Dear Sydney,thank you for this essay.I am not fully convinced that your initial claim "mathematics is a language to describe reality in an accurate way", is so straightforward. I tend to agree that mathematics is a constructed, creative human activity, but its relation to reality (if there is an independent reality out there) is not so trivial. Perhaps you might also like to have a look at what I discuss in my essay, about the use of different mathematical entities in physics and how this deeply affects the foundations of physics.

Best,

Flavio

    Dear Flavio Del Santo,

    Centuries ago meta-physicists have discussed about the relation between mathematics (metrical defined concepts) and physics (observable reality). There is only one conclusion possible: if humans are created by the basic properties of our universe it is impossible that humans can create thoughts that are independent from the basic properties of our universe (and basic properties are mathematical objects). However, this is not an argumentation to state that all the mathematics is physics, like we cannot state that all the physics is corresponding with reality. Every year arXiv.org receives thousands of papers about hypotheses to interpret the observations and experiments (physics). Unfortunately none of these papers shows to be the solution for all the theoretical problems in physics. Fortunately Lee Smolin had published a thoughtful enumeration of the problems in theoretical physics: https://www.thoughtco.com/five-great-problems-in-theoretical-physics-2699065

    I will download and read your paper, thanks for the hint.

    With kind regards, Sydney

    11 days later

    Dear Sydney,

    Very important ideas, well illustrated. But there are questions.

    Undoubtedly, the key question for physics and mathematics is the nature of space and, accordingly, its ONTOLOGICAL structure. Here it is good to recall the philosophical testament of Paul Florensky: "We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding".

    I agree: "However, this has consequences because it is not realistic to assume that the foundations of mathematics shouldn't be identical to the foundations of physics."..."In other words, the existence of observable phenomena everywhere in the universe shows that the underlying structure must be build up on identical basic properties."

    But in your justification of the basic structure there is no deepest ontology of the absolute forms of the existence of matter (absolute, unconditioned states), their connection with the structure of space (ideal entity). It seems to me that deeper dialectical and ontological ideas are needed here. Therefore, the holistic paradigm should come to the aid of the atomistic paradigm that dominates science (part paradigm). A methodology is needed, based on the total dialectical-ontological unification of matter across all levels of the Universe's being as an holistic process of generation of meanings and structures (material-ideal), i.e., construction (modeling) of the primordial generating (basic) structure: framework, carcass, foundation for the whole system of knowledge, and not just for physics and mathematics. We all need to "dig" together - from "phenomena" to basic concept-constructs, to "noumenons".

    With kind regards, Vladimir

      Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

      You are right, there is no extensive explanation. That's because it is not an essay, it is a publication; see the explanation in my second post from below. Nevertheless, there are links in the paper to other publications where I have described the subject (or visit https://philpeople.org/profiles/sydney-ernest-grimm).

      If I understand your post well, you are suggesting that I have to describe the conceptual framework of quantized space in relation to the existing scientific literature about the basic structure of the universe. Well, I have done a lot of research in my live - in other branches of science too - but I am afraid your opinion about my capacities is too optimistic.

      With kind regards, Sydney

      ;-))

      It is a bit dangerous to display that opinion in science. But if we both hide it from the others, it will not hurt us.

      Dear Sydney,

      Please tell me which article to read at the link in which your main ontological ideas are presented?

      With kind regards, Vladimir

      Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

      May be the short paper "Empiricism and empirical information" will give you an impression about the basic idea (actually it represents Parmenides' main thought about the difference between observable reality and the underlying creating reality). It isn't that I have tried to further explore Parmenides' work. When I started research long ago I had 2 troubling questions: (1) How do I know that my hypotheses are correct? and (2) Is it possible that phenomenological reality is some kind of an illusion?

      About 35 years later I stumbled on a paper about the work of Parmenides. I was shocked to discover that ~2500 years ago Parmenides had followed the same type of reasoning to answer the second question (2).

      With kind regards, Sydney

        Sorry, Vladimir Rogozhin, I have answered your question without pressing "Reply". My post is below.

        4 days later

        Dear Sydney,

        I first read the article "Empiricism and empirical information". Our views are very close. I believe that the main thoughts that need to be emphasized and adopted (in bold):

        "Parmenides used other terms to describe the existence of set C. Like other philosophers - Leucippus and Democritus - probably meant that the underlying creating reality must have a universal non-destructive structure. "Aristotle made a remarkable contribution because he stated that the underlying reality is in rest and all the observable changes in the sky - the celestial universe - are synchronized (the unmoved mover)."

        Then I read your article "The uniform structure of space and time."

        I believe that we must, at the first stage, to find mutual understanding, using the sharp "Occam's razor" decisively "cut off" time, since it is necessary to consider, like the ancient Greeks, the eternal Universe (Cosmos). Therefore, we should consider only the concepts of "SPACE", "in-FORMA-tion" and from physics - "MATTER", but in the spirit of integrality and generation (Plato) - this is what ALL FORMS ARE BORN from. Since the times of the Platonic Academy, FORMA is the first entity. Therefore, from the conclusion "Space is composed by spatial units with identical properties", I would first take only the first part: "Space is composed by spatial units ..."

        The question remains of how many units? Recall the Pythagoreans, whose first number is "three". Why "three"? Here the idea is generated.

        Dialectics ... Dialectics ...

        Further is not yet obvious and we must find common support with you for "grasping" the structure of space. What structure? ... "Universal non-destructive structure" ... And that means ONTOLOGICAL ...

        Vladimir

        Dear Vladimir Regozhin,

        The relevance of science is the meaning of its results for society. That's why I suppose that concepts - and the terms we use for the concepts - have to be simple. Otherwise the majority of the public isn't interested in understanding science. That is why one of the main problems in science is the confusion we create by using terms that have a lot of different meanings. One of the advantages of physics is the possibility to use a limited number of terms without creating voids in the description of reality. In philosophy many philosophers have coined their own names for slightly different abstract concepts in relation to the concepts their colleges uses. That is why I don't like it to "write like a philosopher". For example, what is ontology? Actually it is the universe. A volume that envelopes everything like a box without walls. In other words, in science we are not only trying to understand reality, we have to force our abstract concepts into simple concepts that represent the "bare" conceptual frame work.

        I have read your essay and I understand and subscribe to your arguments. Moreover, it is really interesting to read about the basic thoughts of so many Russian scientists. Mostly in West Europe we are not fully aware of all the Russian science, partly because of the Russian language. I hope that your essay corresponds with the interests of the panel of FQXi-members who rate the essays (because your approach is founded on philosophical insights).

        With kind regards, Sydney

        Dear Sydney,

        As well as you, I stand for extremely clear concepts and a unified picture of the world for physicists, mathematicians, engineers (I myself am an electrical engineer), poets, composers, for the picture of the world of the "LifeWorld" (Husserl). This is the seventh time I am participating in the FQXi's contests and bring this idea in discussions with the contestants. Today, taking into account the deepening crisis of understanding and mutual understanding, the common task of physicists, mathematicians, professional philosophers and amateur philosophers (like me) to understand the structure of the Universum at the deepest ontological level. Like many, I can not agree with the picture of the world, at the beginning of which there is a "big bang".

        In my essay, I mentioned an article by theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli Physics Needs Philosophy/Philosophy Needs Physics. Carlo Rovelli outlined a list of topics currently discussed in theoretical physics. First two of them: What is space? What is time? These are ontological questions ...

        What does it mean to "understand"? To understand is to "grasp the structure" (G.Gutner "Ontology of mathematical discourse"). So in my essay I give my understanding of the structure of space as an ideal entity - an ontological structure. This means the ultimate structure, common to Nature and knowledge. The physics of modern times has semantically impoverished the concept of "space".

        R. Guardini in his research "The End of New Time" shown the perception of the world by antique and medieval person as follows: "... both have no common for us view of the infinite space-time continuum. For both the world is a limited entity, having outlines and form - figuratively speaking world is a sphere."

        The mechanist paradigm of New Time, "paradigm of piece", is a revolution in basic idealities of the worldview: the gnoseological space - "cube" ("Cartesian box") - forces out gnoseological space - "sphere".

        Nowadays different ideas of gnoseological spaces without ontological justification (basification) are represented in physics: "curve", "slanting", "fluctuating", "extending" and "toroidal" spaces. The mathematics is responsible for this "gnoseological bacchanalia" in fundamental knowledge. ["Space, time, and number in the everyday life, physics and mathematics" by Zlokazov V.B., Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Leading Researcher, Laboratory of Neutron Physics, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research]. The centenary problem of an ontological basification of mathematics and knowledge in general, has become extremely sharp. It is connected mainly with understanding of ontological structure of basic ideality - space. The methodology of "grasping" primordial structure of space was traced by E. Husserl in "Origin of Geometry": "... at idealization to consider the general maintenance of the existential sphere, invariant in all imaginable variations."

        In your essay and articles, I will also elicit ideas on the main ontological issues for modern science, primarily physics, cosmology, mathematics as the "language of Nature."

        Here is your article "On curved spacetime", you note as one of the fundamental ontological problems (questions) for science - the nature of space and time:

        聽"So it is not surprisingly that the question about the" true nature "of spacetime becomes very intrigue."

        And later: "So how is it possible that the theory of General Relativity and Quantum field theory cannot be put together? Does spacetime exist in the concept of quantum field theory?禄

        All these are ontological questions (problems).

        My ontological conclusion: "curved spacetime" is a phenomenology. Therefore, it is necessary to "dig" deeper - into the ontology of the absolute forms of the existence of matter (absolute states). The fundamental (ontological) structure of matter, its absolute (unconditional) states, is rigidly connected with an ideal entity - space and its structure is based.

        The two main theories of fundamental physics, Quantum mechanics and General Relativity are parametric (phenomenological, operationalistic) theories without an ontological basification. Combining them is pointless - let each work on their own "field" (gnoseological level). How the Ptolemy theory worked for a long time. Therefore, it is so important for physicists to remember the philosophical testaments of A. Einstein:

        聽"Often turn over the truths that are settled in physics and mathematics."

        "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

        聽"At the present time, a physicists has to deal with philosophic problems to a much greater degree than physicists of the previous generations. Physicists forced to that the difficulties of their own science."

        聽In order to move from Phenomenological physics to Ontological physics with a more reliable philosophical basis, it is impossible to "turn over" the phenomenological "loads" of theoretical physicists without "crazy" ontological ideas. And the first of the ontological problems is the ontological structure of space and the ontological status of time, that is, the nature of space and time as the basic ideal entities of cognition.

        Dear Sidney! Since the discussion with you is very important to me, I have not yet put a rating on your essay, your ideas. But I looked, some "partisan" put a low rating ...

        I continue to read works on your blog.

        With best regards, Vladimir

        Sorry, I messed up. I put you "nine" earlier(22.03.20), rating number "two".

        Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

        Thanks for the link to the article of Carlo Rovelli, I didn't know its existence. I have read it with a smile. Partly because idea's are like biological evolution. Every person who's doing foundational science has - more or less - the impression that he/she is designing a brand new conceptual creation. But ideas don't differ from "tangible" phenomena, like force fields. They transform in space and time, what we call "evolution".

        You stated in your post that general relativity and quantum mechanics are phenomenological based theories that both lack a proper foundation. I fully agree with you. Unfortunately, quantum field theory is partly a mixture of both theories ( gauge theories). However, it is a bit strange that so many scientists don't bother about it. Because it is well known that every reliable hypothesis about the foundations must be able to envelope all the other existing theories to be "more" true. If I remember well, every student gets this information during the scientific education.

        I cannot rate essays because I threw the code away. I don't like ratings (and I don't like winning prizes too). If the FQXi's contest was without prizes, maybe I was more interested to participate. Because the aim of the contest is to stimulate new scientific ideas. That's why I have the opinion that "winning" the contest is some kind of an honor because it shows the relavance. Like an accepted publication by Nature magazine. But may be I am a bit old fashioned. ;-))

        A rating of 1 isn't much! When I was at school a rating of 2 was the minimum. We only got a 1 for handing in an empty sheet of paper ;-)

        With kind regards, Sydney

        Dear Sydney,

        I believe that Carlo Rovelli's article is essentially a call to physicists who rejected or forgot John John Archibald Wheeler's covenant: "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers." There is no other way to overcome the crisis of understanding in the basis of science, I believe.

        Dear Sydney! Your opinion is very important to me and, if possible, please give critical comments on my forum on my concept of "primordial generating structure".

        In order to get a new code for the rating, you can contact the FQXi administration. This is important, because if you can evaluate other essays, then your essays will be little read by other contestants. And the main value of the Contest is the promotion of ideas. There is no other such competition that raises the most important problems of science in the world. I believe that there will be no problem with the question of the new code. But regardless of this, I am waiting for your questions and comments on my ideas, which are presented on the last two pages of my essay .

