Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 4/18/15 at 19:21pm UTC, wrote Dear Christian, Thank you very much for reading my essay and kind words....

Christian Corda: on 4/18/15 at 16:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, As I told you in my Essay page, I have read your very...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 4/18/15 at 9:50am UTC, wrote Dear Lorraine, Thank you very much for reading my essay and very important...

Lorraine Ford: on 4/17/15 at 23:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Thank you for your essay. You remind the reader about the...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 4/16/15 at 20:49pm UTC, wrote Thank you, Peter, for reading my essay, kind words and support ideas. Yes,...

Peter Jackson: on 4/16/15 at 18:21pm UTC, wrote Vladimir, Thanks for your support for my essay. This year I'm lagging...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 4/16/15 at 14:11pm UTC, wrote Dear Alma, Thank you very much for your kind words and rating. Good luck...

Alma Ionescu: on 4/16/15 at 14:00pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Thank you for your message! I will shortly reply on my page...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Jorma Seppaenen: "I find this very interesting topic. I am just a amateur enthusiast of..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: The Formula of Justice: The OntoTopological Basis of Physica and Mathematica* by Vladimir I. Rogozhin [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 11, 2015 @ 21:50 GMT
Essay Abstract

Dialectica: Mathematica and Physica, Truth and Justice, Trick and Life. Mathematica as the Constructive Metaphysica and Ontology. Mathematica as the constructive existential method. Сonsciousness and Mathematica: Dialectica of "eidos" and "logos". Mathematica is the Total Dialectica. The basic maternal Structure - "La Structure mère". Mathematica and Physica: loss of existential certainty. Is effectiveness of Mathematica "unreasonable"? The ontological structure of space. Axiomatization of the ontological basis of knowledge: one axiom, one principle and one mathematical object. The main ideas and concepts of the ontological construction/ "Point with a vector germ" and "heavenly triangle". "Ordo geometricus" and "Ordo onto-topological". Architecture of the onto-topological basis of knowledge: general framework structure, carcass and foundation. The absolute space and the absolute field. The absolute (natural) system of coordinates of Universum. Eidos of "idea of ideas", the symbol and the "formula of Justice".

Author Bio

Engineer (MPEI), economist (Russian Foreign Trade Academy), independent researcher since 1989: ontology, philosophy of physics and mathematics, philosophy of Сonsciousness, member of XX World Congress of Philosophy (Boston, 1998), I-IV Russian Philosophical Congress (1997-2005), The First Conference "Philosophy of Physics: actual problems", The Third Russian Conference "Philosophy of Mathematics: actual problems" (MSU, 2013). My daughter Victoria supported me at creation of my essay. We are convinced that Philosophy - the most rigorous and joyous Science.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 11, 2015 @ 22:11 GMT
EpiLog-I:Truth & Justice

On the Pacific Ocean shore two friends were sitting. One of them was Physicist, and other was Mathematician.

What is the truth? - Physicist asked

Justice, – Mathematician answered.

Then draw it, - Physicist asked. Mathematician, drew absolutely symmetric geometrical symbol without tearing off his hand from sand.

How did you come to it? - Physicist asked.

Mathematician smiled and, tool the guitar and started to sing the old kind song of bards of the 60th years of last century:

“I know, everything will be developed by Dialectica…“

Physicist placed his hand on his friend's shoulder and picks up the song, and the run wave washed away drawing to the Ocean … → Dubito→ Ergo → Cogito→

It is by a mathematical point only that we are wise,

as the sailor or the fugitive slave keeps the polestar in his eye;

but that is sufficient guidance for all our life.

We may not arrive at our port within a calculable period,

but we would preserve the true course.


Henry David Thoreau

Bookmark and Share



Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Feb. 12, 2015 @ 20:14 GMT
Dear Mr. Rogozhin,

Thank you for the enjoyable essay and nice journey through the history and evolution of math, physics and metaphysics from ancient times to our days.To some extent, I share the view about constructive metaphysics: "We must replace the obscure metaphysics by metaphysics the application of which takes place in natural sciences, and first of all, in geometry and in different areas of mathematics."

In my view, math and physics are not entirely each other’s mirror and not necessarily each physical phenomenon can fit into math and vice versa, they only can intersect in our world to certain extent and sometimes just roughly and sometimes not even in slightest manner.  But whenever they get right fitting, then it is a beauty of our world.  Why math fits physics sometimes? I believe, it is because we get a "quantity" and a quantity means measurements, whenever we don’t get a quantity we searching for simply we make interpretations instead to fill that gap or discontinuity.  

Warm regards

Koorosh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 12, 2015 @ 21:26 GMT
Dear Koorosh,

Thank you for your kind and insightful commentary. Yes, I agree with you. I would add that the solution to the problem of the ontological justification of Mathematics (and, consequently, Physics) will give a push to promote heuristic Mathematics aside "quality quantity" all-powerful expansion of the kingdom of the all-powerful "Queen" and the faithful "Servant".

Good luck in the Сontest,

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Feb. 14, 2015 @ 12:15 GMT
Dear Vladimir ! In my impression, the soul of matter is a re-search question of deep mysticism,e.g. are stones sleeping energy, do they have a memory? This is actually the theology of maths and spiritual physics; the triangular geo-metric form represents possibly the basic grammar of universal law, i.e. the creative logos of the eternal upper force or the ontological physics of meta-maths.Congratulations, your essay explores new knowledge territory for modern methodical science; I am sure, we can learn a lot from ancient spiritual wisdom, for example, Kabbalistic, Gnostic and Sufi approaches, in this respect. It is this modern fusion of scientific knowledge and classical wisdom that is really needed in our turbulent times. Best wishes, cordially: stephen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 14, 2015 @ 12:43 GMT
Dear Stephen,

Many thanks for your kind and insightful comments. Yes, today requires the most profound synthesis of the entire system knowledge, including the Tradition. Only in this way we can reach a common basis "fundamental knowledge". Today, knowledge has no ontological foundation. In my concept of "ontological (structural, space) memory" is what creates all. It permeates Universum both vertically and horizontally. Ontological memory "holds", retains and develops the Universum. Memory - the motor, engine of evolution. Information, time, consciousness - a polyvalent phenomena of ontological (structural) memory. Physics should include the category of "memory" in the scientific picture of the world.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Feb. 14, 2015 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Vladimir! YOU HAVE HIT THE NAIL: modern knowledge has no ontological foundation. I am grateful to fqxi, it provides us with Options for a new dialogue.New ontoligical foundations have to be worked out; it is a great pleasure to communicating with you this great challenge of humanity.Should you visit Munich, let me known in advance. Cordially: stephen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 14, 2015 @ 20:03 GMT
Dear Stephen,

Thank you very much for your kind words, understanding and invitation! Yes, you're absolutely right: Contests FQXi is Perfect meeting place for new fundamental ideas, a place for a large polylogue.

Indeed, prompt Henry David Thoreau:"It is by a mathematical point only that we are wise, ..." gives access to metaphysics, ontology and physics of "point", on unified base of knowledge - the basic maternal structure ("La Structure mère"). Obviously, the "Life in the Woods" makes it possible not only to see the harmony of the Nature, but also the way and the "starting point". …"but we would preserve the true course. "

Good luck in the Contest!

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 15, 2015 @ 03:21 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I believe I understood your earlier essay on consciousness, but I am somewhat lost on your current essay. You cover much historical development, and my lack of awareness of certain players may account for this.

You speak of "eidos" as "idea of idea" and state as the basic problem "to find one single structure", the source of "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics".

My essay begins with a brief overview of my Automatic Theory of Physics which is an attempt to develop "A Theory of theories", based on logical structure (NOT and AND) as physically real and as sufficient basis for counters, counting, and arithmetic-logic of natural numbers, from whence, per Kronecker, all else mathematical follows. The differences or 'distance' between measurements can be used to extract 'features' and this leads (through entropy) to a 'best feature vector' as the prototypical Hilbert space vector. Conservation over eigenvalues leads to eigenvalue equations, and this vector is perhaps the single structure best characterizing the math map of the world. I imagine that this maps, in some way, into your ontological vector, but I'm not sure in what way.

Most of my essay is focused on Bell's confusion between two of the eigenvalue equations, and the erroneous conclusion he draws from a mathematically correct analysis of a physically incorrect (oversimplified) assumption.

I invite you to read my essay and comment, and hope that you find some significant connection between our essays.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 15, 2015 @ 10:16 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your insightful and interesting commentary. Modern fundamental science is experiencing the most profound in the history of its development, "the crisis of understanding", "crisis of interpretation and representation" - onto-gnoseo-axiological crisis. To understand meaning "seize the structure" ( G.Gutner "Ontology of mathematical discourse").

Overcoming the "crisis of understanding" - the construction of primordial structure of the Universum as a result of a comprehensive synthesis of all knowledge accumulated by mankind. On the basis of ontological design, I build a model (eidos = image) such as the primordial structure of the Universum, "the idea of all ideas» (idea of ideas) or Absolute generating structure - "La Structure mère" - the basis of fundamental knowledge: framework (limit), carcass and foundation of knowledge. It represents the ontological structure of the first-process of the Universum, as the triunity of absolute states of matter (absolute rest & absolute movement & absolute becoming), the time before "the beginning of times" ("sub specie aeternitatis"). When designing I proceed from the principle of identity of being and thinking (Parmenides → Hegel).

Mathematics and Physics must hold today the most profound revision of the philosophical grounds. I am seeking today with interest your essay.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 22:22 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

From our previous communications about consciousness I know that there is much overlap in our understanding. For this reason I feel that I agree with your second paragraph above despite that our terminology tends to differ. I tried to look at the paper you link to on 'Ontology of Mathematical Discourse' but it is one of my many failings that I do not read Russian.

Finally, we agree about math and physics and the need for profound revision of the philosophical grounds. That has been my focus on Bell, and it extends beyond Bell.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 10:18 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Yes, the problem of philosophical (ontological) foundations of Mathematics and Physics is today the main problem. I would use here a second concept - "ontological basification": the establishment of a framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge. The main idea in the "Ontology of mathematical Discourse": "Event setting structure means understanding".

Contemporary "crisis of understanding"(K.Kopeykin "Souls" of atoms and "atoms" of soul: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "three great problems of physics") in fundamental science requires a new conceptual revolution, the result of which - a model of the Universum as a whole. Quantum theory and relativity theory - the parametric theory without ontological justification (basification). Let work everyone in the sphere as Ptolemaeus's theory worked.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 05:40 GMT
Your insightful work grabs some more mirror to regard the philosophical breakthrough.

Great job, indeed!

Respectfully,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 14:28 GMT
Dear Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan,

Many thanks for your kind and insightful commentary. Today, more than ever, are relevant philosophical covenants of A. Einstein and J. Wheeler:

"In our time, physicists have to deal with philosophical problems to a much greater extent than it had to do physicists previous generations. To it physicists are compelled by difficulties of their own science."

"Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers."

There is no doubt that the picture of the world of physicists and mathematicians should be the same rich senses of life as a picture of the world lyricists.

I'll read your essay in the near future.

Kind regards,

Vladimir Rogozhin

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 21, 2015 @ 18:36 GMT
Vladimir

Your essay is a view of the historical development of math and physics. It shows some evolution to the current practice. It also shows several changes of definition of words. Each new set of definitions resulted in advancement of understanding. What is the next set of definitions that may help human advancement? Where do we need new definitions?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 21, 2015 @ 20:38 GMT
Dear John,

Thank you very much for your comment and the good question. G.Gutner in "The Ontology of mathematical discourse" made a good conclusion: "to understand - then grab the structure." In the last section of essay "Eidos of" Idea of Ideas ", the Symbol and" Formula of Justice ", I introduced a new model onto-topological basis of fundamental knowledge - Absolute generating structure as the framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge, first of all mathematics and physics. The core of the new model of the Universum - concept of ontological (structural, cosmic) memory as the measure, "qualitative quantity" of absolute states of matter. Other new concepts: 1) the vector of absolute states of matter; 2) the triune (absolute) space 9 measurements; 3) the absolute coordinate system as a geometric reprezentant of triunity of absolute states of matter: absolute rest & absolute motion & absolute becoming (triune absolute field); 4) the triune (absolute) space-matter-time 12 measurements (9 spatial measurements + 3 "temporary").

