Dear Lawrence,

thank you very much for your further comments!

I totally agree that we cannot have direct information on transfinite sets. Information is discrete and computable, while infinite sets contain mostly uncomputable elements. But I'm not sure that some transfinite sets cannot have a physical meaning. Of them it is possible to have discrete models, as is done for example for real numbers. Moreover we don't know what space and time are made of. I know that the prevailing view nowdays is that they have a discrete and quantum structure. But it is not necessarily so. They may be continuous and composed of uncountable set of points (space) and instants (time). Important authors (as Russell and Grünbaum) have argued that only by admitting the continuum and the actual infinity we can solve Zeno's paradoxes.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/

Cheers, Giovanni

Dear Giovanni,

I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with ideas and conclusions that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists and

"> lyrics ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpBGPv6s2s4&list=FLTAAJTuBZSNWG96hdrzQ6bQ&index=8

) filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). My high score. I believe that the modern crisis of understanding in fundamental knowledge is the crisis of ontology. I invite you to read and evaluate my ideas.

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

    Dear Vladimir,

    I thank you so much for your kind interest in my essay and for the very high appreciation that you have given to it! I fully share your view that science and philosophy are inseparable (so was from the beginning until the Eighteenth century) and that their results may agree. But since I'm (at least partially) a Kantian, I have some doubts we will ever reach a final theory about the universe. I will read and comment with pleasure and as soon as possible your essay.

    Yours sincerely,

    Giovanni

    Dear Giovanni

    I enjoyed reading your essay, and agree with your conclusions. Of course the whole question of mathematizable information rests on measurement, and if something is not directly measurable, as in consciousness, then there is no information upon which to formulate mathematical models.

    You may find my essay "From nothingness to value ethics" of interest.

    Best regards

    Gavin

    Dear Gavin,

    thank you so much for reading my essay, and for your kind comment, on which I agree. I posted my comment on your essay on your page.

    Giovanni

    9 days later

    Hi dear Giovanni,

    I have read your amazing essay and just become a little bit shocked finding there a lot of my viewpoints, particularly, about on deeper interconnection of natural science and philosophy (or, with the art of logical thinking.) I am not philosopher but I seen this link is just inevitable to be get some serious shift in nowadays physics (as I see it are in the incredible crisis!)

    You says for example "to see the invisible!" My dear, this just are a base point for my approach. You have talking on the significance of math that now become one of confusing aspects in present physics (meanwhile, in other areas nobody not see any complications on this matter!) So, I can say you much of compliments but let me read and to complete my evaluation of your work. Meantime I am very hopeful you can find time to look my work that I believe maybe interesting for you to read. Then we can summarize ours opinions! (I will grateful if you write some words in my page.)

    In any case, I see mandatory my good support to you!

    My best wishes.

      Dear George,

      I thank you so much for your attention to my essay and the high appreciation that you gave to it! First of all, I am very pleased that you share the view of a deep connection between science and philosophy, which is at the basis of the history of thought, but has become increasingly difficult, for various reasons, in the last two centuries.

      In recent days it was impossible for me to read your essay (or any other in the contest), but I will do it as soon as possible and I'll post a comment about it.

      My best wishes for all,

      Giovanni

      Dear Giovanni,

      It is nice to see that you have come back in the "field of battle"! I wish you strong healthy (if you has been a little bit not well!)

      And now I can say only that I was not at all mistaken in my hurried evaluation on your work, because I come fully convinced that you have well understanding where are the roots of a main problem, therefore your remarks will be very significantly to my.

      So, Be well!

      Dear Giovanni

      Thank you very much for your favorable words and valuable remarks. These are good support to me, a morally only, but it is also the support. I see mainly we are like-minded people, and let me just tell some small remarks only:

      1. You says //the nature of fundamental particles (and QR) has not yet been clarified// - but you already know one crazy guy who says "I know this" and he points on the large works and on the concretely results (see Refs)

      2. Then you says //I am not a mathematician and nor the physicist ...etc.//

      My dear, the philosophy was a father of all sciences, then the philosophers must have more priority to instruct and evaluate of mathematicians and physicists (as their non-thankful sons!) than the opposite!

      However, I think everything is in the usual rule of things!

      Be well and many successes to you!

        Be well and all the best to you too, dear George!

        I'll look at your other papers.

        (However: no "lesson" from me. That is not the way I do)

        All my best whishes again,

        Giovanni

        7 days later

        Giovanni,

        I found that a very accomplished essay with a well developed and argued thesis. I also largely agree, but a few questions below, and you avoid the problems of logic. I suspect you'd like the 'Law of the Reducing Middle' I proposed in an earlier essay to replace the problematic 'excluded' middle. The 'reducing middle' is a Bayesian, 'Bell' or quantum mechanical curve. It suggests NO two things in the universe are identical, so 1=1 is never quite true! I think that was 'It from Bit'; 'The Intelligent Bit' 2014, but I think you'd also like last years (scored top).

        This year my essay shows how QM's orthogonal Cos2 curves CAN be produced by classical interactions! (Of course few scientist even dare look!). The model is simply founded on extension of Pythogorus theorem to 3D dynamics.

        Do we not need a certain degree of discretion in continuity? i.e. must the rotation defining a spherical 'body' not be considered as discrete from any other bodies rotation?

        Do you think that without such discrete 'motions' anything could 'exist' at all?

        Fundamentally we argue the same of mathematics limitations, but you invoke a new, interesting and well justified rationale. All in all an exceptional essay worth an exceptional score, which I hope help gets you into the finalists. I do hope you get to read min before the deadline and comment. There are other slightly more philosophical elements.

        Very best of luck in the contest.

        Peter

          Dear Peter,

          I was very pleased to receive your comments with beautiful words of praise about my essay! I also began to read yours, which seems dense, thoughtful and original (I also intend, as soon as possible, to read that of 2015, so high rated and commented), but I don't know if I'll be able to comment on it properly before the deadline, considering I lack an adequate background in Quantum physics and have little free time, by now. For this I apologize.

          Thank you for your encouragement and good wishes, although I don't think I have real chances to get into the finalists rose. I am not a physicist and my rate in the contest is not high, despite your considerable contribution, for which I am very grateful to you.

          All the best regards,

          Giovanni

          Write a Reply...