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

    Dear Paul,

    Thanks so much for reading my essay and appreciation. Yes, a true understanding of the structure of space (ontological structure) is the key to the uncertainties of modern fundamental science. As never before today, the philosophical covenant of Paul Florensky is relevant: "We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding." The question of logic - I agree. But what kind of logic is the original, generating, "logic of all logics" - the logic on which the Universe speaks to us.

    Regards,

    Vladimir

    5 days later

    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 Peter,

      Thank you very much for kind and deep comment. Indeed, only new generations can possibly overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of science. Today, there are not enough "crazy" dialectical-ontological ideas. Let's hope that little philosophers from new schools with the subject "Philosophy" will be able to look at "space" and "matter" in a different way than modern physics tells us. A space without "curvature" and "big bang", the same for physics and the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). And without fear of metaphysics and dialectics, they will complete the Big Ontological coup in the philosophical basis of science, which began sometime more than a hundred years ago by Planck and Einstein. It is already obvious that the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of knowledge, the epics of the "great unification", string theories make it necessary to introduce an additional Ontological standard for justification(basification) of theories that claim to be called "fundamental".

      As for the symbol "Yin / Yang" and the symbol of the Primordial generating structure (Basic structure). I believe that the symbol "Ying / Yang" represents Hegelian dialectics - "unity and struggle of opposites". The symbol of the Basic structure represents a deeper dialectic and ontology of matter in the spirit of Plato and Cuzansky: "Logos" ("Law of the Triunity", "Law of laws) 竊' "coincidence of ontological opposites" + becoming 竊' Synthesis as a triunity of absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states) .

      As for the translation, this was done by me with the help of Google and Yandex translators. So for now, so-called "artificial quasi-intelligence" works. But they already translate better than before. I hope and dream that once the contests for new generations will be in Esperanto. I believe that the main thing for the FQXi's contests is the ideas of the participants. These are good global brainstorming sessions on fundamental questions.. I agree completely with you: Yet we know we must have strength and persist.

      I'm starting to read your essay with interest.

      Yours faithfully, Vladimir

      7 days later

      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

        Dear Branko,

        Thanks so much for your comment! I'm glad you are back in the forum. I watched every day from March 18, but you weren't and weren't on the forum. ..

        I will clarify my question:

        What do SUPER CONSTANTS say about the ontological (primordial) structure of the Universe? According to your model of the Universe - how many SUPER CONSTANTS (ontological constants) determine and reflect the ontological (primordial) structure of the Universe without the "Big Bang»? In my model, there are three super constants (ontological). This determines the principle of the triunity of absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states). The principle of the triune is a rigid link between the mathematical and physical structure, their ontological unity.

        As for the equations, I exclude their consideration, since any equation is a "clipping" from the being of the Universe as an holistic process of generating meanings and structures. The paradigm of the world (Universe) as a whole (ontological paradigm) should come to the aid of the paradigm of the part (atomistic, phenomenological). It is paradigm of the world (Universe) as a whole makes it possible to overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science.

        With best regards, Vladimir

        Vladimir

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

        Which are your three constants?

        Regards Branko

        Dear Branko,

        The model (eidos) of the Metalaw of the Universum (Logos = "Law of laws") is an ontological equilateral "celestial triangle" (Plato) of three bivectors that represent three absolute (unconditional) forms of the existence of matter (absolute states). The vertices of a triangle are the places where the minima and maxima of states coincide. The angles of a triangle are ontological super constants. But I don't know which ones ... Therefore, I want to understand super constants together with you ... Of course, after you read my essay, ask more questions and give critical comments.

        With best regards, Vladimir

        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 Branko,

          1. You read my old essay, but did not say anything about my ideas in this year's essay, since I added significant new ideas to my concept - this is primarily the concept of "ontological (space, structural) memory, which accordingly determines the nature of "information".

          2. In my conception, I take into account Hegel's dialectical ideas, but rely mainly on Kuzansky's ideas - "coincidence of opposites," coincidence of maximum and minimum ", as well as Whitehead's dialectical and metaphysical ideas in his metaphysics of process.

          3. In the essay "The Theory of Unity between the Whole and its Parts» you conclude: "Notice that in (17): physical constants are equal to mathematical constants, hence it cannot be said that they are derived from mathematical constants, rather, they are in the immanent relation of a whole and its parts."

          You write "rather». Why? You said earlier in our discussion on your form that mathematical constants are more fundamental than physical ones.

          My question is: How can you imagine in the geometric symbol "Whole" and in the symbol "Part" of this "Whole"? What is the ONTOLOGICAL (ESSENTIAL) STRUCTURE of this "whole" as a PROCESS? What is the Law that governs the "Whole"? What is the geometric symbol of this FIRST-LAW (Universal Law)?

          4. "Instead of SUPER CONSTANTS it may be better to use SUPER MATHEMATICS" .... Mathematics (or SUPER MATHEMATICS) is the "LANGUAGE of NATURE" ... What is the ONTOLOGICAL (ESSENTIAL, SUBSTANTIVE) STRUCTURE of this "language"? ... Which THREE SUPER CONSTANTS represent this STRUCTURE?

          5. "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.»

          Branko! I believe that we can find common ground between our approaches-this is primarily related to understanding ("grasping") the essential structure of the "WHOLE". and find exactly the main SUPER-CONSTANTS that represent (funds) the structure of the "WHOLE".

          Regards Vladimir

          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

          Dear Branko,

          Thank you very much for the valuable discussion on our essays, your important, deep ideas and comments. I hope that in the future we will be able to continue the discussion in order to bring our concepts closer, the vision of the world (Universum) as an holistic process of generation of meanings and structures.

          With kind regards, Vladimir

          11 days later

          Vladimir,

          Welcome back.

          A different organization of ideas, but I came to see your point regarding the uncertainties and AI. "Coincidence of ontological opposites" don't seem to fit into the ontological triad and the methodological triad you mention. Their compatibility in the dialectical-ontological modeling is interesting as is the 2.5 thousand years of philosophy we seem to have shuttled in favor of sophistry and demagoguery. I also promote a holistic approach in terms of Einstein's visualized though experiments.

          I catch your meaning and your drift. High marks.

          Jim Hoover

            Vladimir,

            Incidentally, my rating was your 7th. I say this because someone is giving a 1 rating to several of us w/o comments.

            Jim

            Dear James,

            Thanks so much for reading my essay, commentary and rating. I think that without ontology and dialectics it will be difficult to overcome the crisis of understanding in the basis of fundamental knowledge. First of all, a rethinking of the Kuzansky dialectic and Whitehead's "metaphysics of the process", taking into account all the problems in mathematics, physics, and cosmology, is necessary. And also taking into account the philosophical covenant of Einstein: "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."... I am starting to read your essay.

            Regards, Vladimir

            Dear Vladimir I Rogozhin,

            As always I value your essays. Your concerns mirror mine. I wrote a comment to you weeks ago, but apparently did not post it.

            You note that "theorems only show the weakness and shortcomings of formal systems." Yes -- Schultz's essay discusses algorithmic vs non-algorithmic patterns, and suggests that the algorithmically-derived limitations on knowability do not apply to non-algorithmic patterns, [as in the mind.]. This fits with your discussion of algorithm over model as focus on 'how' over 'what'.

            Lorraine Ford said it nicely: "what underlies the world "has always been the same stuff, back then and right now." Only this can "model the self-aware Universe" that you and I so value.

            Also of interest is Naria'yanic's "underdetermining". A recent analysis of relativity by Thyssen in Found. of Physics concludes that the dimensionality of the world is underdetermined by special relativity. I concur, and treat this specific case in my essay.

            Your focus is rightfully on ontology. My essay addresses very specifically the ontology of time and space: Deciding on the nature of time and space. I hope you will read it and comment.

            Warmest regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Dear Edwin,

              Thank you very much for reading my essay, in-depth analysis of ontological ideas and their evaluation. I will immediately begin reading your essay.

              Warmest regards,

              Vladimir

              Dear Vladimir

              Thank you very much for your post on my essay, I invite you to read my response to your comment.

              What a deep philosophical essay you wrote. I think I will keep it as a reference. Apart from your aspect about contemporary science, your essay contains a lot of valuable scientific information. I understand that you are against BB-theory, but this is the only one we have that explains the majority of cosmological evidence of observations. The steady-state picture like Einstein's and Hoyle's are not fashionable. I liked also very much your chapter about "dialectics" and the Greek philosophers. Your essay gave me the incentive to read Plato and Aristotelian philosophy.

              Best regards

              Vassilis

                Dear Vassilis,

                Thanks so much for reading my essay and kind comment. Overcoming the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science requires widespread competition of ideas and support for competing trends in science. Obviously, only in this case, physics will overcome the "Troubles", and mathematics will again acquire «Сertainty» in its foundations. Otherwise. how can mathematics "close physics" (Ludwig Faddeev). Philosophy, "mother of all sciences", is a reliable assistant for mathematicians and physicists.

                Best regards

                Vladimir