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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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