CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
Goal → New Heuristic Model of Ideality: Logos → Coincidentia Oppositorum → Primordial Generating Structure by Vladimir I. Rogozhin
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 21:43 GMT
Essay AbstractFundamental knowledge endures deep conceptual crisis manifested in total crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation, loss of certainty, troubles with physics, crisis of methodology. Crisis of understanding in fundamental science generates deep crisis of understanding in global society. What way should we choose for overcoming total crisis of understanding in fundamental science? It should be the way of metaphysical construction of new comprehensive model of ideality on the basis of the modified ontology. Result of quarter-century wanderings: sum of ideas, concepts and eidoses, new understanding of space, time, consciousness.
Author BioIndependent researcher since 1989: ontology, philosophy of physics and mathematics, philosophy of consciousness, member of XX World Congress of Philosophy (Boston, 1998), I-IV Russian Philosophical Congress (1997-2005), The First Conference "Philosophy of Physics: actual problems"(2010), The Third Russian Conference "Philosophy of Mathematics: actual problems" (2013), International Congress "Fundamental Problems of Natural Science and Technology"(2016).
Download Essay PDF File
George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 06:41 GMT
Dear Vladimir
I welcome your article as a professional and serious work. For me personally, it is very important that you are well aware of the global crisis of our time, which seems to almost in all spheres of human activity. Well I try to understand the deep meaning of your work to evaluate it by its significance.
Best wishes
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 10:59 GMT
Dear George!
Thank you for your comment. I also congratulate you on the participation in the Contest and the first high evaluation. I began to read your essay and see your deep critical look at all the "trouble with physics." I think that the competition helps sharpen all of the most acute problems in the fundamental science and society.
Good luck in the Сontest!
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 16:37 GMT
Dear Dr. Rogozhan,
Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay and I do hope that it fairs well in the competition.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible “metaphysical construction of new comprehensive model of ideality on the basis of the modified ontology.”
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 19:42 GMT
Dear Joe,
Thank you for your comments and observations. I fully agree that the principle simplicity is one of the basic principles of Nature. The dialectical principle of triunity (super principle) brings together all the principles of the ontological basis of Nature. I will read your essay in a short time. Sincerely, Vladimir
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 16:14 GMT
Dear, Mr. Rogozhin
We can not see the world as whole.But we can see the relationship between the whole and the parts.
Regards,
Branko
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 16:51 GMT
Dear Branko,
If we plant
the grape seeds in the ground and irrigate with water, then we will see the grapevine and grapes. Then we make a good wine, gather friends together and see all the living world as whole. Constructive metaphysics of process + Music + Poetry helps to see the world as whole. Many thanks!
Vladimir
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 15:28 GMT
Grape seed, which Bulat Okudzhava buries into the warm soil gives an insight into the nature of physical constants, time, meaning, aspiration of being of the Universe to the "LifeWorld "(Husserl)
«I will bury a grape seed into the warm soil,
And will kiss the vine, and pluck the ripe bunches.
And will gather my friends, attune my heart to love,
Otherwise, why do I live on this unchanging earth?
Gather on, my guests, to my feast,
Tell me straight to my face who am I known to be among you.
King of Heaven will forgive me my sins.
Otherwise, why do I live on this unchanging earth?
In her dark-red my Dali 1 will be singing for me,
In my black-and-white I will bow my head before her,
I will listen, captivated, and will die of love and sorrow,
Otherwise, why do I live on this eternal earth?
And when the sunset will swirl, drifting about the corners,
Let the visions float by me time and again:
Blue buffalo, and white eagle, and golden trout,
Otherwise, why do I live on this unchanging earth?» (Bulat Okudzhava)
Patrick Tonin wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 18:58 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you for your comments on my essay.
I found your essay very well researched and informative. Maybe you could have added a bit more of your personal view on the subject.
All the best,
Patrick
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 19:30 GMT
Dear Patrick,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. You'll notice that the last two chapters of my essay - entirely my ideaы. Main of them is fully original - ontological construction of the primordial generating structure.
Sincerely, Vladimir
Hans van Leunen wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Dr. Rogozhan,
Thank you for your comments and your interesting paper.
I scanned your paper. I am a physicist and not a philosopher. For every sentence that a philosopher writes, I need to read a book to understand what he is stating. I like to have my models very simple. Only in that condition, I can comprehend and apply these models.
I am convinced that something created...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Rogozhan,
Thank you for your comments and your interesting paper.
I scanned your paper. I am a physicist and not a philosopher. For every sentence that a philosopher writes, I need to read a book to understand what he is stating. I like to have my models very simple. Only in that condition, I can comprehend and apply these models.
I am convinced that something created the environment that I can observe. My model of this creation uses the fact that this creator did his job in one stroke and in that act, he also stored the result in a repository. If I observe my environment, then I see that all discrete objects are either modules, or they are modular systems. A set of elementary modules exists that constitute all other modules and the modular systems. These elementary modules are pointlike, and their location is stored in the repository together with a scalar timestamp. My environment also contains continuums, and one of these continuums embeds all modules. The embedding process affects the embedding continuum. This image is a rather simple world-picture. It is fairly easy to catch it in a mathematical model. That mathematical model is a structure that implements the repository. However, one thing is very mysterious. This structure does not contain any means that generate the locations of the elementary modules such that the whole behaves in a dynamically coherent fashion. Mechanisms that apply stochastic processes must perform that job. These Mechanisms reside outside of the repository. The interesting point here is that none of the physical theories that I know of treats these mechanisms. Without these mechanisms, the model does not show relevant dynamic behavior and will certainly not show dynamically coherent behavior.
I encountered the effects of these mechanisms during my job as a developer of image intensifier devices. These devices offer a direct look at quantum behavior. In my opinion, the stochastic processes belong to the category of inhomogeneous spatial Poisson point processes that own a characteristic function.I derive this from the fact that the visual trajectory of all vertebrates is optimized for perception under low dose rate conditions.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 16:28 GMT
Dear Hans,
Thanks for reading my essay and deep explanatory comment. Our philosophies are very close in spirit and orientation, so your conclusions are clear to me. Especially your ideas, which I noted in the previous comments on your blog. I construct my model based on a modern interpretation of the ontological "celestial triangle" (Plato), one axiom, a principle of ontological and dialectical unification of matter at all levels of the Universum existence. This is the extreme simplicity (Occam's razor the sharpest), taking into account existing knowledge and traditions. if possible, vote my essay.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 23:37 GMT
Nice Philosophical essay sir…
Your words in page 7 and 8….
“2. Method of ontological constructing of a symbol-attractor of the primordial generating process of the Universum being as a whole. The total unification of matter at all levels of the Universum.
