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

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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 5/18/20 at 7:42am UTC, wrote Dear Christian, Thank you very much for reading my essay and kind words....

Christian Corda: on 5/18/20 at 6:49am UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Once again, you wrote an interesting and provocative Essay,...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 5/17/20 at 10:49am UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Thanks so much for reading my essay and kind words. You...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 5/17/20 at 10:02am UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Glad to read your work again. I greatly appreciated your...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 5/17/20 at 8:42am UTC, wrote Dear Lorraine, Thank you very much for reading my essay, a very deep and...

Lorraine Ford: on 5/17/20 at 7:28am UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Interesting essay. I was struck by the Bertrand Russell...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 5/14/20 at 10:27am UTC, wrote Thanks so much Narayan! I found your articles on Researchgate. I already...

Dr Narayan Kumar Bhadra: on 5/14/20 at 7:57am UTC, wrote My article link below https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3432


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: "It may be helpful to think about the origins and aims of any physical..." in Answering Mermin’s...

John Cox: "Stefan, Read up a bit on Claude Shannon, if it can be said that there is a..." in Answering Mermin’s...

Steve Dufourny: "all seems a question of consciousness , responsabilities, altruism and..." in Global Collaboration

Steve Dufourny: "On the blog of John Baez, here is a relevant thing about these octonions,..." in Towards the unification...

Steve Dufourny: "it is this that I try to formalise correctly , the 3 main finite series of..." in Towards the unification...

Lukasz Lozanski: "Time is the 4th dimension that explains wave particle duality. Once you..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Dufourny: "I know that all we have a life and are occupied, and it is not easy to..." in Global Collaboration

Steve Dufourny: "see also dear all that the gravitational energy is intriguing in its..." in AI, Consciousness,...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Time to Think
Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

Is Causality Fundamental?
Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.


FQXi FORUM
October 22, 2020

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: Dialectical-Ontological Modeling of Primordial Generating Process ↔ Understand λόγος ↔Δ↔Logos & Count Quickly↔Ontological (Cosmic, Structural) Memory by Vladimir I. Rogozhin [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 5, 2020 @ 12:05 GMT
Essay Abstract

Fundamental Science is undergoing an acute conceptual-paradigmatic crisis of philosophical foundations, manifested as a crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation, “loss of certainty”, “trouble with physics”, and a methodological crisis. Fundamental Science rested in the "first-beginning", "first-structure", in "cogito ergo sum". The modern crisis is not only a crisis of the philosophical foundations of Fundamental Science, but there is a comprehensive crisis of knowledge, transforming by the beginning of the 21st century into a planetary existential crisis, which has exacerbated the question of the existence of Humanity and life on Earth. Due to the unsolved problem of justification of Mathematics, paradigm problems in Computational mathematics have arisen. It's time to return ↔ Into Dialectics. The solution to the problem of the foundations of Mathematics, and therefore knowledge in general, is the solution to the problem of modeling (constructing) the ontological basis of knowledge - the ontological model of the primordial generating process. The idea and model of the primordial generating process, its ontological structure directs thinking to the need for the introduction of superconcept → ontological (cosmic, structural) memory, concept-attractor, supercategory, substantial semantic core of the scientific picture of the world of the nuclear-ecological-information age. Model of basic Ideality→ “Space-MatterMemory-Time” [S-MM-T].

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, 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, 2018).

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 6, 2020 @ 11:12 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

First, it is very good to meet again in this new contest.

As you say Mathematics is the “queen of science”, and why? I think because it contains both the ZERO and the INFINITY. So you can really think about everything, which is a quality of Consciousness.

About “Computational Mathematics” it is as you indicate that algorithms are the new way of imitating reality and our thinking. However, each algorithm is a process that is taking place in the past, because we can only observe results from the past. An algorithm has no connection with what I call “POINT ZERO” in Total Simultaneity, so it no ALLgorithm wit protentional consciousness. Maybe the quantum computers with probably “trits” will be able to do the trick, and then we can have contact with other emerging phenomena.

I liked very much your chapter about “dialectics” and the old philosophers. The reality as a whole exists only inside your “I” is my perception. YOU are the “reference of reference”. By contacting other agents your information is growing, your horizon is extending, but it is still you who has your own opinion. Indeed “Philosophy is too important to be left to philosophers”.

I appreciated your entrance very much, dear Vladimir.

I hope you will also find some time to read my essay click here), and leave a post.

Best regards and good luck

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 6, 2020 @ 15:51 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

I am also glad to see you at this Contest!

Thanks for reading my essay and comment.

As for the paradigm problems in Computational mathematics, I cited excerpts from the article Mathematics XXI - a radical paradigm shift. Model, not Algorithm by mathematician A.Narin'yani . The author concludes:

«Computational mathematics in the coming years will radically change the paradigm and move into a new quality.

The main content of Computational mathematics will be the qualitative promotion of several basic closely related components:

-The development of the theory of knowledge representation and the corresponding apparatus for describing Models,...

-Development of modeling technologies, optimization of the process of “functioning of the Model” itself,...

-Development, i.e. expansion and efficiency of the universal procedure for compressing the modeling space to highlight the solution body...”

As for dialectics and the history of its development, I set the task of its rehabilitation as an effective method of solving the key problems of fundamental science, primarily in understanding matter and space, their ontological structure.

I believe that «Model» and «Algorithm» should not be in the dialectical “struggle” for primacy, but should work in a reliable dialectical unity...

As the 60s student song says:

"I know that dialectics will develop everything,

But when I will be gone.

Mankind will have everything

And I would have to get the fire... " (A. Genkin)


I’m already starting to read your essay.

Respectfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 7, 2020 @ 14:28 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

I recalled the French proverb, clear and distinct, as Cartesius would say: «La nuit porte conseil». The Russian proverb is less accurate: “Morning is wiser than evening”...

Today, when “twilight” has arrived in the philosophical basis of Fundamental Science, there are too many “clouds” in the sky, more than never before, the redirecting “beacons” are important - the philosophical covenants of the great physicists of the past - John Archibald Wheeler: “To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise? '

and Albert Einstein: "At the present time, a physicists has to deal with philosophic problems to a much greater degree than physicists of the previous generations. Physicists forced to that the difficulties of their own science.”

In development of Carlo Rovelli's ideas in the article Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics , the motto “Physics, Don't Be Afraid of Metaphysics!” is more relevant than ever before for Physics. Thus, a theoretical physicist, professor at Moscow State University, wrote a very important monograph for physicists, Metaphysics (two editions already) and is editing the scientific journal «Metaphysics», in which you can find many important materials and ideas for overcoming the crisis in the philosophical basis of Fundamental Science.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 8, 2020 @ 10:02 GMT
Dear Vladimir.

It is indeed difficult for meta-scientists like you and me to box up against the institutional scientists.

I publish my articles in The Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research and The Scientific God journal.

Thank you for the link to "METAPHYSICS".

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 8, 2020 @ 16:12 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

I think the time has come for a joint Big Global Brainstorming. The FQXi’s contests will just accomplish this task. But it is important to select competitive "crazy" ideas aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of Knowledge.

We continue the discussion on your forum ..

Best regards

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 10, 2020 @ 04:26 GMT
Respected Prof Vladimir,

Thank you for your post on my essay,

Einstein did not like and support Bigbang based cosmology!!!

I reproduced some of your words of wisdom from "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community?".

…………………..Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 10, 2020 @ 21:39 GMT
Best Wishes to your wonderful essay

=snp.gupta

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 11, 2020 @ 08:24 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

Many thanks! Today, when science, primarily fundamental science, is experiencing a crisis of philosophical foundations, support for research and researchers in at least three alternative areas is needed. And this primarily refers to cosmology. Humanity will not be able to develop steadily when science says that "In the beginning was the "Big Bang"..."...

I wish you success!

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Apr. 22, 2020 @ 09:29 GMT
Dear Vladimir Rogozhin

Wonderful words "Humanity will not be able to develop steadily when science says that "In the beginning was the "Big Bang"..."...

Now a days primary school children were taught like that, they will take that as

"2+2=4"

Those small children think there no science without it.........

Very powerful people....

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 22, 2020 @ 16:14 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

Thanks so much for your comment. Yes, today, in these difficult times, a Big intellectual attack on the philosophically naive hypothesis of the Big Bang is needed. What is the nature of the "laws of Nature"? What is the nature of the "fundamental constants"? .... What is the initial structure? We need to start again with an understanding of the "matter" and its absolute (unconditional) states ... And also carefully watch how the vine appears from the grape seed , and then the grapes. ..

Best wishes,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 12, 2020 @ 10:50 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Hereby a copy of the answer I gave on my essay.

Ontological means the metaphysical basis of "being".

Being is a process that is time-related.

In my perception, it is only the past that seems to be time-related and therefore NOT the dimensionless Point Zero.

Ontology is a method of interpretation in our emerged phenomenon reality that leads to attempts to understanding "being".

