I think that quote doesn't lead necessarily to the statement that the objective existence of the world is an illusion. In fact in that case it is easy to remind Cartesio's statement:"I think hence I exist". In that case it would become:" I deceive myself hence I exist". Critical contemporary physics besides is searching for following different directions of research with respect to bonds imposed by quantum mechanics that produce often contradictions as you point out. I am a researcher in theoretical and applied physics and I have a critical position with respect to mainstream physics. As per my research and my knowledges I able to give the followinf answers to your questions:

- the same particle cannot be in many places at the same time

- there aren't parallel universes

- the physical reality is objective and exists

- thecnology allows to adapt our scientific knowledges on reality. Naturally there are good thecnologies and bad thecnologies but it is another question.

Most "big questions" are a product of vague concepts. We should first try to tell (if we can) what we mean by "objective", "illusion", "understanding", and so forth. But curiously enough, scientists never do that, and philosophers even less. I will try to return to this interesting issue latter; I am too busy now.

Christian, I prefer to perceive the many-worlds interpretation as asymptotically degenerated idea about the scale-invariant evolution process which takes place at all levels. The idea in this context is useful. It gives hints by fact of existence.

“…I prefer to perceive the many-worlds interpretation as asymptotically degenerated idea about the scale-invariant evolution process which takes place at all levels …”

The “evolution process” in Matter proceeds always – all/every material object always move in the Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with 4D speeds that have identical absolute values (=c), sometimes the objects somehow interact (at that always interact by the gravity). At that objects that have “rest masses”, simultaneously move in 3D space and 1D time (4-th coordinate), when the motion in time is a changing of the objects’ internal states.

That (uninterrupted motion with constant speed) is possible because of in depth all processes in Matter are reversible, and so the motion proceeds without (at least essential) energy dissipation outside Matter – or, by another words – because of the energy conversation law.

That seems as rather evident fact; but when somebody says about “many-worlds” – or “Multiverses” seems would be interesting to know: if to create our Universe was necessary an unbelievable portion of initial energy, then what energy is necessary to create a Multiverse, where – as the authors of the idea say – simultaneously there exist an infinite number of  Universes…

Cheers

The word 'particle' means that something localized in space . Below a certain spatial dimension  its wave nature becomes dominant,and hence its position can not be specified properly.One must take into account the probabilistic nature.That is we do not have the exact knowledge of its location.I think that is the reason that it seems that the particle can exits in different locations in same time.

I can «be» here and «not be» everywhrere else. Everybody that knows me knows that «I am» not there if I am not there,  So «I am» in the mind of many persons at many places at the same moment.   Funny.  The reality is agreement; it's in the mind of the people. 

Physical universe is what we perceived, it is composed of relations.  Without relations, no realiity.  Universe is suppose to be x billions years old and x billions light years wide, only because we didn't get any perceptions or communications from farther. No relations, no reality,

``I am and always have been alienated by the fact that the Everett interpretation of QM has been and still is seriously debated. It is hard to imagine a more unphysical idea.’’

Perhaps. But what is the alternative? We must either do violence to the theory and interrupt unitary evolution by decree at some point (von Neumann projection postulate) or else assume that the unitary evolution does not represent all of physics, along the lines of Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber or Penrose. For the latter line of thought, there is, however, no experimental evidence so far. The only theory that takes unitary evolution seriously, and does not introduce elements involving, for example, our degree of knowledge of the system, which should normally be extraneous to a fundamental theory, is Everett’s interpretation. Until and unless a better candidate for a basic theory, independent of human knowledge, comes along, this will remain on the books. As a fundamental issue, for example, in what other way does one do cosmology at the quantum level? Maybe one just should not.

“…I am and always have been alienated by the fact that the Everett interpretation of QM has been and still is seriously debated. It is hard to imagine a more unphysical idea…”

- so do seems any normal physicists.

Though, because of this point – when it is quite clear - is touched again, seems is  as worthwhile to repeat, that the author of this interpretation very probably simply didn’t think about the energy – see SS post above.

“…We must either do violence to the theory and interrupt unitary evolution by decree at some point (von Neumann projection postulate) or else assume that the unitary evolution does not represent all of physics…”

- there is nothing outside physics in “interrupting of unitary evolution” – that is quite natural, in Matter there cannot be “non-interrupting evolutions” of anything at all – that is known 2500 years already.

“…The only theory that takes unitary evolution seriously, and does not introduce elements involving, for example, our degree of knowledge of the system, which should normally be extraneous to a fundamental theory, is Everett’s interpretation…”

- there is nothing surprising in unitary Matter’s evolution, the evolution goes simply because of at Beginning  some fixed “material structure” was impacted with transmission to the structure a huge portion of the energy; and further, because of the energy conversation law, the evolution proceeds so long. If somebody impacts on a group of balls on billiard table transmitting to the balls some energy, the balls system – if the balls and the table are perfect enough – will evolve rather long time, and this evolution will be unique, when to its run there is no any necessity to have also infinite number of parallel tables and balls’ systems….

Cheers 

The energy is, of course, a non-issue: the total energy is always conserved, so there is no ``more energy'' needed for the  universe as interpreted by Everett than in the ``usual'' way of looking at quantum mechanics. The rest of Sergey's post is incomprehensible to me.

About ``particles being in many places at the same time’’

Starting with Newton, we were told that something called ``point particle’’ exists, which can be characterised by position and velocity. This was in good agreement with a large amount of experimental data (astronomy and terrestrial mechanics). The amazing success of this particular concept led many to think that anything which exists must be characterisable in those terms.

Later, however, to account for such phenomena as specific heat and conductivity of metals, radiation of a glowing black body, spectra of atoms etc… a new theory involving a new concept of object was introduced. Its experimental basis is at least as large, in fact rather larger, than classical mechanics. In that theory, contrary to Newtonian mechanics, the position of a particle simply does not make sense. It is not so that ``a particle is in many places at once’’. Rather, it means that it makes no sense to ask for the exact position of a particle. This simply means that, for systems sufficiently well isolated and sufficiently ``small’’ the usual categories in which we picture reality are inadequate.

About decoherence and the collapse of the wave function:

As far as I understand it, decoherence is indeed, contrarily to the postulated collapse of the wave function, a measurable process, which takes a well-defined time, which can actually be followed experimentally. It is not instantaneous, it is real and observable (Brune, Michel, et al. "Observing the progressive decoherence of the “meter” in a quantum measurement." Physical Review Letters 77.24 (1996): 4887). This helps a great deal in making the abstract claims of measurement theory more concrete.

However, it is not altogether observer-independent. We must at some point decide which part of the system we are unable to observe, and on this depends the decoherence process.

Does the Universe split up into different branches? This is a reasonably straightforward conclusion from quantum mechanics. But at the same time, it follows that we cannot see it. So the debate as to whether this is ``really’’ happening is a bit strange. We might conceivably view this as giving new life to the idea that we cannot know the ``world as it really is’’, as suggested by some philosophers.

F. Leyvraz: “…there is no more '' energy'' needed for the universe as interpreted by Everett than in the ``usual'' way of looking at quantum mechanics…”

- in  the SS post above:

“…when somebody says about “many-worlds” – or “Multiverses” seems would be interesting to know: if to create our Universe was necessary an unbelievable portion of initial energy, then what energy is necessary to create a Multiverse, where – as the authors of the idea say – simultaneously there exist an infinite number of  Universes… “

- and “The rest of Sergey's post is” quite simple and evident as well…

Cheers

Nothing has created the Universe, or multiverse;  they just .  . . . are.

What we call "objective reality" is simply matter,  If we could see matter by reflected radiation of a suiably low wavelength we would see ..... nothing.  If we put out our hands (also miraculously shrunken) we would feel the electrical resistance of molecules but be unable to see the nuclei or the electrons that create the fields.  "Objective reality" is only what our brains tell us is there; in fact a virtual artefact, unique to each of us.

Mario and Christian,

"Most "big questions" are a product of vague concepts. We should first try to tell (if we can) what we mean by "objective", "illusion", "understanding", and so forth. But curiously enough, scientists never do that, and philosophers even less."

The word ''objective'' can only refer to an objective knowledge.  The expression ''objective existence'', or ''objective reality'' do not make sense.  We can qualify a knowledge to be objective or not objective but we cannot qualify reality to objective.  Reality is what it is and what it is exactly nobody will ever know.  

Objective knowledge about reality is what a scientific knowledge is.  WHat make a knowledge objective is its expression in unambiguous language and where the only reference to reality are made some measurable aspect of reality.  I leave aside all the empirical testing of such knowledge.  Empirical testing is possible only and only if what is expressed is unambiguous.  No subjective reference can be made within an scientific statement.  Most of the word of ordinary natural language are subjective and cannot be unambiguously defined.  

I think that the big epistemelogical novelty in science that emerge with Quantum Mechanics was the inseparability of the observer (or observer process) from what is observed.  While in classical physics, one could scientifically know some aspect of a physical system without any reference to how this knowledge is obtained, this cannot be claimed in Quantum Mechanics.  Now the knowledge is a knowledge of the system including all the process of observation involves in the prediction of the behavior.  The prediction is not a prediction of that system independent of the observation process.  What is objective are the equations.  

In Science and Hypothesis, Poincare was critical of the possibility for science to really posit as existent the entities that the variable entering into the equations.  He was making an argument that there was a series of different scientific theories that described lights by various equations and making use of different posited entities.  Each theories were empirically validated but became obsolete and its entities became considered as well as obsolete when replaced by the new theory.  Since that process is likely to continue then why continue to believe in the real existence of the posited entities.  Poincare was saying that what was true of each theory were the equations and they never were made untrue although they were superseeded.  So what was true was the relations between the observables and the entities themself were a fiction.  What is empirically tested and what is objective in all these theories are the relation these equations posited about some observables.  Poincaré was following Kant and was also considering all the geometries used in Science as  not really existing in reality.  They were tools of prediction.  What he posited as real were the relations and the same relations could be expressed by different type of geometrical frameworks but the simpler should be choose for convenience but the choice do not change what is real: the relations and the objective knowledge of those are the equations.

It seems the discussion in the tread “unavoidably” transforms in a next talking, first of all about the notions “Matter” and “Consciousness”. Though here concretely the discussion is about  “objective”/ “subjective” – that doesn’t mean something else; properly to say  “objective”/ “subjective” is possible only when the first two notions are properly defined before.

Besides here is necessary to define the notion “Reality” also.

All 3 notions above, i.e.,  “Reality”, “Matter” and “Consciousness” are Meta-notions and cannot be properly defined/understandable outside the “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute  

http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0173v3.pdf   DOI 10.5281/zenodo.34958;

 in any other case only a next endless and “resultless” debates occur; and any quotes on Kant, Poincare, and on a huge number of recent “brilliant minds” nothing can change in this situation.

Thus for who indeed wants to understand what the notions above are and “What is real? How much do we know about reality? – more see the link above. Some brief comments, though:

The notion “Reality”: there is nothing (no anything) that could be “unreal” principally – in a very common sense only though – because of all what exist, can exist and cannot exist are some informational patterns/ systems of patterns that are elements of the absolutely infinite and absolutely fundamental “Information” Set. Any information exists always, or “in absolutely infinitely long time” in the Set; any information cannot be principally annihilated.

The notion “Matter” and “Consciousness”: Matter and Consciousness are some specifically organized dynamical (constantly changing their internal states) informational systems. The main difference

 – the sub-Set “Matter” is some huge set of comparatively independent automata [“material objects”] that are united in “one computer” by universal interaction  [the gravity force],

where all informational exchanges  [interactions] between automata and the automata themselves happen/are built by using exclusively true information. Thus Matter cannot develop, it can only evolve [and evolves uninterruptedly];

- every individual consciousness  of the sub-Set “Consciousness” is something like to computer also, but with fundamental difference – consciousnesses, [in principal contrast to anything in Matter] are capable to elaborate also uncertain and false information; besides – again [with a great probability] in principal contrast to anything in Matter – the consciousnesses are able to a “self-identification”, they single themselves out the external, i.e. Matter and other consciousnesses.

Since consciousnesses belong [at least partially] to other then Matter sub-Set, they obtain information about material objects/processes only empirically; but because of (i) – they can analyze the information, and (ii) – material objects and processes are some informational systems that are united by using some informational messages; and, besides, because of Matter is rather simple logical structure that in depth – and not only in depth -  is organized  basing on a limited set of logical rules/ bonds (“Nature laws”),

consciousnesses are capable, analyzing empirical information, “to decode”correctly some  Nature laws that act in corresponding material systems and on corresponding levels of Matter’s organization.

So here we should use some other, then common, using of the notion “Reality” – i.e. not as Meta-physical /Meta-mainstream-philosophical notion above, but relating to the interaction “a consciousness/ the external”. At that indeed the capability of the consciousness to analyze uncertain and false information is a capability to produce uncertain and false information also. Some false logical inferences are indeed possible – and that we call “subjective [because of that is a product of concrete consciousness relating to objective external] illusions”. But from that by any means doesn’t follow a negation of the “objective” existence of the external and of that sometimes some consciousnesses obtain some analytical results that are well adequate to the objective external reality.

Cheers

Article the Information as Absolute

Reading many comments and questions it is manifest the fact that postmodern culture, including physics, is going toward the absolute nihilism. Luckily contemporary physics is another thing.

Louis says: "The word ''objective'' can only refer to an objective knowledge. The expression ''objective existence'', or ''objective reality'' do not make sense.  We can qualify a knowledge to be objective or not objective but we cannot qualify reality to objective.  Reality is what it is and what it is exactly nobody will ever know."

I agree almost completely. However, there are problems here, as always. Namely, if we cannot know what reality is, then is difficult to speak about "objective knowledge". Furthermore, although we may never know reality (in itself), as Kant told us, we normally assume that there is something "behind" our concepts. Otherwise, we can fall in solipsism, which is a logically consistent story, but it is generally not considered "realistic". I usually say (in my texts) that there are three classes of (real) entities: (1) physical (stones), (2) mental (feelings), and (3) abstract (numbers). This does not solve all problems, but I do not know a better "basic ontological framework" than that.

Louis: "What make a knowledge objective is its expression in unambiguous language and where the only reference to reality are made some measurable aspect of reality."

This is basically correct. For me, "scientifically objective" is a story (theory) that is told in a enough precise way that anybody (who possesses a certain knowledge) can check whether it is factually correct or not. However, the question of "precision" is actually subjective. You can always discard a story as not precise enough (for you).

Louis: "... While in classical physics, one could scientifically know some aspect of a physical system without any reference to how this knowledge is obtained, this cannot be claimed in Quantum Mechanics."

That is essentially what I said in the previous paragraph. Objectivity is not such a clear category (concept) as it may seem.

Louis: "What is objective are the equations."

They should be. If you compute (by equations) the same result as I do, then our discourse should be consider scientifically objective. But we can still be wrong both, and equations can be wrong too.

Louis: " ... Each theories were empirically validated but became obsolete and its entities became considered as well as obsolete when replaced by the new theory. Since that process is likely to continue then why continue to believe in the real existence of the posited entities."

There are two basic views in this regard: realism and instrumentalism. The first view aims to "hit" real entities; the second considers every theory only an "instrument" by which we try to achieve certain effects. Both views have their merits, which I cannot discuss now.

Louis: "... these equations posited about some observables."

When I mentioned "vague concepts", I intended many concepts that we normally use, but never try to define or describe. "Observable entities" belong among them. There is no clear distinction between what is observable and what is not.

Louis: " Poincaré was following Kant and was also considering all the geometries used in Science as  not really existing in reality."

This is one more open question: do we discover (existing) geometry (or geometries), or do we invent (produce) them? And how do we do that?

In sum, these are complex issues. My basic position is that people usually deal with "big question" without trying to clarify what they are speaking about. One of the notorious perennial questions is "determinism & free will". Nobody managed to tell what free will actually means. I wrote a text about this issue, in which I argue that determinism and free will function quite well together. I hope, I will be able to put it on RG in a foreseeable future.

Christian mentioned Wittgenstein. I love to criticize Heidegger and Wittgenstein; I call them mystics or worse. Let me put forward a couple of pieces of my (unfinished) text about Wittgenstein.

Wittgenstein is considered the most authentic thinker in the field of language and knowledge, but I have not managed to find much valuable substance in his discourse. His notorious book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus consists of trivialities and of vague claims, usually expressed in a dramatic way; it also contains many mystic places. "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent", says Wittgenstein in the preface to his Tractatus (p. 27). It seems that while writing this strange book, he did not remember this nice principle, which (the principle) is the best of all that is said in that book. The first claim of the main text - "The world is everything that is the case" - does not seem particularly clear; the second one - "The world is the totality of facts, not of things" - does not seem any better (Wittgenstein 1995, par. 1 and par. 1.1). Explanations such as "The facts in logical space are the world" (par. 1.13) do not help much either. 

