<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Grahame;</p>
<p>I agree we need to stop the ping pong. <br>
</p>
<p>And I have to digest "Layers of Reality" since it is an
intriguing title and as such could reflect much of my own
thinking.</p>
<p>That you reject my contention that your personal conscious
perception space underlies and always provides the aether in which
all objects you percieve exist including the clock and the
observer riding along with it , and therefore is in my opinion
missing key to understanding SRT and GRT and precisely relevant to
your discussion with Albrecht, is for me sad but I assume it is
because i'm not making myself clear. I'll try to put a better
formulation together and get back in a few weeks. Can't help
making a last comment to your comment in blue below.</p>
<p>best</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/15/2017 9:07 AM, Dr Grahame
Blackwell wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:809EBC314BBE478DBB589A6C0067840B@vincent">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Wolf (and Chip),</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolfgang
Baer</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">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 face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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
face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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 face="Arial" color="#800000" size="2">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 face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2"><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 face="Arial" color="#800000" size="2">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
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080">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
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font face="Arial"
color="#000080"><font color="#000000"><b>in</b></font></font></font><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><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>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT:
5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font face="Arial"
color="#000080"><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
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font face="Arial"
color="#000080"><font color="#000000"><br>
</font></font></font></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<font color="#3333ff" size="2"><font face="Arial">I do not
understand your logic. When referring to an observer riding
along with the clock one assumes that observer measures the same
reality as the conceiver of the thought experiment put into the
space in which the clock and the observer is conceived. This
equating the ride along observer's observations with the
"reality" built into the thought experimenter's space is an
example of the "naive reality' assumption. Einstein assumed his
perceptive space was reality and of course the speed of light in
that reality would be what ever it is "c" , and all observers
must get the same result when they measure any quantity in that
reality because that is the reality and there is only one
correct one. There is nothing inconsistent or illogical about
SRT or GRT once one accepts the assumption that the speed of
light is an independent of the observer objective fact. That is
the assumption I question and it is quite relevant to your
discussion with Albrecht. </font></font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:809EBC314BBE478DBB589A6C0067840B@vincent">
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT:
5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<p><font face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><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 face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><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></font></font></font></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" color="#000080"><font size="2"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font color="#000000">Graham
4: "</font></font></font></font><font face="Arial"
color="#000080"><font face="Arial" color="#000080"><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>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT:
5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><font
face="Arial" color="#000080"><font face="Arial"
color="#000080"><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 face="Arial" color="#800000" size="2">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 face="Arial" color="#800000" size="2">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"> </div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" 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"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>