I hope this explains your question.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 12, 2020 @ 16:15 GMT
Thank you very much, Wilhelmus!

I have no more question. I wish you success!

All the best,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 04:09 GMT
Respected Prof Vladimir,

Thank you for your post on my essay, here is the reply....

Wonderful song on hope!!!! The song rightly tells us that in reality we cosmologists are in fog and cold buzzard of dictator ship. This song is appropriate for our situation!!! All the young children are taught about Bigbang, as though it is right. This aspect pinches me......

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 17, 2020 @ 15:58 GMT
Dear Doctor Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

Many thanks! I wish you success and all the best!

Respectfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Paul Schroeder wrote on Mar. 21, 2020 @ 14:39 GMT
Vladimir Rogozhin

I thank you for the depth of thought within your response to my paper.

Being philosophy, your work is way over my head, but I did read it. It sent me search definitions so often I can say I learned a bit. The context recalls the World of Math by James Newman, some of which I barely remember. Anyway I can only comment on conclusions. I do relate to your concern with education as you reference the need of more philosophy thinking from 1st grade on just as I claim need for more thorough education about space. Logic, and the universe.

As intended, there is much philosophy in this contest. The terminology and history of philosophy are hard to follow and bypass my mind. Somehow my attempt to just apply logic seems to stand outside the world of thought which is attended by philosophers. Clearly someone such as yourself is needed to transfer my logic points into an overview philosophy of the universe.

Best regards,

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 21, 2020 @ 15:55 GMT
Dear Paul,

Thanks so much for reading my essay and appreciation. Yes, a true understanding of the structure of space (ontological structure) is the key to the uncertainties of modern fundamental science. As never before today, the philosophical covenant of Paul Florensky is relevant: "We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding." The question of logic - I agree. But what kind of logic is the original, generating, "logic of all logics" - the logic on which the Universe speaks to us.

Regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 26, 2020 @ 16:21 GMT
Vladimir,

Excellent job! yet again. We both identify the philosophical foundation problem as key to current limitations. You dialectics review was thorough and interesting, adding context and support to my ontological viewpoint and very physical dialectic (and trialectic) solutions to our unknowns.

I was amused by your last line as I consider most current philosophies as at a level...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 27, 2020 @ 08:51 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you very much for kind and deep comment. Indeed, only new generations can possibly overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of science. Today, there are not enough "crazy" dialectical-ontological ideas. Let's hope that little philosophers from new schools with the subject “Philosophy” will be able to look at “space” and “matter” in a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share

Peter Jackson replied on May. 3, 2020 @ 10:51 GMT
Vladimir,

Thanks. We agree on Yin /Yang, and much else. But Auto translators are still flawed, and don't deal with syntax (does that translate?). I can't ever see Esperanto taking over, seems you'll have to settle for rather imperfect English for a while. But top job, and was pleased to find I hadn't rated it yet so it's just got a well earned 10. I have no worries that it now puts yours above mine!

Very Best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 3, 2020 @ 15:13 GMT
Thank you very much Peter, for your kind words. Yes, we have very close views on the philosophical basis of fundamental science ... I agree, many contestants talk about errors in the text. .. At school and the Energy Institute, I studied German, at the Academy of Foreign Trade, Arabic and French. And now, when it's already 74 years old, I'm slowly learning English. Contests in this study are good practice... And Esperanto is the future great hope of the whole United Humanity ... Here, as soon as problem No. 1 of fundamental science is solved - the Ontological basification of mathematics (knowledge), so slowly, step by step, we, the people of planet Earth, will be able to overcome the crisis of understanding and mutual understanding . All the best! The main thing in this difficult time for all Earthlings is to protect health!

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 16:12 GMT
Dear Vladimir

Let's continue our discussion here:

- And which mathematical constants are more fundamental?

If aliens more advanced than us came to Earth, they would surely know more of the discovered mathematical constants than we do. So these constants are more fundamental than invented mathematics. I already mentioned the fundamental discovered mathematical constants in the previous answer: 2, 2pi, e, exp(i*pi), exp (2 * pi) and log2 (2pi). I can add more: number 3, golden ratio.

And how many are there? There are countless more, probably all prime numbers. You can find many on the Internet yourself.

And what do they tell us about the structure of the Universe?

If you carefully observe my table in 2015 Trick or Truth contest, you will realize that it mathematically explain the same image used for the Big Bang.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang , (Timeline of the metric expansion of space). So we don’t need Big Bang, we only need discovered mathematics.

What is the ontological status of these SUPER CONSTANT (their nature?)?

In one sentence, they were derived from nature. It is not called constant e the basis of the natural logarithm for no reason.

You say: The starting point of the Pythagorean dialectic is also the idea of opposites. I have noticed that modern physicist do not applie opposites. If you read my essays carefully you will see that I have applied opposites in physics.

Everything I said cannot work if you are not able to check the last five formulas in my essay.

Regards Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 3, 2020 @ 19:41 GMT
Dear Branko,

Thanks so much for your comment! I'm glad you are back in the forum. I watched every day from March 18, but you weren’t and weren’t on the forum. ..

I will clarify my question:

What do SUPER CONSTANTS say about the ontological (primordial) structure of the Universe? According to your model of the Universe - how many SUPER CONSTANTS (ontological constants) determine and reflect the ontological (primordial) structure of the Universe without the “Big Bang»? In my model, there are three super constants (ontological). This determines the principle of the triunity of absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states). The principle of the triune is a rigid link between the mathematical and physical structure, their ontological unity.

As for the equations, I exclude their consideration, since any equation is a “clipping” from the being of the Universe as an holistic process of generating meanings and structures. The paradigm of the world (Universe) as a whole (ontological paradigm) should come to the aid of the paradigm of the part (atomistic, phenomenological). It is paradigm of the world (Universe) as a whole makes it possible to overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science.

With best regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share

Branko L Zivlak replied on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 11:52 GMT
Vladimir

You say: In my model, there are three super constants (ontological).

Which are your three constants?

Regards Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 14:18 GMT
Dear Branko,

The model (eidos) of the Metalaw of the Universum (Logos = "Law of laws") is an ontological equilateral “celestial triangle” (Plato) of three bivectors that represent three absolute (unconditional) forms of the existence of matter (absolute states). The vertices of a triangle are the places where the minima and maxima of states coincide. The angles of a triangle are ontological super constants. But I don’t know which ones ... Therefore, I want to understand super constants together with you ... Of course, after you read my essay, ask more questions and give critical comments.

With best regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 19:50 GMT
Dear Vladimir

Interestingly, I found your article:

The Paradigm of the Part VS The Paradigm of the Whole ... The Absolute Generative Structure

Vladimir I. Rogozhin ideabank@yandex.ru August 05, 2012

Because my theory is called "Unity of the whole and the parts."

If you just read my articles you would see that my relationships among physical values resulted from Newton's, Kepler's, Plank's, partly Einstein's works…

I would also refer you to my friend prof. Dragoslav Stoiljković, who starts some articles with Engels' views on attraction and repulsion, and through the philosophical views of Leibniz, Hegel comes to the application in the polymer industry. I think that his path is the right way to apply philosophy. The very fact that I have applied the results of the aforementioned greats of science means that I have largely accepted their philosophical views as well.

It is not up to me to apply your philosophical views to my theory, but it is up to you to refute or confirm my prediction with your philosophy.

Instead of SUPER CONSTANTS it may be better to use SUPER MATHEMATICS, which are logarithms, exponents, Euler formula, Opposites, and other rather neglected applications of mathematics in physics. Of course SUPER MATHEMATICS usually contain SUPER CONSTANTS (For example some Planck equations).

Regards Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 5, 2020 @ 11:54 GMT
Dear Branko,

1. You read my old essay, but did not say anything about my ideas in this year's essay, since I added significant new ideas to my concept - this is primarily the concept of “ontological (space, structural) memory, which accordingly determines the nature of “information".

2. In my conception, I take into account Hegel’s dialectical ideas, but rely mainly on...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share

Branko L Zivlak replied on Apr. 5, 2020 @ 14:10 GMT
Dear Vladimir

1. We are all different with our abilities. So as a student, I realized that my skills with words were zero. Contrary to my ability to solve problems, two of my teachers noticed. That's why I'm not even trying to deal with Philosophy.

2. The source of opposites for me is the article by one of our Philosophers, a Bosniak. I first heard the term "Unity of the opposite" from you, so I found on Wikipedia:

There was, according to Anaximander, a continual war of opposites. This I also thought, I can see it from my formulas.

3. Physical constants are equal to mathematical constants, meaning that they are of the same kind as they are in the same formula. The fact that we don't know why, is our problem, that is reason for "rather".

I have no need to imagine a geometric "Whole". The pieces were geometrically well conceived by Galileo, Newton, Boskovic and later Feynman…

I have presented material "Whole" in frame of exp (2pi), others have presented QED "Whole" in frame of exp (i * pi). They claim to have combined a weak and electromagnetic force, let me trust them.

To me, geometry and dimensions appear as a relation of whole and parts, and thus not fundamental.

The following I did not write anywhere: Position of mass and radius with respect to Plank mass and length, govern parts of Universe.

4. If I can choose four: e, i, 2pi, 2

5. Maybe

Regards Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 5, 2020 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Branko,

Thank you very much for the valuable discussion on our essays, your important, deep ideas and comments. I hope that in the future we will be able to continue the discussion in order to bring our concepts closer, the vision of the world (Universum) as an holistic process of generation of meanings and structures.

With kind regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 16, 2020 @ 18:19 GMT
Vladimir,

Welcome back.

A different organization of ideas, but I came to see your point regarding the uncertainties and AI. "Coincidence of ontological opposites" don't seem to fit into the ontological triad and the methodological triad you mention. Their compatibility in the dialectical-ontological modeling is interesting as is the 2.5 thousand years of philosophy we seem to have shuttled in favor of sophistry and demagoguery. I also promote a holistic approach in terms of Einstein's visualized though experiments.

I catch your meaning and your drift. High marks.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover replied on Apr. 16, 2020 @ 18:25 GMT
Vladimir,

Incidentally, my rating was your 7th. I say this because someone is giving a 1 rating to several of us w/o comments.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 16, 2020 @ 19:27 GMT
Dear James,

Thanks so much for reading my essay, commentary and rating. I think that without ontology and dialectics it will be difficult to overcome the crisis of understanding in the basis of fundamental knowledge. First of all, a rethinking of the Kuzansky dialectic and Whitehead’s “metaphysics of the process”, taking into account all the problems in mathematics, physics, and cosmology, is necessary. And also taking into account the philosophical covenant of Einstein: "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."... I am starting to read your essay.

Regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share

James Lee Hoover replied on Apr. 17, 2020 @ 18:31 GMT
Thanks, Vladimir. Kind words, indeed.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 16, 2020 @ 20:54 GMT
Dear Vladimir I Rogozhin,

As always I value your essays. Your concerns mirror mine. I wrote a comment to you weeks ago, but apparently did not post it.

You note that “theorems only show the weakness and shortcomings of formal systems.” Yes — Schultz’s essay discusses algorithmic vs non-algorithmic patterns, and suggests that the algorithmically-derived limitations on knowability do not apply to non-algorithmic patterns, [as in the mind.]. This fits with your discussion of algorithm over model as focus on ‘how’ over ‘what’.

Lorraine Ford said it nicely: “what underlies the world “has always been the same stuff, back then and right now.” Only this can “model the self-aware Universe” that you and I so value.

Also of interest is Naria’yanic’s “underdetermining”. A recent analysis of relativity by Thyssen in Found. of Physics concludes that the dimensionality of the world is underdetermined by special relativity. I concur, and treat this specific case in my essay.

Your focus is rightfully on ontology. My essay addresses very specifically the ontology of time and space: Deciding on the nature of time and space. I hope you will read it and comment.

Warmest regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 17, 2020 @ 13:03 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you very much for reading my essay, in-depth analysis of ontological ideas and their evaluation. I will immediately begin reading your essay.

Warmest regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


BASILEIOS GRISPOS wrote on Apr. 17, 2020 @ 17:58 GMT
Dear Vladimir

Thank you very much for your post on my essay, I invite you to read my response to your comment.

What a deep philosophical essay you wrote. I think I will keep it as a reference. Apart from your aspect about contemporary science, your essay contains a lot of valuable scientific information. I understand that you are against BB-theory, but this is the only one we have that explains the majority of cosmological evidence of observations. The steady-state picture like Einstein’s and Hoyle’s are not fashionable. I liked also very much your chapter about “dialectics” and the Greek philosophers. Your essay gave me the incentive to read Plato and Aristotelian philosophy.

Best regards

Vassilis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 17, 2020 @ 19:07 GMT
Dear Vassilis,

Thanks so much for reading my essay and kind comment. Overcoming the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science requires widespread competition of ideas and support for competing trends in science. Obviously, only in this case, physics will overcome the "Troubles", and mathematics will again acquire «Сertainty» in its foundations. Otherwise. how can mathematics "close physics" (Ludwig Faddeev). Philosophy, “mother of all sciences”, is a reliable assistant for mathematicians and physicists.

