• FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
  • Crisis of Fundamentality → Physics, Forward → Into Metaphysics → The Ontological Basis of Knowledge: Framework, Carcass, Foundation by Vladimir I. Rogozhin

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 Andrei,

    Thank you very much for your comment and assessment of my ontological ideas. I wish every possible and successful promotion of your very interesting and important conception aimed at overcoming the current crisis in the grounds of knowledge.

    Yours faithfully,

    Vladimir

    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 Bayarsaikhan,

      Thank you very much for your comment and question.

      Absolute (unconditional, limiting, extreme) forms of existence of matter (absolute states): absolute rest (linear state, continuum) + absolute motion (vortex state, discretuum) + absolute becoming (wave state, discontinuum) fund triune (absolute) ontological space and ontological time. The ontological (absolute) space is the ideal (ontological) limit of the being of matter. Every absolute state of matter has its own ontological path. The path (way) is meaning. Meaning is the basis of being. This is one of the key ontological ideas. The triunity of absolute states of matter is a primordial (absolute) generating structure. What "holds" this structure? This is the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory. Absolute (ontological, triune) time on the "horizontal" of being: "linear time" + "cyclic time" + "wave time". Absolute (ontological, triune) time on the "vertical" of being (hierarchical): "past" 竊' "present" 竊' "future". Time is a polyvalent phenomenon of ontological memory, funding, quantitative determinateness of the Universum as the process of generation of structures and meanings. Time is a number.

      Best Regards,

      Vladimir

      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

        Dear George,

        Thank you very much for your kind comment. Yes, overcoming the crisis of understanding in fundamental science is reflected to the full extent in society. Therefore, the search for ways to overcome the crisis, the discussion of alternatives in physics, mathematics, and cosmology, which the FQXi encourages in every way, is very important for the entire scientific community, for the further development of science for the benefit of all Humanity.

        Best Regards,

        Vladimir

        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

          Hi Don,

          Thanks for the comment and support of my ideas. I immediately translate your essay and give my comment and rating.

          Best Regards,

          Vladimir

          MR. Rogozhin

          I fully enjoyed the way you put things together it and I think further words are useless.

          Rate it accordingly.

          If you would have the pleasure for a short axiomatic approach of the subject, I will appreciate your opinion.

          Silviu

            Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

            One can agree with John Wheeler that philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers. Indeed, philosophy plays a very important role in physics. Moreover, physics began with philosophy. A classic example is the philosophy of Aristotle. Every important step in physics took place with the participation of philosophy. This concerns the creation of both classical and relativistic mechanics. Newton was equally a physicist and philosopher. The general theory of relativity was created under the impression of the works of several philosophers, and above all Mach. In addition, philosophy plays an important role in the generalization of the physical knowledge obtained and allows us to look at everything that is happening from the height of the stars.

            Best wishes,

            Robert Sadykov

              Dear Corciovei Silviu,

              Many thanks for your kind words about my ideas. I start reading your essay.

              Best regards,

              Vladimir

              Dear Robert,

              Thank you very much for your profound and important comment. It was the "mother of all sciences" - Philosophy, which helped to bring fundamental science out of crisis. Today, the Ontological revolution is needed in the foundations of knowledge. First of all, this is a 100-year problem of substantiating (basification) mathematics, "queen and maid of science".

              Best regards,

              Vladimir

              Hello Vladimir,

              The title of your essay 'Crisis in fundamentality' is well chosen and timely. You only have to read the essays of other contestants to confirm that the notion of fundamentality in science is not generally as fundamental as one might expect.

              You have demonstrated that consideration of some of the best thoughts of some of the best minds in the field of consciousness is a very direct and rewarding place to focus one's own mind.

              A theory of everything is a fine goal but identifying a goal is just the beginning of something much more worthy: an understanding of the process. To that end there is no better teacher than nature. Science is in the forefront of that endeavour, and physicists curious participants.

