Dear Robert,

Unfortunately, I did not study English and rely on the translation of the Google translator. In Russian, "justification" sounds more accurately "обоснование", i.e. search for reliable "foundation". And what foundation can be the strongest and most reliable7 This is an ontological basis.

The problem of justification (substantiation) of mathematics is the problem of "foundations of mathematics", which M. Kline described well in his book "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty". Interestingly, as mathematician, do you agree with the conclusions of M. Kline?

I am not a mathematician, but I am interested in the question: Why did Mathematics, "language of Nature", lose Certainty? So physics has lost its Certainty? And all knowledge has lost Certainty? The loss of certainty in the foundations of mathematics, and therefore knowledge in general, ultimately raises questions: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability ...

Today, a picture of the world is being imposed on society, based on the hypothesis of the "Big Bang" ? You, as I understand it, do not support this hypothesis. Didn't mathematics play a role here when physicists build a picture of the world on the basis of theories without their ontological basification? I am not a mathematician, not a physicist, not a philosopher, but my mind does not accept the "scientific picture of the world", which does not answer fundamental scientific questions about the nature of the "laws of nature" and fundamental constants. Therefore, I once got involved in solving the problem of justification (basification) of mathematics (knowledge). I wonder what your opinion on the article by Carlo Rovelli Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics ? I found that your essay is deeply philosophical.

With kind regards, Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for the clarification. I confess that I have not thought deeply about the foundations of mathematics: in my work in finite group theory and representation theory, subtleties about the foundations do not often arise. We usually assume the axiom of choice, but it is probably not necessary in fact. I have not read Kline's book, so cannot comment on it.

Thank you for pointing to Rovelli's article. I agree with everything he says. The philosophy in my essay fits in with what he says about methodology: essentially I am arguing, as Rovelli does, that the methodology of modern fundamental physics doesn't work, and I am pointing out another possible methodology. I agree with Rovelli that having random ideas and hoping they will work is doomed to failure, and that the road to progress lies in carefully examining the contradictions in existing theories, and thinking philosophically about them.

Best wishes,

Robert.

Dear Robert,

Your deep philosophical approach to the foundations of physics, theoretical and practical knowledge in mathematics (finite group theory, representation theory) just push to solve the age-old problem of the foundations of mathematics (justification of mathematics) and knowledge in general.

Question: What "finite group" (ontological) underlies knowledge and the Universe as a holistic eternal process of generation of structures? How can it be represented in a geometric symbol?

With kind regards, Vladimir

Dear Robert,

The improved Koide formula is in the Table at the end of my essay.

Branko

Dear ROBERT ARNOTT WILSON, I thank you for your interest in my essay. Probably, the desire to understand why others think so has pushed you to this, and it is likely that I will give you high marks for this. If you agreed that space is matter, and matter is space that moves, as it is matter, then time here has a separate meaning, which is already contained in the concept of motion. Therefore, I do not use the expression "space-time." It is necessary to distinguish the concept of physical space from geometric space. Indeed, in mathematics, as you know, there are many spaces, but all this is abstraction. If, as you say, "to fully describe matter, I need both 4-dimensional space-time and 4-dimensional momentum-energy to create an 8-dimensional" reality ". Then, to describe dimensions, interactions, and so on, I need two copies of 8-dimensional reality multiplied together to give 64 dimensions that contain all possible dimensions and interactions. ", You can proceed further. Just do not forget that all these are abstractions and do not try to declare it existing separately from the object under study, as you did with the physical space that was separated from matter.

聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽I invite you to continue the discussion of my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of Descartes' space and matter: "The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich ".

聽聽聽聽聽聽At the very beginning of the essay, I repeat twice the idea that rectilinear motion, in essence, is a motion around a circle of infinitely large radius and, if this radius is reduced, then in infinitesimal laws of motion of the theory of relativity will go over to the laws of quantum mechanics.

聽聽聽聽聽聽聽Next come mathematical formulas that only spoil my essay, but without them in any way. I will be pleased if you catch their main meaning and bless me for the further generalization of modern physics. I give high ratings to those who visit my page and leave her comment on it regarding the neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics, even if they did not agree.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

    I did not intend to imply that "spacetime" is separate from "matter". The two are simply different aspects of the same thing. But I do need spacetime and not just space, because the mathematics that I use does not permit the separation of time from space in general. This separation only arises when we take the point of view of a particular observer, at which point we have a fixed definition of time, and therefore a fixed definition of mass. All the forces that deal with fixed mass (electromagnetism and gravity, and maybe also the strong force, depending on your interpretation) then crystallise out. But the weak force is different, because it does not preserve mass, and therefore does not preserve time. That is the real reason why I need spacetime and not just space - without a unified spacetime, I cannot explain the weak force.

    Robert.

    Dear Robert Wilson

    Just to let you know that I just read your essay which is interesting and valuable. The questions you pose on the mass ratio are important for physics. I guess you are putting forward a possible explanation for the values found. I definitely have no clue why some quantities have the value they have.

    I must confess that I had some trouble trying to understand what you mean while you were playing with words (predictable unpredictable, unpredictable unpredictable, etc). I think these options would be understood better if you bring up some examples. For instance, for a predictable unpredictable I was thinking about the weather and so on. Anyway, well written and well thought.

    I wish you good luck in the contest.

    Best Regards

    6 days later

    Hi Robert...

    Excellent essay... a 10 score by me.

    I readily admit to a research bias that prohibits perturbative analysis, and thus have not attempted to verify your formulations, but I admire your diplomacy and skill in conveying the degree of dependency the "standard model" has on perturbative analysis.

    Innocently questioning fundamental relationships ... i.e. "what could be more fundamental than the mass ratios of electron, proton and neutron?"... will provoke a more in depth analysis of the limits of the "standard model" model, and subsequently, the necessity for a unified field GEOMETRY MODEL

    A "non-standard" model that resolves the geometry of a point Source Emission and subsequent Distribution of spatially defined minimum units of Energy (QE), eliminates pertubation... i.e. establishes an unbroken kinematic logic/geometry chain from Energy Quanta Emission/Distribution Source to observation... and the choreographies of those minimum units of Energy (QE), as dictated by the Q-mechanix of that geometry, are fundamental to our observation of electron, proton, neutron, and their respective mass ratios.

    Thanks!!!

    Sue Lingo

    UQS Author/Logician

    www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

    17 days later

    Dear Robert Wilson

    Sorry for the late answer. This is due to changes introduced by FQXs regarding emails during the competition.

    My answer regarding the Koide formula is in my forum.

    In the spirit of my essay, it would be best if dimensionless formulas can be presented. It is just such a Koide formula with its expected result of 2/3. Please send me your results in dimensionless form.

    Regards,

    Branko

    11 days later

    Dear Professor Robert A. Wilson!

    Thank you for your interesting essay. We have specific questions. You write: "Something that is predictable in one model can be unpredictable

    in another." What, then, is the meaning of dividing and contrasting these concepts? Are you simply stating the existence of UNCERTAINTY?

    Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

    Siberian Federal University.

      I would say there is no meaning to dividing and contrasting the concepts of predictability and unpredictability. In the abstract, such a distinction is meaningless. One has to first specify the context, that is what mathematicians and physicists call a "model". The same is true for uncertainty: uncertainty in quantum mechanics is a completely different thing from uncertainty in ordinary life.

      Robert Wilson.

      Write a Reply...