Goal → New Heuristic Model of Ideality: Logos → Coincidentia Oppositorum → Primordial Generating Structure by Vladimir I. Rogozhin

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your comments on my essay.

I found your essay very well researched and informative. Maybe you could have added a bit more of your personal view on the subject.

All the best,

Patrick

Dear Dr. Rogozhan,

Thank you for your comments and your interesting paper.

I scanned your paper. I am a physicist and not a philosopher. For every sentence that a philosopher writes, I need to read a book to understand what he is stating. I like to have my models very simple. Only in that condition, I can comprehend and apply these models.

I am convinced that something created the environment that I can observe. My model of this creation uses the fact that this creator did his job in one stroke and in that act, he also stored the result in a repository. If I observe my environment, then I see that all discrete objects are either modules, or they are modular systems. A set of elementary modules exists that constitute all other modules and the modular systems. These elementary modules are pointlike, and their location is stored in the repository together with a scalar timestamp. My environment also contains continuums, and one of these continuums embeds all modules. The embedding process affects the embedding continuum. This image is a rather simple world-picture. It is fairly easy to catch it in a mathematical model. That mathematical model is a structure that implements the repository. However, one thing is very mysterious. This structure does not contain any means that generate the locations of the elementary modules such that the whole behaves in a dynamically coherent fashion. Mechanisms that apply stochastic processes must perform that job. These Mechanisms reside outside of the repository. The interesting point here is that none of the physical theories that I know of treats these mechanisms. Without these mechanisms, the model does not show relevant dynamic behavior and will certainly not show dynamically coherent behavior.

I encountered the effects of these mechanisms during my job as a developer of image intensifier devices. These devices offer a direct look at quantum behavior. In my opinion, the stochastic processes belong to the category of inhomogeneous spatial Poisson point processes that own a characteristic function.I derive this from the fact that the visual trajectory of all vertebrates is optimized for perception under low dose rate conditions.

Nice Philosophical essay sir...

Your words in page 7 and 8....

"2. Method of ontological constructing of a symbol-attractor of the primordial generating process of the Universum being as a whole. The total unification of matter at all levels of the Universum.

3. Basification of mathematics (knowledge) is the ontological construction of intrinsic framework, carcass and foundation, and representation in basic (ontological) mathematical symbol." ... are really correct. Universe is singleone

Have a look at my essay also...

Vladimir,

At first read it was great, well done. I found no concept or argument I could disagree with. I must say your use of language and 'holistic' style defeated speed reading though did convey the 'four centuries of wanderings'.

The problem remains; how do we overcome the problem! Flawed theory seems ever more deeply entrenched and our systems mean most editors and senior academics have negative motivation to change to allow advancement.

I offer one idea in terms of 'self evolution' of thinking methodology which I hope you may comment on.

I'll try to get back to yours to penetrate more deeply later.

Well done.

Peter

Vladimir

Glad you were inspired. My 2nd reading was easier, founded on the neural path laid by the first. I found some inspiration myself in the likes of;

'The physics of particles informs us, strictly speaking, on fundamental structures of the nature, but not on fundamental particles.'

Which agrees with my identification of Maxwells 2nd momenta missed by Heisenberg. And;

'Real progress will consist in very serious fight of science with religion which will end with their integration'

Thank you. I hope you do well in the contest and avoid the trolls still relying on the primeval thinking mode (I've exposed 2 so far).

Peter

Dear Vladimir,

As Abraham Lincoln said, "You can mislead some people permanently or for a while all the people, but you cannot fool all the people all the time ..."

I fully agree with your conclusions in essay

If we consider that it is the metaphysics shape public opinion through the media it is a real danger that an adequate conception of science, its methods and ways of existence in the public mind will be replaced by substitute of abnormal knowledge.

As stated by well-known philosopher of science Karl Popper, modern physics is characterized by crisis of understanding, the occurrence of which is related to: a) the penetration of subjectivism in physics; b) with the conviction that the quantum theory contains the complete and final truth.

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your gracious remarks on my page.

You begin,"But how can we see the world in integrality, the world as whole?" and note that the ontological meta-paradigm, Universum as a whole, has been pushed into "philosophical backyards" of science. I agree that "the physics of particles informs us, strictly speaking, on fundamental structures of the nature, but not on fundamental particles." Yes, the 'particles' are much more abstract than 50 years ago. This is extremely well stated and agrees with my observation that physicists have projected mathematical structures onto reality. Of course the great scientists were religious. They were not one-dimensional, merely focused on 'points' as convenient simplifying concepts, that facilitated applications of set theory, etc. This is probably as far away as one can get from the "The Self-Aware Universe".

I always enjoy your essays, focused on the reality of consciousness versus the artifice of interpreting symbolic structures as reality.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Vladimir,

It is nice to see you in the fqxi contest again!

I share with you your concerns about the state of fundamental science; however, I am not sure that I would accept all your recipes to resolve the crisis. For instance, the idea of an "Ontological standard" sounds a bit scary for me, reminiscent of totalitarian schemes. You write, "What way should we choose for overcoming total crisis of understanding in fundamental science? It should be the way of metaphysical construction of new comprehensive model of ideality on the basis of the "modified ontology"." What could be a criterion of truth for such "models of ideality"? In general, I like your text for the bold questioning and anticipations, surrounded by very interesting citations. I am giving you one of my high scores.

Cheers,

Alexey Burov.