Review wanted for scientific article. I'm not a scientist. I will post two pieces that I am working on. Would love some feedback with regards to getting published. A man steps from behind the door of a sun-dried hut. His clothes are white: two sheets of cloth, partly covering an out-thrust chest. In the distance, a group of tall figures stand in twos and threes. The man's eyes narrow. There are around fifteen to twenty, each wearing a white coat, their faces masked with clip-boards. Sunlight streams onto the barren landscape. The primitive fellow retreats, then re-emerges with an army of men, women and children. This is Greece. The year 345. The pen-wielding invaders make a few quick-steps as they eye parts of the settlement. One may be forgiven to think that these are some other-worldly beings. But no. These are humans. Time-travellers. The above is an example of what may be achieved in a few short decades. With evolutions in computing and other technology, we can clone time, teleport particles and send men into space. Reality, it seems, has shifted from the cave and into the once-perceived realms of science-fiction. Back, for the moment, to the year 345. A lot of people have abandoned their huts, headed over the field with sacks, jugs and food. Those who remain think this is a spiritual encounter. 'A sign', they say. 'From God!' For almost three centuries, Isaac Newton dominated the world of physics. It seemed we had almost an explanation for everything. From gravity to thermodynamics. From the heavens, to the sea! But at the turn of the twentieth century something strange was happening. Not unlike our story of the early Greeks and time-travellers, this something had opened the eyes of each physicist into a new way of reality. Quantum theory. There's magic in the world of science. Particles can travel the universe in an instant. Empty space is not empty. In the words of Niels Bohr, 'Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum mechanics, cannot possibly have understood it.' It is the study of discrete energies and it's those energies that underpin all our knowledge of nature. I-pads, cell-phones and laptops. These are just a small range of technological advances made in recent times. However, there is an underlying force in these achievements. One that cannot so easily be observed. The human brain is the most advanced tool of all creations. We can do things today, that yesterday we could never have dreamt. Physical Reality and the Mind There is perhaps more than a little difficulty encountered by those wishing to relate workings of the mind to quantum processes. However, the first notion to discard is that the pursuit of scientific knowledge has been swallowed by a lot of mystic nonsense. What we will be attempting to address in this part, is how sense perception governs the whole of reality. Also, what reality must entail, in order we can assign such a status. There are many hypothesis concerning quantum theory that will claim: The problem with experimental data occurs as a problem with perception. However, I am of the belief that a problem with experimental data occurs as a problem with experimental boundaries. Of course, there is no difference between the two; the only difficulties are created when desired results do not conform to expectations. In order to relate an observable in quantum mechanics to the inner working of the consciousness, first one must hold certain quantum mechanical concepts. Mainly, that an observation made in such a case is so closely tied to perception that the two are inseperable. This concept is not only true, but recommended. There are reasons for this. First, that one may get to observe first-hand, the true workings of nature; second, the realization that nature is dependent entirely upon experimental boundaries. It is fruitful to try to define whether quantum mechanics has more do with reality or mind. Each representation in quantum mechanics is used as a mnemonic. The whole thing is a mathematical system, used for the prediction of quantum behaviours - which at first glance, seems to have no bearing whatever upon the physical world. We want to explore the argument of reality versus perception. And, how the study of quantum mechanics may accurately define that reality. How may one express, for instance, the reality in which our ancestors lived? since their representation of physical systems was not so detailed as our own. What about the future? i.e., if we can imagine a time when quantum mechanics falls short of new representations for systems, then how can we put fourth the statement that the whole of reality is all to do with how we perceive it? In answer to the last question, the problem would be resolved if each new breakthrough in the representation for systems was done in the name of quantum mechanics. Actually, only if one changed the name would this create inconsistencies. In order that one know he/she is in the right business, he/she must be prepared for a change in representations, as a change in the evolution of perception. Quantum mechanics, in order to accurately describe systems - and as we shall learn, is not about packing up as the result of too many conflicting ideas, but on principle, contain an in-depth study of psychological evolution. Best evidence suggests that people with larger intellectual capacity will proceed us. Therefore, it would be nonsense to embark upon a study that did not embrace all forms of reality. For someone picking up a book on quantum mechanics for the first time, it may be difficult to see how a quantum observation bears any relation to reality at all, let alone perception. Yet with a little persistence, a little knowledge of chemical bonding, one may distance oneself from the compelling desire to picture quantum processes as occuring in the same way as classical events; instead, learns more about the way in which matter is composed. One also learns how one may observe all of this; from nuclear fusion, to rays of light from the sun. But the means by which awareness of relations between micro and macrocosms is not merely to do with matter, nor of the fundamental properties of matter. These means also, are not merely to do with light rays. For how we perceive quantum phenomenae - and gain an awareness of relations from that phenomenae into classical realms, is all to do with experimental boundaries. What do we mean when we say that perception and reality are the same? For one can easily imagine that a discovery in quantum realms does not entail an abrupt change in the physical environment. But why do we think this? As we learn more about the physical environment through the aid of such studies, we have a tendency to change surroundings as a result of compiled data. Nowadays, these surroundings are mainly what one would call man-made. For instance, we no longer make buildings from asbestos - because of health risk. We no longer use coal-powered trains as a form of travel, in order to reduce pollutants in the atmosphere. Of course there are more examples such as this. Examples where the concept of a physical environment has changed because of a deeper knowledge of micro and macro relations.
