FQXi Community

Essay Abstract

Total ontological unification of matter at all levels of reality as a whole, its “grasp” of its dialectical structure, space dimensionality and structure of the language of nature – “house of Being” [1], gives the opportunity to see the “place” and to understand the nature of information as a phenomenon of Ontological Memory, the measure of being of the whole, “the soul of matter”, qualitative quality of the absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states). “Information” and “time” are multivalent phenomena of Ontological Memory (OntoMemory) substantiating the essential unity of the world on the “horizontal” and “vertical”. Ontological constructing of dialectics of Logos self-motion, total unification of matter, “grasp” of the nature of information leads to the necessity of introducing a new unit of information showing the ideas of dialectical formation and generation of new structures and meanings, namely Delta-Logit (Δ-Logit), qualitative quantum-prototecton, fundamental organizing, absolute existential-extreme. The simplest mathematical symbol represents the dialectical microprocessor of the Nature. Ontological formula of John A. Wheeler «It from Bit» [2] is “grasped” as the first dialectic link in the chain of ontological formulas → “It from Δ-Logit” → “It from OntoMemory” → “It from Logos, Logos into It”. Ontological Memory - core, the attractor of the new conceptual structure of the world of the information age, which is based on Absolute generating structure, the representant of onto-genetic code of the Universe.

Author Bio

Engineer, economist, independent researcher for 20 years: ontology, philosophy of physics and mathematics. Member of XX World Congress of Philosophy (Boston, 1998), general manager INTERNETIA Co Ltd: intellectual social networks, the company philosophy, philosophical safety

Download Essay PDF File

Vlad,

Great read. While I understand why we've done it (ie the dimensions we wish to probe are totally resistant to any conventional experimental tools), I also agree that we have taken mathematic abstraction a bit too far (ie string theory). I'm glad you also see a 'memory' in nature, and I do hope the idea becomes less controversial as time progresses. In fact this is very much what Smolin argued (obviously adopting a different approach) in Life of the Cosmos back in 1997.

I am still a little unclear as to how information is exchanged/stored in your model if you wouldn't mind elaborating a bit? Thanks!

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 14:01 GMT

Dear John!

Thank you for your valuable comment! As for the storage and exchange of information: I consider the Nature as a whole, without splitting it into "objects" and "subjects." It is our consciousness of the "split" Nature. Nature is a single structural integrity and ensures that the structural integrity of the (ontological) memory. The generating structure, its fundamental threefold device - there is «capacity» for «the storage» of memory, "the soul of matter." Memory "flows" from one structure to the other generating structure - the process of generating new structures and transformation of structures. This is the process we have observed evolution, "self-organization" of the Universe. Structural (ontological) memory "holds" and develops the Universe as an ordered structure, which is based on the absolute form of existence of matter. Regards, Vladimir

Vladimir

One real Universe can only do one real thing once. Wheeler interrogation can only be applied once in order for it to be considered accurate and relevant.

Therefore: Is the Universe real? Yes

Is information real? No.

report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 15:51 GMT

Joe,

If information is not "real", why are we exchanging our views here? Are they not about "information"?

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joe!

I totally agree with Leo. Many of the issues disappear when one examines the Universe as a whole. Then the information is shown as a necessary condition for the existence of the Universe as a whole. Regards, Vladimir

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 14:13 GMT

Vladimir and Leo,

We are exchanging information, but we are not exchanging reality.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 14:46 GMT

Joe,

You make such a conclusion because the rip, chop reality. Take a look at it as a whole. Regards, Vladimir

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 17:51 GMT

Vladimir,

One can never see a “whole” not even by looking through a telescope, a periscope or a microscope.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Vladimir,

I'm not sure that I understand your essay, although I think we agree on key issues. I believe most of our differences are terminology based. We seem to be saying the same things but with a very different vocabulary.

You discuss the "ontological justification of fundamental knowledge" and the "total ontological unification of matter at all levels of reality as a whole..."....

view entire post

Vladimir,

I'm not sure that I understand your essay, although I think we agree on key issues. I believe most of our differences are terminology based. We seem to be saying the same things but with a very different vocabulary.

You discuss the "ontological justification of fundamental knowledge" and the "total ontological unification of matter at all levels of reality as a whole...". The key to these is, I believe the actual "being" or ontological existence of matter, and the "awareness" of this being, which leads to what you call "ontological memory". Either these are two separate aspects of reality, or they are unified. In my essay I propose that they are unified, in the existence of the self-interacting and self-aware primordial field which I identify as the gravitational field present at the big bang and evolving to our current state solely through self-interaction. You identify the "structure of language" as a "house of Being" based on "linear-wave-vortex". I'm not at all sure what this means, but the self-evolution of the field that I speak of would interpret 'linear' as the basis of extension, hence space; 'wave' as the nature of cyclical action, hence time; and 'vortex' as the nature of localization, leading to particular matter as derived from concentration (in soliton-form) of the material field. Once particles exist, sustainable structure is possible, and this is the prerequisite (as I understand it) for 'ontological memory'.

The only question is then how awareness interfaces to the structure. You say "consciousness is included in the world as a whole through the phenomenon of understanding [...] of objective laws of nature." The essence of consciousness is [unstructured] awareness, and I posit this in the primordial field. Moreover the 'degree' of local awareness is coupled to the motion (change) of mass, not the (static) existence of mass. This is made clearer in my essay and references. I also address how the 'objective laws of nature' are derived from such structure.

I lay out the above comment for the purpose of helping to translate between your essay and my essay, which, I believe are saying much the same thing [and certainly are addressing the same problem!].

Thank you for your stimulating essay, and good luck in the contest.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Dear Vladimir

You surveyed many topics that sounded interesting, but I could understand your meaning only by 'reading between the lines' because you use very technical philosophical and other terms.

I like your use of delta in the title. As the increment in calculus it can be modified..not delta approaching zero, but delta approaching...Planck's constant. In my Beautiful Universe Theory I propose a model of the physical universe made up of a lattice of rotating nodes in units of Planck's unit of action (h).

You might have faith in Einstein's ontological views - he wanted clarity and logic..but unfortunately he based his physics on imaginative assumptions that have lead to many dead-ends. For example his proposal for a point photon absorbed and emitted as a particle has lead to the concept of quantum probability a mathematical convenience with no physical meaning at all. His concept of a fixed speed of light (c) led to the strange unphysical ideas of flexible space and time and to the cancellation of the ether from nature, an unnecessary and costly detour.

With best wishes

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 09:21 GMT

Hello, Vladimir!

Yes, I have tried to introduce new concepts and new constructs to their ontological justification. It's unacceptable for the physical picture of the world does not have the essential foundation. Empiricism has reached its limits ... It's time intelligence to "dig" the more remote the depth of meaning of the universe. The philosophy of "Big Bang" - a "home philosophy." From the explosions of humanity is tired ... Information era require a reliable foundation for the essential physics, and for the whole of human culture.

I am glad that you also develop the idea of "the incrementl" - it can only be dialectical. But, unfortunately, the dialectic of physics and mathematics is not very fond of ... As for the "ontological revolution Einstein-Planck" - the main thing that they began and left physicists good covenants ... obviously not only for physicists, but also for lyricists that need new picture of the world. Creative way of John Archibald Wheeler proof. As for the "ether", then he will be able to replace the "matter" or coexist with it only when members of the media "ether" will. They're always in the " ether" ...

C наилучши
84;и пожелани
03;ми,

Vladimir

P.S. Владимир! У Вас есть тексты Ваших эссе на русском языке?

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 15:14 GMT

Dear Vladimir

I agree with your hopes that physics will become a more intuitively acceptable science. Unfortunately I think Einstein took it into a too-imaginative direction. His results are correct but his assumptions about constant speed of light and flexible spacetime are fairy tales. Also his photon idea did much harm in physics. Eric Reiter in Eric Reiter's website proved the photon particle wrong.

I regret that I do not speak Russian nor am I a Russian.and used Google Translate to understand your comment..long story told on my website. It is a pity because I know a lot of Russian physics has taken a different path than in the West and I wish I could understand some of these directions.

I wish you all success

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 08:48 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

Yes, you're absolutely right. I think the problems with the physics appeared in connection with the unsolved problem of the foundations of mathematics that mathematicians and philosophers decide for over a hundred years. Some say that it is - a perennial problem. I do not agree with this statement. The result of this development the fundamental sign systems: physics mathematics today - it's science ontologically unfounded! This is nonsense. I think from here stems and modern problems of physics ("The Trouble with Physics ...").

Yes, I, too, English is very weak and I also use GOOGLE. The Academy of Foreign Trade studied French and Arabic. Yes, the problem of translations of articles of physicists from different countries it relevant. Of course, you have a very interesting biography and knowledge of Russian would help you to know more, including articles of physicists from Russia. Unfortunately many of them do not participate in the cotests FQXi.

I wish you every success,

Vladimir

Hello, dear Edwin!

Thank you for your thorough and detailed comment! To understand the nature of the information necessary to understand themselves first in the absolute (unconditioned) forms of existence of matter, as the "form" - the first entity (Aristotle). And only then comes the understanding of the "in-form", its location and the nature of the phenomenon as an ontological (structural) memory of the Universe. The design of a world in which "The Beginning" - "Big Bang," there is no Law and no one knows when it occurs - is the essential structure of the Universe without justification. Yes, I deliberately introduce new concepts and constructs are not consciously consider the concepts of modern physical picture of the world ("gravity", "weight" and so on), because there is a crisis in physics (Lee Smolin), and the objective of the competition, understand the nature of the phenomenon of "in-forma-tion" . That is, it is first necessary to rethink the concepts of "form" and "matter." As a result, the absolute (unconditioned) forms of existence and constructed on the basis of their Absolute generating structure defines language as being "linear-wave- vortex." The basic idea - the idea of a new generation and that is the main effect of in-forma-tion. And how is it to consider the next question.

As for consciousness, and its inclusion in the view of the world can only be done through the "setting" of his "vector" ("intentionality" in Husserl) and through the concept of "vector" - to grasp the "first law of the world" - the Logos (Heraclitus).

Modern physical picture is much poorer sense than a lyrical picture of the world. And it is unacceptable for the world-and one for physicists and poets.

And the fact that our thoughts are close - it's good, then physics and lyrics go to unified picture of the world.

I'd love to start reading your essay. Regards, Vladimir

Hello Vladimir,

Again welcome to the contest!

I want to mention one point raised in your essay in a soft form and not properly understood even by the scientific community.

In the first half of your essay you discuss the present crisis facing science today. I believe that the situation with this crisis is quite different from that with all the previous crises. It appears that, in science, we have never faced the crisis of such magnitude and of such consequences. In particular, I believe that we are faced with the radical change of scientific language, which has never happened before. Unfortunately, not many scientists realize this, which in turn contributes to the prolongation of the crisis. As I suggest in my essay, the essence of the crisis is the integration of the 'mental' into a scientific view.

My best wishes to you!

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 17:31 GMT

Hello, Lev!

I am glad to read your comment. I agree with you completely about the depth of the crisis. And that line of work you spend, I think. - Is a sure way out of the crisis "interpretation and representation."

My best wishes to you!

Hi Vladimir,

I actually read your essay couple of times. It was so fine language and so abstract from time to time. We do have a some common ground indeed but you are looking at it from very much higher perspective than me. Anyway, I liked it.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 09:16 GMT

Hi, Kimmo,

Many thanks for a good estimate of the essay. My first task was to find a fundamental structure that Umberto Eco described as "missing." Structure on the one hand - a generating, on the other - the limit for thought. I con-struct-ed it from the very nature of phenomena that we observe in life itself, as well as the development and achievements of science, philosophy and traditional knowledge. The result of search and ontological construction - Absolute (unconditional) generating structure. The concept of "FORM" very updated. Absolute generating structure at the same time is the "house" of information- phenomenon of the ontological (structural) memory. Ontological (structural) memory - conceptual core of a new picture of the world of the information age, knowledge base and understanding of the unity and diversity of the world. Ontological (structural) memory is that. all breeds, the matter is that from which everything is born. Any ab- straktion has its source in the base structure. Maybe someone will find a different structure generating - for this hosts international competitions. Thank FQXi! I Wish you success, Vladimir

Vladimir,

Hi. I'm not sure if I understood everything, but I think I agree that you and I are kind of thinking along the same lines. If I understand it, you're also suggesting that there is some fundamental building block, the delta-Logit, which is capable of change (the delta part). And from delta-Logit all of reality, its and bits, is built? If that's what you're getting at, I totally agree. Several of the essays in the contest are about this idea, and I think it's right on. Most of them also are talking about the way physicists and philosophers of science are so enthralled with mathematics and Platonic realms that they're forgetting the real world may not behave the same as the mathematical world in their minds.

Anyways, good essay! Thanks!

Roger

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 09:52 GMT

Hello, Roger,

Thank you very much for your kind comment! Indeed. Many researchers are searching for the fundamental structure (or " fundamental building block,") that Umberto Eco calls "missing." This structure ("block") must be knowledge base including physical and mathematical. It is also called a "framework structure." That is, it should be: the "basis", "frame" and "frame" of the whole system of knowledge, including traditional knowledge. Of course it should be based on the real-world phenomena. In its construction should proceed from the ancient principle: "that top. so below. "A "Delta-Logit» is the original dialectical representant of this structure, a single mathematical symbol of absolute generating structure. Thanks! Vladimir

Vladimir R.,

Here it looks like you have made an interesting conceptual groundwork-involving plan for further understanding info. It offers a view that attempts to get rid of the unnecessary subdivisions of physics that lie between matter and field, and also dynamics of motion.

There is a point by your look-back number 23 that corresponds to a view enabling human intellects or minds to comprehend reality. That is, there is the actual occurrence of phenomenon (though representational) in the physical state of the human brain - understanding is a process.

One barely needs to reinforce what appears to be self sufficient in the historic support of the philosophic-style used here, than what your end quotations of what two greats themselves say.

But there is a question. While the idea of "Coincidence of opposites" has some meaning in context, as a read, it isn't explicitly stated till the conclusion.

Best as well,

W. Amos

report post as inappropriate

Hello, William,

Thank you very much for a very deep comment. It touches the deepest foundations of physics and nature of the information.

Yes, you're absolutely right that it is necessary «understanding is a process» and understanding of nature «dynamics of motion». What is the initial construction of the first (absolute, unconditional) process? Where hidden "information" and what is its nature? It is necessary to introduce the of polyvalent concept "ontological (structural) memory" - "the soul of matter," which "holds" the whole structure of matter, "the process of generating" on all levels of being and is manifested in the "laws of nature." The concept of "ontological (structural) memory gives the opportunity to move to an understanding, and then the modeling of consciousness, and ultimately to the model of" self-aware Universe.

With regard to the interpretation of the fundamental dialectic "coincidence of opposites" (Nicholas of Cusa) - the rest of matter and its motion, then it is disclosed in my previous essay contest FQXi 2012: «Paradigm of the Part Vs. Paradigm of the Whole ... The Absolute Generative Structure »http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

If you can explain your phrase: «There is a point by your look-back number 23 that corresponds to a view enabling human intellects or minds to comprehend reality»?

Best as well,

Vladimir

Dear Sir,

Your essay was a pleasure to read and echoes concepts close to our essay published on May 31 and our comments on various threads.

You are absolutely correct about the crisis of mathematics, which is a result of perpetuating one’s greatness through incomprehensibility that hampers understanding each other. Secondly, engineers have taken over the designation of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 07:04 GMT

Hello, Basudeba!

Thank you for your thorough and detailed commentary, especially in terms of the essential foundations of mathematics. As to the nature of mathematical ab-stract-ion, that I had a task to find the first fundamental structure, "generating" («mother» by Bourbaki), which Umberto Eco described as "missing." Ludwig Wittgenstein is well said that "the structure of the language is the structure of the world", as the ancients said: "As above, so below." These philosophical principles also form the foundations of physics, which should be more reliable, ontologically grounded. I appreciated your essay, happy nine. I wish you success, Vladimir

basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 16:12 GMT

Dear Sir,

The communication part of our essay is based on an ancient treatise on Sanskrit grammar called Maha Bhashya. One King Bhartruhari wrote a commentary on this called Vakyapadiya. After this book was translated into German, the Europeans came to know about this and linguistics was developed based on these theories. We have read the originals. But you may get English translations of these. These books are written based on an ancient treatise called Ashtadhyayi. This book with English translation is available in USA.

Regards,

basudeba

report post as inappropriate

basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 16:16 GMT

Dear Sir,

We have written a book on number theory. In case you are interested, you can send your postal address to mbasudeba@gmail.com. It is free of cost.

Regards,

basudeba

report post as inappropriate

Hello, Vladimir!

I’m totally agreed with you. Stored knowledge of mankind must be completely rewritten and compressed in the union key of understanding in order to overcome the crisis of interpretation and presentation of basic science. And we need to begin from the basics of physics and mathematics.

I wish you success.

Sincerely M.A. Gaisin

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 07:37 GMT

Hello, Murat!

Thank you very much for your comments and conclusions! Also, I wish you success!

Regards, Vladimir

Hello, Basudeba!

Thank you very much for your comments! I am sending you my email: ideabank@yandex.ru

Regards, Vladimir

Dear Vladimir

Your essay shows deep understanding and wide, but the conclusion is too cumbersome.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

report post as inappropriate

Hello, Caohoàng!

Thank you for your kind comment. As for the conclusions, I would suggest another, organizational: FQXi hold an international conference on the philosophy and foundations of physics, mathematics and information under the auspices of, for example, UNESCO. Finally konftrentsii on the results of the three areas to conduct a general "round table" and identify common areas of research on the grounds of fundamental scientific sign systems - physics, mathematics and information. It may be necessary to carry out such international integrative conference at least once in three years. I am pleased to have read and appreciated your essay and found a lot of important and interesting yourself. Our paths in the same direction ... Thanks!

Regards, Vladimir

Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 07:23 GMT

Hello, dear Caohoàng!

Thank you for clarifying your comment. Regards,Vladimir

Dear

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 08:13 GMT

Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta!

Thank you for your nice comment deployed. The crisis of the basic sciences should be overcome step by step, taking into account all areas of thought and experimental data. Correctly noted Nobel Laureate in Physics David Gross, speaking in Moscow in 2011 with a lecture on "The Future of Physics" and in 2012 a lecture on "The Age of Quantum Mechanics", and in an interview with "Expert" in February 2013, "What is in the space-time, which requires "framework theory" that structures all the accumulated knowledge, ask "conceptual framework" for new directions of fundamental research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayGedcIv2z4

http://di
gitaloctober.ru/player/content/58

http://expert.ru/expert/201
3/06/iz-chego-sostoit-prostranstvo-vremya/

FQXi contests are a good beginning in the search for new ideas to address the "crisis of understanding" in the fundamental knowledge. With great pleasure I read your essay again. Good luck and regards, Vladimir

Thank you Vladimir,

Spasibo vam balshoya, for your kind actions esyo ras. Regarding "conceptual framework" for new directions making scientists as magicians. I think we have to put our foot firmly on experimental results.

For example the present essay, is also against some noble laureates who won the Noble prize by misinterpreting output data of the WMAP and COBE satellites. They have opened the apertures of electronic eyes as wide as 10 degrees while scanning the sky, allowing all the star and galaxy light. They have shown that radiation as BIGBANG generated CMB. They confused the whole world…

We should not take everything as granted as told by them.....

best

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 19:13 GMT

Hello, Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta!

I largely agree with you. But what saith the great Descartes in the first rule: "question everything", including any experiment ...

Good luck with regards,

Vladimir

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 09:23 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

Asking question is in logic only.

When an experiment is repeated by any one and it gives the same result, then it becomes science. I mean here our thinking should be based on science and practical experiments.

Just thinking in logic with out practical experimental support can not lead us any where, what do you say?

Best

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 11:20 GMT

Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta!

Thank you for your good question!

The greatest experiment and dialectical logic - our life. Only the experiment of life itself and thinking about it, knowledge that gives science and its experiments - all together directs the right path to truth.

Besr regards,

Vladimir

Hello Vladimir,

I really enjoyed your essay. I like the part of your conclusion - "Information as a phenomenon of Ontological Memory in nature is multivalent in its manifestations at different levels of reality". I think that my essay using dimensionality and the Fibonacci sequence sits well with yours.

Nice work - well done!

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 18:44 GMT

Hello, Antony!

Thanks for the nice comment! I am also pleased to read your essay. You are right, we are going to close paths to the same goal, to one source. In the information age should be a unified picture of the world for physicists and lyricists.

Good luck and respect,

Vladimir

My pleasure - I intend to read your essay again. I'll print it out and look forward to further discussions. This is one of the few I keep coming back to for another look, as there are so many now to read.

Well done!

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 07:43 GMT

Hello Antony

Thank you for reading my essay and kind comment! Yes, you're absolutely right, our research is similar in spirit and go to the same goal, to one source.

Good luck to you and best wishes, Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

report post as inappropriate

Hi Vladimir,

As to ''the essence of information'', I have yet to read an essay which treats the question where all information comes from, how information becomes information. What I mean is this: If there would be only a single charged particle among uncharged particles in the universe, then it wouldn't be able to express its charge in interactions. As it in that case it cannot be...

view entire post

Hi Vladimir,

As to ''the essence of information'', I have yet to read an essay which treats the question where all information comes from, how information becomes information. What I mean is this: If there would be only a single charged particle among uncharged particles in the universe, then it wouldn't be able to express its charge in interactions. As it in that case it cannot be charged itself, charge, or any property, for that matter, must be something which is shared by particles, something which only exists, is expressed and preserved within their interactions. If particles, particle properties (its) are both cause and effect of their interactions, of the exchange of bits, if particles only exist to each other if, to the extent and for as long as they interact, exchange information, then you cannot have one without the other nor can one be more fundamental than the other. Moreover, if we can regard interactions, the exchange of information as an observation, then we don't need human '' Observers … to bring the Universe into being'': if particles cause, creating one another, then they create their own universe.

If the information as embodied in particle properties and the associated rules of behavior a.k.a. laws of physics must be the product of a trial-and-error evolution, then information only can survive, become actual information when tested in practice, in interactions between its carriers, between actual, physical, material particles, whatever we may mean with 'material'.

What strikes me in all the essays I've read (also of previous contests) is that everybody, without exception, thinks about the universe as an object which has particular properties as a whole and evolves in time, as something we may imagine to look at from the outside: as if there is a collection of platonic truths, an absolute, objectively observable reality at the origin of our observations we cannot perceive due to imperfect instruments and, indeed, to the uncertainty principle.

My point is that if a particle cannot exist, have properties if there's nothing outside of it to interact with, then the same must hold for the universe. The fallacy of Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) therefore is that we can only speak about the properties and state of the universe if there's something outside of it, something it can interact with, and, like the charged particle its charge, something it owes its properties to: if it has been created by some outside intervention. For this reason BBC is an even worse 'theory' than creationism which at least honestly states that, yes, there is Someone outside of it Who created the universe. If a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside intervention has to obey the conservation law which says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, then everything inside of it, including space and time somehow must cancel, add to nil, meaning that it has no physical reality as a whole, as 'seen' from the outside, but only exists as seen from within. If in that case it doesn't make sense to speak about the properties it has or the state it is in as a whole, then it also makes no sense to make such statements from within. In other words, we need a completely different approach, an entirely different paradigm if we ever are to comprehend the universe rationally, as opposed to causally, something I'm trying to do in my blog, a study which, I'm afraid, is a bit of a mess.

As I argued in a previous essay, this means that we can no longer conceive of the speed of light as the (finite) velocity light moves at, but that c just refers to a property of spacetime, which is something else entirely. In regarding the universe as an object we can imagine to look at from without, a Big Bang Universe (BBU) lives in a time realm not of its own making: as it is the same cosmic time everywhere, here it takes a photon time to travel so here c does refer to the velocity light moves at. In contrast, a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) does not live in a time realm not of its own making: as it contains and produces all time within, here clocks are observed to run slower as they are more distant even if they are at rest relative to the observer. As in a SCU it is not the same time everywhere, here a space distance is a time distance so in this universe a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all, in contrast to a BBU where the photon covers a space distance in (a finite) time. The difference is as subtle as it is crucial to comprehend our universe. Evidently, in a universe where the communication between particles over any spacetime distance is instantaneous, things like the double-slit experiment, the EPR paradox become obvious. The problem is that nobody seems to be able to escape the essentially religious narrative of BBC and start to try to understand the universe from within. Frankly, I'm appalled that everybody takes the word of the saints of physics as a God's word instead of trying to see whether a different interpretation of observations might solve some of the most glaring contradictions of physics.

Regards, Anton

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 08:56 GMT

Hello Anton,

Thank you for your great deep comment. I agree with you completely: «Frankly, I'm appalled that everybody takes the word of the saints of physics as a God's word instead of trying to see whether a different interpretation of observations might solve some of the most glaring contradictions of physics.» Yesterday I was the rating you a happy nine. Good luck and respect, Vladimir

Vladimir,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Hello James,

Thank you for your interesting and funny comment. Last year it was 270 ... Read the abstracts first and then the essay. With best regards and wishes of good luck,

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 20:07 GMT

James!

I am sure to read your essay with an interesting name "It's Good to be King" tomorrow and immediately write a comment. You have an interesting biography, write your email. Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

Zoran cracked a joke on my blog and made reference to your essay. Your deep interest in philosophy shows in your essay.

In your essay, you say:

1. "In mathematics, the process of “loss of certainty” began with discovery of “non-Euclidean” geometries and lasted ABOUT 100 YEARS", …

2. "In physics, “loss of certainty” also took place gradually, over about a hundred years since the beginning of the study of the phenomenon of electromagnetism, the peak is the theory of relativity with its paradoxes"

This in conflict with

3. "Physics in its development went on the way of “geometrization”. However, to date “the beginning of geometry” (ABOUT 2500 YEARS AGO) remains unclear itself"

In the Galileo Galilei work you quoted, he advises us that “Philosophy [i.e. physics] cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, AND OTHER GEOMETRICAL FIGURES, … without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth”

In my essay, I suggest we go back 2500 years in obedience to Galileo's advice above. Do you agree?

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Hello Akinbo,

Thank you for your comment! I see no contradiction in these phrases as "the beginning of geometry" (not historic, but essential) lies much deeper than 2500 years ago ... "The Beginning" - a production of the first tools, the invention of the first spear, bow first, the invention of the first pottery wheel and tire. That is, the development of Homo sapiens absolute forms of existence of matter. A "geometrization of physics" - this is a different process studies on the nature. To regret it passed without clarification of the essential " the beginning of geometry". The required depth of the simplest interpretation of the essential mathematical objects is a straight line, circle and triangle, clarify their deep nature. For good reason Plato called "triangle" - "heaven" ...

I am also pleased to read your essay.

Good luck and regards,

Vladimir

Vladimir,

Thank you for your wonderful thesis and useful quotes. You'll notice from my essay that our conceptions of the limitations of mathematics as a description of nature closely coincide. Having suffered the indignation of mathematicians for my specific proposals for rationalising the relationship your essay was a great pleasure to read.

I do understand how some have struggled with your style of prose, doing so a little myself, but I did completely understand and agree with your message. Our whole way of perceiving reality needs a paradigm shift. I propose a first step identifying specific issues, and challenge the fundamental proposition of maths and predicate 'logic'; a=a. I hope you will agree this. I also, I hope, show the power of 'higher order' or logarithmic spaces and dielectrics, building an ontological construction which offers rationalisation of Bells theorem.

I particularly agree your; "crisis of representation and interpretation", "ontological gaps in the grounds of basic sign systems",

I suggest that 'nested' Cardano's Sample Spaces and 'Marilyn' both exposed the more consistent reality and show that; "the problem of justification of mathematics for some strange reason is diligently 'swept under the rug'."

I congratulate you on the essay, and for tackling a critical subject head on. In particular I look forward to your views and comments on mine, which uses a little less philosophical but more epistemological approach.

Very best of luck in the competition.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 19:10 GMT

Hello Peter,

Thank you for your kind words and good comment. Indeed, the direction of our research on the topic of the contest is very close. Theme of the contest is great. It just develops the theme of previous competitions and puts a deep question about the nature of the information, the essential connection between physics and information, the formation of a new scientific picture of the world of the information age, a new paradigm, a new "epistemic schemes" ..

Yes, unfortunately, not everyone understands the connection between the fundamental ontological justification of sign systems, physics and mathematics, and clarifying the nature of the information. All this is due to the need to address the structure of space, and as a result of the nature and definition of "place" information. But the most important thing - it is the birth of a new concept - "ontological memory," the nucleus of a new episteme. Of course, this concept is debatable, but I'm very glad that the contest has brought me to this "core", countersign, which "holds" our world, making it sustainable, "feeds" and the formation of new material structures. We can say that the world is "awash" in the ocean of Ontomemory, polyvalent phenomenon which is information. Once again well said John Archibald Wheeler on the importance of the philosophy of physics and information theory: «" Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers ".

Good luck in the contest, Vladimir

Hello Vladimir,

although my field is not phylosophy I see in your essay two important issues: how information is stored and it must be modified, although I think you have a hard work in front of you to develop the Delta-Logic. I know some proposals to use modal logic in quantum physics maybe you can take some ideas of it for your work.

Best regards,

Sergio

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 18:16 GMT

Hello Sergio,

Thank you for your comment! Yes, you're absolutely right. Need to deepen understanding and then the parameterization of deep Delta-Logit. I think your ideas here are very valuable. So I wrote in the conclusion that further development of the "General Theory of Information", deepening the understanding of the relationship of matter and information.

Best regards and wishes,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

Congratulations for this excellent article.

Quantization of the change of Binary Logit in Ternary numeral system emerges with a matrix determinant of quantum information unit for the observation of Information continuum in near-reality.

With best wishes

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 18:31 GMT

Hello, Jayakar,

Thank you for your kind comment! Again, I read your additional research. Best regards, Vladimir

Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for reading my essay, and I left an answer for you in my thread. I have tried hard to understand your ideas but I am not able to connect well, only few points that others have already mentioned. Maybe, I will wait and see more responses here and try to understand before I engage.

Adel

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 07:57 GMT

Hello Adel,

Thank you for your comment. Contests FQXi - is first of all contests of ideas. In my essay main ideas: a picture of the world of the information age is introduced the concept of "ontological memory" (structural memory) is determined by the nature of information and time as multivalent phenomena ontological memory is determined by the place of "information". Based on the construction of the dialectic of absolute generating structure (its construction is disclosed in detail in my previous essay contest FQXi 2012) introduced a new piece of information-«Delta-Logit», as the deepening of the ontological formula D.A.Uilera «It from Bit». I hope for your fair assessment of my ideas.

Regards, Vladimir

Vladimir, this is an excellent essay and you deserve a high position in the rankings. When theorists first learnt about string theory they though it provided a clear route to a unified theory but they have found that the situation is much more complex and uncertain. This is indeed a "crisis"

Now we have to explore further what the mathematics says. It will take a long time and ideas such as your Δ-Logit may be right.

good luck

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 07:52 GMT

Hello Philip,

Thank you for your kind and encouraging comment. Global Contest FQXi-a competition for new ideas in fundamental science, especially in physics. In the words of Nobel Laureate David Gross, we need to construction a «general framework structure». I'll add: with the ontological justification. The fundamental (!) Knowledge must be substantiated and the "bottom" and "top" - empirically (empiricism) and essentially (empyrean). Only the fundamental rationale of sign systems, physics and mathematics, and then building a «general framework structure» will give access to the understanding of the nature and location information in a unified picture of the world, united and for physicists and lyricist.

Good luck in the contest and best wishes,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Vlad, i agree with you in general and we do have similar view in most things. we use different languages and translations and we do have our own unique contribution as you quoted Protagoras the principle of Homomensura: “A Man is a measure of all things: existing in their existence, not existing in their non-existence”. I agree with most of your views as expressed in your conclusions. I have to read several times to get the essence of your essay o get familiar with your terms and unique language. Congratulation and wishing you well and I will rank it high now.

Truly, Leo

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 08:03 GMT

Hello Leo,

Thank you very much for your kind comments and appreciation of my essay. I think all of us together, physics, and the lyrics will be able to find the true image of "Child of Qbit in Time."

Good luck in the contest and best wishes,

Vladimir

Hi Vladimir,

Your philosophical undertone is very heavy for me, I am more in agreement with Einstein's thinking in "taming the philosophy". However, I have found two good things about you and your theory that give me the incentive to rate you very good.

First, unlike many people here you have shown that you have taken the contest seriously and engaged in a very good way. I just don't understand why more people who entered this contest don't do the same, maybe they have not invested the time like me and you. Also, although I have done some trolling with the scoring, but it seems some people are making a career out of it, but I maybe mistaken.

Second, You might be surprised to learn that the mathematical structure that I have uncovered is nothing but your "ontological memory" in some sense. This structure is so wild, in each point in space(actually interpreted as space) it carries the information about its relation to other points(and the information they carry) in all the universe and that is translated to the usual probability density. That is why I call this structure the most generalized geometry there is.

I also left you an answer in my thread.

Adel

report post as inappropriate

adel sadeq replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 23:46 GMT

Vladimir, it seems that I did rate you low much earlier, I apologize for that.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 08:08 GMT

Hello Akinbo,

The current crisis in physics, as is well demonstrated by Lee Smolin in his book "The Trouble with Physics ..." is a crisis of the philosophical foundations, of the fundamental concepts of physical knowledge. Knowledge, not only of fundamental physical, stands on the turn of the eras. On the search for new foundations, new concepts and new fundamental ideas are directed just contests FQXi. Indeed, Einstein's philosophical testament to physicists all subsequent generations makes "dig" to the farthest depths of meaning.

Indeed, as David Gross said, speaking in Moscow in 2011 and in 2012, the need to search for a "general framework structure". And such a search is conducted by many physicists, mathematicians and philosophers. You and I are also participating together in this search. And it's very good. We need different ideas, different methods, different concepts. I am very grateful to the contest, he helped me to the concept of "ontological (structural) memory." I am confident that this concept should be the centerpiece of a new picture of the world of the information age. Physics makes the first steps to the physical structures of memory. Therefore, as I wrote in the conclusions of an essay calls for enhanced development of a "general theory of structures." Thus, the theory of physical structures is developing school physicist Yuri Kulakov in Russia. Regards, Vladimir

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 08:10 GMT

Adel! By rating, no problems. All OK.

Hi Vladimir,

For an idea of how you might represent the Delta-Logit, take a look at

NUCRS by Peter Marcer and Peter Rowlands.

You remark "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."

As you may have noticed, my Software Cosmos describes a particular way of modeling this.

Aloha,

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 10:07 GMT

Hi Hugh,

Unfortunately links do not open ... Regards, Vladimir

Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 17:41 GMT

Hi Vladimir,

I will try again...

For an idea of how you might represent the Delta-Logit, take a look at

NUCRS by Peter Marcer and Peter Rowlands.

You remark "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."

As you may have noticed, my Software Cosmos describes a particular way of modeling this.

Aloha,

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 20:09 GMT

Thank you, Hugh! Now everything is normal. Starting to learn ...

Regards, Vladimir

Vladimir,

Some scientists say that ontological unification draws from the theory of original image and that the attributes of God are confirmed, in visible terms,by the ontological unification of matter. What are your thoughts there?

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Jim,

Thank you for your good question! Yes I agree. The search path of the deepest meanings ("ontological way") leads the seeker of truth to the "philosophical belief" (Karl Jaspers). I started this way 23 years ago. And I'm happy that I went down this road. It was only a year ago had the idea of ontological unification of matter, and in the preparation of this year's essay - the idea of "ontological memory." Good luck in the contest and best wishes, Vladimir

James Lee Hoover replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 01:02 GMT

Vladimir,

Given the time, I would like to hear your views on my essay, "It's Good to be King"

JIm

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 10:27 GMT

Jim,

I am sure to read your essay and give a comment. Sorry, have not had time.

I will add to my previous answer.

John Templeton spoke of the need modern interpretation of Scripture. I think this applies especially to the idea of the Trinity and of the commandment "In the beginning was the Logos ..." in its original Greek spelling: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος ... Logos geraklitovom I understand in the sense of a "celestial law", which runs cosmos. This saying of Scripture I interpreted as a Super Axiom. The idea of the Trinity and the logic of the Trinity, more extensive than in the embodiment mathematics B.Raushenbah eventually led to the idea of the trinity of the absolute (unconditioned) of the states of matter (the absolute form of existence) and triune space 9 measurements (absolute). As a result, a simple mathematical eidos was born, representing the idea of the trinity of absolute states of matter: absolute rest + absolute movement + absolute becoming. Physics shattered world, but it must be seen and understood as a whole. In order to be considered very fast, we must first understand and see the whole. Need a "generalized framework structure" as a foundation, frame and carcass of knowledge (David Gross). And I drew a structure and ontologically grounded. On this I have written in an essay FQXi 2012.

Regards,

Vladimir

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 20:37 GMT

Jim, I have appreciated your essay today - 7.

Dear Vladimir,

I have read your essay one more time more carefully and I will honestly tell you my impression/opinion on your work - as from one person who really honored you as the truly thinker.

I see your work on the perfect level – by informatively, by strong consequences of judgments’, by foundation of arguments and kind/soft manner of offering the aftermaths’ etc.

I am really thinking that your work deserved to highest value that I have decided early.

However, let me friendly put one practically question, which I think may help you in your future activity. - What you have the real expectation from your efforts and creation? I mean - who will read, understand and will be ruled by your conclusions? I will bring one bright example to explain well the content of my question. Nobel laureate J. Alferov says these words some time ago - !

It will for you painful, but the nowadays reality it is: the physicists have fully ignoring of philosophers and they doing their calculus and experiments without any small attention on the opinions and viewpoints of firsts. That is the main trouble of natural science in my view: the oldest sage science (as well as the ethic and moral norms!) now seems as something unnecessary for anybody! Thus, we are coming to my work! It is necessary first to break this huge gap between mother science and her unthankful son’s! For this need to create something as ,,practical working philosophy,, that can work and can give concretely REZULTS, to show what is right and what is not! I have trying do it!

