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

    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 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

          Hi Vladimir,

          I'd like to first thank you for your lovely comments on my essay. Aside from some very pedantic grammatical errors, I thought that you wrote a wonderful essay. I really enjoyed this essay. Going through your essay, my comments are the following:

          Philosophical works are highly dense and your essay demonstrates the magnitude of rigor necessary when an individual deals with such matters. You began by discussing the foundation crises that we are facing. These matters are substantially profound. There isn't much that I disagree with in your essay. For, indeed as you posited, "...The roots of the crisis lie in the initial cognitive attitudes of the ―Second Archimedean revolutionâ€-. Today, Fundamental Science rested in understanding the nature of the 'laws of nature', fundamental constants, space, time, number, information, consciousness..."

          I thought you described the epistemic dilemma of the foundations of mathematics and the sciences very well. You said "...Long-standing problems are also in the philosophical foundation of the "Queen of Sciences" - Mathematics, which has been undergoing a crisis of foundations for more than a hundred years..."

          I do agree that this crisis that we have been facing for over a century is a very recondite dilemma. The formidability of more foundational issues is stark. I must note an amusing irony that many (pure) mathematicians are of the mind that matters that are deemed "philosophical" are not to be taken seriously. Many 'real' scientists dismiss the credentials and (oftentimes) the entirety of the discipline of Philosophy as a whole, while [in the past at least] philosophers have yearned to be taken seriously. Many professional philosophers today still want to collaborate with mathematicians and physicists. I think we are starting to see it more. I think (and hope) that professional scholars are starting to realize that interdisciplinary work is the only way that we are going to be able to solve the world's most challenging problems. You briefly articulated this "...which mathematicians, as the philosopher S. Cherepanov notes, tried to overcome by inadequate methods.[11] A century of fuss and zero results! [12]..."

          On Gödel's famous work you wrote "...The theorems revealed the limitations of the approaches of the Hilbert program..." This is very true, unfortunately. You worded this wonderfully "...Closing the problem of the justification of mathematics on mathematics itself, formalism replaced the question of the truth of its statements with the requirement of consistency.[13]..."

          "...Mathematicians, logicians, and philosophers give very different, sometimes even polar, estimates of the historical significance of Godel's theorem. Bertrand Russell assessed the results of Goedel's logical discoveries: "Contrary to popular misconception, Goedel's incompleteness theorems do not imply that certain truths will remain forever unknown. Furthermore, it does not follow from these theorems that human cognition is limited in any way. No, theorems only show the weaknesses and shortcomings of formal systems."[13] To me, this can be related back to the fact that mathematicians do not (usually) respect philosophers on foundational mathematics- to the behest of philosophers whom have yearned to work alongside rigorous academic scholars. For instance, one place where a specialized mathematician (logician) has noticed that philosophers have committed acts of heresy is to extend Gödel's famous incompleteness theorems to be applicable to minds- you wrote "...Gödel's theorems reflect the fundamental feature of knowledge - openness and incompleteness of the cognition process, and on the other hand, the ontognoseological inferiority of formal systems..." Penrose was infamously guilty of doing just this in your quote, it applies to the former).

          "...Due to the unsolved problem of justification of Mathematics, paradigm problems in Computational mathematics have arisen. Mathematician, expert in the field of artificial intelligence Alexander Narin'yani in the article "Mathematics XXI - a radical paradigm shift. Model, not an Algorithm" notes: "Computational mathematics is in a deepening crisis, becoming increasingly inadequate in the context of growing demands for practice. At the moment, Computational mathematics has no conceptual ideas for breaking this impasse....»[15]..." I think I agree with Narin'yani; I might not fully agree. It appears that (for instance) many of the open problems (of the Clay Institute- the Millennium Problems) are likely undecideable. However, I do think that computational mathematics will not get anywhere until the philosophy side is resolved ("metamathematics"). I suppose I am in agreement with A.Narin'yani.

          Perhaps I am misunderstanding- "the ternary system of calculus and 'qutrits' will be used in future quantum computers..." Quantum computers take advantage of their ability to do multiple computations at once and a classical Boolean (hence, qubit) operation will result in only one of two 'things' (e.g. answers).

          However, I do agree that "...So, the mentioned conceptual problems in Computational mathematics are the result of the unsolved problem of the 'foundations of mathematics'..." (p.2). I too agree with Bukin. I also can't help but think about other archetypical conceptions which too are binary in nature such as the Ying and Yang in Daoism. I think you developed the notion of triads very well. In quantum computing, the superposition has two and only two possibilities. It's very interesting to introduce another 'option'.

          "...These triads have the form: limit, boundless, and harmony; odd, even, and even-odd number..." You mentioned an "even-odd: number- is this some sort of superposition between even and odd? Cantor demonstrated the wonderful idea of hierarchies of infinities. A notion of 'quantum mathematics' seems unusual and unnecessary- albeit it is interesting.

          First of all, you wrote very clearly and you also added historical basis for your essay too. I think the following quote succinctly summed your thesis on page 4 "...Without solving this fundamental problem, taking into account the current state of computational mathematics and the development of computer technology, it is not possible to find an exact answer to dialectic questions: «Decidability â†" Undecidability», «Computability â†" Uncomputability», "Predictability â†" Unpredictability"..."

          I also agree with "...The solution to the problem of the ―foundations of Mathematicsâ€-, and therefore knowledge in general, is the solution to the problem of modeling (constructing) the ontological basis of knowledge..."

          You quoted Nikolai Kuzansky ―A part is not known without knowing the whole, since a part is measured by the whole.â€-[38] I think that I share this belief too. On page 5-6 you had many equation-like fragmented sentences as such "...Triune (absolute, ontological) space is the limit value (existential-extremum) of the absolute forms of the existence of matter (absolute states = ontological framework): linear state (absolute continuum) + vortex state (absolute discretuum) + wave state (absolute dis-continuum) = triune ( ontological, absolute) field. Its eidos (ultimate geo-geometric images-ideas): ―cubeâ€- + ―sphereâ€- + ―cylinderâ€- represent the absolute (natural) coordinate system of the Universum being as an eternal holistic process of generation of meanings and structures..." Perhaps this was a stylistic manner of writing. In conclusion, I think that you promoted Philosophy very well at the end of the essay. Rigorous philosophy is pedantic and very broad. I too agree with you that it is absolutely vital for scholars.

          All in all, I thought that you wrote an excellent essay. It was very thought provoking. I will give it high marks; I'd like to email you. I'm interested to know about your credentials. Do you have a PhD in Philosophy or Physics?

          Well done,

          Dale Gillman

            Hi Dale,

            Thank you very much for your wonderful, deep and comprehensive commentary on my essay, your significant intellectual and spiritual support, as well as assessment of my ideas. I always apologize to the participants for translating my essays. Many contestants reported this to me. Unfortunately, I did not study the English language and I do the translation using the Google- translator, and I also use the Yandex-translator for control. Sometimes I also use the PROMT-translator. But there are some specific philosophical concepts that auto-translators do not "grasp" adequately. Last year I wrote a letter to the Russian Institute of Philosophy with the desire to prepare a new edition of the Russian-English philosophical dictionary, since the old edition is a bibliographic rarity. I translate the last three FQXi Contests on my own, previously I gave four of my translators (since 2012) to professional translators. But even then there were many comments on the quality of the translation from the contestants. But since during this time, as I noticed, the Google- translator and Yandex- translator began to translate better, I decided to translate it myself: in this way, I learn English step by step, and also save money on essay translation (I'm a pensioner).

            "Many professional philosophers today still want to collaborate with mathematicians and physicists. I think we are starting to see it more. I think (and hope) that professional scholars are starting to realize that interdisciplinary work is the only way that we are going to be able to solve the world's most challenging problems."

            This is an extremely important conclusion and I completely agree with you. Global interdisciplinary brainstorming is needed - best online. As one physicist put it: "It takes a lot of crazy ideas." Unfortunately, at conferences, there is rarely a deeply interested discussion of ideas.

            "On page 5-6 you had many equation-like fragmented sentences as such "... Triune (absolute, ontological) space is the limit value (existential-extremum) of the absolute forms of the existence of matter (absolute states = ontological framework): linear state (absolute continuum) + vortex state (absolute discretuum) + wave state (absolute dis-continuum) = triune (ontological, absolute) field. Its eidos (ultimate geo-geometric images-ideas): тАХcubeтА- + тАХsphereтА- + тАХcylinderтА- represent the absolute (natural) coordinate system of the Universum being as an eternal holistic process of generation of meanings and structures ... "Perhaps this was a stylistic manner of writing."

            This way I wanted to succinctly present the idea of тАЛтАЛthe TRIUNITY of the absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states) and their representation in the triunity of geometric images (eidoses). Each of the absolute states of matter has its own ontological path. This is one of the key ideas of the conception. The triunity of states is based on the ontological framework, ontological carcass and ontological foundation of knowledge.

            "I'm interested to know about your credentials. Do you have a PhD in Philosophy or Physics?"

            Unfortunately, I do not have scientific degrees. I am an energy engineer, my second degree is an economist. Philosophy "captured" me in 1990: first a philosophy of consciousness, then ontology, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of physics. In January 1990, I read the article "2030 - Last Year" in the journal "AMERICA", about the environmental problems of our civilization. Then I asked the question: "Who are we, Earthlings?" "Where are we going7" "What is the path we have traveled7" And the first concept that "captured" me quite unexpectedly was the "Vector of Consciousness", which led me to the sources of knowledge, to Philosophy, "mother of all sciences". I was very pleased when for the first time in 2012 I learned about the FQXi Contests, the world's open contests on fundamental issues of science.

            Yours faithfully,

            Vladimir Rogozhin

            7 days later

            Dear Dr.Vladimir Rogozhin,

            We came here to read your essay because of the thoughtful comment you left on our work: Mathematics: The Epistemic Veil Clothing Nature.

            Your work gave us much food for thought, although being undergraduate level students we unfortunately found a lot of your technical philosophical points, and jargons difficult to digest. Nonetheless, we admire your bold investigation on the ontological nature of mathematics and its relevance to the problem of knowledge of Nature.

            While we did not comment directly on the ontological nature of mathematics in our work (explained why in my response to your feedback), we believe and recognize the importance of understanding the ontic foundation of mathematics in our quest for understanding reality.

            Lastly, indeed, "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers"!

            Kind Regards,

            Raiyan Reza and Rastin Reza

              Dear Raiyan Reza and Rastin Reza,

              Thank you Very much for reading my essay, kind comment and evaluation of my ideas. Your research is inspiring and surprising: young students understand and see all the problems of basic science very deeply. I wish you success in the contest, new research, and all the best!

              With kind regards,

              Vladimir

              Vladimir,

              Thanks. We agree on Yin /Yang, and much else. But Auto translators are still flawed, and don't deal with syntax (does that translate?). I can't ever see Esperanto taking over, seems you'll have to settle for rather imperfect English for a while. But top job, and was pleased to find I hadn't rated it yet so it's just got a well earned 10. I have no worries that it now puts yours above mine!

              Very Best

              Peter

              Thank you very much Peter, for your kind words. Yes, we have very close views on the philosophical basis of fundamental science ... I agree, many contestants talk about errors in the text. .. At school and the Energy Institute, I studied German, at the Academy of Foreign Trade, Arabic and French. And now, when it's already 74 years old, I'm slowly learning English. Contests in this study are good practice... And Esperanto is the future great hope of the whole United Humanity ... Here, as soon as problem No. 1 of fundamental science is solved - the Ontological basification of mathematics (knowledge), so slowly, step by step, we, the people of planet Earth, will be able to overcome the crisis of understanding and mutual understanding . All the best! The main thing in this difficult time for all Earthlings is to protect health!

              Vladimir