Tessellation and concentration in quantized space by Sydney Ernest Grimm

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 Sydney,

For a deeper discussion, please see my essay for a comparison of our approaches.

Vladimir

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 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

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.

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

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