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
Dear Vladimir,
I enjoyed reading your essay, which is thought-provoking and dense of interesting ideas. I wish you all the best in this contest!
Cheers,
Cristi
Dear Cristi.
Thank you very much for reading my essay and kind comment. I hope that together we can find breakthrough ontological ideas to overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science. Success and all the best!
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
Dear Vladimir
聽 聽 聽 Since you wanted me to make some critical comments on you essay, I am here to write. I did not write this earlier because, as I had already mentioned, I am not a professional philosopher. For the same reason, when I tried to go through your essay, I found many remarks based on several references which I could not follow. Therefore, I could not find an actual application of what your ideas are. I apologize for my incompetence. However, I do strongly agree with you that dialectics (I call contradictions) are necessary to be thought about because, according to me, we use those everyday without understanding -- I would rather say that contradiction is what prevails, decisions are the limits. I hope you may have already got my view while you read my essay. Nonetheless, I shall take this opportunity to express my views regarding the article by C. Rovelli that you referred to. Being from a physics background, I would focus on the following two quotes: ``Philosophy is dead'' -- Hawking, ``Philosophy is useless'' -- Weinberg. I do not agree with Carlo's judgments, where he called these two people ``anti-philosophers'' to push forward his arguments for necessity of philosophy and physics for each other. Hawking and Weinberg opposed philosophy for different reasons and which were based on their personal expectations. Let me take Hawking first and Weinberg second.
聽 聽 聽 Hawking's quote was followed by the sentence: ``Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.'' I absolutely agree with this comment because I have not seen any contribution from a philosopher to solve some longstanding problem in physics. I do not think modern philosophy deals with the questions regarding the foundations physics like what Berkeley did by questioning the foundations of calculus in `The Analyst' or Mach did by questioning the concept of ``mass'' in `Science of Mechanics' or Poincare did by pointing out that mathematical science might be an insoluble contradiction in `Science and Hypothesis'. Even after that, what is necessary is an end product and practical application. This is the single most reason why Newton and Einstein are more famous than the above phenomenal thinkers. Therefore, the question is about the practicality of philosophy. This is what Hawking could not find from modern philosophy. However, that does not mean that I agree with all of Hawking's views later in that book referred to by Rovelli.
聽 聽 聽 聽Weinberg's case is different. He has a personal dream of a unified theory and he considers philosophy to be useless because he questions ``Can philosophy give us any guidance toward a final theory?''聽 I do not know what is a final theory and I do not care about somebody's personal dream. Therefore, I consider such anti-philosophical聽 attitude to be meaningless.聽 It appears to me that he can not find his philosophical thoughts leading him to some final theory which he seeks and then puts that burden on philosophers. That is unacceptable for me.聽 聽 聽 聽 Therefore, as far as Rovelli's article is concerned, I did not find it of much use other than a good popular article because I could not find a discussion about in what way we can actually apply philosophy to do physics and apply scientific theories to answer philosophical queries.聽 To do that one needs to think of physics and mathematics in a collective fashion as ``mathematical science'' and that needs to be founded on measurements or relation between observed and the observers.聽 If I suggest somebody to read about philosophical writings about physics and why both need to go hand in hand, I would suggest reading Berkeley, Poincare, Mach, etc.聽聽 聽 聽 聽
Further, I聽find it strange Rovelli only writes about Western half of the world when it comes to philosophy, while the two fathers of quantum mechanics, namely, Schroedinger and Heisenberg found their thoughts akin to the philosophy embedded in a聽culture on the other half of the world. Such strangeness only increases when I learn that the father of relativity, Einstein, said to Tagore, a poet from a country on that other half of the world, that聽 ``Then I am more religious than you are!'' while discussing about science, truth, reality, etc.聽
聽 聽 聽I wish you luck with your essay.
Regards
Abhishek
Dear Abhishek,
Thank you very much for your excellent comment and discussion on the conclusions of Carlo Rovelli's article Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics .
It was extremely important for me that, firstly, Carlo Rovelli not only defended philosophy, but made a good criticism of the views (philosophical and anti-philosophical) of Hawking and Weinberg. Problems in the foundations of basic science remain and without deep breakthroughs in ontology can not do here. It is also important for me that among the list of questions that are discussed in theoretical physics, C. Rovelli posed the first question: "What is space?" And this is an absolutely ontological problem. Here again we cannot recall the philosophical covenant of Paul Florensky: "We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding." And the philosophical testament of the great physicist John Archibald Wheeler "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers" I would recommend placing at the entrance to many institutes of theoretical physics.
I fully agree that today, to overcome the crisis of understanding, a comprehensive philosophical synthesis of knowledge of East and West is required. I recall the deep thoughts of Rabindranath Tagore ("I asked of Destiny...") :
"I asked of Destiny, "Tell me who with relentless hand
pushes me on?"
Destiny told me to look behind.
I turned and saw my own self behind pushing forward the self in front."
These deep thoughts of Tagore are extremely important in modeling a complete picture of the world, the same for physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists, biologists, poets and composers.
I also wish you success in your research, contest and all the best!
Wit kind regards,
Vladimir
Dear Peter,
I found out quite recently that Bohr chose the symbol of Ying-Yang for coat of arms.
http://www.acurodos.ie/blog/niels-bohr-the-principle-of-complementarity-and-yin-yang-duality
It looks quite remarkable!
Warm Wishes
Mozibur
Dear Vladimir,
You make some very strong points in your essay. I also like how you opened up with a painting, it reminds me of the pre-Raphaelites. I do think Russian art should be more widely known.
I very much agree with you that 'the modern crisis is not only a crisis of the philosophical foundations of Fundamental Science, but there is a comprehensive crisis of knowledge, transforming by the beginning of the 21st century into a planetary existential crisis, which has
exacerbated the question of the existence of Humanity and life on Earth'.
I think it's important that you like the planetary crisis to how we, as a polity, deal with knowledge and understanding. I think this was a key point for Plato with notion of a philosopher-king and we see that played out today with the academy taking the role of the philosopher. Nevertheless, I think during the last forty years we've seen a substantial reducing of the prestige of the academy in relation to that of the media, politics and business.
For me, at least one important part of the process of overcoming this crisis is to renew the very distinctive role the academy holds in society - or rather should hold (when I say academy, I also mean include interested parties outside of it. It's not the pure instituitional context that I'm thinking about). What we need are the kind of strong measures that we've seen in the current pandemic and which all the time could have been used - but are not. That to my mind is a dereliction of duty - to ourselves and to the world.
I very much enjoyed how you've quoted from many figures not generally known to the West: Brusentsov, Kuzansky, Losev ... Eastern Europe still feels like an unknown frontier. I recently became acquainted with a writer, Nicolai Berdyaev that I'm much taken with. Have you heard from him?
You've translated 'en arche eto logos...' as 'In the Beginning there was the logos ..'. Sometime ago I came across a translation that pointed out a better choice of word might be 'principle' as when Aristotle said when we do first philosophy we look for the first principles of things. Please don't take that as a critique on your word choice, I thought it was an interesting nuance since it implies, at least in English, that logos was foundational for everything and not merely there 'in the beginning'.
I think renewing the philosophy of the ancient world in the modern world - dialectics - is a good idea. The modern world is too modern, and has outrun and beached itself. I can't remember who it was that said this, but it seems very true to me, which is that in the early 20C, due to the utter horror of the two world wars, there was an epistemic break in Western knowledge. Its time to renew it. Its time for a renaissance.
I like what Nikolai Kuzansky said: A part is not known without
knowing the whole, since a part is measured by the whole.
Amen to that
Warm Wishes
Mozibur Ullah
PS. I apologise for the lengthy comment ...
Dear Vladimir
Reading your essay was a pleasure. A lot of things I was not aware (a lot of reading in front of me). I wish you all the best in your endeavour and this competition.
Best regards
Rade
Dear Mozibur,
Thank you very much for reading my essay and your very important, deep and benevolent comment. I agree with you that in our time of increasing existential threats and risks, the role of scientists, the role of the Academy should increase, with the goal of finding ways to more sustainable development of Humanity, deepening the dialogue between Man and Nature. I believe that the role of philosophy in society, in global and regional governance should sharply increase. New generations should be wiser, so I propose to introduce the subject "Philosophy for Children" from the 1st grade of the school. Otherwise, there is a danger that homo ludens will defeat homo sapiens sapiens not only in games. In turn, science should strive for greater openness and activity. Let us recall the Manifesto of Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein of 1955 when the Pugwash movement of scientists was created.
It is wonderful that you are familiar with the work of Nikolai Berdyaev. His philosophy makes us think about the modern development of global society and the ways of science as a continuous creative process.
About the "Logos" and the "Principle". The holistic paradigm of the Universe being as an eternal process of generating of meanings and structures requires the construction of not only an ontological basis of knowledge, but also an ontological unity of knowledge and faith, a unified ratio, emotio, intuitio. As studies have shown, the millennia-old history of the development of knowledge and faith says that faith always went ahead. I chose the first inference from the Gospel of John in Greek as the First-Axiom (Meta-axiom) to construct the ontological basis of knowledge: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος ...... In the ancient Greek dictionary of I. Dvoretsky "λόγος/Logos" has 34 nests of meanings. On the one hand, "λόγος/Logos" is speech or recognition of the law, meaning, basis and structure of a thing. On the other hand, "λόγος/Logos" is a metaphysical reality, the law of things, and in this sense is a cosmological hypostasis. The first beginning of Nature in the great dialectic of Heraclitus - "Logos" is interpreted in different meanings. But the central meaning is the "eternal" divine law ", which follows all that exists. The "Logos" is also the Speech with which Nature addresses and controls individual things. Sometimes Heraclitus calls the Logos "the mind that rules the Cosmos." The "Logos" of Heraclitus does not exist separately from things, he abides in all things. The "Logos" of Heraclitus is an ontological category. It establishes both the structure of the Cosmos existence, and its frame, limits. The "Logos" of Heraclitus is the law of the unity of opposites that defines cosmic cycles, also governs the nature of man (cycles of sleep and wakefulness, life and death), craft and art. The "Logos" of Heraclitus also acquires the meanings of "measure", "volume", "teaching."
