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

            Dear Daryl,

            Thank you for your new comment. Your metaphor of "carpenter" inspired me and gave new thoughts, ideas and eidoses. Thank you very much!

            I wish you success and all the best,

            with regards,

            Vladimir

            Dear Vladimir,

            Your essay is full of originality and imagination. You have, in your essay, a vision to revive the whole of science, especially, physics and even philosophy by introducing a fundamental new concept called Δ-Logit and to build up new physics on it (you have substantiated it with historical claims). According to you delta-Logit is 'information unit representing the idea of generating new structures and meanings', and is 'qualitative quantum or prototecton, primary organizing, absolute existential-extreme; it is also a symbol, primary matrix of limit field of absolute states of matter; "Heavenly Triangle" or the Absolute transcendental figure'. Since delta-Logit is a unit of information, information is the 'soul' of matter and hence there is no conflict between It and Bit. Materialism is an objective reality and we are here to comprehend and describe it on the basis of delta-Logit. But in the conclusion 2, you are saying that 'Reality and its phenomena at all levels of existence is the dialectic of "coincidence of opposites"'; there by claiming that reality is subjective oriented. You have stressed the importance of information in physics and mathematics, and also the importance of overcoming the ontological gaps between them psychologically. Your essay ends with the anthropic aphorism that "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being".

            I don't want to say how far the above observations are consistent, but what I want to ask is how you succeed in this herculean task to accomplish the above mission you have set forth yourself. If this is accomplished, you are bringing about a complete transformation in our epistemological view of the world and I wish you all the success in your great endeavor. If you have time, please, go through my essay also (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and post your valuable comments in my thread.

            All the best,

            Sreenath

              Dear Sreenath,

              Thank you very much for your kind and insightful comment. One thing is clear that a new physical picture of the world of the information age with the deepest meanings can be constructed only together - physicists and lyrics. It is obvious that this model should be a model "self-aware Universe" (V.Nalimov), in which "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.» (John A. Wheeler). This will be the model that David Gross called a "common framework structure." http://expert.ru/expert/2013/06/iz-chego-sostoit-prostranstvo-vremya/

              It will serve as a "framework", "foundation" and "frame" of knowledge for all of his "stories."

              I'm sure you carefully read your essay in the coming days and will give my fair comment.

              All the best,

              Vladimir

              Dear Vladimir,

              Beautiful essay! I agree with you that it is important to overcome the "crisis of representation and interpretation". While, as you pointed out citing Galileo, math is the language in which we can read the big book of Nature, the exponential growth of mathematics made virtually impossible, or at least "unproductive" to pause and really grasp the meaning of the equations. Probably this is combined with a postmodern tendency to avoid interpretations in physics, and pictures in math (see this). I salute your efforts, and I think you may be interested in the writings of a philosopher who was concerned with related problems: here, here, and more you can find here.

              Best regards,

              Cristi Stoica

                Dear Cristi,

                Thank you very much for your kind and insightful comments and for your reference. Absolutely right V.Arnold: «Unfortunately, I cannot deny the culpability of the mathematical community in the present aversion of the society and of the governments toward mathematics and the mathematical education.» ... «In the middle of the twentieth century a strong mafia of left-brained mathematicians succeeded in eliminating all geometry from the mathematical education (first in France and later in most other countries), replacing the study of all content in mathematics by the training in formal proofs and the manipulation of abstract notions. Of course, all the geometry, and, consequently, all relations with the real world and other sciences have been eliminated from the mathematics teaching. »

                It is clear that the methods of teaching mathematics should be changed - this is required by the modern information revolution. You are given a link to a very interesting study Mihai Drãgãnescu: «L'Universalité Ontologique de l'Information», as well as his other studies. Reading them will require additional time, but I looked at links - it's very interesting! I will read your essay with great pleasure that in the near future, and will also write a comment. Title of your essay is very intriguing.

                With best wishes and regards,

                Vladimir

                Vladimir,

                Given the time, I would like to hear your views on my essay, "It's Good to be King"

                JIm

                Jim,

                I am sure to read your essay and give a comment. Sorry, have not had time.

                I will add to my previous answer.

                John Templeton spoke of the need modern interpretation of Scripture. I think this applies especially to the idea of the Trinity and of the commandment "In the beginning was the Logos ..." in its original Greek spelling: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος ... Logos geraklitovom I understand in the sense of a "celestial law", which runs cosmos. This saying of Scripture I interpreted as a Super Axiom. The idea of the Trinity and the logic of the Trinity, more extensive than in the embodiment mathematics B.Raushenbah eventually led to the idea of the trinity of the absolute (unconditioned) of the states of matter (the absolute form of existence) and triune space 9 measurements (absolute). As a result, a simple mathematical eidos was born, representing the idea of the trinity of absolute states of matter: absolute rest absolute movement absolute becoming. Physics shattered world, but it must be seen and understood as a whole. In order to be considered very fast, we must first understand and see the whole. Need a "generalized framework structure" as a foundation, frame and carcass of knowledge (David Gross). And I drew a structure and ontologically grounded. On this I have written in an essay FQXi 2012.

                Regards,

                Vladimir