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 . . .

    Hello Ralph,

    Thank you very much for reading my essay, your kind comment and a deep appreciation!

    Philosopher Merab Mamardashvili said a good idea: «The understanding of the laws of the World is simultaneously part of the World, which laws are understood.» A clear means "seize the structure." It is the "Structure - Mother" (in the spirit N.Burbaki - «La Structure-Mère). Then begin the "new physics" and "new mathematics " as a "General Theory of Structures» with the new "mathematics principia", understanding the problem "Elements of Geometry", the very foundation of mathematics as "the language of Nature."

    Yes, I too hope for our future cooperation.

    I wish your children and family all the best!

    Best regards,

    Vladimir

    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

      Hello Michael,

      I am very glad to see you on my forum and read your important comment for me. I fully agree with you. Moreover, it takes a new look at the whole dialectic, from Heraclitus to the idea of ​​a "coincidence of opposites", and in particular, on "opposites". One of phenomenology little need to "dig" to the farthest depths of meaning of being.

      With the best wishes,

      Vladimir

      Dear Vladimir,

      I have read your essay several times but I find it very difficult to grasp, even in broad lines.

      1) page 1: "mathematics and physics have one foundation". But currently, the foundation of mathematics - at least, the most widely accepted one - is Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, which has nothing to do with the physical world. And the foundations of physics (ZF) - at least currently - are general relativity and the standard model, which have nothing to do with ZF. So how do I have to understand that statement? Or are you referring to other (new) mathematics and physics, which are based on one foundation?

      2) page 6: "Kant's categorical imperative moves into the area of practical ontology ..." Kant's categorical imperative is a maxim that can be used to decide whether an intended (human) action is good or not: this is ethics. I fail to see how this has anything to do with ontology, the study of the things that make up the universe. The quote from Umov isn't helpful, I still don't see it. Could you explain that one to me?

      Best of luck with the contest,

      Marcoen

      Dear Macroen,

      Thank you very much for your comment. Excellent questions.

      1.Yes, the foundation of physics and mathematics should be one - "the missing structure" (Umberto Eco «La struttura assente»). I introduced her option and ontologically grounded in the previous essay - is "absolute generating structure." http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

      It can be understood as a "generalized framework structure."

      2.In the journal "Uspekhi" was an article K.V.Kopeykina "" Soul "of the atoms and the" atoms "of the soul: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Jung and the" three great problems of physics »http://ufn.ru/tribune / trib151208.pdf

      Introduction to the physical picture of the world the concept of "ontological memory" as a central category thereby bringing the matter to the "soul" and hence consciousness and ethics. The world model for physicists and poets should be and can be only one - a "model of self-aware of the Universe" (Basil Nalimov) http://philosophy.ru/iphras/library/zizin.html

      It is a model of the world, which was the dream poet Alexander Vvedenskii (1930):

      «Не разглядеть нам мир подробно

      Ничтожно все и дробно

      Печаль меня от этого всего берет».

      Today it is necessary to introduce new concepts. It is aimed at the contest. Thank FQXi!

      Best of luck with the contest,

      Vladimir

        Vladimir,

        I read your essay and I gave it a very high rating of 9.

        Quoting you: "Total ontological unification of matter at all levels of reality as a whole, its "grasp" of its dialectical structure, space dimensionality and structure of the language of nature " Such unifcation is acheivable with the physical model of Model Mechanics.

        Good luck with your entry.

        Regards,

        Ken Seto

          Hello Vladimir

          Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

          said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

          I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

          The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

          Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

          Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

          I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

          Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

          Thanks and Best

          Than Tin

            Dear Ken Seto,

            Thank you for your comment, and a high rating.

            Best Regards

            Vladimir

            Dear Than Tin,

            Thank you very much for your very thorough comment. You have led a very good words of Richard Feynman. I will add a word of Poincare, "Nature loves simplicity." Yes, that's the problem today to see the simplicity of the complex and to find a "place" of the information in reality. I have carefully read your essay 09/07 and also his highly praised. I wish you every success in the contest!

            With respect,

            Vladimir

            Dear Michel,

            Thank you for your profound comment. Indeed, you rightly drew attention to a very important idea of Leibniz and Vladimir Arnold. In the age of information revolution, the importance of mathematics and physics as an exact science, is greatly increased, and it is important that the system of teaching, especially math, has been improved and more modern. I also wish you good luck in the finals of the contest!

            Best regards,

            Vladimir

            Greetings Vladimir,

            Given what you said in Georgina's forum, pointing out similar areas between your ideas and hers, you should also read my essay, and I will most definitely read yours. We should both find several points of agreement, between our essay and ideas. Good luck in the contest.

            Have Fun,

            Jonathan

              Hello Jonathan,

              Many thanks for the very valuable for me to comment, and an invitation to read your essay. Yes, indeed, we are going to close on close paths in the same spirit in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt. I am sure to read your essay in the near future. Already found your web site address. All very interesting!

              With best regards,

              Vladimir

              Thanks again Vladimir,

              I will try to get to your essay today, despite a heavy workload. And I appreciate the comparison to Descartes. It is an honor. Though not mentioned much in this contest, he may have been a forefather of "It from Bit" philosophy. Though 'Cogito Ergo Sum' is usually translated from the first person "I think therefore I Am," if translated from the impersonal perspective, it becomes "Thinking therefore Being" which is the same as "It from Bit."

              This prompted me to coin the phrase "It computes, therefore It Is." I will comment on your essay after due diligence, and likely have many kind things to say. In the meanwhile...

              Have Fun!

              Jonathan

              On a related note..

              I have created a website: www.itcomputes.info where I will be collating information and making a page of links relating to 'It from Bit,' 'Digital Physics,' 'Mathematical universe hypothesis,' and related ideas pro and con. I will certainly have a lot of interesting content to feature after this contest, and we should keep in touch.

              Regards,

              Jonathan

              Hi, Vladimir,

              Your essay was very deep, and deserves to be expanded into a full-semester or even full-year course. (I noted that you also posted the article on the net as http://vixra.org/pdf/1301.0019v1.pdf.) Of course nine pages is restrictive (for example, each point of your conclusion could be further expanded into a separate chapter), and some of the comments seemed to reflect the disadvantages of trying to squeeze deep ideas into a short format, but you did a magnificent job of not only weaving various mathematical, philosophical and physical ideas into a fabric supporting your ideas, but also applying ideas from one field to another in novel ways. I found the essay very thought-provoking, which is what a good essay should be. (My rating reflects this impression, of course.) Bravo! Молодец!

              Best, David

                Hello Jonathn,

                I am glad to see you again on my forum! That's right, this contest FQXi requires researchers to get to the deepest meanings of being, as the "top" and "bottom". And here Cartesian method is very good assistant. Deep new interpretation of the old concepts can provide access to new deeper meanings. It is required by all researchers modern information revolution. I am happy to forward your new comments.

                I looked at some of the material already on your site and will wait with interest your new materials. You are doing a very good job great!

                Best regards,

                Vladimir

                Hello Yuri,

                Yes, that's right, I'm a very big fan V.V.Nalimov. I was lucky enough to hear him lecture once in the Bauman Higher Technical School. I try to always refer to his work, particularly in his article, "The universe is aware of itself" http://philosophy.ru/iphras/library/zizin.html

                In it, he gives only the outline on the way to its modeling. By the way, loved him "geeks", I just saw at the conference.

                And you think about the creativity V.Nalimova?

                Best regards,

                Vladimir

                Hello again Vladimir,

                I want to let you know that I have read your essay. I'm afraid I found the formal, technical use of language a barrier to understanding much of it. Though I feel I have grasped your intentions, which are bold and forward thinking, with the help of your useful replies in this essay comments thread.I also have a better understanding of the relevance of URLs you posted on my essay thread. I too can see the importance of incorporating the 'mental reality' into physics. I think I will have to return to your essay to see if I find it more easily understood on a second reading before I vote. Regards, Georgina