Thank you for reading and commenting. It seems that we share some interests and I hope to find the time to come back your remarkable essay which I have already read.

The Bergson-Einstein debate should be seen neither as a clash between two personalities, (which is the sensationalist approach) nor between science and non-science (which is the standard one). It is an incompatibilty between two philosophies, e.g. phemomenology and positivism. A key issue is the notion of 'the given'.

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." This Einstein quote is fairly well known and even if it is just a kind of 'pious lie', it remains as a popular epitome for the relativistic views.

"To know 'what time it is' consists in noting a correspondance, not between a clock indication and some other clock indication, but between a clock indication and the moment where we find ourselves" («Savoir l'heure qu'il est» consiste а constater une correspondance, non pas entre une indication d'horloge et une autre indication d'horloge, mais entre une indication d'horloge et le moment ou l'on se trouve). Bergson is on record for saying this in the presence of Einstein at the 'Seance du 6 avril 1922'.

A theory, even if its is a perfect one, still has to be distinct from reality - the map is not the territory, that is, the whole point is the difference: information is part of the world but somehow it is a separate part. Without the separation it does not exist as such. The distinction between a theory, its interpretation(s) and the world is actually a concrete instance of the otherwise much discussed Semiotic Triangle. One cannot dismantle it without lapsing into some kind of sub-rationalism and this has been my topic.

    Sorry, it's a piece of hare-brained rhetoric, unimportant.

    Dear A. Losev

    In qualifying the aim of the 'What is Fundamental?' essay contest, Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org Science Projects Consultant wrote: "We invite interesting and compelling explorations, from detailed worked examples through thoughtful rumination, of the different levels at which nature can be described, and the relations between them.

    Real Nature has never had any finite levels.

    I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real 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

    6 days later

    Dear A. Losev,

    I have enjoyed reading your pretty essay. In particular your last line caught my attention - where you suggest that the loop between physics, maths and mind indicates that nothing is fundamental. On the other hand I suggest in my essay that finding the common ground for the physical and the mathematical world [and mind] is *the* fundamental :-)

    My best wishes,

    Tejinder

    Hi A. Losev

    ""To know 'what time it is' consists in noting a correspondance, not between a clock indication and some other clock indication, but between a clock indication and the moment where we find ourselves"" Well said dear Losev.... Time is really fundamental............... very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope and 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

      Thank you dear a losev,

      For your blessings and more open view about my papers and alternative (fringe!) models... There are very few people take it that way....

      I request you go through my papers and you can reply me even after this contest closed to my ID...

      snp.gupta@gmail.com

      Waiting to see some more observations from you....

      Best

      =snp

      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 must consist 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

      8 days later

      Hi 'A'. No Name admitted?

      Nicely written & interesting, I also appreciated (and agreed) the philosophical aspects, your hypothesis and conclusion.

      But might you think there could something fundamental and unifying (i.e. using just a Bergson 'absolute' time') that we haven't yet discovered as we're not yet at that stage of intellectual evolution?

      Can you point me to who/where made the lovely "reference frame is a Cartesian subject in disguise' comment? I agree and have specific descriptions of reference frames and Cartesian systems as real equivalents (and planes forming 'TZ' bounded spaces NOT wire frames!) which seem to resolve many stupidities.

      Great job. Re the first question above I hope you'll read my own essay, carefully, as (after touching lightly on philosophy) it does shockingly identify a sequence appearing to achieve that aim. (if you like maths see Declan Traills code and plot of same).

      Well done and very best.

      Peter

        Hi Peter,

        the ref is from a rather improbable place: Alexandre Kojeve, L'idée du determinisme dans la physique classique et dans la physique moderne. (Paris, 1990). I do not have a copy and cannot supply (just now) an exact quote; the context was a contrast between classical and quantum mechanics or rather between a descriptive view of physics and the operational one. It has been written in the 30's by a young philosopher who was perfectly aware that mathematics and physics are not 'given' in the same way. He was a Hegelian but apparently he has not been satisfied by the monism induced through a standard philosophical recipe that turns any problem into a synthesis. My position is even more radical as I prefer to consider a structure that is a heterogeneous whole.

        Thanks for reading and commenting. a.l.

        8 days later

        Dear A. Losey,

        a very nice and insightful essay, one of the best in the contest, in my opinion.

        The historical-philosophical references to Pythagoras, Democritus and Anaxagoras are outlined in a very original and sometimes brilliant way, in a perspective that identifies in the loop connection between maths, matter, and mind the Leitmotiv (as well as the main mystery) of human knowledge. And it is hard to deny that it is so.

        Sincere congratulations,

        Giovanni

          Dear Giovanni,

          thank you for your kindness. I shall try to find some time to write a comment to your essay which I have read. You bring out nicely the ambiguity of 'what is fundamental' (is it ontology or epistemology?,) something that needs more space than I have been able to give it here.

          Best

          a.l.

          8 days later

          Dear A. Losev, the physical space is a fundamental , which according to the principle of identity of space and matter Descartes, is a matter and back, matter is a physical space. Time is a synonym for universal total movement of the physical space. Thus, physical space is the Foundation for fundamental theories.

          New Cartesian Physics needs your support to develop further. Visit my page and give your assessment there. FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

          I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

          Thanks. I'll look it up after the contest.

          I hope you get time to read mine, but if so do so carefull as it proceeds to the classical derivation of QM as there are 5 varied concepts to link. Unfortunately most just skim it (or not read it at all!) and I'ts been hit with a bunch of 1's. C'est La vie!

          Very best

          Peter