Subject: notes on the structure of reality - article 1
From: gary.forbat@hotlinebbs.com.au (Gary Forbat)
Date: 20 Nov 96 10:57:15
Notes on the Structure of Reality. article 1.
by Gary Forbat
Copyright (C) G. Forbat 1996
In these times of constant change and rapid development it is not often
that we have time to reflect on the fundamental questions about reality.
Descartes had long ago brought attention to our personal consciousness
as the first evidence for reality. We find ourselves in a world of
perceptions, and the phenomena we become aware of, as presented by the
senses, indicates some sort of regularity in the world that appears
on the outside of this introspection. As we now know, there is a huge
gap between Descartes' proposition and the 'outer' reality. To arrive
at some sort of plausible affirmation of an objective material world
outside our consciousness requires one to follow a fairly long and
sometimes arduous sequence of arguments, with serious challenges along
the way posed by sceptics who criticise the validity of our methodology
and logical approach, phenomenalist who reject the 'outer' world
altogether, and others among who are those who claim that whilst an
'outer' reality exists, our images of it represent something quite
unlike what they seem at face value to be. At this stage I will not get
involved in these debates other than to mention that after having
considered all these contrary views and the arguments put forth to
support them, I duly dismissed them in favour of the scientific realism
I espouse.
My aim at present is to provide a fairly conscise outline of a theory
of reality which can deal with most of the deeper questions that have
so far eluded us. The starting point I choose is where the philosophical
enquiry leaves off: with the affirmation of the existence of the physical
world, that is, a reality on the outside of consciousness exists and
our sense impressions of it bears a close representative correspondence
to the way things are in it. These may be said to be the initial
presuppositions of the theory, though I emphasise again to have already
critically evaluated them. Apart from this beginning I wish to make no
further assumptions, and will continue onward and draw all further
conclusions from well established observational premises.
As things stand, there is so far only an affirmation of the material
world of physicality, but there is nothing yet derived about its
specific nature. The first task would be to find its most general
features. At this stage we are looking for the broadest parameters.
Fortunately nowadays there is a sizeable body of scientifically
established observational evidence we may draw on to establish the
common features apparent in all. It is important though to treat this
evidence in its 'raw' state, free from theoretical presuppositions
other than those involved in the establishment of the fact of the
observation. If it is not clear enough as to what this 'uninterpreted'
state of the evidence consists of, it should become obvious as I
proceed.
In considering the entire body of observational evidence, perhaps the
first and most obvious common feature is the presence of three
dimensionality. A little thought about its continuity and endurance
can add the fourth time dimension in fusion with it. I am well aware
of debates on dimensionality, and shall have the opportuninty to deal
with it in the due course of the debate when difficulties of
interpretation of more specific evidence arises, but for the moment
there occurs no such problem. With this in mind, the tentative
impression of the evidence is clear in affirming the existence of an
enduring three dimensionality. But as we further examine the evidence,
we find two types of configuration sharing in these time/dimensional
features. One is the occurence of space without matter, the other is
matter itself. The existence of energy and its status is not
immediately evident, though a solution presents itself on further
examination. For the moment let's examine the two main factors of
space and matter. We have so far established the universality of
three-dimension/time factor. Some regions of this three dimensionality
contains what appears as an emptiness, whilst others contain what
appears as matter. It is obvious enough that only some regions contain
matter, but it is not at all clear whether space also underlies these
regions or whether space is actually displaced where matter exists.
If space did underlay these regions then matter does not 'displace',
but rather 'occupies' space. This would mean that spatiality is a more
general feature than matter, with matter dependent on space but space
not being dependent on matter. Intuitively this may seem obvious enough,
but nowadays the very mention of the word 'intuition' creates an
impression of triviality. Indeed, the present generation has sunk so
deep into the web of abstraction that it will be difficult to extricate
it from its entrenched confusions.
We have now arrived at a seemingly viable definition of space as a three
dimensional enduring and extended room in which material events occur.
In fact it may be seen as a superfluity, since the former definition
of three dimensionality itself already implies just that. But if that
is the case, then space (or rather 'spatiality' if the time dimension
is included) is benign, that is, not interactive, but merely and simply
'room', or rather, a domain of emptiness. Within this domain exists
tangible matter as well as energy. If spatiality is just room, it cannot
interact with either the matter or the energy that occupies it, for it
has no qualities other than time/dimensionality. Yet matter and energy
are interactive, in fact interchangeable, so that these two aspects
form a single entity in various formats. If I may, for the sake of
clarity, call tangible matter as 'matter' and non tangible sources such
as energy its 'processes'. So then, we have matter and its processes
operating within the spatiality provided. Of course, we have hardly
touched upon either of these issues. Spatiality and matter should be
subject of separate analysis, with space taking precedence as the
most general factor.
( During 1995 I published an essay on spatiality. I will now refer the
reader to it and will post this article below. Article two of this
series will continue with an assumed knowledge of this essay )
Subject: notes on the structure of reality - essay of 95 on space
From: gary.forbat@hotlinebbs.com.au (Gary Forbat)
Date: 20 Nov 96 10:58:46
ARGUMENTS FOR INFINITY
Copyright (C) Gary Forbat 1995
all rights reserved
The Infinity of Spatial Extension
In a previous article I mentioned that the logical structure
of three dimensionality implies an infinity of extension. In
this essay I intend to demonstrate that this can be validly
derived from the evidence of observation. To achieve this,
I will make use of two broadly distinct approaches to the
evidence. The first involves a simple quantitative assessment
of the spatial regions immediately present within the inner
parameters of observations. In this way it is possible to
confirm a specific finite volume of space to be present within
the observational limits. This is fairly straight forward type
of quantification that is often used in the assesment of
material resources, but with space there is a further
complication, for the observations reveals the presence not
only of this specific quantity, but also of a substantial
additional volume of space, projecting outward indefinitely to
some unknown, or rather, unfathomable extent.
At this point it may be convenient to draw a distinction.
The scope of any observation is always located within a finite
region of space, but its full range of view may be divided into
'internal' and 'external' regions. Within the 'internal'
parameters the observation reveals enough detail about the
physical entities to be able to determine finite quantifiable
values, but toward the 'outer' parameters, this is no longer
possible. This is why the spatial environment of the very
distant 'outer' regions cannot be quantified. Nor is it likely
that any future observation will alter this finding, so that
this method of quantification will never allow for a resolution
of the spatial extension problem.
Of course, if we only had this much to go on -if our techniques
of analysis were limited to quantification- there would be
little alternative but to speculate about the nature of
extension. Fortunately we need not resort to this expedient,
since another technique is available which focuses on
non-quantitative aspects. One of the most important of features
of spatiality is its three dimensionality, and this is a
structural aspect of the physical reality. It is probably the
best observed and most consistent feature of space, but at this
stage it may be better placed as an 'apparent' feature, because
on this point the debate branches in two directions, one
maintaining the accuracy of the appearance, the other claiming
the three dimensional 'appearance' to be only a simulation of
a more numerous dimensional structure. This latter branch is
itself complex enough to deal with and to include it here would
cause interruption to the smooth flow of the present line of
argument, but I intend to show its untenability in my refutation
of it in a separate posting to follow this article. As for
those who may be wondering about my attitude to the 'time'
dimension, of course it is ever present, so that ultimately we
are talking of four dimensionality (and it is in fact included
in the term 'spatiality"), but time is not an aspect which is
relevant to the extension issue.
Now, to comprehend the nature of the three dimensional structure
we have at our disposal the analytical instrument of mathemathics,
and as it happens, the three dimensionality may be ideally
represented by a Cartesian co-ordinate geometry based on
Euclidean principles. We may then go ahead and examine the
logical structure of this geometry and draw from it conclusions
that have valid implications to the physical reality. Through
this analysis what becomes evident is that the kind of structure
we are dealing with cannot have an extensional ending. It is
equally obvious that something that does not end can never be
fully observed, and therefore cannot be quantified. This fits
in nicely with our quantitative analysis, for according to this
model it should turn out to be indeterminate, just the way it
actually does.
What can in fact be achieved through the analysis of the
structural attributes of spatiality is not a demonstration
of the infinity of extension, but rather the guarantee of it.
This is just the way we come to understand infinite number
sequences through a set of principles which guarantees its
infinity. The integers (..-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,...), for instance,
may be generated from a set of two general principles: that
each number has a successor and also a predecessor. Wherever
we may care to start in the sequence, a two way infinity can
be generated by these principles, so from any point the
infinity of the system can be seen as guaranteed. Here we
have no problem at all at comprehending an infinity, then
why does it not seem also a natural consequence that a three
dimensionally structured spatiality should have infinite
extension ? There is the distinct impression that idea is
somehow not intuitive. Firstly there seems to be a confusion
about the meaning of 'intuitive'. One definition may claim
that to be 'intuitive' is to be comprehensible through the
ideas associated with observation. Within this broad context
two attitudes are possible, one limiting the debate to only
those kinds of things as can be observed, rejecting even
validly derived implications if purport to go beyond those
limits. Then there is the other approach which allows in
any validly derived implication, so long as its validity is
critically assessed. Obviously it is within this latter
framework that the infinite attributes of physical reality
may be appreciated. As for the former approach, my objection
is that not trusting in the truth of deductively valid
implications could only justifiably follow if the
observational foundations were not firmly enough established
to support it. Yet the evidential base is actually thought
to be well founded, so there should be no reason to deny any
implications signifying conditions beyond the observational
grasp, provided of course they are validly derived.
