Dear Koorosh,
Thank you for your kind and insightful commentary. Yes, I agree with you. I would add that the solution to the problem of the ontological justification of Mathematics (and, consequently, Physics) will give a push to promote heuristic Mathematics aside "quality quantity" all-powerful expansion of the kingdom of the all-powerful "Queen" and the faithful "Servant".
Good luck in the Сontest,
Kind regards,
Vladimir
Dear Joe,
Thank you for your insightful and interesting commentary. I agree that the two key concept to find an answer to the questions of the Contest - "reality" and "structure". The task of the Contest - the search for new fundamental ideas. I offered my version of primordial structure - the "maternal (generating) structure" for all levels of the Universum, which can be one of the candidates as a unified ontological basis of fundamental knowledge. Mathematics and Physics will not be able to make a new dialectical breakthrough without wide philosophical synthesis. In fundamental Physics is necessary to introduce an ontological standard justification along with the empirical standard. I'll see certainly your ideas and "structure" in the near future.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir ! In my impression, the soul of matter is a re-search question of deep mysticism,e.g. are stones sleeping energy, do they have a memory? This is actually the theology of maths and spiritual physics; the triangular geo-metric form represents possibly the basic grammar of universal law, i.e. the creative logos of the eternal upper force or the ontological physics of meta-maths.Congratulations, your essay explores new knowledge territory for modern methodical science; I am sure, we can learn a lot from ancient spiritual wisdom, for example, Kabbalistic, Gnostic and Sufi approaches, in this respect. It is this modern fusion of scientific knowledge and classical wisdom that is really needed in our turbulent times. Best wishes, cordially: stephen
Dear Stephen,
Many thanks for your kind and insightful comments. Yes, today requires the most profound synthesis of the entire system knowledge, including the Tradition. Only in this way we can reach a common basis "fundamental knowledge". Today, knowledge has no ontological foundation. In my concept of "ontological (structural, space) memory" is what creates all. It permeates Universum both vertically and horizontally. Ontological memory "holds", retains and develops the Universum. Memory - the motor, engine of evolution. Information, time, consciousness - a polyvalent phenomena of ontological (structural) memory. Physics should include the category of "memory" in the scientific picture of the world.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir! YOU HAVE HIT THE NAIL: modern knowledge has no ontological foundation. I am grateful to fqxi, it provides us with Options for a new dialogue.New ontoligical foundations have to be worked out; it is a great pleasure to communicating with you this great challenge of humanity.Should you visit Munich, let me known in advance. Cordially: stephen
Dear Stephen,
Thank you very much for your kind words, understanding and invitation! Yes, you're absolutely right: Contests FQXi is Perfect meeting place for new fundamental ideas, a place for a large polylogue.
Indeed, prompt Henry David Thoreau:"It is by a mathematical point only that we are wise, ..." gives access to metaphysics, ontology and physics of "point", on unified base of knowledge - the basic maternal structure ("La Structure mère"). Obviously, the "Life in the Woods" makes it possible not only to see the harmony of the Nature, but also the way and the "starting point". ..."but we would preserve the true course. "
Good luck in the Contest!
Kind regards,
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir,
I believe I understood your earlier essay on consciousness, but I am somewhat lost on your current essay. You cover much historical development, and my lack of awareness of certain players may account for this.
You speak of "eidos" as "idea of idea" and state as the basic problem "to find one single structure", the source of "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics".
My essay begins with a brief overview of my Automatic Theory of Physics which is an attempt to develop "A Theory of theories", based on logical structure (NOT and AND) as physically real and as sufficient basis for counters, counting, and arithmetic-logic of natural numbers, from whence, per Kronecker, all else mathematical follows. The differences or 'distance' between measurements can be used to extract 'features' and this leads (through entropy) to a 'best feature vector' as the prototypical Hilbert space vector. Conservation over eigenvalues leads to eigenvalue equations, and this vector is perhaps the single structure best characterizing the math map of the world. I imagine that this maps, in some way, into your ontological vector, but I'm not sure in what way.
Most of my essay is focused on Bell's confusion between two of the eigenvalue equations, and the erroneous conclusion he draws from a mathematically correct analysis of a physically incorrect (oversimplified) assumption.
I invite you to read my essay and comment, and hope that you find some significant connection between our essays.
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Edwin,
Thank you for your insightful and interesting commentary. Modern fundamental science is experiencing the most profound in the history of its development, "the crisis of understanding", "crisis of interpretation and representation" - onto-gnoseo-axiological crisis. To understand meaning "seize the structure" ( G.Gutner "Ontology of mathematical discourse").
Overcoming the "crisis of understanding" - the construction of primordial structure of the Universum as a result of a comprehensive synthesis of all knowledge accumulated by mankind. On the basis of ontological design, I build a model (eidos = image) such as the primordial structure of the Universum, "the idea of all ideasﾂｻ (idea of ideas) or Absolute generating structure - "La Structure mﾃｨre" - the basis of fundamental knowledge: framework (limit), carcass and foundation of knowledge. It represents the ontological structure of the first-process of the Universum, as the triunity of absolute states of matter (absolute rest & absolute movement & absolute becoming), the time before "the beginning of times" ("sub specie aeternitatis"). When designing I proceed from the principle of identity of being and thinking (Parmenides 竊' Hegel).
Mathematics and Physics must hold today the most profound revision of the philosophical grounds. I am seeking today with interest your essay.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
Your insightful work grabs some more mirror to regard the philosophical breakthrough.
Great job, indeed!
Respectfully,
Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan
Dear Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan,
Many thanks for your kind and insightful commentary. Today, more than ever, are relevant philosophical covenants of A. Einstein and J. Wheeler:
"In our time, physicists have to deal with philosophical problems to a much greater extent than it had to do physicists previous generations. To it physicists are compelled by difficulties of their own science."
"Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers."
There is no doubt that the picture of the world of physicists and mathematicians should be the same rich senses of life as a picture of the world lyricists.
I'll read your essay in the near future.
Kind regards,
Vladimir Rogozhin
Dear Vladimir,
From our previous communications about consciousness I know that there is much overlap in our understanding. For this reason I feel that I agree with your second paragraph above despite that our terminology tends to differ. I tried to look at the paper you link to on 'Ontology of Mathematical Discourse' but it is one of my many failings that I do not read Russian.
Finally, we agree about math and physics and the need for profound revision of the philosophical grounds. That has been my focus on Bell, and it extends beyond Bell.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Vladimir
Your essay is a view of the historical development of math and physics. It shows some evolution to the current practice. It also shows several changes of definition of words. Each new set of definitions resulted in advancement of understanding. What is the next set of definitions that may help human advancement? Where do we need new definitions?
Dear John,
Thank you very much for your comment and the good question. G.Gutner in "The Ontology of mathematical discourse" made a good conclusion: "to understand - then grab the structure." In the last section of essay "Eidos of" Idea of Ideas ", the Symbol and" Formula of Justice ", I introduced a new model onto-topological basis of fundamental knowledge - Absolute generating structure as the framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge, first of all mathematics and physics. The core of the new model of the Universum - concept of ontological (structural, cosmic) memory as the measure, "qualitative quantity" of absolute states of matter. Other new concepts: 1) the vector of absolute states of matter; 2) the triune (absolute) space 9 measurements; 3) the absolute coordinate system as a geometric reprezentant of triunity of absolute states of matter: absolute rest & absolute motion & absolute becoming (triune absolute field); 4) the triune (absolute) space-matter-time 12 measurements (9 spatial measurements 3 "temporary").
Kind regards,
Vladimir
I once had a course in History of Philosophy in which I learned about and learned to love Plato's Forms. But I agree that philosophy now has to be brought up to date and its concepts somewhat revised to be more applicable (and I like that statement by Wheeler that `Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers.'). Regarding your question on Lifeworld (Lebenswelt), I agree provided that our knowledge and experience is more constrained by our knowledge of science (effectively from the so-called `scientific method'). Language is hard, and we often talk past each other because of lack of careful definition (e.g., ``reality.''). The problem with physics is that Nature is the owner of the definitions, and we keep revising ours in an attempt to match as we learn more. It would be wonderful if we all had a deep appreciation of Nature, but most of us are limited by our core biology, history, training and culture--and that often dominates over rationality. You mentioned that the origins of the words mathematics and physics derive from primitive views of the order, generating structure and harmony of the Cosmos (and it would be nice to keep that perspective). I like your terms ``loss of existential certainty'' and ``crisis of interpretation'' which certainly applies now to the quantum world. And I liked the comment that `modern knowledge has no ontological foundation.' Many people are working on trying to fix that. We wish ourselves luck.
Dear David,
Thank you for your comment and deep detailed answer to my questions on your forum. Given the title of your essay I have emphasized the idea of "celestial triangle" of Plato as a measure of any sensible thing, as well as the very notion of "measures" by Plato. Physics and mathematics have to make new turn to the foundations of knowledge to set the ontological basis - framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge. There must work together "ratio", "emotio", "intuitio" to overcome the "crisis of representation and interpretation". In fundamental physics is necessary to introduce an ontological standard of justification (substantiation) addition to the empirical standard. All the ancient Greek concepts require a deeper understanding, especially the concept of "quantum" and its ontological status.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
Dear Edwin,
Yes, the problem of philosophical (ontological) foundations of Mathematics and Physics is today the main problem. I would use here a second concept - "ontological basification": the establishment of a framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge. The main idea in the "Ontology of mathematical Discourse": "Event setting structure means understanding".
Contemporary "crisis of understanding"(K.Kopeykin "Souls" of atoms and "atoms" of soul: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "three great problems of physics") in fundamental science requires a new conceptual revolution, the result of which - a model of the Universum as a whole. Quantum theory and relativity theory - the parametric theory without ontological justification (basification). Let work everyone in the sphere as Ptolemaeus's theory worked.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir,
Many thanks for your thoughtful essay. The main question which I see about "La Structure mère" is following: isn't the very idea of that self-contradicting? Indeed, if any structure is the most fundamental level of reality ("mère"), we can always ask a question; why this structure, not any other? Every structure is specific after all; otherwise, nothing can be deduced from that. Being specific, it requires an explanation. So "la structure" apparently cannot be "mère"; this is an oxymoron. Do you agree with that?
Dear Alexey and Lev,
No, I don't agree. At the heart of ontological construction of primordial structure of the Universum is the dialectic triunity of absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute, limit states): absolute rest («pokoj», linear state)+ absolute movement (circular, vortex state) + absolute becomming (wave state). Each state has its own ontological way (ontological vector). These three absolute states - a source of all forms of the Universum as whole. Full justification (basification) of the construction of "La Structure mère" - in the final chapter.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir,
I read your essay, but still it is not quite clear for me how do you answer to the question: "why your triune Structure is specifically that, not something else?" There must be terminus in all lines of explanations, of course. What seems to be clear for me, the terminus cannot be something specific; otherwise, the question "why the assumed terminus is specifically that?" would be left without answer. My problem in understanding you Structure is that I do not see it as a totality or Substancia, if to use that Spinozian word. Maybe, I am missing something in your explanations.
