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

            Dear Dr. Klingman!

            Thanks for the interesting answer! We are glad that our thoughts coincide and we agree with your comments. The expulsion of ether from physics, we think, was also dictated by ideological considerations. After all, the "luminiferous ether" provides a scientific basis for occult knowledge - etheric bodies, spiritualism, contacts with spirits, etc. After all, if consciousness is an electromagnetic process in the brain, there is a basis for transferring this process to ether in its pure form))) Good luck! Thank you for your courtesy!

            Truly yours,

            Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

            Siberian Federal University.

            Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

            You wrote an interesting and provocative Essay, have my congrats. I did not know Feynman's chess metaphor, thanks for pointing out it. Your definition 3 that "all elements of a given set have a peculiarity: if one element is REAL, all other elements of the set are UNREAL" recalls me the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Your final statement on "the formation of a special non-classical ontology." is strong and ambitious. In general, I found your Essay intriguing and deserving the highest score. Good luck in the contest!

            Cheers, Ch.

            Dears Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

            You wrote an interesting and provocative Essay, have my congrats. I did not know Feynman's chess metaphor, thanks for pointing out it. Your definition 3 that "all elements of a given set have a peculiarity: if one element is REAL, all other elements of the set are UNREAL" recalls me the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Your final statement on "the formation of a special non-classical ontology." is strong and ambitious. In general, I found your Essay intriguing and deserving the highest score. Good luck in the contest!

            Cheers, Ch.

              Dear Professor Christian Corda!

              Thank you for your interest in our essay and valuable comments. Judging by the time, the chess metaphor was first introduced by Eddington (he was fond of chess). If you use this metaphor, you can say that all the pieces removed from the board fall into the Black Hole.))) The chess pieces disappear into Nothingness and the game ends)))))

              Thank you for your courtesy. Thank you for your appreciation. You may also be interested in our other works. Pavel Poluian published in Russia a monograph "Death of dark matter: philosophical principles in physical knowledge".

              You can download the file at Internet.

              You may find it interesting.

              Truly yours,

              Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

              Siberian Federal University.

              • [deleted]

              • Post #35

              Interesting approach to understand our reality. In my view a simple algorithm to compare self with all the rest by everyone, since everyone is capable of understanding only the self and nothing else, might result in a collection of data sets that might lead to some cognitive outcomes.

                Thanks for the comment. I recall the cave of Plato ... And there is a Plato algorithm - exit the cave! I wish you a successful journey to the light!

                Dear Pavel ,

                Maybe my essay will be an interest to you, since it is based on computer programming and you get many known physics. Based also on a simple logic of A>B or A

                  Thank you for your interesting essay. I have already read it and evaluated it earlier-very positively. Nevertheless, even if you admit indisputable cogency of all this reasoning, you will remain in the sphere of philosophical metaphysics. To fall outside the limits one needs to find the means of expressing new ontology in the language of universally acknowledged scientific theories. The path you have chosen is very difficult. I wish you success on this path!

                  Write a Reply...