Gary Forba
Sun, Jun-20-04, 05:17
Here is a preview. Otherwise find it on
www.geocities.com/garyforbat Placed in a fictional setting Ch1
on micro matter Ch2 on macro matter
==================================================================
DIALOGUES ON SPACE AND MATTER
Copyright (C) Gary Forbat 2000 - 2004 all rights reserved,
Chapter 1
Will we, as humans ever be able to know and understand
reality, is that what you are asking?
Yes that is the idea, though I meant the physical reality that
we perceive through our senses, the environment of space and
matter we find ourselves in as human beings.
I must admit it is not the subject I most often think about,
but now you mention it, it looks to me as though we may have
to settle for never understanding it. It seems on normal
everyday scales our perceptive experience gives an accurate
enough view for our survival and living purposes, but on micro
scales as well as on grand universal scales perception based
thinking has been discredited and now the only access we have
to probe the nature of matter is through abstract
mathemathics.
That is just what I mean. Does it inspire confidence for the
future of humanity to think there will always be some sort of
confusion, amid a permanent environment of uncertainty, as
though groping around, surrounded by a fog where we are unable
to see past our noses? How about a thousand years from now, or
ten thousand?
On current thinking it it is not likely, but I am sure we
will learn to manipulate it to a much greater degree.
Right now we are making rapid progress, and civilisation
can and has functioned successfully without the need for
that understanding. So long as we can manipulate and
rearrange it to our advantage it makes little difference
what it is made of.
But there can be huge differences in the degree of clarity
between different ways of conceiving the world. Newton's
theory gave us a certain sense of comfort, though now it turns
out to be a simplification. Since then we have descended into
a world of abstraction and a kind of mental surreality and
puzzlement with conceptual images that make no sense. Think
about the big bang and space expansion, and instantaneous
electron jumps, action at a distance, space warping or
curvature, to mention just a few.
Why be so concerned if we cannot change the it? The evidence
suggests that these conceptually untenable effects do
actually occur. We have their meaning through mathemathics
and continue to progress more rapidly than ever despite our
limitations. Let the scientists and theoreticians do their
work and we can concentrate on the human reality, since
social and historical developments affect us in our daily
life much more than the physical.
I don't entirely disagree about that, but think about it, if
we had a full explanation of the physical environment and the
nature of matter, would that not make a difference to our way
of thinking and doing things?
I am not sure what you are getting at. As I see it, there is
no point in speculating about it . We are actually in the
here and now, and what happens to be is what we need to
consider the most.
I prefer not to speculate on difficult questions either, but
I must tell you that something has intervened to disturb my
peace. That is why I have come at this short notice to seek
your advice on an idea that has influenced me more than I
had expected.
My door is always open to an old friend. What kind of idea are
we talking about?
The other day I came across a new theory, a way of looking at
space, matter and the entire reality, which has made me think
deeply. I may not be a scientific genius, but you know I am
not entirely without knowledge. This idea has rocked the
foundations of my thinking about reality and has introduced a
mindset which seems to clarify and resolve a host of
previously unfocused issues.
A new idea about space and matter? What kind of idea? .
Where can I start? This new perspective has given me the
clearest view of the physical world, what it is ad how it
works. I could never have imagined that one day there can be a
complete explanation, and even more so, that we ca do it at
such an early stage of our civilisation.
That is a big statement to make. A huge statement…It is not
like you, not at all.
I say it after the most serious consideration.
With due respect, now I do think you need my help and I am
glad you came. I'm sure we'll have this sorted in no time. Now
tell me some more about this theory.
Now that you mention it, it is such a huge statement that it
leaves me reeling. I cannot come to terms with having suddenly
unlocked the greatest mystery of all.
There are hundreds of views that make a sort of sense and can
impart a satisfying psychological impression. It is another
thing to prove it in some acceptable terms to convince
scientific community and the intellectual world in general.
As you know well, I am a realist and not into any form of
mysticism or unfounded belief systems. This new theory is
not I the clouds. It is based on the latest accumulation of
observational evidence, in fact reinterpretation of their
meaning based on a new framework derived from that very same
evidence. But I must tell you its most striking feature is
that it is all explained with common sense intuitive
concepts and logic
No, that cannot be, now I am sure you have strayed off into
error of some kind.