        With kind regards, Vladimir

        Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

        I gave you my opinion about your essay some posts above. Unfortunately it shows that my comment was not clear enough, sorry.

        Your essay is part of the FQXi essay contest and if I look at the list of FQXi members I notice that nearly everyone is a physicist. That means that my opinion about your essay is "colored" by the fact that the pannel that will rate the essays will be physicists. My personal opinion is that I agree with the whole contents of your essay. But I supposed that you want to know my opinion in relation to the contest.

        Are physicists capable of translating the last 2 pages of your essay (beginning with "Deep mind ...") into workable concepts, concepts that have a physical meaning? For example concepts that are meaningful in relation to the foundations of QFT. Because terms like Logos & Eidos are not common in physics. Personally I can read and understand your paper because I am a bit familiar with the concepts of the ancient Greek philosophers, but I doubt that the majority of the FQXi-members can.

        In my opinion FQXi wants to discover ideas that are directly related to the framework of theoretical physics. Like the articles on the website of FQXi show (and the subjects of the grands for research).

        Besides that, as an institute they have to get results. Nobody sponsors FQXi's contest if the winning essays are not understandable for modern scientists.

        My own "essay" is a bit of a joke. A paper about tessellation and concentration of energy in quantized space that envelopes - "as a side effect" - the subject of the contest. Personally I fully agree with everyone who have the opinion that my paper is incomplete, vague and confusing in relation to the used concepts. But I am not a serious contender...

        You have 26 days to rewrite the last pages of your essay if you have the feeling that you can find a way to express your concepts in "modern" terms. I know it is a nearly impossible task to reprogram your mind to express everything in concepts that are imaginary for physicists. However, you can keep your present essay till the moment you have a better one. If you are not satisfied at the end (26 of April) everything is still o.k.

        With kind regards, Sydney

        a month later

        Hello grim. I reckon with you to quite a high degree that the volume and size of everything is caused by a scalar mechanisms, very nice,your work definitely earns my votes,very nice diagrams to deliver the message.i too have questions on these scalar quantities(dimensionless values) I tried to retrace how they may have originated. Are they a product of Human cognitive Bias? it's here -https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.i would love your word on that. All the best in the essay.

        11 days later

        Remarkable...

        Good exposition of a lovely ab initio model that succeeds in explaining a lot without assuming much. I could make similar comments about causal dynamical triangulations or energetic causal sets, and nobody doubts the integrity of Loll and Ambjorn or of Smolin. So I am not sure why your rating is so low. I thought you did very well, although as you commented it was not a purpose-driven paper, and this explains why it does not more explicitly link back to the essay question.

        The linkage is obvious to a more informed reader, however.

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        After reading your comment on my page...

        It's worth checking out what they are doing. I have had the great pleasure to actually meet Renate Loll, Jan Ambjörn, and Lee Smolin. There was an entire breakout session devoted to causal structure theories at GR21, as part of the quantum gravity series. Over 700 scientists in NYC in 2016. I didn't make it to GR22, but had the extreme good fortune to have my work presented anyway.

        Yours is definitely an approach worth pursuing. Good luck finding appropriate materials to read, to see what others are doing in this area. I can recommend some sources to seek out. You might enjoy the sampler in "Approaches to Quantum Gravity" ed. D. Oriti, Cambridge Univ. Press. The chapter on CDT is also at arXiv:hep-th/0604212.

        Have Fun!

        Jonathan

          Dear Jonathan Dickau,

          Thanks for all the information! I have already read a number of papers and have watched a presentation of Renate Loll.

          (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRyo_ee2r0U).

          Gravity as a 1-dimensional phenomenon - see the video - is experimentally confirmed.

          Louis Rancourt and Philip J. Tattersall (2015)."Further Experiments Demonstrating the Effect of Light on Gravitation". Applied Physics Research; Vol. 7, No. 4; 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n4p4

          Nevertheless, I am a bit disappointed by the mathematics behind Causal Dynamical Triangulations. Mathematics cannot be used at a tool at the lowest level of reality. I am glad I wasn't present at the symposium - I live in the Netherlands - because I know I cannot hide my frustrations about the subject if I react.

          Well, now I will "jump" to the causal set theory! ;-)

          With kind regards, Sydney