Observer, object, stream, environment

The object can be represented in three ways:

1. Like a volume filled with dense matter.
2. As a result of the design synthesis: the village as an object is the synthesis of the village houses.
3. As a result of the analysis of the design: the antenna is part of the missile guidance complex.

In this article we will consider how the idea of ​​an object appears as about the volume of dense matter.

The paradigm of objects emitting streams that propagate in the environment

We imagine the world as an environment in which matter clots (objects) are emitting or absorbing streams of energy and matter. The medium is transparent to flows and acts as a transmission link between the object and the observer.

To register an object (its position in space, temperature and other characteristics), a flow of energy or matter, outgoing, or absorbed by the object, a detector of this flow and time is required to register this flow. You can use different streams: light, molecules, neutrons, but there is a condition: the stream, to be registered, must consist of the same type of elements.

Our senses are able to register streams of light, sound and matter. Vision and hearing correspond to light and sound, and at once three organs of sense are about the flow of matter: smell, touch and taste. The objects we see are due to our ability to register these streams. However, if we could register other streams, for example, neutron fluxes, the world would be filled with other objects for us.

The view of the observer (subject)

The basis of the models that we build is subjective perception and a subjective way of describing this perception. The subject acts as a perceiving device (detector) and as an interpreter of the received experience of perception. Therefore, when building models, the first thing we need to indicate is the subject, or group of subjects, from the point of view of which (which) they (models) are built. In the general case, different subjects, stroking the same reality, will give us different descriptions of it, or build different models.

Very often the idea of ​​a subject drops out of the model, because we tend to build models based on our personal experience, assuming that this experience is correct. But any experience of any subject is true for its owner. Therefore, you can not be attached to the only true point of view, sweeping aside the rest. Any modeling should begin with the words: from the point of view of the subject by name (Vasya) it looks like this, and further the description should follow from the point of view of the subject.

View of the object

Before building an object, we build surfaces. With the help of touch, we are able to recognize the surface, limiting clots of matter. To do this, we send a probe (finger) and find those surfaces from which it is reflected. This is considered direct observation of the surface. Tastes serve the same purpose. Direct observation is believed to confirm the existence of a surface. As a rule, surfaces found by us with the help of touch and taste can also reflect and emit light, sound and generate odors. Therefore, for the indirect detection of surfaces, we use sight, hearing and smell. Vision is able to detect surfaces that reflect and emit light, hearing - sounds, smell, aromas. We use vision as the main body of mediated perception. Vision is:

• Two eyes capable of building a stereo image (two projections),
• A stereo image processing algorithm capable of constructing surfaces based on this paradigm,
• The paradigm of objects existing in the environment
• On the basis of recognized surfaces, the construction of hypotheses about the existence of certain objects.

As a rule, surfaces limit a certain limited amount of matter. This volume in the mind of the subject acquires the meaning of the object. At the same time it is important to remember about the restriction of this kind of ideas about objects. Matter is never closed to a certain extent. There is always an exchange of matter and energy with the external environment. Therefore, the idea of ​​an object as that it has a constant material composition is at least not always applicable, but, as a maximum, is erroneous. The second thing to remember is that objects are formed in the consciousness of the subject on the basis of the social and empirical experience that he has. Two different subjects, hitting an environment unknown to them, will choose completely different volumes as objects. Therefore, objects are a subjective way of organizing perception.

Flow view

To detect and construct surfaces, and then objects, we use light and sound waves. If we assume that an object is capable of emitting or absorbing other types of streams, then they can also be used to detect objects along with light and sound. For example, astronomical research uses gravitational waves to detect distant objects.

The term "flow" implies something consisting of the same type of elements. In other words, any stream can be built on the basis of the idea of ​​its type element.

• We can imagine a typical element of the flow of water. Then the flow of any duration and size will be represented as a repeating type element.

  
  
• We can imagine a typical sequence of sent locomotives, for example, the sequence of sending a single locomotive. Combining them in imagination, we can imagine a sequence of dispatched steam locomotives of any length.

In both views, it is impossible to answer the question when a particular locomotive was released, or if a specific drop of liquid had flowed.

The two types of stream descriptions correspond to the two extreme methods of stream detection.

• The first method of detection, when the detector is not sensitive, to recognize the discreteness of the stream.
• The second method of detection, when the detector detects the events that make up the stream.

In the first case, we do not distinguish the flow elements, in the second - we distinguish. The perception of a stream, in one way or another, consists in registering the elements of the stream and averaging some parameter associated with them. Both the receiver itself and the external analyzer can average. The higher the receiver sensitivity, the sharper the signal oscillations up to shot noise. The lower the sensitivity of the receiver, the smoother the received signal up to a completely flat constant value.

Sometimes you can hear about streams of two types: about discrete streams and about continuous. Ostensibly the flow of water is continuous, and the flow of locomotives is discrete. The reason for this is that we do not question the result of our perception of the world. Our senses have such detectors and such methods of analysis that nature has given us. If we analyze these detectors, we will find their inherent limitations on sensitivity. If we assume that our eye would be able to register individual atoms, then, believe me, the world for us would be completely different! And, if, on the contrary, we could not differentiate the release of a separate locomotive, then imagine a stream of continuous gray mass into which all locomotives would merge for us.

For someone, the same stream will look like a solid, for someone - as a discrete one. Since we are creating a tool for representing the world from different points of view, we need to learn how to display these views one on another. For this we need second-order predicates.

Representation of the surface of the object

In 1989 I made my first hologram. To do this, I made a Fourier transform of the image of the letter "H", printed the result obtained on the A4 format and removed it using infrared film with high resolution. Considering this film, I saw the surface of the letter H, but at the same time there was no matter that would fill this letter!

And maybe the opposite: there is matter, and the light passes through it as if there is no matter. Therefore, the presence of matter and the presence of a reflective surface in the general case are not related to each other.

But even if we have defined the border, realized that the surface is visible, and the object is solid to the touch, the question still remains: what is a border? Does it run along the edge of atoms? But atoms are more electromagnetic fields than matter. The correct way to think is this: the boundary between two objects is their common part, which has both thickness and volume.

The idea of ​​the volume of the object

If we talk about the structure of the volume, then we’ll get a conversation not about the volume of the object but about the construction of the object. Therefore, you can only talk about the volume as a whole. According to the observer, flows can be born not only on the surface of the object, but also in its volume. Flows can not only be born within a volume, but also pass through it. Birth, absorption, reflection, refraction, retransmission - all this is possible not only on the surface of the object, but also in its body. In essence, this makes the concept of the body of an object and its surface inseparable. For some flows, there is a boundary between the body and the medium, but for some flows there is no such boundary.

Representation of the environment

Imagine that we have lost the ability to perceive the stereo image. Moreover, suppose that we have lost to perceive the direction of flow. Imagine that in such a state we heard the sound of a drum. What do you say about the object that produced it? You will say that the object and the observer are at the same point. The world for such an observer would be a point.

Add to this picture the perception of the direction of flow. Then the world will become for the observer a world divided into sectors from which the streams come. The observer sees only the direction and registers the incoming and outgoing flows. This world begins right in front of it and has no depth. This is a flat world.

Add the ability to build a stereo base, or observation from two different points in space. It is not necessary for this to have paired organs, enough to be able to move. Then the world around becomes voluminous and the idea of ​​the environment appears. The environment allows you to move the boundary of the object from the observer. Then there appears the idea of ​​an object as a volume that is distant from the observer and produces streams passing through a transparent medium.

Question: Is the transparency of the environment due to the ability of the medium to transfer the flow element through itself, or to recreate the flow element in a new place? When we use the particle paradigm, we are talking about the transmission capacity of the medium. When we use the wave paradigm, then we are talking about recreating the flow element in a new place.

The medium as an intermediary in the transmission of streams has common parts with a transmitter and a receiver. If we are talking about a star, then for the medium the common parts will be: the surface of the antenna detector and the surface of the star.

A hologram made by me once created the illusion of the medium in which the volume letter H is located. This suggests that our perception of stars may also be an illusion. In order to make sure that it is not so, one must fly to it and, flying around, to make sure of its existence. You can formulate this action differently. We need experiments using alternative surface determination methods. If these experiments point to the same surface, then we consider it real. In the case of a hologram, one should try to touch the letter to make sure that it is illusory.

So, we consider as real objects those of them whose surface we can detect directly. But direct detection is also indirect - through a finger. What if all methods cheat us? This thought in its time gave rise to the idea that our universe is nothing more than a hologram.

Preconceptions

We think that an object is real, because its material composition is constant. But it suffices to recall an object such as a fire hose through which water flows to understand that this is not the case. The hose makes the hose a recognizable shape.

We think that objects should be dense. By density, I mean the impossibility of two objects being in one place of space. But as the gases mix, so the objects mix as well. Objects can be transparent to each other.

We think that objects should be continuous. Continuity is associated with the idea that the object should smoothly move in space. Overcoming this prejudice is somewhat more difficult than agreeing that the composition of an object can change. But imagine that teleportation became possible, and the object began to have breaks. Gaps are needed to model such objects as the director of an enterprise. This object breaks when there is a change of leadership.

