Category Archives: Philosophy

Philosophy is never too far from physics. It is in their overlap that I expect breakthroughs.

Unreal Time

Farsight wrote:Time is a velocity-dependent subjective measure of event succession rather than something fundamentalthe events mark the time, the time doesn’t mark the events. This means the stuff out there is space rather than space-time, and is anaetherveiled by subjective time.

I like your definition of time. It is close to my own view that time isunreal.It is possible to treat space as real and space-time as something different, as you do. This calls for some careful thought. I will outline my thinking in this post and illustrate it with an example, if my friends don’t pull me out for lunch before I can finish. :)

The first question we need to ask ourselves is why space and time seem coupled? The answer is actually too simple to spot, and it is in your definition of time. Space and time mix through our concept of velocity and our brain’s ability to sense motion. There is an even deeper connection, which is that space is a cognitive representation of the photons inputs to our eyes, but we will get to it later.

Let’s assume for a second that we had a sixth sense that operated at an infinite speed. That is, if star explodes at a million light years from us, we can sense it immediately. We will see it only after a million years, but we sense it instantly. I know, it is a violation of SR, cannot happen and all that, but stay with me for a second. Now, a little bit of thinking will convince you that the space that we sense using this hypothetical sixth sense is Newtonian. Here, space and time can be completely decoupled, absolute time can be defined etc. Starting from this space, we can actually work out how we will see it using light and our eyes, knowing that the speed of light is what it is. It will turn out, clearly, that we seen events with a delay. That is a first order (or static) effect. The second order effect is the way we perceive objects in motion. It turns out that we will see a time dilation and a length contraction (for objects receding from us.)

Let me illustrate it a little further using echolocation. Assume that you are a blind bat. You sense your space using sonar pings. Can you sense a supersonic object? If it is coming towards you, by the time the reflected ping reaches you, it has gone past you. If it is going away from you, your pings can never catch up. In other words, faster than sound travel isforbidden.If you make one more assumptionthe speed of the pings is the same for all bats regardless of their state of motionyou derive a special relativity for bats where the speed of sound is the fundamental property of space and time!

We have to dig a little deeper and appreciate that space is no more real than time. Space is a cognitive construct created out of our sensory inputs. If the sense modality (light for us, sound for bats) has a finite speed, that speed will become a fundamental property of the resultant space. And space and time will be coupled through the speed of the sense modality.

This, of course, is only my own humble interpretation of SR. I wanted to post this on a new thread, but I get the feeling that people are a little too attached to their own views in this forum to be able to listen.

Leo wrote:Minkowski spacetime is one interpretation of the Lorentz transforms, but other interpretations, the original Lorentz-Poincaré Relativity or modernized versions of it with a wave model of matter (LaFreniere or Close or many others), work in a perfectly euclidean 3D space.

So we end up with process slowdown and matter contraction, but NO time dilation or space contraction. The transforms are the same though. So why does one interpretation lead to tensor metric while the others don’t? Or do they all? I lack the theoretical background to answer the question.

Hi Leo,

If you define LT as a velocity dependent deformation of an object in motion, then you can make the transformation a function of time. There won’t be any warping and complications of metric tensors and stuff. Actually what I did in my book is something along those lines (though not quite), as you know.

The trouble arises when the transformation matrix is a function of the vector is transforming. So, if you define LT as a matrix operation in a 4-D space-time, you can no longer make it a function of time through acceleration any more than you can make it a function of position (as in a velocity field, for instance.) The space-time warping is a mathematical necessity. Because of it, you lose coordinates, and the tools that we learn in our undergraduate years are no longer powerful enough to handle the problem.

The Unreal Universe — Discussion with Gibran

Hi again,You raise a lot of interesting questions. Let me try to answer them one by one.

You’re saying that our observations of an object moving away from us would look identical in either an SR or Galilean context, and therefore this is not a good test for SR.

What I’m saying is slightly different. The coordinate transformation in SR is derived considering only receding objects and sensing it using radar-like round trip light travel time. It is then assumed that the transformation laws thus derived apply to all objects. Because the round trip light travel is used, the transformation works for approaching objects as well, but not for things moving in other directions. But SR assumes that the transformation is a property of space and time and asserts that it applies to all moving (inertial) frames of reference regardless of direction.

We have to go a little deeper and ask ourselves what that statement means, what it means to talk about the properties of space. We cannot think of a space independent of our perception. Physicists are typically not happy with this starting point of mine. They think of space as something that exists independent of our sensing it. And they insist that SR applies to this independently existing space. I beg to differ. I consider space as a cognitive construct based on our perceptual inputs. There is an underlying reality that is the cause of our perception of space. It may be nothing like space, but let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the underlying reality is like Galilean space-time. How would be perceive it, given that we perceive it using light (one-way travel of light, not two-way as SR assumes)? It turns out that our perceptual space would have time dilation and length contraction and all other effect predicted by SR. So my thesis is that the underlying reality obeys Galilean space-time and our perceptual space obeys something like SR. (It is possible that if I assume that our perception uses two-way light travel, I may get SR-like transformation. I haven’t done it because it seems obvious to me that we perceive a star, for instance, by sensing the light from it rather than flashing a light at it.)

This thesis doesn’t sit well with physicists, and indeed with most people. They mistakeperceptual effects to be something like optical illusions. My point is more like space itself is an illusion. If you look at the night sky, you know that the stars you see are not “real” in the sense that they are not there when you are looking at them. This is simply because the information carrier, namely light, has a finite speed. If the star under observation is in motion, our perception of its motion is distorted for the same reason. SR is an attempt to formalize our perception of motion. Since motion and speed are concepts that mix space and time, SR has to operate onspace-time continuum. Since SR is based on perceptual effects, it requires an observer and describes motion as he perceives it.

But are you actually saying that not a single experiment has been done with objects moving in any other direction than farther away? And what about experiments on time dilation where astronauts go into space and return with clocks showing less elapsed time than ones that stayed on the ground? Doesn’t this support the ideas inherent in SR?

Experiments are always interpreted in the light of a theory. It is always a model based interpretation. I know that this is not a convincing argument for you, so let me give you an example. Scientists have observed superluminal motion in certain celestial objects. They measure the angular speed of the celestial object, and they have some estimate of its distance from us, so they can estimate the speed. If we didn’t have SR, there would be nothing remarkable about this observation of superluminality. Since we do have SR, one has to find anexplanation for this. The explanation is this: when an object approaches us at a shallow angle, it can appear to come in quite a bit faster than its real speed. Thus the “real” speed is subluminal while the “apparent” speed may be superluminal. This interpretation of the observation, in my view, breaks the philosophical grounding of SR that it is a description of the motion as it appears to the observer.

Now, there are other observations of where almost symmetric ejecta are seen on opposing jets in symmetric celestial objects. The angular speeds may indicate superluminality in both the jets if the distance of the object is sufficiently large. Since the jets are assumed to be back-to-back, if one jet is approaching us (thereby giving us the illusion of superluminality), the other jet has bet receding and can never appear superluminal, unless, of course, the underlying motion is superluminal. The interpretation of this observation is that the distance of the object is limited by thefactthat real motion cannot be superluminal. This is what I mean by experiments being open to theory or model based interpretations.

In the case of moving clocks being slower, it is never a pure SR experiment because you cannot find space without gravity. Besides, one clock has to be accelerated or decelerated and GR applies. Otherwise, the age-old twin paradox would apply.

I know there have been some experiments done to support Einstein’s theories, like the bending of light due to gravity, but are you saying that all of them can be consistently re-interpreted according to your theory? If this is so, it’s dam surprising! I mean, no offense to youyou’re obviously a very bright individual, and you know much more about this stuff than I do, but I’d have to question how something like this slipped right through physicistsfingers for 100 years.

These are gravity related questions and fall under GR. My “theory doesn’t try to reinterpret GR or gravity at all. I put theory in inverted quotes because, to me, it is a rather obvious observation that there is a distinction between what we see and the underlying causes of our perception. The algebra involved is fairly simple by physics standards.

Supposing you’re right in that space and time are actually Galilean, and that the effects of SR are artifacts of our perception. How then are the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments explained? I’m sorry if you did explain it in your book, but it must have flown right over my head. Or are we leaving this as a mystery, an anomaly for future theorists to figure out?

I haven’t completely explained MMX, more or less leaving it as a mystery. I think the explanation hinges on how light is reflected off a moving mirror, which I pointed out in the book. Suppose the mirror is moving away from the light source at a speed of v in our frame of reference. Light strikes it at a speed of c-v. What is the speed of the reflected light? If the laws of reflection should hold (it’s not immediately obvious that they should), then the reflected light has to have a speed of c-v as well. This may explain why MMX gives null result. I haven’t worked out the whole thing though. I will, once I quit my day job and dedicate my life to full-time thinking. :-)

My idea is not a replacement theory for all of Einstein’s theories. It’s merely a reinterpretation of one part of SR. Since the rest of Einstein’s edifice is built on this coordinate transformation part, I’m sure there will be some reinterpretation of the rest of SR and GR also based on my idea. Again, this is a project for later. My reinterpretation is not an attempt to prove Einstein’s theories wrong; I merely want to point out that they apply to reality as we perceive it.

Overall, it was worth the $5 I payed. Thanks for the good read. Don’t take my questions as an assault on your proposalI’m honestly in the dark about these things and I absolutely crave light (he he). If you could kindly answer them in your spare time, I’d love to share more ideas with you. It’s good to find a fellow thinker to bounce cool ideas like this off of. I’ll PM you again once I’m fully done the book. Again, it was a very satisfying read.

Thanks! I’m glad that you like my ideas and my writing. I don’t mind criticism at all. Hope I have answered most of your questions. If not, or if you want to disagree with my answers, feel free to write back. Always a pleasure to chat about these things even if we don’t agree with each other.

Best regards,
– Manoj

Anti-görelilik ve Süperuminalite,,en,Leo yazdı,,en,Yine de giriş bölümünde bazı sorunlarım var,,en,hafif seyahat efektleri ve göreceli dönüşümlerle karşılaştığınızda,,en,Özel Görelilik anlayışında tüm algısal yanılsamaların ortadan kalktığını doğru bir şekilde söylüyorsunuz.,,en,ama bu algısal yanılsamaların Özel Göreliliğin bilişsel modeli için bilinçaltı bir temel olarak kaldığını da söylüyorsunuz.,,en,Ne demek istediğini anlıyor muyum yoksa yanlış mı anlıyorum,,en,Algısal etkiler fizikte bilinmektedir,,en,bunlara Hafif Seyahat Süresi efektleri denir,,en,LTT,,haw,kısaltma yapmak,,en,Bu etkiler, gözlem altındaki nesnenin hareketinde optik bir yanılsama olarak kabul edilir.,,en,LTT efektlerini çıkardıktan sonra,,en,sen al,,en,gerçek,,en,nesnenin hareketi,,en,Bu gerçek hareketin SR'ye itaat etmesi gerekiyor,,en

Leo wrote:I have some problems with the introductory part though, when you confront light travel effects and relativistic transforms. You correctly state that all perceptual illusions have been cleared away in the conception of Special Relativity, but you also say that these perceptual illusions remained as a subconscious basis for the cognitive model of Special Relativity. Do I understand what you mean or do I get it wrong?

The perceptual effects are known in physics; they are called Light Travel Time effects (LTT, to cook up an acronym). These effects are considered an optical illusion on the motion of the object under observation. Once you take out the LTT effects, you get the “real” motion of the object . This real motion is supposed to obey SR. Bu, SR'nin mevcut yorumu,,en,Benim argümanım, LTT etkilerinin SR'ye o kadar benzer olduğu ki, SR'yi sadece LTT'nin resmileştirilmesi olarak düşünmeliyiz,,en,biraz hatalı bir resmileştirme.,,en,Bu argümanın birçok nedeni,,en,Biz çözemeyiz,,en,göz aldanması,,en,çünkü birçok temel konfigürasyon aynı algıyı doğurur,,en,Gördüğümüzden algımıza neden olana gitmek birden çok soruna,,en,SR koordinat dönüşümü kısmen LTT etkilerine dayanır,,en,LTT etkileri göreceli etkilerden daha güçlüdür,,en,Muhtemelen bu nedenlerden dolayı,,en,SR'nin yaptığı şey, gördüğümüzün gerçekten neye benzediğini söylemektir.,,en,Daha sonra gördüklerimizi matematiksel olarak tanımlamaya çalışır.,,en,Bir resmileştirmeden kastettiğim bu,,en,LTT etkilerinin SR ile tam olarak eşleşmediğini anladığımızda,,en.

