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 Valdimir,

    Thank you very much for reading my essay; and your comments, quoting Rabindranath Tagore's poem!

    Both, a physicist and a philosopher tries to understand the world around him.

    A philosopher concentrates more on non-quantifiable entities; so he does not need mathematics. Whereas a physicist tries to count or measure the world around him and uses numbers and mathematical symbols to first describe, and then to predict the events. Thus, physics, philosophy and mathematics, all the three are needed to fully understand the world around us. All the three keep deriving useful points from each other. So we need to read Valdimir's essay, and essays by others!

    Yours sincerely,

    Hasmukh K. Tank

    7 days later

    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

    Dear Joe Fisher,

    1. Newton made a beginning; his gravity was 'action at a distance'; still a good start.

    2. Einstein's proposal of curvature and expansion of space were never agreeable by me. I have been arguing that 'expansion of space' of GR is a 'mathematical terminology' not a physical phenomenon; because: as per GR, if the space between the galaxies is expanding , but the space within the galaxy is not doing so, as a galaxy is a gravitationally-bound structure, then what happens at the boundary of the galaxy? Such uneven expansion of glass would break the glass, and may tear off the space, if expansion-of-space were a physically-real phenomenon. Recently, Ling Jun Wang, (2014)in an essay titled "On the Flatness of Space-time" Physics Essays, Volume 27, No. 3, has rigorously proven that curvature and expansion of space-time are mathematical entities, not the physically real curvature or expansion of space.

    3. While I thank you for your invitation for reading your essay; and I tried my level best to understand your essay; but unfortunately, it is beyond my grasp. It is too abstract for me. For me all objects are not surfaces, they are three-dimensional; and changing their positions and shapes with time.

    With best regards,

    Hasmukh K. Tank

    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

      Respected Peter Jackson,

      because, you are 1951-born, whereas i, in November 1952.

      The quality of your essay is also far superior to mine.

      All physicists should read your essay.

      When i was first introduced to the three-filter-paradox, i could see no paradox in it. The very name 'polarize r' means that it is the polarize r which polarizes the light. You have used more appropriate word "modulator". There is no paradox. Only the mathematical logic was wrongly applied.

      Similarly, i agree with your other ideas.

      With my best regards,

      Hasmukh K. Tank

      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 Patrik,

        Thank you very much for reading my essay and other write-ups at viXra site.

        I too have read your short-and-sweet essay, clearly expressing your views. Single reading is not sufficient to express comments, as your essay demands much thinking.

        If you kindly give links of your papers, then i can learn more about your views on large-number and other things; and discuss.

        With my best regards,

        Hasmukh K. Tank

        Dear Patrik,

        I read your interesting paper titled 3D Universe 8Pi-1.

        Since you have discussed from the two view-points, one from an external observer's and the other from the internal observer's; and you have talked about The Soul, you will find it interesting and useful to read the following small booklet. Since it is a PDF-converted JPEG-image it will take some longer time to download. But i am sure, you will enjoy reading it. The URL is:

        https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx0aGV1bHRpbWF0ZXJlYWxpdHlzaXRlfGd4OjY3MmM5YmNjODFiZDY3YzE

        You will also be delighted to read my rudimentary attempt to understand how this physical world may have emerged from the Ultimate Reality.

        http://vixra.org/pdf/1312.0084v1.pdf

        And i will be waiting eagerly for your comments.

        With my best regards,

        Hasmukh k. Tank

          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

          Dear Patrik,

          From your comments it is clear that you have carefully read the book-let and the two essays. There is a sincere desire in you to know the ultimate truth. So you will definitely find a suitable source one day.

          1. As you may be knowing, there are eleven major Upanishads, containing many stanzas. My book-let contains some 5% of stanzas. There are many which i could not understand, so not included. Vyasa has extracted the essence of The Upanishads, known as Bhagvad Geeta; which is translated in many languages of the world. In Bhagvad Geeta we find a support to your statement:"..therefore I believe that the Ultimate Reality should incorporate the co-existence of past, present and future...". Yes, past, present and future are for a limited, localized individual. The Ultimate Reality, which is also called God, is omni-present, so for Him all the three periods of time are perpatual-present.

          2. In your essay, you say that every Bit has 50% probability to be either 0 or 1. Similarly, the ultimate Reality (UR) is free to move or not to move; vibrate or not to vibrate. So at some places we find it vibrating and at other places steady and motionless. The vibrating aspect, or the fluctuating-aspect of the UR is perceivable to us as energy, and the steady aspect as 'space'.

          3. Everybody tries to understand the world based on his prior-information. Since you are trained in digital techniques and computers, your model is based on Bits. And since you believe in expansion of the universe, your model contains 'expanding spherical surfaces' at the speed of light. It is very interesting that with the help of your model you could reach up-to SOUL and CONSCIOUSNESS. Different peoples' minds are molded differently; so what is very clear and obvious to you in your model may be very difficult to grasp by another person. Your mind has flexibility too. So you very carefully read the alternative approaches. I saw your photograph also at your web-site. You have ample time to read, think and discuss. I am sure you will one day succeed in grasping the Ultimate Truth. During your search, please remember Lord Templeton's prophetic words: " It is not a question, where is GOD; the question is where He is not." That is, The UR is ever-present, everywhere-present, pure, conscious, free. THAT is the material-cause and efficient-cause of this Universe. We too are a small fraction of HIM. Just as we are able to feel the sensations coming from every part of our body, so exactly, HE is able to feel the whole world. Lord Jesus also says: "Myself and my father are one."

          With my best regards,

          Hasmukh K. Tank

            Dear Hasmukh,

            Thank you for your kind words.

            If one day you come accross more writings on co-existence of past/present/future and scale expansion (or any other interesting stuff), please don't hesitate to let me know.

            Take care.

            Patrick

            a month later

            Dear Dr. Ramin Zahedi,

            Kindly forgive me for the delay in my reply, because now-a-days i come to cyber-cafe only once-a-week; as it costs around $ 3.5 USD, in Indian Ruprres.

            1. The spiritual book 'Yoga Vashishtha' is in Snaskrit. It contains the teachings of Guru Vashishtha to Prince Rama. I read those Snaskrit-stanzas with their Hindi translation; because: though i have some study of Sanskrit, sufficient to understand Bhagvad Geeta in Sanskrit, it is better to simultaneously read its Hindi translation. One of the stanzas which i still remember after many years, is:

            Vishwam Bichi-Vilasa Ayam, Chit-Sudha-Abdhe Udeti Yaha;

            Vileeyate cha tatra-eva, Madhye Katham Tad-Maya

            Meaning: This Universe is a play of waves. It (The Universe) arises in the Ocean of Immortal Cosmic Consciousness. It (The Universe) also subsides in that ocean alone. So in its current state too, it is the play of waves in cosmic-consciousness.

            I will try to find its English translation; and let you know.

            2. The paper you have attached is very impressive. Due to my limited knowledge of mathematics, i could not completely follow the derivations. The logic seems impressive.

            I will forward this paper for comments to Relativity Experts. The paper reminded me one of my 1986 manuscripts, in which it was proposed that: the so-called 'radius-of-the-universe' may me representing the maximum range of gravitational interactions; and rest-mass of the force-carrier 'graviton' may be: m = h / R0 c

            The comments received were: "If 'graviton' is massive, then all the text-books and papers on 'General Relativity' may have to be thrown out of the window!

            Thank you very much for your post, and the attached paper.

            With my best regards,

            Yours sincerely,

            Hasmukh K. Tank

            Dear Dr. Ramin Zahedi,

            1. By the time i find English translation of The Yoga Vashishtha Book, you may like to read this attempt to logically understand consciousness, space and cosmic consciousness, regarding which we find statements in Youga Vashishtha Book.

            scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/viewFile/290/335

            2. All the literature of The Hindu faith is based on Vedas and their concluding chapters, known as Upanishads. Attaching herewith a booklet containing simple translations of some selected stanzas from the Upanishads.

            With my best regards,

            Yours sincerely,

            Hasmukh K. Tank

            Dear Dr. Ramin,

            Since the file contains PDF-converted JPEG image of the booklet, its size is big; so it could not be attached. Therefore i am writing the URL of the file, which will take 3-4 minutes to open.

            https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx0aGV1bHRpbWF0ZXJlYWxpdHlzaXRlfGd4OjY3MmM5YmNjODFiZDY3YzE

            Yours sincerely,

            Hasmukh

            15 days later

            Dear Dr. Ramin Zahedi,

            I tried my best, to find English translation of the book, Yoga Vashishtha, but could not find. When time permits, I will try to translate some selected stanzas for you. Pl. send your e-mail address.

            Hasmukh K. Tank

            Write a Reply...