3. Basification of mathematics (knowledge) is the ontological construction of intrinsic framework, carcass and foundation, and representation in basic (ontological) mathematical symbol.” … are really correct. Universe is singleone
Have a look at my essay also…
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 09:18 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,
Thanks so much for your important comment. You have noted the main thing - the problem basification of mathematics, and hence knowledge as a whole. Today, the foundations of science from the "granite", it is necessary to make it more robust - to transform the "granite" in the "basalt"… The world picture of physicists and
poets should be united and filled with the senses of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).
I read your essay in the near future.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 10:29 GMT
I read your essay «Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe» and remember Rabindranath Tagore, taking into account the idea of the unity of knowledge, my concept of the ontological (structural, space) of memory,
Raj Kapoor's song '50s, which is very loved in Russia, and the theme of the contest:
«Tired in my way I asked the destiny:
“Who pushes me in my back so ruthlessly?” -
“Look back!” - I look - and the complaint ceases:
It is my past who pushes me forward.»
I wish you good luck!
All the Best,
Vladimir
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 23:16 GMT
Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,
AThank you very much for such a moral support. I went to the link you mentioned above http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html . Though it was a old petition it is exactly correct even today. No research is supported even morally which is against Bigbang. Forget about the funding. I also tried to sign it, but it is going...
view entire post
Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,
AThank you very much for such a moral support. I went to the link you mentioned above http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html . Though it was a old petition it is exactly correct even today. No research is supported even morally which is against Bigbang. Forget about the funding. I also tried to sign it, but it is going somewhere.
This statement tells about an important aspect….”FUNDING”… Who so ever is funding this research thinks against the science or technology. The funding persons think that the contrary to science to be proved. Science tells that if there is an experiment, it should give same results to anyone. Science should not predict imaginary things. It should be real. History says even Einstein did not like and did not support Bigbang based Universe models.
For the last 25 years I faced the same problem. Main stream people appreciated me in the front and they always laughed at me at the back. No support of any type. Now I am getting worried, as I am getting aged, to whom I will give out all this knowledge. So I kept all my BOOKs and PAPERs in my webpage for any person at free of cost. He doesn’t even need to inform me about his downloads.
Thank you for giving me high ranking. I am also giving ranking to your essay.
BSpasibo vam balshoy…Many thanks…
I was in USSR, Kiev for 6 months in 1982. I used talk and read Russian ok. Ya Jabil poruski…I forgot most the Russian language. I am still having many Russian friends, who contact me regularly. May be I will visit Kiev once again…..
Thank you very much for taking me back into such wonderful nostalgic memories.
Raj kapoor’s … ‘Avaara hu..’ song, Rabindra nath Tagor’s … “Where the mind is without fear poem”…. Indian philosophical thoughts….
I also liked the present concept of theme of FQXi contest… I got a wonderful experience of going into thoughtful wisdom of multitude of thinkers… very nice!
I wish you Good luck....
Best Regards
Snp.gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 10:37 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,
Thank you for your insightful comment. You are absolutely right. For the successful development of fundamental science should be supported by several competing paradigms, including funding for research in different directions. Open contests of the FQXi promote competition of ideas, and this is very important. I wish you success in the Contest and the promotion of your theory.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
hide replies
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 20:43 GMT
Vladimir,
At first read it was great, well done. I found no concept or argument I could disagree with. I must say your use of language and 'holistic' style defeated speed reading though did convey the 'four centuries of wanderings'.
The problem remains; how do we overcome the problem! Flawed theory seems ever more deeply entrenched and our systems mean most editors and senior academics have negative motivation to change to allow advancement.
I offer one idea in terms of 'self evolution' of thinking methodology which I hope you may comment on.
I'll try to get back to yours to penetrate more deeply later.
Well done.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 20:58 GMT
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your insightful and inspiring comment. I began to read your essay.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 11:42 GMT
Vladimir
Glad you were inspired. My 2nd reading was easier, founded on the neural path laid by the first. I found some inspiration myself in the likes of;
'The physics of particles informs us, strictly speaking, on fundamental structures of the nature, but not on fundamental particles.' Which agrees with my identification of Maxwells 2nd momenta missed by Heisenberg. And;
'Real progress will consist in very serious fight of science with religion which will end with their integration'Thank you. I hope you do well in the contest and avoid the trolls still relying on the primeval thinking mode (I've exposed 2 so far).
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 12:11 GMT
Thank you very much, Peter, for kind comment and appreciation of my ideas and concepts. Today our ideas must be as crazy to build a seamless unified basis of fundamental science. I believe that fundamental science takes the maximum responsibility for the modern existential crisis. Vector our consciousness has to make a sharp turn to the life world.
Success in the contest!
With respect, Vladimir
Alexander M. Ilyanok wrote on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 15:55 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
As Abraham Lincoln said, "You can mislead some people permanently or for a while all the people, but you cannot fool all the people all the time ..."
I fully agree with your conclusions in essay
If we consider that it is the metaphysics shape public opinion through the media it is a real danger that an adequate conception of science, its methods and ways of existence in the public mind will be replaced by substitute of abnormal knowledge.
As stated by well-known philosopher of science Karl Popper, modern physics is characterized by crisis of understanding, the occurrence of which is related to: a) the penetration of subjectivism in physics; b) with the conviction that the quantum theory contains the complete and final truth.
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 18:51 GMT
Alexander and Tatiana,
Thank you for your comment and evaluation of my ideas. I believe that overcoming the crisis of understanding in basic science is possible only if the perceived support of various gnoseological paradigms. This crisis is a metaphysical crisis in its deepest essence, crisis knowledge foundations. Appropriate to recall here: «An educated people without a metaphysics is like a richly decorated temple without a holy of holies.» (G.W.F.Hegel)
Today, to select a right course is not only for fundamental science, and we need to understand ourselves ("hard problem of consciousness") and understand the Sun language, the language of the Cosmos (super hard problem of foundations of mathematics and knowledge in general).
Good luck!
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 22:44 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you for your gracious remarks on my page.
You begin,"
But how can we see the world in integrality, the world as whole?" and note that the ontological meta-paradigm, Universum as a whole, has been pushed into "philosophical backyards" of science. I agree that "
the physics of particles informs us, strictly speaking, on fundamental structures of the nature, but not on fundamental particles." Yes, the 'particles' are much more abstract than 50 years ago. This is extremely well stated and agrees with my observation that physicists have projected mathematical structures onto reality. Of course the great scientists were religious. They were not one-dimensional, merely focused on 'points' as convenient simplifying concepts, that facilitated applications of set theory, etc. This is probably as far away as one can get from the "
The Self-Aware Universe".
I always enjoy your essays, focused on the reality of consciousness versus the artifice of interpreting symbolic structures as reality.