These are mostly edited, though may require some rearrangement when I have all the words. Reality: the tenses When we think of reality, we are immediately drawn to the present physical tense. But reality, if it is to be an analogy of the whole, must possess events and/or approximations relating to past and present. Otherwise, questions arise as to how we got here, where we are headed and so fourth. The way in which nature holds on to past and future events is not clear. But if we consider the whole of reality as being without the reality of ancestors, or future inhabitants of earth, then it seems we would miss out on a large chunk of data. In order to investigate reality as a whole, first we need to discuss in sections, the concept of individual time frames. We begin by focusing on past and future events and a good approximation of such can be found in works of the early philosophers. Also, I have chosen the early philosophers for discussion, because although their mathematical methods are not what one would call scientific, the evolution of the proto-scientific era to quantum theory is none the less relevant and in keeping with the purpose of this book. In defining what-is, the consciousness must hi-jack certain plurals as one will find by taking an historical-ontological view of perceptions. For instance, early philosophers devised theories of reality with principles confined to the earth, such as the sun and moon being a product of exhalation from the sea. This conclusion had been met by the observation that everything around us is either hot, cold, wet and dry. Each scientific breakthrough involves some separation of a whole, previously thought of as fact. It cannot be questioned whether these early thinkers took theories such as this to be true, although there is a possibility that this was so because theorists at the time did not have means of hi-tech experiments. Our perception of reality has been as much the subject of evolution as has our physical bodies. “But now hear the account that follows of how the shoots of the wretched human race, men and women, were raised by night, By fire as it separated. The tale is true and informative. First there arose whole-natured shapes With a portion of both water and heat, Their arising forced by the urge of fire to reach its kin. Not yet did they display bodies fair with limbs, nor voices, nor again the human characteristic of speech.” Simplicius. When one thinks of what-is and where it came from, we may have a tendency to believe that what is now, arose from that which is not. “Now only one tale remains Indicating that what-is is unborn and imperishable, Entire, alone of its kind, unshaken and complete. It was not once nor will it be, since it is now, altogether, Single and continuous. For what birth could you seek for it? How and from what did it grow? Neither will I allow you to say Or think that it grew from what-is-not. For that it is not Cannot be spoken or thought. Also, what need could have impelled it To arise later or sooner, if it sprang from an origin in nothing? And so it should either entirely be, or not be at all. Nor ever will the power of trust allow that from what-is It becomes something other than itself. That is why justice has not freed it, Relaxing the grip of her fetters either to be born or perish; no, she holds it fast. The decision on these matters depends on this: It is or is not. And it has been decided, as was necessary, To leave the one way un-thought and nameless, as no real way, And that the other truly is a way and is truth-bearing. And how could what-is be hereafter? How could it have been? If it came to be, is it not, and likewise if it will be sometime in the future? Thus birth has been extinguished and perishing made inconceivable. Nor can it be divided, since all alike it is. Nor is there More of it here and an inferior amount of it elsewhere, Which would restrain it from cohering, but it is all full of what-is. Now, changeless within the limits of great bonds, It is without beginning and without end, since birth and perishing Have been driven far off, and true trust has cast them away. It stays in the same state and in the same place, lying by itself, And so it stays firmly as it is, for mighty Necessity Holds it in the bonds of a limit which restrains it all about Because it is not lawful for what-is to be incomplete.” Parmenides. The viability of human language to describe reality is somewhat precarious, but the evolution of thought and therefore the rearrangement of words to describe experience cannot be brought together without the revolutionary asking questions – the same as our predecessors… what is reality? One cannot expect to devise a perceptual truth from anything that is shown or written, one can only attempt to guide a person to some way of thinking. For instance, a reader reading the statement that reality is everything that is and is not anything that is not, does not impress upon anybody an actual summarization of being, nor of not being – only a tiny aspect of being through the experience of having read the statement. Everything we perceive as fact consists of some unknown set of terms and the best one can hope for is a complementary- isolation of concepts – as was to be proved with the Copenhagen Interpretation, Uncertainty principle and Wave-particle duality. “The phenomenon under observation produces certain events in our measuring apparatus, which eventually and by complicated paths produce sense impressions and help fix the effects in our consciousness.” Albert Einstein. The notion of a universal system as having to do with a process of exhalation from the earth could have only came about through some amount of data available to our senses. But it is impossible to go round observing all that can be known as what one would call perceptual reality. However, it’s clear that the more we think we know is expressed into a greater concept of the whole. By use of a thought-experiment containing immortal and mortal subjects, it’s possible to conclude that our emotions exist as the incomplete ability to receive information. The less we think we know about some pre-conceived whole, the more we believe we know ourselves. Since the turn of the twentieth century, the study of quantum mechanics has not merely underpinned all our knowledge of nature, it has underpinned the scientific and mathematical breakthroughs which ultimately led to its existence. Because of this underpinning, we may be accidentally drawn to the conclusion that our immediate environment has severed all correspondence to that of our cave-dwelling ancestors. But where the conceptual framework fails - and therefore, in many cases, the ties between a physical past and present, careful consideration must be given to the preceding efforts which led to the radical transformation of such framework. Quantum mechanics is about using the accumulation of knowledge of various subjects, combined with the instinct that, however fallible any theoretical work may appear in contrast to any other, each bit of data is useful in the way that it may be used - simultaneous, to build on an infinitely new set of ideas. The aim of every new subject - and similarly, every new concept is to sift through the old ideas in order to broaden the use of language, that we might better understand the world. The study of philosophy comes before each of our intellectual endeavours. This perhaps leads to the notion that a further precision of human activity - which includes that which the mind perceives, can not only be represented by words, but our actions and the objects surrounding those can become the words themselves. Since before the age of Aristotle, evolution of thought has shown us that the accuracy of language concerning human activity is only in agreement with parameters so far as that which is perceived as rational, or that which sets precedent for human excellence. This analogy of a world - represented by words, as anything which the mind perceives may, highlights the phenomenon of the prediction of averages in quantum mechanics; for a definition of such systems may either be an external or internal process, but not both.
Evolution and the Science of Perception. To live any life at all takes some degree of perception. Perhaps it’s our environment that has – so far, given us a mortal perspective. Then again, perhaps it’s our mortal perspective that limits the amount of time in that environment. Either way, the fact remains that without a ‘view’, it would be as though we had never lived at all. The way in which we perceive our world is all to do with the information that we gain through senses. A brain – without the use of vision, sound etc, would not allow us to function in the way we do. There are two ways in which one might define reality: one is that a perceived external world is at one with the inner-world. And two, that those external and inner worlds are separate. Whichever way one prefers, the mind, and in the case of the duality between inner and outer realms, the external environment, is composed to be inherent with emotion. For instance, a person watching their favourite TV program will usually feel content in such a situation because it's something they enjoy. However, a person watching their favourite TV program while in a room filled with distraction is more likely to feel frustrated. So, reality may present itself to us in many ways. And we may only interpret that reality with feelings, like those mentioned; and which are either negative or positive, i.e., happiness or sadness; excitement or depair. But on the whole, humans use these feelings as a method for survival. For instance, if we were to come across a plant which looked or smelled unpleasant, then we would be unlikely to eat it, thus avoiding a potentially fatal encounter. However, this method is not very useful if we want to find out why the plant looked or smelled the way it did. So emotion plays a major role in perception. But the early Greeks knew this much. In fact, their appearance here makes for a useful addition, because their mode of questioning is used to define things of existence to this day. Questions like how, why, when and where? The early Greeks saw the mind pretty much as I have expressed, as though it is a sort of chariot for reality. 