Eckard,

Euclid's point is something (ideal) that has no parts. Does anybody know a better definition?

Even the smallest physical particles are imagined as divisible

Has no parts, does not mean not extended. It means the smallest possible extension that cannot be further divided into smaller parts.

Then, think what does 'divided' mean. A knife can divide a loaf of bread continuously until the smallest slice is even smaller than the knife edge. At that point, the slice of bread can have "no parts". That does not make it have zero extension.

In geometry, what divides objects are lines. A line of zero width can divide infinitely but can such a 'knife' exist? No, except in the mathematical realm. Lines that exist in the physical realm have width and can continue dividing until they encounter the smallest extended object of same width as the line. Then the line undergoing division stops having further parts. You have arrive at the 'point'.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

We agree on that there are limits to divisibility in physics but not in Euclid's mathematics. I wrote: "Even the smallest physical particles are imagined as divisible in the sense one attributes a divisible size to then." Mathematics provides a continuous scale to physics, not the other way round.

Euclid's definition clearly means that a point has no extension at all. Even the smallest mathematical extension could be divided endlessly. Peirce defined, according tho what he learned from Leibniz, a continuum as something every part of which has parts. Therefore, contrary to set theory, one must not imagine a continuum composed as a set of ideal points. Spinoza still confirmed this logical necessity because he understood infinity as something that cannot be enlarged.

Present mathematics follows Dedekind and Cantor who equated irrational expressions with their approximation by means of an unspecified huge number of ratios.

In other words, they ignored Cauchy's qualitative distinction between what has no quantifiable difference. Effectively they understood points like you as infinitesimally small pieces of a line. Is this redefinition of a point better than Euclid's? I don't think so. Imagine two lines crossing each other within one point. Even the smallest pieces of them have different directions. They cannot both be the same point. Points are not infinitesimal but they have simply zero dimension. In physics, singular points, lines, and areas are fictions.

This opinion of mine is at the root of my disagreement with Tom.

Eckard

Time is not alone...

"Only when we understand and draw the primordial structure of the Universum, then we can understand the nature of time. All of the modern structures of the Universum, built on observations and mathematics - a phenomenological structures without ontological justification. Today the fundamental physics and cosmology must answer the most profound questions and without ontology they do not answer."

Time, as an axiom, is simple time. Just like matter is just matter and action is just action, the three axioms that are the ontology that is the universe. These things simply are the way they are because the universe is the way it is. After all, that is what an ontology is. We can only ever understand time, an axiom, in terms of the other two axioms, matter and action.

The matter and action of the universe define time...think of a clock. Time and matter define action...think of the change of matter as action. Time and action define matter...think of how we sense objects.

With this simple ontology that I call the trimal, a whole universe evolves...

Eckard,

On my system, the Universum and its "beginning" I regard as the "generating process" of the matter which has the structure. I base the ontological structure of this process, which the hierarchy. And then, when the generating structure is constructed, I "grasp" the nature of time. I stand outside the brackets the concepts of mathematics of Euclid and use only the ontological mathematics in the spirit of Plato ("Platonic solids", "heavenly triangle"). Today mathematics - a sign system without ontological justification.

"Point" as a source of a process which has the structure. In Russian the words "point" - "source" - " justness" have the same root: «toch-ka» - «is-toch-nik» - «toch-nost». I consider the Universum as the holistic process, which includes a consciousness and a man - "the measure of all things" (Protagoras).

First ONTOLOGIA and only then - MATHEMATICS. That is, I will consider the ontology of the simplest mathematical objects in the light of all the accumulated knowledge of mankind. I do not separate "absolute idea" from the «matter» - it is the holistic process of the generating of structures. "Absolute idea" as a process of self-motion "logos" ("triune logos"), manifested as the "ontological (structural, cosmic) memory" , creative new material structures at all levels of the Universum as a whole.

Yes, scientific metaphors can and should be used, but in the end it is necessary to build the "general framework structure" - "generating structure" for the fundamental knowledge that gives us insight into the time at the deepest ontological level. The philosophy of Heraclitus - Aristotle - Plotinus - Cusa - Descartes - Kant - Hegel - the first assistant in the ontological construction of the "generating structures" .

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Steve,

Please, construct the primordial generating structure of the Universum based on these three concepts:

«Time, as an axiom, is simple time. Just like matter is just matter and action is just action, the three axioms that are the ontology that is the universe.»

The "clock" has been moved outside the brackets: there is only Nature and your Mind.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Nothing is outside of the brackets of the universe.

" Please, construct the primordial generating structure of the Universum based on these three concepts: «Time, as an axiom, is simple time. Just like matter is just matter and action is just action, the three axioms that are the ontology that is the universe.» The "clock" has been moved outside the brackets: there is only Nature and your Mind."

By nature and mind you seem to mean the basic duality of our world, mind and body. I am with you, but that duality still exists inside of the brackets that are the universe. Nothing is outside of the brackets including the clock, which is the quotient of action and matter and that clock is within the universe.

