It from Δ-Logit by Vladimir I. Rogozhin

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 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 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

Vladimir,

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

JIm

Dear Vladimir,

Your essay is worth reading.

I am not sure that there is a crisis in physics and in mathematics. There is a plethora of useful concepts and symbols to approach the real world and, according to Wheeler, we are participating in this creation.

I am not familiar with the representation you are talking about: 'Δ-Logit', I understand that there is a triangle in the Δ-Logit, there is the it, and what is the Log?

May be you can have a look if the 'triangle' O, 1 and \infty may be useful here.

The latter triple rigidifies the Riemann sphere to create the structure of 'dessins d'enfants'.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

Best wishes,

Michel

Hello Vladimir -

I believe we're on a similar track - at least, that we're both concerned with unification of the field of observation - which naturally means including information in it.

I myself describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that include the evolving observer while describing a quantum/classical world correlation. The evolving observer, I show, is the missing link in many of our quests. I think it is this that impels Physics' expansion into Bio- and Neuro-Physics.

We are continually realizing that the Cosmos is fine-tuned to develop life.

You might be interested to see how I treat this argument, and - like you, I believe - how I expand the definitions of It and Bit far beyond those signified by Wheeler. I'm sure you'll find the resulting structure useful.

I totally empathize with your point of view, and have rated essay; I hope you will find something of interest in mine ...

All the best in the competition,

John.

Dear Vladimir,

At the bottom of Zenkin's interview

http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

there is

"Drawing is a very useful tool against the uncertainty of words" - Leibniz.

Of course, this is exactly what Grothendieck did with his 'dessins d'enfants'.

And as I said in the post on your webpage, the underlying triangle O,1,\infty possibly relates to your cognitive triangle Δ-Logit.

I fully agree with Zonkin's view. I appreciate very much what Vladimir Arnold did for science (including a lot of geometrical ideas and drawings). I am not so surprised that he wrote

"the possessing a large influence mafia of "left-hemispheric mathematicians" has managed to eliminate the geometry from the mathematical education (at first in France, and then also in other countries), by replacing all informal part of this discipline by training in a formal manipulation by abstract concepts"

For many reasons, I really believe that 'the crisis in physics' will start unveil by the use of these dessins.

Your second question is much more difficult to answer. You know that Descartes studied music as well.

Thank you very much for your very positive feedback and the high rate you gave me.

Good luck for the final issue of the contest.

Michel

Hello Vladimir,

Great essay! I'm so glad I read yours. I loved your quote of John Wheeler, "We can well believe that we will first understand how simple the universe is when we will recognize how strange it is." I had not run across that one, but I think that it is true.

I also think you hit the nail on the head regarding, "Physicists have only recently started to delve into the essential foundations of their science - and very carefully." That's why I think it's a good thing that there are some groups out there asking the questions and there are individuals outside the area of physics, but deeply interested in the subject, that are beginning and continuing to push the envelope. If the answers were limited to our current thinking, we'd already have them. We have to stretch out thinking outside the current comfort zone, despite the fact that when we do, there are those who object.

I also think you made a couple of profound observations in your conclusions. One of them was, "Reality and its phenomena at all levels of existence is the dialectic of "coincidence of opposites." How true.

And your conclusion that, "New physics of the information age is a New natural philosophy with the new "mathematics principia", new fundamental "la structure - mère". Understanding mind overcomes the ontological gaps in the grounds of basic sign systems - mathematics and physics" is precisely on point.

Thank you, and I look forward to looking at your website; perhaps we can correspond in the future.

Best,

Ralph

P. S. You mentioned in your kind comments to me about you and your daughter's birthday. I noted with interest that the date of your essay, June 5th, is my oldest son's birthday . . .

Vladimir,

If I remember Alexei Losev in his fundamental collection first showed that Ancient Greek Classical dialectika and vulgar Soviet interpretation of it are very different things. There are speaking differently different schools of philosophical interpretation of Greeks legacy in Europe ( having 1500 years tradition of interpretation and translation from the Greeks ). Losev used just only very limited selection of German, French and English literature for his review. Thus, it could be very difficult to make any generalizations on particular subject without systematic historiography in different languages. Generally speaking, I have some doubts ( sorry, it could be very subjective and not popular ) on ' development of Physics of information ' based on popular Wheeler delusion. It is taking problem seriously, but not solution.

with the best wishes

Michael