was me, and I should have written "our two ears" instead of "the ear". Sensation of interaural time alias phase difference is physiologically based on a direct comparison between simultaneously transmitted signals from the right and the left nuclei cochlearis, referring to each other.
My point is, the auditory system can use the difference between cos(omega t+ phi_1) and cos(omega t + phi_2) for location of a sound source with just the RELATIVE phase phi_2 - phi_1.
While ordinary time and also position in space don't have naturally preferred points of reference, delay and distance are always positive which means the latter ones are ABSOLUTE quantities like e.g. absolute temperature too.
A set of measured data belonging to a function of time must be complete in the sense of containing ALL data that will be subject to the frequency analysis at the moment it will be performed. Being based on a time notion that makes no distinction between past and future, neither IIR nor FIR filter do a priori obey this causality.
I would like have to correct my mistakeable sentence "Is it really necessary for me with CT to cheat myself in Heaviside's manner?" I meant, with FT, not with CT, we follow Heaviside who evidently cheated us. Using the CT instead, I need not cheating myself but I avoid non-causalities as well as arbitrary choices.
I see the CT an also orthogonal transformation with functions of time and of frequency orthogonal to each other. Admittedly, this contradicts to the traditional notion of time in IR.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 20, 2018 @ 16:14 GMT
Eckard,
"the auditory system can use the difference between cos(omega t+ phi_1) and cos(omega t + phi_2) for location of a sound source with just the RELATIVE phase phi_2 - phi_1." I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with the implicit assumption that you have made, about what is enabling this. The actual physical process being employed, does not involve phase detection. Rather, it is caused by detecting the time-differences between induced amplitude variations. In other words, a sudden phase shift will always produce a sudden amplitude spike, in a band-limited signal. These amplitude spikes will occur at different times, between the two ears, due to the difference in arrival times at the two ears. The detection process within the auditory system is not sensitive to the phase itself, but it is highly sensitive to these induced amplitude spikes. If you play a cosine into one ear and a sin into the other, there will be no amplitude spike, except at the turn-on and turn-off times of the signal. Consequently, the system will not detect any difference, between the two ears, except at those two points in time.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Dec. 20, 2018 @ 18:04 GMT
Rob,
I don't like endlessly quarreling about personal mistakes. How is in case of the (assumed as monofrequent and steady) two sinusoidal signals the interaural time difference ITD essentially distinguished from the objectively also existing interaural phase difference? Steady means, there is no sudden onset or the like. Nonetheless the perceived direction where the sound comes from is permanenty sensed due to ITD to be located out of the neutral line in front of the head.
While fictitious abstract absolute phase and the (arbitrarily referring to midnight in Greenwich) time of physics (GMT) are just manmade, RELATIVE phase and a (referred to the now) RELATIVE time(timespan) can be detected, perceived, and measured.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 20, 2018 @ 20:57 GMT
Eckard,
"How is in case of the (assumed as monofrequent and steady) two sinusoidal signals the interaural time difference ITD essentially distinguished from the objectively also existing interaural phase difference?"
If a person wears headphones, and a steady sine-wave is played into one ear and a steady cosine-wave, of the same frequency and amplitude, is played into the other, and then the experiment is repeated with a sine-wave in both ears, and the person is asked if he or she perceived any difference, the answer will be no, as far as I have ever heard.
Something else, like an amplitude transient, has to be introduced, in order for them to be distinguished. For a distant sound source (without headphones), such a transient can be induced, by merely moving your head and thus changing (modulating) the relative amplitudes received by the two ears. It is true that this will also modulate the phase, but, as the headphone experiment indicates, a pure phase difference cannot be detected.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 21, 2018 @ 06:26 GMT
Rob,
It is only the manmade choice of a reference point t=0 that may make a steady sinusoidal wave for instance a sine wave or likewise a cosine wave. One cannot even play a cosine-wave at all without having a reference for the timescale.
A non-existing difference is of course not audible.
When the scale of GMT was arbitrarily abstracted from reality, causality got lost. This is my main concern.
Steady ITDs are referring left and right signals to each other. Their RELATIVE to each other phase is not just audible but important for localization.
What about FT vs. (real-valued) CT, the latter omits either the not yet available future part of measured data or all unchangable past ones, in other worde the void odd "component". Any set of either only measured or only predicted data can be represented as a + - sum of cosine components.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 21, 2018 @ 15:10 GMT
Eckard,
"One cannot even play a cosine-wave at all without having a reference for the timescale." In the experiment I described, there is no need to reference either of the ears inputs to some hypothetical timescale. The listener is merely being asked to reference them only to each other; the signals are indeed different, you can plainly see the difference on a real-time, dual-trace oscilloscope displaying the two inputs. But the listener can nevertheless not perceive that difference. The difference is trivially detectable visually, but not-at-all audibly.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 21, 2018 @ 23:19 GMT
Rob,
Your basic mistake is perhaps not obvious enough: As long as a steady signal with no begin snd no end has no reference point (t=0), one cannot yet at all identify it as a sine or cosine signal. This is valid for any wave that endlessly extends to both sides.
Why does a triggered oscilloscope make you believe it shows an absolute phase?
The chosen trigger threshold of a dual-trace oscilloscope repeatedly defines the reference for what is visible as a piece of data on screen. Because triggering is usually common to both channels, the phase is "trivially detectable visually". Anyway, it is RELATIVE phase as in case of ITD.
Audibility of ITD does of course not mean that one channel sounds different from the other one. For physiological reasons, the listener perceives the relative phase as something shifting the direction from where the signal comes more or less to the left or right.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 22, 2018 @ 14:28 GMT
Eckard,
The reference trigger-point is simply a zero-crossing of one trace. Hence, it has nothing to do with any universal clock or time; the trigger-time is derived from the signal itself, not an external clock. This is why an AM-detected signal exhibits no phase - there are no zero-crossings within such a signal.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 22, 2018 @ 16:28 GMT
Rob,
Admittedly, I am not sure how to understand "an AM-detected signal exhibits no phase". Perhaps AM stands for amplitude modulation. How to imagine an AM-detected signal? What kind of phase do you refer to?
When I mentioned the chosen trigger threshold I intended making you aware that the displayed phase of a single stationary signals depends on this arbitrary choice.
I know just two non-arbitrary reference points in a snapshot to be analyzed: the moment of s event and the now. Only elapsed time is therefore an absolute quantity. Usual time is a relative one.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 24, 2018 @ 17:15 GMT
Eckard,
"Perhaps AM stands for amplitude modulation" Yes. There is no amplitude modulation on a pure, infinite sine-wave. The auditory system seems to function as a set of tuned, amplitude modulation detectors; it does not seem to be capable of directly detecting any frequency or phase modulation. Human perceptions of frequency, such as pitch, are actually caused by the amplitude modulation induced, by passing input sound waves through various bandpass filters, and detecting the induced amplitude modulations. ITD are similarly estimated from these induced amplitude variations.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 2, 2019 @ 13:00 GMT
Rob,
Thank you for reminding me of detection by rectification. When my father got an allowance for using a radio in the early nineteen twentieth, he used a simple cheap "detector receiver". I wonder why did the experts of cochlea perhaps not understand the similar role of rectification by hair cells. Maybe, I should resume my discussion with Tianyin Ren.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Joe William Fisher wrote on Dec. 10, 2018 @ 17:11 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Visit the 'dark side' of the universe. Black holes cannot be seen because gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. Dark matter cannot be seen because its particles hardly interact with ordinary matter. What is the meaning of the dark side? Kip Thorne is a theoretical physicist, known for his contributions in gravitational physics and astrophysics.”
I posted this sensible comment at the website and on the Community Board of FQXI.org., and on my Facebook page.
Natural VISIBLE reality can be seen by all creatures in all places at all times. You do not have to spend a single moment of your time on earth searching for the truth about VISIBLE reality. There cannot be any mystery about VISIBLE reality. The only irrefutable fact you will ever need to know about VISIBLE reality am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Kip Thorne ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural preposterous guesswork concerning invisible finite black holes. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Dec. 12, 2018 @ 16:44 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Laura Mersini-Houghton is a cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and Professor at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Some have considered Mersini-Houghton’s views on black holes to be controversial.”
I posted this sensible comment at the website and on the Community Board of FQXI.org., and on my Facebook page.
It am physically impossible for any sensible person to have any controversial views about natural VISIBLE reality. Natural VISIBLE reality can be seen by all creatures in all places at all times. You do not have to spend a single moment of your time on earth searching for the truth about VISIBLE reality. There cannot be any mystery about VISIBLE reality. The only irrefutable fact you will ever need to know about VISIBLE reality am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Laura Mersini-Houghton ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing her unnatural preposterous guesswork concerning invisible finite black holes. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Dec. 14, 2018 @ 17:14 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Max Tegmark is a physicist, cosmologist, and Professor of Physics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In this interview, Max discusses everyone’s favorite topic: dark matter.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the Community Board of FQXI.org., and on my Facebook page.
All real matter has a real VISIBLE surface. Real VISIBLE surface am not influenced in any way by invisible supposedly finite quantum gravity waves. Nature must have produced the only type of VISIBLE physical structure permissible, a real VISIBLE physical structure that all living creatures could deal with. It am physically impossible for any sensible person to have any controversial views about natural VISIBLE reality. Natural VISIBLE reality can be seen by all creatures in all places at all times. The only irrefutable fact you will ever need to know about VISIBLE reality am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Max Tegmark ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural preposterous guesswork concerning invisible finite dark matter. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 15, 2018 @ 09:34 GMT
Rob,
In the 2013 contest "It from Bit or Bit from It?" I wrote an essay Shannon vs. Wheeler where I put the question "Did Alan Oppenheimer improve John Tukey's (real-valued) cepstrum? Do you agree on that the correct answer is no, and it may relate to your approach eyplaining the quantum paradoxes?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
T.H.Ray wrote on Dec. 16, 2018 @ 02:39 GMT
Speaking of a play within a play:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326380733_simu
ltaneity
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Dec. 17, 2018 @ 16:49 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“How significant is the subconscious? Though Freudian psychology is mostly discredited, most of our mental activity is indeed subconscious. Think about walking, engaging hundreds of muscles in exquisitely orchestrated coordination without thinking how and when to contract each muscle. The subconscious is playing...
view entire post
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“How significant is the subconscious? Though Freudian psychology is mostly discredited, most of our mental activity is indeed subconscious. Think about walking, engaging hundreds of muscles in exquisitely orchestrated coordination without thinking how and when to contract each muscle. The subconscious is playing a major role in everything we do. Leonard Mlodinow is a theoretical physicist and author.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the Community Board of FQXI.org., and on my Facebook page.
There am no such thing as “lower” animals that are incapable of “thinking” finite thoughts. All real animals, real fish and real fowl and real insects always have had a real VISIBLE surface for all of their lives. All of the extinct dinosaurs always had a real VISIBLE surface. This am because Nature devised the only real VISIBLE physical structure allowable. Nature must have produced the only type of VISIBLE physical structure permissible, a real VISIBLE physical structure that all living creatures could deal with. It am physically impossible for any sensible person to have any controversial views about natural VISIBLE reality. Natural VISIBLE reality can be seen by all creatures in all places at all times. The only irrefutable fact you will ever need to know about VISIBLE reality am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Leonard Mlodinow ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural preposterous guesswork concerning invisible finite imaginary human consciousness. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Dec. 19, 2018 @ 17:02 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Elizabeth F. Loftus is an American cognitive psychologist and expert on human memory. She has conducted extensive research on the malleability of human memory and is best known for her ground-breaking work on the misinformation effect.
In this interview, Elizabeth discusses the many ways we can think about the subconscious.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the Community Board of FQXI.org., and on my Facebook page.
There am only one way sensible people could possibly know about VISIBLE reality. That am because Nature must have provided the only real Visible physical structure of the real Universe allowable. Nature must have produced the only type of VISIBLE physical structure permissible, a real VISIBLE physical structure that all living creatures could deal with. It am physically impossible for any sensible person to have any controversial views about natural VISIBLE reality. Natural VISIBLE reality can be seen by all creatures in all places at all times. The only irrefutable fact you will ever need to know about VISIBLE reality am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Elizabeth F. Loftus ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing her unnatural preposterous guesswork concerning invisible finite imaginary human memorization. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Do try to remember that.
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Dec. 20, 2018 @ 17:16 GMT
Dear Patient Closer To Truth Support Grouper,
I have attached the contemptuous email answer I got from Professor Elizabeth R Loftus after I had asked her to comment on my REALITY AM NOT ROCKET SCIENCE essay that was published on line on January 10, 2018 by FQXi.org. She evidently thinks that her ability to accurately memorize the name of a washing detergent am far more essential than her learning about natural visible reality would be.
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Dec. 21, 2018 @ 17:02 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Patrick McNamara is Director of the Evolutionary Neurobehavior Laboratory in the Department of Neurology at the BU School of Medicine and the VA New England HealthCare System. Watch his interview on powers of the subconscious below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the Community Board of FQXI.org., and on my Facebook page.
Reality am not a bad dream. Reality was designed by NATURE to be fully understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. There am only one way sensible people could possibly know about VISIBLE reality. That am because Nature must have provided the only real Visible physical structure of the real Universe allowable. It am physically impossible for any sensible person to have any controversial views about natural VISIBLE reality. The only irrefutable fact you will ever need to know about VISIBLE reality am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Patrick McNamara ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural preposterous guesswork concerning invisible finite imaginary human neurological fantasies. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Do try to remember that.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Dec. 24, 2018 @ 16:51 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“The claim that Jesus was a pre-existing spiritual being who assumed human flesh is the central tenet of Christianity. What exactly would this mean? Could Jesus really be human and really be God at the same time? One need not be a Christian to appreciate the philosophical challenges.
In this interview, we speak to N.T. Wright, a leading English New Testament scholar, Pauline theologian, and retired Anglican bishop.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the Community Board of FQXI.org.
Any sensible person ought to know that there must be only one reality. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before N.T. Wright ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural silly guesswork concerning an invisible God. Reality was designed by NATURE to be fully understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. Nature must have provided the only real VISIBLE physical structure of the real Universe allowable. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Please try to understand that there was never an empty void. The physicist have been completely wrong about invisible finite quantum particles and the Periodic Table am a work of fiction. As there has never been any invisible God, the Holy Bible am a work of fiction too.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Dec. 26, 2018 @ 17:07 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Timothy Pawl is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of St. Thomas, in St. Paul, Minnesota. Watch his interview on the Christian Incarnation below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the Community Board of FQXI.org.
The English scholars who wrote the King James version of the Bible only succeeded in producing a narrative of imagination suggestive of how middle class English shopkeepers would have behaved had they lived in Biblical times. For instance, only the real Jewish bride to be and her real Jewish mother have ever had the right to invite which guests would attend the prospective wedding. No real Jewish mother would have invited a radical Jew who had displayed a temper tantrum in the Temple to the wedding of her real Jewish daughter. No real Jewish parents would have ever allowed the wine, or food, or serviettes not be given to each and every invited guest who attended the wedding. The story of the miracle performed by Jesus at the wedding feast at Cana am, like all of the Bible, English literary fiction only suitable for fans of Downton Abbey and Masterpiece Theatre. It am a pile of silly codswallop.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Dec. 28, 2018 @ 16:19 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Could Jesus really be human and really be God at the same time? One need not be a Christian to appreciate the philosophical challenges. In this interview, we speak with Ian McFarland, a Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the Community Board of FQXI.org.
Jesus was a fictional character created by English scholars. Any sensible person ought to know that there must be only one reality. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Ian McFarland ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural silly guesswork concerning an invisible God. Reality was designed by NATURE to be fully understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. Nature must have provided the only real VISIBLE physical structure of the real Universe allowable. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Christian religion was designed by avaricious men to be profitable. Send McFarland a check and he will let you know what the invisible God thinks about you.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Dec. 31, 2018 @ 16:26 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Dig down to the deepest level of reality, the smallest things that exist, the building blocks of everything else. What do we find? What's there at the very bottom? That's what's 'fundamental'. Everything else is derivative, built up from the bottom. So what's there at the bottom? So what's fundamental? Watch our interview with Freeman Dyson on what’s fundamental in the cosmos below.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the Community Board of FQXI.org and on my Facebook page.
