What is physical reality?

May 23, 2017

I want to write down my thoughts about what is physical reality. I do not assume that my ideas on this is something novel, but want to share it anyway. If somebody knows a philosopher with similar ideas, please notify me.

Physical reality may be roughly described (by definition!) as the reality which we can feel (see, hear, etc.) and measure. The below is dedicated to elaborate this rough definition in more details.

First, we take as granted that physical reality is some mathematical object (in wide sense of this word).

Physical reality conforms to some mathematical “restrictions” (called “laws of physics”). In the hope to understand reality people assume that these restrictions are simple enough mathematical formulas.

Physical reality is assumed to be experimentally verifiable, what means simply that all kinds of projections of physical reality somehow influence our feelings (well, experimental verifiability also requires that they influence our feelings in a predictable way, but I skip this topic). Invisible things like God or a some vector field which cannot be measured in any way do not belong to physical reality. Speaking about “kinds” of projections, I keep in mind that some particular projections of physical reality may be immeasurable accordingly known laws of physics. (For example, we cannot measure the part of the metagalaxy which is outside Hubble sphere because they move away from us at above light speed.)

The next natural question to ask is what it means “to feel” or “to measure”. There is no strict distinction between to feel and to measure: To measure is to feel using some means of increased reliability and exactness (often using some sophisticated device between the measured object and our sensory organs).

We “feel” something when our brain is influenced by something in physical reality. The brain (or taking wider, our body together with some measuring devices) is itself a physical object (that is a part of physical reality).

I will skip the question that we cannot define the word brain with technical precision, but we know what is and what isn’t a brain with a great number of details.

We can define “measuring” in a very general way: It is when the state of a physical object (for example, a brain) is influenced with some another (or maybe even the same, as when we see ourselves in a mirror) physical object. This is indeed very general: For example, every object measures the force applied to it, as the force influences its another part of physical state, the acceleration.

However usually the words feeling and measuring are applied only when they are interpreted by some mind (or a computer or another cybernetic device).

The laws of physics must be such that their description of being measured by a man (or a computer) as interacting between the measuring agent and the rest of physical reality produce the same description of measurement as what we actually measure.

Notice circularity in definitions of laws of physics and measurement: the physical reality the reality which describes the measurement and the measurement is defined based on laws of physics as in the previous paragraph.

So we cannot define physical reality and measurement exactly (it is a circular definition), well unless we actually define them. I mean that we should consider the possibility of laws of physics to be exactly defined as a well-defined part of the platonic reality (what means that physical reality is a mathematical object).

I believe that Christ is electromagnetic radiation of the universe: (Jn. 8:12) “Again, therefore, Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world””. So Christ is a physical object, but Christ is also a mathematical object (truth, wisdom, word). So a part (electromagnetic radiation) of our universe is also a part of platonic reality.

Actually, it seems that the entire world cannot be a well-defined object in platonic reality, because the world seems to be non-deterministic and we thus have no way to finitely describe mathematically the actual random state which is our physical reality.

What is a “physicist” (or more generally a “scientist”)? When a child grows he initially does not know the laws of physics but has some feelings. As he grows and study his conception of reality may become more exact during time. This can be described as an iterated process of attempting to define the laws of physics based on feelings and then explaining feelings by the laws of physics and then doing it again and again. Laws of physics are a fixed point of this process (that is when both laws of physics explain actual feelings and the reasons why feelings are such (under the condition that the child reaches scientific maturity) are explained by laws of physics.

By the way, understanding nature by a brain (or computer) is just a very complex case of measurement, when the state of the brain as a measuring device depends on the outside world in a very sophisticated (and complex) way.

I am myself not a physicist, but I have some hope that this my little philosophy may possibly help for example quantum scientists to define what is and what isn’t a part of physical reality, for example whether both wave function and measured states of particles belong to physical reality.

Advertisements

Nondiscrimination policy discussion

December 14, 2016

“Nondiscrimination” (for example by nationality, age, sex, etc.) is generally a good idea.

But it can be taken into an absurd: I am weak so I am discriminated by heavy lifting championships, as I don’t have a prize which strong people receive. This is a discrimination by strength.

In comments to this post, please discuss how to define discrimination more exactly, in such as way not to lead to an absurd like above.

This discussion may have or not have political consequences, but I am personally puzzled how to define discrimination exactly and wish to receive an answer.

Dreams have double consciousness

August 2, 2016

My today dream (although I do not already remember details) proves that in sleep a person may have what I call “double consciousness”.

The first consciousness (let’s call it “I”) is the consciousness which I have now (in wake), that is the memory of what I “saw” in the dream is perceived as “my” memory, the same consciousness which I saw in the sleep.

But there is another “intellect” in the dream, the one which shows me the dream. This “other consciousness” generates the dream which “I” see. Moreover the another consciousness sometimes present a puzzle for “me” while I am sleeping. This time in my dream it was so (although I forgot the details, what the riddle was exactly).

That the puzzle was presented for me and I was not immediately aware about the solution, proves that there is another generator of dreams, different that the my consciousness.

Temptation keywords in Google AdWords

July 4, 2016

The search query “ten commandments in the bible” shown 7.29% CTR in my Web site about Old Testament. I wondered and enjoyed this surprisingly high CTR.

I kept using this keywords based on high CTR, despite it is not quite relevant (it is too specific for a general Old Testament site).

But later Google told me that for such keywords bounce rate is very high and suggested me to add “ten” to negative keywords (what I did).

Conclusion: Select AdWords keywords based on common sense whether they are relevant, not on CTR.

A reason for that it’s better for economy when people are rich

June 28, 2016

Not being a professional economist, I nevertheless present in this short blog post of a reason for having people rich is better for economy.

This reason is that when distributing risks between a several entities, it is preferred that richer entities bear the risk.

For example if I’d be proposed to receive $1000000 (million USD) with probability 20% or receive $100000 (hundred thousands USD) with probability 100%, I would prefer the second, despite then mean value of the first offer is two times better. This is because a million is not my urgent need.

Having more money, I would be able to create some (probably not many, such as 1/2, but this is a general principle and the exact sum does not matter) new jobs and/or invest and/or buy some goods so supporting the producers.

So I choose risks in a way inefficient for economy accordingly basic economic laws (it is however efficient, because having more money I’d have more time to volunteer).

The conclusion: Risk distribution is one factor which makes richer people better for economy.

My predictions: right and wrong

May 10, 2016

When I was a child:

Once I’ve talked with my school teacher about the future. I’ve said “Everybody will have his own TV channel.” If I remember truthfully, then she asked “And what will they show?” and I replied “Mainly cats”. This is the correctly predicted truth about YouTube.

As I remember the teacher gave me a bad mark in the school journal “for talking nonsense”.

However I did also some wrong predictions:

In start of 90th when Eltzin and Yegor Gaidar started their reforms I expected that Russian economy will fall completely and people will die of hunger. This has not happened. I repeatedly pledged my mom to purchase me a good computer to gain the programming training and work (in order not to die of hunger). Note that I didn’t blame Eltzin and Gaidar for supposed hunger, but considered it an inevitable outcome of the history.

The reason of Freud’s psychoanalysis theory

April 20, 2015

Recently I have realized why psychoanalysis works in the way it works:

  1. Subconscious (called “heart” in Bible) is a generator of ideas.
  2. Conscious is a filter of ideas.
  3. Subconscious generates many ideas but just a few reach conscious.
  4. The purpose of conscious is to filter few good ideas out of many wrong ones.
  5. One criterion of filtering is morality. This is commonly called moral conscience.

After fall of the man into sin something went wrong.

(Mat. 15:18-19) “18 But the things which proceed out of the mouth come out of the heart, and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false testimony, and blasphemies.”

(Mrk. 7:21-23) “21 For from within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual sins, murders, thefts, 22 covetings, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.””

I don’t know which of the following two components was damaged:

  1. heart
  2. conscience

If the damaged part human mind is heart, then Mat. 15:18-19 and Mrk. 7:21-23 have become true only after the fall of the man.

But if the damaged part is conscience, then heart generated immoral thoughts even before the fall to sin but conscience was doing a good work of filtering immoral and other bad thoughts, but now conscience is probably broken.

Similarities of God and time machine

June 30, 2014

I this tiddler I propose that God and time machine are related.

In the above mentioned tiddler I describe a use case of a time machine, in which putting a time machine under a test leads to contradictory results (and so time machine not working). I propose that this is related with the commandment not to put God under a test.

A dream about zebra

January 11, 2014

Today I had a dream that I am a private investigator and investigate a deal about a white horse. They were going to repaint it with black color to a zebra, in order to deceive a child which wanted a zebra. The criminals threatened me for I not to mess in this deal.

Is anybody able to interpret this dream?

Never buy anything from Lavier Cosmetics

November 24, 2013

Notwithstanding my boycott to Lavier Cosmetics they called me today again. I said that they should not call me and that I boycott them and hanged phone. But they called me again and continued their long chic-chat.

Never buy anything in Lavier Cosmetics. Say others to boycott them. Never deal with them in any way. They are spammers.