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

    For what it is worth...

    In response to your comment on my page; I think you can have the best of both worlds. This is a poem or aphorism that sums that up, which I wrote years ago and is now published as 'octonion poetry.'

    One, open, as multiplicity and formless nothingness, finds peace in true relation, and knows all as self.

    In other examples the 'nothingness' phase becomes fractal. The idea is there is a far shore of chaos rather than it being only an endpoint. Order creates chaos, of course, because of geometric frustration; but once things are entirely random, the only progression possible is to add order or to find the hidden order in the apparently random patterns. See Briggs and Peat "Turbulent Mirror" for insights on this.

    Insofar as you are exploring the theories I mentioned above. You should check out Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler "Gravitation" chap 44, sections 4 and 5 (starting at page 1203 in my copy) that talk about pregeometry. This work is the basis or inspiration for a lot of the theories that explore causal structure. I warn you; it's heavy reading. But it should be worth the effort to visit and compare notes. Things have moved forward a lot since then, and several directions have been fleshed out.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Dear Sydney,

    I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

    "To understand quantized space we must change our phenomenological point of view for the all-inclusive point of view".

    While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

    I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

    Warm Regards, `

    Vladimir

      Dear Jonathan Dicklau,

      Thanks for the information! I have already found your paper "Unity, Oneness & Numbers: Octonion Poetry" and I will search for the other documents.

      I hope everything is o.k. because it shows that COVID is becoming a serious problem for nearly everyone in the world. Infected and not infected.

      All the best and good luck!

      With kind regards, Sydney

      Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov,

      I haven't yet read your essay but I saw that you are interested in gravitational waves. Unfortunately, there is a conceptional problem with gravitational waves.

      Everyone is convinced that the model of curved spacetime describes Newtonian gravity. But there are experiments that show that gravity is a push force (vector force). That means that gravitational waves are waves within the electric field because the waves have about the speed of light.

      See these papers:

      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

      Chungpin Hovering Liao (2019), "Microwave-caused influence on gravitational constant G in Newton's gravitational law".

      DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15509.37600

      With kind regards, Sydney