<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Wolf (and Chip),</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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: <A
href="http://transfinitemind.com/layers_of_reality.php">http://transfinitemind.com/layers_of_reality.php</A> , 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>With those points in mind, I have
responded, Wolf, to your comments to me, under those comments, <FONT
color=#800000>in maroon text.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#800000 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=wolf@nascentinc.com href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolfgang
Baer</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 14, 2017 10:02
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] JW on STR twin
Paradox</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>Chip and Graham:</P>
<P>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.</P>
<P>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<B> is reality</B> and that reality
will depend upon how he sees it.</P>
<P><BR></P>
<P>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.</P>
<P><BR></P>
<P>Graham; First If you feel that your exchange with Albrecht was "<FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>as specifically limited to physical realities"
<FONT color=#000000>and want to stay within the limits of your definition of
physical realities and exclude how </FONT></FONT><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial>the nature of perception, and your(my) truism that perception is a
tool of the conscious mind, <FONT color=#000000>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.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#800000 size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial><FONT color=#000000>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.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#800000 size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></P>
<P>Graham2; Your second paragraph includes the typical words "<FONT
color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial>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." <FONT
color=#000000>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 </FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
color=#000000><B>in</B></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT color=#000080
face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT color=#000000>
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!</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></P><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
size=2><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
color=#000000></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
color=#000000><FONT color=#800000>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 <STRONG>in</STRONG> 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 <STRONG>same</STRONG>
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 <STRONG>how</STRONG> 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.</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
size=2><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
color=#000000><BR></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT color=#000080
face=Arial><FONT color=#000000>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.</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT color=#000080
face=Arial><FONT color=#000000><FONT color=#800000>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.</FONT></P></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT color=#000080
face=Arial><FONT color=#000000>Graham 4: "</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT
color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
size=2>philosophers arguing about how many angels can dance on the point of a
needle!" <FONT color=#000000>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.</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></P><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT
color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT
color=#000000></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT
color=#800000>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)</FONT><BR></FONT></FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>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.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#800000 size=2 face=Arial>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!</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#800000 size=2 face=Arial>G</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>Best wishes</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>Wolf</FONT></FONT><BR></P><PRE class=moz-signature cols="72"> </PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:023301d2fb77$3f24ebf0$bd6ec3d0$@gmail.com type="cite">
<META name=Generator
content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)"><!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>v\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
o\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
w\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
..shape {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]-->
<STYLE><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
..MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<DIV class=WordSection1><FONT color=#000080 size=2
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>