It from Δ-Logit by Vladimir I. Rogozhin

Vlad,

Keep in mind that ontological and epistemic are a dichotomy, yin and yang, two sides of the same coin. Like energy/information, medium/message, discrete/continuous.

It's easy to see that at its base, everything is ontological, in order to exist. The problem is picking apart what is epistemic and understanding how the contextuality makes it all possible. Ideals are an effort to distill the ontological back out of the epistemic, to inductively extract that deeper structure and definition, but a circle is not a square. There has to be definition and structure and perspective that is specific to it reality. Like I point out in my essay, if you combine all the colors, you just get one shade. In order to be able to paint a picture, you have to keep them separate, but connected.

The ontological, the universal state, is purity, but then it lacks complexity.

Dear Valdimir,

Here is a copy of the comment that I made to you on my forum page that you asked me to also leave on your page.

Thank you for your agreement. I read your paper, so I can talk with you more intelligently. You have a good concept that understanding basic forms and that of which they are composed are very important steps to being able to understand them and the larger scale objects or forms of which they are members. I propose that you consider that the output of the dimensional structure, which is motion, is the true Delta-Logit or the base form from which all other entities are composed. If we start from the structure of a basic motion, the first thing that is obvious is that it is the generator of the basic increment. This can be observed in its continual incremental change in position. This change in position generates the concept of distance as the variation from one position to another position. Since all motions do not contain the same capability to change position, but one motion can change position faster than another motion which can be observed as one motion creating a larger distance while another simultaneous motion creates a smaller distance variation, the concept of variability of size is created. In order to compare motions that produce different simultaneous sizes of distance to each other the concept of time is created as a comparison of a given generated distance size to a standard distance size that is generated in some continuous cyclical fashion, such as the earth rotating on its axis or the vibrational frequency of some atom, etc. Because a motion travels in a straight line it generates the concept of past, present, and future. Where the motion is currently positioned is its present, where it was is its past, and the position to which it is headed is its future. Since all motions do not travel in the same path the concepts of direction and dimension are generated. Since all motions seem to have absolute limits of zero motion amplitude on one end and the speed of light on the other end, the concept of limit is generated. Since matter particles can be changed into energy photons and energy photons can be changed into simple linear motions, it is evident that everything that exists in the universe that is composed of energy or matter or any combinations of them is ultimately composed of motions. This means that motion is the basic form from which all other forms are created. In addition, motion is the mediator of all interaction between entities that exist in the universe. I hope this will be of help to you.

As far as your request for me to evaluate your paper is concerned, I generally do not go into great detail doing that because I don't want to take the chance of unduly affecting the outcome of the contest as I am not competing for the prize as most are, but am just providing information for the growth and benefit of man to achieve the next necessary level of development, but since you asked, I will just say that you have some good ideas and insights into the current problems in math and physics, such as the lack of certainty, etc., but I recommend that you spend more time and space in your paper in fleshing out, explaining, and connecting the ideas into a coherent overall easily understood structure and spend less time and space showing the origin of all of them in other's works, etc. It is your original contribution from your viewpoint that will most likely win you the prize. Use the reference section to show the sources of important concepts that shaped any part of your understanding or that back up your presentation, etc. I hope that helps.

In reading your comments to others it is apparent that you consider matter to be the most basic substance from which all things are constructed. Matter can be broken down into motion, however, so motion is a more basic substance than matter and is the basic substance of which energy photons and matter particles are composed.

You also have come to the understanding that there must be some intelligence behind the universe that has guided it to produce the very complex structures such as living creatures, etc. that exist in it and the systems that allow for their survival, etc. and this is a very good insight. You seem to be attempting to attribute that intelligence to the universe itself thus the need for ontological memory. The problem with this approach is that the initial creation of the universe in such a way as to allow such intelligence to develop and to exist within it would also need to have been planned, executed, and guided by an intelligence. This intelligence could not have been the universe because it did not yet exist. Neither could an intelligence that was later created by the universe such as man, etc. have created the universe since it would not have existed at that time either. This leaves us with only the existence of a preexistent intelligence (God) who created and guided the development of the universe and all of its complexities to the point that we see it today.

Again I hope these concepts help you to develop the complete theory of the universe that you are endeavoring to arrive at.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Vladimir

1 Whether you refer to one 'object' or many is irrelevant. Reality, ie what is existent at any given time, ie the physically existent state of whatever comprises it. That can be expressed in terms of the entirety of physical existence, or all its component parts, at that time. In other words, how we conceive reality is ontologically incorrect, physically, the objects we refer to do not exist, they only appear to do so because we conceptualise them at a higher level, ie by superficial physical attributes.

2 What is a "self aware universe"? And how do you know it is "self aware", since we cannot externalise ourselves from it?

3 Which links to the next point. You write of "absolute". Now, you may not mean absolute, literally. But the point is that we can only be aware of what must be regarded as one possible form of existence, because we are enabled to be aware via certain physical processes (which is supplemented by hypothesis, which is, in effect, virtual sensing). We can never know the absolute. Simply, if A there is always the possibility of not-A. We can only establish the objective, ie what actually occurred, for us.