'Nothing occurs at random, but everything happens for a reason and because it has to.' Leucippus. But although one can say that ontologically we are a product of the senses, it's not at present clear that our knowledge of the world is down to the same thing. Our senses enable us to survive on this planet. In our primitive days this was through hunting and gathering; but in modern times we survive mainly through technology. Some questions arise here as to how modern intelligence has emerged from that first cave and into the twenty-first century. There is only so much we can put down to survivng proto-scientific works. People live and die; and when they die, so the mathematical and scientific knowledge dies too. Early humans had eyes and ears etc, but they did not have the mathematical forethought of Pythagoras, any more than Newton had of quantum mechanics. Such understanding, without a radical adaptation of the senses, could not have been acquired without some of our predessessors' knowledge having been imparted to us genetically. In truth, we may never have survived the proto-scientific era. There is some evidence that Pythagoras believed that the soul is responsible for, not quite evolution, but general human experience. According to sources, Pythagoras said that he had been born many times, but first he was born as Aethelides. At some point during the life of Aethelides, Hermes had said to him that he would grant him any wish - apart from immortality, and Aethelides asked for the ability to remember things during life and after death. One of the ways in which nature has allowed us to evolve is that it keeps a firm grip of our experiences of ther world, to build, if you like, a genetic hard-wire. This genetic hard-wire may be that of absolute divination -- a concept that modern man has come far to disprove. But the soul, like the process of evolution takes no real form. It may well be represented by a bunch of numbers, to be interpreted in some way by the evolutionary biologist. Using this example, we cannot expect to under-pin reality outside the realms of monism, whereby, once our 'perceived' external world has evolved to such and such an extent, we need to sought new descriptions of nature to fit into it. We may imagine the soul of the human race as gaining experience by having looked at the world from different aspects. There is no doubt that early philosophers, such as Aristotle and Pythagoras paved the way for contemporary scientific discoveries. And with their use of plurals to describe how nature works, such as the principle elements, aither and the mind, their romantic concepts on these workings of nature are second to none. As we go on, we'll see a number of theories unfold, not least the theory that our senses bind us -- particularly in this instance to our own dimension. The pieces fit together in a way that helps us to realize -- our perception -- as a consequence of the information we gather from senses is our universe. We live within a macrocosm. Perhaps as time goes on, everything that exists now, will slowly move into a 'perceptual' microcosm, until it re-emerges, boundless as the aither. In the homeomeric theory of Anaxagoras, homeomeric being the collective term for 'homeomeries', which Anaxagoras describes as things of a certain kind having the same ingredients as things of other kinds, but different in proportion, he believed that the Mind is responsible for the separation of like from like. "Mind ordered all the things that were to be (the things that formerly existed but do not now, the things that are now, and will be in the future), including the present rotation in the heavenly bodies, sun, moon, air and aither are now rotating and being separated off (their separating off being a product of this rotation)." For instance, a gold block - chopped up into smaller pieces is still gold, but the whole contrast of its properties to another substance occurs after they have moved into a vortex. Perhaps one may identify with Anaxagoras' system and the system of other early philosophers as having moved along this vortex and re-emerging as the boundless. Because their broad usage of words to describe nature, although not one would call scientific, were all-encompassing. In Anaxagoras' theory, things don't appear homeomeric when they have been expanded or contracted from the translational ability of the senses. From what I can tell, in physical terms, the disproportionate* like from like occurs because after having moved through the micro-vortex, a seemingly new substance appears because the original ingredients that made them up had been the subject of internal collisions and had been cancelled out; and further he believed that this rotaion somehow spread out to create entirely new worlds. This is probably the first theoretical evidence for parallel universes."Before God we are all equally wise and equally foolish." Albert Einstein.
With this next part, we aim to put some flesh on the bones of reality. It probably goes without saying that our ability to perceive anything, is due to the fact that photons underpin this perception we call reality. But if our world consisted of only light, then we would not see at all. Perhaps at this stage it's best to say that perception is partly due to our ability to differentiate light, whether we actually 'see', or we imagine it. With this in mind, we can put forward the idea that the world we live in is one for which is dependent upon an observer; and that a world which does not depend on this differentiation is a far stretch from anything we have come to know. But what are the properties of light? This question has perplexed thinkers throughout the centuries. It was Isaac Newton who famously proposed that light was made up of quanta, or 'corpuscles', but in 1803, English physicist Thomas Young devised an experiment to show that light was consistent with having wave-like properties. This is famously known as the 'double-slit experiment.' Young was able to show how passing a beam of light through two narrow slits, projected onto a screen, produced an interference pattern, alternating in light and dark fringes. This, he believed, could only be explained using a wave theory. Perhaps in the macroscopic world, our inability to hold a single concept of a particle with wave properties, transforms as our inability to accept an increased amount of photons. Real answers to explain phenomenae such as these escape translational ability: as we learn how to better view our world, macro-evolution forces another perspective which widens the reality gap. We’re already aware that atoms make up everything. They make up the objects we see every day… they make up you and I. Yet atoms are almost completely made up of space and one hypothesis suggests they may be completely made up of space. But supposing you only almost don’t exist and that 99.99999999% of the space between each atom in your body was set free. According to measurements, you would be extremely tiny and this alone tells us that the universe is not as it seems. As we go about our daily routine – encompassed by the environment, our own bodies taking up more visual zoom than any object we encounter, it may be difficult to believe – as human perception goes, that such a large percentage of us doesn't exist. More so, that the tiny bit that does, does not lie in the illusion of our world, but is stored in some dark and distant corner of the universe. All of this, of course, is based on what we now know about atoms. But it hasn't always been this way. In those enormously productive years during the turn of the twentieth century, science struggled to find a tangible model for the atom. The nucleus is positive; an electron carries a negative charge. Evolutions in electromagnetism and thermodynamics led Neils Bohr from the conclusion that an electron orbiting a nucleus was 'like planets orbiting the sun.' But it was not a system that classical mechanics was apt to describe. It’s through questioning that we gain the means of experiment. And as the great physicist Max Planck once said, “Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal, the rest is poetry, imagination.” At its best, quantum mechanics is a challenge - brought to us by the great minds of Einstein, Boltzmann and Planck- to name a few. But since then, a lot of questions have been asked that concern the understanding of the subject. Human perception is – for the most part, concerned with the macroscopic environment. During the daily routine we may see many things, -- trees, hills, birds etc, but the time when we will go about noticing atoms will not happen any time soon. By using the science of perception is a good way to gain an insight into the strange nature of quantum mechanics, because it’s able to direct questioning where it needs to be. Even so, one sees different results when one compares quantum behaviour to everyday life. It’s through the perturbation of the mind we may unite those results, but however strange the world may appear, however accessible the science of perception may make that world, there’s no escape from the fact that humans interpret everything with boundaries. These boundaries may at times seem impractical – since, as with the macroscopic, the study of the sub-macroscopic also requires means of this complicated, less than perfect understanding. Yet without boundaries, we would have no conscious thought at all. The uses of the science of perception are all about peeling back those complicated, less than perfect layers, then piecing them back together in an attempt to discover that which exists as we see it. One study hints at the possibility of individuals able to sense undiscovered microscopic territories, just as one may get a hunch about the macroscopic environment; and as the awareness between the two worlds deepen, we can see a certain degree of truth in the findings. The atomic world; the macroscopic world. It's unsurprising that while we don't go round behaving like atoms, there are deep analogies between the evolution of classical mechanics and the behaviour of the human mind.
According to Planck's hypothesis: the energy of a photon is a discontinuous process - confined to discrete values. The particle may occupy only one energy level at a time. But it has been established that an electron has both properties of position and momenta. A particle is discontinuous, a wave on the other hand is not. Might the wave aspects of a particle mean that it could - however discrete, be present between two energy levels? We shall answer this question using a deduction of possibilities. First, it would be difficult to investigate the problem using a concept of either the photon or the electron, because of the involvement of phase factors and the fact that as an electron moves between states - it does so, not via a continuous transfer in which one would observe an orbital effect, but by absorbing or emitting magnitudes of energy, which determine the energy level that the electron will occupy. It would be difficult to investigate the problem in this section using a concept of either photon or electron that is, at least without an explanation as to why. The electron was first identified as a particle by J.J Thomson in 1879. The energy level corresponds to the position of the particle within an atom; and for the main part we shall be concerned with the electron, since light quanta may not be defined any more than its wavelength; whereas the electron is better apt to classical description. Unless otherwise stated, the term electron will be plural - in order to gain an idea of wave-like properties, as in slit experiments, for example. For when it is said that an electron has both wave and particle properties, it is meant that a precise location may be defined, but at the expense of wave-like properties: results depend on how the experiment is prepared. In a double-slit experiment, an electron is fired towards two slits A and B. Here, the probability that the particle will traverse either of the slits is equal. Only afterwards, when one consults the measuring apparatus, does the electron behave like a particle. This is because the wavefunction requires that an electron - fired towards two slits, traverses both at the same time and any attempt to define otherwise will be snapped up by the uncertainty principle. Whenever information about the position of the particle is gained, significant changes occur, not concerning the wavepacket at present, but information that was held about it previously. In optics, the results are multiplied by an uncontrollable phase factor, so an experiment to determine the position of the particle at one of the slits creates constructive interference and the wavefunction undergoes collapse. Only the amount of light present may determine results. Phase relations between the two functions are important in order to gain a definition of the electron; which at the quantum level, along with other physical objects, have wave-like properties. But after phase relations between A and B have been destroyed, there is perhaps a tendency to think that observation controls such behaviour. As pointed out in David Bohm's Quantum Theory, one would get absurd results if abrupt changes in the wavefunction could be brought about by an improvement in knowledge of the electron; and the inability to simultaneously measure x and p means an observer may not be in complete control of the classical environment - if there is no difference between predictions made and physical reality! Whenever one makes an exact calculation of the position of a particle, not only does the information come at the expense of information about its momenta, it comes at the expense of, as will be shown, calculation outside position space. Likewise, whenever one calculates the wave properties of the electron, it comes at the expense of knowledge of behaviour outside k-space. We could say that any experiment outside k-space would lead to discontinuity and any observation outside of the position vector leads to continuity. This may be obvious. An observation outside either of these vectors cannot yield the same answer, for such cannot not be gained from an external observation. It seems simple enough, either the electron may be viewed as particle or wave, but the uncertainty which is brought about by unpredictable and uncontrollable phase factors -- interference, mean one can be no closer in determining behaviour because there must hence be uncertainty in the extent of causal relations. When magnitude of a vector is large, so that a particle may not be localized because of destructive interference, then the electron behaves like a wave. The wave number of the electron corresponds to its spacial frequency. If we take one well defined particle, freeze its magnitude, then place these over a space much larger, we have formed a wave packet. Should interference between most, but not all of the possibilities for a relocation of our particle be destroyed, then we can highlight the reciprocal nature of human perception. If quantum mechanics was completely stripped of its classical relations, the results could make no impression upon the measuring apparatus. Boundaries, even for a free particle must be given and so, destructive and constructive interference is the link between micro and macrocosms. A paradoxical effect would occur if we were to make the statement that, each time we gain a degree of knowledge of a quantum system, we must then sever classical relations which led to the recognition of such system. But we can, by a slow series of deductions, create new classical relations. This does not mean that matter is made up of classical particles; only that sense impressions made on the measuring apparatus must transform from statistical aggregate, into a classical observable. In fact, whenever one is faced with a set of unknown classical relations, this corresponds to the uncontrollable lack of knowledge (uncontrollable and unpredictable phase factors) which interfere with experimental boundaries. When one may gain an accurate description of any system, the methods used to obtain information - including system under observation become separate. Therefore, the information that enters the brain is not identical to the 'actual' state of the system. Inaccurate results may occur, because, unlike a photograph, the 'actual' state of systems involved are not still. Whenever one replaces averages with certainty, the observer has the effect on the system under observation in a way that could only yield a classical result. As mentioned in the preceding discussion, quantum theory would be unrealistic if relations to classical physics could not be applied. As in the case of quantum observation, a statistical aggregate can only be gained through a discrete series of stages; however, in this case, the object yielding the statistical result is no different to the observer yielding the statistical result. The issue with constructive interference alone, hence, the separation between object and observer, is that each part of the experiment continues to be subject to separate causal effects.
Phenomena of perceived separation: The unobserved universe from a classically observed object New classical relations are brought about after one relates an observable to some extended region inside its environment. All physical objects -- even a microscope may be perceived as having separate identity and consequent unification of one or more physical objects occurs - because closer definition of the object requires it. On a broad scale, this separation is inexpressibly linked. But there are examples, such as a photograph, when just like watching television, we suspend our belief in reality, also, the unconscious separation from such object to the rest of the 'cosmos.' There is perhaps a small point to consider here, with regards to human perception. When we observe a two-dimensional object such as a photograph, why does the brain separate that information from the greater aspect that remains unobserved? And do we suppose that a three-dimensional object -- inexpressibly linked to this hypothetical universe, because even when we close our eyes, we believe we experience three dimensions? Many people believe there is a physical need for the existence of objects outside of human perception. Even if this were not true - there seems to be a need for the brain to believe it is so - if for nothing else, then perhaps for the sake of acuity of the senses. For if an individual did not believe in a greater unforseen part, then a sound