Having clarified these issues of principle, an opportunity
presents itself for another argument for the infinity of
extension. Returning to the quantitative evidence which
affirms the presence of indeterminate extended spatial regions,
we do know that this space extends for a very considerable
distance. We need go no further than to define the location
of an immediately adjoining spatial region just outside the
inner parameters of the observation. It is as though we looked
out of a room through its window to define a spatial region
just outside it. This region could be as small (or large) as
we like so long as it is finite and determinate from the point
of view of the observation. If, for instance, we decided to
define a square meter of space just outside the window. It is
clear that it would be no major task to shift the parameters
of the observation a little way along to include this finite
region within the inner parameters of the observation by
either moving or extending the room. It should then not be
difficult to appreciate that the inclusion of this adjoining
region would give rise to the potential inclusion of another
finite region which is located on the far side of the previous
one. In turn, it should be also obvious that this new region
would also have on its far side another region, and a further
one for that in a chain of succession, so that each in the
succession of neighbouring regions has a further out located
region adjoining it. This process could be repeated as many
times as we please, in fact it ranges to infinity, so once
again a sequence is encountered which cannot be conceived to
end, as clearly at no stage in the sequence of adjoining
regions could there occur one region which did not have a
region to adjoin it. Here again is a generative formula: that
each succeeding region in the sequence is guaranteed a further
region to succeed it, and this ensures that an infinity of
extension must exist, since there can be no break in the chain.
Once again, it is not so much a demonstration of the infinity
of extension, but a guarantee of it.
The argument could be reinforced by consideration of the
theoretical possibility of a systematic material enclosure
of these regions. It may be easily and intuitively imagined
that from a central starting point a huge honeycomb type
cell structure could be sprouting ever outward, systematically
enclosing these neighbouring regions. The empty (or vacant)
nature of spatiality allows for no resistance to a soundly
engineered construction, so there could be nothing to hinder
it from building ever outward, with each stage guaranteeing a
successive further stage. Hence the sequence is never able to
cease, generating a potential structural expansion to infinity.
But this argument forms not only a proof of the infinity of
extension, but of an infinite quantity of space as well.
If overcoming all these difficulties were not already more than
enough, there still remains a final obstacle to be removed. The
problem is that the idea of infinity causes a mental attitude of
confusing unfamiliarity which the mind tends to interpret as
counter intuitive, but in fact this is a misconception that is
due to a mental conditioning process. From the earliest childhood
the human perceptive mechanisms scan for information about states
of the physical environment. Of course, perceptive mechanisms
are constructed from material, and since I earlier made the
distinction between spatiality and matter, maintaining that
material can interact only with other material resources, and
certainly not at all with spatiality which is merely the room
in which material resides, it would then follow that perceptive
mechanisms cannot actually be directly observing spatiality.
Nor it seems, would instrumental observation be any better
placed, for instruments are also made of matter.
Before continuing, a question intervenes as to how we may know
spatiality as well as we actually do ? We have such a clear
impression of it that it certainly seems as though it was being
directly perceived. What we in fact do have is very good
indirect evidence arising from the logical gaps left over from
the observation of matter. and the interpretation of these gaps
amounts to our discernment of spatiality whereby we become so
proficient with it that our familiarity likens it to direct
perception.
So indeed, we do have a very good idea of spatiality despite
having no direct observational contact with it. The instruments
we use to observe are limited to the evaluation of material
conditions which are always finite and determinate. It is no
wonder then that the logical techniques that the human mind
evolves under these conditions are under closure to finite
calculation, so that the idea of infinity is not only unfamiliar
but positively foreign to our natural understanding. The reason
is because infinity has no place in the scheme of interpretation.
It is this lack of familiarity due to the finite conditioning
effect that hinders the understanding and leads to the common
misconception that the idea of infinity is non-intuitive. What
is really the case is that infinity is merely not recognised to
be intuitive, and this in no way excludes the possibility of
it being recognised as such once the significant facts are known.
Having hopefully cleared away some of the difficulties
surrounding this topic, it should now not be too difficult to
comprehend that if we could travel along in space toward any
one direction, we would always see more of the same kind of
spatiality, first approaching, then passing us by, and all
that we would see would be intuitively comprehensible. Moreover,
in the spatial environment the infinity is all around and any
observation in it is of a finite region of it. It would then
be reasonable to expect to experience just those kinds of
indeterminate effects that we do in fact experience in the reality.
***************************************
G. Forbat (C)
