Hello, Roger,

Thank you very much for your kind comment! Indeed. Many researchers are searching for the fundamental structure (or " fundamental building block,") that Umberto Eco calls "missing." This structure ("block") must be knowledge base including physical and mathematical. It is also called a "framework structure." That is, it should be: the "basis", "frame" and "frame" of the whole system of knowledge, including traditional knowledge. Of course it should be based on the real-world phenomena. In its construction should proceed from the ancient principle: "that top. so below. "A "Delta-Logit» is the original dialectical representant of this structure, a single mathematical symbol of absolute generating structure. Thanks! Vladimir

Vladimir R.,

Here it looks like you have made an interesting conceptual groundwork-involving plan for further understanding info. It offers a view that attempts to get rid of the unnecessary subdivisions of physics that lie between matter and field, and also dynamics of motion.

There is a point by your look-back number 23 that corresponds to a view enabling human intellects or minds to comprehend reality. That is, there is the actual occurrence of phenomenon (though representational) in the physical state of the human brain - understanding is a process.

One barely needs to reinforce what appears to be self sufficient in the historic support of the philosophic-style used here, than what your end quotations of what two greats themselves say.

But there is a question. While the idea of "Coincidence of opposites" has some meaning in context, as a read, it isn't explicitly stated till the conclusion.

Best as well,

W. Amos

Hello, William,

Thank you very much for a very deep comment. It touches the deepest foundations of physics and nature of the information.

Yes, you're absolutely right that it is necessary «understanding is a process» and understanding of nature «dynamics of motion». What is the initial construction of the first (absolute, unconditional) process? Where hidden "information" and what is its nature? It is necessary to introduce the of polyvalent concept "ontological (structural) memory" - "the soul of matter," which "holds" the whole structure of matter, "the process of generating" on all levels of being and is manifested in the "laws of nature." The concept of "ontological (structural) memory gives the opportunity to move to an understanding, and then the modeling of consciousness, and ultimately to the model of" self-aware Universe.

With regard to the interpretation of the fundamental dialectic "coincidence of opposites" (Nicholas of Cusa) - the rest of matter and its motion, then it is disclosed in my previous essay contest FQXi 2012: «Paradigm of the Part Vs. Paradigm of the Whole ... The Absolute Generative Structure »http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

If you can explain your phrase: «There is a point by your look-back number 23 that corresponds to a view enabling human intellects or minds to comprehend reality»?

Best as well,

Vladimir

Dear Sir,

Your essay was a pleasure to read and echoes concepts close to our essay published on May 31 and our comments on various threads.

You are absolutely correct about the crisis of mathematics, which is a result of perpetuating one's greatness through incomprehensibility that hampers understanding each other. Secondly, engineers have taken over the designation of experimental scientists and theoretical scientists have become almost extinct. With their mathematical background, the engineers have given primacy to manipulative mathematics in physics. Because of the economic success of technology, mathematicians are also influenced by them leading to a lack of understanding of fundamental mathematical principles. Thus, we have landed in problems such as the singularities, which are really not an issue. An 8th century Indian mathematician named Mahavir has shown that division by zero leaves the number unchanged. In various threads here we have given proof for the same. Two 11th century mathematical works in India hold that even though the result of multiplication of any number by zero is zero, the result of first division by zero and then multiplication by it leaves the number unchanged.

Mathematics explains only "how much" one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not "what", "why", "when", "where", or "with whom" about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics. Mathematics is an expression of Nature, not its sole language. Though observer has a central role in Quantum theories, its true nature and mechanism has eluded the scientists. There cannot be an equation to describe the observer, the glory of the rising sun, the grandeur of the towering mountain, the numbing expanse of the night sky, the enchanting fragrance of the wild flower or the endearing smile on the lips of the beloved. It is not the same as any physical or chemical reaction or curvature of lips.

Long before Pythagoras, the ancient Indians defined the number concept as follows: Number is a characteristic of all objects by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one. If there are similars, it is many. Many can be 2,3,....n depending the step-by-step perception. The nomenclature "eka" for one, "dwi" for two, "tri" for three, "chatwaara" for four, "pancha" for five, etc, define their characteristics. While "eka" signifies uniqueness of perception, "dwi" and "tri" signify quick realization of perception in different modes. Hence even children, birds and animals can learn up to three easily. From "chatwaara" onwards, which literally means mobile perception, it becomes difficult to perceive. The other numbers have been named accordingly.