That is what I thought at first, but I have come to the
conclusion that it works. Perhaps I have overlooked something.
That is why I am here
Classical Newtonian theory has been long superceded, I cannot
see a turnaround in that direction.
Call it what you like: classical, intuitive, common sense
logic, but it is definitely not Newtonian. The author of this
theory thinks of Newton's ideas a simplification by limits
applied to the naturally infinite. Newton in the 17th Century
had much less evidence to go on. Had he the evidence about
matter available today, he may have come up with a different
conclusions.
Now I'm getting confused. Classical, intuitive, but not
Newtonian? Are you suggesting that with the use of the latest
evidence we can regenerate the intuitive framework in physics?
As far as I am concerned it looks like a fait accompli anyway.
It will lead to rapid advances in our knowledge and
understanding of matter. It also offers a unified framework
for physics. From this perspective, the current ideas about
relativity and quantum theory need to be revised. To explain,
do you still remember the Moon made of green cheese argument?
That was many years ago, …let me think...in an early lecture
on symbolic logic wasn't it?. it demonstrated how a false
foundation premises can lead to a range of ridiculous, though
as far as logic is concerned, perfectly valid conclusions. One
could then imagine ‘Moon rock' eaten with coffee after dinner,
and the quarantine regulations that may be necessary to
prevent mice overruning and devouring the Moon in an extasy of
cheese orgy.
That is just the point. Current theories are not built on
pre-existing foundations. Their foundations are projected
from the state of the structure itself. It is like the
problem with the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The Instead of
building from a sound set of foundations based on soil
analysis, the tower was constructed with a serious flaw. Now,
in modern times we have the science to have built it
correctly, but now face a different problem. To rescue the
Tower a new set of foundations had to be projected based on
the current state of the structure. That will patch up the
problem but clearly it is not the true foundations that the
Tower should have had. Our author thinks we are in somewhat
similar situation with physics.
I see what you mean, but that is how science evolved over
time. The historical reality unfolds differently from the
ideals we may project. Now tell me, where can I find this new
theory, in which journal, in what book, and of course, who by?
If this theory is so good, I cannot believe I have missed
hearing about it.
You may think it strange but I heard about it at a
dinner party.
A dinner party?..heh, in the 21st century discussing the
nature of matter and reality at a dinner party.
I know it's not dinner party conversation, but in this case
the entire company became so intrigued with it all that we
ended up going into it at length.
Yes, I can just see it, some dinner party that must have been
- discussing life and the meaning existence, the nature of
matter, relativity and quantum physics,, heh heh,, That would
have been interesting, with discussion of complex
mathemathical issues and whatever else.
There was no mathemathics, nothing requiring a specialist. It
is based on concepts derived from general features of all
scientific evidence. The ideas have complex logical structures
which are then subject to analysis.
I suppose it is only at a dinner you could come across
something so different and unlikely: probably some underground
theory, shunned by the establishment in fear of creating waves
or even ripples in the intellectual environment, or at least,
that is how it's made out to be. It is in fact probably full
of holes, at best a case of clever sophism with confusing
nuances I the language. How can it not be, given what you
claim it can do.
I was as sceptical as you when I first heard about it. It was
supposed to be just a bit of dinner party entertainment. When
I arrived, the hosts informed me that the author of a theory
of reality had been invited that night and I was asked to
encourage discussion on his ideas. It appears they had heard
about it from a friend and aroused their curiosity. As a good
guest I obliged and began my approach by sowing the seeds
during dinner. As things arranged themselves I happened to be
placed alongside our author, so I opened with a light mention
that someone here must be impressed with his ideas as they had
mentioned it to me. "Impressed or amused?" was his reply. "I
can't really be sure until you tell me a little about it" I
said. "Maybe another time" replied the author. "it isn't
suitable for dinner party conversation" he added. The moment
had passed and we resumed a light sociable air over dinner.
Later that night, over coffee, the opportunity arose again
when the hosts announced the visiting "thinker, scientist,
philosopher" and asked him to say a few words about his latest
theory. The author showed the same reluctance, claiming the
topic too complex to cover in a night's casual discussion. "it
will only lead to confusion rather than clarity" he said. We
insisted and then he added that he had been for a time
devising a method of explaining the idea to the general
public, but he did not think it perfected yet. It was as if we
all saw the opportunity at once, we all at once insisted he
try his method this night. "Let us be your guinea pigs" we all
insisted, begged and entreated until he finally relented. He
then proceeded to tell us the method he developed was based on
a question and answer session somewhat like a Socratic
dialogue. That sounds good said the host as we could
experience an ancient method in a modern setting. At this
point all fell silent. We waited in anticipation, expecting
something spectacular, but the first question turned out to be
the simplest of questions imaginable. Our thinker asked
whether we agreed that the atomic structure was a composite
system of parts? From there we went on a journey of thought
and a couple of hours later we all stood in a daze of
amazement and in the morning I had a clearer vision than
before. The haziness brought about by the alcohol had lifted
and I could feel the idea settling over me. I could not
believe it could be so simple. So simple, yet so complex at
the same time. I kept going over and over it since then to get
a better vision, or at least to find some faults in the
argument. In my early confusion my moods would swing. It was
all too much to absorb in such a short time. I worked at it
and at first I was only getting glimpses of the reality, then
as I developed it I could hold the concept for seconds, then
minutes, until it opened up in its full glory and I saw its
huge number of ramifications. Mystified and stunned by
everything I never expected, at times I tried to shake it out
of my mind. I could not dislodge it. The old world I knew had
been swept away and familiarity gave way to unfamiliarity.
Despite its inconsistencies, paradoxes and its mysteries the
old world was the ‘furniture of life' I grew up with and
offered psychological comforts which I would now be deprived.
I felt like a foreigner in a strange land. On the other hand,
I found comfort with the new clarity and wanted to explore its
possibilities.
That is all well, but now you have me curious enough to ask
that you explain this theory to me now. I don't expect
surprises. My curiosity is to see how you may have fallen into
an error of thinking. I don't for a moment entertain that the
theory could ever impress me as it has you and your friends
over dinner.
Perhaps you are right. I certainly ask for no favours, no
sympathy. If I had fallen into error I would certainly want to
be the first to know about it. On the other hand, you may get
a surprise as well.
It would be refreshing but I don't contemplate it. But do tell
me about this theory................. .......... ..
continue on www.geocities.com/garyforbat
www.geocities.com/garyforbat Placed in a fictional setting Ch1
on micro matter Ch2 on macro matter
==================================================================
DIALOGUES ON SPACE AND MATTER
Copyright (C) Gary Forbat 2000 - 2004 all rights reserved,
Chapter 1
Will we, as humans ever be able to know and understand
reality, is that what you are asking?
Yes that is the idea, though I meant the physical reality that
we perceive through our senses, the environment of space and
matter we find ourselves in as human beings.
I must admit it is not the subject I most often think about,
but now you mention it, it looks to me as though we may have
to settle for never understanding it. It seems on normal
everyday scales our perceptive experience gives an accurate
enough view for our survival and living purposes, but on micro
scales as well as on grand universal scales perception based
thinking has been discredited and now the only access we have
to probe the nature of matter is through abstract
mathemathics.
That is just what I mean. Does it inspire confidence for the
future of humanity to think there will always be some sort of
confusion, amid a permanent environment of uncertainty, as
though groping around, surrounded by a fog where we are unable
to see past our noses? How about a thousand years from now, or
ten thousand?
On current thinking it it is not likely, but I am sure we
will learn to manipulate it to a much greater degree.
Right now we are making rapid progress, and civilisation
can and has functioned successfully without the need for
that understanding. So long as we can manipulate and
rearrange it to our advantage it makes little difference
what it is made of.
But there can be huge differences in the degree of clarity
between different ways of conceiving the world. Newton's
theory gave us a certain sense of comfort, though now it turns
out to be a simplification. Since then we have descended into
a world of abstraction and a kind of mental surreality and
puzzlement with conceptual images that make no sense. Think
about the big bang and space expansion, and instantaneous
electron jumps, action at a distance, space warping or
curvature, to mention just a few.
Why be so concerned if we cannot change the it? The evidence
suggests that these conceptually untenable effects do
actually occur. We have their meaning through mathemathics
and continue to progress more rapidly than ever despite our
limitations. Let the scientists and theoreticians do their
work and we can concentrate on the human reality, since
social and historical developments affect us in our daily
life much more than the physical.
I don't entirely disagree about that, but think about it, if
we had a full explanation of the physical environment and the
nature of matter, would that not make a difference to our way
of thinking and doing things?
I am not sure what you are getting at. As I see it, there is
no point in speculating about it . We are actually in the
here and now, and what happens to be is what we need to
consider the most.
I prefer not to speculate on difficult questions either, but
I must tell you that something has intervened to disturb my
peace. That is why I have come at this short notice to seek
your advice on an idea that has influenced me more than I
had expected.
My door is always open to an old friend. What kind of idea are
we talking about?
The other day I came across a new theory, a way of looking at
space, matter and the entire reality, which has made me think
deeply. I may not be a scientific genius, but you know I am
not entirely without knowledge. This idea has rocked the
foundations of my thinking about reality and has introduced a
mindset which seems to clarify and resolve a host of
previously unfocused issues.
A new idea about space and matter? What kind of idea? .
Where can I start? This new perspective has given me the
clearest view of the physical world, what it is ad how it
works. I could never have imagined that one day there can be a
complete explanation, and even more so, that we ca do it at
such an early stage of our civilisation.
That is a big statement to make. A huge statement…It is not
like you, not at all.
I say it after the most serious consideration.
With due respect, now I do think you need my help and I am
glad you came. I'm sure we'll have this sorted in no time. Now
tell me some more about this theory.
Now that you mention it, it is such a huge statement that it
leaves me reeling. I cannot come to terms with having suddenly
unlocked the greatest mystery of all.
There are hundreds of views that make a sort of sense and can
impart a satisfying psychological impression. It is another
thing to prove it in some acceptable terms to convince
scientific community and the intellectual world in general.
As you know well, I am a realist and not into any form of
mysticism or unfounded belief systems. This new theory is
not I the clouds. It is based on the latest accumulation of
observational evidence, in fact reinterpretation of their
meaning based on a new framework derived from that very same
evidence. But I must tell you its most striking feature is
that it is all explained with common sense intuitive
concepts and logic
No, that cannot be, now I am sure you have strayed off into
error of some kind.
That is what I thought at first, but I have come to the
conclusion that it works. Perhaps I have overlooked something.
That is why I am here
Classical Newtonian theory has been long superceded, I cannot
see a turnaround in that direction.
Call it what you like: classical, intuitive, common sense
logic, but it is definitely not Newtonian. The author of this
theory thinks of Newton's ideas a simplification by limits
applied to the naturally infinite. Newton in the 17th Century
had much less evidence to go on. Had he the evidence about
matter available today, he may have come up with a different
conclusions.
Now I'm getting confused. Classical, intuitive, but not
Newtonian? Are you suggesting that with the use of the latest
evidence we can regenerate the intuitive framework in physics?
As far as I am concerned it looks like a fait accompli anyway.
It will lead to rapid advances in our knowledge and
understanding of matter. It also offers a unified framework
for physics. From this perspective, the current ideas about
relativity and quantum theory need to be revised. To explain,
do you still remember the Moon made of green cheese argument?
That was many years ago, …let me think...in an early lecture
on symbolic logic wasn't it?. it demonstrated how a false
foundation premises can lead to a range of ridiculous, though
as far as logic is concerned, perfectly valid conclusions. One
could then imagine ‘Moon rock' eaten with coffee after dinner,
and the quarantine regulations that may be necessary to
prevent mice overruning and devouring the Moon in an extasy of
cheese orgy.
That is just the point. Current theories are not built on
pre-existing foundations. Their foundations are projected
from the state of the structure itself. It is like the
problem with the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The Instead of
building from a sound set of foundations based on soil
analysis, the tower was constructed with a serious flaw. Now,
in modern times we have the science to have built it
correctly, but now face a different problem. To rescue the
Tower a new set of foundations had to be projected based on
the current state of the structure. That will patch up the
problem but clearly it is not the true foundations that the
Tower should have had. Our author thinks we are in somewhat
similar situation with physics.
I see what you mean, but that is how science evolved over
time. The historical reality unfolds differently from the
ideals we may project. Now tell me, where can I find this new
theory, in which journal, in what book, and of course, who by?
If this theory is so good, I cannot believe I have missed
hearing about it.
You may think it strange but I heard about it at a
dinner party.
