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.

    Dear Hans,

    Thanks for reading my essay and deep explanatory comment. Our philosophies are very close in spirit and orientation, so your conclusions are clear to me. Especially your ideas, which I noted in the previous comments on your blog. I construct my model based on a modern interpretation of the ontological "celestial triangle" (Plato), one axiom, a principle of ontological and dialectical unification of matter at all levels of the Universum existence. This is the extreme simplicity (Occam's razor the sharpest), taking into account existing knowledge and traditions. if possible, vote my essay.

    Yours faithfully,

    Vladimir

    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...

      Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

      Thanks so much for your important comment. You have noted the main thing - the problem basification of mathematics, and hence knowledge as a whole. Today, the foundations of science from the "granite", it is necessary to make it more robust - to transform the "granite" in the "basalt"... The world picture of physicists and poets should be united and filled with the senses of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).

      I read your essay in the near future.

      Yours faithfully,

      Vladimir

      I read your essay «Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe» and remember Rabindranath Tagore, taking into account the idea of the unity of knowledge, my concept of the ontological (structural, space) of memory, Raj Kapoor's song '50s, which is very loved in Russia, and the theme of the contest:

      «Tired in my way I asked the destiny:

      "Who pushes me in my back so ruthlessly?" -

      "Look back!" - I look - and the complaint ceases:

      It is my past who pushes me forward.»

      I wish you good luck!

      All the Best,

      Vladimir

      Grape seed, which Bulat Okudzhava buries into the warm soil gives an insight into the nature of physical constants, time, meaning, aspiration of being of the Universe to the "LifeWorld "(Husserl)

      «I will bury a grape seed into the warm soil,

      And will kiss the vine, and pluck the ripe bunches.

      And will gather my friends, attune my heart to love,

      Otherwise, why do I live on this unchanging earth?

      Gather on, my guests, to my feast,

      Tell me straight to my face who am I known to be among you.

      King of Heaven will forgive me my sins.

      Otherwise, why do I live on this unchanging earth?

      In her dark-red my Dali 1 will be singing for me,

      In my black-and-white I will bow my head before her,

      I will listen, captivated, and will die of love and sorrow,

      Otherwise, why do I live on this eternal earth?

      And when the sunset will swirl, drifting about the corners,

      Let the visions float by me time and again:

      Blue buffalo, and white eagle, and golden trout,

      Otherwise, why do I live on this unchanging earth?» (Bulat Okudzhava)

      Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

      A

      Thank you very much for such a moral support. I went to the link you mentioned above http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html . Though it was a old petition it is exactly correct even today. No research is supported even morally which is against Bigbang. Forget about the funding. I also tried to sign it, but it is going somewhere.

      This statement tells about an important aspect...."FUNDING"... Who so ever is funding this research thinks against the science or technology. The funding persons think that the contrary to science to be proved. Science tells that if there is an experiment, it should give same results to anyone. Science should not predict imaginary things. It should be real. History says even Einstein did not like and did not support Bigbang based Universe models.

      For the last 25 years I faced the same problem. Main stream people appreciated me in the front and they always laughed at me at the back. No support of any type. Now I am getting worried, as I am getting aged, to whom I will give out all this knowledge. So I kept all my BOOKs and PAPERs in my webpage for any person at free of cost. He doesn't even need to inform me about his downloads.

      Thank you for giving me high ranking. I am also giving ranking to your essay.

      B

      Spasibo vam balshoy...Many thanks...

      I was in USSR, Kiev for 6 months in 1982. I used talk and read Russian ok. Ya Jabil poruski...I forgot most the Russian language. I am still having many Russian friends, who contact me regularly. May be I will visit Kiev once again.....

      Thank you very much for taking me back into such wonderful nostalgic memories.

      Raj kapoor's ... 'Avaara hu..' song, Rabindra nath Tagor's ... "Where the mind is without fear poem".... Indian philosophical thoughts....

      I also liked the present concept of theme of FQXi contest... I got a wonderful experience of going into thoughtful wisdom of multitude of thinkers... very nice!

      I wish you Good luck....

      Best Regards

      Snp.gupta

      Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

      Thank you for your insightful comment. You are absolutely right. For the successful development of fundamental science should be supported by several competing paradigms, including funding for research in different directions. Open contests of the FQXi promote competition of ideas, and this is very important. I wish you success in the Contest and the promotion of your theory.

      Yours faithfully,

      Vladimir

      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

        Dear Peter,

        Thank you for your insightful and inspiring comment. I began to read your essay.

