CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
Crisis of Fundamentality → Physics, Forward → Into Metaphysics → The Ontological Basis of Knowledge: Framework, Carcass, Foundation by Vladimir I. Rogozhin
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 21:07 GMT
Essay AbstractThe modern crisis of the philosophical foundations of Fundamental Science is manifested as a comprehensive conceptual crisis, crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation, crisis of methodology, loss of certainty. Fundamental Science "rested" on the understanding of matter, space, nature of the "laws of nature", fundamental constants, number, time, information, consciousness. The question "What is fundametal?" pushes the mind to other questions → Is Fundamental Science fundamental? → What is the most fundamental in the Universum?.. Physics, do not be afraid of Metaphysics! Levels of fundamentality. The problem №1 of Fundamental Science is the ontological justification (basification) of mathematics (knowledge). To understand is to "grasp" Structure ("La Structure mère"). Key ontological ideas for emerging from the crisis of understanding: total unification of matter across all levels of the Universum, one ontological superaxiom, one ontological superprinciple. The ontological construction method of the knowledge basis (framework, carcass, foundation). The triune (absolute, ontological) space of eternal generation of new structures and meanings. Super concept of the scientific world picture of the Information era - Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory as "soul of matter", measure of the Universum being as the holistic generating process. The result of the ontological construction of the knowledge basis: primordial (absolute) generating structure is the most fundamental in the Universum.
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
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 01:52 GMT
Vladimir,
The ontology, the metaphysics is how we get to the fundamental.
My essay deals essentially with what exists by itself; substance and cause...
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 10:40 GMT
Hello Marcel,
Many thanks for the comment and rating. I'm starting to read your essay.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 21:49 GMT
Hi Vladimir,
This is a theme for you. Nice essay 9.
Regards
Branko
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 10:55 GMT
Hi Branko,
Thank you for reading my essay and rating. But I believe that this theme is also important for you: what is the nature of the "fundamental constants"?
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
BASILEIOS GRISPOS wrote on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 13:17 GMT
Hi Vladimir
Nice essay, your way of thinking is something new for me and I found it very interesting. I think metaphysics and cosmology is the only way to approach not only Fundamentals but many more concepts of reality.
Best Regards
Vasilis Grispos
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 14:25 GMT
Hi Vasilis,
Many thanks for commenting and evaluating my ideas.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 14:31 GMT
Very good composition on the crisis of science fundamentals. Opens the gate to spiritual physics, the soul of matter, i.e. the meta-physical interplay of matter and living matter. The concept of 'initial vibration' (Memra) can be translated scientifically and fundamentally into a new ontological foundation of research methodology.
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 18:34 GMT
Thank you very much, Stephen, for your profound comment and appreciation of my ideas. Indeed, the information age is pushing physics to new concepts, to a new understanding of matter and its ontological structure.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 20:04 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
I enjoyed reading your essay. You made a deep analysis of the components of modern crisis in the philosophical foundations of Fundamental Science, and of the limits that may even be in principle. It is thoroughly documented and full of interesting ideas. Good luck with the contest!
Best wishes,
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 20:22 GMT
Thank you very much, Cristi! I wish you success!
Best wishes,
Vladimir
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 20:16 GMT
Dear Dr Vladimir I. Rogozhin,
You wrote: “What is the most fundamental in the Universum?”
I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 20:44 GMT
Dear Joe,
Thank you for reading my essay and comment. I will read your essay in the near future.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 14:18 GMT
Vladimir,
Excellent analysis of the problems, brilliantly expressed, right on topic and with some interesting thoughts from philosophy. You know we share much, both quoted Popper, and my work & essay is founded on ontological justification and key points you identify, including; "The history of physics shows that progress in natural science requires a new level of methodology." that...
view entire post
Vladimir,
Excellent analysis of the problems, brilliantly expressed, right on topic and with some interesting thoughts from philosophy. You know we share much, both quoted Popper, and my work & essay is founded on ontological justification and key points you identify, including;
"The history of physics shows that progress in natural science requires a new level of methodology." that "Most of the theories developed do not introduce any new ontology.".
And on maths;
"..arithmetization of geometry, as it were, leads to the emasculation of its meaning." 'Mathematics is used in physics only as a method of evaluation, and not as a method of precise calculations. The outcome of this process is neither accuracy, nor understanding," also; 'Mathematicians no longer care about understanding, nature or each other.' and;
"the problem of the justification (basification) of mathematics is not understood in the conceptual plan and all programs are inadequate."I certainly agree we need to aim for Cartans;
"one axiom, one principle and one material ..point with a vector germ". and work from;
"Bodies and forces (as) simply shapes & variations in in the structure of space.As you've seen, I've shown the veracity in those concepts as they lead to what looks like a classical QM compatible with 'SR'. Declan Trails prrof may be mainly maths but closely matches the ontology in mine & my papers he references (most of my essay was the ontology & experimental analysis). You may not be a QM specialist but if you do perceive any flaws in mine I'd appreciate your comment.
No such flaws in yours, but just one question; Rather more Nature than Maths but I found;
"to construct the model of regular process which does not dwell and always lead to something new and new" valid in my ontology. How would a 'sythetic' method be simpler and 'more fundamental?'
Best wishes very well written & top marks.
Best of luck in the contest.
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 14:36 GMT
Many thanks, Peter, for your deep and detailed commentary, support of my ideas. Regarding the method, I believe that it can only be "method of the ontological construction" and more specifically - "method of the dialectic-ontological constructuon".
Best of luck in the contest.
Vladimir
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 23:13 GMT
Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,
As always, I very much enjoyed your essay. I like your Katznelson quote:
"
I think our understanding of the world around us is in some sense definitive, it does not depend on a possible future understanding of some deeper levels."
Amen! I also appreciate Husserl's observation that
"…
the replacement of true being by the world of mathematized theories began with the arithmetization of geometry."
Indeed! And again: "
following Plato, Schrödinger singled out the notion of "unified" as the most important." In my essay I review
the unified nature of time as universal simultaneity and Einstein's fracturing of this unity with the "
relativity of simultaneity".
Vladimir, you ask "
how will mathematics be able to "close" physics if mathematics remains science without ontological justification?" In my essay I point out the lack of ontological justification for Einstein to mathematically project a new time dimension on every moving object, in essence making each object a "real world", i.e., a
copy of the one real world we experience.
Einstein postulated two "real worlds" of time and space subject to Newton's laws of inertia, measured by 'perfect' clocks, and he derived the Lorentz transformation between these
two real worlds without considering energy. The resultant space-time symmetry leads to non-intuitive nonsense and paradoxes. I show [reference 12] that it is possible to derive the Lorentz transformation in
one real world [inertial reference frame] by taking into account the energy of the moving object, moving in the same universal time dimension. This energy-time approach is compatible with the relativistic particle physics of the twentieth century without the non-intuitive nonsense that derives from space-time symmetry.
I hope you will enjoy my essay and will comment on it.
My very best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 10:00 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Thank you very much for your deep and valuable comment. I start translating and reading your essay and immediately make my comment.
With respect and best wishes,
Vladimir
Flavio Del Santo wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 18:19 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
congratulation for a very nice essay that I enjoyed very much reading.
My essay has very deep connections with yours, putting (methaphysical) postpositivistic methedology at the core of foundamental research in modern science. I hope you will read it and we can maybe discuss similitudes and differences in our thoughts.
Meanwhile I will rate you with a high grade.
Best of luck!
Flavio
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 19:00 GMT
Dear Flavio,
Thank you very much for your kind words and support. I'm starting to do the translation and read your essay to give a comment.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 13:53 GMT
Dear Dr. Rogozhin,
You address many topics in your essay, but I noticed in particular your line:
“The foundation of modern physics is split. Two fundamental theories, the general theory of relativity and quantum field theory are not compatible ideologically, logically and mathematically”
You might be interested in my essay,
“Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”. I propose that a set of slight modifications from classical physics can give rise to a consistent unified realistic physical picture on all scales. There are no point particles or gravitational singularities; abstract spacetime and Hilbert space are mathematical artifacts. Electrons are distributed real wave packets without entanglement. Space and time are distinct, and are defined by frequency and wavelength of these real waves, which can shift in a gravitational potential. This gives rise to the phenomena associated with general relativity and quantum mechanics, without requiring separate mathematical formalisms.
This is not merely a philosophical argument. There is a newly developing technology, quantum computing, which depends critically on entanglement for its computational power. Without entanglement, quantum computing will not work. There are billions of dollars being invested in this, and I expect an answer within 5 years. But when I have tried to discuss this with active participants in the field, they react as if I am killing the goose that is laying the golden eggs. No one wants to hear such a negative story, including funding agents. My prediction is that the failure of quantum computing will lead to a reassessment of the entire foundations of quantum mechanics.
Alan Kadin
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 14:09 GMT
Dear Alan,
Thank you very much for your very important commentary for understanding the whole problem of fundamentality in natural science. "The trouble with physics" (Lee Smolin) push to need radical restructuring of the philosophical foundations of science. I immediately begin translating and reading your essay.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
DIOGENES AYBAR wrote on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 15:19 GMT
Dear Vladimir;
I enjoyed reading your essay. You went straight to the point. The root of the crisis is the lack of recognition in the physical sciences of the need to have an ontological foundation for all theories and fundamental concepts and axioms on which those theories are founded. As you said: To overcome the crisis of fundamentality means to achieve "ontological bottom" and build its...
view entire post
Dear Vladimir;
I enjoyed reading your essay. You went straight to the point. The root of the crisis is the lack of recognition in the physical sciences of the need to have an ontological foundation for all theories and fundamental concepts and axioms on which those theories are founded. As you said: To overcome the crisis of fundamentality means to achieve "ontological bottom" and build its structure.
I concur with you when you say “One of the main causes of the modern crisis in Fundamental Science is the domination of epistemic fundamentality and a disparaging attitude toward metaphysics, ontology”. This is part of the critique I make in my essay.
I fully agree with your conclusion
“… that the basic physical theories do not have ontological fundamentality. They are not built on a strong ontological basis and are phenomenological theories without ontological justification. The foundation on which they are built is not solid, their ontological structure (ontological basis) is not clarified. The ontological basis must be the same for all fundamental theories for all levels of the Universum existence”.
Perhaps without realizing it, physicists are trapped in a neopositivism. And “It is necessary to overcome fenomenologizm in the systemic approach that prevails today in modern science”.
The solution of the problems of modern Fundamental Physics requires the creation of a deeper ontology that encompasses all levels of the Universe as a holistic generating process. This solution is what I try to introduce in my essay. There I start by establishing the general concept of “Fundamental”. Then I summarize an epistemological critique of the practice of theoretical science, where it is demonstrated the inadequacy of the ways science constructs the fundamental concepts for studying the fine grain of reality. Afterward I propose an expansion of the scope of physical science to include the aspects of reality that cannot be observed directly or indirectly. Then I discusses the concepts of SPACE, DISTANCE,TIME, INERTIA, MASS AND ELECTRIC CHARGE, and develop new concepts for each of these scientific parameters; redefining them in ways that allows the determination of whether or not they could be categorized as Fundamental
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 18:41 GMT
Dear Diogenes,
Thank you very much for your deep, discerning commentary and assessment of my ideas on overcoming the crisis of fundamentality in natural scientific knowledge. I'm happy to start reading your essay to make a comment.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Francesco D'Isa wrote on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 18:32 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
thank you for sharing your ideas, it was a pleasure to read your interesting essay – and to find quotes from such a great author as Florensky. Your brief history of the problem was very well done indeed.
I was a little confused in the end, when you state:
> the method of ontological construction of the primordial generating structure of the Universum as holistic process brings to uniform ontological (onto- gnoseo- axiological) basis of knowledge: the ontological framework (the absolute forms of existence of matter), represented in the "logos", general logic and "laws of nature", the ontological carcass (the ontological, absolute system of coordinates of Nature) and the ontological core - foundation of being and knowledge - Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory.
What's the primordial generating structure that you believe is fundamental?
Bests and thank you again,
Francesco
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 10:00 GMT
Dear Francesco,
Thank you very much for reading my essay, comment and question.
Mathematics, Physics, Ontology and Dialectics work together to "grasp" (construct) the most fundamental in nature. We continue to follow the main road: unification + geometrization.
At the first stage of the ontological (dialectical-ontological) construction of the knowledge basis (= primordial...
view entire post
Dear Francesco,
Thank you very much for reading my essay, comment and question.
Mathematics, Physics, Ontology and Dialectics work together to "grasp" (construct) the most fundamental in nature. We continue to follow the main road: unification + geometrization.
At the first stage of the ontological (dialectical-ontological) construction of the knowledge basis (= primordial generative structure), we carry out a dialectical-ontological unification of matter across all levels of the Universe's existence as a holistic process of generating new structures and meanings.
Matter is understood in the spirit of Plato: this is what all forms are born of. The main thing here is the idea of generation.
Three limiting (absolute, unconditional, extreme) forms of existence of matter (absolute states): absolute rest (linear state = Continuum) + absolute motion (vortex state = Discreteum) + absolute becoming (wave state = DisContinuum). Physics threw out the "absolute rest of matter" from the scientific picture of the world. Now this state must be returned to its place in the dialectical triad of nature.
Each absolute state of matter has its own ontological path (ontological bivector) and is represented by the "heavenly triangle" (Plato) and its invariants in a single symbol ("symbol of symbols", "idea of ideas").
The triunity of absolute states of matter determines the ontological framework of knowledge (metalaw = "logos"), which manifests itself in the "laws of nature" and the ontological framework - the absolute coordinate system of the Universum ("cube" + "sphere" + "cylinder").
What generates, develops, preserves ("holds") the generating structure of the three absolute states of matter? This "soul of matter" – the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory.
The triunity of absolute states of matter plus ontological memory is the Primordial (absolute) generating structure - model of the "eternally existing" process of generation.
It is the development of Bergson's ideas ("Matter and Memory") and Whitehead (metaphysics of the process) and of all dialectical line, beginning from Heraclitus.
The information revolution pushes "in the back": Physics must introduce the concept of "ontological memory" into the scientific picture of the world as a central concept.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
view post as summary
Francesco D'Isa wrote on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 17:08 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
thank you for your kind reply.
You say that "Matter is understood in the spirit of Plato: this is what all forms are born of. The main thing here is the idea of generation."
But what is matter without form? Every kind of matter, even an "undefined" form of it, can be something just related to something else. If you consider this primordial "matter" as something (as you write) "absolute, unconditional, extreme", it looks like that matter is close to the paradoxical status of "nothing". Without differences, no things nor matter. Without relations, no particularities can be found nor can exists. I'm not sure I understood, is matter for you a sort of nothing? Something close to some of the main interpretation of Taoism or Buddhism? Parmenide's oneness?
(I ask you these because it's related to my essay).
Thank you again!
Francesco
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 19:12 GMT
Dear Francesco,
I begin to read your essay and then answer more fully so that I can compare "nothing" in my ontology of the Universum with your understanding of "nothing" and model.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 22:09 GMT
Dear Vladimir, that's very kind of yours, thank you.
Francesco
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 23:33 GMT
Zdrastavite Vladimir I. Rogozhin
Very nicely said…. “What is the most fundamental in the Universum?.. Physics, do not be afraid of Metaphysics! Levels of fundamentality. The problem №1 of Fundamental Science is the ontological justification (basification) of mathematics (knowledge),” dear Vladimir I. Rogozhin Cpasibo esyo ras dlya xoroshaya essay.…. I request you to have a look at...
view entire post
Zdrastavite Vladimir I. Rogozhin
Very nicely said…. “What is the most fundamental in the Universum?.. Physics, do not be afraid of Metaphysics! Levels of fundamentality. The problem №1 of Fundamental Science is the ontological justification (basification) of mathematics (knowledge),” dear Vladimir I. Rogozhin Cpasibo esyo ras dlya xoroshaya essay.…. I request you to have a look at my essay also….
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
By the way…………………
Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :
-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
Best Regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 09:49 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,
Thank you very much for your comment. You offer very deep, radical ideas for changing the entire conceptual basis of fundamental science. I start translating and reading your essay and your links.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 13:30 GMT
Dear Vladimir Rogozhin
Thank you for your reading my essay with great interest, thank you for all appreciating words…
I also feel that World Bank of Fundamental Ideas in all UN languages, with their constant discussion by all members of the world scientific community. The global scientific community must support the competition of ideas, primarily in cosmology .
You stated it wonderfully,
Best wishes…
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 14:09 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,
I also wish you success in promoting ideas in order to overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science.
All the best!
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 23:38 GMT
Vladimir,
I think the primal factor you miss is temperature and thermodynamics, as being more important than time.
Consider that galaxies are the primal feature of the universe and they consist of energy radiating out, as mass coalesces inward. I think we will eventually come to realize it is a cosmic convection cycle. That mass is constantly breaking down and shedding energy, as...
view entire post
Vladimir,
I think the primal factor you miss is temperature and thermodynamics, as being more important than time.
Consider that galaxies are the primal feature of the universe and they consist of energy radiating out, as mass coalesces inward. I think we will eventually come to realize it is a cosmic convection cycle. That mass is constantly breaking down and shedding energy, as energy is constantly radiated out to the degree it starts to coalesce back as form/information/matter and fall back in. Black holes are really the eye of the storm and it is the falling in/radiating out that is what is really happening. Redshift is not due to the source moving away, but radiation both expanding out to fill space, then coalescing into quanta of light by absorption.
Think of the rubber sheet analogy of gravity. Space can't be flat where there is no mass, or that would assume the very absoluteness of space which relativity dismisses. Think of the rubber sheet as being on water, so that when it is pushed down by the bowling ball, it is pushed back up everywhere else. That is the outward curvature of redshift. Basically Einstein's original Cosmological Constant. A balance to gravity, leaving space overall flat, with the inward and outward curvatures balancing. Energy radiating out/mass falling in. Dark matter is this collapse starts with the very quantization of light and mass is just the more solid state of it. So that mass is an effect of gravity, rather than gravity a property of mass.
Consider as well the most elemental state of a fluctuating vacuum doesn't have any way to measure the change of time, but it does have a level of energy, that would be temperature.
Consider as well that we evolved in a thermodynamic environment and it permeates every aspect of our being. Rational thought might be temporal, as it is sequence, but emotion, the rising and falling impulses, heat, cold, etc, is thermal. Even the process of thought is an expansion of information/energy, following by a consolidation, then leading tot he next cycle/thought.
Which goes to our mental tendency to look for that bottom line solution/answer/final theory/etc, yet always, always find it circling and cycling back around. That is why the answer always seems right there, but always just out of reach.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 10:08 GMT
Dear John,
Many thanks for your profound commentary and additional explanation of your conceptual ideas in the basis of fundamental science. I believe that overcoming the crisis of understanding in fundamental science is possible only on the basis of a broad competition of ideas and their discussion in the world scientific community. I believe that there should be a World Bank of fundamental ideas in all UN languages, with their constant discussion by all members of the world scientific community.
Success in the Contest and promotion of ideas!
All the best,
Vladimir
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 21:35 GMT
Vladimir,
There is a social and political aspect of this as well. People, especially westerners, are very goal and bottom line oriented. If society came to realize thermodynamics are more elemental than the linear effect of time, they better realize why every action comes with a whole host of reactions and why simply going faster and more of the same will not get us to Nirvana that much quicker.
John
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 10:18 GMT
John,
I agree with you. But I believe that in order to overcome the total crisis of understanding in fundamental science and society, Big Synthesis is needed, new "crazy ideas" are needed in philosophical ontology. Albert Eisstein and John Wheeler left good philosophical covenants for physicists: "At present, the physicist has to deal with philosophical problems to a much greater extent than physicists of previous generations had to do. To this physicists are forced by the difficulties of their own science."… "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers."
Philosophy should be introduced into the educational process from the first grade of the school ("Philosophy for Children"), so that physicists and
poets have a single picture of the "LifeWorld" (E. Husserl)
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:22 GMT
Dear Fellow Essayists
This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,
FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Only the truth can set you free.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 21:47 GMT
Thank you, Joe, for your comment. I'll do the translation and read your essay in the near future.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 10:02 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
as promised, I have read your essay and will comment on it.
Although you seem to wildly mix different ideas, concepts, words and terms to converge to a primordial generating structure – and you lost me therefore – I can easily grasp what your main intention is with your essay.
You presuppose reality to be rational and meaningfull and you suspect that the...
view entire post
Dear Vladimir,
as promised, I have read your essay and will comment on it.
Although you seem to wildly mix different ideas, concepts, words and terms to converge to a primordial generating structure – and you lost me therefore – I can easily grasp what your main intention is with your essay.
You presuppose reality to be rational and meaningfull and you suspect that the hitherto tools to scientifically come to a fundamentally true statement about the meaning of it all must somewhat fail.
This is no wonder, since mathematics and antivalent logic are self-delimiting systems (as all systems are). Hence, the search for some underlying truth *cannot* be a systematic approach, but must be an intuitive approach. The latter presupposes that there is some access to a realm of fundamental truth for logically thinking beings. Otherwise the search does not make any sense, since there is no sense at all in existence. But as you, I feel that there is sense and objective meaning for the fact that there exist things at all ( with or without me existing).
The crucial point is that using opposites and some ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ (as Cusa purported) cannot reveal what’s beyond antivalent thinking. The ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ only shows, - if it happens to you - that your mind has just realized that it had merely facilitated a *model* of reality, a model whoose consistency necessarily depended on some complementary (‘opposite’) elements, elements which had defined *each other* and you now realize this fact.
Eastern philosophies walk into the same trap by thinking that whenever the mind realizes that it was itself that has facilitated a consistent model of something, then this realization should somewhat uncover the real ontology of reality. I think this is true insofar as the mind realizes in such moments that reality cannot really be formalized completely, and the fact that consciousness exists and realizes this can also not be formalized. This is a weak kind of transcendence.
The strong kind of transcendence comes into play by realizing that transcending one’s own formal systems is consistent with a holistic notion of an atemporally existing soul. But this is the end point of a systemic approach to come to some primordial generating structure, since beyond transcending one’s own conceptual building blocks, there must be some kind of fundamental truths which aren’t anymore formalizable in the logico-mathematical sense we are used to.
These truths are of emotional qualities, insofar as they point to eternal values that are traditionally ascribed to an intentional agent called God. For further continuing a search for such a ‘primordial generating structure’ (God is not a structure), one has to take into account phenomena that aren’t scientficically reproducible, but nonetheless of huge value philosophically as well as teleologically. I have the phenomena of near-death experiences in mind. They give an overwhelming indication for a realm of consciousness beyond space and time, if one studies them carefully and compares a huge amount of such experiences to come to a decicive conclusion. Here you may meet again two out of the three of Popper’s worlds, consciousness and some ‘ideological’ content (I would call the latter rather ‘teleological’ content).
In summary, there are phenomena in reality that cannot be reproduced by means of our traditional scientific methods. Don’t let yourself be talked into the opposite: none of the near-death phenomena have ever been reproduced in a laborartory. They happen not due to phyiscal causes and effects, but due to other reasons (say, some causa finalis). Especially none of the valid information about things the experiencer couldn’t know at the time of his experience (information that could be verified later) can be reproduced in a laboratory – because these events follow another set of reasons, different from deterministically defined, physical causes.
All in all, I see that you search for the truth. But you don’t need to make it so complicated intellectually. Neither is there an infinite tower of turtles to climb over nor is there a overall sophisticated proof or derivation that can lead you to ultimate truth. It is only the own will to find truth – and last but surely not least – even a truth that destroys in parts the own self-concept and picture one has of oneself. This last sentence is really the key, accepting that there is something much bigger and much more truthful and more just than oneself can ever be. As always, finding some limits (also one’s own limits) sets one free.
Vladimir, I wish you all the best for your further philosophical development,
Stefan Weckbach
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 11:57 GMT
Dear Stefan,
Many thanks for your very important and profound philosophical commentary.
Mathematician Vladimir Voevodsky (1966-2017), laureate of the Fields Award, in one of his interview expressed the following idea: "What we now call the crisis of Russian science is not only a crisis of Russian science. There is a crisis of world science. Real progress will be in a very serious...
view entire post
Dear Stefan,
Many thanks for your very important and profound philosophical commentary.
Mathematician Vladimir Voevodsky (1966-2017), laureate of the Fields Award, in one of his
interview expressed the following idea: "What we now call the crisis of Russian science is not only a crisis of Russian science. There is a crisis of world science. Real progress will be in a very serious fight between science and religion that will end their association.And do not hit my face."
My research began in 1990, when I read the article "2030 - the last" in the magazine "America", which spoke about the state of ecology on Earth. The first guide in my "adventure of ideas" was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and his "The Phenomenon of Man" and Yu. Semenov and his book "At the dawn of human history". I began to build my "constructive philosophy of consciousness" (OntoTopologia), in which the key concept is the "vector of consciousness". Then I began to investigate the old problem of substantiating mathematics, and then - the philosophical foundations of physics, since my soul and my mind did not accept the idea of a "big bang."
As a result, a concept was born that synthesizes knowledge on the basis of one axiom and the principle of Tradition. I believe that overcoming the crisis in the foundations of knowledge is possible only through a radical conceptual revolution, based on a view of the Universum as a whole process of the eternal generation of new structures and meanings. Meaning is the basis of being (Hegel). This was my way of looking for a "absent structure " (Umberto Eco). I thank the FQXi for the opportunity to compare our alternative ideas. This is especially important for
cosmology .
I once again thank you for your very important and profound comment. I apologize if some of my ideas and the method of constructinon of the "primordial generating structure" were presented not clearly and without drawing.
I wish you success too!
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
view post as summary
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 04:49 GMT
Dear Vladimir Rogozhin
Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.
My essay is titled
“Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin”. It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.
Thank you & kind regards
Steven Andresen
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 08:57 GMT
Dear Steven,
I read your wonderful essay and appreciated it. You ask very deep questions and give answers that lead to the deepest metaphysics. The metaphysics of the process, the new ontology, bring ideas to overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. Mother Nature tells us new concepts and makes us start a new dialogue. Success in the contest and research!
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 03:05 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
You give radical ontological ideas in the spirit of deep Cartesian doubt. Yes, today we need a new Cartesian revolution to overcome the crisis in the basis of knowledge.
All the best,
Boris
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 09:51 GMT
Thank you, Boris for the kind comment. Indeed, in order to overcome the crisis of understanding, in fundamental science (physics, mathematics, cosmology), a new ontology, new Cartesian revolution, is needed. Sincerely, Vladimir
Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 23:13 GMT
Vladimir,
A very deep essay with some good pointers on the way forward for modern Physics.
Well done!
I have reciprocated your kind vote on my essay...
Regards,
Declan Traill
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 09:56 GMT
Thank you very much, Declan, for your kind comment.
All the best!
Vladimir
Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 23:08 GMT
Dear Vladimir
I am really pleased to see your profound essay which I think it is most important Idea I know since it creates the real ontological solution for modern Physics crisis, it creates a comprehensive environment for undertanding and answering fundamental questions including current "What is Fundamental?". Therefore I would recommend all to take this topic (the philosophical aspect...
view entire post
Dear Vladimir
I am really pleased to see your profound essay which I think it is most important Idea I know since it creates the real ontological solution for modern Physics crisis, it creates a comprehensive environment for undertanding and answering fundamental questions including current "What is Fundamental?". Therefore I would recommend all to take this topic (the philosophical aspect of science) seriously, if the question has importance for humanity.
The reason is that the modern physics is far from its fundamental aspect ( philosophical scientific basics) and the current situation seems that, it is almost impossible to answer or even to grasp the answer no matter how simple it is.
I have experienced the need of such ontological ideas after giving simple basic answer (hypothesis) which links together, in 2010 essay.
previous essay.
After evaluation of the hypothesis, I realized that it was poorly or almost not understood, on the other hand many verifying discoveries happened.
By investigation to the problem I suspectedly wondered, "To address all problems and to put new forward going Idea are two very important actions, but I sometimes wonder which one is most important to focus on first?". My answer become " to address the problem first".
For most part of my
current essay, I have focused to point out some important ontological issues.
Terminological metaphors, los in conceptualized mathematics,...... led the phyical reality to be far from the Current Physicist's way of viewing the Nature's Physical phenomenon ( expectations ), and best communication would be Spherical Geometrical modelling (close sphere packing) I think similar principle that the architect and philosopher, Buckminster Fuller used. In other words, ontological presentation of Geometry and simulations of the Nature would be a good way to understand underlying fundamental Principle in both physics and mathematics.
Best wishes
Bashir.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 11:04 GMT
Dear Bashir,
Thank you very much for your very important comment. Yes, today the crisis of fundamentality is the ontological crisis. We need a deep conceptual revolution in the foundations of knowledge. This is pushed by problems in the basis of knowledge and the modern Information revolution. I will certainly review your essay from 2010.
My very best wishes,
Vladimir
James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 07:04 GMT
Vladimir,
Good to see you back. Regarding your musings of fundamental, I tend to lean toward Popper's idea of "three worlds: 1. The world of physical states, 2. The world of states of consciousness, 3. The world of objective ideological content. We are the sentient creature, "the knowing subject" which is necessary for existence of that which is fundamental. My definition of fundamental is in keeping with this as yours seems to be. That which is fundamental is necessary for existence and fundamental changes with discovery when those three worlds meet. You provide important ideas in our mix of concepts and deserve a good score for your effort. Hope you get a chance to look at mine for comparison.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 11:28 GMT
Jim,
I'm also glad to see your essay and comment. Many thanks for evaluating my ideas. Yes, I agree that it is important to grasp the structure of the "meeting of the three worlds". It is already necessary to introduce new concepts. I have this "ontological" (structural, cosmic) memory, here the development of Henri Bergson's ideas ("Matter and Memory"), the problem of modern philosophy is the lack of constructiveness, oblivion of Eidos. Today, a deep conceptual-figured synthesis of all the accumulated knowledge is necessary, its "compression" is the ontological method developed by Plato, first of all the idea of the ontological "heavenly triangle". Here is the deep problem of the "origin of geometry", which Edmund Husserl ("Origin of Geometry") considered.
I will definitely read your essay urgently.
Best wishes,
Vladimir
James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 17:31 GMT
Vladimir,
Thanks for reading my essay and for your kind words. It seems that too many don't take the time to engage in an interchange of ideas.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 17:47 GMT
Yes, Jim! It would be good to create a World Bank of fundamental ideas. There are many contests, many articles, books, and it would be good to collect all ideas in one resource and submit them in a condensed form, for example as a table. Here for example contests and how many new ideas!
Vladimir
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 12:23 GMT
Dear Vladimir, ...(copied to mine)
I completely agree with you.
«In physics, it is necessary to introduce the Ontological standard of substantiation of fundamental theories».
Ontology studies the fundamental principles of the device of being.
The basis of the universe is the physical vacuum. Conceptual physicists believe that space is empty and has ideal properties...
view entire post
Dear Vladimir, ...(copied to mine)
I completely agree with you.
«In physics, it is necessary to introduce the Ontological standard of substantiation of fundamental theories».
Ontology studies the fundamental principles of the device of being.
The basis of the universe is the physical vacuum. Conceptual physicists believe that space is empty and has ideal properties to carry the real photon energy billions of years without energy loss. This is a key mistake - all scientists know that there cannot be ideal properties in science, but they do not notice it, or it is global hypnosis, as in Germany at the turn of the 1940s. It is this leads to the justification of the causelessness of processes, science has turned into a fantasy and to what you write.
«The modern crisis of the philosophical foundations of Fundamental Science is manifested as a comprehensive conceptual crisis, crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation, crisis of methodology, loss of certainty».
When I write about the environment of a physical vacuum, from an ontological point of view, I emphasize its real energy and material basis of the world, instead of an abstract foundation, in the form of emptiness, as well as virtual and quasiparticles.
For example, phonons are generally considered quasiparticles, which form photons that carry real energy. I believe that such supernatural, phantom and abstract concepts should not be in science. All particles are real. If a photon is fixed, this means that in the physical vacuum environment there was a pair of real particles.
On the one hand, matter consists of energy, on the other hand, it is energy that forms the mass. Mass derived from energy, it can be formed, under certain conditions, and may not be formed.
For example, an electron-positron pair is actually a phonon (it is not a quasiparticle) that has energy and mass. "Annihilation" of the electron-positron pair leads to the formation of a pair of massless photons. Each photon carries half the energy of the electron-positron pair. In fact, one photon is the pure kinetic energy of an electron-positron pair. The potential energy of the electron-positron pair is a pair of vast gravispheres from the medium of the physical vacuum, which includes a set of de Broglie waves. Gravispheres form a mass, and their energy is parametrically transformed into a second photon during the "annihilation" process.
Thus, the electron-positron pair has a mass, while the photon has no mass and its temperature is close to zero. At the same time, in the process of "annihilation" only the structure of the elements of matter has changed. For example, for an electron - the toroidal structure has turned into a cylindrical spiral. The electron, as consisted of a nematic sequence of 137 quarks, continues to consist of 137 quarks in the photon. In this case, the cross section of the interaction of a photon with the medium of a physical vacuum decreased by a factor of 137, in comparison with the electron-positron pair. Therefore, a photon is a pair of elements (a pair of baryons) of a deeper neutrino and quark level of the fractal structure of matter. Therefore, an electron in the Cooper pair can move in the equilibrium superconducting state only at a speed 43.6 times slower than the speed of light, and the photons move at the speed of light. A boson from a pair of quarks is a graviton (gluon).
An electron-positron pair can be formed only from a photon with an energy of 1023 keV.
The inverse transformation of photons with an energy of 511 keV into a pair of particles with an energy of 256 keV leads to the absorption of energy from the medium of the physical vacuum for constructing their gravispheres and mass formation. Therefore, laser cooling will allow cooling of the body, practically to zero temperature.
In fact, "annihilation" of particles is the process of their division on the second subharmonic of a parametric transformation with the release of energy, which can be used to synthesize heavier particles with energy absorption.
Thus, the process of division and synthesis of the elements of the physical vacuum environment is the main process of energy circulation in the universe, which leads to parametric resonance and solitons. Phase transformation of the elements of the physical vacuum environment is the cause of self-organization of matter according to the principles of the heat pump.
Thus, the most fundamental parameter in the universe is the energy dissipation coefficient (Hubble parameter) in the medium of the physical vacuum, which determines all the parametric processes in the universe. The stars in the universe are shining, due to the dissipation of energy in the physical environment. For example, the Hubble parameter easily calculates the solar radiation power.
Vladimir Fedorov
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 14:01 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you very much for your very important and in-depth comment. Yes, overcoming the ontological crisis in the foundations of knowledge requires the joint efforts of philosophers of science, mathematicians, physicists, cosmologists, biologists. We need a Big Synthesis of knowledge, the construction of the Universum model as an holistic process of generating new structures and meanings.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
Andrei Kirilyuk wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 14:23 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
I basically agree with your estimates of modern critical situation in fundamental science necessitating essential changes. As you may know from my essay here, I propose my version of unified mathematical "mother structure" as you call it (my dynamically probabilistic fractal) that underlies all real structures and their evolution by the equally unified law of the symmetry of complexity. I hope these results can be the right starting point for the necessary completion of fundamental knowledge, in accord with the criteria you describe in your essay.
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Andrei,
Thank you very much for your comment and assessment of my ontological ideas. I wish every possible and successful promotion of your very interesting and important conception aimed at overcoming the current crisis in the grounds of knowledge.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 23:26 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you for reading my essay. Also I have read your essay, speaking about the question "What is fundametal?", the crisis of science fundamentals. I agree with your thought that Fundamental Science "rested" on the understanding of matter, space, nature of the "laws of nature", fundamental constants, number, time, information, consciousness, as well as “One of the main causes of the modern crisis in Fundamental Science is the domination of epistemic fundamentality and a disparaging attitude toward metaphysics, ontology”.
And also as you write that the fundamental is the potential for constructing the architectonics of cognition.
In relation with the “The ontological (absolute) space is the existential-extremum of the absolute forms of existence of matter”, as considering the fundamental forces and space time nature including Conversion of Mass to Energy, I would say that the absolute forms of existence of matter may be the space and time itself.
Ch.Bayarsaikhan
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 15:54 GMT
Dear Bayarsaikhan,
Thank you very much for your comment and question.
Absolute (unconditional, limiting, extreme) forms of existence of matter (absolute states): absolute rest (linear state, continuum) + absolute motion (vortex state, discretuum) + absolute becoming (wave state, discontinuum) fund triune (absolute) ontological space and ontological time. The ontological (absolute) space is the ideal (ontological) limit of the being of matter. Every absolute state of matter has its own ontological path. The path (way) is meaning. Meaning is the basis of being. This is one of the key ontological ideas. The triunity of absolute states of matter is a primordial (absolute) generating structure. What "holds" this structure? This is the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory. Absolute (ontological, triune) time on the "horizontal" of being: "linear time" + "cyclic time" + "wave time". Absolute (ontological, triune) time on the "vertical" of being (hierarchical): "past" → "present" → "future". Time is a polyvalent phenomenon of ontological memory, funding, quantitative determinateness of the Universum as the process of generation of structures and meanings. Time is a number.
Best Regards,
Vladimir
George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 19:02 GMT
Dear Vladimir
I read with great interest your remarkable article where I found truthful, in my opinion, the representation of many problematic issues concerning the current state of scientific thinking, to methodology and to natural science in general. This is important that you clearly had point to a stagnant crisis situation in both the humanitarian aspects and the current methodology in natural science. You also see the moral aspects of this global problem, the necessity of which somehow does no accepted to be as the decisive qualitative factor in modern scientific methodology. This is somehow my theme, and I sometimes ask myself a rhetorical question - is it possible (or permissible) to build any science without an initial, definite morality? To whom it will be need such a science, in the sense is it the science is possible to be considered as existing for itself? So, we can put many such questions that shows that we have gone on the some of wrong way that you have well realized and sayed!
I'm just impressed with your level of knowledge, depth and persuasiveness of thinking. It seems to me that you presented one of the best works in the contest. I wish to you good luck in the contest!
Best Regards,
George Kirakosyan
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 19:30 GMT
Dear George,
Thank you very much for your kind comment. Yes, overcoming the crisis of understanding in fundamental science is reflected to the full extent in society. Therefore, the search for ways to overcome the crisis, the discussion of alternatives in physics, mathematics, and cosmology, which the FQXi encourages in every way, is very important for the entire scientific community, for the further development of science for the benefit of all Humanity.
Best Regards,
Vladimir
Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 03:14 GMT
Hi Vladimir,
You have produced an excellent essay and have garnered the best blog responses. A short excellent course in philosophy. I pulled out two items I liked, one from your essay one from your blog:
1. All science, in my opinion, is cosmology, and for me the value of philosophy is no less than science, it is solely in the contribution that it has made to cosmology."
2. I believe that there should be a World Bank of fundamental ideas in all UN languages, with their constant discussion by all members of the world scientific community.
Personally, I like to play with cosmology, do take a look at my metaphysics to physics essay: The Thing That is Space-Time. I think you will enjoy it.
Thanks for your essay,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 09:53 GMT
Hi Don,
Thanks for the comment and support of my ideas. I immediately translate your essay and give my comment and rating.
Best Regards,
Vladimir
corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 19:41 GMT
MR. Rogozhin
I fully enjoyed the way you put things together it and I think further words are useless.
Rate it accordingly.
If you would have the pleasure for a short axiomatic approach of the subject, I will appreciate your opinion.
Silviu
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 09:26 GMT
Dear Corciovei Silviu,
Many thanks for your kind words about my ideas. I start reading your essay.
Best regards,
Vladimir
Robert D. Sadykov wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 22:23 GMT
Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,
One can agree with John Wheeler that philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers. Indeed, philosophy plays a very important role in physics. Moreover, physics began with philosophy. A classic example is the philosophy of Aristotle. Every important step in physics took place with the participation of philosophy. This concerns the creation of both classical and relativistic mechanics. Newton was equally a physicist and philosopher. The general theory of relativity was created under the impression of the works of several philosophers, and above all Mach. In addition, philosophy plays an important role in the generalization of the physical knowledge obtained and allows us to look at everything that is happening from the height of the stars.
Best wishes,
Robert Sadykov
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 09:38 GMT
Dear Robert,
Thank you very much for your profound and important comment. It was the "mother of all sciences" - Philosophy, which helped to bring fundamental science out of crisis. Today, the Ontological revolution is needed in the foundations of knowledge. First of all, this is a 100-year problem of substantiating (basification) mathematics, "queen and maid of science".
Best regards,
Vladimir
Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 17:49 GMT
Hello Vladimir,
The title of your essay ‘Crisis in fundamentality’ is well chosen and timely. You only have to read the essays of other contestants to confirm that the notion of fundamentality in science is not generally as fundamental as one might expect.
You have demonstrated that consideration of some of the best thoughts of some of the best minds in the field of...
view entire post
Hello Vladimir,
The title of your essay ‘Crisis in fundamentality’ is well chosen and timely. You only have to read the essays of other contestants to confirm that the notion of fundamentality in science is not generally as fundamental as one might expect.
You have demonstrated that consideration of some of the best thoughts of some of the best minds in the field of consciousness is a very direct and rewarding place to focus one’s own mind.
A theory of everything is a fine goal but identifying a goal is just the beginning of something much more worthy: an understanding of the process. To that end there is no better teacher than nature. Science is in the forefront of that endeavour, and physicists curious participants.
If we were to build a tree of fundamentality we would likely start by recognising that existence is a prerequisite for any and all other entities. The highest branches appear to be few but not as clearly independent as one might expect: time, space, energy and matter.
Below these we have a tangle of intertwining branches each claiming in their own special ways entitlements to be recognised as fundamental, i.e. essential, for further developments to ensue.
As Karl Popper noted; “Science does not rest on a rock”. A stream of products of evolution have emerged that Popper usefully consolidates into “three worlds”.
Cognizance is the foundation of mankind’s special claim to an imperative status by virtue of our perceptions, however cloudy, of a totality that extends far beyond our comprehension. However, we cannot deny our dependence upon prior products (i.e. higher branches of the tree) of evolution.
While we accept the notion of ‘laws of nature’, a more supple term would be ‘principles’ by which deviations from statistical norms can be admitted, subject to correction when they extend too far from the median condition.
Yuri Vladimirov’s contention that “The main goal of theoretical physicists is to build a physical picture of the world on the basis of a single generalizing category” is commendable but in order to accommodate the dynamics of change any such ‘picture’ would necessarily require to be a continuously changing ‘movie’. The principle function of a ‘goal’ is to establish direction in which to proceed. Goals change as determined by priorities, but processes continue.
The notions of ‘the systemic approach’ and ‘intuition’ are utilities that afford assistance in an otherwise chaotic world of unfathomable complexity. Proof in the absolute sense is absolutely unnecessary. We need to identify what we need in the short and longer terms as individuals, collectively, and in support of the greater establishment – and to proceed accordingly.
Yu A. Neretin’s comment that “the situation in mathematics and mathematical physics ... is quickly becoming more sinister” echoes Einstein’s earlier conviction that ‘As far as the mathematical theorems refer to reality, they are not sure, and as far as they are sure, they do not refer to reality.’ We are thus inevitably drawn to accept Lee Smolin’s conclusion that “The loss of certainty” in mathematics caused “the loss of certainty” in fundamental physics.
Finally, It is important for all specialists to communicate with the public in non-specialist language in order to enhance the degree of understanding and acceptance of ideas.
It was a pleasure to become acquainted with your thoughts.
Good luck,
Gary.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 18:58 GMT
Hello Gary,
Thank you very much for the profound reading of my essay and your comprehensive wonderful commentary. I start translating and reading your essay in order to get acquainted with your ideas.
Best regards,
Vladimir
Maxim Yurievich Khlopov wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear Vladimir Il'ich,
You very deep and phylosophical discussion of the ontological and epistemological problems of the modern physics can find interesting appications in teh approach to the basic element of cosmoparticle physics - the world system, unfying the theory of the Universe with its foundations in particle physics.
Thank you very much for your very nice and comprhensive presentation of phylosophical aspects of the modern science.
It deserves very high estimation
With the best regards
M.Yu.Khlopov
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 14:45 GMT
Dear Maxim Yurievich,
Many thanks for your kind comment and appreciation of my ontological ideas. The modern crisis of understanding in the foundations of knowledge speaks of the need to implement the deepest Ontological revolution to overcome "troubles with physics", the loss of certainty in fundamental science (physics, mathematics, cosmology). The problem of the primordial structure of the Universum is not only a problem of science and philosophy. Its solution is also important for the sustainable development of the entire global community.
Best regards,
Vladimir
Christian Corda wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 18:07 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thanks for visiting my Essay page.
You wrote another remarkable and original Essay. Here are some comments:
Let me permit to add another issue on the current crisis of the philosophical basis of Fundamental Science in addition to the sum of crises that you stress. It is the "politics" of science and economic interests to preserve the "scientific status quo".
I did not know the statement of Schroedinger that "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space". It is completely in agreement with my Einsteinian vision of physics geometrization.
In any case, you wrote an entertaining and philosophically excellent Essay, deserving my highest rate. Good luck in the Contest.
Cheers, Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 12:29 GMT
Dear Christian,
Thank you very much for reading my essay and kind words to my ontological ideas. I wish you success in the Contest!
Best regards,
Vladimir
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.