It from Δ-Logit by Vladimir I. Rogozhin

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

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

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 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

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

Congratulations for this excellent article.

Quantization of the change of Binary Logit in Ternary numeral system emerges with a matrix determinant of quantum information unit for the observation of Information continuum in near-reality.

With best wishes

Jayakar

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

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

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

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.