Pavel

A new era dawns.聽 Old questions become quaint and historical.聽 Is the whole community ready?聽 Or is physical reality too dangerous for our collective understanding at this time?聽

    Dear Pavel and Dimitry,

    thanks for steering me towards your essay! I don't have much time for an in-depth comment right now, but I wanted to point out that it seems your approach is 'Gödelian' in quite another way from many of the other essays in this contest---fellow contestant Hippolyte Dourdent, in his article, quotes the great logician as saying that "time is the means by which God

    realized the inconceivable that P and non-P are both true"---a lesson which seems to get to the heart of your approach.

    It also seems to me that there is an interesting relationship between your 'areal sets' and the notion of complete sets of commuting observables in quantum mechanics---in the sense that, if a system has a definite value within the observables of one such set, it fails to have a definite value for all others. For instance, an electron having a definite value of spin for one particular direction (and consequently, having a definite value for all observables commuting with the spin-operator in that direction), fails to have a definite value for spin in all other directions.

    Also, I quite liked the entry point you chose for your essay---St. Augustine is not somebody you expect to meet in such a contest. But then again, it was him who said about what time is, "if no one asks me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not". Perhaps, still, not entirely inappropriate.

    Good luck in the contest!

    Cheers

    Jochen

      Dear Alexandra Alexandrovna!

      Thanks for your feedback. What is your opinion on other essays? Who do you recommend to see?

      Sincerely, Pavel Poluian

      Dear Alyssa Adams!

      I carefully read your essay "Who Wants to be a Millionaire? A Guide to Computing Complex Systems". Thanks for the interesting essay! This is essentially a bold original article for an important newspaper!

      I liked your unexpected association of the current pandemic with the collapse of the financial market. At the 2018 World Philosophical Congress in Beijing, I publicly said: "Soon the world will face a financial crisis. It will be a controlled demolition of the stock market. Market makers want to destroy fictitious capital. For`s this purpose the threat of war is organized!"

      Before that, I wrote several articles about the fact that they will try to mask the coming economic crisis with international military conflicts. But I did not imagine that they use a pandemic scarecrow for this. Let's hope that all these experiences will remain in the past.

      Otherwise, our views are similar. You are also looking for algorithms and calculations in the objective world around us. Yes, it's clear that in a flying fly, very specific calculations take place that control the flight. But what calculations take place in the solar system? It is known that Newton believed that the solar system is unstable, and God constantly intervenes, controlling and coordinating the movement of all the planets. Laplace proved that there are certain mechanisms that determine stability. Can these feedback mechanisms be called computation?

      I wish you success in your scientific work!

      Sincerely, Pavel Poluian.

      Dear Jochen!

      Thank you very much for the praise and valuable comments. We will definitely use them in future work. Currently, we are developing a startup project where a new fundamental ontology is being developed, which allows integrating ontologies of subject areas.In the world there is something called GENESIS. And there is what is called TIME. Therefore, we believe that the very principles of mathematics need a deeper clarification. For example, Hegel tried to see the genesis in logic. We think it makes sense to look for the genesis in mathematical structures.

      We wish you a successful scientific work!

      Truly yours,

      Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

      Siberian Federal University.

      Pavel,

      Fascinating and original view, well considered and also well presented.

      I've spent much time on time, recently circumnavigating with a rubidium oscillator to confirm H&K plus more. I have a model explaining why east and west acceleration have the opposite effect on oscillation rates, not inconsistent with your approach. Do you have a rationale?

      Thank you.

      Peter

        Dear Prof Pavel Poluyan and Dmitry Lichargin,

        Thank you for wonderful words and liking my essay. I also liked essay, Mine was the first comment on your essay about a month back.

        I gave you best rating to your essay today

        We will be contacting by mail. I set a mail, please check

        Best Wishes to your essay

        =snp

        Dear Peter!

        Thank you for your interesting comment. We have no answer to your question about accelerations... Whether the metric of space-time is non-ideal? Can we say that the distances between points are variable and change stochastically? Is a perfect ball possible in mathematics? Is this our planet Earth?

        Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

        Siberian Federal University.

        Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta!

        Thank you for your message!

        Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

        Siberian Federal University.

        Dear Branko!

        Thanks for the clarification. Yes, we think the same about two types of mathematics. Just like you. The number of dimensions of space depends on the objective situation that we are modeling. For example, in the theory of relativity four dimensions of Minkowski arose. Regarding the limitations of the Universe in space and time, we believe that Immanuel Kant is right - and the question of finiteness-infinity reveals the boundary of our concepts.

        We are always glad to talk about such issues. Thanks you!

        Truly yours,

        Pavel Poluyan and Dmitry Lichargin,

        Siberian Federal University.

        Dear Pavel and Dmitry,

        I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

        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, `

        Vladimir

          Dear Pavel and Dmitry,

          Very original essay, well written and explained. I appreciate the intention to put time back in physics, which you attempt with many interesting ideas and connect with computability and computational complexity. Thank you, and good luck in the contest!

          Cheers,

          Cristi

            Dear Cristi Stoica!

            Thank you so much! We will be happy to maintain scientific contacts and cooperation!

            Pavel and Dmitry

            Dear Pavel and Dmitry,

            Thanks for your appreciation and your interesting question in my blog - where I tried to answer.

            I read you essays with great interest and you made me appreciate the algorithmic approach to physics. So a few questions remain for me and I hope these might be interesting for you:

            1. You seem to accept unchangeable fundamental laws, that are not algorithmic. Why do you need these? Is the aim of your approach just to describe emergent mesoscopic laws (which of course is also very interesting).

            2. You seem to have two kind of times. One in the fundamental laws and one in the algorithmic laws. How are they connected to each other?

            3. Is the areal set constant trough time? Meaning it contains all possible states the universe or some system can ever take. Or can it change and is open to evolution? If yes is this change also described by some algorithm?

            4. The areal set structure seem to correspond to a classical boolean logic. How does quantum mechanics plays into this. In QM the boolean logic comes into play, when measurements come into play or/and when contexts are set. In this domain only probabilistic laws can be formulated. If one wants deterministic laws, the unitary evolution of the wave function has to be considered. But there the boolean logic does not apply.

            Hope these questions make sense to you.

            Best luck in the contest.

            Luca

              Pavel and Dmitry,

              Thank you for reading my essay and your kind words. Regarding your New ontology, I must say that I'm not a fan of digital physics, but you do make a compelling case for algorithmic laws, making the point that they can change depending on the initial conditions being under study and external parameters. As you know the popular media tends to stereotype things not understood and sees a heuristic approach as mental shortcuts, but your approach does convince otherwise. When you say the formation of a special non-classical ontology, I take it to have more depth than just eschewing the macro world, meaning other than classical real analysis. In this, in effect, world of ambush, my rating is your 12th.

              Regards,

              Jim Hoover

                You made us happy! Thanks so much for such an attentive reading and important questions. Try to answer.

                1. You seem to accept unchanging fundamental laws... ?

                - There must be some fundamental basis for the algorithms. Maybe we should start with a fundamental ontology, when some laws that now seem to be fundamental will become algorithmic.

                Is the aim of your approach just to describe emergent mesoscopic laws (which of course is also very interesting)...?

                - Yes, this approach seems attractive to us. But we admit that reality is even more complex. We adhere to the general philosophy of Kant. There is a world beyond the walls of our matrix cave.

                2. It seems you have two kinds of time... ?

                - Time for algorithmic laws is a discrete change of moments. And fundamental laws are timeless. It is an eternity.

                3. Is the set area constant trough time?....? ...?

                - This is a difficult question. We are inclined to believe that there is a Multiversum where all the options branch. But this can also be understood in different ways. Here comes the meta-form of a computer game. We play it, but all the development options for the course of the game are already set in the computer program. Or, for example, chess. There are a finite number of options for the arrangement of positions and all parties. They are all as if given. But there is also a certain individualization -- the position of the figure on the cell. It does not matter for the party, but THIS IS. Perhaps something similar exists in the world - macroevents are already set in the Multiversum, and micropositions are infinitely different.

                4. Structure....?

                - We do not mean quantum mechanics or probability here. Areality is a conceptual principle. Areally, the set of two A and non-A in the law of contradiction. This is so, independent of quantum mechanics.

                Thanks so much for your interest! Ask for more!

                Dear Dr. Hoover!

                Thank you for your interest! We agree with your comments. While we are in the world of hypothetical assumptions, we need to achieve more scientific and sound conclusions. We will move forward! Thank you for your mark!

                Truly yours,

                Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

                Siberian Federal University.

                Dear Pavel and Dmitry,

                Thank you for your interesting comment and analysis of my essay. I agree that there are not many ethers but one ether, and hypothesize that it is the universal gravitational field that light propagates in. Unlike the ether expected by Michelson-Morley, it is not universally homogeneous, but locally defines a preferred frame, in conflict with Einstein's 'spacetime symmetry'. Einstein said that the existence of an ether would destroy relativity, yet post-1918 he accepted an ether as necessary for light to propagate in! Obviously the 'local ether' travelled with the MM lab so they detected "zero ether wind", to within their instrumental resolution. Because they were expecting a homogeneous universal ether their null result was interpreted to mean "no ether". Just a little bit more imagination would have changed the entire century of physics in a positive way!

                In a comment above Peter Jackson replicated Hafele-Keating and asked for a rationale, as to why "why east and west acceleration have the opposite effect on oscillation rates?"

                In my viXra:1812.0424 paper, "Everything's Relative, or is it?" on pages 45-52 I explain the HK and the Michelson-Gale experiments which are essentially unexplainable by relativity. The various Wikipedia-type explanations are based on "ontology-switching", which I believe is not legitimate, but is compatible with the fact that relativists ignore ontology and choose whichever is needed in a given situation, as if physical reality is "problem specific"!

                In your essay your AREAL set is an interesting model of time, compatible with the (3+1)D-ontology of 'presentism', in which past and future events are unreal. This is somewhat analogous to the Peano axioms, in which only the latest integer exists, identified with the 'moment', NOW. This algorithmic 'counting' of cycles is the basis of all measurements of time. As you say, "the functionality of a mechanical clock is one of the simplest algorithmically arranged processes."

                This of course differs from the 'experience of time', which is not measurement-based, as you seem to imply with your discussion of St Augustine.

                I believe that all axiomatized theories are algorithmic, and your analogy with Feynman's chess board appears appropriate.

                Thank you again for reading my essay, analyzing, and commenting.

                My best regards,

                Edwin Eugene Klingman