 "My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly", says Wittgenstein (1995, par. 6.54). This notorious statement from Tractatus sounds nice, but this is a mystical discourse, which does not say anything substantial, and it is not particularly original. Buddha considered all his discourse a raft which serves to cross the river; the raft is of no use when the river is crossed and it must be discarded. For the one who reaches enlightenment, all words and every discourse become arbitrary, meaningless, and superfluous.

Wittgenstein's other notorious book, Philosophical Investigations, does not contain much substance. His discourse about the meaning of words is not particularly interesting. In brief, he builds his discourse on the fact that nouns often refer to different entities, so that it is difficult to tell what a noun actually means. For example, the noun "game" refers to different members of a large "family" of activities and events, which are all called "game". Hence, it is not possible to say what the noun "game" actually means, because its meaning depends on a specific context and use. This is correct, but it is not a great discovery that the meaning of many words of natural languages depend on the context in which they are used. Furthermore, Wittgenstein did not show that it is not possible to give a useful definition of a concept, such as "game". In essence, game is an activity performed according to certain rules, the main aim of which is to create an excitement by trying to achieve a goal. The noun "game" also has metaphorical uses, but this is another matter. In sum, I think that it is possible to define (or describe) a word such as "game" in a useful way. The fact that it is not possible to give a perfect definition does not mean that no definition is possible at all. It is normal that it is not possible to define imprecise phenomena and behaviour in a very precise way.

 ... Wittgenstein says: "Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly" (1995, par. 4.116). Perhaps, but Wittgenstein himself, with his discourse, did not contribute much to the clarity which he so passionately advocated.

Mario,

'' if we cannot know what reality is, then is difficult to speak about "objective knowledge".''  

A scientific knowledge, i.e. an objective knowledge of reality is a knowledge of a real aspect of reality.  That aspect does not tell us the whole story of what reality IS , all its possible aspects but it tell us something on specific aspect. Knowledge is never as it is but always as it appears.  So it is always knowledge of aspect of reality; we say knowledge of reality but should say knowledge of aspect of reality to remind us that it only look at one specific aspect and it is not all there is to it.

 Lets take an obsolete objective model of the universe, the Ptolemy model.  It tells us something today that is still valid and will always remain valide.  It tells how these planets displace in the night sky.  It is not totally precise but it is true within a certain margin of error.   We know now that these stars are not just pure fiery being and are planet either of gaz or of rock like the earth and we know that moon circle the earth but the other circle the sun and that the sun is one million time bigger the earth.  Quite a diferent reality than the reality described by Aristotle and Potlemy but the relative motions of the observable were correct although the nature of these body totally off the mark. These aspects of that model were wrong but they were never empirically tested.  It was a simple assumption at the time to see planets as luminaries, like fire producing light.  But the mathematical part of the model is basically right, the empirical part of that model.  And Copernicus started from this and he simply sit on the Sun and look at what happen and could so transform the motions but relatively to that position.  So nothing change except the place of origin for the observations.  Since the earth suddently became like the other object, it seems natural then to assume the planets to be like the earth and to give a special status to the sun. But although this was a small mathematical step for man, it was a large step for humanity (Amstrong). Than day we suddently open our eye into a new cosmos and everything would have to change. By sitting on the sun as Einstein later would ride a electromagnetic wave,  So the mathematical and relational part of that model was valid.  It was the part that were never verified then that were wrong.  That model was correctly describing as aspect of reality but it had also an unverified content aspect that has been replaced.  When we take any theory, there is a empirical part that is verified, and that part wont change and will remain a valid knowledge of an aspect of reality but there is a lot of unverified part that is instrumental in the model and that is not really verified can be replace while maintaining the relation between what is really observed.  That part will most likely change when new theory change.

do we discover (existing) geometry (or geometries), or do we invent (produce) them?

This is the question : is mathematics invented or discovered.  There are many non-ending thread on RG on this and many book.  My view is that mathematic and the geometries are invented by mathematicians.  Obvious answer.  But the mathematical language is not a purely arbitrary human invention.  We invent our natural language but these too are not arbitrary human inventions.  We have to go back in the first civilisation at the time of the invention of writing and number system, measurement technique, accounting technique, building practices and to see emerge an abstract language out of these and to see it be axiomatized gradually by the Greek.  The starting point of the creation of this language of relation, is the creation of concept of number and number systems.  It is a beauty of removing all that is empirical and changing in so different operation and to kee only the only thing that cannot be removed the existence of a thing.  then you built the numbering system on this most abstract of the property of a thing and build a whole world of relation through the language.  It is a relational language.  The most abstract aspect of space are capture only by a few axiom of Euclid, everything else that change is excluded and the whole Euclid geometrical framework of modelisation of reality is built on that.  This is a reconstruction of a world on the most basic aspect of relaity, the most basic relational aspects.  Mathematic is a mecanical language, all in it is mechanical.  Then theories such as Ptolemy model are just an construction within it with some entities being said to represent night sky directions.  A theory is an objective knowledge of an aspect of reality.  The Ptolemy model did not say anything true about aspect of reality such as the nature of these planet object.  We will have to wait for discovering and putting these other aspect into astronomical models.  And today, we are still puting other aspects in these models and keep adding new one.  

The fact that scientific models do not cover all aspects and so do not describe the whole reality as it is (Kant ) is not the same of saying that they do not describe reality, yes but only a small number of aspects.   

Dear Martín, many years ago when I started my BA in Comparative Literature, we were asked to read Erich Auerbach's splendid Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. In each of the 20 chapters of the book, he explores a literary work (from Homer and the Bible to Virginia Woolf's To the Lighthouse) to inquire about how is reality explained, described, used, felt by the characters. Each of the 20 works has a different definition of reality, of person and personhood, of the very idea of fiction. According to Auerbach, every period of history has had its very own "reality", even if the literary works openly engage with the "imaginary". I have read the book twice, and it has convinced me that the idea of reality is epochal, and its way of depicting it too. Our reality is not that of Homer or Dante or Boccaccio or Cervantes or Montaigne or Schiller, or the Goncourt brothers or Woolf (plus the other authors). Literature has always tried to deal with the immediate, even in allegorical texts such as Dante's Commedia. The literary tools used by the authors across time have to do, precisely, with how specific they can be in what they write. Dante, for example, makes incredible descriptions of corruption in his Florence, as does Cervantes in his depiction of Sancho Panza or Woolf of the psychology of her characters. Reality is situational, a way of seeing things, something we share with our fellow humans at a certain time in a certain place. 

Best regards, Lilliana

"is there such a thing as an objective reality at all?"

Seems to me that the notion of subjective knowledge and objective knowledge is key to clearly defining what objective reality could be.

So returning to the thread’s question:

  can a particle really be in many places at the same time? 

- that’s one of most important questions in physics and what is indeed known till now  is only that what humans call “particles” are created and interact as point-like objects;

 is the universe continually dividing itself into parallel worlds, each one with alternative versions of ourselves? 

- with great probability Matter’s (and very possibly, at least very essentially – all Universe’s evolution) evolution is unique /unitary; “to divide It into parallel worlds” is unreal since such process must require to spend uninterruptedly  unbelievable (practically infinite)  amount of the energy, what seems fantastic even for a possible Creator of this Universe;

   is there such a thing as an objective reality at all?

- the objective reality, i.e. all what exists, including “subjects” / “observers”, - exist principally, since cannot be non-existent; and [including “subjects” / “observers”] exists “objectively”;

  that is another problem – the existent objective reality consists of, in every individual case, of a [conscious] “subject” and the subject’s external, when the subject develops some models of properties/processes of/in the external, which are principally based on empirical limited data and, at that, by using the instrument (the subject’s consciousness) that has rather limited capabilities when analyzing the data; thus developed models/theories are adequate to the objective reality with some limitations.

However, because of all what exist, including subjects, societies, and Matter, are principally some informational systems, and, since human’s consciousness is capable to analyze the information, there is no any principal reasons/factors that could principally prohibit for humans “to decode correctly” any information about the external.

 Anything is principally cognizable, and seems main obstacles at the cognition are just subjective; first of all – when some scientific problems are studied not by scientists but by some “scientific parties”; and some mighty parties are capable to establish erroneous models, theories, etc. as “standard accepted” – and “true” – models/theories.  Seems a classical example – the relativity theories in physics.

how can we benefit of this knowledge adaptation on reality?