Best regards

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


H.H.J. Luediger wrote on Apr. 20, 2020 @ 17:06 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

next to 'space' we also seem to agree on the importance of 'dialectics' resp. 'logos' Despite the historical account you give, the term dialectics remains blurred (to me). This may be due to Heraclitus himself, for one of his fragments regarding dialectics and the slow-wittedness of his contemporaries reads: "They don't understand how that which separates unites with itself...". This in my opinion is the the clearest definition of dialectics ever. But then he goes on and messes things entirely up:"...it is a harmony of oppositions...", maybe due to translation error or drift of word meaning. This is the source of the absurd idea, that dialectics deals with oppositions. Opposition, however, is the relation between extremes of a continuum, e.g. bright-dark, full-empty or long-short. It is obvious that no thing can have opposite attributes at the same time. Further, Kant confused in his antinomies categorical differences for oppositions (e.g. finite-infinite or compounded-uncompounded), which don't correspond to extremes of a continuum. Only Hegel got it right, e.g. when he associated the finite with quantity, but the infinite with quality.

So, what is maximally separated and thus united? My answer is X and Y, which are orthogonal and yet united in the notion area (or X, Y, Z and space). Maybe that's the reason for your affinity with 'space'...

best regards,

Heinz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 21, 2020 @ 14:18 GMT
Dear Heinz,

Thanks so much for reading the essay and appreciating my ideas.

If you look at the concept of "Dialectics" on Wikipedia in Russian and English, we will see a significant difference in the understanding of this word. Since we primarily consider problems in the philosophical basis of fundamental science, we should talk about ONTOLOGICAL OPPOSITIONS, about the coincidence of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Dale Carl Gillman wrote on Apr. 23, 2020 @ 00:35 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

I’d like to first thank you for your lovely comments on my essay. Aside from some very pedantic grammatical errors, I thought that you wrote a wonderful essay. I really enjoyed this essay. Going through your essay, my comments are the following:

Philosophical works are highly dense and your essay demonstrates the magnitude of rigor necessary when an individual deals...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 23, 2020 @ 14:55 GMT
Hi Dale,

Thank you very much for your wonderful, deep and comprehensive commentary on my essay, your significant intellectual and spiritual support, as well as assessment of my ideas. I always apologize to the participants for translating my essays. Many contestants reported this to me. Unfortunately, I did not study the English language and I do the translation using the Google-...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Syed Raiyan Nuri Reza wrote on Apr. 30, 2020 @ 18:14 GMT
Dear Dr.Vladimir Rogozhin,

We came here to read your essay because of the thoughtful comment you left on our work: Mathematics: The Epistemic Veil Clothing Nature.

Your work gave us much food for thought, although being undergraduate level students we unfortunately found a lot of your technical philosophical points, and jargons difficult to digest. Nonetheless, we admire your bold investigation on the ontological nature of mathematics and its relevance to the problem of knowledge of Nature.

While we did not comment directly on the ontological nature of mathematics in our work (explained why in my response to your feedback), we believe and recognize the importance of understanding the ontic foundation of mathematics in our quest for understanding reality.

Lastly, indeed, “Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers”!

Kind Regards,

Raiyan Reza and Rastin Reza

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 30, 2020 @ 18:31 GMT
Dear Raiyan Reza and Rastin Reza,

Thank you Very much for reading my essay, kind comment and evaluation of my ideas. Your research is inspiring and surprising: young students understand and see all the problems of basic science very deeply. I wish you success in the contest, new research, and all the best!

With kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Cristinel Stoica wrote on May. 2, 2020 @ 14:36 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I enjoyed reading your essay, which is thought-provoking and dense of interesting ideas. I wish you all the best in this contest!

Cheers,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 2, 2020 @ 16:46 GMT
Dear Cristi.

Thank you very much for reading my essay and kind comment. I hope that together we can find breakthrough ontological ideas to overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science. Success and all the best!

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Abhishek Majhi wrote on May. 5, 2020 @ 13:57 GMT
Dear Vladimir

      Since you wanted me to make some critical comments on you essay, I am here to write. I did not write this earlier because, as I had already mentioned, I am not a professional philosopher. For the same reason, when I tried to go through your essay, I found many remarks based on several references which I could not follow. Therefore, I could not find an actual...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 5, 2020 @ 16:13 GMT
Dear Abhishek,

Thank you very much for your excellent comment and discussion on the conclusions of Carlo Rovelli's article Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics .

It was extremely important for me that, firstly, Carlo Rovelli not only defended philosophy, but made a good criticism of the views (philosophical and anti-philosophical) of Hawking and Weinberg. Problems in the foundations of basic science remain and without deep breakthroughs in ontology can not do here. It is also important for me that among the list of questions that are discussed in theoretical physics, C. Rovelli posed the first question: “What is space?” And this is an absolutely ontological problem. Here again we cannot recall the philosophical covenant of Paul Florensky: “We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding.” And the philosophical testament of the great physicist John Archibald Wheeler “Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers” I would recommend placing at the entrance to many institutes of theoretical physics.

I fully agree that today, to overcome the crisis of understanding, a comprehensive philosophical synthesis of knowledge of East and West is required. I recall the deep thoughts of Rabindranath Tagore (“I asked of Destiny...”) :

“I asked of Destiny, “Tell me who with relentless hand

pushes me on?”

Destiny told me to look behind.

I turned and saw my own self behind pushing forward the self in front."


These deep thoughts of Tagore are extremely important in modeling a complete picture of the world, the same for physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists, biologists, poets and composers.

I also wish you success in your research, contest and all the best!

Wit kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Mozibur Rahman Ullah wrote on May. 5, 2020 @ 17:47 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

You make some very strong points in your essay. I also like how you opened up with a painting, it reminds me of the pre-Raphaelites. I do think Russian art should be more widely known.

I very much agree with you that 'the modern crisis is not only a crisis of the philosophical foundations of Fundamental Science, but there is a comprehensive crisis of knowledge,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 13:01 GMT
Dear Mozibur,

Thank you very much for reading my essay and your very important, deep and benevolent comment. I agree with you that in our time of increasing existential threats and risks, the role of scientists, the role of the Academy should increase, with the goal of finding ways to more sustainable development of Humanity, deepening the dialogue between Man and Nature. I believe that the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Rade Vuckovac wrote on May. 6, 2020 @ 00:05 GMT
Dear Vladimir

Reading your essay was a pleasure. A lot of things I was not aware (a lot of reading in front of me). I wish you all the best in your endeavour and this competition.

Best regards

Rade

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 18:39 GMT
Dear Rade,

Thank you very much for reading my essay and kind words! I also wish you success in your research and all the best.

With kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on May. 13, 2020 @ 05:23 GMT
Dear Vladimir, your essay is beautiful, it contains a lot of good words, thoughts and ideas, and also interestingly sets out the history of the development of dialectics, so it deserves the highest praise. However, I note that not always an increase in the number of words goes into a qualitative theory. I believe that it is dialectical materialism that is responsible for the current situation in physics, when it stated that matter exists in space and in time, and allowed its dualism and even pluralism. The way to define objects by describing all its sides is more suitable for endless philosophical debates than for such exact sciences as mathematics and physics, where there is more analysis and less synthesis.

Abstracting properties from specific objects carries the danger when these properties are declared existing independently. This happened with the attribute of matter, which is called space and which is still considered to exist independently, although it has been stated many times that it can not be considered a container of bodies. It is matter that creates space and time. Matter is a philosophical category that is given to us only in the form of a sense of space. But since matter moves, space moves, and with its movement creates us and the world that we observe. I believe this is enough to answer the question that you had at the very beginning of the essay - what is space.

I wish you success!

Boris Dzhechko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 13, 2020 @ 08:20 GMT
Dear Boris,

Thank you very much for reading my essay, kind words and comments. The modern crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science requires a revision of all concepts - “materialism”, “idealism”, “dialectics”, “realism”, “constructivism”, “existentialism” ... and so on, all “isms” and all “fundamental theories”, which are essentially phenomenological (operationalistic, parametric) without the obligatory ontological basis (ontological justification + substantification).

Today, a holistic view of the world, of the Universum, of its foundation is necessary. And here, first of all, new “crazy” ontological ideas are required. First of all, a holistic view of matter in the spirit of Plato is necessary, and then on space, taking into account the history of its understanding. But first, one has to “grasp” (understand) the ontological structure of matter and only then “draw” the ONTOLOGICAL (ABSOLUTE) SPACE, without any “curved space”. Thus, we will construct a single ontological basis (framework, carcass, foundation) for cognition, which will give a new heuristic.

I also wish you success!

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Dr Narayan Kumar Bhadra wrote on May. 13, 2020 @ 05:35 GMT
Respected Prof Vladimir,

Thank you for your post on the essay which are very much closer to my essay.

I think we need to go beyond the existing scientific system mainly the "The Standard Model of Physics".

Your essay is too much appropriate. I believe that the empty or vacuum space are filled with some new kind energies. Requested to read my all articles and then comments positively.

Regards with thanks

Narayan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 13, 2020 @ 08:34 GMT
Dear Narayan,

Thank you very much for reading my essay and kind words. I am starting to read your articles.

With respect,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Pavel Vadimovich Poluian wrote on May. 14, 2020 @ 06:27 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

We are glad to see so bright essay here in the competition of brave and far reaching ideas, and this is also true that the physics and philosophy is the great friendship conceptualities going far beyond the primitive physicalism. Quantum effects, different internested system of the real matterial objects, the time space interpretations, ontologies, Montegue and Leibniz ideas of possible worlds modeling. So, we all greet this great report, we all are fond and interested in.

Best Regards,

Pavel Poluian and

Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 14, 2020 @ 07:48 GMT
Dear Pavel and Dmitry,

Thank you very much for reading my essay and very kind words. Indeed, today it is possible to overcome the crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation, crisis of methodology in the foundations of fundamental science is possible only on the basis of the most deep-seated (ultimate) ontological ideas, plus the dialectic of "coincidence of opposites" in the spirit of Nikolai Kuzansky, taking into account all the "darks" and "troubles with physics." I believe that today there are two slogans of the day for the Big Ontological revolution in the philosophical basis of fundamental science: "Physics, don't be afraid of metaphysics!" and "Physics, don't be afraid of dialectics!". The same applies to mathematics. The first step: the ontological basification of mathematics ("language of Nature"), the "hard problem of the century" № 1 for fundamental science.

Good luck in the Contest and all the best!

Vladimir Rogozhin

Bookmark and Share


Dr Narayan Kumar Bhadra wrote on May. 14, 2020 @ 07:57 GMT
My article link below

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3432

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 14, 2020 @ 10:27 GMT
Thanks so much Narayan! I found your articles on Researchgate. I already read them. I read your essay with important ideas, commented and voted highly on April 10th.

Good luck!

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 07:28 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Interesting essay. I was struck by the Bertrand Russell quote: "Contrary to popular misconception, Goedel's incompleteness theorems do not imply that certain truths will remain forever unknown. Furthermore, it does not follow from these theorems that human cognition is limited in any way. No, theorems only show the weaknesses and shortcomings of formal systems." I first thought that he meant that current formal systems needed improvement, and then I realised that he meant that human cognition can’t completely be modelled by formal systems. And I agree with that. I would think that human cognition and decision-making can’t be entirely predicted; so it can only be modelled after the fact i.e. only as an outcome; and it can be represented with words or an algorithm, but not as an equation. I would agree with you that this “eternal … process of generation new and new meanings and structures” is literally the “primordial generating process of the Universe”.

Regards,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 08:42 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

Thank you very much for reading my essay, a very deep and important commentary and a general assessment of my conclusions. You have noticed the main thing. Your vision is very important to me! It is obvious that today to overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science, it is necessary to first comprehend the ABSOLUTE FORMS and only then with numbers and equations.

With kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 10:02 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Glad to read your work again.

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

“Physics Needs Philosophy. Why this influence? Because philosophy provides methods leading to novel perspectives and critical thinking. Philosophers have tools and skills that physics needs, but do not belong to the physicists training: conceptual analysis, attention to ambiguity, accuracy of expression, the ability to detect gaps in standard arguments, to devise radically new perspectives, to spot conceptual weak points, and to seek out alternative conceptual explanations”. Carlo Rovelli on July 18, 2018.

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: “Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus”, due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 “Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability”.

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 10:49 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thanks so much for reading my essay and kind words. You have quoted the very important thoughts of Carlo Rovelli from his extremely relevant article, not only for physics, but for science in general.

I started reading your new article. I wish you success in your extremely relevant research!

With kind regards,

Vladimir Rogozhin

Bookmark and Share


Christian Corda wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 06:49 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Once again, you wrote an interesting and provocative Essay, deserving the highest score. I agree with various statements of yours. In particular, I must regrettably agree that today "there is a comprehensive crisis of knowledge". The abuse of mathematics can sometimes destroy the ontological basis of science. The idea of "Philosophy for children" is great!

I wish you all the best and good luck in the Contest!

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 18, 2020 @ 07:42 GMT
Dear Christian,

Thank you very much for reading my essay and kind words. Indeed, researchers should not forget that Philosophy is the mother of all sciences. Today, not only Physics needs Philosophy. Science and Society are in a deep existential crisis. Therefore, without Philosophy, the love of wisdom, it will be impossible for us, Earthlings, to overcome all the growing existential threats and risks. I wish you also success and all the best!

Cheers, 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.