<!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,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Of all the various emails flying
about, I had to respond immediately to this one.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I really DON'T reject your contention
- indeed I agree with it 100%! Consciousness is the ultimate substrate,
IMO - it's the 'ocean' in which all the 'fish' (physical phenomena) swim, and
indeed all of those 'fish' are themselves woven by consciousness (mixing my
metaphors a bit here!). More than this, time and space (spatial dimensions)
are themselves constructs of consciousness. My point is simply:
accepting all of that, we don't need to keep referring to it (any more than we
need to keep referring back to the breed of sheep that our sweater initially
comes from!) in order to discuss and analyse physical effects. YES, those
physical effects ARE created and sustained by consciousness - but in a coherent
and consistent way, subject to 'physical laws' (defined and given form by
consciousness, sure - but we can take that as read without constantly referring
back to it). So we can reason in respect of those 'physical realities' in
respect of the 'physical laws' that are built into them. In the same way,
we all agree that a log cabin is made of wood, which has a cellular structure;
but once we have ascertained the properties of the wood we're using, we can
carve it into different shapes, make roof timbers, structural supports etc of it
without having to constantly remind ourselves that it originally came from a
tree with these types of leaves and this particular cellular structure - though
the cellular structure is crucial to the properties of the wood, we can take and
use those properties 'as they turn out', without having to relate them
constantly to that cell structure. So it is, in my view, with 'space-time'
properties of 'physical realities' (given that they are in fact constructs of
constructs of constructs of ... ultimately, consciousness).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>With regard to your note in light
blue, you may be surprised also to hear that I have for some long time held the
view that you have expressed (I think), namely that time is the consequence of
the experience of consciousness sequentially along energy lines [the
issue of 'sequential' as a causation of time rather than a consequence is a
difficult one, but not impossible to conceptualise, as I do in the following
items]. You may be interested in my article: 'Time, Light and
Consciousness', published by the SMN ten years ago <A
href="http://transfinitemind.com/SMN_article.php">http://transfinitemind.com/SMN_article.php</A> (see
my 4th para: "time is the process of consciousness moving along energy
lines") , also my blog post: 'Time doesn't exist: a step-by-step proof' <A
href="http://www.grahameb.com/realitycheck/?p=425">http://www.grahameb.com/realitycheck/?p=425</A> .</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Thanks for taking such trouble to put
your ideas across. I'm sure we're on the same page - just looking at that
page from a slightly different angle.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>All the best,</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> Sunday, July 16, 2017 7:46 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] JW on STR twin
Paradox</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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 cite=mid:809EBC314BBE478DBB589A6C0067840B@vincent type="cite">
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Wolf (and Chip),</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </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> </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"
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 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> </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"
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
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></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></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 cite=mid:809EBC314BBE478DBB589A6C0067840B@vincent type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<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></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<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></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> </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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>If you no longer
wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at grahame@starweave.com<BR><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>