pg42 Questions on Schrodinger’s Cat (part 1 of 5)

The question is: What is the definition of “observation” (at here, it means particularly “collapse” to a definite quantum state)?  Who said an observation, or collapsing, must be made by a physicist?  What if my reader demands that the observation, or collapsing, must be made by the reader himself?  On the other hand, there are billions of atoms and molecules in my body which are not observed, or collapsed, by any physicists.  Are they not in existence (or not in a definite state) because they are not being observed, or collapsed, by a physicist, or anybody?  There are billions of billions of atoms and molecules in the planet earth which are not being observed, or collapsed, by any physicists.  Are they not in existence (or not in a definite state) because they are not being observed, or collapsed, by any physicist, or anybody? 

                                                                                                                         Pg 42      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg41 QUANTUM MECHANICS (part 5 of 5)

Paradox Of Schrodinger’s Cat

While experiments confirmed Copenhagen interpretation in the part that quantum systems are not “collapsed” to a fixed state until observed, it suffers from another problem.  In the same year, 1935, Schrodinger devised another paradoxical thought experiment showing the absurdity of the interpretation.  In simple terms, assume we have a box with a cat and a jar of poison inside.  Assume there is a radioactive substance nearby.  There is a possibility that the substance decays and emits a particle in the first day.  If the substance does decay in the first day, the emitted particle will be captured by a Geiger counter, which in turn will trigger to release the poison from the jar and the cat will be dead.  If the substance didn’t decay in the first day, no poison will be released and the cat will be alive.  The physicist will come to open the box the next day to see (that is to perform the observation) if the cat is dead or alive.  Since the observation is not made until the next day, the whole quantum system including the Geiger counter, the whole box and the cat would be in an undetermined condition with the cat being in both dead and alive possible states.  The system would not be collapsed to a fixed determined state until observation time on the next day.  This of course cannot be true as no one believes the cat can be in both dead and alive states.  Then how can we make sense of this? 

Next, we’ll investigate more on the paradox of Schrodinger’s cat and quantum collapsing, as they are critical to the establishment of objective identity. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 41      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg40 QUANTUM MECHANICS (part 4 of 5)

Absurdity of Copenhagen Interpretation

This is absurd as can be seen in the following example.  Suppose a particle disintegrates into two particles, one spins clockwise and the other anticlockwise.  The two particles will travel opposite to each other at very high speed.  According to Copenhagen interpretation, before observation the spin directions of the two particles are undetermined, both having possibilities of being clockwise and being anticlockwise.  Only at observation time, they are collapsed to a determined state.  If particle A is observed (which means collapsed) to being clockwise, then the other, particle B, must be observed (collapsed) to being anticlockwise “instantly”, even if they have travelled to different corners in the universe.  It is unbelievable that the two particles, being widely apart, can communicate instantly at infinite speed (much faster than light). 

EPR Paradox and Confirmation of Copenhagen Interpretation

On the contrary, Einstein’s view (cooperated with Podolsky and Rosen, 1935, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox) is that the two particles must have determined states of spin directions at time of separation, just waiting to be measured.  But neither Einstein, nor Bohr and Heisenberg lived long enough to witness an experimental confirmation of one view or the other.  An observation done in 1982 in the University of Paris by Aspect etc. confirmed that the Copenhagen interpretation is correct.  That is, quantum systems don’t have determined state until observation time.  Only at observation time, the system is “collapsed” to a fixed state. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 40      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg39 QUANTUM MECHANICS (part 3 of 5)

The Copenhagen Interpretation - Quantum Collapse at observation time

We will explore quantum collapse and the related concepts here because they are critical in the establishment of identity horizontally.   

The Copenhagen interpretation formulated by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg is the “standard” interpretation of quantum mechanics.  The major aspect of this interpretation is that the state of a quantum system (say, the momentum or spin of a particle) is “not determined” until it is measured.  It doesn’t mean the state is already determined before measurement, just waiting to be observed.  It means the state is completely “undetermined” before observation is made.  Therefore, it is meaningless to ask where the particle is before measurement.  Only at observation time, the undetermined possibilities are “collapsed” to a fixed determined state.  In other words, the act of observation plays a role in determining the state of the particle. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 39      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg38 QUANTUM MECHANICS (part 2 of 5)

Uncertainty in Quantum Mechanics

Uncertainty principle is an aspect of quantum mechanics.  It says the position or momentum (velocity) of a particle is undetermined until it is measured.  The uncertainty of position multiplies the uncertainty of momentum (velocity) equals or greater than the plank constant, h = 6.26 * 10 ^-27 erg.s.  That means, if you want to catch (measure) the particle within a smaller area (higher precision), the momentum (velocity) would be found (measured) to be within a larger deviation range.  And vice versa. 

Quantum mechanics applies to both microscopic and macroscopic objects.  Since the plank constant, h, is a very small value, the uncertainty of either position or momentum (velocity) of macroscopic objects (such as, a desk, a planet, etc.) is usually unnoticeable as compared to the size of the object.  But it is highly noticeable for microscopic objects, such as, electrons, protons, atoms, or molecules, because the uncertainty is much larger than the size of the particle.  There is no certainty of finding a particle, or an atom, at any definite position.  There is only a curve to express the probability of finding it at each position and time, and another curve to express the probability of finding it at each momentum (velocity) and energy value.  But for macroscopic objects, such as a desk, a star, etc. the probability curve almost coincides with the shape of the object, because the uncertainty is almost zero (as compared to its size).  Still, the object is not solid, but waves. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 38      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg37 QUANTUM MECHANICS (part 1 of 5)

Brief description of quantum mechanics

Quantum mechanics is a strange aspect of matter most dramatic at very tiny scales, i.e. regions smaller than 0.00000001 cm.  It says all matter is governed by waves.  The probability of finding a particle at each position and time can be expressed by a curve (a packet wave).  That is, there is not a definite position and time (that is, there is an uncertainty) that the particle will be found.  The curve (packet wave) is composed of numerous mono waves.  The probability of finding a particle possessing each momentum (velocity) value and energy value is also expressed by a curve, i.e. there is not a definite value of momentum (velocity) and value of energy to be found for the particle either (that is, there is also an uncertainty).  Although the strange characteristics of quantum mechanics are manifested most dramatically at tiny scales, it applies to all sized of objects, even to astronomical scales. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 37      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg36 The objectivity of molecules and biological bodies (part 2 of 2)

2.  A person is recognized as an individual person not only by himself but by all his/her friends as well.  It cannot be denied that the collection of particles being viewed as a body is not entirely the individual’s own personal viewpoint.  The same view is actually shared by all people.  It is not possible to view two human bodies as one unless they are actually conjoined twins.  We don’t have subjective liberty to choose our viewpoint.  There is objectivity in each biological (conceptual) structure acted by biological laws and also in each molecular (conceptual) structure acted by chemical laws. 

An objective identity implies it is not any subjectively selected collection of particles.  Rather, it is a special collection which together follows another set of non-physics laws (e.g. chemical or biological laws), on top of physics laws (and the set cannot be changed at wish).  On the other hand, subjective identity is any wishfully selected set of particles, with each particle following physics laws individually.  It is a mystery how each molecule or biological body establish its objective identity? 

We will talk a little about quantum mechanics before tackling this problem.  

                                                                                                                         Pg 36      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg35 Topic 6 - The reality of objects – The Objective View – How Identity Established? (part 1 of 2)

The objectivity of molecules and biological bodies. 

Earlier we mentioned that all objects are illusory when viewed vertically.  That is, from the physics point of view, all animals and molecules are simply collections of particles.  That they are viewed as animals or molecules is nothing more than an illusion. 

But, it actually is not entirely like that when viewed horizontally, because: 

1. We can always insist to choose the physics point of view, i.e. only elementary particles are recognized in the world, which follow physics laws only.  In this case, no molecules, no animals, etc. are recognized.  Then how can a collection of particles (grouped together as an astronaut) fly to the moon?  As mentioned before, physics laws pose no intention.  Particles move randomly without any intentional will.  The world should be like a dead world on Mercury. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 35      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg34 Overlapping of laws at different levels (part 3 of 3)

3. Alternatively, if one is uncomfortable with treating molecules as conceptual structure, he/she may consider a molecule as consisting of a set of exactly prescribed atoms.  But in this case when any atom is dropped off from the molecule, this molecule must be considered dead and cease to exist.  The molecule is reborn when the lost atom is refilled.  Likewise, a dog may be defined as being composed of a set of exactly prescribed cells.  But then according to this definition it must be considered dead when any of its cells are dropped off.  The dog is reborn when the cell is refreshed. 

Obviously, the second choice of the above three is the most close to the way we comprehend the world.  This choice opens large uncertainty in chemistry, larger uncertainty in biology and even larger uncertainty in social activities, e.g. economics, which is in general agreement with what is observed.  But the more important by-product is its commonality with the uncertainty in quantum mechanics.  We see here uncertainty is common to all sciences.  The uncertainty in quantum mechanics is just one special case of the general uncertainties in all sciences.   

Next we’ll turn to the undeniable objectivity of human bodies, molecules, etc.

                                                                                                                         Pg 34      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg33 Overlapping of laws at different levels (part 2 of 3)

2. If we wish to recognize a molecule, or a dog, as a special individual object which follows its own chemical laws, or biological laws, then we have to give up treating them as particles following physics laws.  Because chemical laws already contain a high percentage (but not 100%) of physics laws, it would be overlapping each other if both of them are applied simultaneously.  The little percentage not governed by physics laws is due to drop-offs, which cannot be calculated.  If there were no drop-offs, applying chemical laws simultaneously with physics laws should pose no problem, as chemical laws can be translated completely into physics laws.  But when drop-off happens, we can choose only one set of laws at any moment. 

When choosing to recognize molecules and use chemical laws, there are two ways to deal with it.  The first way is to treat molecules as a conceptual structure because its component atoms can be dropped off and replaced by similar atoms from time to time.  This causes an uncertainty which is beyond control of the chemical law, as the law is acting on the conceptual structure rather than on fixed atoms.  This is the same to biological laws when we consider a dog not as a collection of particles or molecules, but as an individual animal.  Obviously, the uncertainty in a chemical law is larger than the uncertainty in the physics of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty in a biological law is even larger than the uncertainty in chemical laws. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 33      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg32 Overlapping of laws at different levels (part 1 of 3)

Obviously, there is serious overlapping of laws at different composite levels.  We have to be consistent in the laws we use in any particular discussion.   There are three choices. 

1.  We can consider there are only elementary particles in the world, which are governed only by physics laws.  Under this scheme, no molecules, no biological bodies, no society, etc. are recognized, as they are governed by chemical laws, biological laws, social laws, etc. which are partially covered by physics laws already.  A molecule or a dog should be viewed only as a collection of particles.  All these particles follow the laws of physics only. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 32      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg31 Topic 5 - Drop offs - Why Higher level Laws not derivable from lower level laws. (part 4 of 4)

Drop-offs at all levels of hierarchical complexity

Now, go to a higher level of hierarchy.  When molecules are formed into biological bodies, the body is the conceptual form (software), while the molecules are now the real concrete-objects (hardware).  The molecules are constantly refreshed (swapped) in order to satisfy the chemical laws, while at the same time higher level biological laws of the conceptual software (i.e. human bodies) are also observed.  Note that the hardware (e.g. cells) of a higher level software (human body) is the software (i.e. cells) of the lower level hardware (molecules), whose corresponding hardware (atoms) in turn is the software of the even lower level hardware (protons, neutrons and electrons) in the hierarchy.  A nation (software) can survive for many thousand years, but its people (hardware) can be born and die generation after generation.  But, each person (now, a software) has his/her cells (hardware) refreshed constantly.  Each cell (now, a form or software) has its molecules (hardware) swapped all the time.  Also, each molecule (form, software) has its atoms (hardware) swapped.  And each atom (now, a software) has its electrons (content, hardware) swapped.  There may be numerous layers of structures of objects and sometimes they could be overlapped and confused. 

We’ll discuss the logic of overlapping laws at different levels next.

                                                                                                                         Pg 31      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg30 Topic 5 - Drop offs - Why Higher level Laws not derivable from lower level laws. (part 3 of 4)

 

When higher level structures are recognized as certain (illusory) objects, they follow their own laws, e.g. chemical laws, biological laws, economical laws, etc.  While these laws don’t violate physics laws, they are not physics laws, and mostly cannot be derived from physics laws.  Why? 

One critical reason (a personal opinion) may be drop-offs.  Normally an interaction should follow the chemical law.  But it could happen that, due to local physics conditions, a particular molecule may not be able to follow the chemical law temporarily.  In such circumstances, certain atom/electron (the real concrete-objects, hardware) of the molecule could be dragged out (dropped-off) from the molecule temporarily by the physics force and is later replaced by a nearby like atom/electron, thus preventing the physics law from being violated, while at the same time the chemical law (between the molecular structures, the software) is also observed.  Thus, we see drop-off keeps higher level chemical law and lower level physics law both being observed, yet the chemical law cannot be derived from the physics law.  That is why free higher level laws can be implemented independently of lower level laws.  Higher level laws are between the conceptual software, while lower level laws are between real concrete-objects (hardware).  From physics point of view, chemical laws are not between real objects but between illusions (molecules) and hence would not conflict physics laws.  This is believed to be how supply and demand law, biological laws, chemical laws and physics laws are all implemented simultaneously without conflicting each other and how mind got room to manipulate those (illusory) objects.  

                                                                                                                         Pg 30      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg29 Topic 5 - Drop offs - Why Higher level Laws not derivable from lower level laws. (part 2 of 4)

Two layers of reality: Conceptual Form (Software) and Concrete-objects (Hardware)

In fact, every object in the world consists of two levels of reality, form and concrete-objects  (See Plato: theory of forms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms). While the higher level form remains unchanged (which may be called the software), concrete-objects may be swapped constantly (which may be called the hardware).  Let’s take molecules as an example.  At the higher level, molecule is a form (or a concept, or software), while at the lower level are the atoms which are the concrete-objects (or real material, or hardware).  While the higher level molecule (form or concept, or software) remains unchanged, the atoms (concrete-objects, or real material, or hardware) may be swapped constantly. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 29      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg28 Topic 5 - Drop offs - Why Higher level Laws not derivable from lower level laws. (part 1 of 4)

Every object is a concept

As mentioned earlier, every object is a concept in the universe.  For example, the atoms in a molecule are not staying the same all the time.  When we say this is a glucose molecule, we actually mean the molecular structure of glucose, regardless of whether its constituent atoms, or electrons, remain exactly the same all the time or are swapped with neighboring like atoms or electrons. 

This phenomenon happens all the time at different levels of objects.  An atom may have its constituent electrons swapped (dropped off and replaced) from time to time.  In macroscopic scale, a 200 year old company may have its employees changed many, many times, but it’s still the same company.  A nation could be thousands of years old, with its people changed numerous times.  Drop-off need not happen at high percentage rate, but it does happen at all levels of structures. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 28      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg27 From Physics Point of View, Choosing Body as an object is subjective and illusory (part 5 of 5)

Problem with Contemporary Science – Mixing Inconsistent Viewpoints

Let’s make it clear, although illusory objects have objective existence, they are still illusory from physics point of view.  Body and life could be chosen as real, but then atoms and elementary particles are illusions and we don’t care about physics laws and whether they are violated or not.  The difficulty with contemporary science is that human bodies, molecules, atoms and particles are all viewed as real simultaneously, while theoretically they cannot all be real at the same time and only one set of laws can be governing at a time (except in cases of non-composite entities).  To be consistent in any single discussion, one can choose only one set of governing laws and relevant entities.  The other laws and relevant entities are then illusory.  That they are considered illusory is based on the set of laws chosen (vertical view), rather than on who is the observer/viewer (horizontal view). 

Next, we’ll investigate why higher level laws are not derivable from lower level laws – drop offs. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 27  

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg26 From Physics Point of View, Choosing Body as an object is subjective and illusory (part 4 of 5)

There is objectivity in molecular (conceptual) structures acted by chemical laws, objectivity in biological (conceptual) structures acted by biological laws and objectivity in (conceptual) companies acted by business laws.  The subjectively recognized units are endowed with objectivity by its own governing laws, which treat each conceptual entity as a well defined individual object.  From physics point of view (i.e. when no chemical or biological laws are recognized), it is a mystery how a person can be recognized as a person not only by himself but also by everyone else.  It is an important topic in our discussion.  We will talk about how such objectivity can be established later. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 26      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg25 From Physics Point of View, Choosing Body as an object is subjective and illusory (part 3 of 5)

From Physics Point Of View, All Objects Other Than Particles (Molecules, Cells, A City, The Whole World, Etc.) Are Also Subjective And Illusory.

By the same token, under physics point of view, atoms, molecules, cells, a tree, an animal, a city, a society, a culture and the whole world are all illusory.  Nothing is real.  They don’t exist if we choose to recognize only electrons, protons and neutrons (i.e. the most fundamental building blocks of the world) as real objects, which follow physics laws only.  They, as individual entities, are meaningless to physics laws. 

Objective Existence of Illusory Objects cannot be Denied.

Obviously, most people cannot accept that a human body is an illusion, as its existence is so clear because it doesn’t change according to our view.  This is true.  As pointed out many times, this is only based on physics viewpoint (vertical view of the structural hierarchy).  But, horizontally, it should be admitted that the collection of particles being recognized as a body is not entirely any one individual’s personal view.  It looks as if all other people share the same view as well. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 25      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg24 From Physics Point of View, Choosing Body as an object is subjective and illusory (part 2 of 5)

A Man is like a relay run team.  Although a team may have its players changed many times in a run, it is still the same team.  A man is similar, the cells of an eighty year old man is totally different from those when he was ten years old, because the cells are changed/refreshed gradually throughout his life.  From physics point of view, the man at 80 years is an entirely different man than him at 10 years old.  The usual physics laws apply to fixed body only.  It is not right to expect usual physics laws to apply to a changing body.  Different laws must be established. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 24      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg23 From Physics Point of View, Choosing Body as an object is subjective and illusory (part 1 of 5)

From physics point of view, choosing to recognize a human body as an object is subjective and illusory.  It is like a group of houses in a valley.  Whether to recognize the group as a village is a subjective point of view.  It is a mere personal opinion to choose to view the human body as an individual entity.  From physics point of view, a human body is not recognized as a special individual entity.  Consequently, life is also an illusion, which does not exist unless one chooses to recognize it.  Why is life (of a human body) so short?  The answer is in our point of view.  If we choose the physics point of view, life isn’t anything other than a virtual concept.  Why do we choose to view it as a special entity?  If we don’t choose to view it that way, they are just elementary particles and nothing long or short about it. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 23      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg22 What is the reality of objects in general? Water falls as an example – Virtual concept. (part 3 of 3)

Human body is also a virtual concept 

Now, we see human body is just like water falls.  As we know the cells in a human body is refreshed every seven years, if we fast play a 100-year-life history of a human body in one minute, we would notice: 1. The body is getting older during the course, 2. The physical content of the body is refreshing itself just like water drops flowing through a water falls.  Thus, every statement about water falls above applies to a human body. 

What is the reality of a human body?  A human body is a concept.  The actual content of the body, i.e. the cells or molecules in the body, has never been the same.  It is ever changing all the time, as they are always different cells which flow through the body.  At most, it is a shape, a shape of a human body.  But even a shape is not an object, but a concept.  However, it is always said to be “the same” body.  The body exists only because we recognize it as an object.  If we insist on defining an object by its “physical content”, then the body does not exist because it has no fixed physical content (only cells, rather than the body, exist). 

If we wish to consider the body as an “object”, then definition of “object” must be “a concept”, not its real content.  In other words, whether the body exists as an object depends on what “object” means:  

- It may exist only if we choose to recognize the body as a concept.  But it is nothing but a virtual concept, not a real thing. 

- On the other hand, if we choose to recognize objects by its physical content, then the body doesn’t exist.  There is not a thing by the name of “human body”.  There are only cells or molecules.  Only cells or molecules are recognized objects, nothing else. 

Because human bodies are virtual concepts (i.e. a non-existent object) rather than real physical entities, they don’t follow physics laws, even though they don’t violate physics laws.  Asking if they follow physics laws is like asking if stocks and bonds follow physics laws, as they are just concepts, not real physical entities. 

We’ll talk about the illusory view of objects and the consequential problems next. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 22      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg21 What is the reality of objects in general? Water falls as an example – Virtual concept. (part 2 of 3)

If we must consider the falls as an “object”, then definition of “object” must be “a concept”, rather than its real content.  In other words, whether the falls exists as an object depends on what “object” means: 

- It may exist only if we choose to recognize the falls as a concept.  But it is nothing but a virtual concept, not a real thing. 

- On the other hand, if we choose to recognize objects by its physical content, then the falls doesn’t exist.  There is not a thing by the name of “falls”.  There are only water drops.  Only water drops are recognized objects, nothing else. 

Because water falls are virtual concepts (i.e. a non-existent object) rather than real physical entities, they don’t follow physics laws, even though they don’t violate physics laws.  Asking if they follow physics laws is like asking if stocks and bonds follow physics laws, as they are just concepts, not real physical entities. 

                                                                                                                         Pg 21      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com

pg20 What is the reality of objects in general? Water falls as an example – Virtual concept. (part 1 of 3)

Let’s take an example.  What is the reality of a water falls?  A water falls, say the Niagara falls, is a concept.  The actual content of the falls, i.e. the water stream or water drops, has never been the same.  It is ever changing all the time, as they are always different water drops which flow through the falls.  At most, it is a shape, a rectangle or triangle.  But even a shape is not an object, but a concept.  However, it is always said to be “the same” water falls.  The falls exists only because we recognize it as an object.  If we insist on defining an object by its “physical content”, then the falls does not exist because it has no fixed physical content (only water drops, rather than the falls, exist). 

                                                                                                                         Pg 20      

If reading more helps to understand better, you may visit my fast pace blog at: http://FromPhysicsToMetaphysicsFastPace.blogspot.com