Hi Vladimir,

I will try again...

For an idea of how you might represent the Delta-Logit, take a look at

NUCRS by Peter Marcer and Peter Rowlands.

You remark "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."

As you may have noticed, my Software Cosmos describes a particular way of modeling this.

Aloha,

Hugh

Thank you, Hugh! Now everything is normal. Starting to learn ...

Regards, Vladimir

Vladimir,

Some scientists say that ontological unification draws from the theory of original image and that the attributes of God are confirmed, in visible terms,by the ontological unification of matter. What are your thoughts there?

Jim

Jim,

Thank you for your good question! Yes I agree. The search path of the deepest meanings ("ontological way") leads the seeker of truth to the "philosophical belief" (Karl Jaspers). I started this way 23 years ago. And I'm happy that I went down this road. It was only a year ago had the idea of ontological unification of matter, and in the preparation of this year's essay - the idea of ​​"ontological memory." Good luck in the contest and best wishes, Vladimir

    • [deleted]

    • Post #73

    Dear Vladimir,

    I have read your essay one more time more carefully and I will honestly tell you my impression/opinion on your work - as from one person who really honored you as the truly thinker.

    I see your work on the perfect level - by informatively, by strong consequences of judgments', by foundation of arguments and kind/soft manner of offering the aftermaths' etc.

    I am really thinking that your work deserved to highest value that I have decided early.

    However, let me friendly put one practically question, which I think may help you in your future activity. - What you have the real expectation from your efforts and creation? I mean - who will read, understand and will be ruled by your conclusions? I will bring one bright example to explain well the content of my question. Nobel laureate J. Alferov says these words some time ago - !

    It will for you painful, but the nowadays reality it is: the physicists have fully ignoring of philosophers and they doing their calculus and experiments without any small attention on the opinions and viewpoints of firsts. That is the main trouble of natural science in my view: the oldest sage science (as well as the ethic and moral norms!) now seems as something unnecessary for anybody! Thus, we are coming to my work! It is necessary first to break this huge gap between mother science and her unthankful son's! For this need to create something as ,,practical working philosophy,, that can work and can give concretely REZULTS, to show what is right and what is not! I have trying do it!

    Best wishes,

    George

    Nobel laureate J. Alferov says these words some time ago - ,,Philosophers have talking about everything without properly understanding what actually doing others,,!

    Hello George,

    Thank you very much for your kind and insightful comment. I agree with Jaures Alferov. But physicists are forced to delve into the philosophical foundations of physics, as it forces them to make the crisis in the foundations of science, as well told Lee Smolin in his book "The Trouble with physics ...". Philosophical precepts of Albert Einstein and physicist John Wheeler no longer be ignored: "At the present time, a physicist has to deal with philosophic problems to a much greater extent than physicists of the previous generations had to deal with" and "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers ". And contests FQXi say about the turn of physicists to the philosophical foundations of physics and mathematics. Is it possible to answer questions about the nature of information without philosophy? The information revolution makes physicists delve into the philosophical foundations of physics, mathematics, information theory...

    Remember the song Alexandra Pahmutova played by Anna Herman "Hope is my compass earth ..." ..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVHb3HAssSQ

    All we need philosophical courage ...

    Good luck and best wishes,

    Vladimir

    Mr. Rogozhin,

    thanks for the entusiastic message. I made a light essay, simple and "open".

    A big name in the past said: " I understood physics when I can explain the

    argument to my grand mother " .

    So, I told My Father last week: Imagine a snail... the head, the eyes, the spin shape house , the tail. A snail can go everywhere.

    He was happy and me with Him.

    My Best Regards.

      Dear Vladimir,

      Thank you for providing a philosophical journey into the intellectual attempts to grasp the absolute forms of existence. I particularly liked your concept of Ontological Memory as a semantic attractor.

      The dialectical process that brings the universe into being can also be explained as the conditional entropy of the observer operating in reciprocity with quantum potential. (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".) As you so aptly point out, such a process "generates new levels of reality." Very perceptive!

      Best wishes,

      Richard Shand

        Hello Giacomo,

        Thank you very much for your kind comment shape! Yes, the model of the world, physicists and poets should be one. And the simpler the better. In the words of Max Born, "an understandable even for the cleaning lady." Obviously, this should be a "frame structure", presented a letter representing the deepest meanings of being.

        Modern physical picture of the world is very poor senses.

        The image of the snail as heuristic. Simple eidoses give birth to new ideas. Best regards,

        Vladimir

        Hello Richard,

        Thank you for your kind comments and kind words. Yes, I'm sure that modern physical picture of the world lacks the concept of "Ontological (structural) memory" as a central semantic core "framework structure", representing the world as a whole. Matter is something from which everything is born (Plato), Ontological memory - this is what gives rise to all. I am sure to read your essay and also leave a comment.

