<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \, serif";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* 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;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
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;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Andre: <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">You have presented your logical analysis very “objectively” to my mode of thinking!
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">If someone puts on a pair of glasses consisting of two image inverting prisms; s/he will be stumbling for a short period (person-to-person variable). Then, the outside world will become right-side-up
again. After taking off the glasses, our neural network will have to revert back to standard “reality” again, which itself is an inverted image on the retina. This experiment was done at least 50 years ago.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> However, we have not evolved to do neural processing to correct eye-lens-distorted images on the retina. That is why the ophthalmologists are still in business!
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> We also cannot undo (and should not) our subjective interpretation of color. EM waves, or “Photons”, are not colored. Objective property is the frequency of light that facilitates the
frequency-resonant electronic transition in the molecules in our retinal cones. These separate sets of “color coded” cones send separate signals to be synthesized into SUBJECTIVE color interpretation by the neural network. Even tiny critters have evolved with
this hard-wired subjective interpretation. This is essential for quick recognition of our surroundings for our survival. Otherwise, we would have needed prolong analysis of every component of the images falling on the retina. Food or poison, threat or friendly
– these decisions have to be made rather fast. Impressed and overwhelmed by these evolutionary creativities, humans have developed the subjective tendency to pray to their chosen gods, images of whom have been invented by us! Seeing “color” is subjective;
but it is hard-wired for us by nature. Do we fully understand how many more such subjective interpretation propensities are hard-wired into our neural network? Some functionalities are flexible. As an obvious example, all of our emotional interpretations are
carried out by the neural network. Fortunately, if we remain aware of this reality, we can learn to manage our emotions in real time. Human society will be better off recognizing this fact.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">I like the story of the “five blinds and the elephant”, better than Plato’s, because it is more advanced in
<b><i>thinking strategy</i></b>. We all subjectively map the Cosmic Elephant a bit differently out of the same ontological reality. Our awareness about this subtleties allows us to extract partial ontological realities.
<b><i>That is why it is so important that we keep comparing our notes, collaborate and keep synthesizing better and better epistemological reality that steadily approaches towards the actual ontological reality.</i></b> The ontological reality, the cosmic system,
was created, as we understand now, some 13.5 billion years ago. Human analytical intelligence started making serious theories about our solar and cosmic system barely half a millennia ago!!
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> Oh yes, one more point. We are barely beginning to understand how our neural network has been creating our awareness and consciousness. However, the neural net is sustained and nurtured
by a complex system of ten trillion human cells and one hundred trillion symbiotic and synergistic micro biota as an integrated system. This is a marvelous system engineering achievement by nature through the collaboration of 110 trillion independent living
cells. No human has yet achieved the state of enlightenment to physically understand, appreciate, and identify what different functions any particular cell is carrying out at any particular moment. We are still pretty far away from defining what is human consciousness.
Human consciousness is not confined within the domain of our skulls! Forget about building robots that can out-smart human creative intelligence. We have not yet succeeded in defining the collective molecular functionalities behind the emergence of humans
intelligence. Otherwise, we would have been designing all of our babies to be super creative?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> It is still good to be humble and keep sharing and collaborating. Diversity is not just a politically expedient expression; it is at the very foundation of the successful biospheric
evolution, which include humans as one of the species, albeit with the best engineering capabilities, so far. Our engineering successes are fundamentally more important than our theory making capabilities. Let us remember that
<b><i>it is because our primitive engineer forefathers, like Lucy and her husband, kept on creating tools and technologies, to persistently create better and better living conditions, which has made us the top-dog species of today.
</i></b>That was only five million years back. Lucy’s did not even have a serious language in the modern sense; forget about making mathematical theories. But their engineering activities assured our successful evolution.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> Theories that succeed in modeling at least some partial ontological realities, do facilitate accelerated innovations. We know many such examples from modern history of science that we
brag about. But logically correct looking theories, devoid of ontological realities can slow down innovations and
<b><i>dumb-down our engineering capabilities to overcome biospheric calamities, natural or man-made</i></b>.
</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:windowtext">J</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>André Michaud<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 22, 2018 7:03 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] To realists out there<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Hi Wolfgang,</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This example does not need to make any a-priori assumption that there is an objective reality.</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">We know that what we think we "see" is due to the constant arrival of photons of the visible frequencies range individually hitting the millions of sensory cells in our retinas. The related electro-chemical
impulses that the neurons located in the retinas send to the intercalary layers of the neocortex still arrive there separately. The coherences (shapes, colors, etc) present in the flow at any given moment are automatically decoded, selected and "displayed"
in real time to the output layer in the visual cortex for our "awareness" to become cognizant of.</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">If the images move when we warp our retina by pushing on it, it can only be because it affects the angle at which the photons travel to the retinas through the eye. The same if you close your eyes.
Light stops hitting the cells, diminishing the intensity and number of signals going to the visual area.</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">We are physiologically unable by structure to become aware of the arrivl of the individual signals to each neuron in the retina, although we now understand that this is what happens. We can become
aware only of the result of the processing done by the neural net in simultaneously correlating the whole collection of individual signals "after" they have been received and correlated to identify the detailed "images" that we then can become aware of.
