6 days later

Hi,

I agree with you. Physics remains physics, maths remains maths, epistemology remains epistemology, etc. They remain in their own field and do their own job.

However, it is one human reason which understands physical reality. Human reason is not separate for each discipline. If human reason one day achieves a final theory of everything in physics with models and equations, it would be absurd that this theory would not touch other fundamental disciplines at all. When we will understand the physical reality completely all fundamental disciplines will be aspects of one model/system/framework - the framework of our reason since all our understanding comes from our reason. This is what I have tried to do with my framework. We have to understand how consciousness gets to experience physical world (phenomena in space and time) and how it gets to understand the physical world through science such as mathematics and physics.

I have found that the structure known as ''flower of life'' is the fundamental structure of our mind and what Kant calls the synthetic unity of consciousness (apperception). It is the structure where our thoughts are formed as waves. It is the invariant structure underlying all our theories. Mathematics is based on this structure. Logic connects unit cells together. Natural language (universal grammar) is based on this structure. This structure is also the fundamental structure of space and time. Unit cell (unit circle) is the fundamental building block of physical reality and expresses pure consciousness. It is equivalent to string in string theory or loop in quantum loop gravity, etc.

Mathematics provides the framework for objects in space and time. Physics moves energy within this framework. Different modes of vibrations of cells and their groups gives different particles. Unit cell is a unit of sensory information. The framework is synthesized by the imagination and this yields experience of 3D world. So we can see how consciousness, human cognition, physics, mathematics, natural language, information theory relate together in one system of human experience of the phenomenal world.

Yes, philosophy is often quite hard to understand. Not because it is really difficult, but because philosophers often write in very confusing style and reading them is time consuming. Nevertheless, such philosophers as Kant are really worth studying.

I am glad that most people find my essay interesting to read.

Dear Darius Malys,

Nice work on your essay. You and I are clearly on the same page regarding your view of space and time: "Space is the form of all appearances of outer sense (A24, A26). Time is the form of inner sense (A33) and is the form of all appearances whatsoever (A34). Therefore a unit cell of our framework must have two forms of receptivity - inner (time) and outer (space)". In fact, I think I have a good model, which I posted at http://vixra.org/abs/1402.0045 called the space-time-motion model, which represents space as outer potential that is transformed into actual (past) as inner time. You may enjoy it if you get a chance to read it.

I went a different route for this essay and wrote what I consider a more entertaining twist - sort of a blend of Knights of the Round Table and Lord of the Rings (See Doctors of the Ring - The Power of Merlin the Mathematician to Transform Chaos into Consciousness). It is based on my space-time-motion model, which I invite you to read and let me know what you think (email to stjohntheodore@gmail.com). Of course, I also invite you to read and rate Doctors of the Ring if you get the chance.

Respectfully,

Ted St. John

17 days later

Excellent paper. I love the diagram. Can't resist throwing this into the mix. Kant could be eloquent:

"In order to prevent any misunderstanding, it will be requisite, in the first place, to recapitulate, as clearly as possible, what our opinion is with respect to the fundamental nature of our sensuous cognition in general. We have intended, then, to say that all our intuition is nothing but the representation of phenomena; that the things which we intuite, are not in themselves the same as our representations of them in intuition, nor are their relations in themselves so constituted as they appear to us; and that if we take away the subject, or even only the subjective constitution of our senses in general, then not only the nature and relations of objects in space and time, but even space and time themselves disappear; and that these, as phenomena, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. What may be the nature of objects considered as things in themselves and without reference to the receptivity of our sensibility is quite unknown to us."

This could have been Bohr, who was fundamentally a Kantian. And really, nothing that the Sage of Köningburg wrote has been much improved upon. You mention Wittgenstein. Here he is, the only time I know of talking largely about quantum physics and sounding pretty Kantian actually:

"The views of modern physicists (Eddington) tally with mine completely, when they say that the signs in their equations no longer have 'meanings', and that physics cannot attain to such meanings but must stay put at the signs. But they don't see that these signs have meaning in as much as -- and only in as much as -- immediately observable phenomena (such as points of light) do or do not correspond to them.

"A phenomenon isn't a symptom of something else: it is the reality. A phenomenon isn't a symptom of something else which alone makes the proposition true or false: it itself is what verifies the proposition."

17 days later

Dear Mr. Malys,

I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Write a Reply...