[General] To realists out there

[Wolfgang Baer]

Chip:

The point is we do not see objects out there, we process the 
imagefalling on our retina  using our encoded beliefs into a mental mage 
display, we do not directly see objects but instead created the 
perception with all its properties

If we saw objects directly they would not move when we fiddle with the 
image in the experiment I described

And because we do not see object directly but only perceptions that we 
believe is reality, once we realize reality is NOT objects then the door 
is open to ask the question, "Is there a better assumption about what 
explains our sensations?"

And a step along this path was taken by Quantum Theory which substitutes 
probability waves for the classic object reality.

But probabilities are squirmy and unsatisfying to me and most of us in 
the forum- instead as my paper for FQXI proposes I believe reality is 
better described by events, and specifically closed action cycles in 
time. This is not solipsism. It does not mean there is nothing external. 
It means the next step in our world view is to replace objects and 
probabilities with interacting events.

And specifically for your paper it means space is no longer an 
independent objective thing out there but rather a creation that 
explains certain repetitive sensations and therefore Lorenz is right 
there is a fundamental background, and Einstein is right every 
coordinate frame defines it own space. But neither of them have made the 
next step. That we are all measuring through our coordinate frames and 
learned theories that continue to evolve.

hope this helps it certainly helps me to try to find the words that 
explain Plato's cave idea in modern terms.

wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 1/21/2018 1:57 PM, Chip Akins wrote:
>
> Hi Wolf
>
> But we do have physical explanation for the distortion of an image by 
> a non-uniform convex lens. The refractive properties of the lens are 
> well known and documented, so that we can accurately predict the 
> distortion a particular lens will cause.
>
> While we are made of material molecules, atoms, and particles, which 
> have an electromagnetic set of characteristics, and that means that 
> our perceptions are based on our physical makeup, and our abilities to 
> sense certain electromagnetic interactions, the fundamental reality 
> that exists in the universe can continue to exist without any one of 
> us, or all of us.
>
> The evidence indicates that it is not only illogical but extremely 
> arrogant to assume otherwise.  Our consciousness does not create 
> material objects in the universe, but it does allow us to sense and 
> interpret what we sense in various, sometimes erroneous, ways.  There 
> are many ways for us to test this hypothesis, and we actually test it 
> many times each day.
>
> Just my two cents, and my 5 senses. Opinion and tangible physical 
> mechanisms respectively.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General 
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 21, 2018 2:53 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* [General] To realists out there
>
> To all:
>
> I just submitted an essay contest to FQXI that is a short version of 
> the physics of the observer I am working on.One of the responses 
> claims I am completely off the mark and was signed "realist"
>
> Some of you may have the same "realist" inclinations so think of this 
> simple experiment:
> Consider any object lens image setup.
> Bend the image screen and you will see the image is distorted, but no 
> such distortion changes the object.
> Now do the same thing but use your eye as the lens image part of the 
> setup.
>  Close one eye. With the other focus on an object - say a coffee cup 
> on the desk 1 meter away. Now push the open eye from the side with 
> your finger. This bends the retina and also moves or distorts the 
> coffee cup.
> There is no physical mechanism in our current science that accounts 
> for such a distortion of the coffee cup if the coffee cup you see is 
> an independent object.
> Conclusion: Neither the coffee cup nor anything we see in our daily 
> environment is an independent objective reality. We are living in an 
> interpretation of sensor interactions that is implemented by a physics 
> inside the observer. Developing and defining this physics and 
> straightening out the errors that have crept into our current physics 
> due to the assumption that reality is the way we see it is the the the 
> challenge confronting science today
> If you want to look at the paper click on
> https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043
> If you want to rate it it might help me win, never know.
> Thanks
> Wolf
> -- 
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180121/bc47e431/attachment.html>