from round the corner, or a smell would make a lot less sense in terms of perception. So although some awareness of the whole must exist within the brain, it is still something which for the most part goes unnoticed; even when an individual hears a sound from round the corner, as little effort as possible is needed to interpret the information, i.e, the brain will not go through the process of each time being aware of not being able to see the cause of information. So the unconscious brain chooses the extent of relations that it omits from the unconscious, yet by no means inactive 'cosmos.' The brain rearranges the information it receives into the relevant amount of dimensions. How does perception of sound differ, to the information received by sound when the cause is unseen? Some definition of human perception can clearly be gained by observing how much of the unconcious 'cosmos' an individual uses when he or she takes in information. If this unconscious space did not exist, perhaps we would be no different than a brain in a semi-sealed container. Perhaps we would attribute information gained from somewhere outside the container to an internal object, or even perceive it as a phenomenon. In early humans, some of the inclination towards superstition was likely linked to the amount of unconscious activity. Therefore, the answer to the question: how important is it how much one discounts a one, two, three or even four dimensional object from something it can't see - is, far as acuity of the senses goes, this is important. One may pick up a leaf or grain of sand and observe the separation of the object in contrast to the environment. The object can be said to be discontinuous in contrast. Yet we know parts are discontinuous also; even planet Earth is discontinuous in the way it is not attached to any other body in space. One may assume that we gain such data by position; but also, the interval of time plays a huge part towards the characteristics we attribute to certain objects. This is because causal relations impact on objects according to the interval of time taken for an experiment. Some of this brain activity, i.e, subtraction of data from the unconscious includes the function of spacial awareness, located in paretial lobe. Sigmund Freud proposed that our emotions - induced by external environment and interpreted by the individual, controls behaviour. Perhaps also it plays a key role in those who learn by reward: how one interprets information affects the unconscious decision to focus. But many of us learn by reward to some extent - even if it's only the satisfaction of getting the right answer. In quantum mechanics, a statistical aggregate is gained through the implication of causality in relation to an object. A classical interpretation of quantum theory would lead to the analogy of a brain in a semi-sealed container. The Classical Limit Lines should be drawn which concern the meaning behind classical relations to quantum theory. A classical observation can only yield classical result; and on the other hand, classical apparatus may be used to describe quantum processes. The question of whether one can gain accurate results with the use of current methods is not important. Quantum theory is incomplete. So long as such data is obtained, measuring apparatus, system under observation and information relating to that is identical. It would make no sense to discount classical relations; i.e., to say the electron does not have particle properties would be a major denial to quantum physics! When one may gain an accurate description of any system, the methods used to obtain data - including system under observation become separate. Therefore, the information that enters the brain is not identical to the 'actual' state of the system. Inaccurate results may occur - because unlike a photograph, the 'actual' state of systems involved are not captured. Whenever one replaces averages with certainty, the observer has the effect on the system under observation in a way that could only yield a classical result. But as mentioned in the preceding discussion, quantum theory would be unrealistic if relations to classical physics could not be applied, since in the case of quantum observation, a statistic can only be gained through a discrete series of values; however, in this case, the object yielding the statistical result is no different to the observer yielding the statistical result. A more mathematical approach here, would be to refer to the Wentzel Kramers Brillouin approximation, or (WKB), which allows for a semi-classical calculation in quantum theory. The problem we were faced earlier, was that classical relations relating to observer and object as an indivisible unit were discrete as they were elusive. It is hoped therefore, that by referring to this method, we can make good use of our problem, since we are able to highlight the reciprocity of error obtained in quantum experiment. The introduction of the WKB approximation brings us towards the classical limit in quantum theory. The semi-classical application to quantum theory is used here as a method to try to understand how quantum observations may be made via a classical apparatus. In some ways it is important to take a step back and observe the instance in which object and observer behave as indivisible unit; and this creates, that which may be observed and, therefore unavoidably expressed as tiny errors that change with the slow moving potential. But does this answer the question of how such method can be used without breaking the boundaries for an indivisible unit? Perhaps such observation would lead to a classical description and, therefore, incorrect results. Solutions to the Schrodinger equation for the wavefunction lead classically to Newton's equation of motion. In this case, the description is semi-classical and within the boundaries for quantum theory. This example is one way we can attempt to give an idea, at least, of how an indivisible unit has the ability to draw in a distant observer, errors and all, to the system. The slow changing part shows classical physics - combined with quantum theory in a phenomenon called "Stoke's phenomenon." One of the underlying mysteries we have yet to express in any detail, is how a quantum observation may be made at all. After all, if we were to take a digital photograph of a still that had been taken using SLR, we would find it difficult to maintain that the photograph consisted mainly of an SLR quality. But in fact, the reason one may make quantum observations with classical apparatus - as opposed to the example of the two photographs, is due to the existence of a Stoke's line of asymptotic expansion, named after Sir George Gabriel Stoke's. The fact that one can gain infinitely new values within a given magnitude already gives almost ubiquitous perspective, built upon semi-classical framework. The classical region defines within our perception of a quantum mechanical behaviour, while a large wave packet covers all classical regions. It seems then, unsurprising that an indivisible unit may only exist in this way. Also however, comes the realization that our initial thoughts on the unit - which must continuously be used in an observation can not easily be re-connected to the actual state of the system. It is a minor problem, albeit phenomae and shall not prevent us from further argument in favour of the work done so far. If we consider a stream of electrons, we are already aware that we may gain knowledge of position at the cost of wave properties. However, consider that one measures the position of photons within a beam of light, compared to a beam of light which we knew contained photons. On close inspection, there seems no difference between energy and potential. While closer inspection tells us that there must. When the wavelength is slow changing, kinetic energy within the potential is small enough that errors may at many times be overlooked. When magnitude is large, one may view quantum effects classically and gain approximations for classical events.
Post that was here is now No.1 (the OP) here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/visual-processing-by-nerves-no-hand-waving-words-as-to-how.143029/
Post that was here is now No. 2 here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/visual-processing-by-nerves-no-hand-waving-words-as-to-how.143029/
I browsed over your articles and will give full attention after I pick out some more stuff to put in link.
