[General] To realists out there

Wolfgang Baer wolf at nascentinc.com
Wed Jan 24 21:45:46 PST 2018


Chip

Now we are on the same page. It is a necessary illusion because spending 
time guessing why and how our evolution has developed an actionable 
mentally display is a tremendous overhead , only a few nuts like us 
waste time thinking about it, the rest simply trust what they are 
presented with is the best we have. A few of us build cars the rest 
worry about where to drive with what they have.

But realizing that what we do experience is evidence from which better 
models are derived  liberates us from the shackles old theories that 
have become dogma  bind us.

I'm discussing the possibility of organizing a replacement for the SPIE 
forum we lost. Perhaps expanding from Nature of light to a  review of 
physical theory foundations including light.

Of course I would want the nature of the observer to be an acceptable 
topic. After all the creation of our theory happens in reality and to be 
complete any theory of that reality must include a mechanism that 
creates itself to be complete

best

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 3:03 PM, Chip Akins wrote:
>
> Hi Wolf
>
> Yes.  We don’t see the reality which exists in the universe we can 
> only sense a portion of the results of that reality.  Therefore part 
> of what we assume is an illusion which is caused by reality. But it is 
> a fairly consistent illusion, and therefore one with which we can work 
> to sort out the reality itself.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General 
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 4:48 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] To realists out there
>
> 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-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 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/b53dfe6a/attachment.html>


More information about the General mailing list