[General] To realists out there

Mon Jan 22 03:37:43 PST 2018

Hi Wolf

Yes. I agree that we need to make that next step of describing what is going on which creates what we can observe.

But I also firmly believe that there is an independent objective reality which is described by the energy and its reaction to space.  And that we are also made of the same kinds of thing which we observe (Energy reacting with space creating particles, etc.).

The independent objective reality does not depend on us for it to exist, but we can interact with it and make small changes to it in the scheme of things.  The building, tree, mountain, planet, or galaxy, are still there, whether we observe them or not.

We can change the shape of the lens in our eye and distort an image just as we can change the shape of an external lens and distort an image.  The laws which govern these reactions are not changed.  Those laws, those causes, which define our universe, are the reasons that particles exist and behave as they do.  It is not our observation which defines those objective laws of the universe. But we can do a much better job of understanding those laws. That is the next step.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 7:58 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] To realists out there

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 <mailto: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  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> <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-mail wolf 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 <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com> 
<a href= <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> "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/20180122/aa63152b/attachment.html>