        Best wishes,

        Vladimir

        Hello, Vladimir,

        I read your essay on June 12 and gave an excellent rating. I wish you well and with respect, Vladimir

        Dear Vladimir,

        I enjoyed reading your essay very much. You packed so much useful information into it that I think I could read it a number of times and still find something new to like. At the end of the first part, I had a question to ask you, but I think you answered it in the next part with the Grosseteste quote: "...a sensual knowledge is not a knowledge, but the path to it. Because human knowledge is more likely to occur on the relationship of sensual knowledge with understanding." When I read your paragraph beginning with "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..." (with which I couldn't agree more), I thought I'd ask whether you think (as I do) that the mess we're in (aiming for the highest levels of abstraction, etc.), due to the incompleteness of the Einstein-Planck revolution, has had a lot to do with not caring to make sense of the world.

        I mean, when a carpenter sets out to build something, if the first cuts are off, or he doesn't put the pieces together just right, the final product tends to be an ugly mess. I think Einstein went wrong by not attempting to make consistent sense of relativity from the get-go (he clearly demonstrated paradoxical implications, but didn't try to resolve them), so the product was something that makes absolutely no sense (time doesn't pass/no objective distinction between past, present, and future/etc.). I may be wrong, but I thought you'd agree with this because of your reaction to my essay, from the next paragraph you wrote on Galilei's "Assayer", by your quotation from Grosseteste, and finally by your conclusion point 5. I think it's that kind of thinking that brought us out of the dark ages to begin with during the Scientific Revolution, and I think the positivist/verificationist thought in the twentieth century sent us right back there.

        Good luck and best wishes,

        Daryl

          Dear Daryl,

          Thank you for your deep, great comment!

          I was happy today when I read your comment in the evening after work. This is the best comment of my essay, and not just an essay, but for the whole period of my philosophical travels in the foundation of the world of physics and mathematics.

          I agree with you completely with your conclusion about the difficult path of physics in the way of the foundation and "building" physics. I agree with your good figurative metaphor of "carpenter", as in my youth I myself worked as a carpenter. The walls of the building, we always started to erect a "corner". Wise words Grosseteste and current situation of the philosophical foundations of basic sign systems - Physics and Mathematics, said that the problem of understanding is central to the whole system of knowledge. G. Gutner good understanding of the problem revealed in the article "The ontology of mathematical discourse", "event which consists in grasping the structure, means understanding." The main question in physics (and mathematics, as it is already too high climbed to skyscraper called "Ab-Stract-ion") - "grab" (understand) the first structure being (the Universe). I think what "angle" in the ongoing construction of the building physics - is still not "caught up" (not understood). You can say, physics found itself in an "angle", one side of which GR, the other CM. This is well told Lee Smolin in "The Trouble with Physics." And judging from the output of Alexander Zenkina in his work "The scientific counter-revolution in mathematics", that "the truth is to be drawn ...", that physicists need to draw all the "corners" of the building physics as a fundamental system of signs. This means as well said David Gross, should be built by joint efforts, "the general frame structure." http://expert.ru/expert/2013/06/iz-chego-sostoit-prostranstvo-vremya/

          Completion Ontological Revolution Einstein-Planck - a common cause for physicists and lyrics.

          Good luck and best wishes,

          Vladimir

          Dear Vladimir,

          I found it both dense and delightful! Certainly deserves a high rating.

          You might find Lev Goldfarb's essay of interest, if you haven't already read it. And mine -- which explores in detail the vertical-horizontal unity you mention.

          Thanks for a good read.

          Tom

            Dear Tom,

            Thank you very much for reading my essay and a good comment. I had read an essay Leo Goldfarb and set a high rating. Your essay I will be happy to read it in the coming days.

            I wish you every success and respect,

            Vladimir

            Dear Vladimir,

            I'm glad to find you agree with what I wrote, and that the carpentry metaphor I used had such resonance with you. Congratulations again on your excellent work, and thanks very much for posting so many more great references in response to my comment. You've introduced me to a lot of new and interesting material.

            Best wishes to you as well,

            Daryl

            Vladimir,

            I find the conclusions you reached in your essay much in keeping with the findings of the 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. Your statement, "Ontological memory provides the integrity and unity of reality, holds its structure, sets the frames and the framework, generates new levels of reality." rings true for me as well as exhibited in Fig. 8 of my essay. Well done!

            I enjoyed reading your well constructed and insightful essay and will rate it accordingly. Bets wishes to you in this competition.

            Regards,

            Manuel