A Proposal Against Light as Energy
We don’t need to think of energy or mass as identical to light. I propose that there is no ‘light’ as a noun but ‘illumination’ as an event with properties that are likely actually primarily visible but also cross over into the tactile-tangible.
When we use a tangible apparatus as an instrument, we are not necessarily measuring the most important or defining aspect of illumination, but rather we are overlooking it completely. By limiting our inquiry to how physical objects behave when illuminated, we make a misguided assumption based on another presumption of the supremacy of tangibility. When we use something like a photomultiplier, we get a tangible effect that is really only a small part of the story, and not the important part.
“Energy” and “mass” are entirely reducible to a geometry of motion of tangible objects. Energy and mass are abstract theoretical entities of measurement that we use to explain why objects move and change their motion/shape/state in the way that they do. These geometric-tangible properties are posited from a hypothetical experience of sightless space and time, again, overlooking completely what illumination is to us and likely to all other organisms with eyes… which is a completely intangible aesthetic of color and image.
Notice that sound is not completely intangible. We can feel body parts vibrating from sound. Light has some tactile qualities – the light can ‘hurt your eyes’, but you can’t feel waves or particles colliding with anything. This might be just because the scale of light is so much smaller, but remember, studies have shown that people can detect single photons.
All this to say that I propose the possibility that there never were any literal light waves or particles – no massless photons literally traveling through empty vacuum, only a misguided inference based on prioritizing the sense of touch rather than the experience of sight. I think that sight should be explored as a direct receptivity of conscious experience across distance rather than some abstract confabulation of brain tissue in the dark. What is particulate or waving about physical ‘light’ is the behavior of tangible instruments when illuminated (electromagnetically stimulated), not illumination itself.
Leave a Reply to Ian Flett Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Emergent properties can only exist within conscious experience.
…
Neither matter nor information can ‘seem to be’ anything. They are what they are.
It makes more sense that existence itself is an irreducibly sensory-motive phenomenon – an aesthetic presentation with scale-dependent anesthetic appearances rather than a mass-energetic structure or information processing function. Instead of consciousness (c) arising as an unexplained addition to an unconscious, non-experienced universe (u) of matter and information (mi), material and informative appearances arise as from the spatiotemporal nesting (dt) of conscious experiences that make up the universe.
Materialism: c = u(mdt) + c
Computationalism: c = u(idt) + c
Multisense Realism: u(midt) = c(c)/~!c.
Recent Posts
Archives
Recent Comments
ptero9 on Where the Rubber Hits the Road… | |
multisenserealism on Multisense Taoism | |
Marc on Multisense Taoism | |
ptero9 on Multisense Taoism | |
Multisense Taoism |… on Continuum of Sense |
Tags
Absolute AI alternative physics alt physics anthropology art Artificial Intelligence big questions biocentrism brain Chinese Room computationalism computers consciousness cosmogony cosmology cosmos debate diagram dualism eigenmorphism Einstein electromagnetism emergence entropy explanatory gap free will graphics hard problem hard problem of consciousness information information theory language life light math mathematics metaphysics mind-brain multisense continuum Multisense Realism nature neuroscience panpsychism pansensitivity perception phenomenology Philip Goff philosophy philosophy of mind philosophy of science photon physics psychology qualia quantum quora relativity science scientism Searle sensation sense simulation society sound strong ai subjectivity technology theory of everything time TSC universe video visionThis slideshow requires JavaScript.
Blogs I Follow
- Shé Art
- astrobutterfly.wordpress.com/
- Be Inspired..!!
- Rain Coast Review
- Perfect Chaos
- Amecylia
- SHINE OF A LUCID BEING
- I can't believe it!
- Table 41: A Novel by Joseph Suglia
- Rationalising The Universe
- Conscience and Consciousness
- yhousenyc.wordpress.com/
- DNA OF GOD
- Paul's Bench
- This is not Yet-Another-Paradox, This is just How-Things-Really-Are...
- Creativity✒📃😍✌
- Catharine Toso
- Political Joint
- zumpoems
- dhamma footsteps
Your approach is essential. We tend to analyze physics using static symbols in horizontal rows reading from left to right in a 2D linear reading (algebraic notation). This unfortunately tends to reduce our most basic constructs into the static and linear dimensional realm. When a photon hits the retina it only makes an informational mark if it’s absorbed, or not, by the rhodopsin. This is a discrete ‘event’ at a Planck scale that is indivisible but that makes an informational difference which as Gregory Bateson said, “makes a difference” to the observer.
This visual sense becomes our most fundamental measure and, as a fundamental observer, man is the embodied measure of all things (events). Events constitute dynamical ‘processes’ that are reflexive and embodied in the ‘observing’ organism which, in turn, constructs its own meaningful and private ‘umwelt’.
Deconstructing a photon absorption ‘event’ tends towards the meaningless. When individual observers compare their observations they can relativize their theories into a collegiate, ‘super observer’, hypothetical position (the received view) but this is not the transcendent god-like perspective it might seem and it tends to run into the problem of coherence versus consistency as van Fraassen demonstrates. Such constructed theories can, and should be, empirically adequate but are not necessarily true. It seems that we ultimately cannot escape our bodies in constructing our realities.