On 9/5/2021 12:54 PM, Simon Laub wrote:

>   According to some physicists there is no
> reality beyond what is revealed by an experiment, an observation.

The problems with objective observations for
understanding reality are many and profound.

For starters, reality is constantly and chaotically
changing. In order to turn an objective observation
into a 'fact' all can agree upon such observations
must be limited to 'snap-shots' of reality.
After all how can anything that's constantly and
chaotically changing be accurately detailed
unless it's simplified to the point a fact
can be generated?

Problem with simplifying reality to the point
it can be turned into objective facts is
that the most defining aspects of reality
are emergent in character. And emergent system
properties only exist when the system is operating.

Like a system tendency.

The truly definitive information about reality
and nature disappear the moment the system is
broken down into parts for an objective or
snap-shot observation. Those definitive
system tendencies vaporize into thin air.

Next, any objective observation suffers from
the entirely contradictory notion of removing
the subjective observer from the observations
in order to get an accurate or objective observation.
Objective observations are filtered...first
through our objective minds and senses rendering
them a contradiction in terms.

The gross contradiction is...

We observe via our subjective senses in order to remove
objective bias.

Objective observations are fine for simple systems
such as building things or extraordinarily simple
natural systems. But virtually all real world systems
are complex and require an output driven science where
the emergent effects or output becomes the primary source
of knowledge concerning reality.

To make sense out of reality we must RETURN the observer
to the observations JUST AS EINSTEIN DID with relativity
where all observations are made...relative...the observer.
Einstein returned the observer as part of the observations
and suddenly space time makes complete sense.

So it is with generally observing nature.
The observer must be included first, all observations
relative the observer, or subjective in character.
This is accomplished by the observer defining in advance
whether the observed is to be treated as a part or a whole.

Of course I'm a whole, but I'm also a part
to a greater whole called society. The problem
is a part and a whole have two entirely different
behavioral characteristics. So by including
the observer, and making the arbitrary decision
whether the observer is one-or-the-other we
can then limit the boundaries of the observed
and apply the correct scientific axioms and tools
depending on whether we are observing a part or
a whole.

This eliminates the intractable objective
problem of infinite regressions. After all
every part is also a whole in it's own right.

So when do you stop reducing from the whole
to the parts? From a universe to a cell to to a quark?

In objective reductionism we would have to quantify
the entirety of reality and all at the same time to
get an accurate view. Or for nature observe both the
life and it's environment all at the same time.
Made even more intractable since all is in motion
and often chaotically changing.

So in frustration we reduce and reduce and reduce
until all is so simple and easy to quantify.
But we've simplified away what we're looking for
as the secrets to nature and reality are emergent.
Not to be seen in the parts, only the output of
the whole.

Switching to a complexity, or a 'subjective' frame
for observing eliminates all of those issues and
gives us a simple and accurate view as the output
includes the effects of ALL the parts, chaotic or not.

The new way is to observe the system output first
and use that information as the basis of understanding
nature.

Not the part details.

> And then there is the ''many-worlds'' interpretion of
> quantum theory, where each outcome of an experiment
> exists, somewhere in a multiverse. In some universes
> the Schrödinger's cat is alive, in others the cat is dead.
>
>   With cats living in superposition of being dead and alive,
> it has been difficult to find firm ground to stand on and
> move forward from. Indeed, when the science sounds like fiction,

That analogy of Schrodinger's cat only shows how little
we understand nature then and now. And in no way explains
reality. Let me explain.

Is a cloud water or vapor?

A cloud is a complex system that stands poised at
the phase transition or threshold...between it's
possible opposing states of matter, water and vapor.

When we take a snap-shot of a cloud we will see
EITHER water or vapor exactly 50% of the time.
But /in reality/ it's a complex system constantly
and chaotically transitioning back and forth
between water and vapor. Our objective observation
gives the appearance of a mystery, when in fact
the only confusion comes from the attempt to
make the objective observation.

The very same effect occurs with light, it's constantly
and chaotically transitioning between a particle and
a wave, the two opposing states of matter possible
for that system. And when we objectively observe
or take a snap-shot we will see one-or-the-other
exactly 50% of the time given enough observations.

Nothing mysterious about it, no more than a pedestrian
cloud passing overhead.

But this effect shows that reality is best seen
in the analogy of a cloud, or a sea shore.
NOT in the ultra-micro or ultra-macro such
as light or galaxies, or quarks to quasars
so to speak.

But reality is best seen in everyday and very approachable
analogues like clouds, sea shores or ideas.

> it has been difficult to move on from the science, - and explore and
> play with reality in say science fiction. Surely, there must be
> some firm ground somewhere in order for us to move forward?
>

There is an entirely new scientific world view where
all these contradictions melt away and reality
begins to not only make sense, but is seen as
being utterly simple.

Almost too simple to believe.

And the answer is to take the Darwinian evolution
we all know and love, but place it entirely in
abstract mathematical form. Which allows us
to see what ALL THINGS HAVE IN COMMON wrt
to their creation and evolution.

And doing that something astonishing happens.

For the first time we can see what is common
to all visible order in the universe whether
life, the universe itself or even the mind.

And what is common to all is as simple as that
passing cloud.

All visible order is created and evolves when
standing poised at the critical threshold
between it's opposites in possibility space.

Creation and evolution spontaneously emerge when
at the threshold or transition point between
....order and disorder.

Whether a cloud standing between it's opposites.

....water (order) and vapor (disorder)

Or a universe standing between it's opposites.

....gravity (order) and cosmic expansion (disorder)

Or light standing between it's opposites.

....particle (order) or wave (disorder)

Or Darwinian evolution between it's opposites

....genetics (order) or natural selection (disorder)

Or our society standing between it's opposites

....laws (order) and freedom (disorder)
[Constitution and Bill of Rights]

Or even ideas standing between it's opposites

....facts (order) or imagination (disorder)

Or even a sea shore standing between it's opposites
of solid (order) and liquid (disorder)

It's ALL THAT SIMPLE. Simple enough for a child.
Maybe too simple you might object? But isn't
simplicity and elegance the ultimate test of Truth?

Thanks for reading

Jonathan

It's all here, even Emily intuitively knew all this 150 years ago
the new scientific world-view now called complexity theory.

Growth of Man—like Growth of Nature—
Gravitates within—
Atmosphere, and Sun endorse it—
Bit it stir—alone—

Each—its difficult Ideal
Must achieve—Itself—
Through the solitary prowess
Of a Silent Life—

Effort—is the sole condition—
Patience of Itself—
Patience of opposing forces—
And intact Belief—

Looking on—is the Department
Of its Audience—
But Transaction—is assisted
By no Countenance—

~ E Dickinson

Types and Forms of Emergence
Jochen Fromm
Distributed Systems Group,
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science,
Universität Kassel, Germany

"The process of emergence deals with the fundamental question:
“how does an entity come into existence?”
https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf

Natural Order - Self-Organizing Systems FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions

1.3 Definition of Complexity Theory

The main current scientific theory related to self-organization
is Complexity Theory, which states:

"Critically interacting components self-organize to form
potentially evolving structures exhibiting a hierarchy
of emergent system properties."
https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf

s

--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie