Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 2/26/18 at 12:29pm UTC, wrote Dear Christian, Thank you very much for reading my essay and kind words to...

Christian Corda: on 2/25/18 at 18:07pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Thanks for visiting my Essay page. You wrote another...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 2/25/18 at 14:45pm UTC, wrote Dear Maxim Yurievich, Many thanks for your kind comment and appreciation...

Maxim Khlopov: on 2/25/18 at 14:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir Il'ich, You very deep and phylosophical discussion of the...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 2/24/18 at 18:58pm UTC, wrote Hello Gary, Thank you very much for the profound reading of my essay and...

Gary Hansen: on 2/24/18 at 17:49pm UTC, wrote Hello Vladimir, The title of your essay ‘Crisis in fundamentality’ is...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 2/24/18 at 9:38am UTC, wrote Dear Robert, Thank you very much for your profound and important comment....

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 2/24/18 at 9:26am UTC, wrote Dear Corciovei Silviu, Many thanks for your kind words about my ideas. I...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Eckard Blumschein: "In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain...." in First Things First: The...

Steve Agnew: "There are some questions that do not seem to have answers in the classical..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Agnew: "Yes, there are two very different narratives. The classical narrative works..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 14, 2019

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]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 21:07 GMT
Essay Abstract

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. 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 Bio

Independent 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

Bookmark and Share



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,

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 21:49 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

This is a theme for you. Nice essay 9.

Regards

Branko

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 22:09 GMT
Dear Vladimir, that's very kind of yours, thank you.

Francesco

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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)

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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


Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.