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 10:22 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Thanks so much for your comment. I believe that in fundamental science (physics, mathematics, cosmology) have to work at the same time at least three paradigms: 1. A generalizing meta-paradigm: ontological (metaphysical) paradigm - "the world as a whole"; 2. Plus competing phenomenological (parametric) paradigms.
So, for each level of existence of the Universe. Physics "rested" against the nature of the fundamental constants, the nature of the "laws of nature", structure of space, the nature of time, information, consciousness. This is the metaphysical (ontological) problem, basification (justification) of knowledge. This problem can be solved only by a new metaphysics ("modified ontology"). The crisis of understanding is not only in basic science but also in philosophy.
Physicists, mathematicians and philosophers must now work together to "dig" deep the base of knowledge (framework, carcass, foundation). I think that here it is necessary to recall Hegel's philosophical metaphor: "An educated people without a metaphysics is like a richly decorated temple without a holy of holies." It just gives direction to solve the problem of construction the "The Self-Aware Universe".
Good luck in the Contest!
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 01:21 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
It is nice to see you in the fqxi contest again!
I share with you your concerns about the state of fundamental science; however, I am not sure that I would accept all your recipes to resolve the crisis. For instance, the idea of an “Ontological standard” sounds a bit scary for me, reminiscent of totalitarian schemes. You write, “What way should we choose for overcoming total crisis of understanding in fundamental science? It should be the way of metaphysical construction of new comprehensive model of ideality on the basis of the "modified ontology".” What could be a criterion of truth for such “models of ideality”? In general, I like your text for the bold questioning and anticipations, surrounded by very interesting citations. I am giving you one of my high scores.
Cheers,
Alexey Burov.
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 19:11 GMT
Dear Alexey,
I am also glad to see your essay in this contest!
Thank you very much for your comment. Today, physicists introduce hypotheses without philosophical foundation. These hypotheses can not be verified experimentally. In particular, the hypothesis of a "big bang", which has quite a lot of
opponents . Therefore, to overcome the "crisis of understanding, "crisis of interpretation and representation ", "trouble with physics" required ontological standard of basification (justification) on the basis of ontology ("modified ontology"), which establishes the common basis of knowledge (ontological framework, carcass, foundation) uniform for all levels of existence of the Universum. Here the key idea - the total dialectical ontological unification of the matter along the "vertical" of being. The criterion of truth for the new model of ideality - seeing language of nature, which speaks to us in the language of mathematics - "triangles, circles" (Galileo). Today is needed most profound dialectical ontological interpretation of the "triangle" (Plato's " heavenly triangle"), "circle", "point". Philosophy, "the mother of all sciences", helps to overcome the crisis in the knowledge and fear. You know it well, since you are looking for the deleted meanings of being.
I start reading your essay.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 20:34 GMT
Dear Vladimir, as I said, your "ontological standard" sounds like a totalitarian project. I think it would be good if you show how it might avoid this. Another problem I see in your approach is that I do not think that mental world can be adequately presented in the language of mathematics or similar objectivistic language.
Cheers,
AB.
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 11:15 GMT
Dear Alexey,
The ontological structure of being of the Universum as a whole can not be "totalitarian project". It may be only a "total project", based on the fact that
Tot / Θώθ - the god of wisdom and numeracy, the patron of sciences, scribes, holy books, calendar creator in ancient Egypt. But the hypothesis of "The Big Bang Theory" and the system of views on the Universum without any justification of the ontological structure of "beginning" - "totalitarian project".
I do not share the triune world to "worlds" as did Penrose and Popper. I entered the central category of the structure of the Universum - "the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory and presented the primordial structure of the Universum in the form of simple mathematical symbol. Each mathematical concept - object, which is used in the ontological construction - "point with germ of vector", "vector of absolute state of matter", "ontological heavenly triangle (Plato)"- has the deepest (limit, extreme) ontological interpretation. With this I decide two key science issues: super hard problem
of the basification (justification, substantiation, foundation) of mathematics (knowledge) and "hard problem of consciousness".
Cheers,
VR.
Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 12:20 GMT
Dear Vladimir ! You embarked with J.A.Wheeler's call for a physics of human consciousness and you introduced your hypothetical construct of ontological memory as being the cosmic matrix of consciousness. Advancing consciousness is,therefore, an extension of the ontological memory of the self; this can best be done by tuning in soulfully with the cosmic memory (the Logos or eternal vibration of perpetual re-creation); such a harmonic life style will lead to the onto-logical stage of absolute simultaneity which means that eternity is now.Take this a my reader response; cordially: stephen
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 12:46 GMT
Dear Stephen,
Many thanks for your deep comment and understanding. You give profound philosophical eidoses, concepts, and the way to overcome the total crisis of understandingin in the fundamental science and global society, deep existential crisis of humanity. Yes, we earthlings, have to make a sharp turn in the thinking. I think that mathematics and physics will be able to overcome the crisis. Sincerely, Vladimir
Stephen I. Ternyik replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 13:16 GMT
Yes, Vladimir ! We are in need of a natural science of humanity, with physics, sociology and maths as cornerstones; this edifice could be accompanied by a unitarian theological cosmology as J.A.Wheeler proposed. Cordially: stephen
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 14:49 GMT
You are absolutely right, Stephen! And philosophy, "the mother of all sciences", is to bind and embrace this solid foundation and framework of knowledge. We, humans must always bear in mind the philosophical covenant of J.A.Wheeler: “Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers”
Stephen I. Ternyik replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 15:15 GMT
AMEN, dear Vladimir ! If you got some time, look at Ovidus University of Constanta in Romania (Prof.C.T.Ciocan; you can look him up at Research Gate)) and their DIALOGO (Virtual) Conference Project. Best: stephen
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 15:47 GMT
Thank you very much Stephen, for deep dialogue! I will follow your recommendation. Cordially: Vladimir
hide replies
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 17:56 GMT
Dear Vladimir, You wrote a good philosophical the review in the style of the essay.
I've been looking for in philosophy, the answer to the question: "What is the matter?" and not found. The only thing she stubbornly repeated, matter exists in space and in time. At some point I suddenly realized that this is a false statement. It would be correct to say that matter creates space and time. I think it would be a great addition to your essay. I will give you a high ball, when i learn to do it accurately
Boris Dizhechko
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 18:24 GMT
Dear Boris,
Many thanks for your insightful comments. I agree: «It would be correct to say that matter creates space and time.» ... Our task is only to establish the ontological structure of matter, then, accordingly, the ontological structure of space (the ontological space) and its geometry, and then - the nature of time. I'm starting to read your essay with great interest.
Sincerely, Vladimir
James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 02:43 GMT
Vladimir,
Almost breathlessly packed with ideas and information, quoting philosophies of old that should replace a lot of current thinking. Physical things alone do not render understanding. "Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself."
"Mattersoul" truly brings the mindless math laws and "actual entities" together into goals giving meaning to life. That is really a difficult concept to bring together. I pondered for days trying and am not satisfied with my effort. You parade much thinking before the reader -- ideas that lend wisdom.
I like Whitehead's thought that the "actual world is a process which is the becoming of actual entities." Concrescence is profound in the human thought of the embryo coming together in a seemingly miraculous process of human birth.There is the "generation of individual urgent entities, each having absolute consciousness," and Florensky's "the more solid any system of thought is the more specific is determination of the space as the kernel of this system."
I make a similar metaphoric use of the human fetus and theories about the growth of the early universe modeled in similar amniotic fluid.
Hope you can check out my essay.
Regards,
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 11:07 GMT
Jim,
Many thanks for your insightful comments. Indeed, way out of the contemporary "crisis of understanding" in basic science give us an idea of the outstanding mathematician and philosopher Alfred Whitehead Norton and philosopher Pavel Florensky. Today we need a deeper look at the matter as the eternal process of generation of the material - ideal structures, as "nurse", "godmother" (Plato). Only then we will understand the "soul of matter", including "atom", will understand the direction and purpose of the process of generation of structures.
I enjoy getting to read your essay.
Regards,
Vladimir
James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 17:30 GMT
Vladimir,
Somewhat of a Renaissance Man and martyr to free thought, Florensky had many contributions.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 19:13 GMT
Yes, Jim, you are absolutely right. Pavel Florensky paid special attention to the morphology of the space-time of primitive cultures, Antiquity and the Middle Ages. I believe that the idea of "ProstranstvoPonimanie"/"SpaceUnderstanding" is one of the main ideas. It gives a "push" to the search for a new ontology of space.
December 10, 2013 in Sergiev Posad,
the memorial sign "Victims of the faith in Christ in the years of persecutions and repressions of the 20th century" was established by the Foundation of Pavel Florensky. The opening of the sign was timed to the memorable date - the 75th anniversary of the execution and martyrdom of Pavel Florensky. Yours faithfully, Vladimir
James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 20:29 GMT
Vladimir,
Thanks for checking out my essay. There are not very many forums to share our attempts to discover truth and meaning, and to air our own thrusts at truth. Do you have an interest in the mystery of dark matter as well? There are a number of theories paraded around, even in our cache of essays here. My speculation on anapole-like particles tried to ascribe special properties to interacting physical forces in creating dark matter. Don't know if it would bear up under more scrutiny or not, just speculation.
Any thoughts.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 10:59 GMT
Jim,
To overcome the crisis of understanding in the fundamental science needed a deeper look into matter, space, time. It is necessary to have a total dialectical-ontological unification of matter across all levels of the Universum's existence as holistic process of generating structures in the spirit of Plato: "nurse", " godmother" - matter is what generates all forms. This understanding of "matter" gives the opportunity to overcome the uncertainties in the foundations of physics. Today a need for a more profound global brainstorming. Vladimir
hide replies
Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 14:06 GMT
Hello Mr Rogozhin,
I enjoyed and liked a lot your essay and its deep meanings.We are all linked since the bengining of this physicality like babies in evolution towards this eternity.We create it ,this paradise :) THE SPHERE AND ITS SPHERES ......
All the best
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear Steve,
Thank you very much for your approving comment. Yes, once we earthlings left the "sphere". Now we must think deeply about the "ontological space" where there is a place for BEING and LOGOS. This is the dialectic of
"Philosphere" + "Noosphere". Our common goal is to find a way to them.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 09:56 GMT
You are welcome Mr Rogozhin,
I agree totally.The unification at all scales after all is a foundamental.We imrpove, optimise,continue the road of complexification of matter, mind, body soul.Like a general harmonious imrpovement.In this line of reasoning, the bad, the evil is purely dedicated to disappear in time space evolution.I beleive that God is near us with this gravitational aether...
view entire post
You are welcome Mr Rogozhin,
I agree totally.The unification at all scales after all is a foundamental.We imrpove, optimise,continue the road of complexification of matter, mind, body soul.Like a general harmonious imrpovement.In this line of reasoning, the bad, the evil is purely dedicated to disappear in time space evolution.I beleive that God is near us with this gravitational aether produced by the central cosmological singularity.The gravitational sphere produced by the cntral Sphere Inside the sphere.It is the meaning of my equation E=m(b)c²+m(nb)l² I have simply inserted this matter not baryonic cold the dzark matter with l their linear velocity.My second equation which must be irmpoved can show some proportions with the spherical volumes of motions.That is why th biggest BH produces the speedest spherons.Particles of gravitation.I consider that a photon is a spheron even coded by this cold gravity.Like our standard model at all scales encircled by this gravitation.I have so inserted quantum BHs withn forces stronger than our nuclear gluonic forces and also spherons encoded them with forces weakeer than electromagnetism and photons.It is paradoxal because this force is the weakest but the strongest also.Now the relevance is that we have a road towards this entire infinite entropy and that we can break our special relativity with spherons.A photon cannot, a spheron yes because a spheron is nor baryonic nor relativistic.Of course technologically speaking it becomes difficult to check it, this quantum gravitation.But it is possible, thjisz zero absolute and this gravity are more than we can imagine.We are still youngs.We utilise only at this moment the thermodynamical and electromagnetic technologies.We are at doors of a revolutionary sciences.We can do it :) check this gravitation and break c.Our personall quantum cnetral sphere, our singularities turn around this cosm singularity .....we are babies in evolution :) thanks for sharing your ideas
all the best from Belgium
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 10:16 GMT
Thank you, Steve for your insightful and interesting comment and explanation of your ideas. All the best! Vladimir
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 23:27 GMT
You are welcome,with pleasure Mr Rogozhin.
All the best from Belgium.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 23:42 GMT
Retruning about your thoughts.I ask me also how is it possible that we have this global state.It is a catastrophic global reality.The solutions exists;I don't understand why the world bank ONU G2O...do not liberate the funds for an industrialisation of our solar systems.The lobbies of oils,gas..shall utilise their products for this solar system and on earth they finace the harmonisation of ecosystems.We can give water,food,energy,jobs, hopes to all.It is now that it must be made, we are at doors of many chaotical exponetials.It does not lack nor matter, nor space, nor energy.It lacks a kind of real global universal governance respecting our universal laws and foundamentals.There it is a real global circus and we go all in the wall.Sad.The crisis are everywhere ,odd in fact.If it is a hidden camera, frankly I am suggesting to tell us it now.lol :)
Let's hope that this planet takes its responsabilities....It is a moral obligation this liberation of funds , all wins without exception all the 1987 governments...
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 10:17 GMT
Yes, Steve, we earthlings need a new clean energy. We need a new, holistic picture of the world. This must be done by the fundamental science along with the "mother of all sciences" - Philosophy. It's time to "collect the stones". Sincerely, Vladimir
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 10:56 GMT
Sorry I would say 197 governments,I write without rereading and too quickly.
I beleive the same ,it is time to collect indeed the stones and its foundamentals.The collective consciousness d say Jung is became an essential of harmonisation where altruism and universalism are torchs of truth.
If it is not made, we shall add many chaotical exponentials due to limits and umbers on this spherical volume the earth,this sphere turning around a sphere Inside the sphere.We must open our humanity, this earth to this universe.It is a new step of evolution.Homo sapiens sapiens universalensis :) is a better meaning.
ps the composting at big global scale and harmonisation of ecosystems and optimisation of interactions between anaimals and vegetals are foundamentals.Even for space, we need these foundamentals.The earth can be harmonised in respecting our entropical principle, we have this matter and ener'gy and gravitation at a paradoxal infinite in all.It is just how we utilise these fondamentals in a collective universal point of vue after all.The moral obligation is a foundamental also.It is perhaps time to unite the universalists of all countries before this chaos and disorders in the exponentials.It is now simply that it must be made this liberation of funds and universalisation spherisation of this sphere earth.We are youngs still but we evolve...like all in all.
Best from Belgium
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 11:22 GMT
Yes, Steve, we must all together overcome the crisis of understanding.And first of all in fundamental science.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 16:20 GMT
It could be made here on FQXI in explaining to governments that it is a moral obligation to find now the best adapted global universal solutions.They shall listen if we are strond and together with a kind of sciences commission against these chaos and disorders.It can be made this liberation of funds for this solar system and harmonisation of this planet where all wins without exception.
Hope that it will be made.
All the best from belgium
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 16:41 GMT
Yes, in the
contest FQXi -2014 there were a lot of ideas for a better future for Humanity and Nature. Yours faithfully, Vladimir
hide replies
James Arnold wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 15:28 GMT
Vladimir,
This is a brilliant exposition of classical philosophy. I can't disagree.
I would be fascinated to read your impression of a much different approach to the question in my paper "Quantum spontaneity and the development of consciousness."
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 16:29 GMT
James,
Thanks a lot for your comment and support. I start translating and reading your essay.
Sincerely, Vladimir
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 08:42 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
I enjoyed reading your thought-provoking essay. I like how you rely on some of the greatest thinkers of all times and also propose new ideas to address these problems.
Best regards,
Cristi Stoica
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 10:20 GMT
Dear Cristi,
Thank you very much for reading my essay and evaluating my ideas. All the best! Good luck in the Contest! Vladimir
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 13:31 GMT
Dear Vladimir - although I have a deep appreciation of music and the importance of religious feeling, and of course visual arts (since I am an artist), philosophy eluded me. I feel its importance the lure of a holistic all-encompassing meaning, or lack therof (as in certain modern philosophies). For all that I read every word of your essay and felt as if I was riding the raft in the poem, hearing the song of Yury Loza ( your reference 30) through an enchanted sea of words and ideas. I could grasp some concepts that are of basic importance in my own physiical model of the Universe such as points to vectors - the evolution of energy and matter in a space with no time dimension. As you know from my essay as a physicist I am wary of introducing the observer ie consciousness when formulating mechanistic physics. And as you and Max Planck show science complements religion (poetry, music ...) Thank you for reminding us there is a world beyond dry equations and materialistic effects and ideas
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 17:38 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you very much for your comment. Quite right, philosophy makes it possible to "grab" "a holistic all-encompassing meaning". The painter's view does the same and represents this integrity in all colors on the canvas. Science and art, science and philosophy - all together create a single eidos of the world as a whole, filled with the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E. Husserl). It's very cool that the FQXi Contests give an opportunity to conduct an interested dialogue on the fundamental questions of modern science.
Successes, Vladimir
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 22:21 GMT
Dear Vladimir I thank you for expanding my mind into the realm of philosophy
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 10:27 GMT
Indeed, without Philosophy, the "mother of all sciences", a crisis of understanding, "trouble with physics" can not be overcome. Physicists should always remember the philosophical covenants of A. Einstein: “At the present time, a physicist has to deal with philosophic problems to a much greater extent than physicists of the previous generations. Physicists forced to that the difficulties of their own science”, and J. A. Wheeler “Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers”. Any physical theory which claims to be a fundamental, must have "clear and distinct"(Descartes) ontological justification.Success in the Сontest and in creativity! Sincerely, Vladimir
Giovanni Prisinzano wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 10:02 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
I read with great pleasure your charming essay, which shows an extraordinary interest in philosophy and science. I especially liked the references to Heraclitus, great pillar of the history of thought, whose fragments continue to stimulate my thinking and the human one in general. But I also particularly appreciated your remarks about Husserl, Whitehead, and Pavel Florensky, thinkers who have moved on the ridge between mathematics and philosophy and have expressed deep considerations on their relationships. It is regrettable that Florensky is not known and read as it deserves in some western countries! I also consider attractive your holistic approach to reality. I am very attracted by that view, but unfortunately I doubt that it is scientifically provable.
A relative limit of your essay is, in my humble opinion, that there is a difference between the first and the second part. The first is more structured and argued, while the last pages are more sketchy, perhaps because you talk about too many things together and you have to limit yourself to simple hints, to stay within the bounds of the contest rules. However, it is a fine contribution and a good read, for which I thank you!
Kind regards and my best wishes for all,
Giovanni
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 11:30 GMT
Dear Giovanni,
Thank you very much for your in-depth comprehensive commentary. The second part of my essay was done in abbreviated form, to enable the reader to carry out independently the ontological construction of the structure of the Universum generating process. I described in more detail the methodology of the ontological construction in the essay
"The Formula of Justice: The OntoTopological Basis of Physica and Mathematica" (Contest FQXi 2015).
In the final part of the essay, I presented concisely all my ideas on the problems of philosophy of consciousness, ontology, philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of physics. I consider the solution of the problem of ontological basification (foundation / justification ) of mathematics as the key problem for the whole system of fundamental knowledge, for overcoming the modern crisis of understanding.
Your comment is very valuable to me also because you are deeply interested in the problems of the philosophy of mathematics.
I wish success in the Contest!
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 22:09 GMT
Vladimir,
I wish this was not a contest, but a group project. You seem to be working around and near a core idea, but not fully there. I can now see that I was trying to find the same core, but from a very different direction. Perhaps together the sum would have been greater than the parts. Your breath of knowledge is remarkable and your writing is beautiful.