Post that was here is No. 3 here now: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/visual-processing-by-nerves-no-hand-waving-words-as-to-how.143029/
Instead of posting links I just post some concepts here. Taken from a larger, unfinished work so had to edit some sentences that were in place to expand the article. Time Travel, Simulated Reality and Immortal concepts "Perhaps we are immortal time travellers, sent by ourselves from the future, that we might mold a universe that otherwise might not sustain us. To be immortal, perhaps we must already be immortal, and perhaps the key to our greater selves is to realize the application of questions from mortal minds -- in this case is needed, to discover ways of immortal minds so that the latter may return to immortality and the former would know how not to be trapped by finite areas of the universe. Even if it wasn't our destiny, then perhaps with the application of mortal and immortal questioning towards life, we can make it so that it was." Not many would choose mortality, given the option. But did you know man already has the potential to unleash this super-human power? Indeed, and as we go through, we’ll see a ‘real’ concept unfold. You know what happens: you catch a cold, take a remedy! There are so many things out there to help fight disease, therefore we lead longer lives; and there’s nothing yet to say - in ten years time, we won’t have the ultimate cure to ageing. We can only speculate what the next thousand years of modern medicine will uncover, but we know one thing is certain: the more illnesses can be cured and effects of ageing battled, the further we’ll climb the evolutionary ladder. Perhaps you've heard frequently asked questions on the subject – like whether immortality would benefit a system adapted to mortal life? Questions of marriage: would people marry and stay married? And then there are some who worry about the economy. In a dialectic on the concept of time-frames, it was assumed that to apply such questions would be to doom them to fictitious boundaries. Any question should be considered to its potential in a wide range of subjects. That is to say, the boundaries that hold mortal man for good reasons, should be considered on an eternal scale with the same good reason. For instance, if we take Suzy and Lisa as our immortal and mortal subjects respectively, where Lisa may have a life-span not more than 150 years and Suzy's is infinite, then we can start with a question relative to Suzy, which concerns Lisa's principles upon some subject, at say, 100,000 years closer to Suzy, 300,000 years and so on. This approach examines the impact that combining the principles of each subject would have on an observer, should that observer wish to take those principles on as his or her own. The human race has existed for some 2.3 million years. Not long in comparison to other earthling species, but how long is long enough? Of course from a species’ perspective it’s beneficial to go on for as long as possible, to re-invent whenever faced with challenges. The idea that mortal man can obtain the feat of immortality stems from a similar idea that the universe is only infinite, so long as a mind can perceive it. For an example of an immortal concept, one experiment considers an article, which only partly describes its components; so much so that the article has no subject. The fact that the contents of the article do not allow for one to place a name in the subject-slot, but that it is indeed an article is the reason one may hold such a concept. On the other hand, if the contents were explicit, rather than opaque, then our experiment would not work. In philosophy, the collapse of the wave-function is our understanding of a situation. By using “aspects of ubiquity” we learn how to acquire symmetric code as the increase in size of bundles of data, and we’re therefore able to get brief glimpse into the boundaries that enable perception. Our brains are the universe! Once one page closes, another opens. Whenever a reduction in states occur, some proportional expansion occurs in another. Here, the universe exists within the observer, via a system synonymous with the “abstract connection”, mentioned in later text, rather than being in any way a separate entity. Therefore, to seek truth about longevity and the universe, a person need look no further than his/her own mind. Similarly, to seek truth about longevity and the mind, then one may look towards the universe. Perception is key to all of this here. First it is the result of boundaries – put in place by the senses. Everyone is different. Everyone’s perception is unique; and by studying the boundaries needed for the use of different sets of senses, we gain the ability to break through our own, where we shall uncover previously unknown systems. Which leads us to the question: how does perception work? The study supports the theory that our whole existence is the result of a code; obstacles that would be seen as fictitious to immortals, are the result of information being quantized. It’s as though we're being controlled by someone or something. We try to delve a little further by describing these codes and how they complement the structure of our daily lives. Simulated Reality When thinking of a simulated reality, one’s first reaction might be to reject the idea as something of a fictional foundation. People believe many things on principle; these are the characteristics given to us by parents, then by society as we move into some system of belief, be that Christianity, atheism or science. But the idea that we live in a simulated world is much too simple. For reality may well be a computer translation – even if that reality never began until humans invented computers! The idea is not a new one. According to mathematician Hanz Morovec, the universe may be perceived as the existence of a simulation. This philosophical hypothesis was first published in 1998. But while the idea that we live in a simulated world is exciting, the subject has been a focus of scepticism. Those who are sceptical imagine some kind of sci-fi scene, but the truth is the hypothesis is just a way of looking at a system that standard physics attempts to describe. When we play a video game, we know there’s a difference between what’s happening on-screen, to what’s happening off-screen. But while everything we perceive has been picked up by the senses, we may be fooling ourselves if we exclude the possibility of simulated reality based on a single argument. It’s possible to create computer simulations. And unless – while we’re doing it we have become separate from the universe, then it’s possible for the universe to create computer simulations. The question is, how many virtual dimensions can we recreate that allow us to interact without the psychological separation; that is the separation between what we think reality is. When we watch television, we’re able to suspend our belief of reality. Temporarily, we are fooled into believing we are somehow in the picture and the earliest examples are seen in books. Hanz Morovec wrote, “Is the Mount Rushmore monument a rock formation or four presidents’ faces? Is a ventriloquist’s dummy a lump of wood, a human simulacrum, or a personality sharing some of the ventriloquist’s body and mind? Is a video game a box of silicon bits, an electronic circuit flipping its own switches, a computer following a long list of instructions, or a large three-dimensional world inhabited by the Mario Brothers and their mushroom adversaries? But to recreate ourselves within a simulated world is not so simple as to cancel the observations that cause us to be psychologically separated – if, in the simulation we are to be conscious observers. The simulated world would be subject to its own laws and in cancelling any ability would leave us entirely within those laws where conscious observers need not exist. It’s by realizing the separation between various aspects of ‘reality’ that make us who we are; and so, in linking to any other set of laws, we would need a separate link for an ability to ‘see.’ Visual Symmetrics attempts to address the problem as it addresses time-travel, through the means of consciousness. Physical time-travel seems impractical so far as perception goes, because the time-traveller, in order to accurately visit a point in time, would a) need to have adequate altered perception, b) need to have the adequate biological alterations. But in time-travel, just as in moving to a simulated reality we would be unwise if we were to cancel any perception in an attempt to gain accurate results, since there would be no way to return to our normal environment. The exploration of the possibility of time-travel is a good way to highlight problems of being able to move into simulated reality. To say we could accurately time-travel using unaltered perception, would be equal to say we could move into a simulated environment and remain exactly as we are now.
Time Travel On the subject of time-travel: Imagine you've built a time machine and once inside you're faced with two options: the future or the past? You're a fan of sci-fi and you've seen a lot of movies. -- Besides, imagine all the psychic fun to be had with friends and relatives! You choose the future and you're just about to press the button... but wait! What if - in two days time, the Earth might fall out of orbit with the Sun, and the disaster may be prevented but for the fact you're not there! Still feel like time-travel? Of course not. Or suppose that instead of choosing the future, you choose the past. This time you press the button. But in the past, there was no time machine... you had no idea of time-travel... there's no way back! We encounter similar difficulties when we consider psychological time-travel. We still have a problem to avoid the possibility of a dead-end and there are other reasons we need not go into. As time moves, we get the general feeling that it propels us forward, however - this too, may be an illusion. It could be, as time moves, everything happens back to front. Contrary to current belief that life begins once an egg is fertilized, the real beginning may arise after death, once the soul has left the body. Of course, an observer would need to verify this. As time moves, so does the position of objects in space. Lets say a pendulum starts to pick up speed. As the pendulum moves back and fourth, it may be perceived as having met its original point - but because of time, the same space that was present before the increase in energy will no longer be available. If the pendulum goes back, then time-travel has been achieved. The theory of Visual Symmetrics is based on the presumption that the universe, rather than being an entity we inhabit, is a system that belongs to the individual. Yet it appears more than half of human experience does not occur in the mind, but is largely in the physical interaction which we perceive as the outside world. Difficulties may arise here, for, if reality is formed purely by psychological means, and not in the physical environment where our best efforts lie, then how do we pose our questions to consider that reality?We may believe one or both of the following statements to be true, that A: physical aspects allow for the illusion of a psychological universe. B: Psychological aspects allow for the illusion of a physical universe. Features that make up both often become tangled with the other, yet they have the potential to differ in many ways. While some believe a physical world to be the only possible reality, I am of the belief that although any test will show the eyes and brain function through physical means, perception of the whole is acquired by psychological means. We could question our experience of the outside world to infinity, so long as we know that it cannot sensibly lie within the consciousness -- to say such is equal to try to view the planets by looking at the body of a telescope! Because experience unravels in this way, even for believers of Visual Symmetrics, there's an ongoing notion that the external world represents all that is real. Our brains are not built to gain direct translations from the environment and there's bias in the opinion of the observer. Hence we draw lines between what we think reality is. Perhaps it lies within the characteristics of the individual. Perhaps it only happens when we close our eyes. When an object has been perceived by the mind, two or more senses have been involved in positioning the object. When we describe something as psychological, we're describing something that doesn't have to be real to represent itself. We may think we have been led to a right conclusion, but when we think we're wrong about something, the physical world becomes the root of our imagination. This is nothing more than a psychological-physical description for both worlds. There is little difference when the question of right or wrong is stretched to opinions within a group. Even though a group may share an opinion in some situation, there are hidden aspects that vary with the individual. When our senses acquire data, it becomes symmetric (whole) - and this is true whether we agree, or disregard our findings. Regardless of how much knowledge a person may possess, all humans share this trait. This takes into account the infinite number of facts about a system we don't know and highlights an alternative world -- that of the psychological from reality -- the structure of the system is the same - but we must ever assess -- and to do it, the importance of inaccuracy is not to be neglected. So we see that the psychological and physical don't always go hand in hand - in order to gain a true, physical description; and in some cases there is a strict separation. For now the psychological only attempts to describe that which is real - and is, in the physical world, very often a misinterpretation of facts. To us, this understanding and misinterpretation is all we have; without the two, our universe wouldn't exist.