A dinner party?..heh, in the 21st century discussing the
nature of matter and reality at a dinner party.
I know it's not dinner party conversation, but in this case
the entire company became so intrigued with it all that we
ended up going into it at length.
Yes, I can just see it, some dinner party that must have been
- discussing life and the meaning existence, the nature of
matter, relativity and quantum physics,, heh heh,, That would
have been interesting, with discussion of complex
mathemathical issues and whatever else.
There was no mathemathics, nothing requiring a specialist. It
is based on concepts derived from general features of all
scientific evidence. The ideas have complex logical structures
which are then subject to analysis.
I suppose it is only at a dinner you could come across
something so different and unlikely: probably some underground
theory, shunned by the establishment in fear of creating waves
or even ripples in the intellectual environment, or at least,
that is how it's made out to be. It is in fact probably full
of holes, at best a case of clever sophism with confusing
nuances I the language. How can it not be, given what you
claim it can do.
I was as sceptical as you when I first heard about it. It was
supposed to be just a bit of dinner party entertainment. When
I arrived, the hosts informed me that the author of a theory
of reality had been invited that night and I was asked to
encourage discussion on his ideas. It appears they had heard
about it from a friend and aroused their curiosity. As a good
guest I obliged and began my approach by sowing the seeds
during dinner. As things arranged themselves I happened to be
placed alongside our author, so I opened with a light mention
that someone here must be impressed with his ideas as they had
mentioned it to me. "Impressed or amused?" was his reply. "I
can't really be sure until you tell me a little about it" I
said. "Maybe another time" replied the author. "it isn't
suitable for dinner party conversation" he added. The moment
had passed and we resumed a light sociable air over dinner.
Later that night, over coffee, the opportunity arose again
when the hosts announced the visiting "thinker, scientist,
philosopher" and asked him to say a few words about his latest
theory. The author showed the same reluctance, claiming the
topic too complex to cover in a night's casual discussion. "it
will only lead to confusion rather than clarity" he said. We
insisted and then he added that he had been for a time
devising a method of explaining the idea to the general
public, but he did not think it perfected yet. It was as if we
all saw the opportunity at once, we all at once insisted he
try his method this night. "Let us be your guinea pigs" we all
insisted, begged and entreated until he finally relented. He
then proceeded to tell us the method he developed was based on
a question and answer session somewhat like a Socratic
dialogue. That sounds good said the host as we could
experience an ancient method in a modern setting. At this
point all fell silent. We waited in anticipation, expecting
something spectacular, but the first question turned out to be
the simplest of questions imaginable. Our thinker asked
whether we agreed that the atomic structure was a composite
system of parts? From there we went on a journey of thought
and a couple of hours later we all stood in a daze of
amazement and in the morning I had a clearer vision than
before. The haziness brought about by the alcohol had lifted
and I could feel the idea settling over me. I could not
believe it could be so simple. So simple, yet so complex at
the same time. I kept going over and over it since then to get
a better vision, or at least to find some faults in the
argument. In my early confusion my moods would swing. It was
all too much to absorb in such a short time. I worked at it
and at first I was only getting glimpses of the reality, then
as I developed it I could hold the concept for seconds, then
minutes, until it opened up in its full glory and I saw its
huge number of ramifications. Mystified and stunned by
everything I never expected, at times I tried to shake it out
of my mind. I could not dislodge it. The old world I knew had
been swept away and familiarity gave way to unfamiliarity.
Despite its inconsistencies, paradoxes and its mysteries the
old world was the ‘furniture of life' I grew up with and
offered psychological comforts which I would now be deprived.
I felt like a foreigner in a strange land. On the other hand,
I found comfort with the new clarity and wanted to explore its
possibilities.
That is all well, but now you have me curious enough to ask
that you explain this theory to me now. I don't expect
surprises. My curiosity is to see how you may have fallen into
an error of thinking. I don't for a moment entertain that the
theory could ever impress me as it has you and your friends
over dinner.
Perhaps you are right. I certainly ask for no favours, no
sympathy. If I had fallen into error I would certainly want to
be the first to know about it. On the other hand, you may get
a surprise as well.
It would be refreshing but I don't contemplate it. But do tell
me about this theory................. .......... ..
continue on www.geocities.com/garyforbat