I hope you do well in the contest.
Sincerely,
Jeff
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 10:28 GMT
Jeff,
Many thanks for the insightful and inspirational thought. I agree with you. I call this project for science - "global brainstorming". Brainstorming on collecting ideas to overcome the crisis in the foundations of "fundamental knowledge." The "arrow of knowledge" should be directed to the search for the "core of knowledge", its ontological structure. I see this as problem number 1 - the super hard problem of the ontological basification of mathematics (knowledge).
Sincerely,
Vladimir
Jurandyr Arone Maues wrote on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 23:52 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
A deep and embracing paper about the subject.
Jurandyr
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 09:02 GMT
Thank you very much, dear Jurandyr!
Sincerely, Vladimir
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 13:58 GMT
Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,
With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of high praise.
You very correctly put questions and answer them.
«What way should we choose for overcoming total crisis of understanding in fundamental science? It should be the way of metaphysical construction of new comprehensive model of ideality on the basis of the modified...
view entire post
Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,
With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of high praise.
You very correctly put questions and answer them.
«What way should we choose for overcoming total crisis of understanding in fundamental science? It should be the way of metaphysical construction of new comprehensive model of ideality on the basis of the modified ontology.»
«the understanding of world and worldview is the solution of the problem of ontological structure of space and creation of new model of basic ideality ("idea of ideas", "eidos of eidoses") establishing ontological framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge.»Great work.
However, you have considered only one side of ideality -
"idea of ideas", "eidos of eidoses". The second concept of ideality interests me most: the ontology of "the use of ideal and abstract properties of matter and fields," which is used, for example, to simplify physical models.
The whole experience of mankind shows that there are no analogues for ideal and abstract properties of matter and fields, except for supernatural properties.
Vladimir Voevodsky:
«What we call crisis of the Russian science now isn't crisis only of the Russian science. There is a crisis of world science. Real progress will consist in very serious fight of science with religion which will end with their integration.»In my opinion, it is the widespread use of ideal and abstract properties of matter and fields, assuming their realizability in the universe, is a key mistake and the cause of the crisis in science.
The whole experience of mankind shows that there are no analogues for ideal and abstract properties of matter and fields, except for supernatural properties.
Werner Heisenberg wrote:
«The physics of particles informs us, strictly speaking, on fundamental structures of the nature, but not on fundamental particles. These structures are much more abstract, than it seemed 50 years ago.» For example, problems in quantum mechanics associated with the use of ideal and abstract properties of the medium of propagation of light (empty space) that lead to the collapse of the wave function and singularity are known. As a consequence, false tasks are set for the development of normalizations and calibrations. All this leads to, in practice, fruitless attempts to answer the question about the causes of self-organization of matter.
The introduction of nonlinear transformation of elements in the medium of a physical vacuum and a dissipative function leads to the use of the Mathieu causal equations for quantum parametric resonance and solitons, instead of causeless Schrödinger equations. The process of self-organization of matter are carried out according to the principles of the heat pump in parametric resonance and solitons, is a direct and simple answer to the questions of this contest.
And how do you think, how relevant is the individual philosophical theme for the second part of the interpretation of ideality?
I wish you success in the contest.
Kind regards,
Vladimir Fedorov
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 15:07 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Many thanks for a deep and important comment.
In my understanding, "Ideality" as an ontological foundation of fundamental physics is the ultimate (extreme, absolute) forms of existence of matter (absolute states): absolute rest (linear state, Сontinuum) + absolute motion (vortex state, Discretum) + absolute formation (wave state, Dis-Continuum). "Ideality" is that ultimate value to which the matter is directed, pushed by the "soul of matter" - the ontological (structural) memory (entelechy). Those. "Ideality" inside matter and outside matter, its ultimate goal. It is possible to imagine: ideality "holds" (embraces) and directs the development of matter from two strings. The concept of "field" appears as a generalizing concept of all three limiting states of matter.
I am sure that the reason for understanding the crisis in fudamentalnoy science - it is a crisis of ontology and dialectics. There is a need for a deeper understanding of matter in the spirit of dialectics and ontology of Plato, and ultimately in "grasping" (understanding) the ontological (primordial) structure, and thus understanding "the self-organization of matter".
Any physical theory that claims to be fundamental must have a solid ontological foundation. When creating a "fundamental theory", the "Occam's razor" should be extremely sharp. The current crisis is a conceptual crisis and its overcoming requires the introduction of not only new concepts - attractors, but also a radical revision and refinement of old concepts. Several fundamenoseological paradigms should work in fundamental physics, but the ontological basis must be one.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 17:05 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
I thank you for a great piece of philosophical work !
Indeed the fundamental structures of our reality are all a question mark.
We all are looking for the reference of reference but we cannot find any secure point in time or space, it is only the "self" nd even that is difficult to explain.
I also tried in my participation to find this reference, the thing I found is maybe a direction towards and then I realised that also this road is hyperbolicly approaching this goal,, and wherever you are the distance seems still as great as in the beginning.
I hope that after reading this little intro you will find some time to read
my essay "The Purpose of Life", I await your esteemed comment and rating.
best regards
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 18:06 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,
Thank you very much for reading my essay and meaningful evaluation. Yes, you are well expressed the thought and purpose of our quest to overcome the "understanding of the crisis," "interpretation of the crisis and of representation" in the "fundamental science»: "...any secure point in time or space, it is only the"self" nd even that is difficult to explain."
I believe that there can only help the extremely constructive metaphysics:"An educated people without a metaphysics is like a richly decorated temple without a holy of holies." (G.W.F.Hegel)
I immediately begin reading your essay.
Best regards
Vladimir
Michael Alexeevich Popov wrote on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 12:44 GMT
Vladimir,
Probably I understand your attitude to analytical Anglo - American tradition of philosophy of physics, however, "Hegel's Self - Consciousness as a goal" in some sense is analytic judgment. Unfortunately, Hegel was not able to create Kant's dream - Pure Metaphysics. Kant transcendental idealism and post - Kantian attempts ( Poincare, Einstein, quantum theorists, Gödel, Eddington, Milne, Bronstein, John Bell and today's holography theorists ) could be understood as attempts to establish idealistic foundations of physics. When physicists assume an existence of the first particle of the Universe they must assume an existence of mathematical rules for such particle deduced from some general metaphysics or MetaLife/Kant's Органон which existed always.
Thus, metaphysics is metaphysics, but physics is merely physics. Because there is well established compatibility of Kantian idealism and contemporary physics , awareness of Kantian "unconscious" foundations represents may be the most productive way to physics unification.
С самыми наилучшими пожеланиями
Michael
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 14:01 GMT
Michael,
Thank you very much for your very important comment. I believe that today, for mathematics and physics, the problems of the philosophical foundations of "fundamental knowledge" have become extremely acute, especially for
mathematics - "queen and maids of science". And here there are questions to philosophy itself, first of all ontology. The crisis of the foundations of knowledge pushes the need to deepen the ideas of both Kant and Hegel along the line of "conceptual-figural" synthesis ("schematism") with the goal of "grasping" ("осознание", "узревание") the eidos of the structure "a priori." Logos and Eidos should work together at the deepest essential level, taking into account all the accumulated knowledge.
С самыми наилучшими пожеланиями,
Vladimir
Vladimir Rodin wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 21:52 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
I've read and analysed your essay some time ago. I consider that it's very worthy and deep work deserving high assessment. Your conclusion concerning the crisis in fundamental science "It should be the way of metaphysical construction of new comprehensive model of ideality on the basis of the modified ontology" is rather topical and very important.
My best regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 09:21 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you very much for your comments and appreciation of my ideas. The Contest FQXi is first of all new ideas, it is a global open brainstorm on contemporary fundamental issues and problems of Science and Humanity, the solution of which will help the more sustainable development of the system "Nature-Mankind". We, earthlings, see that this system is in a deep existential crisis, the origins of which are in the crisis of understanding in the fundamental science.
Best regards,
Vladimir
George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 11:18 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
I am really impressed with your "method of ontological construction" as well with the idea of "ontological (structural, cosmic) memory." Indeed, a new deeper ontology is needed in order to overcome the "crisis of understanding." I think you are very right on this dealt. So, I see your essay as a high - valuable in this contest that deserves to high rating.
Good wishes!
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 11:46 GMT
Many thanks, George! Good wishes!
Robert Groess wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 04:20 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you for your favorable comments and for your time in rating my essay about a week ago, where we discussed ontological memory in greater detail. I have enjoyed reading your essay too and would like to thank you for your detailed prose and thought provoking work. It is impressive how densely packed with meaning your sentences are. I wanted to let you know that I have in the meantime likewise returned your favor and have rated your contribution as well.
Regards,
Robert
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 10:30 GMT
Dear Robert,
Thank you very much for comment and evaluation of my ideas. I wish you creative success, and also in the Contest.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
Steven Andresen wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 05:02 GMT
Dear Vladimir
I very much enjoyed reading your essay. You have written very thoughtfully on the frontier and limits of scientific understanding, and where it bumps up against a metaphysical understanding of the world, for which we are in dire need of progressing.
Your suggestion that the fractured nature of our universal awareness is in part responsible for the disunity of human global societal affairs, is very interesting and thought provoking. And then you deliver the message that a complete metaphysical understanding of the natural world, will contribute greatly towards bringing peoples together. This is an extremely positive message and one that makes me want to be a contributor towards.
You have introduced me to poetic and philosophical ideas which I have not otherwise discovered. Thank you for opening my mind to new ideas and positive possibilities. I rate your opinions and work highly.
Steven Andresen
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2890
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 10:35 GMT
Dear Steven,
Thank you very much for comment and evaluation of my ideas. I wish you creative success, and also in the Contest.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
basudeba mishra wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 04:28 GMT
Dear Sir,
There is some confusion about Heisenberg’s postulate. When Heisenberg proposed his conjecture in 1927, Earle Kennard independently derived a different formulation, which was later generalized by Howard Robertson as: σ(q)σ(p) ≥ h/4π. This inequality says that one cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a certain limit...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
There is some confusion about Heisenberg’s postulate. When Heisenberg proposed his conjecture in 1927, Earle Kennard independently derived a different formulation, which was later generalized by Howard Robertson as: σ(q)σ(p) ≥ h/4π. This inequality says that one cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a certain limit simultaneously. The fluctuation exists regardless of whether it is measured or not implying the existence of a universal field. The inequality does not say anything about what happens when a measurement is performed. Kennard’s formulation is therefore totally different from Heisenberg’s. However, because of the similarities in format and terminology of the two inequalities, most physicists have assumed that both formulations describe virtually the same phenomenon. Modern physicists actually use Kennard’s formulation in everyday research but mistakenly call it Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. “Spontaneous” creation and annihilation of virtual particles in vacuum is possible only in Kennard’s formulation and not in Heisenberg’s formulation, as otherwise it would violate conservation laws. If it were violated experimentally, the whole of quantum mechanics would break down.
The uncertainty relation of Heisenberg was reformulated in terms of standard deviations, where the focus was exclusively on the indeterminacy of predictions, whereas the unavoidable disturbance in measurement process had been ignored. A correct formulation of the error–disturbance uncertainty relation, taking the perturbation into account, was essential for a deeper understanding of the uncertainty principle. In 2003 Masanao Ozawa developed the following formulation of the error and disturbance as well as fluctuations by directly measuring errors and disturbances in the observation of spin components: ε(q)η(p) + σ(q)η(p) + σ(p)ε(q) ≥ h/4π.
Ozawa’s inequality suggests that suppression of fluctuations is not the only way to reduce error, but it can be achieved by allowing a system to have larger fluctuations. Nature Physics (2012) (doi:10.1038/nphys2194) describes a neutron-optical experiment that records the error of a spin-component measurement as well as the disturbance caused on another spin-component. The results confirm that both error and disturbance obey the new relation but violate the old one in a wide range of experimental parameters. Even when either the source of error or disturbance is held to nearly zero, the other remains finite. Our description of uncertainty follows this revised formulation.
Mathematics is related to the result of measurement. Measurement is a conscious process of comparison between two similar quantities, one of which is called the scaling constant (unit). The cognition part induces the action leading to comparison, the reaction of which is again cognized as information. There is a threshold limit for such cognition. Hence Nature is mathematical in some perceptible ways. This has been proved by the German physiologist Mr. Ernst Heinrich Weber, who measured human response to various physical stimuli. Carrying out experiments with lifting increasing weights, he devised the formula: ds = k (dW / W), where ds is the threshold increase in response (the smallest increase still discernible), dW the corresponding increase in weight, W the weight already present and k the proportionality constant. This has been developed as the Weber-Fechner law. This shows that the conscious response follows a somewhat logarithmic law. This has been successfully applied to a wide range of physiological responses.