Any sensible person should know that reality could only have been provided by nature. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Freeman Dyson ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural silly guesswork concerning finite invisible phenomena. Reality was designed by NATURE to be fully understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. Nature must have provided the only real VISIBLE physical structure of the real Universe allowable. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Could some kind person please provide me with typical examples of shallow, regular and deep English language questioning modalities.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Jan. 2, 2019 @ 15:51 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Leonard Susskind is the Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University, and Director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. In this interview, Leonard discusses where we are today in the progress of getting more fundamental in physics.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the Community Board of FQXI.org and on my Facebook page.
Reality am not a humanly contrived theory. Any sensible person should know that reality could only have been provided by nature. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Leonard Susskind ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural silly guesswork concerning finite invisible quantum particle phenomena. Reality was designed by NATURE to be fully understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. Nature must have provided the only real VISIBLE physical structure of the real Universe allowable. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 3, 2019 @ 06:54 GMT
Joe Fisher,
[Fetzer] supports work that RE-EXAMINES THE FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE, including scientific methodologies for both conventional and frontier research.
Notice: "re-examines".
Getting more fundamental in physics means getting more appropriate in reality.
In Reality, FQXi didn't yet fulfil their promise "before the end of the year".
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Jan. 4, 2019 @ 16:39 GMT
Mr. Blumschein,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Sir Roger Penrose is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. In this interview, Roger discusses the origins of the universe...
view entire post
Mr. Blumschein,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Sir Roger Penrose is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. In this interview, Roger discusses the origins of the universe and its relation to mathematics and physics.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the Community Board of FQXi.org and on my Facebook page.
Reality am not tensed. Unfortunately, the geniuses who put the English language together must have assumed that there was a definite past, a definite present, and a predictable future. No theoretical physicist has ever stated: “I is guessing that the universe slowly emerged from out of a empty void.” Many a theoretical physicist has gained great fame and vast fortune for firmly stating: “I am guessing that the universe slowly emerged from out of an empty void thirteen and three quarters of a billion light years ago.”
Any sensible person should know that reality could only have been provided by nature. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Sir Roger Penrose ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural silly guesswork concerning finite invisible quantum particle phenomena. Reality was designed by NATURE to be fully understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. Nature must have provided the only real VISIBLE physical structure of the real Universe allowable. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY
Joe Fisher, Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 7, 2019 @ 05:01 GMT
Visible Fisher,
"...The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this," wrote Einstein in German in a 1954 letter to Erich Gutkind.
Instead of dealing with Susskind and Penrose, I will check Klingman's extended FQXi essay
http://vixra.org/abs/1812.0424
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 7, 2019 @ 13:41 GMT
My computer is now able to correctly print all important details of Klingman's
explanation why Special Relativity seems to be confirmed.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 8, 2019 @ 02:22 GMT
Special relativity is firmly established but nonetheless its foundation is flawed as there is categorization error. Specifically category differentiation error; as material objects directly measured and measurements obtained from products of EM radiation sensory input and processing are not differentiated but treated as equivalent and therefore comparable. The supporting light clock argument has a category omission error. E. Klingman asks why the Lorentz transform between two reference frames? (not one reference frame). A: because the content of a reference frame, as it is seen, has to be the product of EM radiation input and processing. Different input for each observer depending on location and movement, relative to the material source gives different product, i.e. the reference frame content.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 8, 2019 @ 18:46 GMT
Established yes, but firmly? Experiments and practical use confirm that Lorentz gamma is correct and seem therefore to confirm that SR is correct. Klingman's essays are oerhaps the only lonely ones that attribute gamma to mass and energy instead of Relativity of time.
You Georgina, realized that SR is flawed by a categorization error. Klingman meant pretty much the same when he criticized two frames of reference. When I studied Einstein's 1905 Relativity paper, I agreed on that there is no apriori preferred frame of reference. The equations are valid in any frame. However, one must not use more than one frame at a time. Also one must not calculate the roundtrip speed of light from emitter to a moving mirror and return as did Einstein.
In which case can something be correct that is based on a mistake? I cannot imagine the compensation by another mistake. The flaw you, Klingman, and I revealed is definitely an essential one.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 8, 2019 @ 23:21 GMT
Eckard, it feels to me like Edwin is providing a solution to something that isn't the problem-I mean by that his objecting to comparison of two different reference frames; Even that there are different reference frames. Edwin does not answer the question of, what is an inertial frame of reference really? but nonetheless sets out comparing energy in one such frame. As I see it, the object is not inhabiting the space-time reference frame or carrying it with it but the reference frame is a space-time product of ongoing processing EM radiation receipt. So if the object is not an observer of some kind, something capable of generating a product from input from the environment, then it should not have a reference frame. To give it its own reference frame is a category error.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 9, 2019 @ 02:45 GMT
Georgina,
Edwin is providing a solution to the problem how to accept that the foundation of SR is flaved while experiments proved gamma correct. Your problem is your suspition that Edwin might be wrong when he criticized two different reference frames in a common picture. I didn't write "at a time" because Poincaré/Einstein's local time denies a common time. On 57 pages Edwin gave hints how to answer your question "what is an inertial frame of reference really?"
Let me try and select key insight from page 32: "Einstein's geometric space-time worlds require a Lorentz symmetry group, but our energy-based physical world does not!" and "Geometry does not have mass terms."
In my own words, any frame of reference is nothing physical but arbitrarily chosen except for the NOW which is missing in space-time.
Being still aware of the topic "Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes" I feel Klingman's disolving Relativity paradoxes a good example. Klingman mentioned the quantum theory too.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 9, 2019 @ 04:52 GMT
Eckard, I agree that even though the mathematics works there can be an error in the theory. I am sure that error is the categorization error appearing first early on, in the comparison of train lengths, in "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies", leading on to the paradoxes. To see something it is necessary to first receive and process the sensory input from the environment, making what is seen in the reference frame, as present, a product made by the observer not the external environment of the observer. That being so, it is certainly OK for each observer to have their own reference frame, their own observed present, and to make comparisons between them. I agree that there is a difference between the space-time product of an observer and the matter/ energy in the Source external reality. I agree the NOW ( as I say uni-temporal Now) is missing from space-time (observation product) but because space-time and Source material reality 'in uni-temporal space' are different. Perhaps Edwin is introducing the missing differentiation in his own way but not succinctly and is not accepting that the comparison of two reference frames is OK, just necessary different.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 9, 2019 @ 08:49 GMT
Georgina,
Something that is succinct expresses facts or ideas clearly and in few words. Well, there are definitely unnecessary and distracting elements but also logical gaps in the 57 pages. What about "accepting that the comparison of two reference frames is OK, just necessary different" I share the judgement of Michelson: SR is a monster. I don't see justification for sticking in the almost religious belief in something differing from intuition that is logically flawed at the very beginning and led into a bunch of horrible paradoxes.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 9, 2019 @ 09:03 GMT
That should have said, necessarily different.
Eckard 'Now' has to be absent from the observer's space time observation product because the product has to be generated from a signal that has taken time to arrive and then takes time to process. Transmission and processing are not instantaneous.
The physics happening precedes knowledge of it, obtainable from signal receipt and processing. That the physics happening is not happening within the space-time observation product but in uni-temporal space is important. That doesn't make different observers having different reference frames, (what they consider co-present) wrong.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 9, 2019 @ 09:13 GMT
Eckard, the logical flaw early on is a categorization error. Observation product and material object have not been differentiated. When that is understood the reason for the paradoxes can be understood and they are not so terrible and perplexing. When the different reference frames are understood as product not source reality it isn't counter-intuitive that each observer sees 'things'differently.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 9, 2019 @ 18:25 GMT
Georgina,
Be honest, did you already carefully read the 57 pages including the 59 references? At least you might decide whether you prefer your “uni-temporal space” or Einstein's mathematical construct that contains a depending on each other elements like time dilution, length contraction, relativistic addition of velocities, a space-time with no distinction of future from past, and many related paradoxes.
With Claude Channon, I disagree with your attempt to reconsile: "'Now' has to be absent from the observer's space time observation product because the product has to be generated from a signal that has taken time to arrive and then takes time to process."
Of course, it isn't "counter-intuitive that each observer sees 'things' differently". Strictly speaking no observer can "see" something remote happen. What you are calling "uni-temporal" is just an assumption being logically justified by reprocity reason.
It seems to me you indend belittling the fundamental flaw by calling it (merely?) a (murky?) matter of categorization.
I agree on that the reason for the paradoxes can be understood - as partially explained by Klingman - as incorrectably linked to a basic misconception. Nonetheless, the paradoxes of SR remain terrible and perplexing.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 9, 2019 @ 20:59 GMT
Honestly Eckard I did not carefully read all 57 pages and references. That would be a mammoth, time consuming, task that I am not going to take on. I have however taken a look at what he has done, skimmed through a lot of dialogue, and I read with more care those parts that caught my attention.
Both uni-temporal space, where existing things are distributed, and space-time, in which the product of EM radiation processing by an observer is distributed, are needed in physics. They are very different and can't fulfill each other's role.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 9, 2019 @ 21:13 GMT
When it is understood that the observer's reference frame is product of EM processing and what is seen (whether by sight directly or by using an intermediate instrument) is not material objects themselves but images generated by the observer, there is no need for material objects to persist in time for non simultaneity of observed events. Without endurance of material things in time only endurance of EM signals in the uni-temporal environment grandfather type paradox can not occur. Barn pole type paradoxes: It is not paradoxical that different observers produce different products from the EM radiation they have received. Objects like rivets can not generate such a product. The twins are material objects and can not exist at different times, the receipt and processing of signals from distant brother does not affect material ageing.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 9, 2019 @ 21:39 GMT
Eckard, the fundamental flaw is a little thing with big consequences. I am not belittling the categorical difference between what is seen and material existence as something trivial, Richard Feynman did however.
Re. "'Now' has to be absent from the observer's space time observation product because the product has to be generated from a signal that has taken time to arrive and then takes time to process."GW -Everything that exists exists at the same and only uni-temporal Now. EM radiation emitted in one configuration of existence is received in a different younger configuration of existence. Only the youngest configuration exists (existence is not spread along a time dimension). Therefore the information obtained by the observer no longer pertains to uni-temporal Now but a previous configuration, that was but is no longer uni-temporal Now.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 9, 2019 @ 22:12 GMT
Georgina,
Don't trust in Feynman when he belittled the difference between past and future. Einstein even denied it.
Space-time must just be understood as a mathematical construct based on abstraction, not as a physical reality [EB].
Klingman made definitely a good job even if I am not yet able to comment on all of his intriguing ideas.
Now let's focus on quantum paradoxes again.
EB
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 10, 2019 @ 00:58 GMT
I am sorry that you don't appreciate what I have written in the preceding few posts. I think it is a bit like seeing an optical illusion in a particular way or seeing a magic eye 3D image, Describing it doesn't help another to see, they have to see for them self.
Schrodingers cat thought experiment: decayed and undecayed atom are different objects not same object in different states, intact poison flask and shards of glass are different objects not same object in different states, alive cat and dead cat are physically different when biochemistry is considered not merely different observable states.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 10, 2019 @ 01:36 GMT
Eckard, when talking about EM radiation, whether the 'present' image formed from it is in the past or future of an observer (as far as the observer is concerned) depends upon the observer's location and thus when the EM radiation is received and processed. An observer closer to the source will receive the signal sooner. But that is not about material objects, which are always at uni-temporal Now, the same time as every other existing thing. Newton's argument for absolute time is that it is required for (his) God that is "always and everywhere". Essential for Newton but not modern physics. Einstein's time dimension was posited because of non simultaneity of observed events. However that does not require endurance of material things in time, only endurance of the potential sensory information in uni-temporal space.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 10, 2019 @ 04:21 GMT
Following on from what I said about the live/dead cat etc., the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment is not a paradox but a bad analogy.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 10, 2019 @ 04:50 GMT
A cat that has a black side and a ginger side can be said to be both ginger and black. It is an object able to provide sensory input to an observer or observers (by reflection of EM radiation from its surface) that could generate a product or products of both colour states (if both sides are seen) or either colour state (if one side is seen). However if only one side is facing singular observer only EM radiation reflected from that aside is received by the observer. So the observation product is limited to one state. It does not contain any information pertaining to the obscured side. The change is from a two state material object to a singular state observation product (no longer the material object). Without an observer there isn't a singular state observation product formed. The limited state product should not be mistaken for the material source object.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 10, 2019 @ 07:15 GMT
Georgina, being pregnant and simultaneously being not pregnant exclude each other. While there is a transition time between the two alternative stationary states one cannot be just a bit pregnant thereafter. Is it worth discussing the cat? I don't much think so. The flaw might be more basic.
Klingman mentioned on his p.1 the "multiple interpretations (Bohr, Bohm, Everett, QBism, etc,)" of quantum mechanics. This reminds me of more than ten mutually excluding explanations of retrograde motion of cathode spots in plasma physics. At best one of them can be correct.
If Klingman is correct concerning gamma, Einstein's SR is a castle in the air that was built on a misleading attempt by Lorentz to explain the negative outcome of the in principle identical experiments by Michelson in Potsdam and later on by Michelson and Morley in the USA.
Einstein's primitive trick was to calculate (effectively to define) the speed of light in case of a moving relative to the emitter mirror not simply as the distance at the moment of arrival at the mirror divided by the time of flight but as half the sum of the different distances from emitter to mirror and return divided by the time of this return trip. There is no reason for this counter-intuitive maneuver except for his intention to introduce what you Georgina are calling a categorization error. Cheating not just himself, Einstein contributed to anti-Jewish stupidities in Germany. More than a hundred authors before Klingman were obviously unable to shed enough light in the matter.
EB
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 10, 2019 @ 21:54 GMT
The categorization errors are category differentiation error, not differentiating between material objects and products of processing of EM radiation input to an observer, and category omission error, where a relevant category has not been considered. Category differentiation error is introduced in comparison of train length measurements in "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" A. Einstein. One measurement of the train directly using measuring rod and other a measurement obtained by observing seen train moving against seen background. Category omission error is found in the light clock thought experiment. Only the observation product is considered and not the Source reality. I do not believe that either error is a deliberate intention to mislead.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 11, 2019 @ 00:52 GMT
"And your astonishing contention that each frame possesses its own time dimension and physical laws essentially creates a real world each time you define a new inertial frame. This exemplifies the problem of identifying a mathematical projection as real physical structure, yielding paradoxes and contradictions associated with special relativity theory, for instance…
‘Your clock runs more slowly than mine, while my clock runs more slowly than yours.’ E.Klingman
I think E. Klingman is railing against something that isn't the problem but a matter of how it is regarded. He says "creates a real world" but the inertial frame is a way of seeing; what input is received together. Transmission of EM radiation is not instantaneous and therefore each very distant clock ought to seem slow compared to a local clock.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 11, 2019 @ 01:00 GMT
That whole first paragraph and sentence in apostrophes is from E.Klingman's paper "Everything’s relative, or is it?", Edwin Eugene Klingman. 25 December 2018, page 28. http://vixra.org/pdf/1812.0424v1.pdf Reasonable use for purpose of criticism.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 11, 2019 @ 01:12 GMT
To be more precise -As the inertial frame contains what is seen to be co- present I should have written the inertial frame is a way of seeing; what input has been received together.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 11, 2019 @ 02:52 GMT
I could have been clearer. I think E. Klingman is railing against something that isn't the problem afflicting the theory but is problematic to E. Klingman because of the way in which it is regarded by him.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 11, 2019 @ 04:43 GMT
Also regarding there being no privileged or preferred reference frame in Relativity; that is as it should be. Each viewpoint leads to an observation product that is partial and limited by the input received by the observer with that particular frame of reference/ 'point of view'.The solution to the [not a] problem is not to select just one frame and then because all others are ignored say that it is privileged or preferred. It is in name because it is being given undeserved status but is not, by doing that, privileged as in providing
the, only, correct solution. As E. Klingman is considering kinetic energy, there is a velocity term involved. What that velocity is deemed to be will depend upon the relative velocity of the observer; different for different frames of reference.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 12, 2019 @ 20:04 GMT
To be clearer:.. but is not, by doing that, privileged as in providing the, only, correct solution that could have been found.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 13, 2019 @ 08:53 GMT
Georgina,
"ST of Relativity - Logical inconsistencies" by Stephen J. Crothers:
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR19/Session/Y13.6
Sigma = 1 corresponds to v = 0 in case of Einstein's "conventional" synchronization.