A Leap into Strange Territory Now we consider the possibility of interaction in dimensions other than our own. We are all connected to the uncharted territory in some way. Each individual has their own universe; each universe is characterized by boundaries concerning the infinite number of dimensions. The form that these take differ, like personality traits, fingerprints or DNA; however, due to analogous behaviour of perceptions within a dimension, there is no significance between forms. So far we have looked at some individual layers that make up perception. In addition, we will consider intellectual potential where certain layers are removed. For instance, fear is disadvantageous to many dimensions of intellect, yet if it were not for fear, the human race would not have survived. In a separate study on perception and for the advanced treatment of patients with PTSD, subjects were exposed to a number of smells whilst being monitored in order to pin-point the emotions that those smells aroused. When the study was turned towards memory, results showed that the brain recollects more than just the instance of a situation. When exposed to a smell present during some past experience, researchers found that it either invoked a sense of happiness, sadness or fear in a subject. Fear can largely keep us bound, it can also save lives. While the above example seems to incline towards medicine, what such results tell us is - before any layer can be removed -- in this case fear, it must be replaced by certainty and one way this can be achieved is time-travel. The concept of time-travel begs further analysis for an understanding of the dimensions we shall encounter. But first we must discard the notion that to accurately time-travel, one needs the use of a time-machine. To accurately time-travel, one must use the observer rules in "simulated reality" if we're to keep our eye on the goal of actual knowledge. As we study various aspects of time, we uncover features that strike hints at other possibilities, and it's the combination of these that allow for a peak into other worlds. Most of us have an idea of what makes up our external world, i.e., the atmosphere, stars and space. In fact when it come to this we are probably more clued up than any creature on the planet. The reason, apart from our well-adapted brains is our eyes allow us to take in the information. But it’s the way we take it in and the effects we have on our environs – as a result of our perception –the ingredients that have a hand in others’ judgement. For us, seeing is believing; and this stretches – pretty much, the extent of our knowledge. Our perception is evolving. Apart from the genetic traits inherited by ancestors; the traits we develop as a result of cultural evolution – the information we gather from senses – such as a different colour, a different smell or taste, alters perception to such an extent that the effects of ancestral and cultural origin get tangled in a bedim of the effects from the environment. The question is not so much what we don’t see. Because there are systems – under our nose, that like a fish in water, we can have no idea of. Like the healing properties of plants, or the ability of supposed unsustainable systems to support life. Of course some of this we know – as for the rest, this is our potential as intellectual beings, for where the system of discovery ends, so does our ability to learn. It seems we are all too efficient at taking for granted our universe. Like a fish in water, we have had no idea of how we can look through our inside world – from the outside. Each living being encounters their world differently. Though there are ways of understanding these differences, that we may come to ‘general conclusions’, the way in which those conclusions are brought by the individual are, again, non-the-same. To make the statement that one person’s idea of the world is better, or more consistent than the idea a whale has while swimming in the ocean seems unfair. Here, we generally say that the perception of the surroundings of an individual is, on principle, the whole. In mathematics, each view is taken generally to represent the whole, but described as the dimension that – in a simple scenario, an individual gets from A to B. We take a look at numerous dimensions – and how, by observing systems via dimensions we gain access to previously hidden data. While there are dimensions we have less than a vague knowledge of, before we move on to those, it will be fruitful to grasp a concept of our own. What we will cover in the first part of this project is human perception and the way we acquire knowledge; not only here on Earth, but to the farthest known reach of space. Because it’s the topology of processed data, accurate or otherwise that is the structure of our abode. We aim to lose the ‘fish in water’ mentality and we start by introducing basic parts of the system. We all wonder about the greater aspects of things – our universe, that we might gain some kind of definition; and we find that when it comes to doing it, dimensions are a useful tool. They are an aid when it comes to getting a clear picture. Our whole perception – our boundaries – they are the gist of everything. There is no point to the question: how would a system behave – if we don’t grasp the system; also there is no point in not describing these systems, from a topological view-point, by the way they behave. We encounter alien dimensions all the time. It’s just that biological factors don’t allow us to interact. But suppose that we could. And suppose that we’re aliens from another dimension, with the ability to detect and interact with various systems. Just the same as we define our own system, we would need to define the systems of others’, otherwise the study would be liable to errors when it comes to placing the jigsaw together. In a complicated universe, it’s biological factors that determine the topology of processed data. But whether it’s learning how to drive, or learning the entire works of Shakespeare, if the data is acquired locally, then the lesson has more or less been the same. Individual perception can be thought of as a bubble. And humans have, unassumingly been living in this bubble since the birth of the race. In the interactive world, this is a system we take for granted. Here, a concept of that which must largely sustain us cannot be acquired if it’s too big. But if we can’t create a description of a system which data hasn't been processed, then we can put chaos into order and look at it another way, i.e., the way we would see it if it had. There is the general thought that our environmental interactions are a complete external affair. However, studies on perception suggest that this interaction is not such as it would have us believe. Nevertheless, as we go on, we find the need for both simultaneously loom large as we locate evidence for the contrary. This is called the psychological-physical separation. This separation that arises time and again reminds us that the base reality (reality for all species) is quite different to how any species perceives it. The universe, from which ever point of view we choose, contains every bit of data we’re able to interact with and these are our boundaries – however weird and wonderful they may seem. Whatever a being may perceive, be it human, insect, or some other-worldly being will be classed by the position of the eyes or other perception acquiring means as they move through space and between objects. For instance, in humans, the eyes would not be focused on points in dimensions where there is no use for eyes. When we hear something, we may focus on the source and direction of sound, but we’re not able to gain the data visually, as we’re able to gain it audibly. Does this make a difference? Yes, it does. Our senses don’t only make up our boundaries, they direct our perception within those boundaries. If some other-worldly being were able to gain ‘real’ visual recognition from sound-waves, and audio recognition from our visual field, then this might explain the possibility for the existence of beings in dimensions that we are unable to ‘see.’