        Yours faithfully,

        Vladimir

        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

        Thank you very much, Peter, for kind comment and appreciation of my ideas and concepts. Today our ideas must be as crazy to build a seamless unified basis of fundamental science. I believe that fundamental science takes the maximum responsibility for the modern existential crisis. Vector our consciousness has to make a sharp turn to the life world.

        Success in the contest!

        With respect, Vladimir

        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.

          Alexander and Tatiana,

          Thank you for your comment and evaluation of my ideas. I believe that overcoming the crisis of understanding in basic science is possible only if the perceived support of various gnoseological paradigms. This crisis is a metaphysical crisis in its deepest essence, crisis knowledge foundations. Appropriate to recall here: «An educated people without a metaphysics is like a richly decorated temple without a holy of holies.» (G.W.F.Hegel)

          Today, to select a right course is not only for fundamental science, and we need to understand ourselves ("hard problem of consciousness") and understand the Sun language, the language of the Cosmos (super hard problem of foundations of mathematics and knowledge in general).

          Good luck!

          Yours faithfully,

          Vladimir

          9 days later

          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.

              Dear Edwin,

              Thanks so much for your comment. I believe that in fundamental science (physics, mathematics, cosmology) have to work at the same time at least three paradigms: 1. A generalizing meta-paradigm: ontological (metaphysical) paradigm - "the world as a whole"; 2. Plus competing phenomenological (parametric) paradigms.

              So, for each level of existence of the Universe. Physics "rested" against the nature of the fundamental constants, the nature of the "laws of nature", structure of space, the nature of time, information, consciousness. This is the metaphysical (ontological) problem, basification (justification) of knowledge. This problem can be solved only by a new metaphysics ("modified ontology"). The crisis of understanding is not only in basic science but also in philosophy.

              Physicists, mathematicians and philosophers must now work together to "dig" deep the base of knowledge (framework, carcass, foundation). I think that here it is necessary to recall Hegel's philosophical metaphor: "An educated people without a metaphysics is like a richly decorated temple without a holy of holies." It just gives direction to solve the problem of construction the "The Self-Aware Universe".

              Good luck in the Contest!

              Yours faithfully,

              Vladimir

              Dear Alexey,

              I am also glad to see your essay in this contest!

              Thank you very much for your comment. Today, physicists introduce hypotheses without philosophical foundation. These hypotheses can not be verified experimentally. In particular, the hypothesis of a "big bang", which has quite a lot of opponents . Therefore, to overcome the "crisis of understanding, "crisis of interpretation and representation ", "trouble with physics" required ontological standard of basification (justification) on the basis of ontology ("modified ontology"), which establishes the common basis of knowledge (ontological framework, carcass, foundation) uniform for all levels of existence of the Universum. Here the key idea - the total dialectical ontological unification of the matter along the "vertical" of being. The criterion of truth for the new model of ideality - seeing language of nature, which speaks to us in the language of mathematics - "triangles, circles" (Galileo). Today is needed most profound dialectical ontological interpretation of the "triangle" (Plato's " heavenly triangle"), "circle", "point". Philosophy, "the mother of all sciences", helps to overcome the crisis in the knowledge and fear. You know it well, since you are looking for the deleted meanings of being.

              I start reading your essay.

              Yours faithfully,

              Vladimir

              Dear Vladimir, as I said, your "ontological standard" sounds like a totalitarian project. I think it would be good if you show how it might avoid this. Another problem I see in your approach is that I do not think that mental world can be adequately presented in the language of mathematics or similar objectivistic language.

              Cheers,

              AB.

              Dear Alexey,

              The ontological structure of being of the Universum as a whole can not be "totalitarian project". It may be only a "total project", based on the fact that Tot / Θώθ - the god of wisdom and numeracy, the patron of sciences, scribes, holy books, calendar creator in ancient Egypt. But the hypothesis of "The Big Bang Theory" and the system of views on the Universum without any justification of the ontological structure of "beginning" - "totalitarian project".

              I do not share the triune world to "worlds" as did Penrose and Popper. I entered the central category of the structure of the Universum - "the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory and presented the primordial structure of the Universum in the form of simple mathematical symbol. Each mathematical concept - object, which is used in the ontological construction - "point with germ of vector", "vector of absolute state of matter", "ontological heavenly triangle (Plato)"- has the deepest (limit, extreme) ontological interpretation. With this I decide two key science issues: super hard problem of the basification (justification, substantiation, foundation) of mathematics (knowledge) and "hard problem of consciousness".

              Cheers,

              VR.