... Our research tried to describe (from a visual artist’s point of view) natural

creation and yet it has reached a dead end since we faced an eternal and unresolved problem. We argue that when a problem has no proven solution then it might be part of a bigger issue that needs another approach. In our opinion though, this problem is

hiding something more than a failure to reach precise results.

Although we respect the prevailing notion, we state clearly that the π measurement is right but the way it is measured is arbitrary because nature has its own proportional standard of measurement. Until today, we may have not evaluated the problem properly.

The constant ratio might make more sense than an accurate measurement. We measure with our own quantitative measures and we ignore or don’t give weight to the default quality proportion of nature.

http://atmito.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/komvos_en.pdf

Adjunct to this question is whether a humanly constructed laboratory universe is compatable with human existence and can co-exist or co-endure with the real universe that has a different history? Can experiment with nature damage it? If experimental apparatus working according to a universe of its' own provides information and measurement by difference or disparity, it must also introduce disparity. Might humanity be abetting some of it's own difficulties, e.g. climate change, auto-immune disease, in ways other than what is considered, via acculturation processes.

For the moment I would say the limits are dictated by Uncertainty Principles.

Or such principle that may come out based on an improved theory. Perhaps we don't know but appear that all measurements are always limited by the theory that can support them. In the end, a measurement can only become meaningful as determined by the intellect that appreciates (interprets) it.

Johnrob.... I believe that much of the stationary fact we attribute to observation is no more than the flexible product of adjustment. Nature is the product of reaction to weathers that can dominate conceptual understanding and lead to blindness to the existence of other possibilities- though an entire society can suffer the same , this possibility should surface from ambiguity that leads on a never ending search for more and more physical evidence...sound concepts exist as parallels to one another and do not form intersections that point elsewhere as false concepts should point soundly to the distinct, maybe temporally ordered actions of pluralities of influencing weather conditions . How else might an immunopathology that fools a hosts defensive mechanisms confuse both the studying mind and the invaded body simultaneously.

Thanks Marvin for your point. While concepts may exist as parallels (in the Hilbert Space or something like this), but the real question is whether these concepts formed from observations and measurements analogically (or univocally or unequivocally) corresponds to the actual physical nature.

As for QM that the act of measurement changes the state of the system, perhaps it is not nature that is changed but our ability to measure the actual state of the physical system?

On your question last question, "fooling" the mechanism is a conclusion that so far we can form from the current data we have. We could understand this mechanism in the end and infer "counter-intuitive" conclusions. We must agree that our science today may become trivial in the future.

I think we drop all of the added baggage as you describe "all measurements are always limited by the theory that can support them", to equate you "universe"..as the mind might be construed to be the equipment that measures the same as determines itself and what is experienced...what we measure with prosthetics may be just close by in age and resembling unaided observation to be amenible to rational interpretation/expression with measurement.. I wholey agree with you that it is not the measurement but the understanding gotten from it...

I dont think we should belittle ourselves to consider what we have accomplished to be trivial...life happens at the confrontation not at the finish line.

If the world is just a place of disparity, the atoms, electrons, protrons we describe are states of disparity close in relation to those of life, the quantification of the disparities becomes very complex if what we measure with prosthetics is of a different age that we are able to traverse the boundary, come back with data that is different from either. The most important point is that we have a big picture as I describe could be the case, otherwise we are able to damage ourselves with false representations and probes that effect change, with false representations alone if forest is not known from trees the idea of forest can become mutated in the mind to endanger lifetimes.

It is also very important that researchers clearly record what questions and thoughts are really dwelling in the recesses of the mind, they can become lost and a better picture of endeavors with them as object and observer, problems and society change together under a common influence, trace of it buried

in its trail.

The limits of measurement are instrumentally determined. I regard the aether-1 particle to be the smallest particle available to us. Planck’s constant refers to the collision produced by one photon/aether-1 particle, which is then the smallest unit of motion (a quantum). As per our book, "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe", aether-1 particles are formed from aether-2 particles, ad infinitum. This follows from the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). All this is neatly consupponible with the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything). I doubt that we will ever be able to perform the sub-quantic measurements theorized by Bohm. Aether-2 probably will remain a mystery, just like aether-1 still remains unacknowledged by most physicists.

Dear Mervin,

Here are some of the limitations of scientific measurements:

The first limit is from the limitations of the human sense organs.

The second limit is from the limitations of the instruments and apparata (e.g.least count and resolving power etc.)

The third limit is from the limitations of human intellect (i.e. reasoning) in planning the experiment and in drawing the right kind of inferences from the measurements.

The fourth limit is from the limitations, if any, inherent in Nature which place restrictions on the accuracy of a measurement e.g. uncertainty principle.

See my work "psycho-physical interpretation of quantum theory" on research gate for some more interesting aspects of subject-object interactions in science.

Wish you a very happy new year.

Rajat.

Measurements include many limitations. In scales, we can`t discriminate between two values that fall between the marked divisions of the measuring scale. In addition to scaling errors, there are also sampling errors, It is important for researchers to be aware of these errors.

I think the physical reality when it comes to space and large masses and high speeds (near the speed of light); and when it comes to space and tiny mass, lose the meaning of objective image in our consciousness. Therefore, we resort to the construction of mathematical models that can describe and explain how these physical realities work. But they can not tell us how the image of them.

I believe that our structural bio-psychic configuration, only perceive and understand (cognitive and epistemic encode) a range of phenomena of the physical world that we can measure from a minimum limit to a maximum amount (even with the help of machines and equipment Extended sensing).

Following this line of argument, I think it is not possible to construct an image of the physical realities of the world. We can build models that explain its operation, which can be tested with empirical-experimental comparison. With this, we can have some control of sectors of physical reality. However, I think the mystery of how the universe, multiverse, everything will remain, all that is, or as we like to call it where we live and have our being.

Does it all boils down to the following implication?

limits of observation --> limits of measurement --> limits of models --> limits of knowledge

Dear Paul, can you help me to understand.

??

Dear Hanno, I am not the questioner ("Fragensteller"), I think he ought to give us further clarification of what he is really after, because I have myself problems understanding his original question. Therefore I challenged him, and everybody else who is participating here, by giving my personal interpretation of the original (very long) problem statement.

Thus I fancied how observation, measurement, modeling and knowing could be conceived of as co-dependent (human) processes of cognition (or similar things). Indeed, there might be an even longer chain of transformations from observation to knowledge, but this one is already complicated enough.

• For alternative explanatory models based (in part) on empirical

research see the highly "illuminating" books of Gerald Edelman

(--> links below)

How does knowledge (of our natural environment, which is certainly more than just physics) emerge out of pure or raw observations? If observations are already severly limited (by nature), than our measurements of it (understood as highly formalized and standardized and abstracted observation) will of course inherit those limitations and probably add some of its own. The next step in the chain of cognitive processes could be called modelling, which again inherist the limits of original observations (by means of our sensory organs) plus the measurement limits, and again adds more of its own because modeling always implies (by definition, no surprise) leaving out "irrelevant" things and putting in a lot of simplifying assumptions in order to get structure out of chaos. Finally, rich knowledge is (usually, sometimes) based on such models, but tries to restore the lost information down the chain of interpretation and transformations, and has at the same time its limits as far as the success of this restoration is concerned.

The question seems to be if we are able to say something intelligent about all those limitations in the process we call knowledge-making.

Does this make sense to you?

???

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Nature-Brain-Science-Knowledge/dp/0300125941/

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Consciousness-Matter-Becomes-Imagination/dp/0465013775/

http://www.amazon.com/Bright-Air-Brilliant-Fire-Matter/dp/0465007643/

Thanks for your response. I will try to understand and come back with the next question.

The history of physics shows that mathematical models have been built on parts of reality, on which questions are asked. Questions can not be answered directly. Models are built to answer those questions. A model is a (theoretical) conceptual device to find the answers. But there is no guarantee that the conceptual device is a mirror of reality object. Also keep in mind, is that the empirical test is derived from the architecture of the explanatory theoretical mathematical model. Architecture that often can not be tested by physical and experimental limitations that can not be resolved. Architecture that blends with our design bio-psychic-cognitive-epistemic. From the above, it follows that:

Limits of the models (mathematical devices) and limits of observation (with observation devices) -> Measurement limits -> -> limits of knowledge.

please see additional references to my comment of yesterday .....

Your comment has full theoretical scientific epistemic sense.

I appreciate the links sent. I believe it important neuroscience studies related to the "conscience".

This reminds me of a philosophical reflection paper I wrote in 2010 The summary is this:

This paper is a brief analysis on some of the foundations

of the Quantum Physics and its possible relationship with

the investigation in the human and social sciences. The abovementioned,

starting from the possible bond among the quantum

phenomenon of the coherence among particles (that translates

you in the transmission of simultaneous information beyond the

influence of the variable space-time), with the phenomena characteristic

of the conscience, studied by the Neurosciences and

by the Cognitive Science. They are ahead some ideas that would

be the nucleus of ontological and epistemological hypothesis of

the investigation objects in the sciences related with the human

phenomenon (sociology, psychology, linguistics, anthropology,

history, economy, among other), being the educational phenomena

peculiar object of these. Of it could come off a conception of

human and social sciences related with the quantum phenomena

inside the human interactions (social and subjective world) and

in their relationships with what today it is called objective world.

At the risk of being an interloper, I found question, answers, and implications intriguing. This is not unusual around here since our university allowed us to combine math and economics in a single department. Moreover, we share a building with physics, chemistry, and a few others; the synergy is amazing.

The stated question asks about “the limits of measurement in science.” I recall a conversation with an alum who earned his Ph.D. in economics who posited that most of the limitations in economics revolve around measurement and not theory or models. He continued by suggesting the latter have become increasingly precise; whereas, the ability to refine measurement has grown at a much slower pace. Assuming arguendo that he is correct, an interesting twist on the question might be phased something like this: among the limits of science is measurement… Any thoughts?

Long time ago, out of pure necessity, psychologists have started to worry about measurement in psychology (and closely related disciplines). They've built up an amazing stock of knowledge about and models of measurement, which may equally well be applied in other disciplines. Unfortunately, I suspect that most of these highly sophisticated developments are unknown outside a rather small circle of experts, probably because no one would expect such deep theorizing in psychology. I am sure that many physicists and economists could learn a lot about measurement in their resp. disciplines by having a closer look at this field.

P.S.: However, it may be that physics deals with a very peculiar sort of phenomena for which only one very special measurement theory and related procedures suffice. How fortunate! See e.g. the books and other works of B. Roy Frieden 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521009111

I come at this as a visual artist. I look into what's actually involved in an act of observation. In matters not what we think about vision, it matters what presents as vision.

From my study I am quite clear that we don't know the answer to the question. We have developed our technologies on the basis of the misunderstanding and deploy that in our investigations at remote scales. It is essential that we understand the structure of the phenomenon of vision, perceptual structure and the basis of experiential reality. The human umwelt. Vision is prior-to science, it occurs to us and not our instrumentation. 

Vision-Space is a new form of illusionary space based on perceptual structure. It models visual awareness and it's entirely non-photographically rendered.  Vision is closer to a controlled hallucination than it is to the projection of optics. Vision 'presents' as two independent data-sets that are cascaded together and mediated by mind dependent on our intent in the world. 

Where central/macular vision presents an explicit, detailed 'take 'on reality where we track motion and modulate available data through time as we contemplate form, so called peripheral vision presents an implicit and holistic form of spatial awareness. It's not degraded central vision! These two independent 'takes' on reality require independent types of computational processing, they have their own forms of attention. 

This all suggests that the visual pathways (dorsal and ventral) that originate at the retinal receptors are required to address a decohered signal. Not just the photon. Two independent data-potentials embedded within the light array. The implicit data-potential being entirely absent from our current technologies. Signal from noise that forms a true field x,y&z. Nothing to do with light intensity. It provides the 'contextual where' to the 'explicit what'. There's no point in taking the explicit tool set to measure the implicit. Doing so will find patches of unrelated noise! The implicit happens in real-time in that we unfold the data potential as the receiver. This is why it remains 'covert' to science.

We need both of these data-potentials and the ir respective takes on reality as they play out in phenomenal field. The implicit 'where' providing us with proximity cues, orientation, motion in flow, anticipation of flight paths, self reference, the potential to develop empathy. Space becomes a medium into which we are factored.

Life without these capabilities complies with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). i.e. the more we immerse ourselves in virtual worlds that lack the implicit data structure, the more neural redundancy will result?

And then there are the issues associated with looking at remote scales without accounting for the implicit?

I attach a list of Vision-Space presentations. Hope they are of interest.

Nice collection, thanx a lot for sharing, John. At another place you remarked that vision comes before science (or so). Agree, of course.

We are talking about a natural phenomenon, called vision, which most of us think of as occuring outside or inside us, whether we like it or not. It is not something we "invent" or "dream up", is it? Well, there are scholars and philosophers who claim that all reality is an invention of our dreams, but I don't think they can maintain and rescue such a claim against all the counter-evidence, objective as well as subjective.

Talking about measurement, especially the limits of measurement, is a risky undertaking, because the inherent complexity of the concept and methodology of measurement is often - if not always - underestimated or ignored. As a consequence, the public opinion about measurement is one of distortion, up to the point where people deny its meaningfulness for science and research, at least its non-physical fields. That's a pity, because any theory which claims to be more than a thought experiment or rough speculation will sooner or later have to resort to measurement of some type. And especially in the behavorial and cognitive sciences those measurement types are far more complicated than in the physical sciences.

Yesterday I received the long-awaited paperback version of eminent scholar Louis Narens' highly praised book "Theories of Meaningfullness".  I would like to recommend this reading to all who are seriously interested in the question what measurement is, and in the sometimes controversial answers which have been given up to now, especially in the behavorial and cognitive sciences (e.g. psychology). However, I have to warn you: it is no easy reading, being formulated in sometimes very abstract mathematics. We shouldn't forget, though, that all this theory is an answer on a question which goes back several decades ago, when physicists fiercely denied that psychology would ever become a respected science, including measurement.of psychological or psychophysical phenomena, like vision.

Currently, there are several more or less competing schools of measurement, although I would maintain, that all in all they have more in common than against each other. Narens represents the "representational school". Then there is Finkelstein with "metrology". In management science, Diamantopoulos et al discuss the important distinction between formative versus reflective indiciators. And so on.

My conclusion from all what I have read and seen is: the limits of measurement are the limits of science.

http://www.amazon.de/Visual-Psychophysics-Laboratory-Zhong-Lin-Lu/dp/0262019450

http://www.amazon.de/Theories-Meaningfulness-Scientific-Psychology-Narens/dp/0415654564

Paul, Thanks for the input. I will have to chase those contacts down.

“We are talking about a natural phenomenon, called vision, which most of us think of as occuring outside or inside us, whether we like it or not. It is not something we "invent" or "dream up", is it?”

From my intuitive study of the phenomenon its clear to me that it's a relationship we form with the real so not strictly resident in the above? We generate a perceptual structure. We see the world in terms of this and through it. Now this perceptual structure is likely to dependent on the nature of the stimuli and the data potentials it has to deal with but we generate it as a spider makes a web. I think perceptual structure is essentially self-organising and dependent on the decohered light input? The requirement for ‘process’ two distinct data potentials? These data potentials when rendered don't’ align, they don't fit one within another so the explicit data potential is presented within the implicit field – hence controlled hallucination as opposed to projection. As this mediation of the data formations takes place there are some inconsistences that just have to be finessed in order for us to see the world as homogeneous or unified. Some this activity actually ‘creates’ additional saliency. So how many webs is that!? Where is the reality residing? For we ‘the ultimate reality’ is in the nature of the webs and how they interconnect – not in what appears within them?

“My conclusion from all what I have read and seen is: the limits of measurement are the limits of science.”

I disagree with this I am afraid! The scientific ontology as it stands of 3rd party observation is the cause of the paradoxes we face? The reason why the implicit data potential that appears to form the foundation of visual awareness and perceptual structure is absent from science and ‘covert’ in nature is because it can’t be measured in a 3rd party way. It has to be manifested by the receiver that then forms part of it. Visual art (should) work on the that basis, it's a manifestation from the receiver about the world and the receiver forms part of it’s generation. Now the Vision-Space stimuli CAN be evaluated psycho-physically. This then becoming a form of measurement. But the ontology of science has changed as a result, (extended?) or this isn’t science? Do we need to get handles on this implicit data set? - too right! At present Vision-Space just illustrates the outcomes of perceptual structure. We need to understand how that information potential gets there from the light array and is then processed. If we do then the paradoxes will fall away and with them our total reliance on 3rd party observation and its ‘direct’ measurement agenda?

There are some attempts at 'articles' on my page but I am no academic! 

This guy is an academic however! Brain Scanning and the Single Mind: Prof Jan Koenderink.

http://www.perceptionweb.com/abstract.cgi?id=p2810ed

Fascinating discussion! Point taken. Here my quick (and dirty) reply:

• Vision as a dynamic relationship between two physical realities; (1) man as observer; (2) environment as observed. As an observer, man actively creates an interpretation of the observed environment (the data potentials you are referring to).
• Thus it is not a "mirror image" we are talking about. Vision is a construction with man its constructor. And it is usually goal-directed, based on our evolutionary inheritance + innate curiosity.
• By the way, this active participation in vision (generally: perception, whatever modality) is symmetric, if we should believe in quantum mechanics: man's act of observing, e.g. vision or measurement, has an impact on the environment.
• The ultimate question: what and to what extent can we scientifically explain what is going on in this relationship, including that part which we believe is highly individual (subjective?) and part of what we call "consciousness", a non-scientific concept rather like a "deus ex machina", a label for our ignorance?

We loose all the words like representation and depth etc that belong to picture space. We find in their place 'presentation and proximity'. Stuff owned by us!

With respect to mirrors: Vision-Space: A still life painting together with mirror, mirrored http://youtu.be/F4J579YCW-8

• "By the way, this active participation in vision (generally: perception, whatever modality) is symmetric, if we should believe in quantum mechanics: man's act of observing, e.g. vision or measurement, has an impact on the environment."

Empathy etc. The field structure is of that order? We understand how we are factored into the world and can envisage then how others are. Now just how it is that we are sometimes able to become aware of others looking at us even when they are out of our line of sight, or how others become aware of us looking at them and turn in our direction baffles me! As soon as you concentrate and try it out we get a null response. 

"If I think then everything is lost" Cezanne.

However if we 'build' the umwelt in the way indicated in the Vision-Space presentations on Self Reference and we add in audition (360 degree awareness) and the other senses (multi sensory integration) do these 'field' structures exist just within us? Or are they 'out' there' to an extent? Are some people more naturally attuned to that order of awareness?

• "The ultimate question: what and to what extent can we scientifically explain what is going on in this relationship, including that part which we believe is highly individual (subjective?) and part of what we call "consciousness", a non-scientific concept rather like a "deus ex machina", a label for our ignorance?"

I think we need to 'park' the distinctions to be honest? I doubt it will ever happen but the idea is to get a multidisciplinary group of academics together to start to build an academic (programming) architecture for Vision-Space. No need to discuss the separate disciplines and definitions etc (who cares really!) - just add value to the architecture with what the disciplines can produce. If we did that then we would have a system with an experiential footprint into which the disciplines had contributed and to which the stimuli produced would presumably be 'meaningful'. Not a projected picture in sight!! A new paradigm (true meaning of the word)?

Right now I have broken into my visual percept. It's not easy to control and monitor the process of watching oneself 'seeing', so as I see it, we have an opportunity? We have the inside track. 

Great idea, John: " ... the idea is to get a multidisciplinary group of academics together to start to build an academic (programming) architecture for Vision-Space." Right from the beginning as a student I have embarked on an interdisciplinary journey, starting off as a research psychologist, finishing now as a computer science lecturer and as a researcher in educational assessment. Alas, being multidisciplinary isn't always good for an academic career, which demands specialization-in-depth. If I would be still young, I would presumably jump on my bicycle and join you in your visionary project.

Just read Jan Koenderink's guest editorial. Well written! Great reading! Thanx, John.

Hi again Paul

I am aware that terms like 'multidisciplinary' and 'interdisciplinary' carry baggage in terms of complexity and associated lack of output, but I think this could be different as we have the focus (in Vision-Space) that actually doesn't fit into any camp! It comes from the subjective realm and what we are looking for is how does this apply to work in other disciplines and how can this contribution be used to broaden and intensify.

I am working with Frank Langbein at Cardiff Uni computer science to try to take our existing architectural to real-time speeds. The code is 'open source' so we are hoping that others will 'play' with it. We have commercial interest to use the technology from multiple industries so we can get user input from the gaming and high-end presentation companies and we know that there will be 'impact'.

So I am not sure that participation would require a lot serious upfront coordination? It should be more 'creative' and less formal than that? My experience is precisely zero however, all of this has gone on outside the system as it wasn't permitted in it!

If you were interested in 'play time' then just let us know. We should be (or is that, hope to be) in a position to advertise for an RA and PhD position shortly.

Jan K has contributed to Vision-Space. I was looking for a mathematical description for the data structure occurring in peripheral vision. It certainly wasn't blur. When I hooked up with Jan we got talking and he contributed with his work on 'disorder'. It's this that I use in Vision-Space . We distribute the disorder radially from a selected fixation and increasing with distance. I have a lot of his articles if you want some more but most are freely available I think.

I just picked a sentence of Paul Hubert Vossen:

‘Vision is a construction with man its constructor. And it is usually goal-directed, based on our evolutionary inheritance + innate curiosity’.

Recently I heard a director of the CERN in the radio explaining that it is only curiosity that drives scientific research, but I don’t believe it and if it is true, than, well the goal is not ethic sound.

In my opinion this has only one dimension.

I think things become one dimensional when curiosity seeks gratification via construction employing strictly the, situation/place/locus molded, rationale or mathematically competant logic. (why/how did curiosity kill the cat?~~to illustrate a line dividing the ethical and non~ethical). I think of all the ideas I encountered in study the term with the greatest descriptive potential came from scholars reflecting anthropologically from within the medical nursing profession: "shadows" employed to trace relations between things.  

    When one thinks of shadows he thinks of geometry/lines that connect points/light. "Shadow" employed for description of real things falls short to yield the stationary object; 'time' can added to world of visualized stationary objects with the stipulation that an object or event and its' cast shadow need not align or move together/have the exact same shape-No matter how envisioned a form or description created of fulcrums/levers and lengths to stretch the nose/extend the vision beyond its natural range can also violate nature. Even Lorenz transformations leave such a connected trail. Maybe Shroedinger is closer to reality because 'no one understands it'...a particle that can traverse an area without ever being at the center [I think Shroedinger has produced a formula from the multiplication of polynomials containing terms alike (C^x V^y) C=velocity of light, velocity of motion, x+y=3...describing volume, from here analogy can be made to the graphical egg in my manuscripts], but here still are fulcrums and gears.   

     An individual sitting at the beach in the sun as an example loses meaning if the lighting/shading is mechanically produced as the effect of a thunder storm elsewhere....a fulcrum and gears cause and effect and is unethical. I really do not believe we should experiment with natural elements to alter experience.....things are only the things they are/what they are in the setting they exist in.

Please follow the results of our research. "ATMITO" is an answer we have for your question.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264497480_INTRODUCTION_AT_%28A_VISUAL_ART_APPROACH%29_SQUARING_THE_CIRCLE

Data INTRODUCTION AT (A VISUAL ART APPROACH) SQUARING THE CIRCLE

Isn't it that quantum mechanics currently limits measurement to Plank's length and time? So, fundamentally, we have limitations in any possible interpretation even if we are technologically capable of observing them.

Somebody must have told me that all existence must be founded on Nothingness. However, whether this is the ontological void or non-existence is another matter. For me, I'm biased into thinking that "Nothingness" is fundamentally and ontologically existence. Thus, existence is the main cause of all (that is Prime "Mover").  Without the concept of existence, everything vanishes and makes no sense.

Thus, the real question is why is there mass and that particles (both particles and force-mediating particles) exist at all?

If we posit that all of these "reality" is actually just an imagination of Man, it will take a hell lot of speculations and imaginative powers of how we came to be. Unless part of that imagination is that we simply existed in one event and all other cause-effect relation is mere imagination.  However, even this very conclusion can be just imagination. Thus, it will not hold at all unless we believe in objectivity of things in this reality.

Perhaps…..

The real is the physical. Reality occurs to us? Without us there would be no 'reality' but the real would be there. Reality for someone with ASD is different. Hence our instrumentation doesn't probe reality it confronts the physical under the terms by which the instrument was created. The confusion arrises as we confuse the two by assuming they are the same thing? i.e., That instrumentation stands in for reality, stands in for 'us'. This is the inherent limitation of the scientific 3rd party observer ontology. If we keep hitting that button with instrumentation that we have developed without understanding the differential we can only hope to find paradox?

I agree with John.

Perhaps the "reality" is used here as the "perceived reality" rather than the objective reality ("real" is used). I would like to suggest that we use the right terms in order to remove ambiguity in the discussion of how objective reality is. I agree that perception of the reality ("the real") could be different from one person to another (an obvious example would be the world for a color blind is different, or to a deaf or to a blind). Thus, the example of perceived reality for someone with ASD would be different. In any case, the reality is objective.

As it is, and as Plato often argues, that the entire reality cannot be perceived in its totality but only the portion of it ("shadows"). Thus, the challenge remain to measure things. This challenge -- finding the true measure of the true nature of things, not just their shadows -- is what science is all about.

How are you getting on with that Johnrob? Plato also believed in the 'reality' of our  number system. Do you? Our did we bring that into existence?

The phenomenon of vision (experiential reality) involves all the issues confronted by science and we don't understand it. Yet it occurs to us effortlessly. 

All knowledge has its origins in perception. L. Da Vinci

I totally agree that all (human) knowledge has its origins in perception. Even St. Thomas agrees with this.

My arguments stems from the reality of physical entities and further agrees with you that the reality of mathematical entities can be vague as far as their physicality is concerned.

The main concern with experiential reality is that it trivializes objectivity of things around us (even the physical things).  The same vision-based reality would then make reality subjective as it will eventually depend on the viewer. Then truth about things becomes unreal. For me, this consequence appears to contradict the basic tenets of science as we know it.

For sure, the scientific ontology of 3rd party observation has absolutely no basis given that we can't be taken out of an act of observation. We don't understand what's involved in an act of observation and our instrumentation was developed without reference to the question. There is no such thing as observation that is not subjectively anchored. I attach a list of presentations and there are article on my page at RG. If science wants to break the glass ceiling in which it operates then it has to address these issues. 

M. M-Ponty was not joking: 

"Science manipulates things and gives up living in them. It makes its own limited models of things; operating upon these indices or variables to effect whatever transformations are permitted by their definition, it comes face to face with the real world only at rare intervals." The Primacy of Perception.

Science trivialises existence? This can work for as long as the slack is not taken up. There are consequences however when the end of the tether is reached. Vision is prior-to science. It occurs to us and not our instrumentation. 

J

The measurement is limited by the capital invested.

More idle speculation from the Perceptual Awareness Centre! A possible addition to the measurement question?

Vision-Space: Retinal Receptor Functions 2

http://youtu.be/-vDAn2a1Se8

... Our research tried to describe (from a visual artist’s point of view) natural

creation and yet it has reached a dead end since we faced an eternal and unresolved problem. We argue that when a problem has no proven solution then it might be part of a bigger issue that needs another approach. In our opinion though, this problem is

hiding something more than a failure to reach precise results.

Although we respect the prevailing notion, we state clearly that the π measurement is right but the way it is measured is arbitrary because nature has its own proportional standard of measurement. Until today, we may have not evaluated the problem properly.

The constant ratio might make more sense than an accurate measurement. We measure with our own quantitative measures and we ignore or don’t give weight to the default quality proportion of nature.

http://atmito.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/komvos_en.pdf

Hi Ioannis,

I am running round like a headless chicken today so have only spent a minute or so on the linked paper. Thank you.

The issue I have with all the attempts at unification theories are that it's apparent to me that light presents a duality that we independently develop into quite different 'takes' on the real (objects, environment etc). So for me there are (at least) two quite different geometries that we have to 'play with' to develop experiential reality. 

These geometries can't be 'integrated' as far as I can determine. At least as biological systems we appear not to be able to do it. They have to be mediated to compose phenomenal field. Experiential reality being composite with neither component containing the measure. Reality as a relationship we form with the real. 

Attempts to 'unify' this scenario result in whole raft of very complex math! (angles on a pin-head, retrograde motion of the planets etc?) Much better just to accept the situation, the duality. This duality does not exist in our (macro) physical realm but between physical systems so I guess I am alluding to matter and dark matter with the photon having a presence in both contexts.

There may be other forms of matter that share this 'foot in both camps' existence but we use photons so this is how we become aware of the situation on an experiential basis? We may be able to chuck loads of energy into small areas of space to temporally expand the overlap between the two contexts so force into 'detection' other particles that might otherwise never have been apparent to our domaine?

This is is all theory of course (if not mindless speculation!), but both the structure and processes of information exchange within the phenomenon of vision appear to me to be pointing in this direction. It's the best I can do!

I bet this is of no help or interest at all!!!

I recently found this paper "Photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light" that shows a connection between the shape of the wave that defines the photon and its' velocity. The authors had explored the idea that the current concept of the 'wave' was one dimensional.

@Rita "The measurement is limited by the capital invested."

     The govenor of the state I used to reside in, relatively one of the countries richest, recently proposed the idea to tax landowners not according to the amount of land they owned but according to the square footage area of sky that covered the land. Thus tax payers living on slants would pay less taxes per acre of land. Knowing that the slant is a favorite of criminals because activity upon it is not so visible looking directly across the horizontal, and it would require additional technology and rich investment to effect such a system, my intuition suggests that the govenor, while living in a very public and flat estate area, thinks he cannot lose but to be less 'taxed' himself with such a simple planar idea bound to wealth able to afford expensive virtual methods able to compensate to tax 'headroom' based on the tilt of the land. Though proposed data, description appears to simple it is actually made more complex in terms of the redefinition of social life, land usage and community, is corner cutting.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.3987

Thanks for that Marvin. I will read when 1/2 bottle of red permits!  There is also this that I think is interesting.

This is my attempt to draw in computational neuroscience. I think there is great relevance to the title but without a good deal falling into place most of which is quite beyond my reach its just theory!

Vision-Space: Awareness is developed and governed by Dynamical Systems http://youtu.be/xCFo7S-y0UE

Well here is another! I do think that this stuff strikes at the heart of the question.

Vision-Space: The protagonists

Working towards a relationship model of the dynamical systems governing human awareness 

http://youtu.be/516mjrU3aC0