Physical reality can be observed. At least part of the structure and behavior of physical reality is perceivable. Humans can communicate about these experiences. Curious humans want to comprehend these perceptions. Humans have designed linguistic tools to be able to communicate about the perceived structure and behavior of physical reality and with these tools, they have constructed structures and models of mechanisms that might explain the perceived structures and mechanisms that physical reality exposes. Some of these structures and models of mechanisms seem to be successful. People discuss the success of these approaches and call this activity exact science. Other humans discuss this activity and call themselves philosophers. Humans are interested in the structure and mechanisms of physical reality because this knowledge helps them survive as individuals and as communities. Part of the exact sciences is formed by mathematics. Mathematics contains structures and models of mechanisms that are not directly derived from perceptions of physical reality. These concepts are derived from abstract foundations. Examples are empty space and point-like objects. Scientists use these concepts to construct vector spaces, number systems, and coordinate systems. The scientists apply these higher-level concepts to construct a model of their living space. The philosophers will immediately indicate that it is impossible to prove that these models are correct. However, these models feature structure and behavior. If the structure and behavior of the models agree more with the perceived models and behavior, then there is a larger chance that the model fits reality. Since reality appears to be very complicated, little chance exists that good correspondence will ever end the dispute.
One of the aspects of the dispute concerns what the best inroad will be for comprehending most of the structure and the mechanisms of physical reality. That is the background of the posed question.
I will launch the first answer to this question because I believe that it is sensible to start as simple as is possible. Empty space is a synonym for complete nothingness. In empty space, nothing exists to refer to. So the first step is to provide a system that helps to navigate in bare space. A possible way is to turn bare space into a vector space and use the capabilities of the vectors to construct one or more number systems that can act as position references for point-like objects that will cover the originally empty space. Number systems support counting and sequencing. The virtual locations of the members of the number systems can act as identifiers for the navigation system for the actual location of coordinate markers. This means that coordinate systems will be used to follow the life story of the point-like objects that cover the vector space.
I use coordinate systems instead of multidimensional functions because coordinate systems act locally as well as globally and humans can comprehend them better than the target space of dynamic multidimensional functions that apply borderless multidimensional parameter spaces. If the local behavior of the space coverage is known, then the life story of a coordinate marker can be followed in the most turbulent circumstances.
This concept is explained in "Sticky Space Coverage"; https://vixra.org/abs/2106.0114
The sticky behavior of the space coverage by the point-like objects plays an essential role in understanding the structure and behavior of physical reality.
However, the sticky medium does not react when it is not deformed. So, an as important aspect is formed by the actuators that deform the sticky medium. Stochastic processes generate pulses by point-like actuators that can deform the sticky medium. Also encapsulated non-sticky regions can deform their sticky surround. The Hilbert repository forms a modeling platform in which these disturbances can be described,
I guess the first questions that must be answered is what is physical reality? Is it objective or subjective or a mixture of both? I'm afraid the discussion at hand is going off track from the onset. Without good and agreed upon definitions nothing of is to be discussed.
Faical Barzi
I think that you underestimate the capability of humans to create useful models that show great similarity with observed phenomena. A simple answer on what is physical reality can be that it is the living environment that we can perceive. Our perception is always subjective, but our models can partly be considered objective. The discussions on ResearchGate.net show that a lot of the discussions concern modeling physical reality. Apart from that, good and agreed definitions are available. It is human nature to question these definitions. Some people doubt everything. I cannot imagine that this makes them happy.
"A simple answer on what is physical reality can be that it is the living environment that we can perceive. Our perception is always subjective, but our models can partly be considered objective."
This is what I'm talking about utter nonsensical definitions are at the base of these discussions which turn them to gossip. The only acceptable definitions must be Mathematical because that 's the only language that can be precise enough to discuss with.
I urge anyone to read this foundational paper and some of its discussions before any nonsense definitions!
Einstein, A; B Podolsky; N Rosen (1935-05-15). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?" (PDF). Physical Review. 47 (10): 777–780.
(http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf)
(I' don't underestimate nothing don't make it personal .)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics