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

Dear Vladimir;

I enjoyed reading your essay. You went straight to the point. The root of the crisis is the lack of recognition in the physical sciences of the need to have an ontological foundation for all theories and fundamental concepts and axioms on which those theories are founded. As you said: To overcome the crisis of fundamentality means to achieve "ontological bottom" and build its structure.

I concur with you when you say "One of the main causes of the modern crisis in Fundamental Science is the domination of epistemic fundamentality and a disparaging attitude toward metaphysics, ontology". This is part of the critique I make in my essay.

I fully agree with your conclusion

"... that the basic physical theories do not have ontological fundamentality. They are not built on a strong ontological basis and are phenomenological theories without ontological justification. The foundation on which they are built is not solid, their ontological structure (ontological basis) is not clarified. The ontological basis must be the same for all fundamental theories for all levels of the Universum existence".

Perhaps without realizing it, physicists are trapped in a neopositivism. And "It is necessary to overcome fenomenologizm in the systemic approach that prevails today in modern science".

The solution of the problems of modern Fundamental Physics requires the creation of a deeper ontology that encompasses all levels of the Universe as a holistic generating process. This solution is what I try to introduce in my essay. There I start by establishing the general concept of "Fundamental". Then I summarize an epistemological critique of the practice of theoretical science, where it is demonstrated the inadequacy of the ways science constructs the fundamental concepts for studying the fine grain of reality. Afterward I propose an expansion of the scope of physical science to include the aspects of reality that cannot be observed directly or indirectly. Then I discusses the concepts of SPACE, DISTANCE,TIME, INERTIA, MASS AND ELECTRIC CHARGE, and develop new concepts for each of these scientific parameters; redefining them in ways that allows the determination of whether or not they could be categorized as Fundamental

Dear Vladimir,

thank you for sharing your ideas, it was a pleasure to read your interesting essay - and to find quotes from such a great author as Florensky. Your brief history of the problem was very well done indeed.

I was a little confused in the end, when you state:

> the method of ontological construction of the primordial generating structure of the Universum as holistic process brings to uniform ontological (onto- gnoseo- axiological) basis of knowledge: the ontological framework (the absolute forms of existence of matter), represented in the "logos", general logic and "laws of nature", the ontological carcass (the ontological, absolute system of coordinates of Nature) and the ontological core - foundation of being and knowledge - Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory.

What's the primordial generating structure that you believe is fundamental?

Bests and thank you again,

Francesco

Dear Vladimir,

thank you for your kind reply.

You say that "Matter is understood in the spirit of Plato: this is what all forms are born of. The main thing here is the idea of generation."

But what is matter without form? Every kind of matter, even an "undefined" form of it, can be something just related to something else. If you consider this primordial "matter" as something (as you write) "absolute, unconditional, extreme", it looks like that matter is close to the paradoxical status of "nothing". Without differences, no things nor matter. Without relations, no particularities can be found nor can exists. I'm not sure I understood, is matter for you a sort of nothing? Something close to some of the main interpretation of Taoism or Buddhism? Parmenide's oneness?

(I ask you these because it's related to my essay).

Thank you again!

Francesco

Dear Vladimir, that's very kind of yours, thank you.

Francesco

Zdrastavite Vladimir I. Rogozhin

Very nicely said.... "What is the most fundamental in the Universum?.. Physics, do not be afraid of Metaphysics! Levels of fundamentality. The problem 邃-1 of Fundamental Science is the ontological justification (basification) of mathematics (knowledge)," dear Vladimir I. Rogozhin Cpasibo esyo ras dlya xoroshaya essay..... I request you to have a look at my essay also....

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/ "

By the way.....................

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.

Have a look at

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

tml

Best Regards

=snp

Vladimir,

I think the primal factor you miss is temperature and thermodynamics, as being more important than time.

Consider that galaxies are the primal feature of the universe and they consist of energy radiating out, as mass coalesces inward. I think we will eventually come to realize it is a cosmic convection cycle. That mass is constantly breaking down and shedding energy, as energy is constantly radiated out to the degree it starts to coalesce back as form/information/matter and fall back in. Black holes are really the eye of the storm and it is the falling in/radiating out that is what is really happening. Redshift is not due to the source moving away, but radiation both expanding out to fill space, then coalescing into quanta of light by absorption.

Think of the rubber sheet analogy of gravity. Space can't be flat where there is no mass, or that would assume the very absoluteness of space which relativity dismisses. Think of the rubber sheet as being on water, so that when it is pushed down by the bowling ball, it is pushed back up everywhere else. That is the outward curvature of redshift. Basically Einstein's original Cosmological Constant. A balance to gravity, leaving space overall flat, with the inward and outward curvatures balancing. Energy radiating out/mass falling in. Dark matter is this collapse starts with the very quantization of light and mass is just the more solid state of it. So that mass is an effect of gravity, rather than gravity a property of mass.

Consider as well the most elemental state of a fluctuating vacuum doesn't have any way to measure the change of time, but it does have a level of energy, that would be temperature.

Consider as well that we evolved in a thermodynamic environment and it permeates every aspect of our being. Rational thought might be temporal, as it is sequence, but emotion, the rising and falling impulses, heat, cold, etc, is thermal. Even the process of thought is an expansion of information/energy, following by a consolidation, then leading tot he next cycle/thought.

Which goes to our mental tendency to look for that bottom line solution/answer/final theory/etc, yet always, always find it circling and cycling back around. That is why the answer always seems right there, but always just out of reach.

Vladimir,

There is a social and political aspect of this as well. People, especially westerners, are very goal and bottom line oriented. If society came to realize thermodynamics are more elemental than the linear effect of time, they better realize why every action comes with a whole host of reactions and why simply going faster and more of the same will not get us to Nirvana that much quicker.

John

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin

Thank you for your reading my essay with great interest, thank you for all appreciating words...

I also feel that World Bank of Fundamental Ideas in all UN languages, with their constant discussion by all members of the world scientific community. The global scientific community must support the competition of ideas, primarily in cosmology .

You stated it wonderfully,

Best wishes...

=snp

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

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

Dear Vladimir,

as promised, I have read your essay and will comment on it.

Although you seem to wildly mix different ideas, concepts, words and terms to converge to a primordial generating structure - and you lost me therefore - I can easily grasp what your main intention is with your essay.

You presuppose reality to be rational and meaningfull and you suspect that the hitherto tools to scientifically come to a fundamentally true statement about the meaning of it all must somewhat fail.

This is no wonder, since mathematics and antivalent logic are self-delimiting systems (as all systems are). Hence, the search for some underlying truth *cannot* be a systematic approach, but must be an intuitive approach. The latter presupposes that there is some access to a realm of fundamental truth for logically thinking beings. Otherwise the search does not make any sense, since there is no sense at all in existence. But as you, I feel that there is sense and objective meaning for the fact that there exist things at all ( with or without me existing).

The crucial point is that using opposites and some 'coincidentia oppositorum' (as Cusa purported) cannot reveal what's beyond antivalent thinking. The 'coincidentia oppositorum' only shows, - if it happens to you - that your mind has just realized that it had merely facilitated a *model* of reality, a model whoose consistency necessarily depended on some complementary ('opposite') elements, elements which had defined *each other* and you now realize this fact.

Eastern philosophies walk into the same trap by thinking that whenever the mind realizes that it was itself that has facilitated a consistent model of something, then this realization should somewhat uncover the real ontology of reality. I think this is true insofar as the mind realizes in such moments that reality cannot really be formalized completely, and the fact that consciousness exists and realizes this can also not be formalized. This is a weak kind of transcendence.

The strong kind of transcendence comes into play by realizing that transcending one's own formal systems is consistent with a holistic notion of an atemporally existing soul. But this is the end point of a systemic approach to come to some primordial generating structure, since beyond transcending one's own conceptual building blocks, there must be some kind of fundamental truths which aren't anymore formalizable in the logico-mathematical sense we are used to.

These truths are of emotional qualities, insofar as they point to eternal values that are traditionally ascribed to an intentional agent called God. For further continuing a search for such a 'primordial generating structure' (God is not a structure), one has to take into account phenomena that aren't scientficically reproducible, but nonetheless of huge value philosophically as well as teleologically. I have the phenomena of near-death experiences in mind. They give an overwhelming indication for a realm of consciousness beyond space and time, if one studies them carefully and compares a huge amount of such experiences to come to a decicive conclusion. Here you may meet again two out of the three of Popper's worlds, consciousness and some 'ideological' content (I would call the latter rather 'teleological' content).

In summary, there are phenomena in reality that cannot be reproduced by means of our traditional scientific methods. Don't let yourself be talked into the opposite: none of the near-death phenomena have ever been reproduced in a laborartory. They happen not due to phyiscal causes and effects, but due to other reasons (say, some causa finalis). Especially none of the valid information about things the experiencer couldn't know at the time of his experience (information that could be verified later) can be reproduced in a laboratory - because these events follow another set of reasons, different from deterministically defined, physical causes.

All in all, I see that you search for the truth. But you don't need to make it so complicated intellectually. Neither is there an infinite tower of turtles to climb over nor is there a overall sophisticated proof or derivation that can lead you to ultimate truth. It is only the own will to find truth - and last but surely not least - even a truth that destroys in parts the own self-concept and picture one has of oneself. This last sentence is really the key, accepting that there is something much bigger and much more truthful and more just than oneself can ever be. As always, finding some limits (also one's own limits) sets one free.

Vladimir, I wish you all the best for your further philosophical development,

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

"Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen