Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Georgina Woodward: on 9/2/20 at 2:12am UTC, wrote Correction . That should say- external to observers reality. General...

Georgina Woodward: on 9/2/20 at 2:03am UTC, wrote "at the same time" is problematic. The transmission delay is...

Georgina Woodward: on 9/1/20 at 12:06pm UTC, wrote Re. previously quoted explanation:The different temperatures are very...

Georgina Woodward: on 9/1/20 at 11:57am UTC, wrote An Introduction To Tensors for Students of Physics and Engineering Joseph...

Georgina Woodward: on 8/27/20 at 21:00pm UTC, wrote To be more precise I think I should not mention observers, as this is just...

Georgina Woodward: on 8/27/20 at 0:17am UTC, wrote "if the tensor has a value of 0 in one frames of reference, it must have a...

Georgina Woodward: on 8/26/20 at 4:38am UTC, wrote Einstein Field Equations - for beginners! (On You Tube) 35.12 to 37.20 ...

Georgina Woodward: on 6/10/20 at 10:34am UTC, wrote Thinking about it, either inversion or turning 180 about the 'lengthwise...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

jim hughes: "I'm not a mathematician. So what I see here is some smart people who..." in Consciousness and the...

Steve Dufourny: "Hello FQXi, the members and all, I try to do my best to unite and convice..." in Global Collaboration

Lorraine Ford: "The idea of a smooth mathematical evolution of “the wave function”, and..." in Consciousness and the...

Georgina Woodward: "Broken machine: What do[es] I see next? The I that was, E.I, has not been..." in The Room in the Elephant:...

Lorraine Ford: "Hi Stefan, I hope that a good leader, and a good political party, is..." in The Present State of...

Lorraine Ford: "We live in an age of computing. But physics, mathematics and philosophy,..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "I've copied the comment to the thread where it belongs. This orphan can be..." in The Room in the Elephant:...

Georgina Woodward: "Thank you John. What did you think about the questioning whether altitude..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.


FQXi FORUM
September 28, 2021

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: The Castle and elephants; Indescribable, undecidable, un-computable, and unpredictable by Georgina P. Woodward [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 25, 2020 @ 12:48 GMT
Essay Abstract

At the beginning I set out the ‘universe’ in which the set topic will be discussed. An explanatory framework addressing existence, time and reality in physics. The aim is to be lighthearted, interesting, as well as seriously addressing foundational issues in physics. Indescribable is added to the list for discussion. Issues such as the nature of time, objectivity, Mach’s principle, Bell’s inequalities, agency and much more is presented in bite sized pieces. Intended to be easily digested food for thought

Author Bio

Long time participant of the FQXi online ‘community’ and competitions. Author and former science teacher. Particular interest in time, that has led to development of an explanatory framework for physics

Download Essay PDF File
Note: This Essay PDF was replaced on 2020-04-16 05:27:22 UTC.

Bookmark and Share


Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 25, 2020 @ 23:35 GMT
I hope you enjoy the essay. Feedback much appreciated.

I have just realized that I have missed out on the opportunity to use an explanatory elephant.

What do you get if you cross a kangaroo and an elephant?

Big holes all over Australia.

What do you get if you cross expression of will with unpredictability?

Un-computable, lampshade, hedgehog.

(Because I can and because you did not predict that answer.)

Bookmark and Share

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 26, 2020 @ 03:47 GMT
'Lampshade, hedgehog' is an expression that looks like a totally random word choice to an outside observer, an expression of free will to choose any words. However it is not random to me but a combination for which I have affection, due to a fond memory. When my children were small we would play word games. One such game is the opposite of word association. Non associated words beating loosely associated words.So 'football, cuttlefish' beats 'marshmallow, alligator' and 'butterfly, frying pan'. To hear a small child triumphantly declare "lampshade, hedgehog" was priceless and lol funny. In looking for the best random choice, I have actually chosen the fondly memorized known combination. Instead of all of the truly random choices possible. So, for me, just an expression of will; not free will. Interesting how perspective changes matters.

Bookmark and Share

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 29, 2020 @ 10:44 GMT
I'm surprised to have found my eldest son did not know the second elephant joke alluded to at the beginning of the essay. Such jokes may be particularly well known to my generation.Though silly enough to be in Christmas crackers. Wikipedia/Elephant jokes, says "An elephant joke is a joke, almost always an absurd riddle or conundrum and often a sequence of such, that involves an elephant. Elephant jokes were a fad in the 1960s, with many people constructing large numbers of them according to a set formula".

The second question (alluded to but not asked) is:How do you know there has been an elephant in your bed? Pink pajamas etc. follows.

I'm saying context matters. What makes sense with one framework does not in another.

Bookmark and Share

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 19, 2020 @ 03:31 GMT
Re: An observation product is generated by processing the input; with semblance to the external source (of the signal) reality but differing in significant ways. That differing allowing it to be identified as product not source; Image reality rather than observer independent Object reality.

I argue that truly objective Object reality is without any applied perspective. However it is usual to consider material reality as having 3 space dimensions.Perpendicular and of the same kind. That gives mapping of Euclidean space. The 'block universe' has another dimension perpendicular to the others, giving traditional space-time. Seen Observation products or those generated by a camera have a different arrangement of dimensions. There are 3 spatial dimensions; but not all of the same kind. The perspective space dimension goes directly away from the observer as it looks 'into the distance'. The height/vertical and length/horizontal dimensions are proportion spatial dimensions . Meaning an element of Image realities position on the perspective dimension will be proportional to the seen height and length. Rather than being perpendicular the transmission time dimension overlaps the perspective spatial dimension. Giving space-time but not as it has been known. As the spatial dimensions do not form Euclidean space and because of the overlapping spatial perspective and transmission time dimension.

Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Jan. 27, 2020 @ 14:28 GMT
Dear Georgina P. Woodward, you, as a participant of the FQXi online is supposed to, have fully disclosed the topic of the essay contest: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability, adequately describing the Universe and the nature of time at the very beginning. I want to note that according to the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, which is based on the identity of Descartes’s space and matter, space moves relative to itself, since it is matter. It follows from this that the Universe is a changing space, as its separate regions rotate. We do not see this rotation of the parts of space, and only the rotation of bodies, which themselves are parts of space, highlights it for us. The number of all successive changes in the entire Universe we measure with time. Thus, time is a measure in the aggregate of universal changes in the world.

      If people understood and believed in the identity of space and matter, then in the world Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability became less.

         I invite you to discuss my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of space and matter of Descartes: “The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich. "

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 27, 2020 @ 22:27 GMT
Hi Dizhechko, this page is for feedback and discussion of my essay. Have you read it or just the abstract?

Bookmark and Share

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 1, 2020 @ 08:16 GMT
Dear Georgina P. Woodward, I have a question for you: “Have you read my essay?” I read your essay, but you didn’t. If you read, you would leave a comment on my page, but it is not, but this does not mean that you did not read my essay. You may have read it, but left no comment. In general, for me the situation is Undecidability, but for you not, you know for sure whether you read my essay or not. Sorry for the pun.

Of your essay, I liked Background the most. If you lived in Russia, you would definitely quote from the song “There is only a moment between the past and the future, hold on to it” I did not comment on the rest, since due to the need for translation I limit myself to short comments. However, I note that the speed of time is a tautology and this concept should be changed so that it acquires a different terminology, for example, acceleration (second per second). Obviously, where you saw the speed of time, dynamic processes occur, since acceleration is the result of the manifestation of force.

Your essay is preparing material for the FQXi grant, "Consciousness in the Physical World." Perhaps you want to improve it through comments. I can tell you something, but first you must show that you have acquired the identity of Descartes’s space and matter, and believe that physical space moves relative to itself, since it is matter.

         I again invite you to discuss my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of Descartes’s space and matter: “The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich ".

Regards, Boris Dizhechko.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 2, 2020 @ 00:09 GMT
Hi Dizhechko, I will comment on your essay when and if I wish to do so. Not because of your demand or insistence.

Thank you, the song lyric is apt. Thank you for taking a look at my essay. Kind regards G.

Bookmark and Share


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 31, 2020 @ 01:27 GMT
This was a fun read Georgina...

The key element is the incongruity where the analogy breaks down. Groucho Marx said "I once shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas; I'll never know." The first line makes sense, but in the following line the sense of things is reversed. Sort of like "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."

I had an elephant in the room for one FQXi essay, and now here you have put him or her into the fridge. How that elephant got in the fridge I'll never know. But it's a joke because it sneaks up on you; you have to assume an elephant could get in the fridge to answer the question.

The huge footprint comment actually makes sense, and if you were to ask 'what would leave footprints when stepped in?' butter is a good answer. But of course an elephant is so much bigger than a mouse that it would squish the butter flat, however it would not fit in the fridge in the first place.

That kind of analogy speaks volumes about some of the incongruous juxtapositions with incompatible questions. H. Dieter Zeh asserted that Quantum Mechanics was easy to understand if you just accepted that there are no quantum leaps or particles, and that only the quantum wavefunction really exists at all.

But to abandon the sense that objects are real entirely seems too radical a step to make, in order to understand QM's reality. However; Zeh's greater distaste was for the more popular idea that QM only presents reality probabilistically. He detested that notion and liked to think in terms of absolutes, as do you.

I will come back to this, and I have also downloaded the 43 page RICP summary document from viXra, for reference. I may not agree, or see eye to eye with you, but I want at least to understand your view.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 1, 2020 @ 01:04 GMT
Thank you Johnathan,I look forward to your further thoughts. At the beginning I'm setting out the background, which is not the space-time continuum, the visible or observable universe or a probability space.I could have simplified that section further by having a numbered glossary of terms. I think getting a clear understanding of tense is the biggest hurdle.

1, Configuration of all existing = Object universe ( Not visible or observable).

2. Uni-temporal Now (-Now) , temporal expression of 1., the one and only same foundational time everywhere.

3. i. changes continually, all is recycled into the new 1., giving foundational passage of time. Records, relics and memory storage are all parts of the structure of 1., not a separate past

4.No Material past or future prevents temporal paradox. An Open/ unwwritten/ non existing material future allows true agency.

