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

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (7 not shown)

hide replies

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

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