On the connection between mathematics and physics by Hasmukh K. Tank

Dear Hasmukh,

I was wondering whether all the steps of the transformations in Fig 1 are documented, or only the first and last of each row. Interesting anyway!

You write: '...subjective-space, which we perceive with our eyes closed, and objective-space that we see with our eyes open.' Then I am not sure that curved spacetime as described by Einstein can be seen as mathematical extensions of subjective space, as you suggest. The curvature of spacetime due to mass is a perfectly observable phenomenon, e.g. when Eddington observed the deflection of light passing near the sun, in 1919.

The view that math and the physical world may be aligned because they are 'created', respectively, by the cosmic mind and by the human mind, is, in my opinion, somewhat appealing. I realize it is only a philosophical (or mystical) idea, but at least it is an attempt to answer the precise question posed by the Contest - something that several other essays prefer to ignore.

As for the relation of mind and matter, I do believe that there must be some truth in Wald's idea that mind (or consciousness) may be present as a complementary aspect of all matter. However, I do believe that consciousness is a byproduct of the complexification of matter, which happens during evolution. This idea was pioneered by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (I believe before Wald). An attempt to make it formal has been recently carried out by Giulio Tononi with his notion of Integrated Information, as I discussed in my 2014 essay. Also in my current essay I let a fictional character discuss briefly the issue of matter/consciousness, in the context of a potential evolution of Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (take a look if you have time... I'm running short of posts!)

Best regards

Tommaso

Dear Hasmukh K. Tank,

Your essay is fine, but I much more enjoy reading your viXra papers. Your conclusions about physical mining of red shift, accelerated-expansion of the universe and some other I may just copy past. Of course, I disagree with you in details. I think you're overly influenced by the authorities. For example, when you mention Weinberg interesting formula it is also for you pi meson in formula. When you explain the important relationships in the universe you are using Hubble parameter. I think it would be more consistent, not to use pi meson and Hubble parameter. In my essay, you can convince that your shiny conclusions can be drawn in a much simpler manner of looking at the universe as a unity of the whole and the parts.

Best Regards,

Branko Zivlak

Dear Hasmukh K. Tank,

1. When I say Large number I mean 10^121, that may be reason that I cited Scott Funkhouser.In " An explanation for the 'Large Number Coincidence' 10^40 in astrophysics". In formula (18) you ingeniously re-write Newton Gravitational formula. So, I have same for Universal Gravitational constant as you in 1997 year, but with quite diferent approach. And, it is both quite good without mentioning Hubble.

2. The dimensionless expression of a cycle, in my essay give results similar to yours. The difference is that you are using pion parameters but I am using fundamental particle defined as you can see in my articles.

3. About: „How should we think of infinity?" I cited RuÄ'er BoÅ¡ković [1, paragraph 391]. "Now, although I do not hold with infinite divisibility, yet I do admit infinite componibility". More you can see in paragraphs 391 to 396. Therefore I say: mass and radius of the universe are not physically real mass and radius of the universe; but the mass, radius and any other fenomenon is finite but the number of their combination is infinite.

4. The base 2 of logarithms is usefull tool (see FQXi contests, 2013 year). For calculating values of gravitational constant you can use formula from [2] (You alsow know that h=c*mp*lambdap), so, the proton parameters are used for both, Planck-constant and gravitational constant.

5. Mentioned attempt gave results with accuracy of 12 significant digits for numerous phisical constants;

You do not mentioned anything about pion and Hubble parameters in your articles. Maybe you would think about that later.

Best Regards,

Branko Zivlak

[1] Boscovich J. R.: (a) "Theoria philosophia naturalis redacta ad unicam legem virium in naturaexistentium", first (Wien, 1758) and second (Venetiis, 1763) edition in Latin language; (b) "A Theory of Natural Philosophy", in English, The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, first edition 1922, second edition 1966

[2] Branko Zivlak, Universal Gravitational Constant Via Proton, http://viXra.org/abs/1310.0018

Dear Hasmukh,

Your short essay is pleasant to read. In particular,I did not know your Fig. 1. "According to an ancient spiritual book Yoga Vashishtha, the physical world too is an imagination of the cosmic mind". How this old view of consciousness can be reconciliated with the modern ones? You talk about the patterns of cosmic mind, does it mean neurons flashing together?

Thanks,

Michel

Dear Hasmukh,

You're absolutely right, focusing on the etymology and deeper interpretation of concepts in physics and mathematics. Mathematics and physics - two fundamental sign systems that are experiencing a crisis of interpretation and representation. It is necessary to understand more deeply the origins of mathematics, as indicated by Edmund Husserl in "Origin of Geometry".

The second important issue on which you do focus - understanding of space in physics and mathematics. It is necessary to re-interpret the ontology space. That is the task set by Husserl:"Only to the extent, to which in case of idealization, the general content of spatio-temporal sphere is apodictically taken into account, which is invariant in all imaginable variations, ideal formation may arise, that will be clear in any future for all generations and in such form will be transferable by the tradition and reproducible in identical intersubjective sense."

Fundamental knowledge, mathematics and physics, requires a deep ontological justification (basification). In fundamental physics is necessary to introduce an ontological standard justification (basification) along with the empirical standard.

Rabindranath Tagore gave a good hint mathematicians and physicists:

I ask my destiny - what power is this That cruelly drives me onward without rest?

My destiny says, "Look round!"

I turn back and see It is I myself that is ever pushing me from behind.

I invite you to see and appreciate my analysis of the philosophical foundations of mathematics and physics, the method of ontological constructing a new basis of unified knowledge - the primordial generating structure, "La Structure mère" as the ontological framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge, the core of which - the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory. I believe that the scientific picture of the world should be the same rich senses of the "LifeWorld» (E.Husserl), as a picture of the world lyricists , poets and philosophers.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Dear Mr. Tank,

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

Hasmukh,

Again I agree and commend the whole of your short but very clearly written and pertinent essay. You seem to say more of the fundamental question than many far longer, so I think your low score is no reflection. In this case as the great Architect Mies van der Rohe famously said; 'Less is More'.

I hope you'll also read and comment on my essay, also identifying one of the great 'con tricks' of maths where it's confused with reality, so confounding our understanding of nature.

Best wishes.

Peter

Dear Hasmukh,

I have read your essay with interest but I much prefer some of your other papers that you have posted on vixra.

We have some similar thoughts on large numbers and other things. I hope that you will find some time to look at my model one day.

All the best,

Patrick

Dear Hasmukh,

You can download a paper explaining my model on vixra or you can visit my website 3D Universe Theory.

Best regards,

Patrick

Dear Hasmukh,

Thank you for the link to your booklet, I really enjoyed reading it.

I can see some analogies with my model. Your Ultimate Reality (or Brahman), in my model, could be what I call the sphere of Universal Bits (or sphere of potential information).

I believe that consciousness is what makes the Ultimate Reality become coherent information (probably what you call the manifest reality) but I also believe that consciousness can only exist in a coherent world.

From what I have read about Hinduism, in Hindu theory of creation, Time is a manifestation of God and past/present/future co-exist in him. In your booklet you say that the Ultimate Reality is also called God, therefore I believe that the Ultimate Reality should incorporate the co-existence of past, present and future but you don't talk about it in your booklet . I would have liked to see how the Upnishads dealt with that concept of co-existing past/present/future, maybe you can tell me a bit more about it ? I do believe that this concept is fundamental.

Could you also tell me if the Upnishads mention anything about a continuous "scale" expansion of everything (including atoms), which I also believe is a property of our Universe and is responsible for gravity.

Thank you also for the link to your paper called "On the Emergence of Physical-World from The Ultimate-Reality". Again, there are some analogies with my model but a few major differences (regarding the scale expansion and the 2D "real"/3D "virtual" world that I propose).

In your essay you write : "according to the Big Bang Cosmology, the space between the galaxies is expanding; but the space within the galaxy is not expanding, because galaxy is a gravitationally-bound-structure. If so, then what happens at the boundary of the galaxy?"

I believe that space is expanding everywhere outside and inside galaxies (but please note that this is different from the scale expansion I mentioned earlier). From my model, I can calculate with a simple equation that the distance between Earth and Moon is increasing by 3.72 cm/year (which is in line with current estimates) and that this increase is due to space expansion. From my model, I also calculate that Earth's radius is expanding by 0.62 mm/year. Do you also believe that space is expanding everywhere ?

I would appreciate if you could expand a bit more on what you think of my model, it is always nice to have some feedback, whether good or bad.

I look forward to your comments.

Best regards,

Patrick