It from Δ-Logit by Vladimir I. Rogozhin

By the way...

I loved the linked material by and about Alexander Zenkin. I don't think I'd heard of him before, but certainly a character worth noting.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Postscript to my last post, or rather a footnote to the last parenthetical remark: "то есть, десять"

Dear Vladimir,

I'm sorry I have not had much time this past week.

Excellent essay, which is why I would like to ask you a little question:

In physics, or elsewhere, what you identify as 0 and 1, if you think that reality is based on information.

I was the last on the list. I thought if we reversed the order of the list I'd go first. With the note that you have given me I have no more chance to pursue that dream.

Thank you for understanding that this could be a great idea.

Indeed it is.

Yes, this world is written in the language of mathematics.

I agree with you for many of your assertions.

The opposites play a great role.

My rating for you is 10, with bonus of 3.

And good luck.

Please visit My essay.

Vladimir,

Thanks for replying to my questions.

There is another thing which is unclear to me. On page 4: "... the unity of physical (material) and ideal reality is shown in a single eidos, represented by a simple mathematical object and representing the fundamental physical principles." So as I see it, according to you we have a single mathematical object that represents both the essence (eidos) of reality AND the fundamental principles.

Usually, fundamental principles are represented by formulas, not objects. An object is a term of the mathematical language, a formula is a sentence of the mathematical language. E.g. Newtons principle "F = m*a" is a formula, not an object (term).

So my question is: have I understood it correctly that you want to represent fundamental principles by a single term? If so, isn't it then the case that you lose, that is, that you fail to represent the mathematical-logical structure of the fundamental principles?

I am interested in your view on the matter.

Best regards,

Marcoen

Dear Vladimir,

Your essay is too much philosophical for me. I do not feel quite comfortable with it. I know you have found a lot of philosophy also in my essay but mine seems to be much simpler.

However I would like to address your important statement: "there is a crisis of the ability (and desire!) of mathematicians to understand each other".

Mathematics is like music. It is an independent art usually cultivated usually without any conscious goal and driven by passion. There is a lot of different types of music. Musicians do not need to accept, understand or like all that stuff and they still create excellent pieces of art. They do not need to work together to create a one universal music style. It does not mean there is a crisis in music. There is a variety as never before. There is no crisis also in mathematics.

Quite different situation is in physics. Physics is closer to a craftsmanship than to an art (with no offence to physicists). It is usually practical or tries to be. The crisis in physics we know: QM and GR / the small and the big and nothing in between! And much more. The parts do not create a whole. So my proposal is to solve these troubles with physics using the geometry. The key is the one universal scale invariant metric (form!). But first of all we have to falsify that concept and carry out the spin experiment. Then we can possibly work out the practical physical math or give up.

Best regards and good luck!

Dear Sir,

This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic - "complex, even inexplicable behavior". Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of "the deer population in Northern Michigan", is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.

Infinities are like one - without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others - every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.

Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,...n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use "a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers", you do just that through "comparison and exchange instructions". You develop these by "inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by 'mating' parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated" and repeat it "thousands upon thousands of time" till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought "evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible". After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.

Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area - the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.

The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.

However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally 'illuminates' the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

Hi Vladimir,

I thought your essay was excellent and well argued. I had to read it twice to more fully comprehend what you are saying. And as you made clear with your quotes and references, people have been talking and writing about, and had insights about, these issues for thousands of years.

I see our essays have a lot of ideas in common. You say that nature's language is represented by mathematics, and point out that we need to comprehend and interpret this language.

You say: "to grasp the structure [of man] is to grasp the absolute forms of existence" - i.e. we have to look at ourselves as an example of the nature of reality. And thinking is "the primary essence" of any thing; and what is most significant: "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being." You point out that the nature of information relates to the nature of being, and that it is the "soul of matter".

You point out that while "ontological memory" holds the structure of reality in place, a second crucially important aspect of reality is the one that "generates new levels of reality."

My answer to your question "Why the picture of the world of physicists poorer meanings than the picture of the world lyricists?" is the following:

Physics has shown that underlying everyday reality there is an information structure which can be represented by law of nature mathematical equations. Some say that reality is just a set of mathematical equations: this is the "poorer meaning". The richer, more lyrical meaning is that these mathematical equations represent an information structure, subjective experience of categories and relationships, indicating that the nature of reality is analogous to the nature of a mind or a being.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Vladimir,

It is a very thoughtful and well written essay. The problem is that I dispute the central premise. An ideal is not an absolute and that is the core of your argument. The absolute is a universal state. Shapes are definition, delineation, form. Absolute zero is not a point, line, circle, sphere, etc. It is the complete absence of energy and thus the interactive connectivity which builds complex reality out of the most elemental energies arising from that absolute state of the formless vacuum. Zero is not a point, but empty space. All of physical nature, even the biggest galaxies and galaxy clusters, are little more than minor fluctuations in the infinite vastness of space. When we measure time, we are only measuring action, while point, location, distance, area and volume are all aspects of space, not the basis for it, as geometry presumptively assumes. Like Roman numerals, geometry doesn't even have a proper zero, because it treats the center point as zero. A real zero would be the absence of any actual mark. Empty space/the blank sheet of paper.

We exist as an effective point in space, so we describe reality from the perspective of the point. Thus space becomes this three dimensional coordinate system, located on the center point, while time is the sequence of events, from past ones to future ones, rather than the underlaying physical dynamic which forms and erases these events, taking them from future potential to past circumstance.

You inductively distill out these ideal forms as being essential, but consider how nature actually creates them. There are much more spheres in nature, than square boxes, even though both are basic ideals. That is because it is much easier for nature to produce a sphere by congregating energy around a point, while a box requires much fairly precise interaction of different energies pushing against each other.

The fact is that if you have nothing, you don't need any laws or forms to govern or define it. No energy, no information. When you start to have the most basic energies, pulling against/pushing against each other, etc, then you start to have the most basic forms/laws defining their actions and interactions. The more complex things get, the more complex the principles arising from them get.

Physics creates math. Not the other way around.

I score you well for clarity, it's just that what you present so clearly is incomplete.

Regards,

John

Apparently I already scored it back on the 22.

Vladimir

You asked me to comment on your essay.

"And mathematics and physics have one foundation - essential primary structure of Nature"

This is the key. And physical existence is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it at any given time. It is a sequence of such discrete and definitive states, altering at an extremely high speed, each degree of difference being vanishingly small.

In trying, through all the quotes, to find your definition of physical existence/reality, I find:

"Physical reality is formed of all the world's material objects, both substantial and non-substantial (e.g., electromagnetic, gravitational and other fields), as well as all motion processes and internal changes that happen with these objects"

Now, there are several questions here, which can be boiled down to:

1 What is an object? When is a dustbin, car, you, etc that object you are referring to? It alters, ie it is different, yet we still label it as being the same thing. Albeit we might say it has changed. But that is contradictory, because a difference is a difference. Physically, it is either one thing, or it is something else. In other words, there are no objects (except in the sense of whatever is the elementary substance(es)). What exists at any given time is the physically existent state of whatever comprises the reality, which is then superseded by the next state.

2 Then one asks, what is 'non-substantial', 'a process', 'internal changes', in terms of reality. Because for something to be reality, it must have a physical presence. And once one starts defining that, as it occurs, in terms of physical state, then this problem disappears.

I am not quite sure what your point is re consciousness, etc. However, none of this has anything to do with physical existence. It is independent of the mechanisms whereby it is detected, and existed before it was detected. Obviously, there must be something, so that it can then be detected (forget the detail that what is detected is a physically existent representation of what occurred). In other words, all considerations about measurement/whatever affecting reality are nonsense.

Paul