It from Δ-Logit by Vladimir I. Rogozhin

Hello Vladimir -

I believe we're on a similar track - at least, that we're both concerned with unification of the field of observation - which naturally means including information in it.

I myself describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that include the evolving observer while describing a quantum/classical world correlation. The evolving observer, I show, is the missing link in many of our quests. I think it is this that impels Physics' expansion into Bio- and Neuro-Physics.

We are continually realizing that the Cosmos is fine-tuned to develop life.

You might be interested to see how I treat this argument, and - like you, I believe - how I expand the definitions of It and Bit far beyond those signified by Wheeler. I'm sure you'll find the resulting structure useful.

I totally empathize with your point of view, and have rated essay; I hope you will find something of interest in mine ...

All the best in the competition,

John.

Dear Vladimir,

At the bottom of Zenkin's interview

http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

there is

"Drawing is a very useful tool against the uncertainty of words" - Leibniz.

Of course, this is exactly what Grothendieck did with his 'dessins d'enfants'.

And as I said in the post on your webpage, the underlying triangle O,1,\infty possibly relates to your cognitive triangle Δ-Logit.

I fully agree with Zonkin's view. I appreciate very much what Vladimir Arnold did for science (including a lot of geometrical ideas and drawings). I am not so surprised that he wrote

"the possessing a large influence mafia of "left-hemispheric mathematicians" has managed to eliminate the geometry from the mathematical education (at first in France, and then also in other countries), by replacing all informal part of this discipline by training in a formal manipulation by abstract concepts"

For many reasons, I really believe that 'the crisis in physics' will start unveil by the use of these dessins.

Your second question is much more difficult to answer. You know that Descartes studied music as well.

Thank you very much for your very positive feedback and the high rate you gave me.

Good luck for the final issue of the contest.

Michel

Hello Vladimir,

Great essay! I'm so glad I read yours. I loved your quote of John Wheeler, "We can well believe that we will first understand how simple the universe is when we will recognize how strange it is." I had not run across that one, but I think that it is true.

I also think you hit the nail on the head regarding, "Physicists have only recently started to delve into the essential foundations of their science - and very carefully." That's why I think it's a good thing that there are some groups out there asking the questions and there are individuals outside the area of physics, but deeply interested in the subject, that are beginning and continuing to push the envelope. If the answers were limited to our current thinking, we'd already have them. We have to stretch out thinking outside the current comfort zone, despite the fact that when we do, there are those who object.

I also think you made a couple of profound observations in your conclusions. One of them was, "Reality and its phenomena at all levels of existence is the dialectic of "coincidence of opposites." How true.

And your conclusion that, "New physics of the information age is a New natural philosophy with the new "mathematics principia", new fundamental "la structure - mère". Understanding mind overcomes the ontological gaps in the grounds of basic sign systems - mathematics and physics" is precisely on point.

Thank you, and I look forward to looking at your website; perhaps we can correspond in the future.

Best,

Ralph

P. S. You mentioned in your kind comments to me about you and your daughter's birthday. I noted with interest that the date of your essay, June 5th, is my oldest son's birthday . . .

Vladimir,

If I remember Alexei Losev in his fundamental collection first showed that Ancient Greek Classical dialectika and vulgar Soviet interpretation of it are very different things. There are speaking differently different schools of philosophical interpretation of Greeks legacy in Europe ( having 1500 years tradition of interpretation and translation from the Greeks ). Losev used just only very limited selection of German, French and English literature for his review. Thus, it could be very difficult to make any generalizations on particular subject without systematic historiography in different languages. Generally speaking, I have some doubts ( sorry, it could be very subjective and not popular ) on ' development of Physics of information ' based on popular Wheeler delusion. It is taking problem seriously, but not solution.

with the best wishes

Michael

Dear Vladimir,

I have read your essay several times but I find it very difficult to grasp, even in broad lines.

1) page 1: "mathematics and physics have one foundation". But currently, the foundation of mathematics - at least, the most widely accepted one - is Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, which has nothing to do with the physical world. And the foundations of physics (ZF) - at least currently - are general relativity and the standard model, which have nothing to do with ZF. So how do I have to understand that statement? Or are you referring to other (new) mathematics and physics, which are based on one foundation?

2) page 6: "Kant's categorical imperative moves into the area of practical ontology ..." Kant's categorical imperative is a maxim that can be used to decide whether an intended (human) action is good or not: this is ethics. I fail to see how this has anything to do with ontology, the study of the things that make up the universe. The quote from Umov isn't helpful, I still don't see it. Could you explain that one to me?

Best of luck with the contest,

Marcoen

Vladimir,

I read your essay and I gave it a very high rating of 9.

Quoting you: "Total ontological unification of matter at all levels of reality as a whole, its "grasp" of its dialectical structure, space dimensionality and structure of the language of nature " Such unifcation is acheivable with the physical model of Model Mechanics.

Good luck with your entry.

Regards,

Ken Seto

Hello Vladimir

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Thanks and Best

Than Tin

Greetings Vladimir,

Given what you said in Georgina's forum, pointing out similar areas between your ideas and hers, you should also read my essay, and I will most definitely read yours. We should both find several points of agreement, between our essay and ideas. Good luck in the contest.

Have Fun,

Jonathan