- too complex problem…

”… The measureable reality is by definition the objective reality…”

- that isn’t of course so; since any measurement is planned by some subjects, and is interpreted by some subjects , which at interpretation subjectively choose some concrete subjective models/theories. An example – see above.

Cheers

Culture, every shape of true culture, is always important for humanity because it represents the historical evolution of human thought. Culture in general, in its artistic expressions, is subjective and doesn't search for objectivity. Philosophy and mathematics have a different and charming role: philosophy searches for objectivity through the subjective rational thought, mathematics searchs for objectivity through the universal logical thought. The big cultural innovation was represented in 17th century by science that introduced the research of objectivity through an universal scientific method, that is based on experimental observation of nature, on interpretation and on theorization of those observations and on the subsequent experimental confirmation of those theoretical results. In science the objectivity isn't guaranteed by the single experiment but by the fact that same experiments performed in different times and places, in same physical conditions, give always the same result: this is the concept of objectivity in science and in physics. This method went in crisis early in 20th century when there was the transition from classical physics to modern physics. The main aspect of this crisis regarded above all the interpretation of experiments in which subjective aspects again prevailed. It is manifest that different theories arise from different interpretations and it is the cause of the great confusion that is present today in postmodern physics. Postmodern physics unfortunately has lost reasons of its origins.

Christian ~

“…This does not invalidate the fact that the objective reality is by its very definition based on properties of objects… But your models should be related to - and in agreement with - the objective (measurable) facts.”

- yeah, of course.

Moreover, the objective reality simply always exists as sets of properties of objects  – or the objects are concrete sets of properties [some informational patterns].

 Moreover once more, all new information that every humans’ consciousnesses obtain about the external is/are empirical, not only which is “measurable/ measured”;

- but further this information is processed purely subjectively. And the quoted [SS’s] passage relates in the case above concretely just to the problem of relevance of “measured” [objective] information to “processed” [subjective] information, i.e., say, in physics – to physical theories, models, etc.

And principally at that developed theories/models must be not only consistent with some “measurement results”. Besides any theory/model must not contain internal inconsistencies and from them must not follow nonsensical inferences.

Examples: from measured angular velocity of Sun motion through sky objectively doesn’t follow that Sun rotates around Earth; from measured contraction of MM interferometer’s arms and from measured increasing of fast unstable particles half-lives objectively doesn’t follow that arms are contracted and the half-lives are longer because of a “relativistic space contraction” and a “relativistic time dilation”. Though yeah, for 99.99% of technical and often scientific applications now it is quite inessential – Sun rotates around Earth or Earth rotates around Sun; the arms are contracted because of Earth 3Dspeed in the absolute [5]4D Matter’s spacetime or because the “space contraction”, the particles live longer because of their large 3D speeds, which they obtained after some material impact of some material objects, or because of the “ time dilation”.

Etc… 

Cheers

There is no such thing as "objective reality".  All sensory inputs are first interpreted by our brain, which automatically compares them with previous experience and presents us with the best match.  Even if others agree with our interpretation we cannot share their experience and be sure that our experience is identical to theirs.  What we experience is neither reality nor objective.  It is a virtual artefact.

What you call "objective reality" is also called "absolute reality". I wrote about the "physical reality" in which what I wrote in my preceding comment about objectivity is valid. I agree that in philosophical reality and in mathematical reality different paradigms are valid.

Stephen

I have a question:

What do you estimate would be the cause of the sensory inputs that we receive before they are interpreted by our brain?

Stephen,

''What we experience is neither reality nor objective. It is a virtual artefact.''

What we experience is a reality.  It is a personal reality but totally permeated through a cultural reality enculturated into you through your parent care and language interaction where you gradually interpreted you life into a shared cultural and historical space.  It is not objective in the sense of objective knowledge that is defined into a totally objective language.  But it is not solliptic to you.  You make sense of your life in terms of a common human reality that language narrative are well suited to express.  Language narrative allow us to meaningfully communicate and interact and to also make sense of our own life.  Language narratives can be public  expressions of our experiences into language that make subjective references.  Human realities, human experience can be shared through these language narratives and also through all forms of artistic expression.  These realities cannot be expressed objectively, expressed through a language making no subjective references. 

When we talk of the real ,it has the purpose the basic end ,the principle of truth & not possible to change the real to unreal .Real also become the foundation of truth & in certain cases it has become the guideline for the users .

The reality ,the purpose is also finding the real in the form of truth but reality may not remain the same for the people & the users & it can not become the basic end of the  principle. Their reality in general cases is the exercise of mind frequently turning into a thinking process & also for contemplation but with this reality cannot become the real .

This is my personal opinion 

Louis,

I agree with nearly everything you say in your post (of two days ago). I am currently very busy, so I cannot write much now.

Louis: "A scientific knowledge, i.e. an objective knowledge of reality is a knowledge of a real aspect of reality.  That aspect does not tell us the whole story of what reality IS , all its possible aspects but it tell us something on specific aspect."

I agree.

Louis: "Lets take an obsolete objective model of the universe, the Ptolemy model. ..."

I once wrote that if the earth rotates around the sun, then (strictly speaking) the sun rotates around the earth. - Correct me if I am wrong.

Louis: "My view is that mathematics and the geometries are invented by mathematicians. ... But the mathematical language is not a purely arbitrary human invention.  We invent our natural language but these too are not arbitrary human inventions.  ..."

That is my position, too. Our inventions are steered (led) by our experiences, capacities, aspirations, ...

Louis: "Mathematics is a mechanical language, all in it is mechanical. ..."

I do not like the concept "mechanical"; I say that mathematics is "abstract". I generally divide "everything that exists" into three ontological classes of entities: physical, mental, and abstract.

Louis: "The fact that scientific models do not cover all aspects and so do not describe the whole reality as it is (Kant ) is not the same of saying that they do not describe reality, yes but only a small number of aspects."

Correct. In this context, I consider "scientifically objective" every theory or claim that can be tested by many (all) people. Contrary to this, you may have some religious (mental) experience, which completely transcend my understanding & experience. Scientific knowledge can be called "objective" in the sense that in science, such a total discrepancy between different subjects (scientists, observers) should not exist.

Mario,

'' if the earth rotates around the sun, then (strictly speaking) the sun rotates around the earth. - Correct me if I am wrong.''

It is the same observation I made to my teacher in my first course of physics.  He said NO, the earth circle around the sun. End of the story.

We can described this situation by putting the origin of our coordinate system wherever we decide to put it.  

If the orinin is placed on any of the planet then we need a relatively complex mathematics to described the position of all the other planet and the sun.  If we put it on the moon, the situation will be ever more complicated in its description.  But if we put our origin at the center of the sun, then the description is much simpler.  If we put our point of observation far away from all the planet and the sun then the situation is also very simple to describe and very close to the situation as described from the sun.  Seen from a far away point of observation, all the planets and the sun orbit arount their common center of mass near the postion of the sun.   So the mathematics is simple for position outside the solar system and for a position at the center of the sun within the solar system, all other positions give rise to complex descriptions. One will prefer to choose a position of observation where the description is simple.

I basically equate ''objective knowledge'' with ''scientific knowledge'' and with ''empirically testable knowledge''  , only unambiguously expressed knowledge without any subjective reference can be testable.   

Knowing about  ''tables'' or ''trees'' are very simple type of human knowledge.  It is not ambiguous in general except in museum of modern art.  When we see a table in general, all of us will see a table and the same with trees.  It is not ambiguous and we use these expressions to communicate with each other and there is no problems in general.  But this is not an objective knowledge. My mouther pointed a table when I was a kid and said ''table'' and from that day on I connected all kind of human experience with this kind of objects and I made use of that word in multiple fashion in communication with other human.  I have no clue exactly what could be an objective description of such objects: trees, tables.  Table are not described in any sciences.  I do not think that it would be possible to scientifically definition of a table.  There is a chapter on the difference between the physical table and the table of my experience in the book: Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World.  

See video on Eddington two tables: the table in my experience and the scientific table.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNiEsIIvWDM

I do not think there is in the abstract world of physics a way to describe an table regularity that would correspond to what we recognize as a table.  Most importantly such a description would be useless to us if we would ever managed to come up with such a thing.  Even the notion of surface which is a simple geometrical notion do not really correspond to what we perceived as surfaces.  WE see surface over fruit , around cloud, around human bodies but if you go search for it with all kind of scientific instruments you will not find surfaces.  You may end up with quark instead but it has not much to do with the surface we see and the complexity of these surface we see would be tremendous in terms of physics and totally useless.

