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

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

Dear Vladimir,

You give radical ontological ideas in the spirit of deep Cartesian doubt. Yes, today we need a new Cartesian revolution to overcome the crisis in the basis of knowledge.

All the best,

Boris

Vladimir,

A very deep essay with some good pointers on the way forward for modern Physics.

Well done!

I have reciprocated your kind vote on my essay...

Regards,

Declan Traill

Dear Vladimir

I am really pleased to see your profound essay which I think it is most important Idea I know since it creates the real ontological solution for modern Physics crisis, it creates a comprehensive environment for undertanding and answering fundamental questions including current "What is Fundamental?". Therefore I would recommend all to take this topic (the philosophical aspect of science) seriously, if the question has importance for humanity.

The reason is that the modern physics is far from its fundamental aspect ( philosophical scientific basics) and the current situation seems that, it is almost impossible to answer or even to grasp the answer no matter how simple it is.

I have experienced the need of such ontological ideas after giving simple basic answer (hypothesis) which links together, in 2010 essay. previous essay.

After evaluation of the hypothesis, I realized that it was poorly or almost not understood, on the other hand many verifying discoveries happened.

By investigation to the problem I suspectedly wondered, "To address all problems and to put new forward going Idea are two very important actions, but I sometimes wonder which one is most important to focus on first?". My answer become " to address the problem first".

For most part of my current essay, I have focused to point out some important ontological issues.

Terminological metaphors, los in conceptualized mathematics,...... led the phyical reality to be far from the Current Physicist's way of viewing the Nature's Physical phenomenon ( expectations ), and best communication would be Spherical Geometrical modelling (close sphere packing) I think similar principle that the architect and philosopher, Buckminster Fuller used. In other words, ontological presentation of Geometry and simulations of the Nature would be a good way to understand underlying fundamental Principle in both physics and mathematics.

Best wishes

Bashir.

Vladimir,

Good to see you back. Regarding your musings of fundamental, I tend to lean toward Popper's idea of "three worlds: 1. The world of physical states, 2. The world of states of consciousness, 3. The world of objective ideological content. We are the sentient creature, "the knowing subject" which is necessary for existence of that which is fundamental. My definition of fundamental is in keeping with this as yours seems to be. That which is fundamental is necessary for existence and fundamental changes with discovery when those three worlds meet. You provide important ideas in our mix of concepts and deserve a good score for your effort. Hope you get a chance to look at mine for comparison.

Jim Hoover

Dear Vladimir, ...(copied to mine)

I completely agree with you.

«In physics, it is necessary to introduce the Ontological standard of substantiation of fundamental theories».

Ontology studies the fundamental principles of the device of being.

The basis of the universe is the physical vacuum. Conceptual physicists believe that space is empty and has ideal properties to carry the real photon energy billions of years without energy loss. This is a key mistake - all scientists know that there cannot be ideal properties in science, but they do not notice it, or it is global hypnosis, as in Germany at the turn of the 1940s. It is this leads to the justification of the causelessness of processes, science has turned into a fantasy and to what you write.

«The modern crisis of the philosophical foundations of Fundamental Science is manifested as a comprehensive conceptual crisis, crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation, crisis of methodology, loss of certainty».

When I write about the environment of a physical vacuum, from an ontological point of view, I emphasize its real energy and material basis of the world, instead of an abstract foundation, in the form of emptiness, as well as virtual and quasiparticles.

For example, phonons are generally considered quasiparticles, which form photons that carry real energy. I believe that such supernatural, phantom and abstract concepts should not be in science. All particles are real. If a photon is fixed, this means that in the physical vacuum environment there was a pair of real particles.

On the one hand, matter consists of energy, on the other hand, it is energy that forms the mass. Mass derived from energy, it can be formed, under certain conditions, and may not be formed.

For example, an electron-positron pair is actually a phonon (it is not a quasiparticle) that has energy and mass. "Annihilation" of the electron-positron pair leads to the formation of a pair of massless photons. Each photon carries half the energy of the electron-positron pair. In fact, one photon is the pure kinetic energy of an electron-positron pair. The potential energy of the electron-positron pair is a pair of vast gravispheres from the medium of the physical vacuum, which includes a set of de Broglie waves. Gravispheres form a mass, and their energy is parametrically transformed into a second photon during the "annihilation" process.

Thus, the electron-positron pair has a mass, while the photon has no mass and its temperature is close to zero. At the same time, in the process of "annihilation" only the structure of the elements of matter has changed. For example, for an electron - the toroidal structure has turned into a cylindrical spiral. The electron, as consisted of a nematic sequence of 137 quarks, continues to consist of 137 quarks in the photon. In this case, the cross section of the interaction of a photon with the medium of a physical vacuum decreased by a factor of 137, in comparison with the electron-positron pair. Therefore, a photon is a pair of elements (a pair of baryons) of a deeper neutrino and quark level of the fractal structure of matter. Therefore, an electron in the Cooper pair can move in the equilibrium superconducting state only at a speed 43.6 times slower than the speed of light, and the photons move at the speed of light. A boson from a pair of quarks is a graviton (gluon).

An electron-positron pair can be formed only from a photon with an energy of 1023 keV.

The inverse transformation of photons with an energy of 511 keV into a pair of particles with an energy of 256 keV leads to the absorption of energy from the medium of the physical vacuum for constructing their gravispheres and mass formation. Therefore, laser cooling will allow cooling of the body, practically to zero temperature.

In fact, "annihilation" of particles is the process of their division on the second subharmonic of a parametric transformation with the release of energy, which can be used to synthesize heavier particles with energy absorption.

Thus, the process of division and synthesis of the elements of the physical vacuum environment is the main process of energy circulation in the universe, which leads to parametric resonance and solitons. Phase transformation of the elements of the physical vacuum environment is the cause of self-organization of matter according to the principles of the heat pump.

Thus, the most fundamental parameter in the universe is the energy dissipation coefficient (Hubble parameter) in the medium of the physical vacuum, which determines all the parametric processes in the universe. The stars in the universe are shining, due to the dissipation of energy in the physical environment. For example, the Hubble parameter easily calculates the solar radiation power.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Vladimir,

Thanks for reading my essay and for your kind words. It seems that too many don't take the time to engage in an interchange of ideas.

Jim

Dear Vladimir,

I basically agree with your estimates of modern critical situation in fundamental science necessitating essential changes. As you may know from my essay here, I propose my version of unified mathematical "mother structure" as you call it (my dynamically probabilistic fractal) that underlies all real structures and their evolution by the equally unified law of the symmetry of complexity. I hope these results can be the right starting point for the necessary completion of fundamental knowledge, in accord with the criteria you describe in your essay.