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



David Lyle Peterson wrote on Feb. 23, 2015 @ 22:02 GMT
I once had a course in History of Philosophy in which I learned about and learned to love Plato’s Forms. But I agree that philosophy now has to be brought up to date and its concepts somewhat revised to be more applicable (and I like that statement by Wheeler that `Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers.’). Regarding your question on Lifeworld (Lebenswelt), I agree provided that our knowledge and experience is more constrained by our knowledge of science (effectively from the so-called `scientific method’). Language is hard, and we often talk past each other because of lack of careful definition (e.g., ``reality.’’). The problem with physics is that Nature is the owner of the definitions, and we keep revising ours in an attempt to match as we learn more. It would be wonderful if we all had a deep appreciation of Nature, but most of us are limited by our core biology, history, training and culture—and that often dominates over rationality. You mentioned that the origins of the words mathematics and physics derive from primitive views of the order, generating structure and harmony of the Cosmos (and it would be nice to keep that perspective). I like your terms ``loss of existential certainty’’ and ``crisis of interpretation’’ which certainly applies now to the quantum world. And I liked the comment that `modern knowledge has no ontological foundation.’ Many people are working on trying to fix that. We wish ourselves luck.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 24, 2015 @ 09:51 GMT
Dear David,

Thank you for your comment and deep detailed answer to my questions on your forum. Given the title of your essay I have emphasized the idea of "celestial triangle" of Plato as a measure of any sensible thing, as well as the very notion of "measures" by Plato. Physics and mathematics have to make new turn to the foundations of knowledge to set the ontological basis - framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge. There must work together "ratio", "emotio", "intuitio" to overcome the "crisis of representation and interpretation". In fundamental physics is necessary to introduce an ontological standard of justification (substantiation) addition to the empirical standard. All the ancient Greek concepts require a deeper understanding, especially the concept of "quantum" and its ontological status.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 23:44 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Many thanks for your thoughtful essay. The main question which I see about "La Structure mère" is following: isn't the very idea of that self-contradicting? Indeed, if any structure is the most fundamental level of reality ("mère"), we can always ask a question; why this structure, not any other? Every structure is specific after all; otherwise, nothing can be deduced from that. Being specific, it requires an explanation. So "la structure" apparently cannot be "mère"; this is an oxymoron. Do you agree with that?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 09:26 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev,

No, I don't agree. At the heart of ontological construction of primordial structure of the Universum is the dialectic triunity of absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute, limit states): absolute rest («pokoj», linear state)+ absolute movement (circular, vortex state) + absolute becomming (wave state). Each state has its own ontological way (ontological vector). These three absolute states – a source of all forms of the Universum as whole. Full justification (basification) of the construction of "La Structure mère" - in the final chapter.

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Mar. 3, 2015 @ 03:44 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I read your essay, but still it is not quite clear for me how do you answer to the question: "why your triune Structure is specifically that, not something else?" There must be terminus in all lines of explanations, of course. What seems to be clear for me, the terminus cannot be something specific; otherwise, the question "why the assumed terminus is specifically that?" would be left without answer. My problem in understanding you Structure is that I do not see it as a totality or Substancia, if to use that Spinozian word. Maybe, I am missing something in your explanations.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 3, 2015 @ 07:02 GMT
Thank you for your question. The path to the primordial structure of the Universгum - a total ontological unification of matter at all levels of the Universum as a whole, the principle of the triunity, the axiom "In the Beginning was the Logos ...". Ontological unification of matter (the absolute form of existence): absolute peace + absolute movement + absolute becoming.I do not use the term "substance".

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Mar. 4, 2015 @ 16:52 GMT
Dear Sir,

We took time to slowly enjoy your excellent essay for in-depth analysis; as such historical perspective is rarely seen. Much before 4000 BC, number was defined in ancient India as the property of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are nothing similar, it is one. If there are similars, then it is many. Depending upon the perception of one’s in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 14:37 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

Thank you very much for reading my essay, kind, extremely important and interesting commentary. But the idea of the triunity of absolute states of matter not B.Raushenbakh, and my idea. In "Logica troichnosti / Logic triplicity" B.Raushenbakh gives only an idea of the vector in Cartesian coordinates as a representant of mathematical ideas "trinity," but he does not consider the absolute states of matter and the "state vector". Yes, you and I are going in one direction and it's inspiring.