My argument is that the LTT effects are so similar to SR that we should think of SR as just a formalization of LTT. (In fact, a slightly erroneous formalization.) Many reasons for this argument:
1. We cannot disentagle the “optical illusion” because many underlying configurations give rise to the same perception. In other words, going from what we see to what is causing our perception is a one to many problem.
2. SR coordinate transformation is partially based on LTT effects.
3. LTT effects are stronger than relativistic effects.

Probably for these reasons, what SR does is to say that what we see is what it is really like. It then tries to mathematically describe what we see. (This is what I meant by a formaliztion. ) Later on, when we figured out that LTT effects didn’t quite match with SR (gözleminde olduğu gibi,,en,bariz,,en,lümen üstü hareket,,en,yapmamız gerektiğini düşündük,,en,Çıkarmak,,en,LTT etkileri ve ardından temeldeki hareketin,,en,veya uzay ve zaman,,en,SR'ye uy,,en,Kitabımda ve makalelerimde önerdiğim şey, temelde yatan uzay ve zamanın nasıl olduğunu tahmin etmemiz ve ona ilişkin algımızın ne olacağını bulmamız gerektiğidir.,,en,çünkü diğer tarafa gitmek kötü niyetli bire çok bir sorundur,,en,İlk tahminim,,en,doğal olarak,,en,Galile uzay-zamanıydı,,en,Bu tahmin, GRB'lerin ve DRAGN'lerin lümen patlamaları ve bunların sonuçları olarak oldukça düzgün ve basit açıklamalarıyla sonuçlanır.,,en,Daily Mail'de Tartışma,,en,İngiltere,,en,Daily Mail forumunda,,en,bir katılımcı,,en,isimde ne,,en,hakkında konuşmaya başladı,,en,Temmuzda,,en,Forumda oldukça acımasızca saldırıya uğradı,,en “apparent” superluminal motion), we thought we had to “take out” the LTT effects and then say that the underlying motion (or space and time) obeyed SR. What I’m suggesting in my book and articles is that we should just guess what the underlying space and time are like and work out what our perception of it will be (because going the other way is an ill-posed one-to-many problem). My first guess, naturally, was Galilean space-time. This guess results in a rather neat and simple explantions of GRBs and DRAGNs as luminal booms and their aftermath.

Discussion on the Daily Mail (UK)

On the Daily Mail forum, one participant (called “whats-in-a-name”) started talking about The Unreal Universe on July 15, 2006. It was attacked fairly viciously on the forum. Bunu bir Web araması sırasında gördüm ve devreye girip onu savunmaya karar verdim,,en,tarafından gönderildi,,en,isimde ne var,,en,AM,,en,Ah,,en,Kek,,tr,Yapmam gereken şeyden uzaklaşmam için bana bir neden daha verdin,,en,ve bunun şu anda daha ilginç olduğunu söyleyebilirim,,en,Bazı fikirleri formüle etmeye çalışıyorum ve bir tane geliyor,,en,ama bunu sana parçalar halinde vermem gerekecek,,en,Sahte bilime dalmak veya her şeyi kuantum teorisi ile açıklayabileceğinizi söyleyen woo-ish yola çıkmak istemiyorum,,en,ama buradan başlamayı dene,,en,,,en,Dergi Makalesi,,en,alt kısımdaki bağlantı, başka yerde tartıştığımız bazı noktalara değiniyor,,en,Biraz konu dışı,,en,ama sen de bulabilirsin,,en,sol üstteki bağlantı ilginç,,en,Patopreto üzerinde,,fi,ÖS,,en.

15 July, 2006

Posted by: whats-in-a-name on 15/07/06 at 09:28 AM

Ah, Kek, you’ve given me a further reason to be distracted from what I should be doing- and I can tell you that this is more interesting at the moment.I’ve been trying to formulate some ideas and there’s one coming- but I’ll have to give it to you in bits.I don’t want to delve into pseudoscience or take the woo-ish road that says that you can explain everything with quantum theory, but try starting here:

The “Journal Article” link at the bottom touches on some of the points that we discussed elsewhere. It goes slightly off-topic, but you might also find the “Philosophy” link at the top left interesting.

Posted by: patopreto on 15/07/06 at 06:17 PM

O web sitesi ile ilgili olarak wian. Bu cümleyi geçmeye gerek yok,,en,Fizik teorileri gerçekliğin bir açıklamasıdır,,en,Gerçeklik, duyularımızdan gelen okumalardan yaratılır,,en,Duyularımızın, aracı olarak ışığı kullanarak çalıştığını bilmek,,en,Gerçekliğimizde ışık hızının temel öneme sahip olması sürpriz mi?,,en,web sitesinin tamamen cahil olduğunu anlamak için,,en,O noktada durdum,,en,Bunu biraz daha dikkatli okumak için geri döndüm,,en,Yazarın bunu neden böyle ifade ettiğini bilmiyorum ama kesinlikle ne demek istediği,,en,ben,,en,Neyin gerçek olduğuna dair algımız, duyularımızdan gelen okumalardan oluşur.,,en, Bence çoğu fizikçi bununla tartışmazdı.,,en –

The theories of physics are a description of reality. Reality is created out of the readings from our senses. Knowing that our senses all work using light as an intermediary, is it a surprise that the speed of light is of fundamental importance in our reality?

to realise that tis web site is complete ignorant hokum. I stopped at that point.

16 July, 2006

Posted by: whats-in-a-name on 16/07/06 at 09:04 AM

I’ve just been back to read that bit more carefully. I don’t know why the writer phrased it like that but surely what he meant was:(i) “Our perception of what is real is created out of the readings from our senses.” I think that most physicists wouldn’t argue with that would they? Kuantum seviyesinde, anladığımız şekliyle gerçeklik yoktur,,en,Sadece parçacıkların bir yerde veya durumda diğerinden daha fazla var olma eğiliminde olduğunu söyleyebilirsiniz.,,en,ii,,en,Optik veya radyo teleskoplarından aldığımız bilgiler,,en,gama ışını dedektörleri ve benzerleri,,en,uzaktaki nesnelerin durumunu geçmişte olduğu gibi gösterir,,en,radyasyonun geçiş süresi nedeniyle,,en,Uzayın derinliklerine inmek, bu nedenle evrenin tarihine daha da bakmamızı sağlar.,,en,Konuyu ifade etmenin alışılmadık bir yolu,,en,Katılıyorum,,en,ancak oradaki diğer bilgilerin değerini düşürmez,,en,Özellikle, daha fazla ayrıntıya giren diğer makalelere bağlantılar var,,en,ama daha genel bir görüş sunan bir şeyle başlamak istedim,,en; you can only say that particles have more of a tendency to exist in one place or state than another.(ii) The information that we pick up from optical or radio telescopes, gamma-ray detectors and the like, shows the state of distant objects as they were in the past, owing to the transit time of the radiation. Delving deeper into space therefore enables us to look further back into the history of the universe.It’s an unusual way to express the point, I agree, but it doesn’t devalue the other information on there. In particular there are links to other papers that go into rather more detail, but I wanted to start with something that offered a more general view.

Fizik çalışmanızın benimkinden çok daha ileri olduğu izlenimini edindim.,,en,daha önce de söylediğim gibi ben sadece amatörüm,,en,Muhtemelen ilgimi çoğundan biraz daha ileri götürmüş olsam da,,en,Sebeplerimden herhangi biri kusurluysa düzeltilmekten mutluyum,,en,Şimdiye kadar söylediklerim oldukça basit şeyler,,en,Keka’nın meydan okumasına yanıt olarak ifade etmeye çalıştığım fikirler yine bana ait,,en,Senin veya bir başkasının onları devirmesine oldukça hazırım,,en,Hala düşüncelerimi formüle ediyorum ve fizikçilerin maddenin doğasını kullandıkları modeli düşünerek başlamak istedim.,,en,Plank mesafesinde ve kuantum belirsizliğinde uzay-zamanın grenli yapısına inmek,,en- as I’ve said previously I’m only an amateur, though I’ve probably taken my interest a bit further than most. I’m happy to be corrected if any of my reasoning is flawed, though what I’ve said so far s quite basic stuff.

The ideas that I’m trying to express in response to Keka’s challenge are my own and again, I’m quite prepared to have you or anyone else knock them down. I’m still formulating my thoughts and I wanted to start by considering the model that physicists use of the nature of matter, going down to the grainy structure of spacetime at the Plank distance and quantum uncertainty.

Buna bir veya iki gün içinde geri dönmem gerekecek,,en,ama bu arada siz veya bir başkası muhalif bir görüş sunmak isterse,,en,lütfen yap,,en,Bence yazım çok net,,en,WIAN,,jw,farklı bir şey ifade etmek için söylediği şeyi yeniden yazdın,,en,Yazar oldukça açık,,en,Uzay ve zamanın beyin tarafından yaratılan bilişsel modelin bir parçası olduğunu kabul ettiğimizde,,en,ve bu özel görelilik bilişsel model için geçerlidir,,en,modelin ardındaki fiziksel nedenler üzerinde düşünebiliriz,,en,mutlak gerçekliğin kendisi.,,en, ,,en,Blah Blah Blah,,en,Yazar,,en,Singapur'daki OCBC bankasının bir çalışanıdır ve kendini,,en,amatör filozof,,en,Yazdığı şey, dinsel olarak etkilenmiş solipsistik felsefeden başka bir şey değil gibi görünüyor.,,en,Solipsizm, felsefi bir bakış açısı olarak ilginçtir, ancak çabucak dağılır,,en, but meanwhile if you or anyone else wants to offer an opposing view, please do.

Posted by: patopreto on 16/07/06 at 10:52 AM

I don’t know why the writer phrased it like that but surely what he meant was:

I think the write is quit clear! WIAN – you have re-written what he says to mean something different.

The writer is quite clear – “Once we accept that space and time are a part of the cognitive model created by the brain, and that special relativity applies to the cognitive model, we can ponder over the physical causes behind the model, the absolute reality itself.”

Blah Blah Blah!

The writer, Manoj Thulasidas, is an employee of OCBC bank in Singapore and self-described “amateur philosopher”. What is he writes appears to be nothing more than a religiously influenced solipsistic philosophy. Solipsism is interesting as a philosophical standpoint but quickly falls apart. Manoj argümanlarına açıklama yapmadan böylesine sallantılı bir zeminden başlayabilirse,,en,o zaman onun tanımlamalarını kabul etmekten başka bir yolum kalmadı.,,en,amatör,,en,Belki MEQUACK'e geri dönelim,,en,Süperuminal Lazer Noktaları,,en,Tavandaki lazer noktasının görünümü üzerine Bilim Forumlarında bir tartışma,,en,Tavana bir lazer noktasını işaret edip lazer tabancasını yeterince hızlı döndürdüyseniz,,en,süper lümen lazer noktaları oluşturabilirsiniz,,en,Yapabildin mi,,en,Gerçekten mi,,en,Gerçek nedir,,en,Ranga ile tartışmalar,,en,Yorum Yap,,en,Bu gönderi, arkadaşım Ranga ile yaptığım uzun bir e-posta tartışması.,,en,Konu, şeylerin gerçekliğinin gerçek olmaması ve bu kavramın fizikte nasıl uygulanabileceğiydi.,,en,Tekrar tartışmadan geçiyor,,en,Ranga'nın felsefe konularında benden daha bilgili olduğunu düşündüğünü hissediyorum.,,en,ben de yaptım,,en, then I really have no other course to take than to accept his descriptions of himself as “amateur”.

Maybe back to MEQUACK!

What is Real? Discussions with Ranga.

This post is a long email discussion I had with my friend Ranga. The topic was the unreality of reality of things and how this notion can be applied in physics.

Going through the debate again, I feel that Ranga considers himself better-versed in the matters of philosophy than I am. I do too, Onun benden daha iyi okuduğunu düşünüyorum,,en,Ama onun varsayımını hissediyorum,,en,o kadar çok şey bilmiyordum ki böyle şeyler hakkında konuşmalıydım,,en,fikrini önyargılı yapmış ve onu gerçekten yeni şeylerden bazılarına kör etmiş olabilir,,en,bence,,en,Söylemek zorunda kaldım,,en,Her şeye rağmen,,en,Bence münazara sırasında ortaya çıkan, genel ilgi alanı olabilecek birkaç ilginç nokta var.,,en,Okunabilirlik için tartışmayı düzenledim ve biçimlendirdim,,en,Pek çok zeki insanın bu blogda ve kitabımda bahsettiğim şeyler üzerine kafa yorduğu doğrudur.,,en,Ve düşüncelerini eserlerinde dile getirdiler,,en,muhtemelen benimkinden daha iyi,,en,Her ne kadar mevcut yazıların üzerinden geçmek her zaman iyi bir fikir olsa da,,en,kafamı temizle,,en. But I feel that his assumption (that I didn’t know so much that I should be talking about such things) may have biased his opinion and blinded him to some of the genuinely new things (in my opinion, of course) I had to say. Nonetheless, I think there are quite a few interesting points that came out during the debate that may be of general interest. I have edited and formatted the debate for readability.