We think that the surface is something infinitely thin. This perception of the surface leads to arguments about where to hold it. For example, we have a ball surface. It seems obvious that the surface is negligible and passes along the boundary of a layer of atoms. But, if we increase the focus and consider the border in more detail, we will see that the light is reflected not from the boundary of the extreme atom, but from a layer of atoms of finite thickness. We will detect the friability of the surface just as we see the friability of the cloud. Where is the cloud boundary? Where is the lake border, if it constantly moves along with the waves? Correctly look at the border as a thick layer. This will avoid unnecessary disputes. The boundary is a part of an object whose thickness is determined on the basis of the problem being solved ^ in a manner that is convenient.

We think objects exist. However, objects are needed only to describe the perception of flows using words.

We think that objects take action. But, if objects do not exist, then who does them? Throughout our history we have been influenced by the mythological consciousness, which claims that everything that happens around is the creation of some subjects (Gods, spirits, animate objects). Therefore, whenever we observe a stream, we strive to find the one who produces it. If we do not find someone, then at least something. So we create the illusion of the existence of the objective universe.

What is “real” for us is flows. Although it is possible to doubt their existence, the flows are more primary than the objects that are obtained by processing the information about the flows. Therefore, we can assume that flows are a reality, and objects are a model in our mind. Therefore, each time we speak of an object, we must mention the subject who made the conclusion about the existence of this object and classified it.

Statics and dynamics

When I talked about registering a stream, I meant instant registration. A moment lasts a finite time. If there is a thermometer for which the time to reach the equilibrium mode is five minutes, then the instant for such a detector is five minutes. If we are talking about the image fixation on the retina, then, knowing the chemical process in the cones, we can say that this time is milliseconds. But the trick is that the human consciousness is not able to imagine the fact of registration. The human consciousness always deals only with the flow of registration events, but not with one registration. To understand this, let's imagine a fixation of the state of a heated object when we touch it with our hand. The fixation of the condition occurred when the hand opened, but the consciousness had not yet awakened. And only after the hand turned away, the consciousness noticed this fact and came up with a picture in which events unfolded continuously. If we could realize the moment when the hand involuntarily opened, we could understand what a flow registration is.

To understand this better, consider the process of measuring the temperature of a heated body. Temperature is the result of measuring the steady-state equilibrium in a pair of object-probe (thermometer). To measure the temperature of an object, we use a probe, which for a certain period of time establishes thermal equilibrium with the object, after which values ​​are collected from it. It is clear that it is impossible to achieve complete equilibrium, it is clear that the process of data acquisition itself also introduces an error. Temperature cannot be measured accurately and instantly. Therefore, to measure the temperature instantly and just will not work. If the task is to measure body temperature as a function of time, the following condition must be satisfied: a change in body temperature during the measurement should not exceed the required accuracy of measurements. Otherwise, we will not get the temperature of the body at a given point in time, but something incomprehensible. Each temperature value is called the state of the object. The set of such values ​​is called the flow of object states. It would seem that there are words for this difference: ostensibly, when we say that the body is hot, we talk about recording the flow of energy, but when we say that the body changes its temperature, we are talking about a set of such registrations, or about the flow of object states. But in reality it is not so. Even when we register the state of a heated body by withdrawing our hand, our consciousness still tries to invent a picture in which events developed continuously. And, when we say that the body is hotter, we still mean the flow of the states of the object, each of which corresponds to the same temperature value.

We should not confuse the registration of the flow of energy or matter, which allows us to register the state of the object, with the registration of the flow of the states of the object. In the first case, a certain model (temperature, color, surface, etc.) is assigned to the measured flow. In the second case we are talking about the flow of these models. The physical meaning of these concepts is completely different. Therefore, when I indicate the coordinates of the body, I must clarify: this is an instantaneous measurement of the position of the body, or the flow of such measurements. Unfortunately, these terms are poorly differentiated in language. In the first case, I could clarify this: at such and such a moment the body was there. The term "moment" hints at an instant measurement of body position. In the second case, I could say: during such and such a time the body was there. The length in time hints that there were a lot of body position measurements. Words such as an event instantly hint at a one-time measurement of the state of an object. The words "throughout" hint at a stream of states.

Statics we call the state of the object. Dynamics is the flow of states.

The concept of a typical state flow of objects

The sequence of states is a scenario of transitions from one state to another. In general, the scenario consists of a large number of elements, so large that their storage becomes burdensome for consciousness. Then the mind goes to the trick. It tries to minimize the script by finding its typical element.

