Thanks for explaining that-interesting. Yet I don't think mathematical 'things 'can exist of themselves . A quantity is a something, a relationship is between existent things or phenomena. Without physical existence there is neither quantity, category or geometry. Though we can think abstractly and use devices that work with abstract entities, sand imagine independent mathematics- yet it requires wetware or hardware to exist.

Scientific ontology, on the other hand, is not about what we think or find plausible. My view is that we must accommodate the unlikely event of an interface between universes before we can rule it out. This is to say that the thing we want to rule out must, so to speak, be allowed the best evidence and according to the new definition of causal closure an interface is if not possible at least consistent with causal closure.

I should have said 'velocity' is velocity of something, relative to the observer or other reference object. The main point being it must pertain to something existent. Adding, because it is the way variables are identified - measured by imposing a particular perspective. Which is another point entirely about the way in which measurement imposes a perspective that gives a singular value result -rather than the complete profile of all possible relative measurements. Which ties together with the 'many worlds' of possibility becoming one upon measurement, that is relevant to quantum physics in particular. The many worlds of possibility being many different viewpoints of the same universe,(when considering something within it), not actually many different universes.I digress, but thought you might find the further explanation for my wording interesting.

Would you perhaps say that this argument ties over to the question of Agency in the physical world?

Hi, I see agency requiring a foundational passage of time that provides an open future rather than block time, or space-time continuum. So that the pattern of existence does not just exist, see-able/measureable from many viewpoints but is happening. So it isn't existence with a fixed mathematical structure of relations but one that changes. Not just giving the appearance of change. As I see it, existence and change provide that foundational time which is fundamental to the universe we live in.

Hi Johan, looking into the idea of causal closure, I find it a strange artificial division of ways of thinking about the universe. My own view is that there cannot be independently existing mathematics. It must have some kind of host. Either embodied by the material structure of existence, or generated as abstract 'things' within wetware or software, or generated as external representations that require a material host of some kind.

Yet when it comes to describing the cause of something; it could be for example the geometry of a configuration of matter that is fundamental to the outcome. Rather than merely the constituents. The function of enzymes is a good example. Their function depending on correct folding so that they fit with the substrate they act upon. Signal molecules and their receptors is another example. However the geometry can not be without the existent constituents of the molecule. So I don't think it is one 'universe type'alone or the other 'universe type' alone.They are aspects of the same. I think this sort of corresponds to what you are saying, but it isn't an interface of two different universe (for the kinds of examples i have given) but different considerations of the same.

Though there can be other relations between math and the Material universe where the maths is a product of wet ware or software within the Material universe but not itself representing that universe. I don't think the products really deserve to be considered as universes in their own right, as they are not independently existing but fully dependent for their existence on the Material universe in which they were generated.

Re.'velocity' is velocity of something, relative to the observer or other reference object. It ought to be, that is the intention, but very often the measurement doesn't involve interaction with the something itself, as it is with a camera trap trigger for example, but relies upon vision. In which case the velocity is that of the visual product not source 'something'. Just want to be precise. The measured velocity still requires the material constituents necessary for the measurement happening- It can't be a velocity abstract variable entirely of its own accord. Even the virtual velocity of a virtual object can not be without the software that generates it and hardware that hosts it.

Johan, your essay is a very good read in my opinion. It raises the question whether or not the claim a certain substance dualism can be fasified by the available repertoire of the physical sciences, together with modal logics.

The only question I have in mind is that, although it is perfectly reasonable to me that one can change a basic assumption of physics (and therefore changing the spectrum of necessities and possibilities), how you then can achieve that "this ontological layer should identify the necessities and possibilities of physics" if there can be a multitude of parallel, consistent solutions. Doesn't this at the end of the day merely resemble and interpretational variety, just like the quest about quantum mechanics' real ontology? I mean by this that some people claim that the outcomes of quantum mechanical measurements for some cases, albeit not predictable, must be considered necessary in the sense of a strict determinism, whereas others claim that those outcomes are not due to some strict determinism, but should be considered as merely being possible according to some probabilities.

How does your ontological research program handle the question of objectively evaluating the probabilities for something to be considered merely possible and something to be considered as absolutely necessary - to at all come to the possible (the latter must surely be presupposed) conclusion that a certain interface is impossible?

    Ups, should of course be read as

    "It raises the question of whether or not the claim about a certain substance dualism can be falsified..."

    and

    "at the end of the day merely resemble an interpretational variety..."

    Johan, does any of the two levels supply us with a reliable probability measure to objectively evaluate the probability for something to be considered as merely possible or moreover rather necessary?

    Stefan, I'm currently working in a hypothetical-deductive phase. My latest hypothesis (https://philpapers.org/archive/GAMADH.pdf) relates to the possibility of an interface. Regarding scientific possibilities and necessities I think that a world without an interface would not possibly have a cause of a very first thing whereas a world with at least one interface possibly would have a cause of a first thing.

    6 days later

    Georgina,

    You are right! See, Existence and change is what my essay is about..

    Marcel,

    Johan Gamper,

    I too don't use the word metaphysics (for its bad reputation)... So, I took Fundamental Ontology (Wiki). But I kept the two pillars of natural metaphysics; substance and cause. My essay is about these two concepts.

    So, I believe a good start for your ontological project may be found in my essay.

    Good luck,

    Marcel,

    Dear Dr. Johan Gamper,

    You wrote: "What is "fundamental" for physics can now be determined by referring to the proposed layer of scientific ontology. The efforts to account for the necessities and possibilities for physics - the modal properties of physics - are fundamental."

    My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

    Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

    8 days later

    Dear Johan Gamper

    Avery nice research program you are proposing "scientific ontology" to determine what is "fundamental'" as a Research Program by Johan Gamper Best wishes for that.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

    I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

    Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

    -No Isotropy

    -No Homogeneity

    -No Space-time continuum

    -Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

    -No singularities

    -No collisions between bodies

    -No blackholes

    -No warm holes

    -No Bigbang

    -No repulsion between distant Galaxies

    -Non-empty Universe

    -No imaginary or negative time axis

    -No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

    -No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

    -No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

    -No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

    -No many mini Bigbangs

    -No Missing Mass / Dark matter

    -No Dark energy

    -No Bigbang generated CMB detected

    -No Multi-verses

    Here:

    -Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

    -Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

    -All bodies dynamically moving

    -All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

    -Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

    -Single Universe no baby universes

    -Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

    -Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

    -UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

    -Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

    -Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

    -21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

    -Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

    -Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

    - Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

    I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

    Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

    In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

    I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

    Best

    =snp

    6 days later

    Dear Fellow Essayists

    This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

    Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

    All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

    Only the truth can set you free.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    a month later

    Mr Gamper

    Sorry for not having read your paper earlier... You propose a very interesting concept. I shall be back with further comments. Maybe we can share each other some more ideas.

    Just for fun I rated you to see what would have happen in case of... :)

    Silviu

    silviucorciovei@gmail.com

    Write a Reply...