It is true that many bright people have pondered over the things I talk about in this blog and in my book. And they have articulated their thoughts in their works, probably better than I have in mine. Although it is always a good idea to go through the existing writings to “clear my head” (yorumcularımdan birinin David Humes'u önerirken önerdiği gibi,,en,bu kadar geniş okuma doğal bir risk oluşturur,,en,Yazıları okumak ve anlamak için gereken zaman ve bununla ilgili düşünmenin fırsat maliyeti çok fazla değil.,,en,aynı zamanda okuduğunuz her şeyin sizde özümsenmesi ve düşüncelerinizin bu parlak düşünürlerden etkilenmesi gerçeğidir.,,en,Bu iyi bir şey olsa da,,en,Aslında orijinal düşünceye zarar veriyormuş gibi bakıyorum,,en,Uç noktaya götürüldü,,en,bu tür kör bir asimilasyon, düşüncelerinizin bu klasik düşünce okullarının yalnızca yetersizliğine dönüşmesine neden olabilir.,,en,Hermann Hesse'nin ima ettiği gibi,,en,Siddhartha,,en,bilgelik öğretilemez,,en,İçeriden üretilmeli,,en,Ranga’nın kelimeleri Yeşil renklidir,,en,İkinci kez alıntı yapıldığında mavi,,en), such wide reading creates an inherent risk. It is not so much the time it will take to read and understand the writings and the associated opportunity cost in thinking; it is also the fact that everything you read gets assimilated in you and your opinions become influenced by these brilliant thinkers. While that may be a good thing, I look at it as though it may actually be detrimental to original thought. Taken to the extreme, such blind assimilation may result in your opinions becoming mere regurgitation of these classical schools of thought.

Besides, as Hermann Hesse implies in Siddhartha, wisdom cannot be taught. It has to be generated from within.

Ranga’s words are colored Green (or Blue when quoted for the second time).

Benimki Beyaz,,en,İkinci kez alıntı yapıldığında mor,,en,Pzt,,en,Ben,,en,farklı boyutlara,,en,filozofların ve bilim adamlarının olağanüstü ve fiziksel gerçekler açısından yaptıkları ayrımlara aşina,,en,Upanishads'ın eserlerinden,,en,Advaitas / Dvaitas'a,,en,Schopenhauer Noumenon / Fenomenine,,en,ve Özel Göreliliğin Blok Evreni,,en,ve hatta fizikteki son teoriler,,en,Kaluza ve Klein,,en,Algıladığımız şeyin illa ki ne olmadığı anlayışı,,en,uzun zamandan beri çeşitli şekillerde var oldu,,en,bu tür anlayışlar kolayca benimsenmedi ve tüm bilimlere dahil edilmedi,,en,Nörobilim ve sosyal bilimlerde bununla ilgili muazzam bir literatür var,,en,bunu fiziğe getirmeye çalışmış olmanız gerçekten çok iyi,,en,bu konudaki önceki tartışmamızı hatırlayarak,,en (or Purple when quoted for the second time).

Mon, May 21, 2007 at 8:07 PM.

