Dialectical-Ontological Modeling of Primordial Generating Process ↔ Understand λόγος ↔Δ↔Logos & Count Quickly↔Ontological (Cosmic, Structural) Memory by Vladimir I. Rogozhin

Dear Vladimir.

It is indeed difficult for meta-scientists like you and me to box up against the institutional scientists.

I publish my articles in The Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research and The Scientific God journal.

Thank you for the link to "METAPHYSICS".

best regards

Wilhelmus

Respected Prof Vladimir,

Thank you for your post on my essay,

Einstein did not like and support Bigbang based cosmology!!!

I reproduced some of your words of wisdom from "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community?".

.......................Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology....................................

Even after 20 years these concepts are same and they are ruling the world like some dictator ship.....

I was just hoping for the last 35 to 40 years that the funding will be released from dictatorship ,fears will be reduced ad freedom of speech will come into light someday........

I am just waiting..................................................................

Respectfully,

Snp.gupta

Best Wishes to your wonderful essay

=snp.gupta

Dear Vladimir,

Hereby a copy of the answer I gave on my essay.

Ontological means the metaphysical basis of "being".

Being is a process that is time-related.

In my perception, it is only the past that seems to be time-related and therefore NOT the dimensionless Point Zero.

Ontology is a method of interpretation in our emerged phenomenon reality that leads to attempts to understanding "being".

I hope this explains your question.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Respected Prof Vladimir,

Thank you for your post on my essay, here is the reply....

Wonderful song on hope!!!! The song rightly tells us that in reality we cosmologists are in fog and cold buzzard of dictator ship. This song is appropriate for our situation!!! All the young children are taught about Bigbang, as though it is right. This aspect pinches me......

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

Vladimir Rogozhin

I thank you for the depth of thought within your response to my paper.

Being philosophy, your work is way over my head, but I did read it. It sent me search definitions so often I can say I learned a bit. The context recalls the World of Math by James Newman, some of which I barely remember. Anyway I can only comment on conclusions. I do relate to your concern with education as you reference the need of more philosophy thinking from 1st grade on just as I claim need for more thorough education about space. Logic, and the universe.

As intended, there is much philosophy in this contest. The terminology and history of philosophy are hard to follow and bypass my mind. Somehow my attempt to just apply logic seems to stand outside the world of thought which is attended by philosophers. Clearly someone such as yourself is needed to transfer my logic points into an overview philosophy of the universe.

Best regards,

Paul Schroeder

Vladimir,

Excellent job! yet again. We both identify the philosophical foundation problem as key to current limitations. You dialectics review was thorough and interesting, adding context and support to my ontological viewpoint and very physical dialectic (and trialectic) solutions to our unknowns.

I was amused by your last line as I consider most current philosophies as at a level 'for children'. I think it a great idea, as long as we can clean away all the illogical nonsense first! I think only young minds are really able to assimilate fresh concepts as most older ones have older doctrine embedded ready to reject anything that doesn't match. It seems you and I are of the few Vladimir! Most bloggers also have their own 'wares to sell' and aren't there to 'buy' anew.

I do hope we're truly at last 'in crisis' and at a crossroads, but sadly most I find still unaware of any problems in doctrinal thinking. I'm often told by those not even bothering to read my work ; "don't try to fix what isn't broken". Yet we know we must have strength and persist. Your uplifting essay helped that. Thank you. Top score down to that as well! ..and also for reminding me of Russels' perfect comment on Godel.

2 Points; You don't bring in South Asias 'Ying and Yang' Do you not see that as of valid dialectic import?

Lastly Your text layout may please you and doesn't worry me, but I say as last year, it's unconventionality makes reading hard for most and must cost you scoring places. If that matters. English is a poor enough language already in so many ways!

But brilliant and important content Vladimir. I take a different approach, diving straight to the foundations of philosophy (so logic and all else) challenge them, offer alternatives and show the powerful outcomes of using them! Likely far to much for most to take but I have comfort you'll appreciate the signpost it gives at that crossroads. I seem to simply send the horse left and head right.

I much look forward to your comments and discussions.

Peter

PS; If you don't rush though mine you should find TWIN dialectic pairs rule my spherical surface momenta of spinning Majorana fermions, the smallest case of condensed matter, and Trialectics in the 3 axes of rotations only spheres can have without momentum conservation issues.

Dear Vladimir

Let's continue our discussion here:

- And which mathematical constants are more fundamental?

If aliens more advanced than us came to Earth, they would surely know more of the discovered mathematical constants than we do. So these constants are more fundamental than invented mathematics. I already mentioned the fundamental discovered mathematical constants in the previous answer: 2, 2pi, e, exp(i*pi), exp (2 * pi) and log2 (2pi). I can add more: number 3, golden ratio.

And how many are there? There are countless more, probably all prime numbers. You can find many on the Internet yourself.

And what do they tell us about the structure of the Universe?

If you carefully observe my table in 2015 Trick or Truth contest, you will realize that it mathematically explain the same image used for the Big Bang.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang , (Timeline of the metric expansion of space). So we don't need Big Bang, we only need discovered mathematics.

What is the ontological status of these SUPER CONSTANT (their nature?)?

In one sentence, they were derived from nature. It is not called constant e the basis of the natural logarithm for no reason.

You say: The starting point of the Pythagorean dialectic is also the idea of opposites. I have noticed that modern physicist do not applie opposites. If you read my essays carefully you will see that I have applied opposites in physics.

Everything I said cannot work if you are not able to check the last five formulas in my essay.

Regards Branko

Vladimir

You say: In my model, there are three super constants (ontological).

Which are your three constants?

Regards Branko

Dear Vladimir

Interestingly, I found your article:

The Paradigm of the Part VS The Paradigm of the Whole ... The Absolute Generative Structure

Vladimir I. Rogozhin ideabank@yandex.ru August 05, 2012

Because my theory is called "Unity of the whole and the parts."

If you just read my articles you would see that my relationships among physical values resulted from Newton's, Kepler's, Plank's, partly Einstein's works...

I would also refer you to my friend prof. Dragoslav Stoiljković, who starts some articles with Engels' views on attraction and repulsion, and through the philosophical views of Leibniz, Hegel comes to the application in the polymer industry. I think that his path is the right way to apply philosophy. The very fact that I have applied the results of the aforementioned greats of science means that I have largely accepted their philosophical views as well.

It is not up to me to apply your philosophical views to my theory, but it is up to you to refute or confirm my prediction with your philosophy.

Instead of SUPER CONSTANTS it may be better to use SUPER MATHEMATICS, which are logarithms, exponents, Euler formula, Opposites, and other rather neglected applications of mathematics in physics. Of course SUPER MATHEMATICS usually contain SUPER CONSTANTS (For example some Planck equations).

Regards Branko

Dear Vladimir

1. We are all different with our abilities. So as a student, I realized that my skills with words were zero. Contrary to my ability to solve problems, two of my teachers noticed. That's why I'm not even trying to deal with Philosophy.

2. The source of opposites for me is the article by one of our Philosophers, a Bosniak. I first heard the term "Unity of the opposite" from you, so I found on Wikipedia:

There was, according to Anaximander, a continual war of opposites. This I also thought, I can see it from my formulas.

3. Physical constants are equal to mathematical constants, meaning that they are of the same kind as they are in the same formula. The fact that we don't know why, is our problem, that is reason for "rather".

I have no need to imagine a geometric "Whole". The pieces were geometrically well conceived by Galileo, Newton, Boskovic and later Feynman...

I have presented material "Whole" in frame of exp (2pi), others have presented QED "Whole" in frame of exp (i * pi). They claim to have combined a weak and electromagnetic force, let me trust them.

To me, geometry and dimensions appear as a relation of whole and parts, and thus not fundamental.

The following I did not write anywhere: Position of mass and radius with respect to Plank mass and length, govern parts of Universe.

4. If I can choose four: e, i, 2pi, 2

5. Maybe

Regards Branko