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

            Dear Vladimir,

            next to 'space' we also seem to agree on the importance of 'dialectics' resp. 'logos' Despite the historical account you give, the term dialectics remains blurred (to me). This may be due to Heraclitus himself, for one of his fragments regarding dialectics and the slow-wittedness of his contemporaries reads: "They don't understand how that which separates unites with itself...". This in my opinion is the the clearest definition of dialectics ever. But then he goes on and messes things entirely up:"...it is a harmony of oppositions...", maybe due to translation error or drift of word meaning. This is the source of the absurd idea, that dialectics deals with oppositions. Opposition, however, is the relation between extremes of a continuum, e.g. bright-dark, full-empty or long-short. It is obvious that no thing can have opposite attributes at the same time. Further, Kant confused in his antinomies categorical differences for oppositions (e.g. finite-infinite or compounded-uncompounded), which don't correspond to extremes of a continuum. Only Hegel got it right, e.g. when he associated the finite with quantity, but the infinite with quality.

            So, what is maximally separated and thus united? My answer is X and Y, which are orthogonal and yet united in the notion area (or X, Y, Z and space). Maybe that's the reason for your affinity with 'space'...

            best regards,

            Heinz

              Dear Heinz,

              Thanks so much for reading the essay and appreciating my ideas.

              If you look at the concept of "Dialectics" on Wikipedia in Russian and English, we will see a significant difference in the understanding of this word. Since we primarily consider problems in the philosophical basis of fundamental science, we should talk about ONTOLOGICAL OPPOSITIONS, about the coincidence of ontological opposites in the spirit of Nikolai Kuzansky, that is, the opposites that give rise to new and new (material-ideal structures) .. That's the way I believe that it is necessary to understand ("grasp") the dialectics of not only Heraclitus, but critically examining the entire dialectic line, especially the dialectics of Nature (the Universe). Nature (Cosmos) - there is harmony. If there were no harmony, then there would be no Humanity.

              Here's how Wikipedia writes about dialectics and its beginning (in Russian):

              "In Eastern wisdom, theoretical thinking went the same way: relying on the pairedness of the categories of thinking, searching for a unified foundation for different, directly opposite, ripened concepts and ideas, images and symbols in both esoteric and well-known philosophical schools and schools. Although for Europeans their exotic form is not quite familiar, but it is a form of unity and struggle of opposites in the content of the imaginable. She tuned the theoretical thinking of the Egyptians, Arabs, Persians, Indians, Chinese and other Eastern thinkers to the realization of its universal forms, to their meaningful classification, to search for a reasonable basis for their interdependence. And in the center of most of them is the opposite of the wise contemplation of the eternal meaning of being to the vain action in the transient world. .. The philosophers of the early Greek classics spoke of universal and perpetual motion, at the same time imagining the cosmos as a complete and beautiful whole, in the form of something eternal and restful. "Heraclitus and other Greek philosophers gave formulas of eternal formation, movement as a unity of opposites."

              By the way, Wikipedia in English does not even mention the dialectic of Heraclitus. This suggests that even in the world philosophical community there is no single understanding of dialectics - primarily the dialectics of Nature. Understanding the ontological opposites that lie at the base of Nature and knowledge ..

              "Opposition, however, is the relation between extremes of a continuum, e.g. bright-dark, full-empty or long-short. "It is obvious that no thing can have opposite attributes at the same time."

              聽These are not ontological opposites. In order to "grasp" (understand) the ontological structure of "SPACE", the ontological and epistemological dimension, we must first "grasp" (understand) "matter" as a holistic eternal process of generating new structures. And this means it is necessary to "grasp" (understand) the absolute (unconditional, ultimate, extreme) states of matter in the spirit of Plato: matter is that from which all forms are born. That is, absolute forms of existence (absolute states), since the first essence is FORM. I know only one physicist - Albert Weinik (1919-1996) who considers matter in a state of not only motion, but primarily in a state of ABSOLUTE REST (tranquility). A. Veinik called this state "paren": "Paren, from the Latin word "parens "- 1) obedient, humble, disciplined; 2) parent, founder, inventor... "Paren禄 combines a rich set of very exotic properties: it has no energy, but has unlimited reserves of matter; it is absolutely solid and at the same time an ideal flowing fluid without friction."

              I understand this absolute state of matter ("absolute rest") as a linear state of matter or "Continuum" Its geometric (spatial, ideal) representative is the "Cartesian box" (x-y-z). The ontological opposite of the state of absolute rest of matter is absolute motion (circular, absolute vortex, representative 芦sphere禄) - 芦Discretum禄. Their synthesis as becoming is a wave state (representative- "cylinder", "Dis-Continuum"). The second key dialectic-ontological idea: each absolute state of matter (absolute form of existence) has its own ONTOLOGICAL WAY. The triunity of absolute states of matter base (substantiate) the ABSOLUTE COORDINATE SYSTEM and, accordingly, ONTOLOGICAL STRUCTURE and dimensionality of SPACE (ontological space).

              I believe that today two mottos are relevant for physicists: "Physics, don't be afraid of metaphysics!" and "Physics, don't be afraid of dialectics!"

              Modern Phenomenological Physics must become Ontological Physics, that is, physics must acquire a reliable ontological basis: ontological framework, ontological carcass, ontological foundation.

              Unfortunately, today dialectics as a method is expelled from the philosophy of science. Only the aggravation of the relationship between Humanity and Nature will force us to return dialectics to fundamental science, to its methodology.

              Best regards,

              Vladimir

              Dear Vladimir Rogozhin

              Wonderful words "Humanity will not be able to develop steadily when science says that "In the beginning was the "Big Bang"..."...

              Now a days primary school children were taught like that, they will take that as

              "2+2=4"

              Those small children think there no science without it.........

              Very powerful people....

              Best

              =snp

              Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

              Thanks so much for your comment. Yes, today, in these difficult times, a Big intellectual attack on the philosophically naive hypothesis of the Big Bang is needed. What is the nature of the "laws of Nature"? What is the nature of the "fundamental constants"? .... What is the initial structure? We need to start again with an understanding of the "matter" and its absolute (unconditional) states ... And also carefully watch how the vine appears from the grape seed , and then the grapes. ..

              Best wishes,

              Vladimir