Best wishes,

George

report post as inappropriate

Nobel laureate J. Alferov says these words some time ago - ,,Philosophers have talking about everything without properly understanding what actually doing others,,!

report post as inappropriate

Hello George,

Thank you very much for your kind and insightful comment. I agree with Jaures Alferov. But physicists are forced to delve into the philosophical foundations of physics, as it forces them to make the crisis in the foundations of science, as well told Lee Smolin in his book "The Trouble with physics ...". Philosophical precepts of Albert Einstein and physicist John Wheeler no longer be ignored: "At the present time, a physicist has to deal with philosophic problems to a much greater extent than physicists of the previous generations had to deal with" and "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers ". And contests FQXi say about the turn of physicists to the philosophical foundations of physics and mathematics. Is it possible to answer questions about the nature of information without philosophy? The information revolution makes physicists delve into the philosophical foundations of physics, mathematics, information theory…

Remember the song Alexandra Pahmutova played by Anna Herman "Hope is my compass earth ..." ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVHb3HAssSQ

All we need philosophical courage ...

Good luck and best wishes,

Vladimir

Mr. Rogozhin,

thanks for the entusiastic message. I made a light essay, simple and "open".

A big name in the past said: " I understood physics when I can explain the

argument to my grand mother " .

So, I told My Father last week: Imagine a snail... the head, the eyes, the spin shape house , the tail. A snail can go everywhere.

He was happy and me with Him.

My Best Regards.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 09:58 GMT

Hello Giacomo,

Thank you very much for your kind comment shape! Yes, the model of the world, physicists and poets should be one. And the simpler the better. In the words of Max Born, "an understandable even for the cleaning lady." Obviously, this should be a "frame structure", presented a letter representing the deepest meanings of being.

Modern physical picture of the world is very poor senses.

The image of the snail as heuristic. Simple eidoses give birth to new ideas. Best regards,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for providing a philosophical journey into the intellectual attempts to grasp the absolute forms of existence. I particularly liked your concept of Ontological Memory as a semantic attractor.

The dialectical process that brings the universe into being can also be explained as the conditional entropy of the observer operating in reciprocity with quantum potential. (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".) As you so aptly point out, such a process "generates new levels of reality." Very perceptive!

Best wishes,

Richard Shand

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 10:21 GMT

Hello Richard,

Thank you for your kind comments and kind words. Yes, I'm sure that modern physical picture of the world lacks the concept of "Ontological (structural) memory" as a central semantic core "framework structure", representing the world as a whole. Matter is something from which everything is born (Plato), Ontological memory - this is what gives rise to all. I am sure to read your essay and also leave a comment.

Best wishes,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 13:55 GMT

Hello, Vladimir,

I read your essay on June 12 and gave an excellent rating. I wish you well and with respect, Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

I enjoyed reading your essay very much. You packed so much useful information into it that I think I could read it a number of times and still find something new to like. At the end of the first part, I had a question to ask you, but I think you answered it in the next part with the Grosseteste quote: “...a sensual knowledge is not a knowledge, but the path to it. Because...

view entire post

Dear Vladimir,

I enjoyed reading your essay very much. You packed so much useful information into it that I think I could read it a number of times and still find something new to like. At the end of the first part, I had a question to ask you, but I think you answered it in the next part with the Grosseteste quote: “...a sensual knowledge is not a knowledge, but the path to it. Because human knowledge is more likely to occur on the relationship of sensual knowledge with understanding.” When I read your paragraph beginning with "In physics, “loss of certainty” also took place gradually, over about a hundred years since the beginning of the study of the phenomenon of electromagnetism, the peak is the theory of relativity with its paradoxes..." (with which I couldn't agree more), I thought I'd ask whether you think (as I do) that the mess we're in (aiming for the highest levels of abstraction, etc.), due to the incompleteness of the Einstein-Planck revolution, has had a lot to do with not caring to make sense of the world.

I mean, when a carpenter sets out to build something, if the first cuts are off, or he doesn't put the pieces together just right, the final product tends to be an ugly mess. I think Einstein went wrong by not attempting to make consistent sense of relativity from the get-go (he clearly demonstrated paradoxical implications, but didn't try to resolve them), so the product was something that makes absolutely no sense (time doesn't pass/no objective distinction between past, present, and future/etc.). I may be wrong, but I thought you'd agree with this because of your reaction to my essay, from the next paragraph you wrote on Galilei's "Assayer", by your quotation from Grosseteste, and finally by your conclusion point 5. I think it's that kind of thinking that brought us out of the dark ages to begin with during the Scientific Revolution, and I think the positivist/verificationist thought in the twentieth century sent us right back there.

Good luck and best wishes,

Daryl

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 08:15 GMT

Dear Daryl,

Thank you for your deep, great comment!

I was happy today when I read your comment in the evening after work. This is the best comment of my essay, and not just an essay, but for the whole period of my philosophical travels in the foundation of the world of physics and mathematics.

I agree with you completely with your conclusion about the difficult path...

view entire post

Dear Daryl,

Thank you for your deep, great comment!

I was happy today when I read your comment in the evening after work. This is the best comment of my essay, and not just an essay, but for the whole period of my philosophical travels in the foundation of the world of physics and mathematics.

I agree with you completely with your conclusion about the difficult path of physics in the way of the foundation and "building" physics. I agree with your good figurative metaphor of "carpenter", as in my youth I myself worked as a carpenter. The walls of the building, we always started to erect a "corner". Wise words Grosseteste and current situation of the philosophical foundations of basic sign systems - Physics and Mathematics, said that the problem of understanding is central to the whole system of knowledge. G. Gutner good understanding of the problem revealed in the article "The ontology of mathematical discourse", "event which consists in grasping the structure, means understanding." The main question in physics (and mathematics, as it is already too high climbed to skyscraper called "Ab-Stract-ion") - "grab" (understand) the first structure being (the Universe). I think what "angle" in the ongoing construction of the building physics - is still not "caught up" (not understood). You can say, physics found itself in an "angle", one side of which GR, the other CM. This is well told Lee Smolin in "The Trouble with Physics." And judging from the output of Alexander Zenkina in his work "The scientific counter-revolution in mathematics", that "the truth is to be drawn ...", that physicists need to draw all the "corners" of the building physics as a fundamental system of signs. This means as well said David Gross, should be built by joint efforts, "the general frame structure." http://expert.ru/expert/2013/06/iz-chego-sostoit-prostranstv
o-vremya/

Completion Ontological Revolution Einstein-Planck - a common cause for physicists and lyrics.

Good luck and best wishes,

Vladimir

view post as summary

Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 19:09 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

I'm glad to find you agree with what I wrote, and that the carpentry metaphor I used had such resonance with you. Congratulations again on your excellent work, and thanks very much for posting so many more great references in response to my comment. You've introduced me to a lot of new and interesting material.

Best wishes to you as well,

Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 19:24 GMT

Dear Daryl,

Thank you for your new comment. Your metaphor of "carpenter" inspired me and gave new thoughts, ideas and eidoses. Thank you very much!

I wish you success and all the best,

with regards,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

I found it both dense and delightful! Certainly deserves a high rating.

You might find Lev Goldfarb's essay of interest, if you haven't already read it. And mine -- which explores in detail the vertical-horizontal unity you mention.

Thanks for a good read.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 18:50 GMT

Dear Tom,

Thank you very much for reading my essay and a good comment. I had read an essay Leo Goldfarb and set a high rating. Your essay I will be happy to read it in the coming days.

I wish you every success and respect,

Vladimir

Vladimir,

I find the conclusions you reached in your essay much in keeping with the findings of the 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. Your statement, "Ontological memory provides the integrity and unity of reality, holds its structure, sets the frames and the framework, generates new levels of reality." rings true for me as well as exhibited in Fig. 8 of my essay. Well done!

I enjoyed reading your well constructed and insightful essay and will rate it accordingly. Bets wishes to you in this competition.

Regards,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 09:25 GMT

Hello Manuel,

Thank you very much for your kind comment! Today, I also read your essay and also will appreciate it.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

Your essay is full of originality and imagination. You have, in your essay, a vision to revive the whole of science, especially, physics and even philosophy by introducing a fundamental new concept called Δ-Logit and to build up new physics on it (you have substantiated it with historical claims). According to you delta-Logit is ‘information unit representing the idea of generating new structures and meanings’, and is ‘qualitative quantum or prototecton, primary organizing, absolute existential-extreme; it is also a symbol, primary matrix of limit field of absolute states of matter; “Heavenly Triangle" or the Absolute transcendental figure’. Since delta-Logit is a unit of information, information is the ‘soul’ of matter and hence there is no conflict between It and Bit. Materialism is an objective reality and we are here to comprehend and describe it on the basis of delta-Logit. But in the conclusion 2, you are saying that ‘Reality and its phenomena at all levels of existence is the dialectic of “coincidence of opposites”’; there by claiming that reality is subjective oriented. You have stressed the importance of information in physics and mathematics, and also the importance of overcoming the ontological gaps between them psychologically. Your essay ends with the anthropic aphorism that “Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being”.

I don’t want to say how far the above observations are consistent, but what I want to ask is how you succeed in this herculean task to accomplish the above mission you have set forth yourself. If this is accomplished, you are bringing about a complete transformation in our epistemological view of the world and I wish you all the success in your great endeavor. If you have time, please, go through my essay also (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and post your valuable comments in my thread.

All the best,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 14:00 GMT

Dear Sreenath,

Thank you very much for your kind and insightful comment. One thing is clear that a new physical picture of the world of the information age with the deepest meanings can be constructed only together - physicists and lyrics. It is obvious that this model should be a model "self-aware Universe" (V.Nalimov), in which "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.» (John A. Wheeler). This will be the model that David Gross called a "common framework structure." http://expert.ru/expert/2013/06/iz-chego-sostoit-prostranstv
o-vremya/

It will serve as a "framework", "foundation" and "frame" of knowledge for all of his "stories."

I'm sure you carefully read your essay in the coming days and will give my fair comment.

All the best,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

Beautiful essay! I agree with you that it is important to overcome the "crisis of representation and interpretation". While, as you pointed out citing Galileo, math is the language in which we can read the big book of Nature, the exponential growth of mathematics made virtually impossible, or at least "unproductive" to pause and really grasp the meaning of the equations. Probably this is combined with a postmodern tendency to avoid interpretations in physics, and pictures in math (see this). I salute your efforts, and I think you may be interested in the writings of a philosopher who was concerned with related problems: here, here, and more you can find here.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 18:39 GMT

Dear Cristi,

Thank you very much for your kind and insightful comments and for your reference. Absolutely right V.Arnold: «Unfortunately, I cannot deny the culpability of the mathematical community in the present aversion of the society and of the governments toward mathematics and the mathematical education.» ... «In the middle of the twentieth century a strong mafia of left-brained mathematicians succeeded in eliminating all geometry from the mathematical education (first in France and later in most other countries), replacing the study of all content in mathematics by the training in formal proofs and the manipulation of abstract notions. Of course, all the geometry, and, consequently, all relations with the real world and other sciences have been eliminated from the mathematics teaching. »

It is clear that the methods of teaching mathematics should be changed - this is required by the modern information revolution. You are given a link to a very interesting study Mihai Drãgãnescu: «L'Universalité Ontologique de l'Information», as well as his other studies. Reading them will require additional time, but I looked at links - it's very interesting! I will read your essay with great pleasure that in the near future, and will also write a comment. Title of your essay is very intriguing.

With best wishes and regards,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

Your essay is worth reading.

I am not sure that there is a crisis in physics and in mathematics. There is a plethora of useful concepts and symbols to approach the real world and, according to Wheeler, we are participating in this creation.

I am not familiar with the representation you are talking about: 'Δ-Logit', I understand that there is a triangle in the Δ-Logit, there is the it, and what is the Log?

May be you can have a look if the 'triangle' O, 1 and \infty may be useful here.

The latter triple rigidifies the Riemann sphere to create the structure of 'dessins d'enfants'.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

Best wishes,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 19:44 GMT

Dear Michel,

Thank you very much for reading my essay, your profound and important comment for me. Physicists and mathematicians themselves say about the conceptual crisis of physics and mathematics. Take "The Trouble with Physics" Lee Smolin and "Mathematics: the loss of certainty" Morris Kline.

"Delta-logit" is the Logos + It (the form), or in fact - representant dialectical increment of the material structure as a whole (information + matter + energy).

I am happy to read it carefully in the near future your essay.

Best wishes,

Vladimir

Michel Planat replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 15:39 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

At the bottom of Zenkin's interview

http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.h
tm

there is

"Drawing is a very useful tool against the uncertainty of words" - Leibniz.

Of course, this is exactly what Grothendieck did with his 'dessins d'enfants'.

And as I said in the post on your webpage, the underlying triangle O,1,\infty possibly relates to your cognitive triangle Δ-Logit.

I fully agree with Zonkin's view. I appreciate very much what Vladimir Arnold did for science (including a lot of geometrical ideas and drawings). I am not so surprised that he wrote

"the possessing a large influence mafia of "left-hemispheric mathematicians" has managed to eliminate the geometry from the mathematical education (at first in France, and then also in other countries), by replacing all informal part of this discipline by training in a formal manipulation by abstract concepts"

For many reasons, I really believe that 'the crisis in physics' will start unveil by the use of these dessins.

Your second question is much more difficult to answer. You know that Descartes studied music as well.

Thank you very much for your very positive feedback and the high rate you gave me.

Good luck for the final issue of the contest.

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 19:06 GMT

Dear Michel,

Thank you for your profound comment. Indeed, you rightly drew attention to a very important idea of Leibniz and Vladimir Arnold. In the age of information revolution, the importance of mathematics and physics as an exact science, is greatly increased, and it is important that the system of teaching, especially math, has been improved and more modern. I also wish you good luck in the finals of the contest!

Best regards,

Vladimir

Hello Vladimir -

I believe we're on a similar track - at least, that we're both concerned with unification of the field of observation - which naturally means including information in it.

I myself describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that include the evolving observer while describing a quantum/classical world correlation. The evolving observer, I show, is the missing link in many of our quests. I think it is this that impels Physics' expansion into Bio- and Neuro-Physics.

We are continually realizing that the Cosmos is fine-tuned to develop life.

You might be interested to see how I treat this argument, and - like you, I believe - how I expand the definitions of It and Bit far beyond those signified by Wheeler. I'm sure you'll find the resulting structure useful.

I totally empathize with your point of view, and have rated essay; I hope you will find something of interest in mine ...

All the best in the competition,

John.

report post as inappropriate

Hello John,

Thank you very much for reading my essay and your profound comment. I'm sure in the coming days will read your essay and fairly valued.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Hello Vladimir,

Great essay! I'm so glad I read yours. I loved your quote of John Wheeler, "We can well believe that we will first understand how simple the universe is when we will recognize how strange it is." I had not run across that one, but I think that it is true.

I also think you hit the nail on the head regarding, "Physicists have only recently started to delve into the essential foundations of their science – and very carefully." That's why I think it's a good thing that there are some groups out there asking the questions and there are individuals outside the area of physics, but deeply interested in the subject, that are beginning and continuing to push the envelope. If the answers were limited to our current thinking, we'd already have them. We have to stretch out thinking outside the current comfort zone, despite the fact that when we do, there are those who object.

I also think you made a couple of profound observations in your conclusions. One of them was, "Reality and its phenomena at all levels of existence is the dialectic of “coincidence of opposites.” How true.

And your conclusion that, "New physics of the information age is a New natural philosophy with the new “mathematics principia”, new fundamental “la structure – mère”. Understanding mind overcomes the ontological gaps in the grounds of basic sign systems – mathematics and physics" is precisely on point.

Thank you, and I look forward to looking at your website; perhaps we can correspond in the future.

Best,

Ralph

P. S. You mentioned in your kind comments to me about you and your daughter's birthday. I noted with interest that the date of your essay, June 5th, is my oldest son's birthday . . .

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 10:44 GMT

Hello Ralph,

Thank you very much for reading my essay, your kind comment and a deep appreciation!

Philosopher Merab Mamardashvili said a good idea: «The understanding of the laws of the World is simultaneously part of the World, which laws are understood.» A clear means "seize the structure." It is the "Structure - Mother" (in the spirit N.Burbaki - «La Structure-Mère). Then begin the "new physics" and "new mathematics " as a "General Theory of Structures» with the new "mathematics principia", understanding the problem "Elements of Geometry", the very foundation of mathematics as "the language of Nature."

Yes, I too hope for our future cooperation.

I wish your children and family all the best!

Best regards,

Vladimir

Vladimir,

If I remember Alexei Losev in his fundamental collection first showed that Ancient Greek Classical dialectika and vulgar Soviet interpretation of it are very different things. There are speaking differently different schools of philosophical interpretation of Greeks legacy in Europe ( having 1500 years tradition of interpretation and translation from the Greeks ). Losev used just only very limited selection of German, French and English literature for his review. Thus, it could be very difficult to make any generalizations on particular subject without systematic historiography in different languages. Generally speaking, I have some doubts ( sorry, it could be very subjective and not popular ) on ' development of Physics of information ' based on popular Wheeler delusion. It is taking problem seriously, but not solution.

with the best wishes

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 14:28 GMT

Hello Michael,

I am very glad to see you on my forum and read your important comment for me. I fully agree with you. Moreover, it takes a new look at the whole dialectic, from Heraclitus to the idea of a "coincidence of opposites", and in particular, on "opposites". One of phenomenology little need to "dig" to the farthest depths of meaning of being.

With the best wishes,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

I have read your essay several times but I find it very difficult to grasp, even in broad lines.

1) page 1: "mathematics and physics have one foundation". But currently, the foundation of mathematics - at least, the most widely accepted one - is Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, which has nothing to do with the physical world. And the foundations of physics (ZF) - at least currently - are general relativity and the standard model, which have nothing to do with ZF. So how do I have to understand that statement? Or are you referring to other (new) mathematics and physics, which are based on one foundation?

2) page 6: "Kant's categorical imperative moves into the area of practical ontology ..." Kant's categorical imperative is a maxim that can be used to decide whether an intended (human) action is good or not: this is ethics. I fail to see how this has anything to do with ontology, the study of the things that make up the universe. The quote from Umov isn't helpful, I still don't see it. Could you explain that one to me?

Best of luck with the contest,

Marcoen

report post as inappropriate

Dear Macroen,

Thank you very much for your comment. Excellent questions.

1.Yes, the foundation of physics and mathematics should be one - "the missing structure" (Umberto Eco «La struttura assente»). I introduced her option and ontologically grounded in the previous essay - is "absolute generating structure." http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

It can be understood as a "generalized framework structure."

2.In the journal "Uspekhi" was an article K.V.Kopeykina "" Soul "of the atoms and the" atoms "of the soul: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Jung and the" three great problems of physics »http://ufn.ru/tribune / trib151208.pdf

Introduction to the physical picture of the world the concept of "ontological memory" as a central category thereby bringing the matter to the "soul" and hence consciousness and ethics. The world model for physicists and poets should be and can be only one - a "model of self-aware of the Universe" (Basil Nalimov) http://philosophy.ru/iphras/library/zizin.html

It is a model of the world, which was the dream poet Alexander Vvedenskii (1930):

«Не разгляде
90;ь нам мир подробно

53;ичтожно все и дробно

Пе
95;аль меня от этого всего берет».

Today it is necessary to introduce new concepts. It is aimed at the contest. Thank FQXi!

Best of luck with the contest,

Vladimir

Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 15:41 GMT

Vladimir,

Thanks for replying to my questions.

There is another thing which is unclear to me. On page 4: "... the unity of physical (material) and ideal reality is shown in a single eidos, represented by a simple mathematical object and representing the fundamental physical principles." So as I see it, according to you we have a single mathematical object that represents both the essence (eidos) of reality AND the fundamental principles.

Usually, fundamental principles are represented by formulas, not objects. An object is a term of the mathematical language, a formula is a sentence of the mathematical language. E.g. Newtons principle "F = m*a" is a formula, not an object (term).

So my question is: have I understood it correctly that you want to represent fundamental principles by a single term? If so, isn't it then the case that you lose, that is, that you fail to represent the mathematical-logical structure of the fundamental principles?

I am interested in your view on the matter.

Best regards,

Marcoen

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 12:01 GMT

Hello Marcoen,

Thank you very much for your question about «... a single eidos, represented by a simple mathematical object and representing the fundamental physical principles.»

In my essay FQXI 2012 I gave essential (ontological) justification of the absolute form of existence of matter (absolute states): absolute rest, absolute motion and absolute becoming, as well as supporting...

view entire post

Vladimir,

I read your essay and I gave it a very high rating of 9.

Quoting you: "Total ontological unification of matter at all levels of reality as a whole, its “grasp” of its dialectical structure, space dimensionality and structure of the language of nature " Such unifcation is acheivable with the physical model of Model Mechanics.

Good luck with your entry.

Regards,

Ken Seto

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 18:18 GMT

Dear Ken Seto,

Thank you for your comment, and a high rating.

Best Regards

Vladimir

Hello Vladimir

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post

Hello Vladimir

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Thanks and Best

Than Tin

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 18:41 GMT

Dear Than Tin,

Thank you very much for your very thorough comment. You have led a very good words of Richard Feynman. I will add a word of Poincare, "Nature loves simplicity." Yes, that's the problem today to see the simplicity of the complex and to find a "place" of the information in reality. I have carefully read your essay 09/07 and also his highly praised. I wish you every success in the contest!

With respect,

Vladimir

Greetings Vladimir,

Given what you said in Georgina's forum, pointing out similar areas between your ideas and hers, you should also read my essay, and I will most definitely read yours. We should both find several points of agreement, between our essay and ideas. Good luck in the contest.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 09:52 GMT

Hello Jonathan,

Many thanks for the very valuable for me to comment, and an invitation to read your essay. Yes, indeed, we are going to close on close paths in the same spirit in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt. I am sure to read your essay in the near future. Already found your web site address. All very interesting!

With best regards,

Vladimir

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 17:40 GMT

Thanks again Vladimir,

I will try to get to your essay today, despite a heavy workload. And I appreciate the comparison to Descartes. It is an honor. Though not mentioned much in this contest, he may have been a forefather of "It from Bit" philosophy. Though 'Cogito Ergo Sum' is usually translated from the first person "I think therefore I Am," if translated from the impersonal perspective, it becomes "Thinking therefore Being" which is the same as "It from Bit."

This prompted me to coin the phrase "It computes, therefore It Is." I will comment on your essay after due diligence, and likely have many kind things to say. In the meanwhile...

Have Fun!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 17:48 GMT

On a related note..

I have created a website: www.itcomputes.info where I will be collating information and making a page of links relating to 'It from Bit,' 'Digital Physics,' 'Mathematical universe hypothesis,' and related ideas pro and con. I will certainly have a lot of interesting content to feature after this contest, and we should keep in touch.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Hi, Vladimir,

Your essay was very deep, and deserves to be expanded into a full-semester or even full-year course. (I noted that you also posted the article on the net as http://vixra.org/pdf/1301.0019v1.pdf.) Of course nine pages is restrictive (for example, each point of your conclusion could be further expanded into a separate chapter), and some of the comments seemed to reflect the disadvantages of trying to squeeze deep ideas into a short format, but you did a magnificent job of not only weaving various mathematical, philosophical and physical ideas into a fabric supporting your ideas, but also applying ideas from one field to another in novel ways. I found the essay very thought-provoking, which is what a good essay should be. (My rating reflects this impression, of course.) Bravo! Молодец!

Best, David

report post as inappropriate

David M Reid replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 03:34 GMT

Postscript to my last post, or rather a footnote to the last parenthetical remark: "то есть, десять"

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 09:29 GMT

Hi David,

Thank you very much for your kind and insightful comment! Yes, you are right that many of the concepts need to be deployed, giving detailed explanations. The birth of the concept of "ontological memory" I was like - "Eureka!" ... My job was to "seize" the main thing - the deep essence of the phenomenon of information, its place in the picture of world. Much namely «Absolute generating structure» I opened the previous essay FQXi 2012 http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

Thank you for appreciating my essay!

Best regards,

Vladimir

Vladimir

Are you V.V. Nalimov fan?

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 20:51 GMT

Hello Yuri,

Yes, that's right, I'm a very big fan V.V.Nalimov. I was lucky enough to hear him lecture once in the Bauman Higher Technical School. I try to always refer to his work, particularly in his article, "The universe is aware of itself" http://philosophy.ru/iphras/library/zizin.html

In it, he gives only the outline on the way to its modeling. By the way, loved him "geeks", I just saw at the conference.

And you think about the creativity V.Nalimova?

Best regards,

Vladimir

Hello again Vladimir,

I want to let you know that I have read your essay. I'm afraid I found the formal, technical use of language a barrier to understanding much of it. Though I feel I have grasped your intentions, which are bold and forward thinking, with the help of your useful replies in this essay comments thread.I also have a better understanding of the relevance of URLs you posted on my essay thread. I too can see the importance of incorporating the 'mental reality' into physics. I think I will have to return to your essay to see if I find it more easily understood on a second reading before I vote. Regards, Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 09:39 GMT

Hello Georgina,

Thank you very much for reading my essay and your comment! Yes, indeed, there was a problem with the translation, it makes occasional translator who was not well acquainted with the philosophy of physics. I, too, now again back to your essay, put the right rating and you will report this to the forum.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 10:15 GMT

Sorry, Georgina!

Confused, so many have read. I rated you put 23.07 - "happy nine".

Good luck in the contest,

Vladimir

Hello Vladimir,

I finished and greatly enjoyed your excellent essay. I think it took a while to get into its rhythm at the start, and that the abstract was a bit cluttered - trying to cram all the essential concepts from the essay into a small space. This makes it a little bit intimidating at the start, but it is a joy to read once you get into it.

Your knowledge of the Classics and Philosophy, and your ability to skillfully weave that into a tale about Information Physics, are impressive. I give (and gave) you high marks for a valuable contribution to our understanding. Perhaps the Delta logit will soon join the bit, qubit, and qutrit, as you suggest.

Well written, but certainly deep; you try to cram a lot into this essay's content, and that may be its main flaw. Perhaps with another page of content, or more, a better explanation of some concepts is possible. But I give you kudos.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 03:26 GMT

By the way...

I loved the linked material by and about Alexander Zenkin. I don't think I'd heard of him before, but certainly a character worth noting.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 09:52 GMT

Hello Jonathan,

Thank you very much for lovely comment!

Maybe not all at once clear in my essay - it's because I wanted to squeeze the maximum information and I do not like to write much. And then there was the problem with the interpreter. Have you read my previous essays?

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

For me it was the most important thing - the introduction of the concept of "ontological (structural) memory" and his deep understanding.

Yes, you are right, the study of Alexander Zenkin very original! Today, just need the original, non-trivial ideas.

Good luck in the contest and all the best,

Vladimir

Best regards,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

I'm sorry I have not had much time this past week.

Excellent essay, which is why I would like to ask you a little question:

In physics, or elsewhere, what you identify as 0 and 1, if you think that reality is based on information.

I was the last on the list. I thought if we reversed the order of the list I'd go first. With the note that you have given me I have no more chance to pursue that dream.

Thank you for understanding that this could be a great idea.

Indeed it is.

Yes, this world is written in the language of mathematics.

I agree with you for many of your assertions.

The opposites play a great role.

My rating for you is 10, with bonus of 3.

And good luck.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 10:45 GMT

Hello Amazigh,

Thank you for your comment on my forum and read my essay!

I think that the "o" and "1" requires deep interpretation to establish links as the first signs of a matter and its states, as well as the consciousness. In my concept consciousness is «vector quantity». A matter has three absolute (unconditioned) state, two of them represent the number "0" to "1". But the "0" and "1" (matter states) does not give a new generation. This makes only "3" - the state - of becoming of matter. Thank you for your appreciation! Your essay I have read and leave a comment, and set a good rating 22.07.

Best Regards,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

Your essay is too much philosophical for me. I do not feel quite comfortable with it. I know you have found a lot of philosophy also in my essay but mine seems to be much simpler.

However I would like to address your important statement: “there is a crisis of the ability (and desire!) of mathematicians to understand each other”.

Mathematics is like music. It is an independent art usually cultivated usually without any conscious goal and driven by passion. There is a lot of different types of music. Musicians do not need to accept, understand or like all that stuff and they still create excellent pieces of art. They do not need to work together to create a one universal music style. It does not mean there is a crisis in music. There is a variety as never before. There is no crisis also in mathematics.

Quite different situation is in physics. Physics is closer to a craftsmanship than to an art (with no offence to physicists). It is usually practical or tries to be. The crisis in physics we know: QM and GR / the small and the big and nothing in between! And much more. The parts do not create a whole. So my proposal is to solve these troubles with physics using the geometry. The key is the one universal scale invariant metric (form!). But first of all we have to falsify that concept and carry out the spin experiment. Then we can possibly work out the practical physical math or give up.

Best regards and good luck!

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 19:22 GMT

Hello Jacek,

The ideas of John Wheeler, "trouble with physics" and the contest itself FQXi make every researcher to "dig" deep into philosophy. John Wheeler left a good covenant: "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers".

Mathematics - Language of Nature. It is the language used by physicists that would discover the laws of nature. I think "trouble with physics" because of the unsolved problems of the foundations of mathematics. And the mathematics and physics uniform basis - the fundamental structure of nature (Universe). A language structure is the structure of nature. But what is it? That is the question ...

Yes, to develop new directions in mathematics - a new music. But we are talking about the foundation of mathematics as a fundamental sign system, which "closes the physics." Music has no such claim. But how mathematics can close physics, if she is ontologically unfounded science? Mathematics also need new fundamental ideas and concepts, as well as physics. The problem of the foundations of mathematics - is the most important "problem of mathematical Millennium».

Best regards and good luck!

Vladim

Dear Sir,

This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear....

view entire post

Dear Sir,

This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic – “complex, even inexplicable behavior”. Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of “the deer population in Northern Michigan”, is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.

Infinities are like one – without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others – every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.

Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,…n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use “a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers”, you do just that through “comparison and exchange instructions”. You develop these by “inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by ‘mating’ parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated” and repeat it “thousands upon thousands of time” till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought “evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible”. After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.

Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area – the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.

The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.

However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally ‘illuminates’ the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Hi Vladimir,

I thought your essay was excellent and well argued. I had to read it twice to more fully comprehend what you are saying. And as you made clear with your quotes and references, people have been talking and writing about, and had insights about, these issues for thousands of years.

I see our essays have a lot of ideas in common. You say that nature's language is represented by mathematics, and point out that we need to comprehend and interpret this language.

You say: "to grasp the structure [of man] is to grasp the absolute forms of existence" - i.e. we have to look at ourselves as an example of the nature of reality. And thinking is "the primary essence" of any thing; and what is most significant: "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being." You point out that the nature of information relates to the nature of being, and that it is the "soul of matter".

You point out that while "ontological memory" holds the structure of reality in place, a second crucially important aspect of reality is the one that "generates new levels of reality."

My answer to your question "Why the picture of the world of physicists poorer meanings than the picture of the world lyricists?" is the following:

Physics has shown that underlying everyday reality there is an information structure which can be represented by law of nature mathematical equations. Some say that reality is just a set of mathematical equations: this is the "poorer meaning". The richer, more lyrical meaning is that these mathematical equations represent an information structure, subjective experience of categories and relationships, indicating that the nature of reality is analogous to the nature of a mind or a being.

Cheers,

Lorraine

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 06:28 GMT

Hello Lorraine,

Thank you for your thorough and detailed commentary, as well as the appreciation of my essay. Good luck in the contest and your research!

All the best,

Vladimir

Vladimir,

It is a very thoughtful and well written essay. The problem is that I dispute the central premise. An ideal is not an absolute and that is the core of your argument. The absolute is a universal state. Shapes are definition, delineation, form. Absolute zero is not a point, line, circle, sphere, etc. It is the complete absence of energy and thus the interactive connectivity which...

view entire post

Vladimir,

It is a very thoughtful and well written essay. The problem is that I dispute the central premise. An ideal is not an absolute and that is the core of your argument. The absolute is a universal state. Shapes are definition, delineation, form. Absolute zero is not a point, line, circle, sphere, etc. It is the complete absence of energy and thus the interactive connectivity which builds complex reality out of the most elemental energies arising from that absolute state of the formless vacuum. Zero is not a point, but empty space. All of physical nature, even the biggest galaxies and galaxy clusters, are little more than minor fluctuations in the infinite vastness of space. When we measure time, we are only measuring action, while point, location, distance, area and volume are all aspects of space, not the basis for it, as geometry presumptively assumes. Like Roman numerals, geometry doesn't even have a proper zero, because it treats the center point as zero. A real zero would be the absence of any actual mark. Empty space/the blank sheet of paper.

We exist as an effective point in space, so we describe reality from the perspective of the point. Thus space becomes this three dimensional coordinate system, located on the center point, while time is the sequence of events, from past ones to future ones, rather than the underlaying physical dynamic which forms and erases these events, taking them from future potential to past circumstance.

You inductively distill out these ideal forms as being essential, but consider how nature actually creates them. There are much more spheres in nature, than square boxes, even though both are basic ideals. That is because it is much easier for nature to produce a sphere by congregating energy around a point, while a box requires much fairly precise interaction of different energies pushing against each other.

The fact is that if you have nothing, you don't need any laws or forms to govern or define it. No energy, no information. When you start to have the most basic energies, pulling against/pushing against each other, etc, then you start to have the most basic forms/laws defining their actions and interactions. The more complex things get, the more complex the principles arising from them get.

Physics creates math. Not the other way around.

I score you well for clarity, it's just that what you present so clearly is incomplete.

Regards,

John

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 03:21 GMT

Apparently I already scored it back on the 22.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 08:31 GMT

Dear John,

Thank you very much for the nice comment and your appreciation.

In my essay FQXI 2012 I gave essential (ontological) justification of the absolute form of existence of matter (absolute states): absolute rest, absolute motion and absolute becoming, as well as supporting such a representation in the form of simple mathematical objects.

...

view entire post

Dear John,

Thank you very much for the nice comment and your appreciation.

In my essay FQXI 2012 I gave essential (ontological) justification of the absolute form of existence of matter (absolute states): absolute rest, absolute motion and absolute becoming, as well as supporting such a representation in the form of simple mathematical objects.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

I build on the basis of ontological constracting - "Absolute generating structure." That is a mathematics and physics as the main sign systems am getting a hard ontological foundation. Those thus essentially (ontologically) detailed support two main sign systems - mathematics and physics. I solve this problem essential (ontological) justification of knowledge in general. Do you know what this problem is still not solved. Then I clear the nature of information and the time on the basis of a rigid foundation of the material world. Characters (digits – 0 and 1) - are mathematical representants of two absolute states of matter. At the phenomenological level, they can also be understood as a symbolic representation of the state of "openness" and "closed", "continuity" and "discrete".

The absolute form of existence of matter (absolute state) reveal the essence of the concept of "space" as a space of absolute (unconditioned) states of matter and give it a new (ontological) understanding. This is the limit of matter and thought. Built tough "general framework structure" of fundamental knowledge, including physics and mathematics as a major sign systems. Thus we have the opportunity for a new way, based on the depth of the ontology and the dialectic of nature, to understand the category of "measure", as well as the concepts of "dimension" to understand ("grab") nature of such important concepts in physics and mathematics as " coordinate system ", see the structure of the" points ". Today in physics are introduced and additional measures introduced earlier without essential (ontological) foundation. «Absolute generating structure» gives a new way to look at the phenomena of generation and emergentation, the nature of the forces at all levels of the being of the world as a whole. The central concept of the new understanding of the world - Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory. Matter - is that from which everything is born (Plato), Ontological memory - this is what gives rise to all. That is the foundation of the physics of nature (Absolute generating structure - a "general framework structure"), which creates all the mathematics, and that is their framework and carcass.

Best regards,

Vladimir

view post as summary

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 10:50 GMT

Vlad,

Keep in mind that ontological and epistemic are a dichotomy, yin and yang, two sides of the same coin. Like energy/information, medium/message, discrete/continuous.

It's easy to see that at its base, everything is ontological, in order to exist. The problem is picking apart what is epistemic and understanding how the contextuality makes it all possible. Ideals are an effort to distill the ontological back out of the epistemic, to inductively extract that deeper structure and definition, but a circle is not a square. There has to be definition and structure and perspective that is specific to it reality. Like I point out in my essay, if you combine all the colors, you just get one shade. In order to be able to paint a picture, you have to keep them separate, but connected.

The ontological, the universal state, is purity, but then it lacks complexity.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Basudeba,

Thank you for your very interesting information!

Best regards,

Vladimir

Vladimir

You asked me to comment on your essay.

“And mathematics and physics have one foundation – essential primary structure of Nature”

This is the key. And physical existence is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it at any given time. It is a sequence of such discrete and definitive states, altering at an extremely high speed, each degree of...

view entire post

Vladimir

You asked me to comment on your essay.

“And mathematics and physics have one foundation – essential primary structure of Nature”

This is the key. And physical existence is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it at any given time. It is a sequence of such discrete and definitive states, altering at an extremely high speed, each degree of difference being vanishingly small.

In trying, through all the quotes, to find your definition of physical existence/reality, I find:

“Physical reality is formed of all the world’s material objects, both substantial and non-substantial (e.g., electromagnetic, gravitational and other fields), as well as all motion processes and internal changes that happen with these objects”

Now, there are several questions here, which can be boiled down to:

1 What is an object? When is a dustbin, car, you, etc that object you are referring to? It alters, ie it is different, yet we still label it as being the same thing. Albeit we might say it has changed. But that is contradictory, because a difference is a difference. Physically, it is either one thing, or it is something else. In other words, there are no objects (except in the sense of whatever is the elementary substance(es)). What exists at any given time is the physically existent state of whatever comprises the reality, which is then superseded by the next state.

2 Then one asks, what is ‘non-substantial’, ‘a process’, ‘internal changes’, in terms of reality. Because for something to be reality, it must have a physical presence. And once one starts defining that, as it occurs, in terms of physical state, then this problem disappears.

I am not quite sure what your point is re consciousness, etc. However, none of this has anything to do with physical existence. It is independent of the mechanisms whereby it is detected, and existed before it was detected. Obviously, there must be something, so that it can then be detected (forget the detail that what is detected is a physically existent representation of what occurred). In other words, all considerations about measurement/whatever affecting reality are nonsense.

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 09:26 GMT

Hello Paul,

Thank you for your thorough and insightful comment.

In his last essay FQXi 2102 I uncovered the foundations of my concept.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

It is ontologically constructed and justified with absolute generating structure that represents the first (fundamental) the process of Nature. I assume that "form is the first entity" (Aristotle), and considering the absolute form of existence of matter (absolute state).

1. The object I have only one - the Universe as a whole, "the self-aware Universe " (V.Nalimov), which includes all the state of the universe.

2. The existence of all the objects (and subjects) I see in terms of just absolute forms of existence (absolute states): absolute rest (continual state), absolute motion (absolute whirlwind, discrete state) and absolute becoming (absolute wave as the transfer of states).

3. Consciousness I see only as a "vector of consciousness." Consciousness is a vector quantity. "Vector" on - Latin - "bearing". He "mere/very" and it is "carrying". Its semantics in russian reveals more clearly its dialectical nature.

Some physicists want to "kill the dragon" - time. But the dragon has three heads. Killing time they try to eliminate the memory (ontological) of the world picture. The world becomes poor meanings. "The meaning there is in what direction ..." (Heidegger).

Before the "measure" should reveal the essence of the "measure» as «qualitative quantity " (Hegel). Understanding the "measures" lead to the understanding of "dimensions" of the world as a whole, and then the "dimensions" in physics. Therefore, the conclusions I have written about the need to develop a "General theory of measure."

Best regards,

Vladimir

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 05:07 GMT

Vladimir

1 Whether you refer to one ‘object’ or many is irrelevant. Reality, ie what is existent at any given time, ie the physically existent state of whatever comprises it. That can be expressed in terms of the entirety of physical existence, or all its component parts, at that time. In other words, how we conceive reality is ontologically incorrect, physically, the objects we refer...

view entire post

Vladimir

1 Whether you refer to one ‘object’ or many is irrelevant. Reality, ie what is existent at any given time, ie the physically existent state of whatever comprises it. That can be expressed in terms of the entirety of physical existence, or all its component parts, at that time. In other words, how we conceive reality is ontologically incorrect, physically, the objects we refer to do not exist, they only appear to do so because we conceptualise them at a higher level, ie by superficial physical attributes.

2 What is a “self aware universe”? And how do you know it is “self aware”, since we cannot externalise ourselves from it?

3 Which links to the next point. You write of “absolute”. Now, you may not mean absolute, literally. But the point is that we can only be aware of what must be regarded as one possible form of existence, because we are enabled to be aware via certain physical processes (which is supplemented by hypothesis, which is, in effect, virtual sensing). We can never know the absolute. Simply, if A there is always the possibility of not-A. We can only establish the objective, ie what actually occurred, for us.

4 Whether you see consciousness as a “vector”, whatever that means, physically, is irrelevant. Physical existence occurs independently of the systems which enable awareness of it. Indeed, if there is any awareness, then it has, by definition, already occurred. Consciousness, etc, cannot affect physical existence (reality), which is why QM is wrong. Or put the other way around, if all sentient organisms were eliminated, physical existence would continue, there would just be no awareness of it. The extent to which any given output from the awareness process, ie a perception of reality, corresponds with reality, is a different matter.

5 Time does not have ‘three heads’, even allegorically. There is no duration in a reality, because it is what is existent at any given time. A difference is a difference, not ‘it is still the same but changed a little’. Any degree of difference means it is another reality, which is why I state there are, physically, no such things as what we refer to as objects. There is only one discrete, definitive, physically existent state at a time (which is another reason QM, and relativity, is wrong). It is then succeeded by another, and the former ceases to exist, etc, ie it is existential sequence. Time therefore refers to the rate of change, ie the turnover rate of realities. It is associated with a feature of the difference between realities, not of them. It may be that some elementary components do not alter as quickly as others.

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 09:18 GMT

Hello Paul,

Thank you for your thorough and detailed commentary.

I looked completely your answer and did not find it the concepts of "structure", "form", "information", "state". Namely, these are the key concepts and provide an opportunity to answer the questions of the current contest FQXi:

«What IS information? What is its relation to "Reality"?

How does nature (the...

view entire post

Dear Valdimir,

Here is a copy of the comment that I made to you on my forum page that you asked me to also leave on your page.

Thank you for your agreement. I read your paper, so I can talk with you more intelligently. You have a good concept that understanding basic forms and that of which they are composed are very important steps to being able to understand them and the larger...

view entire post

Dear Valdimir,

Here is a copy of the comment that I made to you on my forum page that you asked me to also leave on your page.

Thank you for your agreement. I read your paper, so I can talk with you more intelligently. You have a good concept that understanding basic forms and that of which they are composed are very important steps to being able to understand them and the larger scale objects or forms of which they are members. I propose that you consider that the output of the dimensional structure, which is motion, is the true Delta-Logit or the base form from which all other entities are composed. If we start from the structure of a basic motion, the first thing that is obvious is that it is the generator of the basic increment. This can be observed in its continual incremental change in position. This change in position generates the concept of distance as the variation from one position to another position. Since all motions do not contain the same capability to change position, but one motion can change position faster than another motion which can be observed as one motion creating a larger distance while another simultaneous motion creates a smaller distance variation, the concept of variability of size is created. In order to compare motions that produce different simultaneous sizes of distance to each other the concept of time is created as a comparison of a given generated distance size to a standard distance size that is generated in some continuous cyclical fashion, such as the earth rotating on its axis or the vibrational frequency of some atom, etc. Because a motion travels in a straight line it generates the concept of past, present, and future. Where the motion is currently positioned is its present, where it was is its past, and the position to which it is headed is its future. Since all motions do not travel in the same path the concepts of direction and dimension are generated. Since all motions seem to have absolute limits of zero motion amplitude on one end and the speed of light on the other end, the concept of limit is generated. Since matter particles can be changed into energy photons and energy photons can be changed into simple linear motions, it is evident that everything that exists in the universe that is composed of energy or matter or any combinations of them is ultimately composed of motions. This means that motion is the basic form from which all other forms are created. In addition, motion is the mediator of all interaction between entities that exist in the universe. I hope this will be of help to you.

As far as your request for me to evaluate your paper is concerned, I generally do not go into great detail doing that because I don’t want to take the chance of unduly affecting the outcome of the contest as I am not competing for the prize as most are, but am just providing information for the growth and benefit of man to achieve the next necessary level of development, but since you asked, I will just say that you have some good ideas and insights into the current problems in math and physics, such as the lack of certainty, etc., but I recommend that you spend more time and space in your paper in fleshing out, explaining, and connecting the ideas into a coherent overall easily understood structure and spend less time and space showing the origin of all of them in other’s works, etc. It is your original contribution from your viewpoint that will most likely win you the prize. Use the reference section to show the sources of important concepts that shaped any part of your understanding or that back up your presentation, etc. I hope that helps.

In reading your comments to others it is apparent that you consider matter to be the most basic substance from which all things are constructed. Matter can be broken down into motion, however, so motion is a more basic substance than matter and is the basic substance of which energy photons and matter particles are composed.

You also have come to the understanding that there must be some intelligence behind the universe that has guided it to produce the very complex structures such as living creatures, etc. that exist in it and the systems that allow for their survival, etc. and this is a very good insight. You seem to be attempting to attribute that intelligence to the universe itself thus the need for ontological memory. The problem with this approach is that the initial creation of the universe in such a way as to allow such intelligence to develop and to exist within it would also need to have been planned, executed, and guided by an intelligence. This intelligence could not have been the universe because it did not yet exist. Neither could an intelligence that was later created by the universe such as man, etc. have created the universe since it would not have existed at that time either. This leaves us with only the existence of a preexistent intelligence (God) who created and guided the development of the universe and all of its complexities to the point that we see it today.

Again I hope these concepts help you to develop the complete theory of the universe that you are endeavoring to arrive at.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 10:02 GMT

Dear Paul,

Almost agree with everything except:

«... So motion is a more basic substance than matter and is the basic substance of which energy photons and matter particles are composed.»

The movement, the rest and the becoming of the matter is the basic structure of the world and that it gives rise to new structures. A key concept - "matter", then the dialectic of coincidence of opposites (rest and movement) and the becoming of matter, ie, manifestation of its forms in the phenomenon of "energy", "particles", "photons" and their "movement."

Intelligence in the Universe appears through the action of the Absolute generating structure, which is evident at all levels of existence as an ontological (structural) memory in the phenomenon of information, and at the highest level - the phenomenon of consciousness.

I'm not talking about who created the Universe, I see only its fundamental (ontological) structure, which is based on the concepts of "matter" and "ontological memory." Matter - is that from which everything is generated (Plato), the ontological memory - this is what creates and maintains all.

I think the problem now is not to develop a "complete theory", and in the development and justification of "general framework structure", which will be the foundation of knowledge. Version of such a structure I gave last essay of 2012 and developing in this essay.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Hi Vladimir,

Thank you for your comments on my essay. I left an answer to your question on my blog.

I read your essay and I think that we agree on a few things, especially the Universe as a whole and the ontological memory.

I understand why you want to use your delta-logit to store the information (your ontological memory) but I believe there is simpler way if you consider that the Universe is just a growing 3D information sphere and that the 3rd dimension is both space and time. That way, past/present/future information co-exist in the sphere (the Universe as a whole). I don't want to expand on it here, but if you are interested, you can find out more in my 3D Universe Theory.

Good luck with the contest !

Cheers,

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 14:35 GMT

Hi Patrick,

Thank you very much for your valuable comment! I agree that the principle of simplicity, the key to physics. I've already started reading the articles on your site. Thank you very much, very original ideas!

Good luck with the contest!

Cheers,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

I enjoyed reading your essay and I appreciated the strong philosophical bias. Your conclusion 6: "Development of Physics of Information requires further development of ..., General Theory of Interactions, ... as fundamental to expanding the scope of fundamental sign systems" put a link to my essay where I introduce "information" as a substantial element of nature.

Kind regards,

Antoine.

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 10:01 GMT

Dear Antoine,

Thank you very much for your comment and link. Be sure to read your essay and give your comments. Yes, that's right, "General Theory of Interactions" to deepen further with the new ideas of the century information revolution.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 10:56 GMT

Dear Paul,

Many thanks for the profound and important for me to comment! You have a very interesting concept and I have to get to know her more deeply. Yes, the way the truth is different, but time will put everything in its place.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

When I said that motion is a more basic substance than matter, I was talking about structural order. An energy photon is composed of two basic motions and a matter particle is composed of three basic motions. A matter particle can be changed into an energy photon by transferring one of its motions (its fifth dimensional motion) into its fourth dimensional motion and an...

view entire post

Dear Vladimir,

When I said that motion is a more basic substance than matter, I was talking about structural order. An energy photon is composed of two basic motions and a matter particle is composed of three basic motions. A matter particle can be changed into an energy photon by transferring one of its motions (its fifth dimensional motion) into its fourth dimensional motion and an energy photon can be changed into a simple motion by transferring its fourth dimensional motion into the lower three dimensions. In this way motion is the more basic substance because it is the substance from which energy photons and matter particles are made. The fourth dimensional motion gives both energy photons and matter particles their frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects. The fifth dimensional motion causes a photon to take a three dimensional curved path that encloses back upon itself that changes its straight line motion at the speed of light into a cyclical enclosed path motion that we call a matter particle. The angular motion component of this three dimensional curved enclosed path motion generates the matter particle’s static mass effect. These things are explained in more detail in my other contest papers and comments on this site. Although the motion within the enclosed path is always moving very fast, the path itself can be at rest, so the matter particle can be at rest. The enclosed path can also be made to move so that the matter particle can be in motion in three dimensional space.

I used to believe in evolution, but after a thorough evaluation I have concluded that it is mostly a myth, so I have no need to think about absolute or self generating structures, etc. Sub-energy particles can go through interactions that change them into energy photons and the photons can become matter particles via interactions and matter particles can also be changed into energy photons and the energy photons can also be changed into sub-energy particles during interactions, but these are just normal outcomes of interactions and not creation of something from nothing or even creation of new things by some type of duplication or generative process. The total amount of motion is always conserved and remains the same, so nothing really new is generated. It is just a process of conversion from one motion structure to another one. The motions are just moved to different places in the dimensional system. These changes take place according to specific rules of operation and interaction of the particles. This does show intelligence, but it is recorded intelligence that can only operate in the way that it was made or programmed to operate. This is much like a program in a computer that can control processes in a manufacturing plant. It has no ability to do anything that it was not programmed to do. There are many similar types of preprogrammed process structures that exist in the universe and learning about them and learning how to control them has been one of the greatest benefits to man from the use of scientific investigation. These structures do indicate that they were created by an intelligent being, but that being could not be or be a part of the universe because some of these processes were brought into existence much too early in the creation of the universe to allow time for any intelligence to possibly have formed before them and then to have created them. Moreover, if there was such an intelligence in existence powerful enough to generate such processes on a universal scale, it would still be generating new processes and we would be seeing major changes in the way the world operates happening around us, but we don’t see such changes in operations or any new types of operations being formed, etc. These preprogrammed processes are generally stored in the structures that they affect. As an example, when two matter particles interact the outcome of the interaction is determined by the rules of interaction that are a part of the structures of the particles and the specific conditions of the internal motions within the particles (the motions' positions and phasing with each other, etc. that are variables that feed the interaction) at the point of interaction.

I am afraid Plato did not know about fourth and fifth vector structuring concepts, but I don’t hold that against him he did well with the limited information that he had at that time. Now in the light of more information it would be more correct to say “motion is that from which everything is generated” except that the motion was also introduced into the universe by the one who made it.

If you need more detailed information about these things you can read my other contest papers and comments on this site. I hope this is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 10:58 GMT

Dear Paul,

Many thanks for the profound and important for me to comment! You have a very interesting concept and I have to get to know her more deeply. Yes, the way the truth is different, but time will put everything in its place.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Vladimir,

I looked superficially all philosophical essays (my fault, becouse I have no skills for philosophy). But I think: philosophy, mathematic and physic ought to go hand in hand. Than I read again carefully your essay. I found it is in medias res. So that I want to write the article together with you (where, of course philosophical part will be yours).

I especially like and accept this:

The attempt of /ontological revolution/ of Einstein-Planck remained unfinished. Empiricism helps physicists, mathematicians are helped by going to the highest floors of abstraction. The peak of the age of /loss of certainty/ in physics is /string/ epic going on for more than forty years. Physicists have only recently started to delve into the essential foundations of their science , and very carefully. But whether mathematicians manage to /close physics?/ [12].

And this:

Overcoming the /crisis of representation and interpretation” of the fundamental sciences is only possible in the way of total ontological unification of matter at all levels of reality

good luck,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 08:57 GMT

Dear Branko,

Thank you very much for your kind comment. Agree with your proposal.

Good luck,

with great respect,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

Your essay is very interesting. I like the idea. Will think more and read your other writings.

I agree absolutely with Alexander Zenkin. We should be able to explain any well-developed mathematical concepts in simply and clearly ways, such that they are understandable to any high school students. This is particularly true in the era that "the cognitive computer visualization of mathematical abstractions promises a revolution in scientific cognition". We should ask top mathematicians to teach college freshman classes every few years; writing educational books at the high school level is even better.

I love to hear Nikolai Noskov in the YouTube link you posted on my page, even I don’t speak Russian. I have downloaded and read your essay several times so I understand it now. In contrast, it's easy to understand the messages in the songs you sent.

Brian

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 09:08 GMT

Dear Brian,

Thank you very much for your kind comments and appreciation of my ideas.

You are quite right to say: «We should ask top mathematicians to teach college freshman classes every few years; writing educational books at the high school level is even better.» All together, we must overcome the "crisis of interpretation and representation" and build a "GENERAL FRAMEWORK STRUCTURE" of the fundamental knowledge.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

I noticed that it seems that some or all of the posts that were made on August 1 and maybe some from July 31 have somehow disappeared from at least some peoples contest pages. In order to try to do what I can to reconstruct them I am resending the posts that I made on those dates if I see them missing. The following is the only post that I made during that period on your...

view entire post

Dear Vladimir,

I noticed that it seems that some or all of the posts that were made on August 1 and maybe some from July 31 have somehow disappeared from at least some peoples contest pages. In order to try to do what I can to reconstruct them I am resending the posts that I made on those dates if I see them missing. The following is the only post that I made during that period on your page.

When I said that motion is a more basic substance than matter, I was talking about structural order. An energy photon is composed of two basic motions and a matter particle is composed of three basic motions. A matter particle can be changed into an energy photon by transferring one of its motions (its fifth dimensional motion) into its fourth dimensional motion and an energy photon can be changed into a simple motion by transferring its fourth dimensional motion into the lower three dimensions. In this way motion is the more basic substance because it is the substance from which energy photons and matter particles are made. The fourth dimensional motion gives both energy photons and matter particles their frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects. The fifth dimensional motion causes a photon to take a three dimensional curved path that encloses back upon itself that changes its straight line motion at the speed of light into a cyclical enclosed path motion that we call a matter particle. The angular motion component of this three dimensional curved enclosed path motion generates the matter particle’s static mass effect. These things are explained in more detail in my other contest papers and comments on this site. Although the motion within the enclosed path is always moving very fast, the path itself can be at rest, so the matter particle can be at rest. The enclosed path can also be made to move so that the matter particle can be in motion in three dimensional space.

I used to believe in evolution, but after a thorough evaluation I have concluded that it is mostly a myth, so I have no need to think about absolute or self generating structures, etc. Sub-energy particles can go through interactions that change them into energy photons and the photons can become matter particles via interactions and matter particles can also be changed into energy photons and the energy photons can also be changed into sub-energy particles during interactions, but these are just normal outcomes of interactions and not creation of something from nothing or even creation of new things by some type of duplication or generative process. The total amount of motion is always conserved and remains the same, so nothing really new is generated. It is just a process of conversion from one motion structure to another one. The motions are just moved to different places in the dimensional system. These changes take place according to specific rules of operation and interaction of the particles. This does show intelligence, but it is recorded intelligence that can only operate in the way that it was made or programmed to operate. This is much like a program in a computer that can control processes in a manufacturing plant. It has no ability to do anything that it was not programmed to do. There are many similar types of preprogrammed process structures that exist in the universe and learning about them and learning how to control them has been one of the greatest benefits to man from the use of scientific investigation. These structures do indicate that they were created by an intelligent being, but that being could not be or be a part of the universe because some of these processes were brought into existence much too early in the creation of the universe to allow time for any intelligence to possibly have formed before them and then to have created them. Moreover, if there was such an intelligence in existence powerful enough to generate such processes on a universal scale, it would still be generating new processes and we would be seeing major changes in the way the world operates happening around us, but we don’t see such changes in operations or any new types of operations being formed, etc. These preprogrammed processes are generally stored in the structures that they affect. As an example, when two matter particles interact the outcome of the interaction is determined by the rules of interaction that are a part of the structures of the particles and the specific conditions of the internal motions within the particles (the motions’ positions and phasing with each other, etc. that are variables that feed the interaction) at the point of interaction.

I am afraid Plato did not know about fourth and fifth vector structuring concepts, but I don’t hold that against him he did well with the limited information that he had at that time. Now in the light of more information it would be more correct to say “motion is that from which everything is generated” except that the motion was also introduced into the universe by the one who made it.

If you need more detailed information about these things you can read my other contest papers and comments on this site. I hope this is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 09:01 GMT

Dear Paul,

Thank you very much! Well, that posts restored.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Interesting read. I added my rating

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michael,

Thank you very much for your appreciation of my ideas!

Best regards,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

This is a very impressive philosophical essay with several deep thoughts that touch many aspects of my own essay, although the latter was written from a physical point of view. It seems to me that metaphysics is not so much different from physics as I thought before. I am still translating your ideas into my own (physical) language and this will take some more time.

For now, my congratulations to your important essay.

Best regards,

Walter

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir

Your essay was a bit on the philosophical side for my tastes, however, I enjoyed it, especially the notion of ontological memory.

I was wondering: does ontological memory lives in subtime?

You can find the latest version of it here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

Ontological memory may be only indirectly accessible to us. Subtime appears to give it the kind of properties consistent with your description. My description: brief flashes of reality with long periods of darkness in between.

If I am only even a tiny bit right, I'm expect it will open up many philosophical questions.

I hope this leads to some even partial relief from the crisis of representation and interpretation in the fundamental sciences.

Let me know what you think.

Kind regards, Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:03 GMT

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your comment and your question. Give please, an explanation of nature of the concept «subtime». I do not really understand the essential depth: «brief flashes of reality with long periods of darkness in between.»

Best regards,

Vladimir

"Information as a phenomenon of Ontological Memory in nature is multivalent in its manifestations at different levels of reality."

That uses all English words, but what on earth does that mean? Seems like a string of buzz words which happen to be in grammatical order. Much of the essay is like that. It's English, but Huh?? When I spend time to read these essays, I hope to learn something, but with sentences like the above, my eyes just glzze over, but this is one of the most highly community rated essays. I don't mean to be negative. Maybe other people are more technical than me, but I think I better represent the general layperson for whom this essay would have little interest or relevancy.

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:51 GMT

Dear Franklin,

Thank you very much for your comment and question!

In my essay I gave a link to my essay last year. I give it the essential justification of the fundamental structure of the world in the form of "Absolute generating structures." Matter is that from which all is born (Plato), "Ontological (structural) memory" is what generates and stores all. It is the very "structure" at every level of reality. What is the structure? The semantics of the concept gives us Eidos (the idea of) reality. In Russian semantics of the term "in-three-set" reveals the idea (eidos) of reality, its inner form. Therefore, the nature of the phenomenon (!) "Information" - the ontological (structural) memory of nature as a holistic process of generating, becomming and maintaining. The memory of the Universe sets its ontological algorithmic stores all the "codes" of the Universe, manifested in the form of "fundamental constants" and "coordinate system". To sum it up in our minds the deep structure of the archetypes of the world. In ancient times - a "three pillars", "three elephants", "three turtles" ... In the form of archetypal structure of the "sky" ("celestial law") appears "on the ground", i.e. in our minds, and eventually in science as the "laws of nature."

I apologize for the grammar in the English translation!

Best regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Walter,

Thank you very much for your appreciation of my ideas!

Good luck in the competition and all the best,

Vladimir

Best of Luck for the Magnificent Eight !

I am throught the 180 essays, all rated. For me 2/3 of them were poor and other 1/6 curious. The rest (1/6) have I rated over 4/10.

You are among the authors of the top essays from my sight - alphabetically :

Corda, D'Ariano, Maguire, Rogozhin, Singleton, Sreenath, Vaid, Vishwakarma,

and I hope one of you will be the winner. Vladimir, thanks for your rating

David

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 10:00 GMT

Hi David,

Thank you for your kind words and appreciation!

Best wishes!

Vladimir

I rated the essay to be 10 not because of the quality of the essay but of my respect to the contribution of Russian scientists as a whole, especially to Gorigory Perelman!

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 12:46 GMT

Dear Dr. Jin He,

Thank you very much for your high advance rating! I will try to solve the problem of the foundations of mathematics. Some researchers believe that this is a perennial problem. With that, I do not agree. In knowledge, including mathematics, should be solid, reliable basis. On this basis ("missing structure" by Umberto Eco) well said Edmund Husserl in his book "Origine of Geometry". I think that the problem of justifying knowledge, including mathematics, more important to human culture than all the "millennium problems".

Best regards

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin: I had to read your essay several times to understand it correctly. Being a well-written essay, the density of ideas stated; joined a very erudite historical hindsight, make this essay an example magnificent mathematical thinking not, but it draws conclusions and axioms, of great importance. I do not like the word philosophy, I prefer: well structured thinking, logic and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 14:44 GMT

Dear Angel,

Many thanks for the very valuable, detailed and insightful comment! Totally agree with you: it was the task of total ontological unification of matter at all levels of being, building the basic structure of existence and then "setting" nature of the information, understanding of its essence. I had no problem "catch" the calculated parameters. Yes, it is possible and necessary for the next stage of understanding the base structure of the world, "grasp" truly «fundamental constants» and then the specific parametric calculations.

Once again many thanks for the comment!

Good luck and all the best!

Best regards,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

Great reading, i agree with you on the whole. Many nice ideas that actually could shape future view on physics and philosophy.

Best wishes

Koorosh

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 01:32 GMT

Dear Koorosh,

Thank you very much for your comment and appreciation. Yes, the information revolution makes all, physicists and lyricists, to see the world in new ways.

Best wishes,

Vladimir

Best of luck in the finals Vladimir.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 10:27 GMT

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you very much! And I wish you every success in the final stage FQXi Essay Contest 2013!

Thanks for the nice comment and appreciation of my ideas!

I am very glad to have met you!

Thank FQXi!

Good summer holiday!

With great respect,

Vladimir

Vladimir,

Thanks for your kind message on my blog. Really glad you held on for a top 10 place. I'd felt 7th place had become my own after the last 2 years, but I have to say after being passed over twice I'm glad for an improvement. Now we find out if the judges really do support John Templeton's ideal of supporting exploration of advancements not doctrine. I think it's of rare value and well worth preserving.

My aim is only to try to explain and spread the simple logic of the unified 'discrete field' science which clearly better corresponds to nature than what we have now, though astonishingly proving the SR postulates without paradox via QM without wierdness. I see the problems as mainly;

1. It's initial unfamiliarity (as Feynman and others predicted)

2. The inertia of academia due to investment in doctrine (as Planck pointed out).

3. The stage of our intellectual development, so capacity to visualise dynamic evolutions. I see that as subversed by a swing too far to reliance on maths, and the lack of anywhere to 'hook' a new ontology to in our belief systems, which takes us back to No.1.

Do you think that's a fair assessment? In many ways this may be just a matter of presentation. But most importantly, do you have any assistance or ideas you can offer as one coming to the 'DFM' anew? (My last 2 essays are the precursers giving the fundamentals). This one really started as just a falsification exercise. It proved to have far more power that I ever imagined! All help and support welcomed, philosophically included.

Very best of luck in the judging.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

Thank you very much for your feedback, questions and good wishes!

I'm happy for you that you have a promotion to second place and first place by the number of rankings!

I begin again to read all your essays to see the depth of your concept.

I also wish you good luck,

With great respect,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

As non-zero intervals of events is subjective, probability representation by Δ-Logit is also subjective and thus dynamic analysis of sequence of data subjectively by Bayesian inference evolves observational reality, in that quantization of time is imperative.

With best regards,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate