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
Thanks so much Narayan! I found your articles on Researchgate. I already read them. I read your essay with important ideas, commented and voted highly on April 10th.
Good luck!
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir,
Interesting essay. I was struck by the Bertrand Russell quote: "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." I first thought that he meant that current formal systems needed improvement, and then I realised that he meant that human cognition can't completely be modelled by formal systems. And I agree with that. I would think that human cognition and decision-making can't be entirely predicted; so it can only be modelled after the fact i.e. only as an outcome; and it can be represented with words or an algorithm, but not as an equation. I would agree with you that this "eternal ... process of generation new and new meanings and structures" is literally the "primordial generating process of the Universe".
Regards,
Lorraine
Dear Lorraine,
Thank you very much for reading my essay, a very deep and important commentary and a general assessment of my conclusions. You have noticed the main thing. Your vision is very important to me! It is obvious that today to overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science, it is necessary to first comprehend the ABSOLUTE FORMS and only then with numbers and equations.
With kind regards,
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir,
Glad to read your work again.
I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.
"Physics Needs Philosophy. Why this influence? Because philosophy provides methods leading to novel perspectives and critical thinking. Philosophers have tools and skills that physics needs, but do not belong to the physicists training: conceptual analysis, attention to ambiguity, accuracy of expression, the ability to detect gaps in standard arguments, to devise radically new perspectives, to spot conceptual weak points, and to seek out alternative conceptual explanations". Carlo Rovelli on July 18, 2018.
While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".
I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.
Warm Regards, `
Dear Vladimir,
Thanks so much for reading my essay and kind words. You have quoted the very important thoughts of Carlo Rovelli from his extremely relevant article, not only for physics, but for science in general.
I started reading your new article. I wish you success in your extremely relevant research!
With kind regards,
Vladimir Rogozhin
Dear Vladimir,
Once again, you wrote an interesting and provocative Essay, deserving the highest score. I agree with various statements of yours. In particular, I must regrettably agree that today "there is a comprehensive crisis of knowledge". The abuse of mathematics can sometimes destroy the ontological basis of science. The idea of "Philosophy for children" is great!
I wish you all the best and good luck in the Contest!
Cheers, Ch.
Dear Christian,
Thank you very much for reading my essay and kind words. Indeed, researchers should not forget that Philosophy is the mother of all sciences. Today, not only Physics needs Philosophy. Science and Society are in a deep existential crisis. Therefore, without Philosophy, the love of wisdom, it will be impossible for us, Earthlings, to overcome all the growing existential threats and risks. I wish you also success and all the best!
Cheers, Vladimir
