It from Δ-Logit by Vladimir I. Rogozhin

Joe,

If information is not "real", why are we exchanging our views here? Are they not about "information"?

Vladimir,

I'm not sure that I understand your essay, although I think we agree on key issues. I believe most of our differences are terminology based. We seem to be saying the same things but with a very different vocabulary.

You discuss the "ontological justification of fundamental knowledge" and the "total ontological unification of matter at all levels of reality as a whole...". The key to these is, I believe the actual "being" or ontological existence of matter, and the "awareness" of this being, which leads to what you call "ontological memory". Either these are two separate aspects of reality, or they are unified. In my essay I propose that they are unified, in the existence of the self-interacting and self-aware primordial field which I identify as the gravitational field present at the big bang and evolving to our current state solely through self-interaction. You identify the "structure of language" as a "house of Being" based on "linear-wave-vortex". I'm not at all sure what this means, but the self-evolution of the field that I speak of would interpret 'linear' as the basis of extension, hence space; 'wave' as the nature of cyclical action, hence time; and 'vortex' as the nature of localization, leading to particular matter as derived from concentration (in soliton-form) of the material field. Once particles exist, sustainable structure is possible, and this is the prerequisite (as I understand it) for 'ontological memory'.

The only question is then how awareness interfaces to the structure. You say "consciousness is included in the world as a whole through the phenomenon of understanding [...] of objective laws of nature." The essence of consciousness is [unstructured] awareness, and I posit this in the primordial field. Moreover the 'degree' of local awareness is coupled to the motion (change) of mass, not the (static) existence of mass. This is made clearer in my essay and references. I also address how the 'objective laws of nature' are derived from such structure.

I lay out the above comment for the purpose of helping to translate between your essay and my essay, which, I believe are saying much the same thing [and certainly are addressing the same problem!].

Thank you for your stimulating essay, and good luck in the contest.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Vladimir

You surveyed many topics that sounded interesting, but I could understand your meaning only by 'reading between the lines' because you use very technical philosophical and other terms.

I like your use of delta in the title. As the increment in calculus it can be modified..not delta approaching zero, but delta approaching...Planck's constant. In my Beautiful Universe Theory I propose a model of the physical universe made up of a lattice of rotating nodes in units of Planck's unit of action (h).

You might have faith in Einstein's ontological views - he wanted clarity and logic..but unfortunately he based his physics on imaginative assumptions that have lead to many dead-ends. For example his proposal for a point photon absorbed and emitted as a particle has lead to the concept of quantum probability a mathematical convenience with no physical meaning at all. His concept of a fixed speed of light (c) led to the strange unphysical ideas of flexible space and time and to the cancellation of the ether from nature, an unnecessary and costly detour.

With best wishes

Vladimir

Vladimir and Leo,

We are exchanging information, but we are not exchanging reality.

Dear Vladimir

I agree with your hopes that physics will become a more intuitively acceptable science. Unfortunately I think Einstein took it into a too-imaginative direction. His results are correct but his assumptions about constant speed of light and flexible spacetime are fairy tales. Also his photon idea did much harm in physics. Eric Reiter in Eric Reiter's website proved the photon particle wrong.

I regret that I do not speak Russian nor am I a Russian.and used Google Translate to understand your comment..long story told on my website. It is a pity because I know a lot of Russian physics has taken a different path than in the West and I wish I could understand some of these directions.

I wish you all success

Vladimir

Hello Vladimir,

Again welcome to the contest!

I want to mention one point raised in your essay in a soft form and not properly understood even by the scientific community.

In the first half of your essay you discuss the present crisis facing science today. I believe that the situation with this crisis is quite different from that with all the previous crises. It appears that, in science, we have never faced the crisis of such magnitude and of such consequences. In particular, I believe that we are faced with the radical change of scientific language, which has never happened before. Unfortunately, not many scientists realize this, which in turn contributes to the prolongation of the crisis. As I suggest in my essay, the essence of the crisis is the integration of the 'mental' into a scientific view.

My best wishes to you!

Vladimir,

One can never see a "whole" not even by looking through a telescope, a periscope or a microscope.

Hi Vladimir,

I actually read your essay couple of times. It was so fine language and so abstract from time to time. We do have a some common ground indeed but you are looking at it from very much higher perspective than me. Anyway, I liked it.

Vladimir,

Hi. I'm not sure if I understood everything, but I think I agree that you and I are kind of thinking along the same lines. If I understand it, you're also suggesting that there is some fundamental building block, the delta-Logit, which is capable of change (the delta part). And from delta-Logit all of reality, its and bits, is built? If that's what you're getting at, I totally agree. Several of the essays in the contest are about this idea, and I think it's right on. Most of them also are talking about the way physicists and philosophers of science are so enthralled with mathematics and Platonic realms that they're forgetting the real world may not behave the same as the mathematical world in their minds.

Anyways, good essay! Thanks!

Roger

Vladimir R.,

Here it looks like you have made an interesting conceptual groundwork-involving plan for further understanding info. It offers a view that attempts to get rid of the unnecessary subdivisions of physics that lie between matter and field, and also dynamics of motion.

There is a point by your look-back number 23 that corresponds to a view enabling human intellects or minds to comprehend reality. That is, there is the actual occurrence of phenomenon (though representational) in the physical state of the human brain - understanding is a process.

One barely needs to reinforce what appears to be self sufficient in the historic support of the philosophic-style used here, than what your end quotations of what two greats themselves say.

But there is a question. While the idea of "Coincidence of opposites" has some meaning in context, as a read, it isn't explicitly stated till the conclusion.

Best as well,

W. Amos

Dear Sir,

Your essay was a pleasure to read and echoes concepts close to our essay published on May 31 and our comments on various threads.

You are absolutely correct about the crisis of mathematics, which is a result of perpetuating one's greatness through incomprehensibility that hampers understanding each other. Secondly, engineers have taken over the designation of experimental scientists and theoretical scientists have become almost extinct. With their mathematical background, the engineers have given primacy to manipulative mathematics in physics. Because of the economic success of technology, mathematicians are also influenced by them leading to a lack of understanding of fundamental mathematical principles. Thus, we have landed in problems such as the singularities, which are really not an issue. An 8th century Indian mathematician named Mahavir has shown that division by zero leaves the number unchanged. In various threads here we have given proof for the same. Two 11th century mathematical works in India hold that even though the result of multiplication of any number by zero is zero, the result of first division by zero and then multiplication by it leaves the number unchanged.

Mathematics explains only "how much" one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not "what", "why", "when", "where", or "with whom" about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics. Mathematics is an expression of Nature, not its sole language. Though observer has a central role in Quantum theories, its true nature and mechanism has eluded the scientists. There cannot be an equation to describe the observer, the glory of the rising sun, the grandeur of the towering mountain, the numbing expanse of the night sky, the enchanting fragrance of the wild flower or the endearing smile on the lips of the beloved. It is not the same as any physical or chemical reaction or curvature of lips.

Long before Pythagoras, the ancient Indians defined the number concept as follows: Number is a characteristic of all objects by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one. If there are similars, it is many. Many can be 2,3,....n depending the step-by-step perception. The nomenclature "eka" for one, "dwi" for two, "tri" for three, "chatwaara" for four, "pancha" for five, etc, define their characteristics. While "eka" signifies uniqueness of perception, "dwi" and "tri" signify quick realization of perception in different modes. Hence even children, birds and animals can learn up to three easily. From "chatwaara" onwards, which literally means mobile perception, it becomes difficult to perceive. The other numbers have been named accordingly.

Zero is the temporal absence at "here-now". We must have prior knowledge of the object labeled as zero to perceive its absence. Hence neither positive nor negative signs could be assigned to zero. Infinity is like 1 - without similars. But while the dimensions of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not perceptible. Hence it is not a number. There is nothing like from minus infinity through zero to plus infinity. If it passes through zero, then we can perceive at least one end of it. But zero is absence at "here-now". Thus, it produces a contradiction. Infinity cannot pass through zero. Space and time are examples of infinity that co-exist, but do not interact with anything. Complex numbers are not physical. They vanish with correct transformation back into the domain of reality, i.e., positive real values.

Mass and energy are fundamental properties of all substances their ratio defines volume, which is also a fundamental property. Volume depends on radius. Thus, the effect of internal change on a body; i.e., the ratio of mass and energy, can be noted easily by noting changes in the radius. Alternatively by scaling up and down the radius, we can anticipate the ratio of mass and energy of the body. Since energy moves in quanta - the minimum mass-energy that can be displaced for the minimum distance, this gave the concept of increment symbolized by delta. But it has been thoroughly manipulated in undesirable ways.

Mathematics is related also to the measurement of area or curves on a graph - the so-called mathematical structures, which are two dimensional structures. Thus, the basic assumptions of all topologies, including symplectic topology, linear and vector algebra and the tensor calculus, all representations of vector spaces, whether they are abstract or physical, real or complex, composed of whatever combination of scalars, vectors, quaternions, or tensors, and the current definition of the point, line, and derivative are necessarily at least one dimension less from physical space.

The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. Yet, there is an unreasonable over-dependence on mathematics by physicists - often wrongly.

For example, the equality sign in the mass energy equation only shows that both mass and energy are inseparable conjugates (if one becomes zero, the other becomes zero) and their proportion in the totality vary in a fixed proportion like the two sides of the scale - if more is added to one side, it goes down (becomes dense) and vice versa. Yet, this has been interpreted as both mass and energy are exchangeable.

Measurement is a process of comparison between similars, one of which is called the unit. The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states. Thus, perception, a characteristic of the observer, is time invariant. This differentiates the observer from the observed, which is subject to time evolution. In this view, the human body is not the observer, but only an observable or instrument of observation.

If multiple runs of experiments on strictly identical systems or different measurements over space and time of the same system return the same result, the underlying commonality is real. This commonality has three characteristics: it is measurable, it exists over time and space to be repeatedly measurable and the result of its measurement communicable to other observers. The first and the last are different aspects of perception: the first restricted to the mechanism of observation and the last universal to all observers. Thus, this definition is free from any bias.

Regarding your other ideas, you are welcome to read our essay dated May 31 and comment on it.

Regards,

basudeba