<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: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",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.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{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]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Wolf<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><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 [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 23, 2018 9:30 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><p>Chip:<o:p></o:p></p><p>So you think the laws come first and reality is basically what we see with a few tweeks<o:p></o:p></p><p>Quote by Albert Michelson<o:p></o:p></p><p>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 <b>most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established</b> 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 <b>the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals</b>. <o:p></o:p></p><p>1894, dedication of Ryerson Physical Laboratory, quoted in Annual Register 1896, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=HysXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA159">p. 159</a>.<o:p></o:p></p><p>Then came quantum theory<o:p></o:p></p><p>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. <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 1/22/2018 3:37 AM, 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> <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> <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> <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> <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> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <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 class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><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> <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> <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> <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> <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> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Chip<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <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 class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><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'> </span><o:p></o:p></pre><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'> </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'> </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'> </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><span style='font-size:13.5pt'> </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> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Thanks<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <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> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><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><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>