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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #23

    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.

    Thank you for your question. The path to the primordial structure of the Universгum - a total ontological unification of matter at all levels of the Universum as a whole, the principle of the triunity, the axiom "In the Beginning was the Logos ...". Ontological unification of matter (the absolute form of existence): absolute peace + absolute movement + absolute becoming.I do not use the term "substance".

    Yours faithfully,

    Vladimir

    Amendment. Triunity of absolute states of matter (absolute form of existence): absolute rest absolute motion absolute becoming. Each state has its ontological way. Matter in the spirit of Plato - "the Godmother", "the Nurse", that is something of which all is born. Idea generation - central to understanding the matter

    Dear Sir,

    We took time to slowly enjoy your excellent essay for in-depth analysis; as such historical perspective is rarely seen. Much before 4000 BC, number was defined in ancient India as the property of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are nothing similar, it is one. If there are similars, then it is many. Depending upon the perception of one's in sequence, many could be 2,3,...n. Infinity was defined as like one - without similars, but unlike one, its dimensions are not perceptible. As Plato says: a limit, entering dialectic identity with infinity, stops being just a limit; it becomes a measure. Zero was defined as something that does not exist at here-now, but exists elsewhere. Mathematics - Ganita - was defined as the science of numbers. Physics (padaartha) was defined as whatever exists, is intelligible as information and is describable using any language in a format: 'this (artha - object) is like that (pada - concept or information), hence this is that'. Point (vindu) was defined as without form (soonyaakaaraat), but capable of extension (visargyantaat) and reverse; like pulsation (praspanda samvitah). It also reflected the universe (vishwam), as they both behave similarly (vishati pravishati swakaarane).

    Kanaada defined bodies as possessing some of the universal characteristics (gunaashraya) and movement measure (kriyavaan), both of which remain in a relationship of inherence (samavaayi lakshana), i.e., as long as the object remains as such. Thought is the inertia of mind (bhaavanaa samskaara). It starts in response to an external impulse by drawing similarities from memory and gets destroyed due to knowledge about the object of thought, pain or after getting the object of desire. Language is the transposition of information to another system's CPU or mind by signals or sounds using energy (self communication is perception). The transposition may relate to a fixed object/information. It can be used in different domains and different contexts or require modifications in prescribed manner depending upon the context. Mathematics is the quantitative aspect of Nature.

    B. Raushenbakh's description of absolute movement, absolute becoming (time evolution) are correct, but his description of absolute rest has limitations. Nothing during the creation is at absolute rest. The concept applies only to the state outside creation. The Logos or "the law of laws", "the meta-law" is only a pulsating state (spanda) that resolves into two equal and opposite momentum in the primordial process. Due to bow-shock effect, it cuts off a bound structure and swings back to generate chain interactions that resolve into 15 different forces and is responsible for structure formation. The Spanda principle also accepts linear (ontological continuum) as energy wave-vortex (ontological dis-continuum) as matter vortex (ontological discretum) as the unification.

    Regards,

    basudeba

      Dear Basudeba,

      Thank you very much for reading my essay, kind, extremely important and interesting commentary. But the idea of the triunity of absolute states of matter not B.Raushenbakh, and my idea. In "Logica troichnosti / Logic triplicity" B.Raushenbakh gives only an idea of the vector in Cartesian coordinates as a representant of mathematical ideas "trinity," but he does not consider the absolute states of matter and the "state vector". Yes, you and I are going in one direction and it's inspiring.

      Good luck in the contest,

      Kind regards,

      Vladimir

      Dear Vladimir,

      I found your essay is very insightful. We do have similar ideas and you wrote below "The path to the primordial structure of the Universгum - a total ontological unification of matter at all levels of the Universum as a whole, the principle of the triunity, the axiom "In the Beginning was the Logos ...". Ontological unification of matter (the absolute form of existence): absolute peace + absolute movement + absolute becoming.I do not use the term "substance"." I share that "Logos" or in Xuan Yuan thought Is Dao or the Way as in the beginning and in the ending. I constructed a modern terminology and hopefully more precise definition as our Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit (00, +, -). I also have similar "triunity" but I called it "FAPAMA" or FA is law (00); PA is papa (+) and MA is mama (-). This is only a distinction without a diffence.

      Good luck and wishing you the best,

      Leo KoGuan

        Dear Leo KoGuan,

        Thank you for your insightful and important comment. Yes, the path to the primordial structure of the Universum as a whole - is an ontological way. Traditional knowledge, including knowledge of ancient China, an important source for the great synthesis and build a unified base of common knowledge.

        Kind regards,

        Vladimir

        Dear Vladimir,

        You wrote:

        „Thus, such metaphysical interpretation of the words "Mathematica " and "Physica" gives a clear idea of ancient people that two sciences have a uniform source, namely meta - law , the funding order, harmony of Cosmos and its generating structure."

        Thus, it is our duty to reactivate this unity.

        Best Regards,

        Branko Zivlak

          Thank you, Branko, for your comment. Yes, the problem of the ontological justification (basification) of fundamental sign systems, Mathematics and Physics - is the main task of knowledge. Ontological revolution Planck-Einstein must be completed. John Wheeler left physicists good covenant: "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers". But how many people follow this covenant? What is needed is a synthesis of all knowledge accumulated by mankind. This problem is well formulated Edmund Husserl in "Origin of Geometry": "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."