Background Background is important to perception, so much so that should any part become in motion, the unconscious brain will seek out parts that are not. For instance, as a disco ball spins, it projects shapes onto walls of a room, which travel round as the ball rotates. If it were not for the silent workings of the unconscious, a subject placed inside the room would behave like a cat, i.e., it would chase the movement of projections! So background governs visual perception, it also determines what dimension we feel able in. But it's one thing to view a system via a rigid body, and another to alter a dimension completely. If a person suddenly becomes able in another dimension, one might imagine that to another observer, that person should disappear into a rock or the corner of a table. This significant separation between perception of individuals is a concept we can just begin to entertain. It's easier to describe a system of beings with different ability, but not so easy to describe what would happen should a being become separate from its peers. This idea is simplified though, because it only takes the perception of an individual in any reality. In the Special Theory of Relativity, published in 1905, Albert Einstein uses the example of the direction of bodies in motion, relative to rigid bodies (later referred to as Gaussian coordinates), to reveal a wealth of observation. To use another example of his uniformly travelling railway carriage, as from the carriage an object is dropped to the embankment: the falling body does not travel in a line from points A to B, because the time it encounters changes the position of the object as it falls through space. (For a line, points A and B must exist at once). Only a rigid body -- in this case the embankment, may be described as a line in which no time passes through, because without the rigid body no observation is possible. This may be swapped round, so long as different examples of rigid bodies are used: if a body in motion takes the place of the former, then the concept of time becomes interesting. An observation is untenable until one can re-appropriate the question. This leads to two modes of thought: that everything on one hand is subject to time, and on the other is not. Although the line used in the above example is imaginary, the laws acting on the embankment are analogous should the observation be switched so that the embankment and carriage rest on the rigid body of the Earth. Albert Einstein uses measuring rods to show how the increased speed of the carriage has the effect of shortening its length to the observer; then how, inside the moving carriage, the observer may be justified to think that the embankment is the moving part! If to view boundaries and the passage of time makes no etymological sense - the chances are, it makes no physical sense. Etymologically, we can either view the flow of time, or the boundaries that prevent it. Our minds are tricked into the belief that we live within dimensions of both, which may be the reason human perception is so far removed from reality; but this does not take away the anomaly that the universe we inhabit pays so little attention to detail. Rene Descartes developed the idea of Cartesian coordinates in the 17th century. It was an evolution from Euclidean geometry in the way that Cartesian coordinates provided a link between the latter and algebra. Though there were systems analogous to the coordinate system, used before the time of Rene Descartes, one of the most striking patterns in the evolution of geometrical systems, is that they coincide with the development of intellect, hence the development of the theoretical universe. Albert Einstein uses the example of a marble slab and rods in his General theory of Relativity, published in 1920. With these he showed how the combination of coordinates have the effect to limit or increase intricacy of perceived dimensions. In simpler terms, how even the most intricate structure of dimension forms a straight line with the correct use of coordinates. For instance, a flat rod is place on a surface to represent a straight line. If that line is magnified however, one may see how the combination of coordinates fit exactly. What is least surprising, but fascinating nonetheless - using his example, is that the real advancement in knowledge did not begin with numerical uses of the systems, but by simple rearrangement of lines on a rigid body. The question of whether these advancements are due to evolution or the discovery of axioms is not important, since nature can hardly have evolution of thought without evolution. But in our world, we perhaps lean to the assumption that it's a little more complicated to build a dimension from rods - when in fact the straight line one starts out with contains each of the dimensions. "Each time we realize that the question we applied to the universe was not the 'best' question to put to gain the 'best' answer, we should realize -- far from finding ourselves awash in a gigantic ocean, that an improved way of questioning will greater encompass that ocean, or that we will craft a better ship to help us to sail."
Some way posts have been added, making numerical reference to post wrong now. What was post 1 is now post 6. So I assume, without checking my references In edit of my first post to 6 & 7 are now posts 11 & 12. I came back to add that as graduate student I photographed the Stokes and Anti-Stokes lines generated in clear liquid Carbon Disulfide. The spectrograph used had a shutter plate you could slide down blocking light as it did. I moved it down a little after about a minute exposure, then several more (7 or so? - it was ~50 years ago so I forget) small steps down with the last exposure on the bottom edge of the glass photo sensitive plate at least an hour long. - The anti-Stocks line (excitation energy plus one vibration quantum of the liquid more energetic) was clearly visible, at least in the last full hour exposure, (perhaps one above it too?) but others were badly over exposed. High resolution spectro-photo-graphs always use glass plates as they don't shirk - and distance along the lines, from known calibration lines, is how you get their wave lengths. PS I have only skimmed the new post 1, but want to know if you have only read a lot or have you actually done any QM calculations? I have and am old enough to have even done some in the original matrix formulation - before all switched to the Schrodinger equation version.
This book intends to be theory on QM and the relations between that and consciousness. I'm more like unpaid, or freelance researcher, since I have no scientific qualifications. I have 25,000 words out of a goal of 50,000. I've read a few books which contain equations and solutions to those, but haven't done any myself - outside what one would call general. I tried, but later realized that in many cases a particular study had, not been abandoned, but not expanded on. Then I knew I had much more research to do and all of this led to the idea for my book. I keep telling myself I'm not making excuses for not doing any of my own equations, because I discovered that I don't, at present hve the skill to relate perceptional aspects of the study to technical thought experiments. However, I am aware that if I expect even consideration for this - as a theory, then eventually I will need to back up my discussion on the subject with equations. At the moment I'm not worried about it. When I have all my words, then I hope to have gained some boundaries for experiment. When I do and if I get them not according to what I want, I hope some soul more educated than me will tear those equations to pieces till I achieve my aim.
Who are you writing for? What new (or even interesting rephrasing of the old) do you think you can offer? You ramble without any clear points, and seem confused at times - I can't bring my self to read more. Is it just an ero trip - reward for having read a lot? If you don't know about Sir John and his strong qualifications or his 18 published books (two I have read) you should. He was the last living dualist that did not spout non-sense as knew what he spoke of first hand (QM, Physiology & mind/ reality problems); Go to the above link and read at least one of his books to learn how to write about the subject you seem to want to, before wasting more time on 25,000 word more only you would read.
I agree. I need to learn more and no excuses about anything that caused you to feel confused. It's my first attempt at factual science, but if the end result doesn't please - then I guess it's just another book without publication. I'm almost done with the 50,000. Thanks for your time.