I’m, to different extents, familiar with the distinction philosophers and scientists make in terms of phenomenal and physical realities – from the works of Upanishads, to the Advaitas/Dvaitas, to the Noumenon/Phenomenon of Schopenhauer, and the block Universe of Special Relativity, and even the recent theories in physics (Kaluza and Klein). The insight that what we perceive is not necessarily what “is”, existed in a variety of ways from a long time. However, such insights were not readily embraced and incorporated in all sciences. There is a enormous literature on this in neuroscience and social sciences. So, it is indeed very good that you have attempted to bring this in to physics – by recollecting our previous discussion on this, web sitesinde kitaba girişinizi okuyarak ve kağıdınızın eğimini anlayarak,,en,dergide bulamadım,,en,kabul edildi mi,,en,Süperuminal hareket olabileceğini öne sürmek ve GRB'ler gibi bilinen fenomenleri bir tuhaflıkla açıklamak,,en,bizim algımızda,,en,fiziksel aletlerde bile,,en,cesurdur ve alandaki diğer kişiler tarafından dikkatlice ilgilenilmesi gerekir,,en,Her zaman soru sormalı,,en,algılanan,,en,sınırlar,,en,bu durumda tabii ki ışık hızı,,en,oldukça yanlış ve yüzeysel,,en,bazılarının olduğunu düşünmek,,en,mutlak,,en,ötesinde gerçeklik,,en,karşılaşıyoruz,,en,İçimizde farklı bireyler için birden çok gerçek olduğunu bilmek önemli olsa da,,en,ve hatta farklı organizmalar,,en,duyulara ve zekaya bağlı olarak,,en (could not find it in the journal – has it been accepted?). To suggest that there could be superluminal motion and to explain known phenomena such as GRBs through a quirk (?) in our perception (even in the physical instruments) is bold and needs careful attention by others in the field. One should always ask questions to cross “perceived” boundaries – in this case of course the speed of light.

However, it is quite inaccurate and superficial (in my opinion) to think that there is some “absolute” reality beyond the “reality” we encounter. While it is important to know that there are multiple realities for different individuals in us, and even different organisms, depending on senses and intellect, Herhangi bir algı olmadığında sonuçta gerçekliğin ne olduğunu sormak da eşit derecede önemlidir,,en,Herhangi bir yolla erişilemiyorsa,,en,her neyse ne,,en,Hiç böyle bir şey var mı,,en,Gezegenlerin hareketinde Mutlak Gerçeklik,,en,İçinde organizma olmayan yıldızlar ve galaksiler,,en,Algılayacak kimse yokken onları kim algılar?,,en,Hangi formu alıyorlar,,en,Form var mı,,en,Felsefeyi uygularken,,en,daha derin ve daha cesur sorular okudum,,en,bilime,,en,bu soruları cevaplamak için ciddi bir girişim olarak okudum,,en,yöntemlerinde yarı yolda olamazsın,,en,bazı soruların şimdilik fazla felsefi veya çok teolojik olduğuna dair hayali sınırlar çizmek,,en,Kitabın,,en,en azından özet,,en,eve önemli bir noktayı getiriyor gibi görünüyor,,en,en azından bu yönde düşünmeyenlere,,en. If it cannot be accessed by any means, what is it anyway? Is there such a thing at all? Is Absolute Reality in the movement of planets, stars and galaxies without organisms in them? Who perceives them as such when there is nobody to perceive? What form do they take? Is there form? In applying philosophy (which I read just as deeper and bolder questions) to science (which I read as a serious attempt to answer those questions), you cannot be half-way in your methods, drawing imaginary boundaries that some questions are too philosophical or too theological for now.

While your book (the summary at least) seems to bring home an important point (at least to those who have not thought in this direction) Algıladığımız gerçekliğin ortama / moda bağlı olduğu,,en,bazı durumlarda ışık,,en,ve enstrüman,,en,duyu organı ve beyin,,en,algılamak için kullanırız,,en,bu algısal hataları ortadan kaldırdığınız zaman Mutlak Gerçekliğin var olduğuna dair yüzeysel bir fikri geride bırakıyor gibi görünüyor.,,en,Algısal hatalar mı,,en,algısal araçlar ve algılar gerçekliğin bir parçası değildir,,en,Tüm algılarımızın toplamının ötesinde başka bir gerçeklik olduğunu ileri sürmek felsefi olarak eşit derecede hatalı, algıladığımız şeyin tek gerçeklik olduğunu öne sürmek kadar yanlıştır.,,en,Hepsi aynı,,en,gerçeklik ya da onun eksikliği hakkındaki soru, fizik bilimlerine iyi bir şekilde dahil edilmemiştir ve bu konuda size en iyisini diliyorum,,en,Şerefe,,en,Sınıflar,,ga (light in some cases) and the instrument (sense organ and brain) we use for perceiving, it seems to leave behind a superficial idea that there is Absolute Reality when you remove these perceptual errors. Are they perceptual errors – aren’t perceptual instruments and perceptions themselves part of reality itself? To suggest that there is some other reality beyond the sum of all our perceptions is philosophically equally erroneous as suggesting that what we perceive is the only reality.

All the same, the question about reality or the lack of it has not been well incorporated into the physical sciences and I wish you the best in this regard.