5. Potential sensory inputs sin the environment allow non simultaneity of observed events= [potential] pre- written future(pertaining to observation products, not material existence

6. Observation product, part of Image reality.Observer generated using received input.

7. Seen content= Present. Temporal expression =now. Identifying the content of an observers reference frame to be observer generated products makes the paradoxes where observers see a different 'reality' intuitive , not paradoxical.

8. Beable = element of Object reality (material reality), independent of observation or measurement p. Cf: observation product =element of Image reality. Reality interface, where input from external material Object reality is processed into Image reality observation products.

The above may provide a quick reference tool.

Till later, regards, G.

Bookmark and Share

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 1, 2020 @ 16:51 GMT
Thanks so much Georgina,

I am reminded of a comment by Kodish and Kodish from "Drive yourself sane" where they talked about the term 'things are changing' and suggested that the view according to quantum mechanics would be 'changes are thinging' instead - which is much closer to H.D. Zeh's views. There too; it is shown or implied that behind every object lurks a process.

If things are objects, they don't change, although their configuration or orientation might. But seeing every object as an ongoing process allows transformations or transmutation from one form or appearance to another. But this begs the question, because then the atoms would be the individual objects, and we know they are more process-like than a rock or a ball is.

The Chinese language is much more process-like than English - which divides things up into objects and subjects - at least for traditionals. In modern Westernized speech that distinction is becoming watered-down over time. But it is reflected in the ease of learning for orientals studying some subjects. And it may be the faults of English are an underlying cause of the disconnect you cite.

More later,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 1, 2020 @ 23:59 GMT
Hi Johnathan, existence and happening are both founadtional. John Merryman and I have both, at times. used the expression "stuff happens". I don't know who said it first but it amuses me. Taken one way it is very mundane and another way it is saying something profound about existence and (material-spatial) change occurring (which I say is energy). Objects do change but the change is usually disregarded and the object continues to be called by the same name. Unless there is great change, such as by growth and development. Objects can change because of corrosion, desiccation, biological decay, out-gassing, erosion, deposition, metal fatigue etc. Different material conditions are at different -Nows, not simultaneous. That is why I have posited State transit uncertainty for Schrodinger's cat.

Bookmark and Share


Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 1, 2020 @ 23:06 GMT
At the beginning I'm setting out the background, which is not the space-time continuum, the visible or observable universe or a probability space.I could have simplified that section further by having a numbered glossary of terms. I think getting a clear understanding of tense is the biggest hurdle.

1, Configuration of all existing = Object universe ( Not visible or observable).

2. Uni-temporal Now (-Now), temporal expression of 1., the one and only same foundational time everywhere.

3. i. changes continually, all is recycled into the new 1., giving foundational passage of time. Records, relics and memory storage are all parts of the structure of 1., not a separate past

4.No Material past or future prevents temporal paradox. An Open/ unwwritten/ non existing material future allows true agency.

5. Potential sensory inputs in the environment allow non simultaneity of observed events= [potential] pre- written future(pertaining to observation products, not material existence

6. Observation product, part of Image reality.Observer generated using received input.

7. Seen content= Present. Temporal expression =now. Identifying the content of an observers reference frame to be observer generated products makes the paradoxes where observers see a different 'reality' intuitive, not paradoxical.

8. Beable = element of Object reality (material reality), independent of observation or measurement. Cf: 9.

9. Observation product = element of Image reality

10. Reality interface: where input from external material Object reality is processed into Image reality observation products.

The above may provide a quick reference tool. (Improved numbering and punctuation to the list written for Johnathon.) This is supplementary. The information contained in the list is in the essay.

Bookmark and Share


John R. Cox wrote on Feb. 2, 2020 @ 19:28 GMT
Well written, Georgi,

you have become much more cohesive in aligning the multiple facets of your ideas to reflect an internal association. It is easily readable, good job.

I'll only make a couple observations but from an historical perspective, because 'controlling the narrative' has been the persistent theme in all pursuits, throughout. "Publish or Perish" is so ingrained that Theologians categorically speak of Five Great Religions all of which stem, and continually change, from religious writings before the advent or introduction to the Age of Reason.

Firstly; while Newton, a religiously strange personality, did wax metaphysically on Time Immemorial, in his development of the method of calculating derivatives and in application to analysis (he supported himself by contracting to do analysis of other's experimental observations hence the breadth of accumulated topics in the Principia, along with payment for tutorials from the Chair and Rooms he bought at College) that analysis was mathematically conducted in 'instantaneous measures' then stringing them together (integration) over a time span. The same thing as your notion of Uni-Temporal Time, you might consider giving some attention to the life and times of Newton as a supporting argument. But as narratives go, 'Newtonian Time' has become conflated with DesCartes and generally thought of as a continuous metronomic 'flow'.

Secondly: the narrative of Einstein's SR also has been conflated with Minkowski's Four Dimensional SpaceTime, with the attendant assumed paradoxes. Einstein was swept along with the currents of his watershed rationalization of Maxwell, but SR is strictly only the geometry of constant uniform motion constrained to only two degrees of freedom. Your qualifications of Image and Object, while not typically addressed metaphysically are none-the-less incorporated as 'delay'corrections' in practical practice. So you aren't 'coloring outside the lines' there, either.