Measurement is not the action of putting a scale to a rod, which is a mechanical action. Measurement is a conscious process of reaching an inference based on the action of comparison of something with an appropriate unit at “here-now”. The readings of a particular aspect, which indicate a specific state of the object at a designated instant, (out of an infinite set of temporally evolving states), is frozen for use at other times and is known as the “result of measurement”. The states relating to that aspect at all “other times”, which cannot be measured; hence remain unknown, are clubbed together and are collectively referred to as the “superposition of states” (we call it adhyaasa). This concept has not only been misunderstood, but also unnecessarily glamorized and made incomprehensible in the “undead” Schrödinger’s cat and other examples. The normal time evolution of the cat (its existential aspect) and the effect of its exposure to poisonous gas (the operational aspect) are two different unrelated aspects of its history. Yet these unrelated aspects have been coupled to bring in a state of coupled-superposition (we call it aadhyaasika taadaatmya), which is mathematically, physically and conceptually void.
Mathematics is related to accumulation and reduction of numbers. Since measurements are comparison between similar quantities, mathematics is possible only between similars (linear) or partly similars (non-linear) but never between the dissimilars. We cannot add or multiply 3 protons and 3 neutrons. They can be added only by taking their common property of mass to give mass number. These accumulation and reduction of numbers are expressed as the result of measurement after comparison with a scaling constant (standard unit) having similar characteristics (such as length compared with unit length, area with unit area, volume with unit volume, density with unit density, interval with unit interval, etc). The results of measurements are always pure numbers, i.e., scalar quantities, because the dimensions of the scaling constants are same for both the measuring device and the object being measured and measurement is only the operation of scaling up or down the unit for an appropriate number of times. Thus, mathematics explains only “how much” one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not “what”, “why”, “when”, “where”, or “with whom” about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics. We will show repeatedly that in modern physics there is a mismatch and mix-up between the data, the mathematics and the physical theory.
Quantum physics implied that physical quantities usually have no values until they are observed. Therefore, the observer must be intrinsically involved in the physics being observed. This has been wrongly interpreted to mean that there might be no real world in the absence of an observer! When we measure a particular quantity, we come up with a specific value. This value is “known” only after the conscious or sentient content is added to the measurement. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that when we do not measure or perceive, we do not “know” the value – there is no operation of the conscious or sentient content is inert - and not that the quantity does not have any existential value. Here the failure of the physicists to find the correct “mathematics” to support their “theory” has been put forth as a pretext for denying reality. Mathematics is an expression of Nature, not its sole language. Though observer has a central role in Quantum theories, its true nature and mechanism has eluded the scientists. There cannot be an equation to describe the observer, the glory of the rising sun, the grandeur of the towering mountain, the numbing expanse of the night sky, the enchanting fragrance of the wild flower or the endearing smile on the lips of the beloved. It is not the same as any physical or chemical reaction or curvature of lips.
We thoroughly enjoyed your essay. It is as usual refreshing.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 10:43 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
Thank you very much for your wonderful comment. I suppose that the problem of the ontological basification (foundation / justification ) of mathematics (knowledge) today is the problem №1 for fundamental knowledge and philosophy, taking into account all the "troubles with physics"(Lee Smolin," The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next") and "loss of certainty" (Morris Kline in "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty"). A good idea of Alexander Zenkin for choosing a way to overcome the crisis of knowledge:
«the truth should be drawn…» The modern crisis of understanding in the foundations of knowledge is a deep metaphysical crisis - a comprehensive crisis of ontology, gnosecology, axiology, dialectics. The world picture of physicists, mathematicians,
poets and
musicians should be united and filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).
First of all, the fundamental science is responsible for the preservation of life on Mother Earth - our
Common Space Home , the selection of our joint way to the future. Therefore, in order to overcome the crisis of understanding, it is very important to purposefully support various epistemological paradigms and to introduce the Ontological standard of substantiation of fundamental theories.
Sincerely, Vladimir
Gavin William Rowland wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 10:07 GMT
Dear Vladimir
I very much enjoyed your paper. Especially the opening quote and the suggestion that we are facing a crisis of metaphysical understanding. The problem can only become more acute . I think we will get to the stage where all major avenues of inquiry have come to points where economics won't permit larger colliders/telescopes etc. At the same time we will be facing a developing crisis of global climate change and sea level rise.
I think my metaphysical scheme will be of interest to you. I encourage you to read my paper.
Best regards
Gavin
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 11:31 GMT
Dear Gavin,
Many thanks for your comment and understanding of my conception of ontology and dialectics of the primordial beginning of the Universum. I began reading your essay with great interest.
Sincerely, Vladimir
George Kirakosyan wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 05:47 GMT
Dear Vladimir (on your post in my page)
I will answer simply as your question is – yes, my dear! I have solved this problem. The matter is however, that the market management does not need to see this; they have preferred to see how people beating by their heads on the wall… Regarding on this I can suggest you rereading the “Gulliver's Travels” of amazing English classic’s Jonathan Swift, - namely, the chapter devoted to “Grand Academy of Lagado.” I think our present situation somewhat close to this.
Thanks for attention and Best wishes to you!
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 11:22 GMT
Yes, George, fairy tales should be read more often, especially carefully "Gulliver's Travels". Travel and wandering make it possible to "grasp" (understand) the structure of space. Павел Флоренский: "Повторяем: миропонимание - пространствопонимание" But in order to overcome the crisis of understanding in the foundations of knowledge, one must work with several epistemological paradigms.Warmest wishes. Vladimir
Christian Corda wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 09:41 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Once again, you released a remarkable contribution in FQXi Essay Contest. In fact, I find your Essay intriguing and a bit provocative (I strongly appreciate "thinking outside the box"). In particular, the issue of coincidentia oppositirum has always fascinated me. I had a lot of fun in reading your nice Essay, thus, I will pleasured to give you the highest score. Congrats and good luck in the Contest.
Cheers, Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 10:42 GMT
Dear Christian,
Thank you very much for your encouraging comment and support for my extremely crazy ideas. I believe that the Information Age poses the deepest metaphysical questions before fundamental science and humanity that did not exist in the last century. All Contests FQXi aimed at finding solutions to these fundamental questions. Many thanks to the FQXi for these global open Contests!
Best wishes, Vladimir
Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 11:07 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thanks for another impressive essay.
I strongly agree with you that we have a deep being-knowledge-values and ethics crisis in the world: “It is not only crisis of mathematics and physics but also a general crisis of philosophy - "mother of all sciences". It is deep onto-gnoseo-axiological crisis, crisis of knowledge basis which is transformed to comprehensive existential crisis when the question of existence of Humanity and all live on Earth has become extremely aggravated.”
It is important to know what is the “the law, meaning, basis and structure of a thing”. If we understand that Logos, the "reason which governs the Universe", “doesn't exist separately from things, it is present in everything”, then we wouldn’t see the universe as mindless and meaningless.
Best regards,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 11:22 GMT
Dear Lorraine,
Many thanks for your encouraging comment in support of my ideas.
Best regards,
Vladimir
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.