The primary principle or "Principle of principles", that is, the principle that generates all other epistemological principles, is the Principle of the triunity, which we can observe in Nature, its structure. "Structure" in Russian «с-трое-ние»" . The root of the word is the number «three». From ancient mythology, we know that the world always rested on three pillars: three elephants, three turtles, three whales ... So the First Axiom and First Principle allow us to unite all flows of knowledge and faith. From the Logos, knowledge flows in two directions: to the Creator through faith and to Creation, to the Universe through knowledge.
On the unity of Knowledge and Faith, the mathematician said well that Vladimir Voevodsky (1966-2017) was awarded the Fields Prize:
"What we now call the crisis of Russian science is not crisis of only Russian science. There is a crisis of world science. Real progress will consist in a very serious fight between science and religion, which will end in their unification."
Yes, I agree completely: we need a New Renaissance. Philosophy, "mother of all sciences", in this Great Common Cause, is our first mate. Therefore: "Physics, do not be afraid of Metaphysics!", "Physics, do not be afraid of dialectics!"
Warm Wishes,
Vladimir
Thanks a lot Mozibur! I will also pass this information on to Peter.
With kind regards,
Vladimir
Dear Rade,
Thank you very much for reading my essay and kind words! I also wish you success in your research and all the best.
With kind regards,
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir, your essay is beautiful, it contains a lot of good words, thoughts and ideas, and also interestingly sets out the history of the development of dialectics, so it deserves the highest praise. However, I note that not always an increase in the number of words goes into a qualitative theory. I believe that it is dialectical materialism that is responsible for the current situation in physics, when it stated that matter exists in space and in time, and allowed its dualism and even pluralism. The way to define objects by describing all its sides is more suitable for endless philosophical debates than for such exact sciences as mathematics and physics, where there is more analysis and less synthesis.
Abstracting properties from specific objects carries the danger when these properties are declared existing independently. This happened with the attribute of matter, which is called space and which is still considered to exist independently, although it has been stated many times that it can not be considered a container of bodies. It is matter that creates space and time. Matter is a philosophical category that is given to us only in the form of a sense of space. But since matter moves, space moves, and with its movement creates us and the world that we observe. I believe this is enough to answer the question that you had at the very beginning of the essay - what is space.
I wish you success!
Boris Dzhechko
Respected Prof Vladimir,
Thank you for your post on the essay which are very much closer to my essay.
I think we need to go beyond the existing scientific system mainly the "The Standard Model of Physics".
Your essay is too much appropriate. I believe that the empty or vacuum space are filled with some new kind energies. Requested to read my all articles and then comments positively.
Regards with thanks
Narayan
Dear Boris,
Thank you very much for reading my essay, kind words and comments. The modern crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science requires a revision of all concepts - "materialism", "idealism", "dialectics", "realism", "constructivism", "existentialism" ... and so on, all "isms" and all "fundamental theories", which are essentially phenomenological (operationalistic, parametric) without the obligatory ontological basis (ontological justification substantification).
Today, a holistic view of the world, of the Universum, of its foundation is necessary. And here, first of all, new "crazy" ontological ideas are required. First of all, a holistic view of matter in the spirit of Plato is necessary, and then on space, taking into account the history of its understanding. But first, one has to "grasp" (understand) the ontological structure of matter and only then "draw" the ONTOLOGICAL (ABSOLUTE) SPACE, without any "curved space". Thus, we will construct a single ontological basis (framework, carcass, foundation) for cognition, which will give a new heuristic.
I also wish you success!
Vladimir
Dear Narayan,
Thank you very much for reading my essay and kind words. I am starting to read your articles.
With respect,
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir,
We are glad to see so bright essay here in the competition of brave and far reaching ideas, and this is also true that the physics and philosophy is the great friendship conceptualities going far beyond the primitive physicalism. Quantum effects, different internested system of the real matterial objects, the time space interpretations, ontologies, Montegue and Leibniz ideas of possible worlds modeling. So, we all greet this great report, we all are fond and interested in.
Best Regards,
Pavel Poluian and
Dmitry Lichargin,
Siberian Federal University...
Dear Pavel and Dmitry,
Thank you very much for reading my essay and very kind words. Indeed, today it is possible to overcome the crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation, crisis of methodology in the foundations of fundamental science is possible only on the basis of the most deep-seated (ultimate) ontological ideas, plus the dialectic of "coincidence of opposites" in the spirit of Nikolai Kuzansky, taking into account all the "darks" and "troubles with physics." I believe that today there are two slogans of the day for the Big Ontological revolution in the philosophical basis of fundamental science: "Physics, don't be afraid of metaphysics!" and "Physics, don't be afraid of dialectics!". The same applies to mathematics. The first step: the ontological basification of mathematics ("language of Nature"), the "hard problem of the century" 邃- 1 for fundamental science.
Good luck in the Contest and all the best!
Vladimir Rogozhin
My article link below
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3432