So your "nature" appears to deal with matter, time, and action, which is the trimal of our Cartesian representation while your "mind" deals with a complementary relational representation. The trimal of origin, destiny, and purpose describes the stories that we experience, remember, and tell about the relations of objects and that is how our mind and consciousness works.

There is a dual representation for the universe that roughly corresponds to the perpetual philosophical discourse on dualism. The Cartesian representation is all about the ontology of matter, time, and action, what you call "nature." The relational representation is all about the ontology of origin, destiny, and purpose, which are the stories of consciousness, what you call "mind." These are not two different ontologies or realities but rather these are two representations of the same common reality or ontology.

Notice that I am very careful to leave particular stories out of my ontology. The points, lines, planes, and volumes of Euclidean space and Plato's solids and triangle, these are all stories that help us predict action in space. Since the generating structure of the universe is the action equation that describes the change in matter with time, space then becomes a result of action and not the place where action occurs.

"On my system, the Universum and its "beginning" I regard as the "generating process" of the matter which has the structure. I base the ontological structure of this process, which the hierarchy. And then, when the generating structure is constructed, I "grasp" the nature of time."

The universum that you describe has a "beginning" (an origin), a "generating process" (a purpose), and a "generating structure" (a destiny). These are the stories we tell about our relational reality and from those stories we do indeed "grasp" a Cartesian time as well as matter and action. Of course your "generating process" is both the purpose and the action that results in structures or objects.

Steve,

I construct my ontological model of the Universum based on one axiom (super-axiom): "In the beginning was the Logos (the meta-law) ...", the simple ancient principles: triunity of the absolute (unconditioned) forms of existence of matter (absolute states), "that on top, and bottom", " coincidence of opposites" (Cusa) and the base method - the method of ontological construction. The result of the construction - "The absolute generating structure" as the framework, carcass and basis of fundamental knowledge.

The primordial structure of the Universum gives an insight into the ontological dimension of the absolute space: three "linear" dimension three "vortex" three "wave", as well as an understanding of the nature and essence of time as the multivalent phenomenon ontological (structural, space) memory substantiate the integrity of the Universum and its structure.

Matter - is that from which everything is born (Plato), the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory - is that all creates.

Steve, but you have not shown the ontological structure of your Universum.

With regard to the "clock", then it's not about the natural "clock", and the clock, which we "measure"- they should be taken out of the brackets, ie, we first need to understand the nature of time, and then "measure".

Sincerely,

Vladimir

I was just following what you said. Your superaxiom is triunity, which is what I call a trimal. My superaxiom is simply that the universe exists. Since my universe has a trimal and yours has a triunity, if your story is an ontology, then mine story should also be an ontology.

Then you go on to triple down on everything, which is what I do as well, but with different words and a different action principle. Your action equation is something you call the "base method of ontological construction" and is different than mine, the Schrödinger equation, and so naturally your universe evolves differently from that different action principle. The ontological framework seems rather similar, though, between your triunity and my trimal. I like that.

Often philosophy ends up using words and discourse that seems new and novel, we know that once you find truth, all you can ever hope to do is repeat that same truth over and over again with different words and stories.

Steve,

Yes, the principle of triunity (namely, the triunity of the absolute forms of existence of matter) - it is a basic principle (Super principle). I cut out the formula at the ontological construction of "the general framework structure" ("Absolute generating structure") as the formula - it "clippings" from the Universum as a whole. Understand means "grab structure" ( G.Gutner

">Ontologia matematicheskogo diskursa/Ontology of mathematical discourse](https://teneta.rinet.ru/rus/ge/gutner_ontology_of_mathematic.htm

)).

"Absolute generating structure" gives you the opportunity to "grab" the nature of time as a multivalent phenomenon ontological (structural, cosmic) memory. In the physical picture of the Universum XXI century must enter the category of "memory" as the core, the semantic attractor, pulling together all the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Gusserl), all the ultimate meanings and values of the Universum. New heuristics and understanding of the Universum can only give the deepest philosophical ontology.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Eckard,

I agree with you. Excellent essay. Mathematics as well as physics requires an ontological foundation.

What a philosophical conclusion about the nature of time? It is necessary to "kill the dragon" or we will find it the place in the structure of the Universum?

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Vladimir,

I still consider the first four Figs. in that essay questioning details of ontology in mainstream.

My fifth Fig. shows the effort I spent as to hopefully understand a measurement by Norbert Feist in order to possibly question Michelson's null result.

Meanwhile, I am convinced that Michelson's experiments in Potsdam and Cleveland did indeed disprove the assumed by Maxwell effect of a light-conducting medium, and I manged explaining in the following essays a logical possibility to avoid what I consider wrong conclusions that led Einstein to questioning a ubiquitous time.

This seems to confirm my hope for genuine progress towards less paradoxes instead of a growing chain of wild guesses. You mentioned Nikolaus Cusanus (1401-1464). He plausibly argued that the universe is endless, has therefore no center, and looks equal from all sides.

Eckard

Vladimir,

My specific conceptualization of time arose from getting aware of undeniable flaws not just in the theory of hearing but already in the concept of signal processing.

In other words, I looked for a plausible solution to a bundle of questions and found it by putting the common concept of time from head onto sound footing.

