show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

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

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 sequence, many could be 2,3,…n. Infinity was defined as like one – without similars, but unlike one, its dimensions are not perceptible. As Plato says: a limit, entering dialectic identity with infinity, stops being just a limit; it becomes a measure. Zero was defined as something that does not exist at here-now, but exists elsewhere. Mathematics – Ganita - was defined as the science of numbers. Physics (padaartha) was defined as whatever exists, is intelligible as information and is describable using any language in a format: ‘this (artha - object) is like that (pada - concept or information), hence this is that’. Point (vindu) was defined as without form (soonyaakaaraat), but capable of extension (visargyantaat) and reverse; like pulsation (praspanda samvitah). It also reflected the universe (vishwam), as they both behave similarly (vishati pravishati swakaarane).

Kanaada defined bodies as possessing some of the universal characteristics (gunaashraya) and movement measure (kriyavaan), both of which remain in a relationship of inherence (samavaayi lakshana), i.e., as long as the object remains as such. Thought is the inertia of mind (bhaavanaa samskaara). It starts in response to an external impulse by drawing similarities from memory and gets destroyed due to knowledge about the object of thought, pain or after getting the object of desire. Language is the transposition of information to another system’s CPU or mind by signals or sounds using energy (self communication is perception). The transposition may relate to a fixed object/information. It can be used in different domains and different contexts or require modifications in prescribed manner depending upon the context. Mathematics is the quantitative aspect of Nature.

B. Raushenbakh’s description of absolute movement, absolute becoming (time evolution) are correct, but his description of absolute rest has limitations. Nothing during the creation is at absolute rest. The concept applies only to the state outside creation. The Logos or “the law of laws”, “the meta-law” is only a pulsating state (spanda) that resolves into two equal and opposite momentum in the primordial process. Due to bow-shock effect, it cuts off a bound structure and swings back to generate chain interactions that resolve into 15 different forces and is responsible for structure formation. The Spanda principle also accepts linear (ontological continuum) as energy + wave-vortex (ontological dis-continuum) as matter + vortex (ontological discretum) as the unification.

Regards,

basudeba

view post as summary

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

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, claiming: “that new dialectic breakthrough to deep ontology which will help to find the required basic "La Structure mère" is necessary for the whole system of fundamental knowledge.” There is something else beyond GUH that I did not stressed in the essay. That should be interested for you. I mean many attempts to formulate axioms in physics (D. Hilbert, J. von Neumann, L. Nordheim, H. Weyl, E. Schrödinger, P. Dirac and also E. P. Wigner). All they failed. But this is not a disaster. A deductive system can consist not only of axioms but also of already established theorems! As far, theorems were reserved exclusively for mathematics. 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. Following exactly that conclusion I proposed to use the geometrization conjecture, proved by Perelman (so it is the theorem in geometry). Moreover, Perelman, in his proof, used Ricci flow with surgery. Thanks to that there is no singularities in the spacetime structure!

In my short essay I present only very general sketch that delivers the initial conditions. Many mathematical details are not resolved yet, but some you can find e.g. in: Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga, Helge Rose, On the geometrization of matter by exotic smoothness, http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2230v6. Torsten’s publications show why not many scientists want to follow that road. Especially that this is not the mainstream research that allows to get grants. My sketch seems to be simple, but the details are really complicated.

I like very much that motto on an entrance of Academy of Plato: "Let No One Ignorant of Geometry Enter Here!" And I admire Milner’s project!

Best regards,

Jacek

view post as summary

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

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' rule hierarchies).

I was amused by the quoted distinction "...physicists and ordinary people", which perhaps translates slightly differently but does seem to reflect a possible degree of self delusion in self image for some.

Thanks for pointing out "Architecture of Mathematics" by Bourbaki. For scanners of comments who haven't read the essay I'll reproduce the key passage;

--"...note that there is a close connection between the experimental phenomena and mathematical structures structures mère"): algebraic, topological and order structures which are carrying out the role of the generating basis for mathematical theories.

As Bourbaki note, the structures don't remain invariable neither on their number, nor on their essence and it is quite possible that further development of Mathematica will lead to increase in number of fundamental structures

The analysis of paradigms of mathematical knowledge shows that new

dialectic breakthroughto deep ontology which will help to find the required basic" La Structure mère" is necessary for the whole system of fundamental knowledge."--

A top score for combining that critical core truth with the essential foundational background from which to build it. Very well done. I wish you luck in the contest.

Best wishes

Peter

PS Have you caught my short video yet? There are links scattered around. I think it may be too densely compacted with riches for most but you should extract many as you're familiar with the new vista and territory.

Time Dependent Redshift. 9 mins.

view post as summary