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

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.

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for reading my essay. Also I have read your essay, speaking about the question "What is fundametal?", the crisis of science fundamentals. I agree with your thought that Fundamental Science "rested" on the understanding of matter, space, nature of the "laws of nature", fundamental constants, number, time, information, consciousness, as well as "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".

And also as you write that the fundamental is the potential for constructing the architectonics of cognition.

In relation with the "The ontological (absolute) space is the existential-extremum of the absolute forms of existence of matter", as considering the fundamental forces and space time nature including Conversion of Mass to Energy, I would say that the absolute forms of existence of matter may be the space and time itself.

Ch.Bayarsaikhan

Dear Vladimir

I read with great interest your remarkable article where I found truthful, in my opinion, the representation of many problematic issues concerning the current state of scientific thinking, to methodology and to natural science in general. This is important that you clearly had point to a stagnant crisis situation in both the humanitarian aspects and the current methodology in natural science. You also see the moral aspects of this global problem, the necessity of which somehow does no accepted to be as the decisive qualitative factor in modern scientific methodology. This is somehow my theme, and I sometimes ask myself a rhetorical question - is it possible (or permissible) to build any science without an initial, definite morality? To whom it will be need such a science, in the sense is it the science is possible to be considered as existing for itself? So, we can put many such questions that shows that we have gone on the some of wrong way that you have well realized and sayed!

I'm just impressed with your level of knowledge, depth and persuasiveness of thinking. It seems to me that you presented one of the best works in the contest. I wish to you good luck in the contest!

Best Regards,

George Kirakosyan

Hi Vladimir,

You have produced an excellent essay and have garnered the best blog responses. A short excellent course in philosophy. I pulled out two items I liked, one from your essay one from your blog:

1. All science, in my opinion, is cosmology, and for me the value of philosophy is no less than science, it is solely in the contribution that it has made to cosmology."

2. I believe that there should be a World Bank of fundamental ideas in all UN languages, with their constant discussion by all members of the world scientific community.

Personally, I like to play with cosmology, do take a look at my metaphysics to physics essay: The Thing That is Space-Time. I think you will enjoy it.

Thanks for your essay,

Don Limuti