[General] To realists out there
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Wed Jan 24 14:48:12 PST 2018
Chip:
I think we are both in much agreement and lets back track.
My little push your eyeball experiment says nothing about what really
is. I am not making an ontological point about reality itself, and I'm
not making any statement about your ideas concerning energy interactions
with space.
All I wanted to do is show a simple little example of why what we
directly see cannot be reality itself. Whether that reality is real
mountains, chairs, and stars Id like to leave that as a different question.
The question I want to settle is, Do we see those real objects directly?
My contention is no! And my reasoning is that warping an image screen
does not change the object in front of the lens. Therefore if the
mountain moves when I push my retina this little experiment demonstrates
that I am seeing an image of reality NOT reality itself.
It is the old Aristotle vs Plato debate. I believe this experiment ( and
many many examples from psychology experiments) proves to me Plato is
right. We are not experiencing the reality outside the cave directly but
rather are experiencing the image of that reality cast on the walls of
the cave.
I believe your arguments below address the question, "Why does evidence
provided by our experience of images we see allow us to conclude there
is an object out there?"
I think realists need to understand there are two questions. Aristotle
needed to understand what quantum theorists had rediscovered which is
that we can never look through the windows of our senses at reality
directly. We are always looking at the output of a measurement process
and so it is quite easy to see why if we push on the side of that
process we see things move.
wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 1/24/2018 3:36 AM, Chip Akins wrote:
>
> Hi Wolf
>
> I am not saying that all of the fundamentals of physics are understood
> at this point, just that those fundamental laws exist. I do not
> believe we yet understand them in the depth needed. Especially in
> Quantum theory.
>
> The fact that we are made of the same particles we are trying to
> measure forces a condition of uncertainty in our measurement. It is
> because the Nyquist Theorem is forced upon us by those circumstances.
> And it is our lack of knowledge of the systems at work and our limited
> measurement abilities which yield this uncertainty.
>
> This does not meant there is a magical “law of uncertainty” beyond the
> cause and effect we have just discussed. And I think it is not
> scientific then to assume that particles are made of “probability
> waves”. Particles are made of energy reacting with space in a manner
> which is quite specific and repeatable even if we do not fully
> understand that reaction yet.
>
> I think that the reason we do not yet have a single unified theory
> which describes physics is because portions of our two major theories
> are misinformed examples of us once again jumping to conclusions.
>
> It is likely that in too many aspects of our existing theories we have
> stopped looking for cause and effect. This leads us more and more
> toward looking for “magical” solutions. But that is not where the
> real answers reside.
>
> The fact that a planet, mountain, galaxy can move does not make them
> unreal, it just means they obey the laws of nature, just as our
> sensory system obeys those laws.
>
> Wolf, I appreciate your approach on many topics, and am thankful for
> the opportunity to discuss physics with you. But this idea that
> somehow we actually create our physical environment within our minds,
> to me is not physics. We constantly disprove this idea in our
> interaction with others and in our interaction with our common
> environment.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 23, 2018 9:30 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] To realists out there
>
> Chip:
>
> So you think the laws come first and reality is basically what we see
> with a few tweeks
>
> Quote by Albert Michelson
>
> While it is never safe to affirm that the future of Physical Science
> has no marvels in store even more astonishing than those of the past,
> it seems probable that *most of the grand underlying principles have
> been firmly established* and that further advances are to be sought
> chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the
> phenomena which come under our notice. It is here that the science of
> measurement shows its importance — where quantitative work is more to
> be desired than qualitative work. An eminent physicist remarked that
> *the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the
> sixth place of decimals*.
>
> 1894, dedication of Ryerson Physical Laboratory, quoted in Annual
> Register 1896, p. 159
> <https://books.google.com/books?id=HysXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA159>.
>
> Then came quantum theory
>
> Does the fact that you can move the building, tree, mountain, planet,
> or galaxy, prove that these things are not reality, the only question
> is whether they are probability waves or some exhibit some other
> ontology.
>
> 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>
>
> On 1/22/2018 3:37 AM, Chip Akins wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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-mailwolf 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
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> <mailto: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 atWolf 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>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180124/5ebf23a6/attachment.html>
More information about the General
mailing list