[General] JW on STR twin Paradox

[Dr Grahame Blackwell]

Wolf (and Chip),

First and most important point: I have no wish or intention to get drawn into the sort of 'email ping-pong' (aka 'tit-for-tat') that I've watched going on here over this issue, so I'll try to address these points simply with facts as I see them - no blame, no criticism, just observations.

Second: the fact that I propose that certain phenomena can be explained in a wholly mechanistic way, without reference to consciousness, doesn't mean that I don't regard consciousness as having a part to play in the perceptual/cognitive process - far from it.  In my view consciousness is absolutely key to anything we perceive or analyse; however, in my view also, consciousness has provided/evolved for itself perceptual and analytical tools that behave in a totally consistent way; therefore, for analytical purposes we can regard measurements and conclusions as being 'so' (i.e. actuality) at a certain level, we don't need to agonise over how consciousness has provided us with them or what underlies them.  [Some may find my talk: 'Layers of Reality' useful to understand my take on such things: http://transfinitemind.com/layers_of_reality.php , username: xxxxx  , password: xxxxx  .]  I believe, Wolf, that if you were aware of my own view on how central consciousness is to the whole process, it would surprise even you.

With those points in mind, I have responded, Wolf, to your comments to me, under those comments, in maroon text.

Grahame
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Wolfgang Baer 
  To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org 
  Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 10:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox


  Chip and Graham:

  Chip: First I would like to agree with your agreement regarding Special relativity: "But I do agree that Special Relativity, as written and discussed by Einstein himself, has a fundamental paradoxical logical inconsistency, which cannot be explained away by layers of additional “interpretation” of his theory." This was my original intent. First 1) to show that inconsistencies exist in SRT , second 2) to show that GRT was one avenue of development that utilizes gravity and acceleration to address the problems in SRT and to forward our understanding of gravity, and thirdly 3) to open the door for new directions. I did not anticipate getting blind sided by alternative interpretations that then did not further the discussion into step two and three. At least not in a step by step logical way.

  Chip second: "When several “observers” read the data then collected and communicate about that data, it is clear to us that we have all viewed the same data.  It is therefore quite ridiculous to assume that we, the “observers”, had a notable effect on the outcome of the automated experiment weeks earlier." It is ridiculous only within the context of an Aristotelian framework of reality in which one assumes there is a thing called "the same data". What if Plato, Kant and to some extent quantum theory is correct and the data no matter how or when it is viewed is and always has been in the eye of the beholder? Then the observer does influence the outcome of the experiment because for him the data he sees is reality and that reality will depend upon how he sees it.




  The question I ask myself is can a useful and quantitative physics be built without  "the same data" assumption. In philosophy this is called the "naive reality" assumption and Aristotle's view that we are looking out through the windows of our senses at an objective real world has won the day for 500 years and it seem ridiculous to challenge all the greats who have come to this conclusion. But that is what I am doing.




  Graham; First If you feel that your exchange with Albrecht was "as specifically limited to physical realities" and want to stay within the limits of your definition of physical realities and exclude how the nature of perception, and your(my) truism that perception is a tool of the conscious mind, effects and to a large extent determines our physical theories (which I believe is at the center of understanding both SRT and GRT and why they are incompatible with quantum theory)  then I am sorry I interjected my comments into your discussion. Please keep taking and I'll just listen quietly.

  Wolf, I am by no means dismissing your observations on consciousness as irrelevant to the issue of perception - far from it.  I'm simply observing that the phenomena that Albrecht and I have been discussing can be explained fully satisfactorily in terms of mechanistic interactions, without resorting to how consciousness interprets those interactions.  In simple terms, using my idea of 'layers (or levels) of reality' we are simply discussing 'facts' as presented to our brains for analysis - trusting that consciousness uses a consistent, coherent and useful form in which to convey those 'facts' (i.e.deeper realities) to our mental processing circuits, given that consciousness and those processing circuits are all on the same side!  In this respect, introducing consideration of how consciousness has processed those deeper realities in order to present those 'facts' to  our brains in a more digestible format is to introduce an unnecessary and (IMO) unhelpful level of complexity to this issue.  Certainly there is a time and a place for discussion of consciousness - but (again IMO) this is not it.

  However I find it very important to have a polite foil to discuss what I believe is the greatest of the grand challenges confronting science - i.e. the unification of subjective and subjective experience into a new integrated theory not of every thing, but of every action.

  I agree that that is indeed very important - but it's not the subject of the conversation that Albrecht and I were having - that's all I was trying to say.

  Graham2; Your second paragraph includes the typical words "an observer or measuring device moving with that object will draw conclusions (by human inference or solid-state logic) that the object is at rest (and therefore they are also) - wholly as a consequence of their/its own physical makeup being altered by that state of motion.  Likewise that moving observer/device will assess an objectively static object (such as an atom) as being in a state of motion, for exactly the same reason." The key here is "observer or measuring device moving with" I am only talking about an observer. A measuring device only relays information someone must be at the end of the chain to realize the information. The observer is in the measuring device, he cannot get out. He receives information and translates it into his mental display. Both the apparently stationary object "moving with the observer" and any apparently  moving object in his display will be subject to the Lonrentz transformations BECAUSE these appearances are always created in the medium of that observers mind. I believe it is a grave error to treat the properties of the mind as an objective independent reality. But everyone does it until Now!

  A measuring device provides information in a format determined by, and so capable of assimilation by, an observer.  In that respect I fully agree that the observer (or a former observer who constructed the device) is in the measuring device, and what the observer takes away from that device is as much in the perception of that observer as it is in the device itself.  However, I repeat: the consciousness that constructed the device is the same consciousness as that which is making use of the measurements it provides - and both are working to the same aim.  So, just as one who knitted a sweater and one who wears the sweater are both well aware of the intrinsic composition of the sweater (interwoven strands of wool, taken from a sheep then cleaned and dyed and spun), but neither need to be troubled by that detail when selling or wearing the sweater, neither consciousness nor the brain need to agonise over how those data came to be served up in that form, they can simply be processed as facts - at the level of logical reasoning (again, see my piece on 'layers of reality').  The question of 'how those facts came to be in that form' is of great interest - but it's a separate question from the one currently at hand.

  Graham3: I have no disagreement with your reciprocity argument. I only wanted to point out that in both the cases the human observer experiences his motion relative to the radiation source in his own display space.

  Agreed.  That's exactly why it's essential to consider what effect a state of motion has on that display space, in purely physical terms.  This is what I have done.

  Graham 4: "philosophers arguing about how many angels can dance on the point of a needle!" makes perfect sense to people who believe in god, heaven, and angels as the stake your life on it truth. Physicists arguing about what two measuring objects will conclude about each other also makes perfect sense to people who believe observers can ride along  with them and see them as independent external objects without recognizing that they (the observers) are doing the seeing that creates these objects.

  Wolf, there is the world of difference between 100% hypothetical entities such as angels and 100% physical experiences such as travelling alongside an object and taking measurements of it.  Assuredly the latter is a level of perception that is unquestionably quite a few layers above that of ultimate reality (if such exists), however it is also something that falls within the remit of physical experience and is therefore fair game for physical analysis (even if we accept - as I do - that what we are analysing is an effect of an effect of an effect ... it is still self-consistent and so susceptible to analysis - unlike angels)

  I'll try to get a copy of the relativity myth , sounds like a good starting point for my 3d) effort introduced in paragraph 1 above.

  Wolf, I'm most flattered that you consider that my culmination of 20 years' work may be a good starting point for one of your hypotheses.  As long as you give due attribution for every point of mine that you make use of, you can be as condescending as you like!

  G

  Best wishes

  Wolf


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170715/8864b946/attachment.htm>