EB
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 13, 2019 @ 22:07 GMT
Eckard, when I wrote of the velocity being different for different reference frames I was talking about E. kLingman considering different kinetic energies. The page you suggested doesn't load for me.
What appears to be logical inconsistency can be explained by the lack of differentiation between products of observation (that I have for a long time referred to as Image reality) and existing (source) material objects (for a long time referred to as Object reality). For example the two distant clocks from which signals are received by the two observers. A received signal is processed into a product. The content of Those products pertain to the time the signals were emitted. They are not the existing reality external to the observer. They are not telling the time -Now (at uni-temporal Now) in which the material distant clock exists.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 13, 2019 @ 22:20 GMT
Due to the very high speed of light; the time shown in the observation product formed from EM radiation, received by an observer, from a local clock is exceedingly close to the time on the material clock, ( a particular material/physical configuration.
The material clocks is in the reality external to the observer. The observation products are generated by the observer and only appear to be the external reality.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 13, 2019 @ 22:24 GMT
Oops-
correction
The material clocks are in the reality external to the observers. The observation products are generated by the observers and only appear to be external reality.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 13, 2019 @ 23:29 GMT
"But time is no more defined by a clock than pressure is defined by a pressure gauge, speed by a speedometer, or gravity by a graded spring. Time is not defined by clocks. It is naturally fixed, manifest in motion, as with the celestial bodies. By defining time by his clocks, A. Einstein detached time from physical reality. "Stephen J. Crothers The Special Theory of Relativity: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0086v1.pdf
The historical context is, early days of railway systems requiring co-ordination of clocks for the working of train timetables. The advance of electrical signals over pneumatic signalling. A time signal (and the product generated from such a signal) is something different from passage of time. But if both are just called time confusion can arise.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 13, 2019 @ 23:32 GMT
Correction
The Special Theory of Relativity:Logical Inconsistencies. http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0086v1.pdf Stephen j. Crothers
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 14, 2019 @ 00:07 GMT
Perhaps more precise vocabulary would be helpful. A clock does not really show time but an observer sees an apparent clock display setting. For co-ordination of clocks- A
time signal is not really sent but the clock setting plus signal transmission time (a duration, during which the signal is in transit). If sight is being considered it is not really time that is transmitted but EM radiation, that can be processed into seen present ( an observation product) pertaining to the radiation's emission.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 14, 2019 @ 01:10 GMT
Avoiding the term 'time'for disambiguation.
A clock does not really show time but an observer sees an apparent clock display setting.
For co-ordination of clocks- A time signal is not really sent but the clock setting plus transmission duration.
Re. sight, it is not really time that is transmitted but EM radiation, that can be processed into seen present ( an observation product) pertaining to the radiation's emission.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 14, 2019 @ 04:34 GMT
Stephen J. Crothers, in the cited paper, quotes Einstein from "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies."" It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it ‘the time of the stationary system.’” The defined time written of is the common, synchronized clock display setting.
BTW The term 'privileged', with particular meaning in Relativity, appears to have been misinterpreted (page 10)
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 14, 2019 @ 20:39 GMT
That is Page 10, The Special Theory of Relativity:Logical Inconsistencies. http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0086v1.pdf Stephen J. Crothers
I couldn't get the APS page with the paper to load
S. Crothers does not seem to grasp what Einstein is doing from the outset. Einstein is establishing the clock display setting of the stationary observer's reference frame. He is not defining passage of time or establishing a system of stationary observers.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 15, 2019 @ 17:49 GMT
Georgina,
I already mentioned that Crothers' sigma=1 corresponds to v=0. It does not matter whether or not Crothers directly grasped what Einstein tacitly did when he applied Poincaré's two-way method of synchronizing that was successfully used in practice on condition v = 0.
When Einstein claimed that this method is generally valid he was evidemtly wrong in case of relative motion (v =|= 0) between A and B. In order to understand this you don't need Galilean and Lorentz transformation, just the simple and plausible redshift/blueshift reasoning by Christian Doppler.
If the clock of A emits a timespan and the distance between A and B increases, then B receives an increased timespan (redshift): In case of decreasing distance, B receives a shorter timespan (blueshift). A and B mutually "see" their clocks run differently plus or minus and by more than "time dilution" amounts.
The reason for Einstein to use Poincaré's two-way (round-trip) synchronization without any reasonable justification was to mathematically arrive at the transformation which was introduced by Lorentz and adopted by Poincaré in order to defend the aether thich was not found in Michelson's (and Michelson with Morley's) experiment. Mathematically seemingly flawless, Einstein's Relativity gave rise to useless controversy up to now.
Unfortunately, what has been called Relativity or invariance theories were confused with the experimentally well confirmed strong effect of Lorentz Gamma on the so called "relativistic" mass. Im that, Klingman is definitely on the right trace.
If you Georgina, are imagining an omnipresent ubiquitous now, then you should be aware that this is inconsistent with Einstein's (itself inconsistent) Relativity which is a tight bundle of useless paradoxical tenets including time dilution, length contraction, etc. Notice, I am capitalizing Relativity as to indicate that it got meanwhile a irrefutable belief.
EB
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 15, 2019 @ 22:20 GMT
Eckard, I don't understand why you suggested S. Crother's paper.
I think the synchronization of the clocks is used to set the clock display setting (clock 'time') of the background frame of reference, not used on moving objects.
Re."If you Georgina, are imagining an omnipresent ubiquitous now, then you should be aware that this is inconsistent with Einstein's (itself inconsistent) Relativity" EB. That is where categorization comes in. Uni-temporal Now pertains to the existing material reality in which observers exist. Space-time pertains to the products of processing received signals whether directly via senses of an observer or with intermediate technology
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 16, 2019 @ 05:44 GMT
Georgina,
I appreciate Crothers' APS paper because it reminds of undeniable logical inconsistencies although Crothers does not yet reveal Einstein synchronization as the basic inconsistency, and he also fails to attribute gamma merely to the integral m v dv.
You
"think the synchronization of the clocks is used to set the clock display setting (clock 'time') of the background frame of reference, not used on moving objects"
and you argues
"Uni-temporal Now pertains to the existing material reality in which observers exist. Space-time pertains to the products of processing received signals whether directly via senses of an observer or with intermediate technology".
Aren't you aware of Einstein'n mistake? One cannot eat the cake and have it though. Einstein postulated that all clocks have the same properties and he tacitly assumes that they will remain synchronized. This would be the a correct thought with v=0. However, even if all clocks were of the same quality and simultaneously set to a common start value, Doppler's reasoning let us understand that from the perspective of A the clock B and vice versa run either faster or slower in case of v =|= 0. In other words, A and B may be thought as synchronized only for one moment. General application of two-way synchronization is only justified with v=0. I see it's use by Einstein a dirty formal trick aiming to arrive at gamma. Some consequences are nonsensical, just a matter of stupid belief.
What about space-time, while this related to abstraction and Relativity concept ignores the distinction between the categories past and future, it is often advantageous.
The situation with quantum mechanics might be similar.
EB
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 16, 2019 @ 20:58 GMT
Eckard, I agree not all clocks are the same and there are many factors that can affect timekeeping. Einstein is thinking of ideal clocks. That isn't really an error but a simplification. You seem to have missed my posts that suggest avoiding the term 'time' for disambiguation. I thought it would be helpful. Doppler shift is something affecting the space-time product, the image reality formed from received signals. It is not affecting the source reality. An error I have identified is not taking into account the periodic nature of EM radiation. The period of such motion being invariant under translation. Space-time products are generated by each observer. When input related to a particular event is received is related to when it (the event) is perceived (as present). So if an event is past, present or future also depends. It is not the source reality.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 17, 2019 @ 03:45 GMT
Eckard, sitting still in a car I am stationary relative to the car (and the scenery is moving), even if I'm seen to be travelling at 80km/hr with the car by an outside observer, who considers himself and the scenery stationary. Whether stationary or moving is a point of view.
When the ideal clocks are synchronized, at the location of each clock the clock display setting is the same. They are seen or otherwise found to be different from that by a distant observer because a signal must be received in order for the display setting of that clock to be a part of that observer's present. What the distant observer sees or otherwise perceives does not alter the synchronization of the material clocks.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 17, 2019 @ 17:26 GMT
Georgina,
Einstein in 1905 gave a seemingly compelling argument: The time of flight from A to B t_AB must be the same as t_BA from B to A. This is correct if there is zero velocity v between A and B, and also if the signals from A and from B are simultaneously emitted. However, Einstein’s synchronization condition assumed a return trip, first from A to B, and then back from B to A. Let’s assume the distance AB has grown by vt_AB when the light arrived at B. Then the return path BA and also t_BA are increased because the emission from B happens already with the delay vt_AB. Hence, Einstein’s “synchronization” must not be used with v =| = 0. This implies that there is no logical justification for arriving at gamma via
c/(c+v)+c/(c-v)=2/[1-(v/c)^2]
A return trip doesn’t begin at A and B simultaneously.
Einstein’s ideal clocks are OK, except for his confusion of the category mathematical construct with reality.
In reality, it exclusively depends on the assumed as point-like event at the source of the signal it emits whether it is traceable in the past or just expected in the future.
You wrote: “What the distant observer sees or otherwise perceives does not alter the synchronization of the material clocks.” As I tried to explain, Einstein synchronization cannot at all permanently synchronize B with A in case v =|= 0. SRT is logically flawed from the very beginning.
EB
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 17, 2019 @ 22:06 GMT
Eckard, I don't know why you are arguing against trying to synchronize clocks moving relative to each other. It doesn't seem to be what Einstein was suggesting be done. NB in following quote "..clocks that are at rest relative to this system". "Further, by means of the clocks at rest in the system at rest and using light signals in the manner described in §1, the time t of the system at rest is determined for all its points where there is a clock; likewise, the time T of the moving system is determined for all the points of the moving system having clocks that are at rest relative to this system, applying the method of light signals described in §1 between the points containing these clocks." On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" Einstein. 1905. Volume 2: (English translation supplement) Page 140 via Einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 18, 2019 @ 05:46 GMT
Georgina,
With v=|=0, A sees B as B sees A either red-shifted or blue-shifted. Their ideal clocks are just in reality equal to each other. The notions synchronous and synchronization don’t refer to equal and equalized measures for the basic differences of time but to a single chosen common reference point. Measures of time may only apparently differ from each other. Only with v=0 can differences be permanently synchronized away. In other words, there are red or blue-shifted apparent timescales for A and B but there is only one ubiquitous time of reality.
In so far, Einstein was correct when he distinguished between A time and the also just apparent B time. However, his formal average of red and blue-shift is not just paradoxical but also logically inconsistent from the very beginning.
EB
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 18, 2019 @ 07:21 GMT
Eckard, no change in distance between the clocks to be synchronized is prescribed. For the system deemed stationary the first clock and others to be synchronized are all considered stationary. For the moving system the first clock and those to be synchronized are all co -moving, they have the same velocities and so relative to each other are stationary. Which is the stationary and which is the moving system could be reversed, it doesn't matter. Clocks and rods are used to establish the reference frame's parameters. The reference frame moves with the observer. "However, his formal average of red and blue-shift is not just paradoxical but also logically inconsistent from the very beginning."EB. Where does Einstein say to do this? I think you are mistaken.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 19, 2019 @ 18:51 GMT
Georgina,
While I as a German did prefer scrutinizing the original 1905 Elektrodynamik paper, you gave a good hint to an excellent translation where e.g. I. Kinematic Part, §1. Definition of simultaneity begins (within number [8] on the right side of page) with introduction of coordinate systems, at first such a system at rest. Then the notion time is meant as what the clock usually reads simultaneous with a particular event. Einstein then questions the ubiquity of time, your unitemporal Now, Georgina.
Perhaps, he was influenced by Poincaré’s “local time”. In [10] he is accordingly using A_time and B_time as well as a desired time common to A and B as coordinates. In the following definition time means something quite different, the timeSPAN “needed for the light to travel from A to B” or vice versa.
To be continued
EB
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 20, 2019 @ 03:19 GMT
A first continuation with Van Flandern’s objection: Lorentz/Poincaré/Einstein synchronization (for the history see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#Local_tim
e) must be considered a de-synchronization rather than synchronization. Indeed, as long as we restrict to two “material points” A and B without a relative to each other velocity v, corresponding to Einstein’s coordinate system at rest, there is no reason for synchronizing A and B by means of light. In a thought experiment, we may move clock A as slowly as desired, i.e. with v-->0, to B.
Einstein gave the following condition of synchronism t_B - t_A = t’_A – t_B which means that the time of flight is the same for AB as for BA. In what Einstein called the stationary case, his equation in [10] is still “free of contradictions” even “for arbitrarily many points” (in Einstein’s stationary case):
2AB / (t’_A - t_A) = t
However it is obviously not generally valid, not with v =|= 0. In order to decide to what extent Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein just speculated, we may notice Einstein’s wording:
“we assume that”, “we postulate” and “with the help of some physical (thought) experiments we have laid down … and obviously obtained thereby a definition of synchronism and time”.
Einstein gave no references and didn’t perform experiments.
EB
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 20, 2019 @ 07:19 GMT
Eckard, do you think the synchronization method would not be valid for a moving system in which all of the clocks have the same velocity and so are stationary relative to each other? Apart from the stationary system that you are happy with, the moving system as I have described seems oi me the only other scenario that needs thinking about. Einstein is not suggesting that the synchronization method be used under any circumstance. Using light signals is an alternative to slow transport of clocks, being a more practical method.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 20, 2019 @ 09:38 GMT
Georgina,
Such “synchronization method” deliberately contradicts to your omnipresent now. Of course, Einstein claimed dealing with “moving bodies”. In Lorentz’s theory of relativity, this (de-) synchronization was already strange but still logically consistent together with the assumption of an aether, time dilution, and length contraction. And yes, using reflected light is a more practical alternative to slow transport of clocks - on condition, the forward path is exactly as long as is the return path – which is not the case for two moving relative to each other points A and B.
Incidentally, I dislike obscuring simple relations. The inconsistency or in other words the categorization error of Einstein’s “theory” is already obvious if we omit notions like coordinate- system and rest. Let’s restrict to moving relative to each other points A and B each of which may easily be understood as representing a rigid body.
EB
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 20, 2019 @ 22:42 GMT
Eckard, the synchronization of clocks does not contradict a uni-temporal Now, pertaining to material existence. The clock display setting that is seen is part of the space-time generated by the observer and not the material reality external to the observer. There is a lack of differentiation of the seen and the materially existing in Einstein's paper. He is considering moving bodies but also observers'perception of moving bodies from the processing of received signals (although not recognized as such in the paper). Just considering material bodies and not what an observer sees isn't an improvement. What is needed is keeping in mind what category is being considered. There is a saying in English, 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater'.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 21, 2019 @ 06:43 GMT
Georgina,
In contrast to SRT, Doppler shift plausibly describes all the apparent effects concerning moving bodies on the basis of the good old notions of time and synchronism which were unnecessarily questioned by Einstein.
Let me reiterate: Application of Einstein synchronization on the relation between moving bodies does not provide a reasonable picture of material reality. Einstein’s general length contraction differs qualitatively and quantitatively from Doppler’s apparent decrease or increase of length depending on the sign of v. Yes, length contraction, time dilution, and Einstein synchronization may be seen as due to confusion between perception and reality. However they cannot be made correct and applicable just by reinterpretation.
EB
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 21, 2019 @ 08:30 GMT
Eckard yes it "does not provide a reasonable picture of material reality" EB., and the confusion and the paradoxes arise from thinking that the picture is the material reality and not a product that is categorically different. I think realizing that what is obtained from observation differs for different 'ways of looking' is a significant achievement of Relativity, even though it has been misunderstood. The seen 'time' related to signals from clock display settings is mutable because it isn't the display itself and is not independent of the process of observation. same for seen lengths, they are not the length of the object independent of the observation process but what is generated from the input.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 21, 2019 @ 18:03 GMT
Georgina,
Meanwhile, you and all others careful and honest readers of the original paper of the original paper should agree on that the use of Einstein (de)synchronization in case of mutually moving bodies is on one hand the basis of ST of Relativity and on the other hand without logical justification but contradicting common sense. Why is STR nonetheless so firmly established? Prominent scientists rejected Einstein’s SRT.
Length contraction and time dilution were never observed. Perhaps a decisive argument for Lorentz gamma was and still is the so called relativistic mass increase of accelerated particles. Do we actually need SRT for explaining this well confirmed Effect? Klingman means no. Kinetic energy depends of v squared.
Mathematically formulated support for STR claims that there must be invariance under transformation. Concerning this matter, Phipps Jr. revealed that simply using partial instead total derivatives in Maxwell’s equations makes a big difference. Skepticism against the almost incomprehensible general theory of Relativity absorbed for a while almost all basic criticism.
Do not forget the role of propaganda against Jews. Einstein is still admired as a genius as also was and is the catholically educated Georg Cantor who shocked everybody with transfinite numbers.
Speculations in quantum physics were prepared by the readiness to swallow other non-intuitive theories.
Incidentally, In German we used speaking of Doppler EFFECT because it is primarily a physical effect behind perception. Length contraction and time dilution cannot be observed because they are not genuine physical effects.
EB
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 23, 2019 @ 01:26 GMT
Light clock thought experiment: what is happening in the material light clock is unaffected by what observers see. The physics happening in the same material source object clock is always the same. Light is a periodic phenomenon. Period is invariant under translation. There are however numerous factors that can affect timekeeping of real as opposed to ideal clocks. A stationary observer of a moving light clock 'sees' a diagonal rather than just vertical light path. That is an observation product generated from received EM radiation. Each seen tick appears more spread out over space-time. The spread out tick is not foundational time or change in clock display setting of a material clock (passage of clock time) but a seen image manifestation of change in clock display setting (clock time) within the observer's observation product.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Joe William Fisher wrote on Jan. 5, 2019 @ 17:12 GMT
I emailed this information to Templeton Foundation:
The Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi), in collaboration with the Templeton World Charity Foundation, is launching a major new $6.9M research grants program entitled Information as Fuel.
Reality am not tensed. Unfortunately, the geniuses who put the English language together must have assumed that there was a definite past, a definite present, and a predictable future. No theoretical physicist has ever stated: “I is guessing that the universe slowly emerged from out of a empty void.” Many a theoretical physicist has gained great fame and vast fortune for firmly stating: “I am guessing that the universe slowly emerged from out of an empty void thirteen and three quarters of a billion light years ago.”
Any sensible person should know that reality could only have been provided by nature. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before any theoretical physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their utterly unnatural silly guesswork concerning finite invisible quantum particle phenomena. Reality was designed by NATURE to be fully understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. Nature must have provided the only real VISIBLE physical structure of the real Universe allowable. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Jan. 7, 2019 @ 16:32 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Sleep feels good but most think it a waste of time. Recent research shows quite the opposite: sleep is essential for bodily health and mental well-being, affecting the immune system, providing brain maintenance, enabling memory formation, and more. Sleep, like eating, is essential for life. In this interview we...
view entire post
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Sleep feels good but most think it a waste of time. Recent research shows quite the opposite: sleep is essential for bodily health and mental well-being, affecting the immune system, providing brain maintenance, enabling memory formation, and more. Sleep, like eating, is essential for life. In this interview we speak with Nicholas Humphrey, an English psychologist who is known for his work on the evolution of human intelligence and consciousness.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my Facebook page.
The real VISIBLE Universe was not “made of nothing,” as Humphrey nonchalantly misstates early in the interview. One has to always keep in mind that reality am not tensed. Unfortunately, the geniuses who produced the English language must have assumed that there was a definable past, a definable present and a predictable future. This has led English language fluent users to assume that they are different from other animals and insects and fish because they have some sort of definable intelligence. All living forms have a VISIBLE surface. Interestingly, no theoretical physicist has ever stated: “I is guessing that the universe slowly emerged from out of a empty void.” Many a theoretical physicist has gained great fame and vast fortune for firmly proclaiming: “I am guessing that the universe slowly emerged from out of an empty void thirteen and three quarters of a billion light years ago.”
Any sensible person should know that reality could only have been provided by nature. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Nicholas Humphrey ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural silly guesswork concerning imaginary human invisible mental conditions. Reality was designed by NATURE to be fully understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. Nature must have provided the only real VISIBLE physical structure of the real Universe allowable. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Jan. 9, 2019 @ 16:49 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement.
“What can we learn about sleep that will help us understand consciousness? We pose this question to CTT contributor Patrick McNamara. Patrick McNamara is Director of the Evolutionary Neurobehavior Laboratory in the Department of Neurology at the BU School of Medicine.”
I have...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement.
“What can we learn about sleep that will help us understand consciousness? We pose this question to CTT contributor Patrick McNamara. Patrick McNamara is Director of the Evolutionary Neurobehavior Laboratory in the Department of Neurology at the BU School of Medicine.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.
There am no such a thing as (invisible) human consciousness. The only reason humans dream am because humans live unnatural lives. Nature provided for darkness to descend on the earth when its surface was spinning, hiding part of it from the sun. Man devised finite artificial light and obliterated natural darkness. In doing so, man negated natural human sleeping. A human dream can only occur when a lit surface am detected during a rapid eye movement phase. One has to always keep in mind that reality am not tensed. Unfortunately, the geniuses who produced the English language must have assumed that there was a definable past, a definable present and a predictable future. This has led English language fluent users to assume that they are different from other animals and insects and fish and from each other because they have a varying sort of definable invisible intelligence. All living forms have a VISIBLE surface. Interestingly, no theoretical physicist has ever stated: “I is guessing that the universe slowly emerged from out of a empty void.” Many a theoretical physicist has gained great fame and vast fortune for firmly proclaiming: “I am guessing that the universe slowly emerged from out of an empty void thirteen and three quarters of a billion light years ago.”
Any sensible person should know that reality could only have been provided by nature. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Patrick McNamara ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural silly guesswork concerning invisible evolutionary human consciousness. Reality was designed by NATURE to be fully understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. Nature must have provided the only real VISIBLE physical structure of the real Universe allowable. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Jan. 11, 2019 @ 16:17 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Robert Stickgold is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. His research seeks to describe the nature of cognition during sleep, and to explain the role of sleep in memory and emotional processing. In this interview, Robert...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Robert Stickgold is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. His research seeks to describe the nature of cognition during sleep, and to explain the role of sleep in memory and emotional processing. In this interview, Robert discusses the relationship between sleep and memory and why it has captured so much attention in the science world over the past few years.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.
Y’all gotta remember that: Cogito, ergo sum is a Latin philosophical proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think, therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed. Wikipedia
René never said. Existimo ergo hoc, which am Latin for: “I think, therefore I is.”
René would have been closer to telling the truth had he averred: EGO coniecto, planetae non sicut in aliud omnibus. “I guess, just like everybody else on the planet does.”
