> dhw:It's a hot topic. And no-one knows the answer. Your point about "solid" patterns is dealt with by both sceptics:
> 
> NUNEZ: We humans are pretty good at trying to make sense of things and excel at developing new tools for such purposes. You are giving examples for cases in which mathematics does work apparently in nature. But, how about all those cases for which it doesn't, including for making precise weather predictions? -Nunez is now in never never land. Weather is not a fixed physical pattern. The controlling parameters are so confusing there are folks who believe the Earth will roast while for the past 17 years there is no change in overall temps. Straw man argument.-
> BUTTERWORTH: Numbers are not necessarily a property of the universe, but rather a very powerful way of describing some aspects of the universe. -That is exactly the point. Numbers fit the most important aspects of telling us much of the origin of our reality.
> 
> dhw: He who twaddles others' beliefs doth himself deserve a twaddling. (Old Agnostic Proverb)-Nunez needs a twaddling. Perhaps old agnostics also.

dhw: I do get confused when I'm told that my familiar space/time thoughts and feelings are "less real" than a world I don't even know or than realities that are "potential"; and I get confused when I'm told (or think I'm being told) that the problem of subjective perception and the possible non-reality of things evaporates because what is observed is interpreted differently by different observers. I may have misunderstood this, and so I'm asking for clarification.-In our spacetime relativity is real. Position and motion make a difference. The simple example of the train whistle. So if we have the problem of relativity perception in our reality, how much worse is the problem when it comes from a area of potentiality to start with as in QM studies.
> 
> dhw; All our perceptions, ideas, theories, and decisions are based on forming patterns. We cannot observe the whole of anything ... but just, in your terms, "bits and pieces". And our impression of the whole is the pattern we impose on those bits and pieces. As often as not, we get it wrong! You see a pattern of divine purpose in Nature, others see a pattern of mindless randomness ... so do both patterns already exist to be discovered? Philosophy, religion and science all entail joining "bits and pieces" of information into patterns. So if the patterns already exist, all philosophical, religious and scientific theories must be true! Hey, hey, who's twaddling now?-You have neatly shifted the argument about patterns. I was pointing out mathematical patterns which the scientists use to understand nature. These work out solidly. Philosophic patterns are built on reasonble inferences, but may contain unexpected quicksand. Don't conflate solid maths with twaddle.

But in truth, they are both one reality. For definitive purposes we might call one "perceptible" reality and the other "imperceptible" reality, but there is really no difference in either realities but that one is perceptible to the human eye and mind while the other is not.
> > 
> > I think the term imperceptible goes too far. We go perceive a great deal of the quantum portion of reality.
> 
> Are you saying we perceive a great deal of the q-portion through instruments or the human eye? Because my use of the word perceptible and imperceptible is to describe that which can be perceived with the human eye and mind without instruments.-I'm referring to instrument work. We naturally have no idea that quanta exist, because the idea of a single photon is scientific knowledge. I see light, not photons. A photon hits my retina, an ionization wave goes along the optic nerve to my brain, and the neurons in the optic area at the back of my brain tell me I've seen light. I know photons do it only from scientific research. A photon is one of the elemental particles in the universe.

But in truth, they are both one reality. For definitive purposes we might call one "perceptible" reality and the other "imperceptible" reality, but there is really no difference in either realities but that one is perceptible to the human eye and mind while the other is not.
> 
> I think the term imperceptible goes too far. We go perceive a great deal of the quantum portion of reality.-Are you saying we perceive a great deal of the q-portion through instruments or the human eye? Because my use of the word perceptible and imperceptible is to describe that which can be perceived with the human eye and mind without instruments.


> > I find David's dialysis image extremely helpful. 
> 
> bbella: I understand dialysis, but can't understand the connection to Quantum Reality and Layers, unless you saying what we see (the physical) is what slips through the QL, but what we do not see is what does not? -Exactly. What is in the other layer of our reality are potentials and probabilities. Offer waves give us a peek.
> 
> >bbella:Maybe we just don't need the confusing term "separation", though. It could be argued that ALL entities are separate. We only get to know "bits and pieces" of whatever we perceive ... from inanimate objects to live people. I would suggest that quantum reality is less manifest, less accessible, less definable than our everyday reality, but not "more real" and not "separate".-Again a good analysis
> 
> bbella:I completely agree about not needing the term "separation" which is why I wrote in parenthesis "if there is any qualitative difference, which I suspect there isn't" and why I brought up this subject of separation in the first place. .... But in truth, they are both one reality. For definitive purposes we might call one "perceptible" reality and the other "imperceptible" reality, but there is really no difference in either realities but that one is perceptible to the human eye and mind while the other is not.-I think the term imperceptible goes too far. We go perceive a great deal of the quantum portion of reality.

bbella: If our physical reality actually emanates from the QR, which I suspect is so, I would think the QR is more real than our physical reality (if there is any qualitative differences, which I suspect there isn't). It is more that our perspective is limited by our sight and mind.[/i]
 
> I find David's dialysis image extremely helpful. -I understand dialysis, but can't understand the connection to Quantum Reality and Layers, unless you saying what we see (the physical) is what slips through the QL, but what we do not see is what does not? ->Maybe we just don't need the confusing term "separation", though. It could be argued that ALL entities are separate. We only get to know "bits and pieces" of whatever we perceive ... from inanimate objects to live people. I would suggest that quantum reality is less manifest, less accessible, less definable than our everyday reality, but not "more real" and not "separate".-I completely agree about not needing the term "separation" which is why I wrote in parenthesis "if there is any qualitative difference, which I suspect there isn't" and why I brought up this subject of separation in the first place. Although it's a poor analysis, I used the cells within the body and the body to express that thought. Both the cells and the body are physical yet one seems less physical than the other because we need magnifying instruments to catch a glimpse of them. But in truth, they are both one reality. For definitive purposes we might call one "perceptible" reality and the other "imperceptible" reality, but there is really no difference in either realities but that one is perceptible to the human eye and mind while the other is not.


> dhw: As in my discussion with Ruth, I find the term "more real" extremely dubious. Try stepping in front of a bus and then tell me that QR is more real than our physical reality. That was why I asked Ruth for criteria by which to measure reality. She and I eventually agreed that quantum reality was less MANIFEST than everyday reality. We might speculate that quantum reality has a greater influence on spacetime reality than vice versa (e.g. if you are thinking of it as the source of consciousness or of the material universe), or may be more lasting than spacetime reality (e.g. if you are thinking of an afterlife). 
> 
> I find David's dialysis image extremely helpful. Maybe we just don't need the confusing term "separation", though. It could be argued that ALL entities are separate. We only get to know "bits and pieces" of whatever we perceive ... from inanimate objects to live people. I would suggest that quantum reality is less manifest, less accessible, less definable than our everyday reality, but not "more real" and not "separate".-This is why Ruth introduced the discussion of what is a table. Is there a table? QM forces us to think at that level. Review the background. Classical physicists are dragged kicking and screaming into the quantum world. Einstein says can't be. The Copenhagen interpretation is a bastardized why of getting by. Ruth is stepping back, as have others, and says there has got to be a better way of looking at this.-Your problem with Ruth's writings is a relection of our human confusion over the whole subject. Remember Ruth quoted Feynman's famous quote to me. If a Nobel laureate is confused no wonder you are.

DAVID: [...] the answer to your problem is contained in the discussion and in the mathematician's comment I just reproduced.(2013-08-07, 15:02) Quanta exist, but are undescribable in their totality with our current senses. Therefore, we can only nibble at thier properties, eventually see all of the reality one bite at a time. Most of the incongruities are obviated by Ruth's approach. They are all interconnected and reacting together at random in their on realm.
> 
> dhw: This is clear, thank you. But these generalizations don't cover the specific questions I asked in my Rindler post of 3 August at 11.43. For instance, the fact that we can only see reality 'one bite at a time' does not explain to me how the problem of dependence on the observer to identify the properties and even the existence of quanta "evaporates", because in both cases "a transaction occurs" which is "simply interpreted differently by the different observers".-Part of this is Ruth investigating a relativistic view of quantum theory. No two viewers ever 'see' quanta the same way. I wish Ruth would step in to explain. The Rindler quanta are views with motion and position involved.

dhw:I read this with interest, but again it doesn't answer my specific questions, and as usual the experts don't agree among themselves: Tegmark and Hellerman are physicists who consider maths to be integral to the nature of the universe, and Butterworth and Nunez as cognitive scientists see it as part of the human tendency to impose patterns on Nature. -Humans cannot impose patterns if they do not already exist to be discovered. The argument is alot of philosophic twaddle.


> bbella: dhw, yes, I am trying to wrap my mind around the idea of a separated Quantum Layer of reality that is outside our own. All along, as I've studied QM, I've imagined it as a layer of reality that is as integral and as real to the physical reality as our unseen cells are to our physical body (only thing I can think of to compare). Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it's not there or that it's not just as real as our physical reality. If our physical reality actually emanates from the QR, which I suspect is so, I would think the QR is more real than our physical reality (if there is any qualitative differences, which I suspect there isn't). It is more that our perspective is limited by our sight and mind.-I think you've got it right. The separation is that quanta pass easily into the reality we perceive, but it difficult for us to see the all of the other side all at once. We get glimpses of bits and pieces. And again you are correct that QM is the source of and underlies our reality, and therefore is the primary reality. I view the separation as a semipermeable membrane as used in dialysis: most material can go back and forth, but the setup is rigged so certain dissolved molecules move best in one direction.


> BBella asks in what way QM reality is separate from ours. Maybe the answer is that it's not. Maybe we simply have no way of reaching beyond our subjective perceptions, and so at least for now we have no way of grasping all the realities around us. But animal perceptions show clearly that there are realities beyond those we ourselves can perceive, and perhaps (very tentative!) these may also be emissions absorbed by a "mysterious extra sense" in some humans that underlies what we call psychic experiences. Is that what you're getting at, BBella?-dhw, yes, I am trying to wrap my mind around the idea of a separated Quantum Layer of reality that is outside our own. All along, as I've studied QM, I've imagined it as a layer of reality that is as integral and as real to the physical reality as our unseen cells are to our physical body (only thing I can think of to compare). Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it's not there or that it's not just as real as our physical reality. If our physical reality actually emanates from the QR, which I suspect is so, I would think the QR is more real than our physical reality (if there is any qualitative differences, which I suspect there isn't). It is more that our perspective is limited by our sight and mind.

...according to Ruth it is best understood if we conceive of it as another layer to our reality, -I completely agree, David, with the above, that the QL is a layer of our reality, as is consciousness.->...and outside our reality. We are allowed only partial views and separated partial properties of the energies present there.
 
But, I cannot see the QL as outside or separated from our reality. I imagine the framework of the Quantum Reality as that which sustains all realities so cannot see how it could be separate from or outside it.-> Perhaps Ruth can explain better than I can.-I do hope she will comment on it David.