</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">That's how every part of the neocortex operates as was discovered by Donald Hebb.</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The individual input signals reaching the retinas are "real", but the "images" that we "see" are the result of the automatic processing of the 6 layer neural network and are completely resolved
only when reaching the output layer after having electrochemically gone through the thickness of the network. Even artificial neural networks operate like this, whether real networks built with electronic parts or simulated by programming on linear processors.</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">What Chip is talking about is that we need to understand better what produces and sends these signals that hit the retinas. That's the physical reality he is talking about. The elementary particles
making up the atoms that make up all existing bodies, including our own bodies, and even our neocortices.</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The shadows on Plato's cave refer to someting else. The inner working of the neocortex was studied and understood by Hebb only in the 1940's. Plato had no idea that it even existed. The shadows
on the back wall of the cave refer to the fact that we tend to become deeply certain of our conclusions. So deeply certain that once reached, it is very difficult for us to question them and reconsider, even when faced with new evidence that a conclusion could
be questioned. The Cave allegory carries an even a deeper message, that even if we succeed in requestioning our deepest conclusions, we should question them again, because we will again become too deeply certain to put them in question.</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Best Regards</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">André</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">---<br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin<br>
<a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/">http://www.gsjournal.net/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.srpinc.org/">http://www.srpinc.org/</a> <br>
<br>
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:19:41 -0800, Wolfgang Baer wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Andre:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Please take a step back and look at your example. Is it not based on the a-priori assumption that there is an objective reality and signals from that assumed objective reality flow through our neural structure?
What if we eliminate this assumption? What if we realize that our mental processing starts with the interaction at the retina. We do not know what caused it a-priori but what we are doing and have always done is attempt to find explanations for the imges produced
by that interaction. We explain the shadows in Plato's cave.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">I thought this simple and clear example is demonstrable proof that we do not see objects. Nothing profound or complex. The object does not move when the screen on which an image is projected is warped. Because
they do move when we warp our retina by pushing on it we do not see objects but processed images. It has been a puzzle for me that this simple and demonstrable proof is<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">This does not mean its all in the mind, it means we all see our own interpretation and once understood it leaves the door open for alternative and hopefully improved concepts of reality as quantum theory has shown
us.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">wolf<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">On 1/22/2018 5:26 AM, André Michaud wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman , serif",serif">Hi Chip,</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman , serif",serif">I absolutely agree with you.</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman , serif",serif">Each of our "awarenesses" is separated from this really existing physical reality by the double interface provided by each our neocortex.
</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman , serif",serif">Our nerve endings feed the "signals" they receive from "outside" to the entry layer of the neocortex (a 6-layer neural network), which is the outer interface. The intercalary layers automatically correlate
in real time the tens of millions of signals into coherences that are automatically provided at the output layer (the second interface) of which our awareness is constantly observing.
</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman , serif",serif">These research were carried out by neurophysiologists Ivan Pavlov (available only in Russian and German), Donald Hebb (available only in English), and Paul Chauchard (available only in French) mainly.</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman , serif",serif">If you are interested, a general summary of their research is available here:
</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman , serif",serif"><a href="https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-the-relation-between-the-comprehension-ability-and-the-neocortexverbal-areas-2155-6180-1000331.pdf">https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-the-relation-between-the-comprehension-ability-and-the-neocortexverbal-areas-2155-6180-1000331.pdf</a></span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman , serif",serif">Best Regards</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in">
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman , serif",serif">André</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
---<br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin<br>
<a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/">http://www.gsjournal.net/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.srpinc.org/">http://www.srpinc.org/</a><br>
<br>
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 05:37:43 -0600, "Chip Akins" wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes. I agree that we need to make that next step of describing what is going on which creates what we can observe.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, January 21, 2018 7:58 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] To realists out there</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p>Chip:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>If we saw objects directly they would not move when we fiddle with the image in the experiment I described
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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?"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>And a step along this path was taken by Quantum Theory which substitutes probability waves for the classic object reality.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>hope this helps it certainly helps me to try to find the words that explain Plato's cave idea in modern terms.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>wolf <o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 1/21/2018 1:57 PM, Chip Akins wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just my two cents, and my 5 senses. Opinion and tangible physical mechanisms respectively.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, January 21, 2018 2:53 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">
<general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [General] To realists out there</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p>To all:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I just submitted an essay contest to FQXI that is a short version of the physics of the observer I am working on.<span style="font-size:13.5pt"> One of the responses claims I am completely off the mark and was signed "realist"
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Some of you may have the same "realist" inclinations so think of this simple experiment:</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Consider any object lens image setup.</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Bend the image screen and you will see the image is distorted, but no such distortion changes the object.</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Now do the same thing but use your eye as the lens image part of the setup.</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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 </span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you want to look at the paper click on<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><a href="https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043">https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043</a></span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:13.5pt">If you want to rate it it might help me win, never know.</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Thanks<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Wolf<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<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"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org">srp2@srpinc.org</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/srp2%40srpinc.org?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">Click here to unsubscribe</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<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"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org">srp2@srpinc.org</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/srp2%40srpinc.org?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">Click here to unsubscribe</a><br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>