While I usually dislike teleology I hope to articulate my arguments most convincingly when I ascribe reasoning for instance to the cochlea: Cochlea cannot know the agreed synchronization. It can also definitely not perform complex calculus, and the physiologically evident rectification by the OHCs would also not work in complex plane.

My Fig. 1 resolves not just all such question but I consider it also providing sober solutions to notorious quarrels concerning the disputed flow of time. When I asked my boss for his opinion, he admitted to be not sure: "The issue is utterly foundational (sowas von fundamental]". Meanwhile I understand his hesitation: Some consequences in mathematics as well as in physics are taboo. I appreciate the chance to discuss them here.

I am sorry being unable to derive my concept from the postulated existence of something primordial. Causality demands: Future cannot influence the past. That's simply not yet accepted by those who prefer killing time and causality.

Eckard

Eckard,

Good structural eidos "the cochlea". But why the "arrow of time"? - Asks schoolchild ... Maybe we are too simplistic understanding the phenomenon of "time", including in science? By the way, in the Russian language "time" in harmony with "burden»: «vremja» - «bremja» ...

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Vladimir,

The cochlea is the snail-shaped inner ear, the caudal part of our auditory pathway.

It performs a frequency analysis of sound that permanently comes in via outer and middle ear. Even if the traveling wave in cochlea is most certainly just an epiphenomenon, it also propagates like an arrow.

Zeh deals in his textbook with many other aspects of what he calls the direction of time.

Davis correctly argued that the block-time is a scale that of course cannot flow relative to itself. My Fig. 1 illustrates what flows: the scale of elapsed time is permanently in motion relative to the scale of abstract block time. Elapsed time cumulates. Time to come shrinks. Everything becomes objectively elder. Nothing becomes younger. Where is a problem with these trivialities?

Eckard

Eckard,

I consider the "the cochlea" not as a phenomenon, but as a noumenon - "thing to think not as an object of feeling, but as a thing-in-itself ... which does not involve any contradiction"(I.Kant). Moreover, not thinking "thing-in-itself " but "process-in-itself". Here we need an ontology of the primordial process.

All of the modern concept of time is not constructive. Why? It is necessary to review the primordial structure of space, its ontology, only then can come to an understanding of the phenomenon of time.

G. Gutner made a good conclusion: "The event consists in prehension of the structure means understanding" (G.Gutner «Ontologija matematicheskogo diskursa / Ontology of mathematical discourse»). To understand the nature and essence of time, "arrow of time" must first "seize" the primordial ontological structure of space: consider the snail as "primordial point" as an "event" as a "structure" as a "coincidence of opposites" of rest and motion. as the unity of absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states): absolute rest + absolute motion+ absolute becoming.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Vladimir,

While I don't doubt that it is reasonable to take evident principles of order like the distinctions near/far and earlier/later for granted like phenomena, I am not aware of examples that confirmed Kant's thing in itself as something valuable. Well, he was a founder of cosmogony. However, so far I see neither any convincing reason to ask for something absolutely primordial nor a chance to get a non-speculative answer.

When I was educated to believe in God, I was told that science has definitely no answer to such questions. Meanwhile, the idea of Adam and Eve has proved untenable for compelling reasons. Shouldn't we learn that teleology including theology tends to be a too lazy crutch?

Why not focusing on the treasure of hidden mistakes instead? It was evidently a mistake to conclude that the optical resolution is limited by the wavelength of the used light. Likewise, our ear outperforms the uncertainty relation between time and frequency.

Eckard

Eckard,

I think that Kant's ideas are not yet fully in demand in today's fundamental science which is experiencing a "crisis of representation and interpretation."

It is above all the idea of a "figure synthesis" and "schemas". Kant's epistemology is different from all preceding its variants: the imagination in the history of philosophy for the first time acquired a fundamental importance. His position identified some important ideas of Fichte and Schelling, but later it is again relegated to the periphery of knowledge. On the importance of imagination in cognition drew the attention of physicists Albert Einstein:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

Only a deeper imagination will allow to "grab" the nature of time. It is necessary to go further than Kant - Fichte - Schelling - Hegel to "grab the dragon."

With regard to traditional knowledge, I think it also has a lot of ideas for deeper philosophical and scientific interpretation. This is primarily the axiom "In the beginning was the Logos ...". Is it not from the Greek "Logos" took all the science? But "In the beginning was the Big Bang ..." - this is a clear ontological groundlessness. First of all, it is expressed in the problem of the nature of the "laws of nature" and in the nature of "fundamental physical constants" .

Yes, I agree, you need a very deep focus on "mistakes", but an even greater focus on the epistemological basis of "fundamental science".

Here is just an understanding of the nature of "time", which lies in the problem of "space", and the last - in the grasp of the "process - in - themselves" . In modern fundamental sciences lot of "physicalism" and "engineering" but not enough ontological.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Vladimir,

"The nature of the "laws of nature" looks like a circulus vitiosus. Nature cannot reasonably be explained with nature. I see this not a linguistic problem but a logic fallacy.

Let's not forget on what we agree: There is no reason for considering time a dragon to be killed.

Eckard