Good luck in the contest,

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



KoGuan Leo wrote on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 14:37 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I found your essay is very insightful. We do have similar ideas and you wrote below "The path to the primordial structure of the Universгum - a total ontological unification of matter at all levels of the Universum as a whole, the principle of the triunity, the axiom "In the Beginning was the Logos ...". Ontological unification of matter (the absolute form of existence): absolute peace + absolute movement + absolute becoming.I do not use the term "substance"." I share that "Logos" or in Xuan Yuan thought Is Dao or the Way as in the beginning and in the ending. I constructed a modern terminology and hopefully more precise definition as our Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit (00, +, -). I also have similar "triunity" but I called it "FAPAMA" or FA is law (00); PA is papa (+) and MA is mama (-). This is only a distinction without a diffence.

Good luck and wishing you the best,

Leo KoGuan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 15:06 GMT
Dear Leo KoGuan,

Thank you for your insightful and important comment. Yes, the path to the primordial structure of the Universum as a whole - is an ontological way. Traditional knowledge, including knowledge of ancient China, an important source for the great synthesis and build a unified base of common knowledge.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 06:03 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

You wrote:

„Thus, such metaphysical interpretation of the words "Mathematica " and "Physica" gives a clear idea of ancient people that two sciences have a uniform source, namely meta – law , the funding order, harmony of Cosmos and its generating structure."

Thus, it is our duty to reactivate this unity.

Best Regards,

Branko Zivlak

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 10:28 GMT
Thank you, Branko, for your comment. Yes, the problem of the ontological justification (basification) of fundamental sign systems, Mathematics and Physics - is the main task of knowledge. Ontological revolution Planck-Einstein must be completed. John Wheeler left physicists good covenant: "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers". But how many people follow this covenant? What is needed is a synthesis of all knowledge accumulated by mankind. This problem is well formulated Edmund Husserl in "Origin of Geometry": "Only to the extent, to which in case of idealization, the general content of spatio-temporal sphere is apodictically taken into account, which is invariant in all imaginable variations, ideal formation may arise, that will be clear in any future for all generations and in such form will be transferable by the tradition and reproducible in identical intersubjective sense."

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Mohammed M. Khalil wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 18:27 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I enjoyed reading your fact-filled essay.

Good luck in the competition.

I invite you to read my essay .

Best regards,

Mohammed

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 20:12 GMT
Dear Mohammed,

Thank you for reading my essay and commentary. I'm starting to read your essay in the near future.

Kind regards.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Jacek Safuta wrote on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 18:06 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

After careful reading of your very interesting essay I have immediately understood why you appreciate mine. We are connected with the same ontological approach. Majority of physicists just say: shut up and calculate. The calculus is very important, but they are not at all interested in ontology. They search “how it works” instead of “what it is”.

You are right,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 19:14 GMT
Dear Jacek,

Thank you very much for reading my essay and insightful comments. You are absolutely right: "The trick is, in my opinion, that we can use a theorem in physics, but only in the case we accept the reality is fully isomorphic to the specific mathematical structures that are covered by that theorem." I think though, that for all the structures of mathematics and physics should be based on the deepest meaning of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). Physicists and lyricists should have unifying picture of the world. Information Age pushing physicists by this.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 13:26 GMT
Dear Vladimir

I have no head for philosophy, but see the need for it, particularly in the subject of understanding the roots of physics and mathematics. In my essay I claim that the roots are physical onness of both. Of course "thinking" about this is a philosophical issue so we can agree!

You said "Nowadays the problem of structure of space is the core problem."

I cannot agree more. My intuition and research support the idea that space is completely defined i.e. filled with some elemental ethereal building blocks. But also that the way these blocks or nodes interact is exquisitely guided by a few simple "rules"...all this gives space its structure as well as the ability to become matter, radiation and all of physics. The devil, as they say, is in the details. You may have some ideas and others different ones about this structure, but it is important to start from the bottom and rebuild physics.

I wish you all the luck

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Vladimir.

Thank you for reading my essay, your insightful comments and evaluation. I want to clarify - the ontological structure of space, which substantiates the absolute form of existence of matter (triunity absolute states): absolute rest + absolute motion + absolute becoming. State of matter - "absolute rest" has properties such that some researchers speak of "ether". But in my ontological basis of Universum "ether" - the essence unnecessarily. I am sure that only the innermost ontology, the unification of matter and the dialectic of "coincidence of opposites" (Cusa) gives access to the primordial structure of Universum, and therefore the ontological structure of space.

I also wish you good luck,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 10:30 GMT
Dear Valdimir,

While I thank you for your e-mail; in my personal opinion, your telling that you have given a rating of 8 to my essay, is not a good practice; because rating is a confidential matter. Moreover simple arithmetic shows that my previous average rating reduced from 4.3 to 4; it means you had actually given a rating of 2 to my essay!

And by sending an e-mail you thought I too should rate your essay 8 or 9 ? In fact, I had given suitable rating as soon as that batch of essays was posted.

Yours sincerely,

Hasmukh K. Tank

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 11:50 GMT
Dear Hasmukh,

I have made you a rating of 8 for the direction of your research and your two ideas that are close to me in spirit.

Please write your opinion about my ideas.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Mar. 29, 2015 @ 18:30 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I enjoyed reading your essay. It was a good and interesting reading, filled with historical information and philosophical considerations. I like the connections you made with Bourbaki's structure mère. Good luck in the contest!

Best wishes,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 29, 2015 @ 20:38 GMT
Dear Cristi,

Thank you very much for reading my essay and good wishes. Yes, the idea of Bourbaki in "The Architecture of Mathematics" are very important to find a common base of fundamental knowledge.

Good luck in the contest,

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Donald G Palmer wrote on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 02:42 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

It took some time to read through your essay, as I am not familiar with many of the terms you use and undoubtably have missed a number of concepts in the process. In attempting to grasp your meaning, it seems you provide an historical perspective encouraging an historical perspective to look into the future. At times I think you are referring to our cultural and temporal biases as we attempt to understand our world. To this I heartily agree. At times I think you are saying that Mathematica is the basis of any understanding, especially a geometric basis. To this I have to consider our cultural and temporal bias applied to our existential understanding of Mathematica and that we have only existential knowledge from a human perspective.

It is at this point that I am unsure of your triunity and specification of the universe as three or nine dimensional. Our three dimensions are a consequence of our human derived knowledge, using our three dimensional direct perceptions. As you seem to note, our use of 'dimension' does not sit on a firm conceptual basis, nor is it properly applied in use (time is not equivalent to a single physical dimension).

In the end, I am unsure that I understand your conclusions and direction forward. Additional comments have provided some detail and indicate my understanding is incomplete, however.

Take care,

Donald

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 10:57 GMT
Dear Donald,

Thank you for your insightful comments and important questions.

I drew the attention to the need to consider the mathematics and physics, not only in the most distant historical depth, "the beginning of Mathematica" and "the beginning of Physica", but also in the existential and ontological depth of these two fundamental sign systems. This is what called Edmund Husserl...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Mary Ann Slaby wrote on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 16:03 GMT
Basic criticisms:

Too much analogy to external field of endeavor for an already complex subject

Too broad of an extrapolation to the humanities for the amount of words allowed in the essay contest.

Excellent and good points:

-Your grasp of the key features generating mathematics in the mind and how it forms a basis of knowledge

- the mind, heart, mathematics, physics and morals are interrelated by a matrix characteristic to living (likely just animals) systems.

Your heritage peeps through the arguments in this essay. Russian thought, at least among many of the intellectuals I have read, are concerned with or seeking an absolute best or the finest in human representation. Actually, so is some parts of the American system. Neither system has achieved the desired endpoint, but they do strive. This notion however is way above and beyond the already complex scope of the essay. I do however, agree with you on many points and especially what is wrong, illegal or punishable by death in one culture is encouraged, rewarded, a basis of happiness and idolized in another culture. This dichotomy should be resolved if man is to achieve any grasp of a universal truth, knowledge or understanding of God and our ultimate position in the Universe.

I am sure that I am over reading into your mind from your essay. That is just my perverted frame. I am giving you a 9, it would be a 9.5 if I could, because it is difficult reading, yet I liked the implications of your points. Also you began to express a mechanism for a generation theorem which I did not have.

Finally, having gone as far as you did, you should have mathematically presented a concise formula linking the linear, vortex and wave as the conclusion.

Mary Ann Slaby

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 20:16 GMT
Dear Mary Ann,

Many thanks for your critical remarks, assessment of constructive ideas in my essay, your vision of the main problems of modern fundamental science and society. I saw my main task in summing up my essays of 2012-2014 and formation of the new ideas deepening and specifying ontology and dialectics of the primordial generating structure in the spirit of "Origin of Geometry" of E.Gusserl.

I am sure that the solution of basic problems of modern Mathematics and Physics is a solution of the problem of ontologic justification (basification) of fundamental knowledge. The "granite" base of knowledge has to be transformed to the "basalt" base, at the heart of which not only experience, but also the most deep ontology and dialectica of Nature. It is possible only on the basis of synthesis of all knowledge accumulated by Humanity. Stronger and expanded ontologic basis will give new heuristics for fundamental science, vision of the Universum as whole.

As for concrete formulas, I think that this idea can gain development when the paradigm has at least one supporter - mathematician or physicist.

Good luck in the Contest,

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Neil Bates wrote on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 01:27 GMT
Dear Victor,

Your interdisciplinary essay is, as always, creative and cleverly darts among various ideas like in a pin-ball game rather than a stolid conventional essay. I do note, that some probable translation issues from Russian (clearly the language in which the essay was thought and likely composed) to English provide some odd choices of word and metaphor, altho it's hard (and probably not fruitful now) to give details. This was made more challenging by the references to Latin and a broad historical canvas as well, yet the sense of literate sweep of history and looking at things from many angles shows through. BTW thank you for your comments at my own essay, sorry for some delay getting here.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Neil Bates replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 01:29 GMT
Sorry Vladimir, this happened to me before I think: I once knew a Victor R. with a similar last name and it tends to confuse me. Pardon the careless error.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 09:01 GMT
Dear Neil,

Thank you for your comment and rating! Unfortunately, the contest is not in Esperanto, and my translator into English was not sufficiently qualified.

Yours sincerely.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Alma Ionescu wrote on Apr. 15, 2015 @ 11:36 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for a most interesting read. This was one of the least common essays that I read so far. You are addressing some of the ontological problems in mathematics and physics in a highly symbolic language, the tapestry revealed at the end reminding in a way of a Bosch painting. Paradoxically and showing a subtle sense of humor, this allegory pleads (and please correct me if I'm wrong) for realism, in both math and physics.

Beyond your ontic point of view, I very much enjoyed the name of sixth sense of physics given to the underlying pattern matching that is key to all mathematical physics theories. To end with the beginning, I will add that I appreciated the case you make in the introduction of the paper for deontological verticality and I appreciated the examples that you used. Rarely have I found a description of those events so close to the spirit in which the main actors seem to be thinking.

Wish you best of luck in the contest! Should you have the necessary time to read my essay, I'd very much welcome your comments.

Warm regards,

Alma

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 15, 2015 @ 12:27 GMT
Dear Alma,

Thanks for reading my essay, and a very deep and important for me to comment. I am sure that current problems of Mathematics and Physics - a problems with the ontology. Dialectics too, do not be afraid, it is a good helper for a deeper vision of the dialogic Nature. Dialectics and ontology help to see Universum as a whole, understand the nature of the information, time, consciousness. The Information age requires revision and updating of the basic concepts of fundamental science. The new paradigm and a new vision of the world, including the foundations of Mathematics and Physics, filling them with the senses of the "LifeWorld" is possible only on the basis of the broadest synthesis, taking into account all accumulated knowledge, teamwork «ratio», «intuition», «emotion». I start to read your essay.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Alma Ionescu replied on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 14:00 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your message! I will shortly reply on my page and rated your essay in the meantime.

Warm regards,

Alma

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 14:11 GMT
Dear Alma,

Thank you very much for your kind words and rating.

