It is important that you view the contents of this blog in relationship to my new blog entitled: “The fundamental universe revisited“. This new blog is designed to be the master science referential blog for all my science blog postings in my website.
I believe the multifaceted nature of reality makes this impossible as does the existence of an overlapping fourth dimension
Readers should note that I originally wrote this blog in 2014. In those days I had not considered Lorentz’s ether theory but I was, however, convinced that our universe was metaphorically floating in a timeless fourth dimension. I have elected to leave this blog exactly as I wrote it in late 2014. I believe that Valentini’s words (as well as my associated comments) are appropriate to both Einsteins and Lorentz’s relativity theories as well. I have not dismissed the notion that our 3D universe may be ‘floating’ in a fourth dimension. I believe that it may be correct to suggest that Lorentz’s electron/ether theory is one that is in a concurrent relationship with some sort of absolute time fourth dimension. Furthermore I suggest that Einsteins special relativity theory of motion within a time/space frame of reference is also in a concurrent relationship with these two. I will leave it up to my readers to consider this possibility.
The original 2014 blog text commences here:
The reasons for this seems to be simple. In order to make quantum mechanics a precise theory phenomena that extends into the microscopic (metaphysical) domain needs to be bought to account. I share with you the physics views of the noted physicist Antony Valentini.
For the purposes of this blog I have decided to bring forward a quote from “The Quantum Interviews”. The text from which this blog has been created is that created by Antony Valentini following him being interviewed by Maximilian Schlosshauer for various online interviews regarding quantum mechanics. The particular question I have elected to bring forward is number 7 on page 10 of the pdf publication. It is not my intention to discuss every facet of the question seven extract. What I will do is bring forward with you various sections of each paragraph that relate to the topic of this blog and discuss them accordingly. For reader convenience I have separated the Valentini text in such a manner that I feel you should be able to identify my thoughts regarding the particular text in question. In areas that I feel where greater explanation is necessary I have provide you with hyperlink references to other blogs in my website that talk about such topics in greater detail. As you peruse the eight sections below you will notice that the Valentini extracts in each section precede my commentary on each.
I agree that standard quantum theory is not only ill-defined but it also significantly misleading. I argue that reality is metaphysical because the foundation stones of reality are located beneath the Planck level which is a zone of physics that is of little interest to physicists. I suggest that the missing defining boundary that Valentini talks about is the Planck level and that all physics phenomena above the Planck line is of a macroscopic level and all that it below it is microscopic. I accept that this is an arbitrary statement on my part, but in my defense my idea does provide something that is not only identifiably specific to talk to but at the same time it is also likely to be closer to the mark than one could imagine. I have ideas about the measurement problem as well. It is my intention to talk more informationally about this topic at another time. I will argue about the dual nature of our minds in relationship to the supposition (not clearly separable of consciousness, and awareness, and in my opinion it is impossible to separate the combined abstract and rational features of the two. If you care to better understand what I am talking about click blog “The great international aware study”. I suspect you will attain from this blog a little better understanding as to why I believe there is no such thing as 3D objective reality nor can there be an objective observer for the same reason. It is as though we have two separate facilitators of consciousness at the same time. I see quantum supposition as also being directly linked to these phenomena.
I believe definite states can only be separated from indefinite states by incorporating quantum phenomena below the Planck level with that which is above it. I have devised a physics mechanism that describes phenomena that exists both above and below the Planck level which can be effectively described and I have titled this idea as “Defining and describing holistic cosmic influences and processes”. I have also created another physics related definition that I have titled fine quanta. [See Defining and describing holistic blog mentioned above]. I state that fine quanta is the cosmic binder and facilitator of all phenomena. For the purposes of my work I have also extended the traditional meaning of the word quantum by extending it to include information.
I believe the inherent nature of reality is metaphysical. I believe it is metaphysical because the appropriate manner in which to look at reality is that our 3D universe is only understandable and measurable from a 3D perspective whilst, in real terms, reality is a timeless 4D phenomena. I believe our universe is floating in a 4D dimension and the relationship between both is a concurrent one. I argue that our personal awareness (not consciousness) has exactly the same characteristics as my concept of a fourth dimension but our 3D consciousness limits our ability to be more fully attuned to it. In this sense I am saying from our perspective, both phenomena exist as well as do not exist at the same time (awareness is imaginary) and as such both are quantifiers as well as have inherent properties of there own. This effectively means that whilst consciousness and awareness are (unknowingly to us) partners to each other as we go about our daily lives, it is our personal (4D related) awareness that at the end of the day dominates our lives.
I say facts are facts provided they embrace what I have shared with you in sections 1 to 3 above.
I believe there is room for both classical as well as non-classical logic. If non-classical logic (perhaps better described as philosophy) is confined to describing phenomena below the Planck line then I feel this is appropriate. I also think it is appropriate to include the phrase non-classical at times when classical and non-classical logic is used in the same context provided it is acknowledged by the writer as to what the context of the message is that they are attempting to convey. From these words I am implying the word logic is probably best suited to be used in areas relating to tested scientific fact as it relates to a 3D perspective. If one is to say, as I do, that reality is metaphysical, then it follows from this argument that there is no such thing as classical logic. All phenomena is non-classical and the existence of transcendental mathematics seems to support this notion.
I feel objective reality need not be abandoned as a concept provided that discussions I have shared with you in sections 1 to 5 are considered. This is more especially so in relationship to my Awareness model of physics concept of fine quantum entanglement (FQE). In my opinion it is wholeness nature of all phenomena (reality) that is objective reality. It is only because of the restrictive nature of our 3D interpretation of phenomena that limits us from appreciating and experiencing the more complete characteristics of the wholeness of reality in every sense of the word.
All hidden variables are embraced within my notion of Defining and describing holistic cosmic influences and processes.
I have discussed the topic of what is real and what exists. This raises the awkward question as to whether if we did not exist would anything exists at all? I think what one needs to do when we think about the definite states of everything is to remember that reality is inherently random. Reality determines its own state within its own metaphysical-mind and nothing will ever change this. It is like Darwinian survival of the fittest theory. This theory argues that some things survive and some things do not. Some links are stronger than others. I am saying that reality itself is analogous to this. Patterns of information one day do not necessarily mean exactly the same thing tomorrow. Just as each Mandelbrot (mathematics) set is slightly different to the other, I also believe, all things (phenomena) are identical to this and this concept relates back to my ideas relating to the beginning of reality itself. In my opinion reality began with a single thought. I am sure we all understand the consequences of undisciplined thoughts, more especially so of groups of undisciplined thoughts. I see reality as being one single package of multilayered thoughts and as such scientists cannot remove themselves from this process. I believe the best we can ever do is learn around this fact. In other words I am saying realness is what we individually interpret it to be at any given time or place and as so does existence. If we can experience reality it is real to us and as such it must exist. If we cannot experience reality it does not exist. However, these words are also qualified by the statement as to from which dimension reality is experienced. If it is a person experiencing a 4D experience whilst in a state of near death, (medically diagnosed with clinically brain death and no heartbeat), then it would be a far more inclusive perception of reality than a person who is not. A person experiencing 4D reality sees all things from all directions at the same time as though it is imaginary. Also see “The great international aware study” website that supports this argument. As I said, these are all awkward questions.