What is Real? Discussions with Ranga.

Thu, Mei 24, 2007 op 5:25 AM Hi Ranga,

I will reply in detail later, but want to respond to a couple of points. One is about how to prove that there is no light barrier in AR. As you rightly pointed out, I can’t. In my mening, I don’t think one needs to prove it. Let me put it this waysuppose we lived in box. One fine morning, we find an arc from one wall to another. Then one bright handsome guy (me 🙂 comes up with the notion that the arc is a part of a big circle outside the box. There is no way to prove it because we cannot see outside the box. Behalwe, it may simply be wrong. But the notion is consistent with the arc. If there are other measurements (soos dat die waargenome reistyd van 'n voorwerp by die een muur verdwyn en weer aan die ander kant verskyn, ooreenstem met die omtrek van die sirkel,,en,ons kan vertroue hê in die idee,,en,Dit is ongeveer waar ek is,,en,Ek het 'n verduideliking waarom die spoed van lig in ons persepsie van beweging voorkom,,en,en ek het 'n paar ander waarnemings,,en,GRBs,,en,radio jets ens,,fr,wat ooreenstem met die verduideliking,,en,Nou oor wie se PR ek praat,,en,dit is die PR wat deur lig geskep word,,en,spesifiek,,en,die persepsie van beweging soos gemeet met behulp van lig,,en,Oor die teenwoordigheid van ander sintuie wat nie op lig vertrou nie,,en,al die interaksies wat ons kan opspoor, is van elektromagnetiese verskeidenheid,,en,En foton is die bemiddelende boson vir EM-interaksies in QED,,en), we can have some confidence on the notion. This is roughly where I am. I have an explanation why the speed of light appears in our perception of motion, and I have some other observations (GRBs, radio jets etc) that are consistent with the explanation.

Now about whose PR I am talking about, it is the PR that is created by light. Specifically, the perception of motion as measured using light. About the presence of other senses that don’t seem to rely on light — all the interactions that we are capable of sensing are of electromagnetic variety. And photon is the mediating boson for EM interactions in QED. Daar kan dus geargumenteer word dat ons slegs EM-materie met behulp van foton ervaar,,en,Ek het nogal 'n bietjie meer daaroor in my boek,,en,Oor die blinde man se gevoel van ruimte,,en,die antwoord lê in die rol van taal in die skepping van ons werklikheid,,en,Taal dien om ons afsonderlike perseptuele realiteite te normaliseer,,en,Om die rol daarvan ten volle te waardeer,,en,moet ons iemand vind wat vir 'n tyd lank nie 'n taal het nie en dit dan verwerf het,,en,Soos Helen Keller,,en,Ek het dit in die detail bespreek,,en,as u 'n klomp geïsoleerde blinde mense gehad het,,en,as 'n blinde beskawing met sy eie taal,,en,Ek dink nie hulle sal 'n kognitiewe voorstelling van die ruimte hê nie,,en,'n ander bewering wat nie getoets of geverifieer kan word nie,,en,Terug te keer na die behoefte om my,,en,vir AR,,en. I have quite a bit more about it in my book.

About the blind man’s sense of space, the answer lies in the role of language in creating our reality. Language serves to normalize our separate perceptual realities. In order to appreciate its role fully, we have to find someone who didn’t have a language for sometime and then acquired it. Like Helen Keller. I went into it in some detail in the book. My point is, if you had a bunch of isolated blind people (as a blind civilization with its own language), I don’t think they will have a cognitive representation of space. Weer, another assertion that cannot be tested or verified.

Coming back to the need to validate my “model” for AR — ons het 'n goeie idee van hoe ons sintuie op makrovlak werk,,en,as ons kyk na 'n ster 'n miljoen ligjare weg,,en,ons weet dat wat ons sien, is wat 'n miljoen jaar gelede gebeur het,,en,Hierdie tydvertraging is 'n eerste-orde-effek van die eindige ligspoed,,en,'N Tweede orde-effek is die manifestasie van die eindige spoed van lig in ons persepsie van beweging,,en,Ons kan hierdie manifestasie nie ontbind uit ons persepsie van beweging nie,,en,een rede waarom die PR-,,en,AR-kartering is een vir baie,,en,Net soos verifieerbaarheid,,en,vervalsbaarheid is ook 'n vereiste kenmerk van 'n teorie,,en,Ek noem wel 'n paar kenmerke van GRB's en radiojets,,en,indien waargeneem,,en,sou bewys dat my teorie verkeerd is,,en. Ek bedoel, when we look at a star a million light years away, we know that what we are seeing is what happened a million years ago. This time delay is a first order effect of the finite speed of light. A second order effect is the manifestation of the finite speed of light in our perception of motion. We cannot deconvolute out this manifestation from our perception of motion (one reason why the PR->AR mapping is one to many). Egter, given a model, we can certainly verify whether it is consistent with our PR.

Just like verifiability, falsifiability is also a required feature of a theory. I do list a couple of features of GRBs and radio jets that, if observed, would prove that my theory is wrong.

Die rede waarom lig spesiaal is in my verduideliking, is nie die voorkeur van my fisikus in terme van massa-energie vergelyking nie,,en,die geldigheid daarvan,,en,Ek is nou effens skepties oor,,en,Dit is net omdat ruimte die voorstelling van ons sigsin is,,en,Baie soos klank is 'n produk van gehoor,,en,'n analogie wat ek in 'n sekere mate in die boek ondersoek,,en,As ons dinge sien beweeg in ons ruimtelike voorstelling,,en,ons brein se aanname is dat die spoed van lig oneindig is,,en,Die ontbinding waaroor ek gepraat het,,en,modellering van AR van PR,,en,is 'n poging om 'n ruimte voor te stel waar die spoed van lig regtig oneindig is,,en,U pas dan die eindige snelheid toe en bepaal hoe ons persepsie deur hierdie eindige snelheid verdraai word,,en,die koördinaat transformasie deel,,en (the validity of which, I’m slightly skeptical of right now :). It is just because space is the representation of our sight sense. Much like sound is a product of hearing — an analogy I go into in some length in the book.

When we see things moving in our space representation, our brain’s assumption is that the speed of light is infinite. The deconvolution I was talking about (modeling AR from PR) is an effort to imagine a space where the speed of light is really infinity. You then apply the finite speed and work out how our perception will be distorted due to this finite speed. SR (the coordinate transformation part) is regtig 'n kartering van die snelheid van lig tot oneindig,,en,'n idee wat ek in die boek illustreer,,en,Ek voel asof ek my boek in my e-posse aan u herskryf,,en,sonder die voordeel om die idees op 'n gestruktureerde en oortuigende manier aan te bied,,en,U sal die boek moet lees,,en,Nog 'n punt waarby ek meer tyd moet kry,,en. Weer, a notion I illustrate in the book.

I feel as though I’m rewriting my book in my emails to you, without the benefit of being able to present the ideas in a structured and convincing manner. You are going to have to read the book!

I don’t remember whether we have talked about observed superluminality? Another point I have to get into when I have some more time.

– cheers,
– Hands

Kommentaar

One thought on “What is Real? Discussions with Ranga.”

Kommentaar is gesluit.