Crisis of Fundamentality → Physics, Forward → Into Metaphysics → The Ontological Basis of Knowledge: Framework, Carcass, Foundation by Vladimir I. Rogozhin

Vladimir,

The ontology, the metaphysics is how we get to the fundamental.

My essay deals essentially with what exists by itself; substance and cause...

Marcel,

Hi Vladimir,

This is a theme for you. Nice essay 9.

Regards

Branko

Hi Vladimir

Nice essay, your way of thinking is something new for me and I found it very interesting. I think metaphysics and cosmology is the only way to approach not only Fundamentals but many more concepts of reality.

Best Regards

Vasilis Grispos

Very good composition on the crisis of science fundamentals. Opens the gate to spiritual physics, the soul of matter, i.e. the meta-physical interplay of matter and living matter. The concept of 'initial vibration' (Memra) can be translated scientifically and fundamentally into a new ontological foundation of research methodology.

Dear Vladimir,

I enjoyed reading your essay. You made a deep analysis of the components of modern crisis in the philosophical foundations of Fundamental Science, and of the limits that may even be in principle. It is thoroughly documented and full of interesting ideas. Good luck with the contest!

Best wishes,

Cristi

Dear Dr Vladimir I. Rogozhin,

You wrote: "What is the most fundamental in the Universum?"

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

Vladimir,

Excellent analysis of the problems, brilliantly expressed, right on topic and with some interesting thoughts from philosophy. You know we share much, both quoted Popper, and my work & essay is founded on ontological justification and key points you identify, including; "The history of physics shows that progress in natural science requires a new level of methodology." that "Most of the theories developed do not introduce any new ontology.".

And on maths;"..arithmetization of geometry, as it were, leads to the emasculation of its meaning." 'Mathematics is used in physics only as a method of evaluation, and not as a method of precise calculations. The outcome of this process is neither accuracy, nor understanding,"

also; 'Mathematicians no longer care about understanding, nature or each other.' and; "the problem of the justification (basification) of mathematics is not understood in the conceptual plan and all programs are inadequate."

I certainly agree we need to aim for Cartans; "one axiom, one principle and one material ..point with a vector germ". and work from; "Bodies and forces (as) simply shapes & variations in in the structure of space.

As you've seen, I've shown the veracity in those concepts as they lead to what looks like a classical QM compatible with 'SR'. Declan Trails prrof may be mainly maths but closely matches the ontology in mine & my papers he references (most of my essay was the ontology & experimental analysis). You may not be a QM specialist but if you do perceive any flaws in mine I'd appreciate your comment.

No such flaws in yours, but just one question; Rather more Nature than Maths but I found; "to construct the model of regular process which does not dwell and always lead to something new and new" valid in my ontology. How would a 'sythetic' method be simpler and 'more fundamental?'

Best wishes very well written & top marks.

Best of luck in the contest.

Peter

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

As always, I very much enjoyed your essay. I like your Katznelson quote:

"I think our understanding of the world around us is in some sense definitive, it does not depend on a possible future understanding of some deeper levels."

Amen! I also appreciate Husserl's observation that

"... the replacement of true being by the world of mathematized theories began with the arithmetization of geometry."

Indeed! And again: "following Plato, Schrödinger singled out the notion of "unified" as the most important." In my essay I review the unified nature of time as universal simultaneity and Einstein's fracturing of this unity with the "relativity of simultaneity".

Vladimir, you ask "how will mathematics be able to "close" physics if mathematics remains science without ontological justification?" In my essay I point out the lack of ontological justification for Einstein to mathematically project a new time dimension on every moving object, in essence making each object a "real world", i.e., a copy of the one real world we experience.

Einstein postulated two "real worlds" of time and space subject to Newton's laws of inertia, measured by 'perfect' clocks, and he derived the Lorentz transformation between these two real worlds without considering energy. The resultant space-time symmetry leads to non-intuitive nonsense and paradoxes. I show [reference 12] that it is possible to derive the Lorentz transformation in one real world [inertial reference frame] by taking into account the energy of the moving object, moving in the same universal time dimension. This energy-time approach is compatible with the relativistic particle physics of the twentieth century without the non-intuitive nonsense that derives from space-time symmetry.

I hope you will enjoy my essay and will comment on it.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Vladimir,

congratulation for a very nice essay that I enjoyed very much reading.

My essay has very deep connections with yours, putting (methaphysical) postpositivistic methedology at the core of foundamental research in modern science. I hope you will read it and we can maybe discuss similitudes and differences in our thoughts.

Meanwhile I will rate you with a high grade.

Best of luck!

Flavio

Dear Dr. Rogozhin,

You address many topics in your essay, but I noticed in particular your line:

"The foundation of modern physics is split. Two fundamental theories, the general theory of relativity and quantum field theory are not compatible ideologically, logically and mathematically"

You might be interested in my essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics". I propose that a set of slight modifications from classical physics can give rise to a consistent unified realistic physical picture on all scales. There are no point particles or gravitational singularities; abstract spacetime and Hilbert space are mathematical artifacts. Electrons are distributed real wave packets without entanglement. Space and time are distinct, and are defined by frequency and wavelength of these real waves, which can shift in a gravitational potential. This gives rise to the phenomena associated with general relativity and quantum mechanics, without requiring separate mathematical formalisms.

This is not merely a philosophical argument. There is a newly developing technology, quantum computing, which depends critically on entanglement for its computational power. Without entanglement, quantum computing will not work. There are billions of dollars being invested in this, and I expect an answer within 5 years. But when I have tried to discuss this with active participants in the field, they react as if I am killing the goose that is laying the golden eggs. No one wants to hear such a negative story, including funding agents. My prediction is that the failure of quantum computing will lead to a reassessment of the entire foundations of quantum mechanics.

Alan Kadin