• Assume that we consider the rotation of the motor shaft. If we can imagine a typical rotation, then we can imagine a rotation of any duration. But you can not put a mark on the shaft and say where it will be at a particular point in time.

  
  
• For a shaft, a typical smallest sub-scenario can be made a turn by one turn. Imagine a typical turn, we can imagine any turn on a whole number of revolutions. This description also lacks the ability to determine the position of the mark on the shaft at a specific point in time.

Both of these methods are equivalent to the methods of representing the flow, only now typical types of object state flows act as typical elements. Further consciousness goes for another trick. It begins to consider an object, the state flow of which can be represented as a set of typical state flows, static! That is, the battering fountain can become a static object in the subject’s view. And then the subject will treat him like a normal static object. This can be seen in the example of the river. At close range, the subject sees chips drifting along the river, then he sees a stream of chips, and finally, he stops seeing streams and sees the river as an object. Again, you can do the same operation with a static object: find typical state flows. For example, forcing a fast rotating shaft to slowly move up and down. This up-down motion can be modeled through a typical state stream and a new static object can be obtained. And so on up the state composition. You can do the same and down - decomposing the state of the object. You can think about it yourself.

Language difficulties

Streams emanating from an object are divided into two types. Based on the flows of the first type, a conclusion is made about the existence of the object. Threads of the second type are attributed to the object as its abilities. For example, the fact that a surface emits light indicates the probability that matter is under it. Based on this flow, it was decided that the star really exists. The second type of thread is assigned to already created objects. For example, the flow of cars coming off the assembly line. They say about the first type of flows: the object has properties, and about the second type of flows, the object produces a flow. Strange, considering that there and there we are talking about streams! True, you can hear the following thesis: the conveyor has the property to produce cars. This thesis brings us closer to the fact that all flows are properties of an object. And you can say otherwise: the star emits light. This will bring us closer to the notion that all flows are the capabilities of an object. Creating models, it would be nice to have a unified approach to modeling flows. I would suggest this: there is a stream, there is an object from which it emanates, and there is an interpretation of this stream. For example: there is a stream of light with a peak in the red region of the spectrum, there is a bus from which this stream emanates, and there is an interpretation — the bus reflects red light better than blue and green. This approach creates a unified view of flow modeling. It will not be necessary to think: whether it is a property of the object, or whether it is its ability, or whether it is its purpose. In fact, there is an object and there is a stream. Do you want - think that this property, want - ability, want - an appointment.

The same expressions are used to describe streams and to describe streams of object states. For example, does a car smoke - is it a flow description, or a flow description of a machine’s state? Since, based on the flow, a conclusion is made about the state of the machine, we can say that these theses are related, but one cannot say that this is the same thesis! If this is not clear, then let's consider the thesis: the car is going. This is a description of the state flow of the machine. And the car smokes - it can be a description of the flow of smoke. The form of expression of theses is one, and the type of theses is different.

If you show two different monkeys and ask: is this one monkey? most likely, the answer will be the following: there are two monkeys, but they are similar, and therefore belong to the same type of animals. So one rotation is not another rotation, although they are similar. But often two different terms “similar” and “same” are confused. And then you can hear, as they say, that the two shafts have one rotation. In the future, we will have to be very careful not to confuse the different state flows of different objects. If I talk about the flow of states, then we will speak about a specific flow of states that simulates a specific 4-D object. If I talk about an operation, event, state, then it will be a specific operation, event, state, and not the type of operations, the type of events or the type of states. If I speak a red object, then it will be about a specific stream, that is, about a specific red, and not about the type of red objects. At first it is quite difficult, but one has only to start, and it will become a habit.

Suppose that we want to say that there is a glow, on the basis of which we decide to select an object called the Sun. If we say that the Sun is shining, the meaning of this thesis will be reversed - supposedly the decision on the existence of the Sun has already been made and now it is said that the Sun produces a glow. If we say that the purpose of the Sun is to shine, then the meaning of this statement is that the Sun is intended to glow. And this will be the third meaning. Glow is not an activity on luminescence, and is not an appointment on luminescence.

"Transformations" of objects

• The state of the object can always be decomposed into substates
• The state of the object can be part of the super-state
• The object can be represented as a stream.
• An object can always be represented as a transparent medium for a stream.
• An object can become a stream element.

This story is not complete, because the same thing that is told about objects should be told about streams and environments. However, in the framework of the current work this topic is not disclosed.

• A stream can always be represented as an object.
• A stream can always be represented as a transparent medium for a stream.
• The medium can be represented as a stream.
• The environment can always be represented as an object.