Zero is the temporal absence at "here-now". We must have prior knowledge of the object labeled as zero to perceive its absence. Hence neither positive nor negative signs could be assigned to zero. Infinity is like 1 - without similars. But while the dimensions of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not perceptible. Hence it is not a number. There is nothing like from minus infinity through zero to plus infinity. If it passes through zero, then we can perceive at least one end of it. But zero is absence at "here-now". Thus, it produces a contradiction. Infinity cannot pass through zero. Space and time are examples of infinity that co-exist, but do not interact with anything. Complex numbers are not physical. They vanish with correct transformation back into the domain of reality, i.e., positive real values.

Mass and energy are fundamental properties of all substances their ratio defines volume, which is also a fundamental property. Volume depends on radius. Thus, the effect of internal change on a body; i.e., the ratio of mass and energy, can be noted easily by noting changes in the radius. Alternatively by scaling up and down the radius, we can anticipate the ratio of mass and energy of the body. Since energy moves in quanta - the minimum mass-energy that can be displaced for the minimum distance, this gave the concept of increment symbolized by delta. But it has been thoroughly manipulated in undesirable ways.

Mathematics is related also to the measurement of area or curves on a graph - the so-called mathematical structures, which are two dimensional structures. Thus, the basic assumptions of all topologies, including symplectic topology, linear and vector algebra and the tensor calculus, all representations of vector spaces, whether they are abstract or physical, real or complex, composed of whatever combination of scalars, vectors, quaternions, or tensors, and the current definition of the point, line, and derivative are necessarily at least one dimension less from physical space.

The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. Yet, there is an unreasonable over-dependence on mathematics by physicists - often wrongly.

For example, the equality sign in the mass energy equation only shows that both mass and energy are inseparable conjugates (if one becomes zero, the other becomes zero) and their proportion in the totality vary in a fixed proportion like the two sides of the scale - if more is added to one side, it goes down (becomes dense) and vice versa. Yet, this has been interpreted as both mass and energy are exchangeable.

Measurement is a process of comparison between similars, one of which is called the unit. The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states. Thus, perception, a characteristic of the observer, is time invariant. This differentiates the observer from the observed, which is subject to time evolution. In this view, the human body is not the observer, but only an observable or instrument of observation.

If multiple runs of experiments on strictly identical systems or different measurements over space and time of the same system return the same result, the underlying commonality is real. This commonality has three characteristics: it is measurable, it exists over time and space to be repeatedly measurable and the result of its measurement communicable to other observers. The first and the last are different aspects of perception: the first restricted to the mechanism of observation and the last universal to all observers. Thus, this definition is free from any bias.

Regarding your other ideas, you are welcome to read our essay dated May 31 and comment on it.

Regards,

basudeba

    Hello, Basudeba!

    Thank you for your thorough and detailed commentary, especially in terms of the essential foundations of mathematics. As to the nature of mathematical ab-stract-ion, that I had a task to find the first fundamental structure, "generating" («mother» by Bourbaki), which Umberto Eco described as "missing." Ludwig Wittgenstein is well said that "the structure of the language is the structure of the world", as the ancients said: "As above, so below." These philosophical principles also form the foundations of physics, which should be more reliable, ontologically grounded. I appreciated your essay, happy nine. I wish you success, Vladimir

    Dear Sir,

    The communication part of our essay is based on an ancient treatise on Sanskrit grammar called Maha Bhashya. One King Bhartruhari wrote a commentary on this called Vakyapadiya. After this book was translated into German, the Europeans came to know about this and linguistics was developed based on these theories. We have read the originals. But you may get English translations of these. These books are written based on an ancient treatise called Ashtadhyayi. This book with English translation is available in USA.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Dear Sir,

    We have written a book on number theory. In case you are interested, you can send your postal address to mbasudeba@gmail.com. It is free of cost.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Hello, Vladimir!

    I'm totally agreed with you. Stored knowledge of mankind must be completely rewritten and compressed in the union key of understanding in order to overcome the crisis of interpretation and presentation of basic science. And we need to begin from the basics of physics and mathematics.

    I wish you success.

    Sincerely M.A. Gaisin

      Hello, Basudeba!

      Thank you very much for your comments! I am sending you my email: ideabank@yandex.ru

      Regards, Vladimir

      Hello, Murat!

      Thank you very much for your comments and conclusions! Also, I wish you success!

      Regards, Vladimir

      Hello, Caohoàng!

      Thank you for your kind comment. As for the conclusions, I would suggest another, organizational: FQXi hold an international conference on the philosophy and foundations of physics, mathematics and information under the auspices of, for example, UNESCO. Finally konftrentsii on the results of the three areas to conduct a general "round table" and identify common areas of research on the grounds of fundamental scientific sign systems - physics, mathematics and information. It may be necessary to carry out such international integrative conference at least once in three years. I am pleased to have read and appreciated your essay and found a lot of important and interesting yourself. Our paths in the same direction ... Thanks!

      Regards, Vladimir

      7 days later

      Dear

      Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

      So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

      I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

      I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

      Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

      Best

      =snp

      snp.gupta@gmail.com

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

      Pdf download:

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

      Part of abstract:

      - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

      Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

      A

      Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

      ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

      . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

      B.

      Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

      Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

      C

      Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

      "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

      1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

      2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

      3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

      4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

      D

      Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

      It from bit - where are bit come from?

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

      ....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

      Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

      E

      Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

      .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

      I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

        Hello, dear Caohoàng!

        Thank you for clarifying your comment. Regards,Vladimir

        Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta!

        Thank you for your nice comment deployed. The crisis of the basic sciences should be overcome step by step, taking into account all areas of thought and experimental data. Correctly noted Nobel Laureate in Physics David Gross, speaking in Moscow in 2011 with a lecture on "The Future of Physics" and in 2012 a lecture on "The Age of Quantum Mechanics", and in an interview with "Expert" in February 2013, "What is in the space-time, which requires "framework theory" that structures all the accumulated knowledge, ask "conceptual framework" for new directions of fundamental research.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayGedcIv2z4

        http://digitaloctober.ru/player/content/58

        http://expert.ru/expert/2013/06/iz-chego-sostoit-prostranstvo-vremya/

        FQXi contests are a good beginning in the search for new ideas to address the "crisis of understanding" in the fundamental knowledge. With great pleasure I read your essay again. Good luck and regards, Vladimir

        Thank you Vladimir,

        Spasibo vam balshoya, for your kind actions esyo ras. Regarding "conceptual framework" for new directions making scientists as magicians. I think we have to put our foot firmly on experimental results.

        For example the present essay, is also against some noble laureates who won the Noble prize by misinterpreting output data of the WMAP and COBE satellites. They have opened the apertures of electronic eyes as wide as 10 degrees while scanning the sky, allowing all the star and galaxy light. They have shown that radiation as BIGBANG generated CMB. They confused the whole world...

        We should not take everything as granted as told by them.....

        best

        =snp

          Hello Vladimir,

          I really enjoyed your essay. I like the part of your conclusion - "Information as a phenomenon of Ontological Memory in nature is multivalent in its manifestations at different levels of reality". I think that my essay using dimensionality and the Fibonacci sequence sits well with yours.

          Nice work - well done!

          Best wishes,

          Antony

            Hello, Antony!

            Thanks for the nice comment! I am also pleased to read your essay. You are right, we are going to close paths to the same goal, to one source. In the information age should be a unified picture of the world for physicists and lyricists.

            Good luck and respect,

            Vladimir

            Hello, Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta!

            I largely agree with you. But what saith the great Descartes in the first rule: "question everything", including any experiment ...

            Good luck with regards,

            Vladimir

            My pleasure - I intend to read your essay again. I'll print it out and look forward to further discussions. This is one of the few I keep coming back to for another look, as there are so many now to read.

            Well done!

            Antony

              Dear Vladimir,

              I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

              Regards and good luck in the contest.

              Sreenath BN.

              http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827