Hello Anton,

Thank you for your great deep comment. I agree with you completely: «Frankly, I'm appalled that everybody takes the word of the saints of physics as a God's word instead of trying to see whether a different interpretation of observations might solve some of the most glaring contradictions of physics.» Yesterday I was the rating you a happy nine. Good luck and respect, Vladimir

Vladimir,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

Hello James,

Thank you for your interesting and funny comment. Last year it was 270 ... Read the abstracts first and then the essay. With best regards and wishes of good luck,

    James!

    I am sure to read your essay with an interesting name "It's Good to be King" tomorrow and immediately write a comment. You have an interesting biography, write your email. Vladimir

    Dear Vladimir,

    Zoran cracked a joke on my blog and made reference to your essay. Your deep interest in philosophy shows in your essay.

    In your essay, you say:

    1. "In mathematics, the process of "loss of certainty" began with discovery of "non-Euclidean" geometries and lasted ABOUT 100 YEARS", ...

    2. "In physics, "loss of certainty" also took place gradually, over about a hundred years since the beginning of the study of the phenomenon of electromagnetism, the peak is the theory of relativity with its paradoxes"

    This in conflict with

    3. "Physics in its development went on the way of "geometrization". However, to date "the beginning of geometry" (ABOUT 2500 YEARS AGO) remains unclear itself"

    In the Galileo Galilei work you quoted, he advises us that "Philosophy [i.e. physics] cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, AND OTHER GEOMETRICAL FIGURES, ... without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth"

    In my essay, I suggest we go back 2500 years in obedience to Galileo's advice above. Do you agree?

    Regards,

    Akinbo

    Hello Akinbo,

    Thank you for your comment! I see no contradiction in these phrases as "the beginning of geometry" (not historic, but essential) lies much deeper than 2500 years ago ... "The Beginning" - a production of the first tools, the invention of the first spear, bow first, the invention of the first pottery wheel and tire. That is, the development of Homo sapiens absolute forms of existence of matter. A "geometrization of physics" - this is a different process studies on the nature. To regret it passed without clarification of the essential " the beginning of geometry". The required depth of the simplest interpretation of the essential mathematical objects is a straight line, circle and triangle, clarify their deep nature. For good reason Plato called "triangle" - "heaven" ...

    I am also pleased to read your essay.

    Good luck and regards,

    Vladimir

    Vladimir,

    Thank you for your wonderful thesis and useful quotes. You'll notice from my essay that our conceptions of the limitations of mathematics as a description of nature closely coincide. Having suffered the indignation of mathematicians for my specific proposals for rationalising the relationship your essay was a great pleasure to read.

    I do understand how some have struggled with your style of prose, doing so a little myself, but I did completely understand and agree with your message. Our whole way of perceiving reality needs a paradigm shift. I propose a first step identifying specific issues, and challenge the fundamental proposition of maths and predicate 'logic'; a=a. I hope you will agree this. I also, I hope, show the power of 'higher order' or logarithmic spaces and dielectrics, building an ontological construction which offers rationalisation of Bells theorem.

    I particularly agree your; "crisis of representation and interpretation", "ontological gaps in the grounds of basic sign systems",

    I suggest that 'nested' Cardano's Sample Spaces and 'Marilyn' both exposed the more consistent reality and show that; "the problem of justification of mathematics for some strange reason is diligently 'swept under the rug'."

    I congratulate you on the essay, and for tackling a critical subject head on. In particular I look forward to your views and comments on mine, which uses a little less philosophical but more epistemological approach.

    Very best of luck in the competition.

    Peter

      Hello Peter,

      Thank you for your kind words and good comment. Indeed, the direction of our research on the topic of the contest is very close. Theme of the contest is great. It just develops the theme of previous competitions and puts a deep question about the nature of the information, the essential connection between physics and information, the formation of a new scientific picture of the world of the information age, a new paradigm, a new "epistemic schemes" ..

      Yes, unfortunately, not everyone understands the connection between the fundamental ontological justification of sign systems, physics and mathematics, and clarifying the nature of the information. All this is due to the need to address the structure of space, and as a result of the nature and definition of "place" information. But the most important thing - it is the birth of a new concept - "ontological memory," the nucleus of a new episteme. Of course, this concept is debatable, but I'm very glad that the contest has brought me to this "core", countersign, which "holds" our world, making it sustainable, "feeds" and the formation of new material structures. We can say that the world is "awash" in the ocean of Ontomemory, polyvalent phenomenon which is information. Once again well said John Archibald Wheeler on the importance of the philosophy of physics and information theory: «" Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers ".

      Good luck in the contest, Vladimir

      Hello Vladimir,

      although my field is not phylosophy I see in your essay two important issues: how information is stored and it must be modified, although I think you have a hard work in front of you to develop the Delta-Logic. I know some proposals to use modal logic in quantum physics maybe you can take some ideas of it for your work.

      Best regards,

      Sergio

        Hello Sergio,

        Thank you for your comment! Yes, you're absolutely right. Need to deepen understanding and then the parameterization of deep Delta-Logit. I think your ideas here are very valuable. So I wrote in the conclusion that further development of the "General Theory of Information", deepening the understanding of the relationship of matter and information.

        Best regards and wishes,

        Vladimir

        Hello, Jayakar,

        Thank you for your kind comment! Again, I read your additional research. Best regards, Vladimir

        Hi Vladimir,

        Thanks for reading my essay, and I left an answer for you in my thread. I have tried hard to understand your ideas but I am not able to connect well, only few points that others have already mentioned. Maybe, I will wait and see more responses here and try to understand before I engage.

        Adel

          Hello Adel,

          Thank you for your comment. Contests FQXi - is first of all contests of ideas. In my essay main ideas: a picture of the world of the information age is introduced the concept of "ontological memory" (structural memory) is determined by the nature of information and time as multivalent phenomena ontological memory is determined by the place of "information". Based on the construction of the dialectic of absolute generating structure (its construction is disclosed in detail in my previous essay contest FQXi 2012) introduced a new piece of information-«Delta-Logit», as the deepening of the ontological formula D.A.Uilera «It from Bit». I hope for your fair assessment of my ideas.

          Regards, Vladimir

          Vladimir, this is an excellent essay and you deserve a high position in the rankings. When theorists first learnt about string theory they though it provided a clear route to a unified theory but they have found that the situation is much more complex and uncertain. This is indeed a "crisis"

          Now we have to explore further what the mathematics says. It will take a long time and ideas such as your Δ-Logit may be right.

          good luck

            Dear Vlad, i agree with you in general and we do have similar view in most things. we use different languages and translations and we do have our own unique contribution as you quoted Protagoras the principle of Homomensura: "A Man is a measure of all things: existing in their existence, not existing in their non-existence". I agree with most of your views as expressed in your conclusions. I have to read several times to get the essence of your essay o get familiar with your terms and unique language. Congratulation and wishing you well and I will rank it high now.

            Truly, Leo

              • [deleted]

              • Post #61

              Hello Philip,

              Thank you for your kind and encouraging comment. Global Contest FQXi-a competition for new ideas in fundamental science, especially in physics. In the words of Nobel Laureate David Gross, we need to construction a «general framework structure». I'll add: with the ontological justification. The fundamental (!) Knowledge must be substantiated and the "bottom" and "top" - empirically (empiricism) and essentially (empyrean). Only the fundamental rationale of sign systems, physics and mathematics, and then building a «general framework structure» will give access to the understanding of the nature and location information in a unified picture of the world, united and for physicists and lyricist.

              Good luck in the contest and best wishes,

              Vladimir

              Hello Leo,

              Thank you very much for your kind comments and appreciation of my essay. I think all of us together, physics, and the lyrics will be able to find the true image of "Child of Qbit in Time."

              Good luck in the contest and best wishes,

              Vladimir

              Hi Vladimir,

              Your philosophical undertone is very heavy for me, I am more in agreement with Einstein's thinking in "taming the philosophy". However, I have found two good things about you and your theory that give me the incentive to rate you very good.

              First, unlike many people here you have shown that you have taken the contest seriously and engaged in a very good way. I just don't understand why more people who entered this contest don't do the same, maybe they have not invested the time like me and you. Also, although I have done some trolling with the scoring, but it seems some people are making a career out of it, but I maybe mistaken.

              Second, You might be surprised to learn that the mathematical structure that I have uncovered is nothing but your "ontological memory" in some sense. This structure is so wild, in each point in space(actually interpreted as space) it carries the information about its relation to other points(and the information they carry) in all the universe and that is translated to the usual probability density. That is why I call this structure the most generalized geometry there is.

              I also left you an answer in my thread.

              Adel

                Vladimir, it seems that I did rate you low much earlier, I apologize for that.