GENESIS OF A PYTHAGOREAN UNIVERSE by Alexey and Lev Burov

A universe of nested, negative feedback loops would result in the required universe of fine-tuned constants and physical laws. Because feedback loops are another explanation, the use of ``...the only..."" is not supported.

Well-written essay with some good references. Maybe the following statement needs a bit more clarification. To be honest I do not udnerstand it and it may be because it is beyond my grasp:

" In other words, the existence of the Platonic world of elegant mathematical forms structuring the physical world is scientifically confirmed, and the accuracy of this confirmation is many orders of magnitude better than that of any specific statement of physics."

Dear Alexey,

Thank you for posting an interesting essay. You presented many questions I believe we should further consider in the discussion of discovering a unified theory describing nature.

The fact the universal laws were well constituted, established, and in practice billions of years before humans were cognitively/consciously capable of developing symbols to describe and interpret them suggests our involvement in the theoretical/calculable discovery of these laws plays an insignificant (if not minimal) role in their fundamental purpose, function, and prevailing existence. This clearly suggests we are only capable of deriving various tools and methods of communicating physical phenomenon by observation for contemplation among our own human kind using a preferred but limited practical method of describing the logic of reality - mathematics and physics. In other words, the moon and other planets existed before we were capable of observing, discovering, and offering them their descriptive names for identification and definition as planet and moon. The universe however, observes a celestial body, humans, during our limited methods of understanding, tend to classify these observations for identification which leads to interpretation and confusion regarding the fine tuning of an equitable definition of the observation itself. We are fundamentally at fault for our own chaotic misconceptions in our attempts to understand quantitative observations.

Chaos is not without structure, it is however a calculable distinct derivation of a "defined" ordered state. We may never discover or possess the experimental capacity to confirm definitely the existence of conscious intellectual beings residing in the opposite sides of our universe (as they may simply assume we do not exist), but we may speculate their existence without confirmation just as we may speculate the undiscovered laws governing nature must exist, but is currently undiscovered or recognized and therefore appears unfathomably possible from our limited progress of exploratory pursuits. Perhaps, it is likely, we have been looking in the wrong direction while utilizing the many available tools at our disposal. This does not suggest the tools are useless from being derived by our own conception, the impossibility of a unified theory describing nature is nonexistent, or complication from chaos plays a pivotal role in its evasiveness. It simply means we have not looked in the appropriate direction when attempting a discovery of what we assumed cannot be found. Furthermore, humans are often flawed by our own distractions of self, we may only need to pursue this discovery with our eyes and minds open to alternative methods of discovery not yet considered and contemplated by conventional means. But regarding a unified theory if it exists, we will find it to be self-evident, self-explanatory, and independent of any other supportive methods conceived by our human applied interpretation, therefore it will remain unbounded yet simple.

Best Regards,

D.C. Adams

Dear Alexey,

Your essay is something of a mystery. You spent 80% proving that there is one universe. Then telling us the obvious that the laws of nature is mathematical. Then you suddenly switch and say it is all mysterious. In what way it clarifies the relation between mathematics and reality.

Thanks

You're a true fundamentalist.

Best regards,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Dear Alexey and Lev,

I read with great interest your essay. I think we are going in the same direction. You write and bring important conclusion A.Vilenkin: "Because the logical structure of our universe can not be explained by chaos, and because it can not explain itself, we are left with only one possible explanation remaining, that it was conceived and realized by a mind. A. Vilenkin prefers to formulate this apparently inevitable conclusion about the cosmic Mind as a question: "... the laws should be" there "even prior to the universe itself. Does this mean that the laws are not mere descriptions of reality and can have an independent existence of their own? In the absence of space, time and matter, what tablets could they be written upon? The laws are expressed in the form of mathematical equations. If the medium of mathematics is the mind, does this mean that mind should predate the universe? "

As for the "Penrose triangle", I believe that his model of "three worlds" - a splitting of the triune world. Cosmogony of Pythagoras as the unity of the "limit" and "infinite" (thesis and antithesis) give access to the three-pronged synthetic structure, based on the absolute state of matter. The concept of "structure" in Russian - a structure that is «s-troe-nie», give a direct hint to build generating structure of the Universe as a "three in one", the measure of being whole, primordial structure of harmony generating "unity" and "plurality".

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Dear Dr. Burov,

your philosophical essay is so full of good ideas that it is easy to loose track of them. It would have helped if you added some examples where math has led physics astray.

Your descriptions of Pythagorean truth are excellent. No wonder that the Pythagoreans were for hundreds of years a secret society that had to meet in lonely caves.

Please continue your quest for truth

Best

Lutz

Okkam's razor has to be very sharp. But I am sure that the unified basis of knowledge can be constructed only on the simplest triangle is "a heavenly triangle" of Plato which sum of invariants represent both structures of the physical world and mathematical structures ("les stuctures mere"), modern and future, still the unknown.

Dear Alexey,

You avoid mentioning anything about reality as well.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

Dear Alexey and Lev,

As I noted in a reply to a statement about my essay, The Geometric Core of Spacetime, various mathematical types were created to solve a problem. We do not know which problem many of them were originally developed to solve, but this is not mysterious, we simply have incomplete information.

My essay is about simple geometry and how it can be used to identify specific characteristics of a physical law. You were much bolder in your title stating we have a Pythagorean Universe. I cannot prove that we have a Pythagorean Universe, but I did demonstrate a Pythagorean link to one of the physical laws of the universe.

What is mysterious is that our essays are juxtapositioned next to each other, as though they were meant to support each other.

Alexey and Lev -

Thanks for the excellent essay! I was delighted to read a strong defense against the prevailing metaphysical winds of physicalism and reductionism so evident in most essays. I, too, find mathematical order to be a fundamental organizing principle quite apart from the action of the physical world itself. Moreover, those positions cannot address what I refer to as "The Hole at the Center of Creation" - only consciousness and purpose can provide the answer. As you say: "Since the laws of our universe are not picked randomly, they can only be purposefully chosen."

Thanks for a great essay and good luck in the contest. - George Gantz