Good luck in the Contest,

Warm regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 18:21 GMT
Vladimir,

Thanks for your support for my essay. This year I'm lagging badly with reading but have read yours and highly commend it. We always need reminding of whence we came to curb our stupidities so an essay such as yours was essential, and you did an excellent job, including also identifying the difficult 'task' (for which I hope I've offered an insightful new formalism in 'bracket'...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 20:49 GMT
Thank you, Peter, for reading my essay, kind words and support ideas. Yes, Bourbaki's idea about "generating structures", "les structures mère", is heuristic not only for mathematics, but also physics. I am sure that there must be also the deep ontological unification of matter at all levels of the Universum in the spirit of Plato-Aristotle. It will give the chance to make the next dialectic breakthrough in knowledge of the Nature, to design more reliable ontologic basis of uniform knowledge, to "grab" (understand) the nature of information, time, consciousness. Many thanks for video: very interestingly! I saw new ontology of the Universum, its structural basis here. Whether there is a full text of this video for copying and deeper reading?

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 23:31 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your essay. You remind the reader about the ontological basis of knowledge, and you point out that: ""Mathematica remains science without ontological justification"". This is the important issue that must be addressed, but unfortunately most essays in this contest have failed to notice that this problem exists. You understand that we need to catch the "Proteus of Nature".

As you say: ""the loss of certainty", but also the loss of existential certainty . . . of fundamental sciences is the onto-gnoseological crisis of the whole knowledge, crisis of mind and spirit shown as "the crisis of understanding",[38] "the crisis of interpretation and representation."[39]"

I agree that we need an "onto-gnose-axiological breakthrough in overcoming of the modern crisis of the fundamental knowledge the new comprehensive paradigm of knowledge setting the basis - framework, structure and foundation of knowledge not only for Mathematica and Physica, but for all spheres of the "LifeWorld" will born.",

I rate your essay very highly. Best wishes,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 18, 2015 @ 09:50 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

Thank you very much for reading my essay and very important for me to comment and appreciation of my ideas. Indeed, the "troubles" in mathematics and physics require a new dialectical breakthrough to a more robust ontological basis of fundamental knowledge, to a new all-embraces paradigm. "The part paradigm" let works on their own field, and "The paradigm whole" embraces all the "LifeWorld".

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Apr. 18, 2015 @ 16:17 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

As I told you in my Essay page, I have read your very original and nice Essay. Once again, you made an excellent and courageous work. Here are some comments:

1) I did not know all the circumstances around Yury Milner's decision to finance the Fundamental Physics Prize. Thanks for pointing out them.

2) I agree with Grigory Perelman's criticisms against organized mathematical community.

3) I think you are correct in claiming that maybe "Mathematica" came from "Maat" – the name of the Ancient Egyptian goddess.

4) I like Bourbaki statement that "there is a close connection between the experimental phenomena and mathematical structures but the deep causes of it are unknown". I hope he was not correct in claiming that "perhaps, we will never know them"!

5) I agree with you that the problem of structure of space is the core problem.

6) Your statement that "Each mathematical object and concept is characterized by deep ontological interpretation" is intriguing.

Finally, reading your pretty Essay was very interesting and enjoyable. Thus, I will give you a deserved highest rate.

I wish you best luck in the contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 18, 2015 @ 19:21 GMT
Dear Christian,

Thank you very much for reading my essay and kind words. Yes, Burbaki idea of "generating structures" ("les structires mere") is very heuristic, including for the fundamental physics. Tthe basic science is in a deep existential crisis, "crisis of understanding" ("Advances in Physical Sciences" K.Kopeykin "Souls" of atoms and "atoms" of soul: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "three great problems of physics"), "crisis of interpretation and representation" (T.Romanovskaya «Sovremennaya phizika I sovremennoe iskuusstvo – paralleli stylya / Modern physics and contemporary art – parallels of style»). Mathematics and Physics require a deep ontological justification (basification). In Fundamental Physics is necessary to introduce an Ontological standard of justification (basification) along with the Empirical standard. The method of ontological construction, idea of N.Bourbaki, total ontological unification of matter at all levels of the Universum provide an opportunity to construct the basic structure ("La Structure mère primordial") as onto- gnoseological framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge, "grab" the ontological structure of space, to understand the nature of information and time.

I wish you best luck in the contest.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.