André Michaud - Pressure waves in the air strike the receptors in the inner ear and generate electric currents that our brain converts to what we experience as sound; photons are absorbed by the  rods and cones and also gnerate currents that form a pattern which the brain matches to previous similar patterns and constructs an image that it offers us as the best fit; receptors in the nose receive chemicals in the atmosphere, which create electric currents which the brain tries to match, and taste similarly.  When we touch something we receve information about its temperature, thermal  conductivity and texture that our brain tries to match. This is why our early experience is so important. Some sensory experiences can become indelibly linked, particularly smell.                                                                          Our senses are our "inbox" for information about the rest of the universe ,because our early experience is unique to us, our experience of different phemo,ema will ne different.                                                                

Stephen

Agreed.

My own matching description is that what we know (or think we know) about objective reality can only be a set of conclusions that we have individually drawn (and verbally shared with each other) from the signals arriving at the entry layer of our neocortex, signals resulting from the interaction of photons hitting our retinas after having been released by de-exciting electrons in materials close or far (scattering), from sound waves pervading the surrounding atmosphere (scattering), from the chemical signals for smell and taste (electromagnetic interaction) and pressure on our nerve endings for material that we touch (scattering and electrostatic interaction). Everything that we have read or listened to that other individual have shared has been extrapolated in the same manner.

Wouldn't you think that what is "out there", producing these signals that our nerve endings receive and thus only indirectly apprehend, could be objective reality?

I wrote: '' if the earth rotates around the sun, then (strictly speaking) the sun rotates around the earth. - Correct me if I am wrong.''

Louis: "It is the same observation I made to my teacher in my first course of physics.  He said NO, the earth circle around the sun. End of the story.

We can described this situation by putting the origin of our coordinate system wherever we decide to put it. If the orinin is placed on any of the planet then we need a relatively complex mathematics to described the position of all the other planet and the sun."

My remark: I know; simplicity matters, but I wanted to say the following thing (principle): "You cannot rotate around me, without making me rotate around you".

Regarding your teacher: never trust teachers! They usually know less than they think they do.

The physical reality doesn't have to be confused with the virtual reality that is allowed in physics on condition that it is specified it is a virtual reality. In the sun system the physical reality is that all planets, and consequently also the Earth, move around the Sun. In a virtual reality we can also suppose that in the binary system Sun-Earth, the Earth is immobile and the Sun moves around the Earth. This approach is allowed as working hypothesis because it allows often to simplify some procedures of calculation but it is manifest that the virtual reality cannot replace the physical reality. This fact regards in general the concept of relativity and the question of reference frames.

Following article could be of some interest.

Article Unified field of consciousness

Andre, Christian  -  If we could detect radiation at a small enough wavelength (without being fried by its energy) to detect molecules, we would see nothing at all, although we would be able to detect the repulsive force of the electron clouds,  We could not tell if our companions experienced exactly the same as  we did, even if they use the same words to describe it.  We assume they share our experiences but this is just a leap of faith, or a working assumption.  I do not seee any hope of agreeing on an unequivocal "objective reality".

But it doesn't matter, does it?

Stephen,

If we consider that only one "objective physical reality" exists out there, we must also agree that we all are part of it by definition since our bodies and brains are made of the very same elements that have been identified and that are listed in the periodic table.

All stable matter about us is also made of the same elements.

How do we know this?

As time went by, we learned more and more about matter; knowledge that we globally came to agreed matched reality. How did we globally come to such a conclusion? Because as we progressively made use of this knowledge about these elements to build machines and establish processes that actually worked and gave consistent results that anyone can observe and agree that they work.

 Regarding the frequencies that come to us from de-exciting electrons or other high energy processes, we obviously can see with our own eyes only the visible spectrum. But the instruments that we developed to detect the remainder of the scale, upwards and downwards, are simple extensions of our visual capabilities.

So anyone can verify wether these measuring instruments are properly calibrated and then everyone also can then observe the same extended frequency range and agree that all are "seeing" the same thing whatever the frequency.

We built instruments to make use of these frequencies that we cannot directly "see" and everyone can observe that they work accordingly.

To me, this is confirmation that what is out there immersing us in these "signals" that we can all observe really exists. This is physical reality to me.

We analyze the signals and draw conclusions. The more we know about what is out there, the better conclusions we draw. We know more today that we did 100 years ago and in 100 years, we will know more yet.

Andre - I think you are accepting words and subjective assessments as evidence.   If I experience the colour we all call "orange" as green and you see it as blue, we would not be able to tell by using words to describe it.  This is why most men only discover they are colour blind by accident. Man's brain does not have special properties; It is made of the same stuff as eveything else. It's much more complex than other objects but not materially different.  Our characters and behaviour are ultimately determined by quantum statistics.  

Stephen,

When I think about the visible color range, I think about their specific frequencies. Everyone can verify with instruments if needed and agree that the frequencies in the lower visible range are lower than those in the higher visible frequencies. Saying that the lower frequencies appear red and that the higher frequencies appear blue is just a convention. By convention, we set the intermediate "colors".

The neocortex has very special properties. It allows us to perceive patterns in the incoming signals of our senses, It is from these patterns that we extrapolate what is out there.

André - I understand you but I am arguing that we can never know what another person sees, feels or believes.  To this extent "objective reality" is a personal experience and essentially subjective.

Stephen,

I agree that we cannot know what any other persons' subjective model of reality is, but what we can do is agree, for those who want to find common ground and identify what objectively is out there, that whatever those others see physically, that they all can agree that an electron, for example has been exhaustively confirmed as having an invariant rest mass of 9.10938188E-31 kg .

Of course, this implies that this collection of individuals acquire sufficient knowledge about electrons to be able to verify what has been formally established, and become able to conclude by the preponderance of the evidence, that this particular fact is now objectively known. This established fact indeed is such a piece of objective reality.

The same goes for any other issue.

On the other hand, there is no way to explain to or to convince those who do not wish to acquire sufficient knowledge, or having acquired sufficient knowledge still remain uncertain.

Now, even if those who remain uncertain can't come to agree that the invariant rest mass of the electron is exactly 9.10938188E-31 kg, it will still have this invariant mass: objective physical reality.

Even when thousand years ago, nobody understood that the Earth was in orbit about the Sun, it still was in orbit all the same about the Sun: objective physical reality.

Andre - I accept, of course, that we can all agree on numerical peoperties of objects of all kinds and sizes but most of us like to have a mental picture to make sense of the numbers or to visualise a mathematical model.  A chemist does not rely only on chemical formulae when he examines a reaction and a biocchemist hardly at all.

I do not deny the existence of physical reality but i isn't always as obvious as we think it is.

Well, I think objective physical reality is out there, and I like to think that the better we understand it, the better we will be able to benefit from this knowledge.

Alijam,

As I mentioned, "colors" are a convention that we apply to the physically existing "visible electromagnetic frequencies". A convention that dates back to before Maxwell discovered that the colors were names that we give to a specific range of electromagnetic frequencies. Since Maxwell, we know what causes the colors. We did not know before.

This is the very narrow range of electromagnetic frequencies that the receptors in our eyes can detect (their reception by these cells triggers an electrochemical signal that goes to the part of the neocortex that receives these signals from the eyes). The manner that our brain is informed about these frequencies is objective reality.

You mention Newtonian physics. It is a verified fact that any object falls to the ground accelerating as a function of the inverse square of the distance separating the falling body from the ground. This is physical reality. Not interpretation, but measurement made innumerable times and can be measured at will by anybody.

The falling apple does not care about our theories, it just falls in the only manner possible for it, accelerating as a function of the inverse square of the distance to the ground. How we incorporate this behavior in our theories is our own problem. If we incorporate it wrongly, then the theory will not match what can be physically measured or accomplished. The same for any other experimental measurement.

It is also a verified fact that the Coulomb force causes opposite sign electric particles to attract and accelerate towards each other as a function of the same law, the inverse square attraction law. This is physical reality. Not interpretation, but measurement.

We also have had confirmation in 2014 that the magnetic aspects of electrons repel as a function of the inverse cube of the distance separating them. See paper referred below. This is physical reality. Not interpretation, but measurement.

You say: "And concerning about the information that we can consistently obtain from measurement cannot account for a reality that independent from us."

Why not? Do you think that what you have measured will stop to exist after you have measured it?

We are only observers. We observe, gather data and draw conclusions. What can be ascertained by experimental measurement is physical reality to me.

Whatever exists whether we believe or not that it exists is physical reality. Physical reality does not care what we think about it. It is just there for us to understand and make the best of the knowledge we gather about it.

When we close our eyes, the world about us continues to exist even if we don't see it. When we sleep, the Earth continues translating about the Sun all the same. This is objective physical reality.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

Dear Alimjan (sorry for the previous typo in your name)

I "conclude" it is real, which is different.

We know through experimentation that all photons in the visible range hitting the cells of our retina each has been emitted by an electron moving from an unstable orbital in an atom to an orbital closer to the nucleus.

We know through experimentation that this electron was driven from this closer orbital to this further away metastable orbital by gathering energy from the environment (by convection or conduction in solid and liquid materials) or by being hit by an incoming photon.

So the reason why this photon can hit my eye receptor cell is because it has been emitted previously somewhere else coming from such a direction that it could hit my eye at this precise moment. I know from simple logic that the electron that emitted it as it de-exited is located in the general direction that I was looking towards at this precise moment, even if it came from a far star, or from any close by object.

I can also only "conclude" that it was emitted before I received it, because I could not have received it before it started existing. Causality. Very simple. I don't have to believe it, I just have to understand the objectively occurring process of photon emission in the visible range.

To understand any process objectively occurring in nature, we only need to gather the proper data and draw the logical conclusions.

My view is that any theory that cannot account for "ALL" experimentally verified facts about nature is incomplete and should be reconsidered. I think that sticking to incomplete theories deprives us of important possibilities that we could otherwise master and use to our benefit.

I believe that some day, this will be done and will bring us great as yet unsuspected benefits.

You are right, Andre. But many processes are very complex and cause and effect are not easy to see through. Therefore I see currently a fundamental problem in physics:

Any theory about a specific part of reality has to be proven. Ingenious and expensive experiments are performed. But in evaluating of this experiment the experimenters and theoreticians presuppose that the theory is right or it has to be right. Alternative valuations are not done. Every theory will be proven sooner or later under those conditions.

We have some "great theories" in physics which are proven under such conditions. For example:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279963956_Theory_and_reality_on_the_experiment_of_ReinesCowan_1956

Research Theory and reality on the experiment of Reines/Cowan 1956

Dear Hans,

I know that  experimentalists have taken a habit of preparing expriments presupposing that they know in advance whether they are right or wrong, and I always found this totally irrational.

This pre-supposes knowledge about the unknown that simply does not exist. Before the 20th century, experimentalists did real research, preparing exploratory experiments to observe and gather data that they then attempted to interprete and integrate into theories, or if theories failed, then they elaborated new theories that could integrate the new data.

Alfred Korybski wrote in 1921:

 “Bending facts to theories is a constant danger, whereas bending theories to facts is essential to science. Epistemologically, the fundamental theories must develop in converging lines of investigation, and if they do not converge, it is an indication that there are flaws in the theories, and they are revised.”

This is what should be done.

A famous example of this was Faraday's experiment that revealed that light could be polarized with magnets, that led Maxwell to succeed in completely integrating the work of Gauss, Ampere and Coulomb into his famous set of equations.

This was real experimental research that led to real progress, and this method of gathering data and then interpreting the result should be re-established, because this is the only method that allows theories to then be adapted to integrate new discoveries.

I found that it is not difficult to relate even the most complex processes to causes. It simply involves  that all pre-suppositions be left on the side, while the complete set of data is re-assessed taking into account the new data that has just been discovered and added to the set.

This is not being done currently, and this is why the major experimental confirmation of the inverse cube interaction law that was just obtained about the magnetic aspect of electrons, for example, is left to gather dust and slowly fall into oblivion like so many other fruitful data gathered over the 20th century, instead of causing the community to try integrating this new data into the theories, of if the theories are inadequate for the integration, then elaborate new more extensive theories.

Bad scientific method leading nowhere.

I am familiar with the Raines and Cowan experiment, and found their experiment very revealing. If interested, I had this article published in 2013 about neutrinos:

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue7/A07070108.pdf

Dear André!

The term "theoretical pre-supposed knowledge" is very good to describe the situation in physics. Maybe both of us have the same opinion about current physics especially about "neutrinos"?

I made a mistake in my answer below. It should be corrected as: ... the experimenters and theoreticians presuppose that the theory is right or it has to be right.

My principle: First the knowledge and then the mathematics. Otherwise we have at least a mathematical world view. This would be comparable with all kinds of faith.

Hans

I am rather astounded that Bohr and Heisenberg made this statement which, taken at face value and out of context says some amazing things.

"The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite. Whenever we proceed from the known into the unknown we may hope to understand, but we may have to learn at the same time a new meaning of the word 'understanding'".

 The sentence "The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality," What do they mean by "always"? If it be "always" then science is a futile, hopeless pursuit because we can never get there, "there" being "an understanding of reality". We don't have their definition of "reality" but I presume it refers to the Universe in its totality regarded as an entity that possesses existence and duration in an absolute sense, that is, the Universe is really "real" and it does what it does totally within that context of "reality" (all events in the Universe are "natural", none are "supernatural"). So set aside "always" and the sentence proceeds fine until we stumble over "very". "Limited" yes, but "very limited"? Drop the "very" and the statement acquires a more or less optimistic tone and may be "true". 

Is the is the part of "reality" that we don't understand truly "infinite"? "Immense" perhaps but "infinite"? If so, once again we are engaged in a futile effort to understand that which can never be understood. Why bother?

Finally, if perhaps we have to learn a new way of meaning and way of understanding what be the old one? We need to be clear about what is "understanding". Blindfolded to what extent can we "understand" an elephant?

Is it real? How much do we know about reality? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_real_How_much_do_we_know_about_reality [accessed Aug 15, 2016].

Dear Christian.

I will agree with you if you can answer the very simple questions I am going to ask you about a little further on.

You wrote:

"I can hardly imagine someone who is scientist and prepares an experiment to test a theory to have no expectation about the result. And I doubt that it ever was different. "

I absolutely agree. But what is different today from the scientific method that prevailed in Maxwell and Faraday's time pertains to unexpected results that some experiments or observations reveal.

In this particular case, Faraday was not out to discover that light was polarizable by magnetic fields to prove some theory, he first observed this as an aside to what he was experimenting about, and of course then dug in to confirm out of any doubt this "objective physical reality observation", because he was a true experimentalist.

He then talked about his unexpected discovery to his friend Maxwell, who asked himself "How could this new information about light be fitted with other confirmed observation we have regarding magnetism and electricity, since we already know that magnetism and electricity are already confirmed to be linked?", because he was a true theoretician. He then understood that light could only be electromagnetic in nature and the outcome is the precious set of equations that mathematically allow us to deal with free electromagnetic energy, that gave rise then to The Lorentz equation for massive particles.

You also wrote:

"Well, I find it quite natural to have some expectation. There is nothing wrong with it unless you manipulate results to fit to the expectation."

I will give you a telling example of exactly this behavior.

It was noticed in the 1990's, that spacecrafts Pioneer 10 and 11 that were the first crafts to be sent on their way in opposite directions on inertial hyperbolic trajectories out of the solar system, were not following exactly the outward spiraling trajectories that were "predicted" by the General Relativity theory, a theory that was deemed to cover all cases of "inertial motion" in the universe. Both crafts were and still are following trajectories a little tighter than predicted "objective physical reality observation", as if they were a little more massive than expected. Did the community ask "how can this newly confirmed observation be fitted with other confirmed information about inertial motion?".

No. They asked themselves "How can we fit this newly confirmed observation in a way that will not cause requestioning of GR?" and this is exactly what was done, putting everyone's mind at peace with unprovable mundane explanations that did not geopardize GR. No research was even initiated to try finding a more comprehensive theory that could account for this new inertial data "new objective physical reality observation" that was unavailable 100 years ago when GR was conceived of.

Two years ago, it was experimentally noticed as an aside that two electrons, from two separate atoms, captive in relative anti-parallel alignment were interacting in repulsion "as a function of the inverse cube of the distance separating them".

Did this raise any question in the community? The answer is no. Dead silence to this day. Nobody in the community even wonders at how interesting and unexpected it is that the very same electromagnetic particles that are known to "interact electrically according to the inverse square of the distance", would at the same time obey a higher order interaction law when interacting magnetically.

My question to you is, can you give me the name(s) of the researcher (s) that are currently formally looking into this quite extraordinary confirmed "objective physical reality observation" In order to fit it "for the first time in history" into any theory whatsoever.

If you can give me those names, I will agree with you.

Dear Hans,

I also feel that we have the same general opinion about current fundamental research in physics.

I also observe that as you say "the experimenters and theoreticians presuppose that the theory is right or it has to be right."

I observe that fundamental research in physics meant to integrate newly experimentally obtained or observed data into more comprehensive theories has ground to a standstill for decades now.

Dear Dwight.

As I read the English translation of Heisenberg's book "Physics and Beyond", I got the distinct impression that he thought that if he could not understand something, he was of the opinion that nobody else could. I did not have access to the original German version "Der Teil und das Ganze", so I don't know if I would have gotten the same impression.

It is a fact that the objective data set available at the time was more restricted then. We have more data today, and even he could understand more deeply now if he was still around, So could we all.

Dear André,

Thank you for your reply. One thing I failed to mention is that I presumed that the wording was accurately translated. My history of the time is rather scant but the appearance of the word "infinite" did surprise me because I was thinking that at that time there was still some turmoil in physics and mathematics over the meaning and use of  the concept "infinity". I would also quibble that if the unknown is infinite in compass then so must be the Universe - but that is veering into metaphysics.

Dear Christian.

Indeed, it is no surprise to me that you have not heard about these inverse cube measurements, for the simple reason that they drew exactly no attention at all in the community.

As you say, there are a number of reasons for today's state of affairs in theoretical fundamental research in physics, the most acute of which is the trend to hyperspecialisation in colleges and universities across the planet over the course of the 20th century, always wrongly giving the impression to even the best minds around that some expert or expert group in the community is better equipped to address any specific fundamental issue that they are not specically familiar with and that they will eventually issue some paper clearing out the issue.

I agree also that funding politics, employment conditions, and relentless pressure to have one's work published for status recognition are major contributors.

Regarding the 2014 experiment that confirmed this magnetic inverse cube interaction law, see the first paper I append. The reason why this attracted my attention so much is that 17 years ago, I carried out a lab experiment that predicted this behavior of electrons by similarity. I had it published in 2013, 1 year before the 2014 confirming paper. See second paper linked if interested.

Concerning the Pioneer anomaly, I have serious reasons to conclude that the crafts were effectively slightly more massive in deep space than estimated from measurements from data used for ground level mass estimation, which would invalidate all unprovable cosmetic explanations that were issued to settle the case that did not question GR. But this is another issue.

Note that I do not blame the researchers proper for this state of affair. Everybody's agenda is so loaded by the constraints of the established system that little time is left for deep study of just about any extraneous issue. The numerous reasons you mention are the cause. If interested in my analysis of why we painted ourselves in this dead-end corner, you can have a look at the third paper I give a link to below.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue5/H0705050066.pdf

Dear Dwight.

My own take about these statements you say Bohr and Heisenberg issued, is that they are simple opinions on their part, which while not diminishing in any way their important contribution to physics, are just personal opinions on the issue, carrying no more weight than anybody else's opinion.

I have a feeling that Heisenberg in particular was so frustrated at not being able to understand further than was possible in his time, that he concluded that the little that was understood was just about all that ever could be understood.

I seem to recall having read that he at least once wrote that others were wasting their time trying to understand further about the fundamental level.

That was his personal opinion of course. I totally disagree. The more data we have to analyse, the more understanding we can get. On one condition however, which is that each further expanded set be re-analyzed without any pre-conceptions or axiomatic all encompassing interdictions about this or that aspect.

Dear Christian.

I know the official account, because I have been following this case from the onset.

Of course they could find any number of reasons, amounting to speculation that would allow leaving GR alone even in this case, because for lack of a comprehensive theory that would make sense to them and would provide a provable explanation, they could only conclude that these unprovable reasons had to be valid. Simple logic.

As I said, I have serious reasons to conclude that small bodies, such as these crafts, taken away from a large mass such as that of the Earth become slightly more massive.

Understanding why however, involves understanding the theory underlying this conclusion, which is something that no one in the formal community will take the time to integrate, for the reasons already mentioned. This is material for the upcoming generation, which is still in the process of generally searching for answers.

As Planck once wrote:

"A new scientific truth doesn’t triumph by convincing it opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents end up dying, and the following generation grows, becoming familiar with it."

Not really thinking that everybody in the formal community would oppose the idea, I am positive however that nobody in the formal community will take/find the time to do this, and risk his/her neck as you so pointedly mention.

However, if curious, you can read the following paper, which at one point describes why the Pioneer "anomaly" is not an anomaly. This will not however give you the required understanding of the complete model, just one of about 20 odd papers required to really understand the model.

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol8-issue1/B08011033.pdf

Dear Christian,

You say that "scientists would not sweep something under the carpet just to protect established theories"

My view is not that they are doing this to "protect" established theories.They do this because they don't dare not to protect established theories, simply for fear of ridicule as you say.

What do you think will happen in the case of the so fantastic and enigmatic discovery that electrons obey at the same time the inverse square electrostatic law and the inverse cube magnetostatic law?

I predict that dead silence will continue on unabated, and that unfortunately for scientific progress and all the benefits that could immediately ensue, this will be taken up only by the upcoming generation also.

For those interested in the Pioneer 10 and 11 so called anomaly,

here are two major papers issued by Anderson et al. who worked on the case for the duration.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9412234.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9808081v2.pdf

Of course it is not possible to prove the existence of reality or a "real world", neither that the latter is an illusion. All we can say is that we as "living beings" evolve commensurate with scientific laws.

If "reality" would simply be an illusion (however persistent as Einstein did express), it would make the "communication" between various evolving entities in the Universe meaningless as well as any possibility to perceive and cognize anything from "inner" subjective- to "outer" objective mental understanding.

Since there is a "gap" in the laws of physics as applicable to Nature and biological concepts, there is the need for fundamental research to take existing knowledge in physics and chemistry and extending it to areas of importance in biology like neurological and brain science as well as a theoretical attempt to understand consciousness.  

on my part, I am positive that I really exist and constantly receive visible signals from matter near and far about me by means of electrons de-excitation, audible signals from sound waves, and so on for all my senses.

I am also positive that the texts I read have really been written by other people and that what they tell me, they really tell me. That the paper or screen they are written on are made with real atoms that really exist.

I am also positive that I can exchange ideas with other people.

All of this are manifestation of objective physical reality.

I need no other proof of the existence of objective physical reality.

This does not prevent me from clearly understanding the difference between what I undestand of physical reality and what objective reality is. The first, I understand completely, the second I understand in part, but as I gather more data, my comprehension increases in sync.

Everybody is totally free to do the same.

What is "reality"? First of all, what is "relaity" is a definition that we can find in our dictionaries. But the Universe in which we live knows nothing of our definitions. The Universe, of which we are part, is what it is and that is our "objective" reality. We perceive the Universe through processes acting within the Universe. But to question our perceptions requieres us, in a sense, to step outside the Universe and be "outside looking in". Sometimes we step outside not to return and therein the Universe and its reality become illusionary..

Dear dwight.

You say: "But the Universe in which we live knows nothing of our definitions. The Universe, of which we are part, is what it is and that is our "objective" reality. We perceive the Universe through processes acting within the Universe. "

Exactly what I think.

You also say: "But to question our perceptions requieres us, in a sense, to step outside the Universe and be "outside looking in."

I think that to question and draw conclusions from our perceptions, plus the perceptions of others that they communicate of their own perception to us, simply requires analyzing the set and drawing our own conclusions.

Actually, this is what we are constantly doing.

Each of us has at his/her disposal the most powerful correlator in existence for so doing, our neocortex, which provides us with the coherences that it automatically perceives in the set. It is up to each of us, (to each our "awareness" in fact, whatever it may be) to logically connect what can logically be  connected from the most complete set that each of us collects.

Reality don't care about our theories and definitions but our theories and definitions has to care about reality.

Contradictions between reality and theory are caused by errors in theory and not errors in reality. Many scientists are in doubt about the knowledge of reality at this point. We have more often to be in doubt about the theories. Theories and even more definitions are not automatically knowledges of reality. They are only an attempt to describe reality.

Passage into a physics textbook in connection with the Theta-tau-question: "Der einfachste Ausweg wäre die Kapitulation der Experimentalphysiker und das Eingeständnis, dass die Experimente falsch sind." (In English: The easiest way out would be the capitulation of the experimental physicists and the admission that the experiments are wrong.) At this point physics reached incredibility.

Dear Christian,

"But the Universe in which we live knows nothing of our definitions. The Universe, of which we are part, is what it is and that is our "objective" reality. We perceive the Universe through processes acting within the Universe."

Thank you for comments on my comment above to which I add a further comment:

The original question as posed “How much do we know about reality?” is within the realm of classical "metaphysics" defined as the investigation of a system of thought (physics, mathematics, logic, etc.) using methods of investigation within the system itself. "Reality" has been a controversial metaphysical issue since the time that the word and concept was invented. My point is that the Universe should be taken by assumption or postulate to be the “fundamental reality”. That is, the Universe would be here as it is without our being here to perceive it. As we are part of the Universe our thinking about the Universe uses processes that lie within the Universe. What we know of “reality” is what we know collectively of the Universe, which is what I believe you are saying. [By “collectively” I mean knowledge accepted as “true” by consensus of all who have examined it for its “truth value”.] I think that we are pretty much in agreement.

A further note: I anthropomorphize the Universe simply as a rhetorical device to catch the reader’s attention for the following sentence, which is the essence of my answer to the question posed.

Is it real? How much do we know about reality? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_real_How_much_do_we_know_about_reality#view=57b427e4b0366d4df4788588 [accessed Aug 17, 2016].

Dear Christian.

If you insist, I will use "there are reasons" instead of "I have reasons":

"As I said, there are reasons to conclude that small bodies, such as these crafts, taken away from a large mass such as that of the Earth become slightly more massive."

I see no real difference though. The same meaning seems to be carried by the sentence.

Since you are so keen on wording, note that I did not write "my theory" as you say, but "the model", "the complete model" and  "more comprehensive theory".

Not thinking that you really would be interested, I did not specify further. I simply refer to plain electromagnetic theory clarified to account for the internal dynamic structure of elementary particles.

And yes, it cannot be explained in a few sentences in plain conversation since it touches every aspects electrodynamics and physics in general.

Nowhere in the 300 odd contributions I made to questions in RG, nor anywhere else, by the way, will you find any trace of any "marketing-strategy" for some hypothetical "my model".

The issue I have been constantly raising since I entered RG is the issue that you still are remaining silent about, that of the extraordinary experimental confirmation and unaccounted for in any current theory of the magnetic inverse cube interaction law in action between electrons, which is at play at the same time as the electrostatic inverse square interaction law.

Do you think that some group of expert is secretly working on this issue and will eventually come up with a paper explaining it, or do you think this is beyond the ability of the formal community to address, or maybe that this is not an important issue?

Clear danger here for anyone addressing this issue in the formal community, isn't there, because this can be explained by no currently accepted theory. My humble opinion is that no one in the current formal community will dare seriously address this issue for fear of being ridiculed for challenging established theories.

As I said, material for the up coming generation.

Dear Christian.

I fully relate to your mentioning that days would need to have more than 24h for anybody active at specific projects to be able to find sufficient time for studying deeply enough for clear understanding so many possible offerings, among which only a few can statistically be of real interest. I have the same problem since I still work full time.

Your question about the inverse cube magnetic interaction law is not dumb at all, quite the contrary.

The authors of the Nature article do not elaborate.

This inverse cube law pertains to the magnetic behavior of electrons, which is independent of their electric behavior. The reason why it is so remarkable is that it allows explaining why orbitals in atoms are stable. Summarily put, it directly explains why the electron does not crash on the proton in a hydrogen atom but stabilizes on the known mean rest orbital.

It also explains why two electrons, which repel each other as a function of the inverse square interaction law due to their identically signed charges, will nevertheless join in covalent magnetic bounding to link atoms together, because at short range, the inverse cube magnetic interaction law will dominate in attraction and overcome the inverse square electric repulsion at short distance between electrons when in anti-parallel magnetic relation.

This picture shows the relation between the two interaction laws.

If interested, I have this paper recently peer-reviewed that describes as an aside the hydrogen atom mean rest orbital stability to give an example:

http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.php?aid=75602

Dear Christian.

Exact. Parallel spin orientation is unstable because both two electrons in parallel spin orientation repel according to both interaction laws. The repulsion from both laws add to each other.

In magnets, many unpaired electrons, each belonging to a different atom in local domains are forcefully maintained in parallel spin orientation by local electromagnetic equilibrium states. This is why their magnetic fields add up to quantities observable at our macroscopic scale.

If you heat a magnet, the electrons will start locally vibrating and as they vibrate more and more, their parallel spin alignment will become less and less stable and the magnetic field of the magnet will eventually stop being detectable at our macroscopic level. If you then cool the magnet, the initial macroscopically detectable magnetic field will be progressively re-established, provided that heating did not disrupt the initial configuration beyond just locally exciting the electrons.

See CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 84th Edition 2003-2004, CRC Press, New York. 2003, (p.12-117), for more on domains in magnets. If interested, you can also have a look at the following paper on the Einstein-de Haas and Barnett experiments, and how they correlate.

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue12/B06120711.pdf

Dear Christian.

You ask: "what about the hydrogen atom?"

Strange question indeed, since this was about the stability of the hydrogen atom from the get go.

I see that you are trying to fit this with Quantum Mechanics. This won't work because QM does not integrate the inverse cube magnetic interaction law and consequently cannot help in any way understanding the hydrogen atom stability, or that of any other atom.

I will try to give coherent answers to each point you raised.

a)      No. the "proton" does not have a spin. Its internal components have spins. The "proton spin" is an averaged out resultant composite spin that has no relation to the hydrogen atom stability.

b)      No. There is no "binding energy" involved. There are inverse square and inverse cube interaction binding relations involved between the electron and the inner components of the proton.

c)      No. In a hydrogen atom, the probability density of the electron is maximal at the location it is at at any given moment somewhere on the rest orbital, and those of the proton inner components are maximal at their individual locations at any given moment somewhere inside the proton.

To understand the stability of the hydrogen atom, you would need first to completely master electromagnetic theory and then also the internal electromagnetic structure of the electron and that of the internal components of the proton, which are explained in a series of separate papers. About 20 of them that explain in detail each aspect related to the scatterable electromagnetic elementary particles set making up all atoms in the periodic table.

I am positive that with your own current agenda, you would need those 24h plus each day if you really wanted to dig in.

However, if interested, the first paper leading to all others is this one, recently peer-reviewed, that explains how the localized de Broglie double-particle photon can be made Maxwell equations compliant, which involves expanding the local space geometry in the only way that allows this compliance to be established. The other papers that must be understood are given in the reference sections of each paper involved. All papers are interconnected via the reference sections.

Unfortunately, there is no other way to understanding but to study the theory in depth, which requires sufficient interest and time.

This is why I said that this was material for the upcoming generation, comprising searching minds still wishing to invest time and effort to sample all available theories and pick the one that pleases them most, for giving them the most satisfactory answers. 

http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.php?aid=70373

Maybe one must raise the question whether reality has an immaterial part. Since a biological process is teleonomic, i.e. owes its directedness to the influence of an evolved program, for example the genetic code, restricting the discussion to material reality might throw the baby out with the bath water.  

The genetic code ADN and ARN being made of normal matter physically existing atoms, it seems to me that it is enclosed in the set making up objective physical reality by default, doesn't it.

Dear Christian.

If you read back, I mentioned two different things:

1-      The covalent bound that unites atoms into molecules,

2-      The stability of the hydrogen atom, for which I gave you a link to a paper explaining how stability can be explained when both interaction laws are are taken into account.

I do not suggest replacing QM with something else. It does its job fine, but it cannot explain atomic stability, because it does not integrate electromagnetic interaction laws in action between the electron and the inner components of the proton. If I am mistaken about this, please show me how the inverse cube interaction law is integrated into QM.

As for QM, it is based on all that was understood in the 1930's, fine at the general level, but incomplete because it does not integrate all electromagnetic properties of energy.

We know more today.

Note that I am not trying to convince you of anything. I simply answered your questions as they came. The 3-spaces model is not superior to QM, it is simply electromagnetic interactions as described from a different angle, that actually explains among other things, why atoms are stable.

There is no need to convince anybody. The complete explanation is out there and it will eventually be studied and understood by a sufficient number of people for action to be taken in regard the benefits that this more precise understanding of objective physical reality will provide in many directions.

What has been understood cannot be de-understood: objective physical reality.