Thirdly: You make cogent arguments addressing undecidability in the QM method of Spin State Characteristics. All of which are consistent with Shannon's concise definition of 'Information".

Fourthly; and finally, I will take issue with your contention that because "each different configuration of all that exists is a different time, it makes no sense to talk of the speed of time in relation to that". Events that in your Object Universe may coincide in an observed configuration corrected to the metronome in your observatory, but that does not prove that Time is registered in the inertial reference frames of those objects at the same rate as your metronome. And Your Own opening scenario freely admits that there is no universal reference of scale for either time or space. There is only the bounded interval of possible speed between nil and light velocity. It is a mathematical consequence of omission of that degree of freedom in Minkowski SpaceTime that spawns the so-called SR paradoxes.

I'll let the panel judges decide if you have "use(d) this breadth as an excuse to shoehorn in the authors pet topic". It's worth a cool 1/3 weight of score for relevance, you know. Good Luck, and never be satisfied with your arguments and axioms as they stand now. They may change in a different configuration of acquired knowledge. Best Wishes, John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 3, 2020 @ 03:08 GMT
Hi John, thank you for taking time to read my essay and comment I'm glad you found it readable. I did not want to present a wall of words. It is a departure from my usual impersonal style of writing.The way I was taught science writing should be, reflecting its objectivity. I have, here and there, put more of myself into the writing , hoping that humour and anecdotes will make it a lighter read and keep surprising the reader.

I think I have met the guidelines."Shoehorning" to me, implies not a good fit or irrelevant to the topic. I think the universe in which the physics is being considered is important to specify. Unless specified the reader will make assumptions based on prior learning which are incompatible with the framework I'm using.

For Newton , time is the dwelling of God. There is no time he is not . He is always and everywhere. That sounds to me like Eternalism. In contrast, the configuration of all existence does not endure in time, but is itself a time that is ephemeral in the extreme, if the smallest changes are considered.Evolution of the configuration of all existing is sequential as is Newtonian time. Eternalism though allows the theoretical possibility of time travel. That is impossible when all existing is -Now, with no material future or past.

I'll not argue with you here here about the SR paradoxes.IMHO they are due to incorrectly conflating what is observed and what exists. I know you have your own ideas on them from the blogs.

Finally don't take the elephants too seriously. How can you tell there is an elephant in your luggage? The trunk with big ears.Kind regards, G.

Bookmark and Share

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 3, 2020 @ 04:10 GMT
Georgi,

wise, I agree. This is not the venue for interminable debate. Incidentally, as there is no edit tab for comments on essays I should clarify; I found your arguments of QM Spin States consistent with Shannon.

I'm fond of history as its very instructive of how people thought and how much change there has been in usage of language. Also, there are many ideas and approaches that would have been very relevant to the prevalent thinking of the times, and which simply are not considered today because they were not in vogue in their day. The 'meme' creating the narrative. Fun fact about Newton, if you have seen the TV sitcom 'Big Bang Theory', Newton was the same sort of socially naive curmudgeon as the Sheldon character, he reputedly keep a cat in his rooms at Trinity and had a small hole cut in the bottom of the door so that the feline could go freely in and out. When the cat dropped a litter, he had the carpenter cut smaller holes, one for each of the kits. His idea of immutable physical laws was such that he expected the kittens to follow them.

Q: When do you take an elephant on holiday? A: When a suitcase just won't do. :-)jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 5, 2020 @ 06:41 GMT
Hi John, thanks. It takes all sorts too make a world. The Newton and kittens story is amusing but it seems the tale has somewhat of a life of its own. G.

Bookmark and Share


Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 3, 2020 @ 03:06 GMT
Hi John, thank you for taking time to read my essay and comment I'm glad you found it readable. I did not want to present a wall of words. It is a departure from my usual impersonal style of writing.The way I was taught science writing should be, reflecting its objectivity. I have, here and there, put more of myself into the writing , hoping that humour and anecdotes will make it a lighter read...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 3, 2020 @ 03:10 GMT
Duplicate post. Put in wrong place.

Bookmark and Share


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 14, 2020 @ 18:54 GMT
Georgina,

Thanks for you quick comments, my post was barely warm. I am printing out several, including yours to read.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 27, 2020 @ 00:42 GMT
Georgina,

The indescribable is a good addition, considering the non-relativistic view we still have toward observable objects. Currently Betelgeuse is ding weird things, many not seeing it as an object from some 700 years ago, which you points out.Given such ancient data, how can the 3 "Us" apply in any meaningful fashion. Your classification of objects as well as the observer for each is "U" is helpful. Your discussion of the quasi superpositions of Schrodinger's cat is of interest since I have always felt that a superposition representation of a macro object gives a wrong impression. That's why the quantum and macro linking experiment I cited perked my interest. Your discussions were likewise were interesting and informative. I liked your agency and consciousness comments on the unpredictable, certainly putting humans in the equation enters an irrational element.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 27, 2020 @ 05:03 GMT
Thank you James. I appreciate your comments.

Bookmark and Share


Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 27, 2020 @ 05:00 GMT
Pleistocene Park There is a documentary on this page , about restoring the grassland ecosystem to prevent catastrophic greenhouse gas emission from permafrost melting. Including removal of dark 'lifeless' forest for more reflective grassland.Including the restoration of mammoths ("fat, hairy elephants would do") to the ecosystem.

Bookmark and Share


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 1, 2020 @ 09:21 GMT
Hi Georgina,

As always I have read your essay with much pleasure. You have the same problem as I have, we are writing about a "model" and that means that there are too many subjects to treat. I hope you will find some time to read my interpretations.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 2, 2020 @ 10:08 GMT
Thank you Wilhelmus. I think I am scene setting and then trying to push forward understanding within that context. I've added some thoughts to the comments. I didn't want it to be a wall of words but something more penetrable and enjoyable.

I've started reading yours...

Bookmark and Share

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Mar. 3, 2020 @ 10:47 GMT
you will find my essay here Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 6, 2020 @ 23:21 GMT
H.H.J. Luediger replied on Mar. 6, 2020 @ 18:15 GM:"als regards e.g. C14: this method to determine the 'age' of certain materials not only builds on a vast range of theories but also requires experimental measurements. These decay measurements in turn require man-made machines called clocks, which measure 'time' in fractions of the rotation period of the Earth or other periodic=geometric systems. Isn't the question "how many seconds per second?" the proof of the illusionary nature of 'time'?

The material reality is there are differences in proportion C14 incorporated in different material samples. Whether that can provide reliable 'age ' of the material is another question. The age obtained from measurement and processing of the data is observer generated 'Image "reality"', a product. G.P.W.

H.H.J. Luediger replied on Mar. 6, 2020 @ 18:15 GMT: 'Time' is a psychological not a physical dimension. It passes the faster, the more disorder there is. In physics there is 'phase' and 'constellation' - not 'time'.

I agree that there is no time dimension to the material universe. No material past, no material future. Just a singular material configuration of all that is existing. There is a time dimension to observation products, as it takes different amounts of time ( change to the configuration of existence) for the sensory stimuli or device inputs to arrive at the observer location together.It is not just psychological as that is so for inorganic observation devices.Though David Eagleman has shown by experiment, that processing of sensory input by a human being can alter the perception of the timing of events.

As there is only one time of existence in this explanatory framework, there can not be different passage of time happening in different parts. It is differences in the amount of spacial change within the singular uni-temporal configuration. If time was passing differently the different parts would end up in different times. That can't be as there are no different times to be at.

I agree the speed of time does not really make sense. If considering the material universe, change is continually happening but it does not have a singular direction or velocity that could be used to calculate a speed. If talking about the perception of passage of time: What an observer sees(the generated visual product) can be called the present. When that product is updated there is a new experienced present. Complicated by the updating not being of the entire view and variable according to attention.This can be shown by watching a clock with a noticeable tick movement.The mechanical tick movement is regular, which is important for time keeping. However if it is stared at without blinking, sooner or later, an irregularity of the tick movement can be seen. This is due to delay in updating the visual image. G.P.W.

P.S. I will read your essay.

Bookmark and Share

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 7, 2020 @ 02:39 GMT
Novel input is more likely to be amalgamated into the conscious experience as it may be relevant to survival (or reproduction). Whereas 'uninteresting' input, already deemed unimportant by the subconscious is passed on with less reliability/urgency. That is why repetitive input, of benign origin, such as from the whir of an fan or even tick of a clock, may cease to be heard, after a period of hearing sound generated from processing the input. The sound waves are still being received but the information that would be experienced as sound is not amalgamated into the conscious experience of the present.

Bookmark and Share

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 7, 2020 @ 20:56 GMT
For clear distinction between source of stimulus and the generated experience; Rather than "such as from the whir of an fan or even tick of a clock", it would be better to say- such as from the rotation of fan blades or even tick motion of a mechanical clock.

Bookmark and Share

H.H.J. Luediger replied on Mar. 7, 2020 @ 21:06 GMT
Georgina,

how do you make sure or what convinces you that physics (EMR, sound waves, etc.) isn't just another observer perspective?

Heinz

P.S. Doesn't it trouble you that you (we) need language to describe the universe? Would ANYTHING remain without it?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Mar. 23, 2020 @ 19:37 GMT
Dear Georgina Woodward,

FQXi.org has allowed me to upload an updated version of my essay Why Can’t Y’all See The ONE Thing I See? because of the change in the competition submission date. I would appreciate it if you could find the time to read my updated version and perhaps leave a comment about it.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 28, 2020 @ 22:29 GMT
Georgina,

Wanted to let you know that I updated my essay and uploaded it a few minutes ago. Personally I feel that it is greatly improved. I did rate yours on 3/20, giving it a good rating, feeling it was one of the better ones.

Please check mine out if you have time. Such honest, No BS, reviews are needed by all of us.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 01:08 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Good to see you back, and with such a nice, fun, readable essay. You already know I'm right behind you with your message having discussed it so much with you in the past.

I confess to getting a little confused at first over beables, being so familiar with John Bells slightly different specification. At one point you equated them with observables, wearas Bell used them as; "be-ables as against observables"('Speakable..' p52). Your beables as against 'measurables' is subtly different, I just had to 're-programme' a little, but I find that good exercise.

I have it down for a good score. It seem to have been hit with the same 1.0 score as mine so expect a hike shortly, though I'm sure you don't hold out to much hope of most others seeing the argument, as usual!

I hope you'll get to mine, which I think is seminal this year, rebuilding coherently from improved foundations up. It's very 'dense' (again!) so do ask any questions.

Very best. And stay safe.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 23:23 GMT
Peter, thanks for reading the essay and for your comments. Bell's use of the word differentiates those things that are subject to observation or measurement, as opposed to those things that are as they are such as the arrangement of the apparatus, its calibration and settings.

How my usage of "beable" differs: My premise is that all existing things, elements of Object reality, are in their 'wild' condition beables that are as they are, without applied context and perspective. In order to conduct a measurement, what will be measured and how it will be done must be decided. Having established those constraints there is now an observable (something that can be measured) on which the measurement relationship can be established -resulting in a measurement state or value for the particular aspect of the observable selected for investigation. The measured state or value comes into being upon measurement. For example, it is known from relativity that the velocity of an object depends on the relation between observer and observed . Its singular magnitude does not pertain to the object alone, unobserved. In this way there is differentiation between "wild" beables (that are as they are, unobserved), mentally constrained observable, measurable ( particular aspects of the observable that can be measured), and measurements or observations (outcomes of the measurement process). Perhaps it is helpful to think of the observable as a collection of measurables, which may or may not be selected for measurement-rather than a "wild" entity. "Wild "meaning both unconstrained and of many possible values/states, like a wild card or Scrabble blank.

Bookmark and Share

Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 5, 2020 @ 21:39 GMT
Georgina, Yes, I like your "wild Beables". But I hope they're not dangerous!

One thing leapt out at me (a bit like a wild Beable!), You wrote;

" ..it is known from relativity that the velocity of an object depends on the relation between observer and observed ."

Which I'd dispute! Can I suggest it should more properly have been; "The Special Theory of Relativity suggests that the velocity of an object depends on the relation between observer and observed".

That has 2 important difference, 1) SR is still a 'THEORY', and..

2) because the object can be doing a certain propagation speed in a medium, and two observers approaching it at different speed CAN'T change that velocity until they meet and interact! (whereon it's the same speed c/n with respect to each). So it's 'wild' as your Scrabble blanks until used.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 11, 2020 @ 02:25 GMT
Peter, thank you for contemplating what I wrote.It would have been better if I had stated that measured velocity is not absolute but always relative. It depends upon the sensory input obtained by the observer, which depend upon the where/when of the observer.

You wrote" because the object can be doing a certain propagation speed in a medium," Peter. I'd says it has an un-certain propagation speed, as the speed found depends upon how it is measured. If un-measured the speed attribute has not been acquired. You wrote "two observers approaching it at different speed CAN'T change that velocity "Peter. I agree your two approaching observers do not alter the unmeasured motion of the beable object. But they do obtain different sensory input, processed into different observation products, showing different relative speeds.

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 21:09 GMT
Dear Georgina,

You must be tired!

Reading your essay I am struck by the number of references to ‘the uni-temporal Now’, which as you observe, Einstein messed up bigly with his multiple-time-based ‘relativity of simultaneity’ leading to 4D-ontology with no NOW.

I hope you will enjoy my current essay, Deciding on the nature of time and space, which provides strong support for this crucial aspect of your model, and does it based on an argument that also fits with your observation-based model.

I believe this will strengthen your model considerably, since you do appear to need the uni-temporal Now’. Please let me know your opinion.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 14, 2020 @ 18:42 GMT
Georgina,

I just saw your comment on another thread:

“Trying to fit presentism and the block universe together is like forcing jigsaw pieces together.”

Wonderful! One must make a metaphysical choice of an ontology. Acting as if both are real is a formula for failure.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 15, 2020 @ 09:15 GMT
Thanks Edwin. I am, though, showing how there can be non-simultaneity from the point of view of different observers of the same event, a happening in material reality -Now. There is -Now, which is the same time everywhere (really real) and the Present now, which is the unique products of processing newly received 'sensory' input.The Object, beable, reality and the observation product Image reality are different but work together without contradiction. As organisms, and observing devices are part of Object reality, their observation p products (image realities) are within Object reality but do not show Object reality as it is. The dimensions of the two kinds of space are different for example.

Bookmark and Share

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 17, 2020 @ 02:37 GMT
Georgina,

Universal simultaneity is the same time everywhere; the universe is evolving in the present now. Of course observers only experience distant simultaneity when they are the exact midpoint between two simultaneous distant flashes. My essay treats the different dimensions you mentioned. I think you’ll enjoy the essay and I look forward to any comments

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Apr. 16, 2020 @ 05:27 GMT
Georgina Woodward re-uploaded the file Woodward_The_castle_and_ele.pdf for the essay entitled "The Castle and elephants; Indescribable, undecidable, un-computable, and unpredictable" on 2020-04-16 05:27:22 UTC.

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Apr. 22, 2020 @ 01:52 GMT
Please don't be deceived by the elephants. This is a serious essay. I did not want to write a wall of words but something more interesting and attention holding.

"Original and Creative: Foremost, the intellectual content of the essay must push forward understanding of the topic in a fresh way or with a new perspective. While the essay may or may not constitute original research, if the core ideas are largely contained in published works, those works should be those of the author. At the same time, the entry should differ substantially from any previously published piece by the author." FQXi.org competition guidelines (My added bold and italic emphasis).

Bookmark and Share


Mozibur Rahman Ullah wrote on Apr. 25, 2020 @ 07:24 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I like the elephant jokes and the notion of an elephant joke realm. I hadn't known that they were all the rage in the 60s but it does explain why I do happen to know one elephant joke - I was at the tail end of that wave. So thats one puzzle solved! Its unfortunately not publishable on this forum...

Best of luck with the contest.

Warm wishes

Mozibur Ullah

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 26, 2020 @ 00:48 GMT
Hi Mozibur, thank you for taking a quick look and commenting. I do hope you get the chance to read the essay in full and are able to see that it goes much deeper. Part of it is dealing with contradiction and the notion of objectivity, which might be of particular interest to you.

Bookmark and Share


Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Apr. 27, 2020 @ 01:24 GMT
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear, does it make a sound?. The question was considered in drafting the original version, but cut to save characters.Sound (heard) is qualia, generated by the observer from pressure wave input to the auditory system of that observer. The wave phenomenon is potential sound but not manifest as sound until processing of the wave input is complete.So there is no sound (product) without an observer.There is a conundrum because the language is imprecise.If The external wave phenomenon and the experienced sensory perception are both be referred to as sound, that causes ambiguity. Re.what is the sound of one hand clapping? One hand alone does not make pressure waves that could be processed into sound (unaided by technology). Ignoring the idea that two hands 'become one' when they meet.Re. what is the colour of a vacuum? A vacuum does not contain substance that would absorb 'light'energy and re-emit only some frequencies, that when received by an observer can be processed into colour qualia. No colour is not a colour.

Bookmark and Share

Author Georgina Woodward replied on May. 1, 2020 @ 00:34 GMT
The language of Physics does not usually distinguish between potential sensory information in the environment and the product generated by an observer. eg. the words - Light, sound, smell, frequency.

If true /false logic is a rock, then ambiguity is paper, and necessary and adequate differentiation is scissors.

Bookmark and Share


Michael muteru wrote on Apr. 28, 2020 @ 20:59 GMT
nice insight on beagles, subjective,/objective reality. You have my votes. pls read/rate how Human bias or judgement made science, in my essay here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.all the best to you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 29, 2020 @ 02:24 GMT
Woof.

Bookmark and Share


Branko L Zivlak wrote on May. 4, 2020 @ 06:58 GMT
Thank Georgina, for engaging and interesting observations on my forum. To yours:

The square of the hypotenuse is only equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides if all sides are straight lines. If the hypotenuse is a wave path and the other two sides are straight lines, then Pythagoras theorem does not apply.

I Answer.

Yes, that's why I use exponents and logarithms in my formulas at the end of the essay. Then Pythagoras' theorem becomes a special case and approximation in the local part of the universe.

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Georgina Woodward replied on May. 5, 2020 @ 05:39 GMT
For any readers of the comments posted here. The comment I made eon Branko's page was written about Einstein's light clock thought experiment. The reasoning Einstein used about the experiment is used by him as support for Special Relativity. I was showing why that reasoning is not spot on. Written in regard to Branko's :"There are numerous traps in the application of mathematics in natural sciences...". and my: " it is difficult to know what is correct, when the model of reality being modeled is not necessarily so."

Bookmark and Share


Pavel Vadimovich Poluian wrote on May. 14, 2020 @ 06:23 GMT
Dear Georgina Woodward!

We think that the concepts of the WORD and WORLD are not coincidentally so consonant. Оbviously the WINDOW used to be the WIND DOOR.

We looked into our Siberian refrigerator and found a mammoth there!

Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Georgina Woodward replied on May. 14, 2020 @ 10:46 GMT
Hi Pavel and Dmitry. I think if you read my essay you might find some ideas of interest to you in it. I do 'talk' about time near the beginning. The nature of time is a particular interest of mine. Near the end I'talk' about Pleistocene Park,, with which you must be familiar. Do you know about Harvard's project to create mammoth elephant hybrids? They have made some embryos.

Bookmark and Share


Lachlan Cresswell wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 06:42 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I know I have commented to you on my blog but I thought I had better re-inforce what I said here. Yours was the first essay I printed and read. I read it twice to my wife translating to her since I understood what you were saying. She asked me to vote publicly for her which I did early on.

I have now read and commented on about 30 essays. It has been a full time job that I have taken seriously during these Covid19 isolation times. I have explored many nooks and crannies and found some like minded journeyists on the way. But you were the first I found that shared similar interests.

I developed my theory of time some 5 years ago, although it had been a lifetime in the making. It has served me well, and even just yesterday explained the Andromeda Paradox away. So I get excited from time to time, when I use my own insights.

Yesterday I critiqued Carlo Rovelli's essay on Presentism and Eternalism, and found that I did not agree with him on the definitions of presentism, which is why I think my relative verdandism makes more sense.

We much touch base on the time topic after this essay comp. is over.

Best regards

Lockie Cresswell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Georgina Woodward replied on May. 20, 2020 @ 07:44 GMT
Hi Lachlan,

It is very good to know you read, understood and liked the essay. Tell your wife I appreciate her public vote very much, The other one was my son, who read through the re-write for me and shared his thoughts on it.

With hindsight I should have had a more enticing introduction. I think some didn't make it past the elephant jokes.

Re.the nature of time: I think this essay by JCN Smith is a good place to start. https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Smith_Rethinking_a
_Key_Assu.pdf It is easy to read and clearly explained.

Bookmark and Share

Author Georgina Woodward replied on May. 20, 2020 @ 09:55 GMT
I mean, Re. the nature of time, as I see it: [etc.]

Bookmark and Share


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on May. 19, 2020 @ 00:06 GMT
A delightful journey Georgina...

It is always enjoyable to read one of your essays. I can always find something of value, so long as I don't get caught up in points of disagreement. I don't think it is productive for me to debate some points, because we will never exactly agree. But it appears that your picture of things becomes more and more tight with fewer things to argue about, with every new essay.

And you make the journey fun!

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Georgina Woodward replied on May. 20, 2020 @ 07:46 GMT
Thank you Jonathan, much appreciated.

Bookmark and Share

Author Georgina Woodward replied on May. 21, 2020 @ 10:31 GMT
It would be helpful to know what you disagree with It would give me an idea of what i need to work on.If you share your disagreement I will not argue the points with you here, but thank you.

Bookmark and Share


Author Georgina Woodward wrote on Jun. 10, 2020 @ 01:37 GMT
Something i talk about in the essay is how the sate of something observed depends on the relation formed between the observer or reference object (relative to this point of view) and the observed object. Without establishing a singular point of view the state can not be known. I did not talk specifically about magnetism, though I think it has a place in the conversation about measurement and viewpoint. I have elsewhere talked about the alignment of electrons in a magnet. With length wise vibration there will be OUT (relative to the material , IN (to the material) at one pole .While at the other pole because of the alignment there will be corresponding IN, OUT. This gives opposite poles though the electrons are moving in the same way. No mono-poles because breaking the magnet will give two smaller magnets, with the same happening at the poles. Even at the scale of a single electron. Whether it presents as a north or south pole depends on the measurement relationship. It seems likely to me that it is this rather than spin (rotation) that causes separation into up and down outputs of Stern Gerlach apparatus measurement. Lengthwise vibration is not enough to account for the properties of the magnet. At the poles the electrons are not constrained by the next aligned electron but because they mutually repel, spread out over the surface. Giving the characteristic fluffy iron filing ends when used to view the magnetic field. There needs to be another component which to avoid ambiguity I will call rotation rather than spin. Each rotation is at 90 degrees to the length wise vibration. The rotation will be at the North end from the exterior of the magnet to the interior of the magnet, and corresponding interior of the magnet to exterior of the magnet at the south pole. With the rotation of all of the free electrons aligned lengthwise to give maximum separation.There is no fundamental difference between the electrons at the North and South.The difference is in how they are looked at, looking at each end rather than considering the alignment within the body of the magnet. The rotations will give the appearance of the field at the poles. This then poses the question: what is the rotation of an electron that is free of a material? Tying back into the relativity of measurement: The orientation of the rotation depends upon how it is observed. Top and bottom views gives opposite clockwise / anti clockwise states. As do left hand view and right hand view. It is therefore not possible to give the state of rotation prior to establishing the measurement relationship, If uniformity of form of the electron is assumed there is no inherent difference between top and bottom of the electron and left and right hand sides of the electron. So all rotation happening unmeasured is of the same kind.

Bookmark and Share

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 10, 2020 @ 03:00 GMT
Considering the spin of a free (from a material) electron: Right hand side (RHS) clockwise and RHS anti clockwise are reversed by inverting the electron. So are LHS clockwise and anticlockwise. Top left to right rotation and Top right to left rotation are reversed by 180 degree turn about the lengthwise axis. Bottom right to left and left to right are in the same way reversed by turn about the lengthwise axis.

Bookmark and Share

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 10, 2020 @ 04:23 GMT
By lengthwise axis II mean the direction along which vibration occurs. Which would be lengthwise as relates to a bar magnet, when the free electron is in a magnet.

Bookmark and Share

Author Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 10, 2020 @ 10:34 GMT
Thinking about it, either inversion or turning 180 about the 'lengthwise axis causes reversal of the apparent state. Whether considering top and bottom with motion as described or RHS and LHS with motion as described. The point of that is to show the orientation of motion is not inherent to the electron alone but depends son the observation relationship with it.

Bookmark and Share


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.