Any sensible person should know that reality could only have been provided by nature. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Robert Stickgold ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural silly guesswork concerning invisible finite psychiatric influences. Reality was designed by NATURE to be fully understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. Nature must have provided the only real VISIBLE physical structure of the real Universe allowable. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Humorous Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 14, 2019 @ 08:24 GMT
Georgina,
"page 10" of which paper? Einstein's 1905, one out of Klingman's, or Crothers'?
"The confirmation of the Crothers refutation for the special theory of relativity" by Colin James III 2018 has only one page.
EB
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 14, 2019 @ 08:28 GMT
By the way, I didn't give the viXra link because I intended mentioning APS.
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Jan. 14, 2019 @ 16:39 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement.
“'Possible worlds' are all the ways in which a world can be. A 'world' is a complete state of cosmic affairs: all the infinite variations of innumerable parts and their myriad relationships. Possible world's have become an indispensible philosophical technique for exploring...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement.
“'Possible worlds' are all the ways in which a world can be. A 'world' is a complete state of cosmic affairs: all the infinite variations of innumerable parts and their myriad relationships. Possible world's have become an indispensible philosophical technique for exploring modalities—issues of possibility and necessity that are essential for examining God. Alvin Plantinga is an American analytic philosopher, the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame and the inaugural holder of the Jellema Chair in Philosophy at Calvin College.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.
There am only one real world. There are an infinite number of possible imaginary worlds. Y’all gotta remember that: Cogito, ergo sum is a Latin philosophical proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think, therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed. Wikipedia
René never said. Existimo ergo hoc, which am Latin for: “I think, therefore I is.”
René would have been closer to telling the truth had he averred: EGO coniecto, planetae non sicut in aliud omnibus. “I guess, just like everybody else on the planet does.”
Any sensible person should know that reality could only have been provided by nature. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Alvin Plantinga ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural silly guesswork concerning invisible possible worlds. Reality was designed by NATURE to be fully understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. Nature must have provided the only real VISIBLE physical structure of the real Universe allowable. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, and real VISIBLE selves must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Jan. 15, 2019 @ 18:00 GMT
Joe William Fisher wrote on Jan. 16, 2019 @ 16:08 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement.
“Dean W. Zimmerman is a professor of philosophy at Rutgers University, specializing in metaphysics and the philosophy of religion. He is also the Director of the Rutgers Center for the Philosophy of Religion. In this interview, Dean discusses the meaning of the possible world...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement.
“Dean W. Zimmerman is a professor of philosophy at Rutgers University, specializing in metaphysics and the philosophy of religion. He is also the Director of the Rutgers Center for the Philosophy of Religion. In this interview, Dean discusses the meaning of the possible world concept.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.
There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one real visible world. There could be an infinite number of possible imaginary worlds. Y’all gotta remember that: Cogito, ergo sum is (sic) a Latin philosophical proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think, therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed. Wikipedia
René never said. Existimo ergo hoc, which am Latin for: “I think, therefore I is.”
René would have been closer to telling the truth had he averred: EGO coniecto, planetae non sicut in aliud omnibus. “I guess, just like everybody else on the planet does.” All philosophers would come closer to telling the truth if they would only preface all of their remarks with the term: “I guess.”
Any sensible person should know that reality could only have been provided by nature. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Dean W. Zimmerman ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural silly guesswork concerning invisible possible worlds. Reality was designed by NATURE to be fully understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. Nature must have provided the only real VISIBLE physical structure of the real Universe allowable. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, and all of our real VISIBLE selves must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Jan. 18, 2019 @ 16:25 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Peter van Inwagen is an American analytic philosopher and the John Cardinal O'Hara Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. In this interview, Peter talks about possible worlds and how it explores our understanding of reality.”
I have posted this sensible comment...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Peter van Inwagen is an American analytic philosopher and the John Cardinal O'Hara Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. In this interview, Peter talks about possible worlds and how it explores our understanding of reality.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.
Natural visible reality am not a humanly contrived pretentious conversation piece.
There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one real visible world. There could be an infinite number of possible imaginary worlds. Y’all gotta remember that: Cogito, ergo sum is (sic) a Latin philosophical proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think, therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed. Wikipedia
René never said. Existimo ergo hoc, which am Latin for: “I think, therefore I is.”
René would have been closer to telling the truth had he averred: EGO coniecto, planetae non sicut in aliud omnibus. “I guess, just like everybody else on the planet does.” All philosophers would come closer to telling the truth if they would only preface all of their remarks with the term: “I guess.”
Any sensible person should know that reality could only have been provided by nature. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Peter van Inwagen ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural pompous silly guesswork concerning invisible possible worlds. Reality was designed by NATURE to be fully understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. Nature must have provided the only real VISIBLE physical structure of the real Universe allowable. Obviously, the only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, and all of our real VISIBLE selves must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Feb. 1, 2019 @ 15:56 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Marvin Minsky was an American cognitive scientist in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), co-founder of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's AI laboratory, and author of several texts on AI and philosophy. Watch his interview below on human consciousness.”
I have posted...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“Marvin Minsky was an American cognitive scientist in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), co-founder of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's AI laboratory, and author of several texts on AI and philosophy. Watch his interview below on human consciousness.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.
Natural visible reality am not finitely artificial. Although some so-called experts pretend to know about the dissimilar workings of individual invisible human consciousness, NATURAL reality am eternally visible. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one real visible Universe. Please remember that: Cogito, ergo sum is (sic) a Latin philosophical proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think, therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed. Wikipedia
René never said: Je pense, donc je l'est, which am French for: “I think, therefore I is.”
René would have been closer to telling the truth had he averred: Je suppose que, comme tout le monde sur la planète “I guess, just like everybody else on the planet does.” All philosophers would come closer to telling the truth if they would only preface all of their remarks with the term: “I guess.”
Any sensible person should know that reality could only have been provided by nature. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Marvin Minsky, ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural guesswork concerning invisible finite imaginary human consciousness. Scientists are really unnatural wild guessers. The wilder the guess, the greater the fame and fortune the scientists will attain. Think of how much money the bright spark made who guessed that there were invisible aliens out there determined to listen to and respond to radio signals from Earth. Reality was designed by NATURE to be fully understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. The only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, and our real VISIBLE selves must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Feb. 4, 2019 @ 16:29 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“God is said to be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good. But what is God's private mental life like? Can we reach in to appreciate God as a supreme being? It may seem absurd, or arrogant, for finite human beings to strive to imagine what an infinite God is like and even what God may feel...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar announcement:
“God is said to be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good. But what is God's private mental life like? Can we reach in to appreciate God as a supreme being? It may seem absurd, or arrogant, for finite human beings to strive to imagine what an infinite God is like and even what God may feel like privately and inside. But that is what we do. In this interview, we speak to John Polkinghorne, an English theoretical physicist, theologian, and writer. He was professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Cambridge, and he resigned his chair to become an ordained Anglican priest.”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.
Guessing that there was an invisible God am even more profitable than guessing that there were invisible aliens out there determined to exchange radio signals with scientists on Earth. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one real visible Universe. Please remember that: Cogito, ergo sum is (sic) a Latin philosophical proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think, therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed. Wikipedia
René never said: Je pense, donc je l'est, which am French for: “I think, therefore I is.”
René would have been closer to telling the truth had he averred: Je suppose que, comme tout le monde sur la planète “I guess, just like everybody else on the planet does.” All philosophers would come closer to telling the truth if they would only preface all of their remarks with the term: “I guess.”
Any sensible person should know that reality could only have been provided by nature. The only irrefutable fact the physicists have been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before John Polkinghorne, ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his utterly unnatural guesswork concerning an invisible God. Popes and Professors are really unnatural wild guessers. The wilder the guess, the greater the fame and fortune the Pope and the Professor will attain. Reality was designed by NATURE to be fully understood by all living creatures in all places at all times. The only nature, that has provided us with real VISIBLE mountains, and real VISIBLE oceans, and real VISIBLE deserts, and real VISIBLE jungles, and real VISIBLE ice caps, and our real VISIBLE selves must have given to us the only VISIBLE reality allowed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Proud Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.