          Kind regards,

          Vladimir

          Dear Mohammed,

          Thank you for reading my essay and commentary. I'm starting to read your essay in the near future.

          Kind regards.

          Vladimir

          Vladimir, I do not see a place for the human thought in your scheme. How is it possible that this thought is so powerful that is able to see the fundamental structure of the world? In a sense, it means that the thought is bigger than that structure, isn't it? From another side, the thought is just a little part of the world. I do not understand how do you resolve this paradox.

          Alexey! When you build the primordial generating structure, then the question arises: what it holds? This ontological (structural, cosmic) memory. Matter is that from which everything is born, and the ontological (structural) memory is what gives rise to all. Ontological (structural) memory - the measure of being of the whole, "the soul of matter", qualitative quality of the absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states). Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory - the core of the world picture of Information age.

          8 days later

          Dear Vladimir,

          After careful reading of your very interesting essay I have immediately understood why you appreciate mine. We are connected with the same ontological approach. Majority of physicists just say: shut up and calculate. The calculus is very important, but they are not at all interested in ontology. They search "how it works" instead of "what it is".

          You are right, claiming: "that new dialectic breakthrough to deep ontology which will help to find the required basic "La Structure mère" is necessary for the whole system of fundamental knowledge." There is something else beyond GUH that I did not stressed in the essay. That should be interested for you. I mean many attempts to formulate axioms in physics (D. Hilbert, J. von Neumann, L. Nordheim, H. Weyl, E. Schrödinger, P. Dirac and also E. P. Wigner). All they failed. But this is not a disaster. A deductive system can consist not only of axioms but also of already established theorems! As far, theorems were reserved exclusively for mathematics. The trick is, in my opinion, that we can use a theorem in physics, but only in the case we accept the reality is fully isomorphic to the specific mathematical structures that are covered by that theorem. Following exactly that conclusion I proposed to use the geometrization conjecture, proved by Perelman (so it is the theorem in geometry). Moreover, Perelman, in his proof, used Ricci flow with surgery. Thanks to that there is no singularities in the spacetime structure!

          In my short essay I present only very general sketch that delivers the initial conditions. Many mathematical details are not resolved yet, but some you can find e.g. in: Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga, Helge Rose, On the geometrization of matter by exotic smoothness, http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2230v6. Torsten's publications show why not many scientists want to follow that road. Especially that this is not the mainstream research that allows to get grants. My sketch seems to be simple, but the details are really complicated.

          I like very much that motto on an entrance of Academy of Plato: "Let No One Ignorant of Geometry Enter Here!" And I admire Milner's project!

          Best regards,

          Jacek

            Dear Jacek,

            Thank you very much for reading my essay and insightful comments. You are absolutely right: "The trick is, in my opinion, that we can use a theorem in physics, but only in the case we accept the reality is fully isomorphic to the specific mathematical structures that are covered by that theorem." I think though, that for all the structures of mathematics and physics should be based on the deepest meaning of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). Physicists and lyricists should have unifying picture of the world. Information Age pushing physicists by this.

            Kind regards,

            Vladimir

            Dear Vladimir

            I have no head for philosophy, but see the need for it, particularly in the subject of understanding the roots of physics and mathematics. In my essay I claim that the roots are physical onness of both. Of course "thinking" about this is a philosophical issue so we can agree!

            You said "Nowadays the problem of structure of space is the core problem."

            I cannot agree more. My intuition and research support the idea that space is completely defined i.e. filled with some elemental ethereal building blocks. But also that the way these blocks or nodes interact is exquisitely guided by a few simple "rules"...all this gives space its structure as well as the ability to become matter, radiation and all of physics. The devil, as they say, is in the details. You may have some ideas and others different ones about this structure, but it is important to start from the bottom and rebuild physics.

            I wish you all the luck

            Vladimir

              Dear Vladimir.

              Thank you for reading my essay, your insightful comments and evaluation. I want to clarify - the ontological structure of space, which substantiates the absolute form of existence of matter (triunity absolute states): absolute rest absolute motion absolute becoming. State of matter - "absolute rest" has properties such that some researchers speak of "ether". But in my ontological basis of Universum "ether" - the essence unnecessarily. I am sure that only the innermost ontology, the unification of matter and the dialectic of "coincidence of opposites" (Cusa) gives access to the primordial structure of Universum, and therefore the ontological structure of space.

              I also wish you good luck,

              Vladimir

              Dear Valdimir,

              While I thank you for your e-mail; in my personal opinion, your telling that you have given a rating of 8 to my essay, is not a good practice; because rating is a confidential matter. Moreover simple arithmetic shows that my previous average rating reduced from 4.3 to 4; it means you had actually given a rating of 2 to my essay!

              And by sending an e-mail you thought I too should rate your essay 8 or 9 ? In fact, I had given suitable rating as soon as that batch of essays was posted.

              Yours sincerely,

              Hasmukh K. Tank