              If we were to build a tree of fundamentality we would likely start by recognising that existence is a prerequisite for any and all other entities. The highest branches appear to be few but not as clearly independent as one might expect: time, space, energy and matter.

              Below these we have a tangle of intertwining branches each claiming in their own special ways entitlements to be recognised as fundamental, i.e. essential, for further developments to ensue.

              As Karl Popper noted; "Science does not rest on a rock". A stream of products of evolution have emerged that Popper usefully consolidates into "three worlds".

              Cognizance is the foundation of mankind's special claim to an imperative status by virtue of our perceptions, however cloudy, of a totality that extends far beyond our comprehension. However, we cannot deny our dependence upon prior products (i.e. higher branches of the tree) of evolution.

              While we accept the notion of 'laws of nature', a more supple term would be 'principles' by which deviations from statistical norms can be admitted, subject to correction when they extend too far from the median condition.

              Yuri Vladimirov's contention that "The main goal of theoretical physicists is to build a physical picture of the world on the basis of a single generalizing category" is commendable but in order to accommodate the dynamics of change any such 'picture' would necessarily require to be a continuously changing 'movie'. The principle function of a 'goal' is to establish direction in which to proceed. Goals change as determined by priorities, but processes continue.

              The notions of 'the systemic approach' and 'intuition' are utilities that afford assistance in an otherwise chaotic world of unfathomable complexity. Proof in the absolute sense is absolutely unnecessary. We need to identify what we need in the short and longer terms as individuals, collectively, and in support of the greater establishment - and to proceed accordingly.

              Yu A. Neretin's comment that "the situation in mathematics and mathematical physics ... is quickly becoming more sinister" echoes Einstein's earlier conviction that 'As far as the mathematical theorems refer to reality, they are not sure, and as far as they are sure, they do not refer to reality.' We are thus inevitably drawn to accept Lee Smolin's conclusion that "The loss of certainty" in mathematics caused "the loss of certainty" in fundamental physics.

              Finally, It is important for all specialists to communicate with the public in non-specialist language in order to enhance the degree of understanding and acceptance of ideas.

              It was a pleasure to become acquainted with your thoughts.

              Good luck,

              Gary.

                Hello Gary,

                Thank you very much for the profound reading of my essay and your comprehensive wonderful commentary. I start translating and reading your essay in order to get acquainted with your ideas.

                Best regards,

                Vladimir

                Dear Vladimir Il'ich,

                You very deep and phylosophical discussion of the ontological and epistemological problems of the modern physics can find interesting appications in teh approach to the basic element of cosmoparticle physics - the world system, unfying the theory of the Universe with its foundations in particle physics.

                Thank you very much for your very nice and comprhensive presentation of phylosophical aspects of the modern science.

                It deserves very high estimation

                With the best regards

                M.Yu.Khlopov

                  Dear Maxim Yurievich,

                  Many thanks for your kind comment and appreciation of my ontological ideas. The modern crisis of understanding in the foundations of knowledge speaks of the need to implement the deepest Ontological revolution to overcome "troubles with physics", the loss of certainty in fundamental science (physics, mathematics, cosmology). The problem of the primordial structure of the Universum is not only a problem of science and philosophy. Its solution is also important for the sustainable development of the entire global community.

                  Best regards,

                  Vladimir

                  Dear Vladimir,

                  Thanks for visiting my Essay page.

                  You wrote another remarkable and original Essay. Here are some comments:

                  Let me permit to add another issue on the current crisis of the philosophical basis of Fundamental Science in addition to the sum of crises that you stress. It is the "politics" of science and economic interests to preserve the "scientific status quo".

                  I did not know the statement of Schroedinger that "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space". It is completely in agreement with my Einsteinian vision of physics geometrization.

                  In any case, you wrote an entertaining and philosophically excellent Essay, deserving my highest rate. Good luck in the Contest.

                  Cheers, Ch.

                    Dear Christian,

                    Thank you very much for reading my essay and kind words to my ontological ideas. I wish you success in the Contest!

                    Best regards,

                    Vladimir