4 Whether you see consciousness as a "vector", whatever that means, physically, is irrelevant. Physical existence occurs independently of the systems which enable awareness of it. Indeed, if there is any awareness, then it has, by definition, already occurred. Consciousness, etc, cannot affect physical existence (reality), which is why QM is wrong. Or put the other way around, if all sentient organisms were eliminated, physical existence would continue, there would just be no awareness of it. The extent to which any given output from the awareness process, ie a perception of reality, corresponds with reality, is a different matter.

5 Time does not have 'three heads', even allegorically. There is no duration in a reality, because it is what is existent at any given time. A difference is a difference, not 'it is still the same but changed a little'. Any degree of difference means it is another reality, which is why I state there are, physically, no such things as what we refer to as objects. There is only one discrete, definitive, physically existent state at a time (which is another reason QM, and relativity, is wrong). It is then succeeded by another, and the former ceases to exist, etc, ie it is existential sequence. Time therefore refers to the rate of change, ie the turnover rate of realities. It is associated with a feature of the difference between realities, not of them. It may be that some elementary components do not alter as quickly as others.

Paul

Hi Vladimir,

Thank you for your comments on my essay. I left an answer to your question on my blog.

I read your essay and I think that we agree on a few things, especially the Universe as a whole and the ontological memory.

I understand why you want to use your delta-logit to store the information (your ontological memory) but I believe there is simpler way if you consider that the Universe is just a growing 3D information sphere and that the 3rd dimension is both space and time. That way, past/present/future information co-exist in the sphere (the Universe as a whole). I don't want to expand on it here, but if you are interested, you can find out more in my 3D Universe Theory.

Good luck with the contest !

Cheers,

Patrick

Dear Vladimir,

I enjoyed reading your essay and I appreciated the strong philosophical bias. Your conclusion 6: "Development of Physics of Information requires further development of ..., General Theory of Interactions, ... as fundamental to expanding the scope of fundamental sign systems" put a link to my essay where I introduce "information" as a substantial element of nature.

Kind regards,

Antoine.

Dear Vladimir,

I noticed that it seems that some or all of the posts that were made on August 1 and maybe some from July 31 have somehow disappeared from at least some peoples contest pages. In order to try to do what I can to reconstruct them I am resending the posts that I made on those dates if I see them missing. The following is the only post that I made during that period on your page.

When I said that motion is a more basic substance than matter, I was talking about structural order. An energy photon is composed of two basic motions and a matter particle is composed of three basic motions. A matter particle can be changed into an energy photon by transferring one of its motions (its fifth dimensional motion) into its fourth dimensional motion and an energy photon can be changed into a simple motion by transferring its fourth dimensional motion into the lower three dimensions. In this way motion is the more basic substance because it is the substance from which energy photons and matter particles are made. The fourth dimensional motion gives both energy photons and matter particles their frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects. The fifth dimensional motion causes a photon to take a three dimensional curved path that encloses back upon itself that changes its straight line motion at the speed of light into a cyclical enclosed path motion that we call a matter particle. The angular motion component of this three dimensional curved enclosed path motion generates the matter particle's static mass effect. These things are explained in more detail in my other contest papers and comments on this site. Although the motion within the enclosed path is always moving very fast, the path itself can be at rest, so the matter particle can be at rest. The enclosed path can also be made to move so that the matter particle can be in motion in three dimensional space.

I used to believe in evolution, but after a thorough evaluation I have concluded that it is mostly a myth, so I have no need to think about absolute or self generating structures, etc. Sub-energy particles can go through interactions that change them into energy photons and the photons can become matter particles via interactions and matter particles can also be changed into energy photons and the energy photons can also be changed into sub-energy particles during interactions, but these are just normal outcomes of interactions and not creation of something from nothing or even creation of new things by some type of duplication or generative process. The total amount of motion is always conserved and remains the same, so nothing really new is generated. It is just a process of conversion from one motion structure to another one. The motions are just moved to different places in the dimensional system. These changes take place according to specific rules of operation and interaction of the particles. This does show intelligence, but it is recorded intelligence that can only operate in the way that it was made or programmed to operate. This is much like a program in a computer that can control processes in a manufacturing plant. It has no ability to do anything that it was not programmed to do. There are many similar types of preprogrammed process structures that exist in the universe and learning about them and learning how to control them has been one of the greatest benefits to man from the use of scientific investigation. These structures do indicate that they were created by an intelligent being, but that being could not be or be a part of the universe because some of these processes were brought into existence much too early in the creation of the universe to allow time for any intelligence to possibly have formed before them and then to have created them. Moreover, if there was such an intelligence in existence powerful enough to generate such processes on a universal scale, it would still be generating new processes and we would be seeing major changes in the way the world operates happening around us, but we don't see such changes in operations or any new types of operations being formed, etc. These preprogrammed processes are generally stored in the structures that they affect. As an example, when two matter particles interact the outcome of the interaction is determined by the rules of interaction that are a part of the structures of the particles and the specific conditions of the internal motions within the particles (the motions' positions and phasing with each other, etc. that are variables that feed the interaction) at the point of interaction.

I am afraid Plato did not know about fourth and fifth vector structuring concepts, but I don't hold that against him he did well with the limited information that he had at that time. Now in the light of more information it would be more correct to say "motion is that from which everything is generated" except that the motion was also introduced into the universe by the one who made it.

If you need more detailed information about these things you can read my other contest papers and comments on this site. I hope this is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Vladimir,

When I said that motion is a more basic substance than matter, I was talking about structural order. An energy photon is composed of two basic motions and a matter particle is composed of three basic motions. A matter particle can be changed into an energy photon by transferring one of its motions (its fifth dimensional motion) into its fourth dimensional motion and an energy photon can be changed into a simple motion by transferring its fourth dimensional motion into the lower three dimensions. In this way motion is the more basic substance because it is the substance from which energy photons and matter particles are made. The fourth dimensional motion gives both energy photons and matter particles their frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects. The fifth dimensional motion causes a photon to take a three dimensional curved path that encloses back upon itself that changes its straight line motion at the speed of light into a cyclical enclosed path motion that we call a matter particle. The angular motion component of this three dimensional curved enclosed path motion generates the matter particle's static mass effect. These things are explained in more detail in my other contest papers and comments on this site. Although the motion within the enclosed path is always moving very fast, the path itself can be at rest, so the matter particle can be at rest. The enclosed path can also be made to move so that the matter particle can be in motion in three dimensional space.

I used to believe in evolution, but after a thorough evaluation I have concluded that it is mostly a myth, so I have no need to think about absolute or self generating structures, etc. Sub-energy particles can go through interactions that change them into energy photons and the photons can become matter particles via interactions and matter particles can also be changed into energy photons and the energy photons can also be changed into sub-energy particles during interactions, but these are just normal outcomes of interactions and not creation of something from nothing or even creation of new things by some type of duplication or generative process. The total amount of motion is always conserved and remains the same, so nothing really new is generated. It is just a process of conversion from one motion structure to another one. The motions are just moved to different places in the dimensional system. These changes take place according to specific rules of operation and interaction of the particles. This does show intelligence, but it is recorded intelligence that can only operate in the way that it was made or programmed to operate. This is much like a program in a computer that can control processes in a manufacturing plant. It has no ability to do anything that it was not programmed to do. There are many similar types of preprogrammed process structures that exist in the universe and learning about them and learning how to control them has been one of the greatest benefits to man from the use of scientific investigation. These structures do indicate that they were created by an intelligent being, but that being could not be or be a part of the universe because some of these processes were brought into existence much too early in the creation of the universe to allow time for any intelligence to possibly have formed before them and then to have created them. Moreover, if there was such an intelligence in existence powerful enough to generate such processes on a universal scale, it would still be generating new processes and we would be seeing major changes in the way the world operates happening around us, but we don't see such changes in operations or any new types of operations being formed, etc. These preprogrammed processes are generally stored in the structures that they affect. As an example, when two matter particles interact the outcome of the interaction is determined by the rules of interaction that are a part of the structures of the particles and the specific conditions of the internal motions within the particles (the motions' positions and phasing with each other, etc. that are variables that feed the interaction) at the point of interaction.

I am afraid Plato did not know about fourth and fifth vector structuring concepts, but I don't hold that against him he did well with the limited information that he had at that time. Now in the light of more information it would be more correct to say "motion is that from which everything is generated" except that the motion was also introduced into the universe by the one who made it.

If you need more detailed information about these things you can read my other contest papers and comments on this site. I hope this is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Vladimir,

I looked superficially all philosophical essays (my fault, becouse I have no skills for philosophy). But I think: philosophy, mathematic and physic ought to go hand in hand. Than I read again carefully your essay. I found it is in medias res. So that I want to write the article together with you (where, of course philosophical part will be yours).

I especially like and accept this:

The attempt of /ontological revolution/ of Einstein-Planck remained unfinished. Empiricism helps physicists, mathematicians are helped by going to the highest floors of abstraction. The peak of the age of /loss of certainty/ in physics is /string/ epic going on for more than forty years. Physicists have only recently started to delve into the essential foundations of their science , and very carefully. But whether mathematicians manage to /close physics?/ [12].

And this:

Overcoming the /crisis of representation and interpretation" of the fundamental sciences is only possible in the way of total ontological unification of matter at all levels of reality

good luck,

Branko

Dear Vladimir,

Your essay is very interesting. I like the idea. Will think more and read your other writings.

I agree absolutely with Alexander Zenkin. We should be able to explain any well-developed mathematical concepts in simply and clearly ways, such that they are understandable to any high school students. This is particularly true in the era that "the cognitive computer visualization of mathematical abstractions promises a revolution in scientific cognition". We should ask top mathematicians to teach college freshman classes every few years; writing educational books at the high school level is even better.

I love to hear Nikolai Noskov in the YouTube link you posted on my page, even I don't speak Russian. I have downloaded and read your essay several times so I understand it now. In contrast, it's easy to understand the messages in the songs you sent.

Brian