Just what is real?

This paging will be a review of what example human thinking has come up with regarding what is real

At the present time in the early 2020's, there is attempted definitional convergence of known information toward

what consists of being real, and how to keep track of developments.

One hundred years ago, the science world largely accepted the work of Albert Einstein on spacetime and general relativity.

Presently, these well known treatments toward understanding workings of the universe and reality seem to be undergoing either some change or revision. This is not to deride the many accomplishments and information that has been previously developed. Perhaps more honing with aid of minds and technology toward getting definitive on what is real.

The entries regarding this approach will be designated individually preceded by letters to indicate the source used to save repetitive space usage. Sources will be listed collectively or individually toward the end.

...........................................................................................

The spacetime seems to be undergoing some review with many scientists. It may come to be that the unification as spacetime may not always hold in all situations as more information is brought forward. Before spacetime became a notation, many earlier scientists worked with the idea that space and time would be addressed separately. This may be coming about again due to recent reconsiderations of the texture in the universe. One, among many, that earlier worked in the early 20th century on space and time is Alexander A. Friedmann. He wrote a work now known as, "The World as Space and Time" in 1923. He also utilized several ideas of Weyl.

General Relativity has been a great boon for discovering many features in the universe. However, any general relativity is general and not complete in itself. It is a way to assimilate many disparate features.

However, more tests are showing the continuity of general relativity when applied to far reaches of space indicate the continuity does not hold together well in the expanded, diffuse scenarios. Einstein's propositions worked with compact  circumstances and he was not familiar with constant diffusion of the cosmos which are presently being explored in more detail.

In recent years in the early 21st century, more reports and papers and experiments with greater detail are indicating and strongly alluding to a real tendency to portray either what we know is still very incomplete on what is collected, or that the foundation of the universe we associate with is not even made of items we have learned to rely on to collect data. Our present illustrations remain inconclusive, looking at galactic materials billions of light years across finds no ultimate size, and measuring infinitude to quadrillionths of metre small finds no final foundational feature of the universe. This has been explored for centuries with no final resolve.

A change of focus now includes increased scrutiny of vacua of information in phenomenon  as carrying more depths of information, rather than superficial examination, as being more productive of needed detail.

From the detailed studies of neuroscience, there are those members who put forth presently that the workings of neuroscience is so refined as to hypothesize  the sub atomic particles have no practical boundaries as we think of. This matches the refined particle physics research which says the finest particles may not exhibit a

body, likewise. The reality realm there may be inexpressible for terms and definitions we are accustomed to. Both fields could wind up declaring that there is no real substrate.  But, theories are theories.

a.) "A growing number of physicists, working in different areas of the discipline, with different approaches, are increasingly converging on a profound idea: space- and perhaps even time-is not fundamental."

Using introspection, one examines what is it about the organism (the self) that may or not be sufficient to organize and exercise thoughts to assume them as true portrayals of a real, authenticated substrate, as in the "h" sources.

By some accounts, like in particle physics among others, the accepted presence of some particles under detailed examination imply the physical presences cannot be confirmed. The physical universe we identify with cannot be taken  for granted.

a.) "In recent years several different lines of inquiry have all suggested that, at the deepest level of reality, space and time do not exist in the same way that they do in our everyday world. "

"If you carefully keep track of the fundamental building blocks of the theory, "says Natalie Paquette, "you can naturally find sometimes that..you might grow a new spatial dimension."

e.) Example, "If you analyze by spatial division even the atom is seen to possess parts. That which is analyzed into parts, how can that logically be an atom?" Written down 1,800 years ago.

h.) "Even if perception, etc. exists, the knowable object is not admitted."

One needs to  determine what is known and to what object and what the relation is.

"As pointed out before knowledge is here roughly equated with perceptual knowledge. But it would be  entirely wrong to hold that this perceptual knowledge is the knowledge that sciences seek. ..This being the case knowledge is not concerned in any indispensable sense with objects or their nature."

h.) "Propositions are possible only because we have concepts, but concepts being products of mental operation, invariably present something more that what could be actually found in experience." Here, it clearly implies the subjectivity of propositions may assert more than is needed to assess an issue and so make misleading, extraneous issues to the original object to be investigated.

h.) "The 'this' is said to be the object of knowledge because it is efficacious in the appearance of veridical perception. Hence, in spite of the fact that it is not known to itself, its existence cannot be denied...They say that efficacious reality is not a necessary condition or co-ordinating factor for perception, because perception takes place even when there is admittedly no such reality present,"

So, what develops as real? Physical presence is ephemeral. What about in our minds?

Illusionary experiences, veridical experiences? Where do they stand? They are mind dependent, and not physical. But we play them as real, e.g. pink rabbits, double moons, presence of swarm of flying insects even after they are no longer present. because our mind which is to associate with ascertainments is itself subject to oddities yet we may accept them as real at least on first impression. "But the fact is that these factors themselves, being momentary, cannot co-ordinate, and even if their co-ordination is accepted, they cannot be said to be in a relation of causation of something, which is yet to be produced." Eventually, it is found that that causation is not rooted in the actual co-ordination of factors. What, then, do we base any resolve to be considered the foundation of real?

In pursuit of real, we realize that not only the external object has to be accurately ascertainable but also the receiving must demonstrate that there is a reliable processing that would describe such a thing as it truly is, not interpreted.

h.) With introspection and logical analysis, "it decides the issue on the ground whether the proposition in itself or in conjunction with other accepted propositions displays contradiction." of assimilation of impressions and whether such results are stable or not, or do other [adjunct] factors that influence the mind skew facts. In addition, it is noted, "a cognition is not soley of an object; it includes also the mode in which the object is given." An outcome, "there is no necessary connection between a phenomenon and a theory."

h.) "Nagarjuna questions the very notion of knowledge as a valid means for evidence of an object. Thus in keeping with with his formalistic approach to language and logic Nagarjuna rejects the entire idea of validity vis-a-vis empirical knowledge. For him. therefore. validity does not provide identity to knowledge; it only indicates the general trends of human behavior." All is insubstantiable, mind and body.

If the objects cannot be verified, then the reality of the endeavor is put at risk. h.)  With Nagarjuna, it hones down to "If concepts cannot give us a glimpse of realities, how can we expect language to describe it?", in short, the final analysis and realization comes down to emptiness, void, unarisen for substantiating any thing including concepts and language.[Recall, Oct. 2017 that CERN results from BASE said the universe could not exist]. Modern scientist, L) Dr. Rebecca Smethurst, for example, wrote in 2019, "The human brain cannot truly comprehend what 'nothing' is. Simply by thinking of nothing, we turn it into something. So, when we say that there was truly nothing 'before' the big bang, it's hard for the brain to understand what that means."

This finding puts assumptions of the real universe askew, which is presently expressed in many papers that there is an inability to conclusively describe features of the universe that are collected.

                                                              Sources

a. "the Origins of Space and Time", Adam Becker, February 2022, reprint from Jan. 2017, Scientific American.

b. "Physicists announce results that boost evidence for new fundamental physics." See Phys.org: Oct. 18, 19, 2021, Phys.org March 23, 2021

c. "Where Worlds Collide", New Scientist, April 20 , 2013

d. "The World as Space and Time", Alexander A. Friedmann, 1923

e. Nagarjuna treatises, ca. 150 A.D., and related analysis treatment

f. "Is the 'fine-tuned universe' an illusion?", February 2022, see Phys.Org.

g. Study provides evidence for 'new physics', Sept 13,2021

h. "None", a synopsis, by this author

i.) "The Case for Deep, Wide-field Cosmology", Ryan Scranton, Andreas Albrecht, Robert Caldwell, Feb. 2009, Arxiv.org 0902.2590.

j.) "Is Consciousness Fundamental to the Cosmos?", Thomas Lewton, New Scientist,

     2 April 2022

K.) "Cosmological analogies in search for new physics in high energy collision"

      Miguel- Angel Sanchi-Lozano, Arxiv.org 2006.06569, June 11, 2020.

L) "Space at the Speed of Light" Dr. Rebecca Smethurst, 2019, p. 16.

Note: the material herein is not necessarily a reflection of the entropy of current societies.