Global Collaboration

Steve Dufourny

The forum I created here on FQXI global collaboration. I realized that Silicon Valley and the USA with DARPA, SRI and other major organizations working in supercomputing, artificial intelligence and related technologies have created something with incredible potential. This will improve the world, and cryptocurrencies are actually part of that process of de-dollarization and decentralization. But improvement won’t be limited to the economy: these systems will make it possible to advance all the major areas on planet Earth , ecology, research, medicine, psychology, the sciences… The power of these supercomputers truly impresses me, and I think it’s wonderful for the Earth and its animal and plant life if we use this technology with an altruistic universal consciousness and a kind of associated wisdom. Artificial intelligence will evolve, and I know that what exists in the US private sector is far more powerful than what we have as ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, Meta… This intrigues me regarding consciousness , we don’t know why we are conscious, and, likewise, we haven’t explained the origin of the universe. The world will change and evolve at an incredible speed with these technologies; it’s quite magnificent if we use them correctly. Global collaboration will also deepen for the benefit of all terrestrial life. Cybernetics and robots will arrive as well, and the UN must find points of balance and protect workers ,again, that universal consciousness is the key to adapting these technologies.

yusrob

Dear Mr. Dufourny!
In your last message you wrote:
“… we haven’t explained the origin of the universe”.
I would like to inform you that within the framework of my “Theory of Nature” (TN), including later corrective and clarifying articles, more than 40 fundamental problems of the foundations of nature and the universe have been solved. These same fundamental problems are the problems of the foundations of physics and cosmogony (cosmology).
One of the problems solved within the TN is the problem of the evolution of NATURE. Another solved problem is the problem of the evolution of the Universe.

Within the TN, an algorithm for the evolution of NATURE and an algorithm for the evolution of the Universe have been found. These algorithms are presented in the articles “Nature as an Objective Reality” (https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSNAA) [1]. You can also read this article “Once Again about Nature and its Material Principles” (https://philpapers.org/archive/YUSOAA.pdf) [8].

“The Theory of Nature” is a scientific Revolution in physics and cosmogony (cosmology).

With respect
Robert Yusupov from Vladivostok, independent researcher, dialectical materialist, Marxist, communist

References

Nature as an Objective Reality https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSNAA,
Philosophy and Physics https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSPAP,
Theory of Nature (in Russian) https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSTON,
Announcement of the Scientific Revolution https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSAOT,
The Third Side of the Main Question of Philosophy (MQP) https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSTTS,
About the Quantum of Matter for Philosophers https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSPAT-2,
My View on K. Popper's Criterion https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSOLA,
Once Again about Nature and its Material Principles https://philpapers.org/archive/YUSOAA.pdf.

Steve Dufourny

yusrob Hello Mr. Yusupov.

I think we have profound limitations regarding these philosophical unknowns, and the same goes for quantum, mathematical, and cosmological limitations. It seems impossible to me to assert or prove things such as the origin of the universe or other such limitations. But I respect your work. We evolve and search for answers, but humility seems important when we attempt to explain these matters. We can have models or theories, but in the end we cannot claim that the laws are definitively proven.
see that you are a Marxist communist. I respect your choice even though, overall and generally, I think differently. I have read many philosophers in the past, and even religious books out of curiosity and because I was looking for answers. I even read Das Kapital by Karl Marx. In the past I was against capitalism because, when I was younger, I thought the problem was money but I have evolved and continue to study and look for answers. It is in the sciences, by classifying them and studying them in detail, that I found my theory. I consider a God like Spinoza’s, as Einstein said , a God of nature that respects pure determinism and its limitations.

I continue to study and develop my theory; I have never published, but I deepen my work notably with spherical geometric topological algebras and these quantum spheres for vectors, tensors, scalars and mathematical tools. I try to be concrete and to respect the fundamental works. In the past I was too arrogant or foolish, thinking when I discovered my theory of spherization that I knew everything but far from it. So I have evolved, I am humbler, and I have studied the relevant details of current thinkers like Hopf, Penrose, Susskind, Witten and others.

Regarding communism, socialism and capitalism, I have come to a simple conclusion: it’s all a question of consciousness and universalism, and perhaps even universal love. Money is only a tool, like computing or, for example, iron; with iron we can create a gardening tool or a weapon or other things. It is the same with all the tools, materials and energy that surround us. So capitalism is not the problem ,in fact we are evolving , and if this universalism, together with tools like money, technologies and politics, focuses on the fundamental points to improve the quality of animal and plant life on this beautiful spherical planet Earth, then everything will be fine. Money is not the problem, capitalism is not the problem, but behaviors and choices are.

Russia, China and the USA are countries made of humans; we are all humans, brothers of the same origin, of the same essence. Putin, for example, should not fear the technologies invented by the USA in Silicon Valley ,AI or cryptocurrencies , these will allow many areas to improve. Male hormones must be wiser; we are no longer in competition, but we must collaborate and understand complementarity in order to find solutions for the good of citizens , Russian, American, Chinese or others. This universalism is the key.

I think we have reached a very relevant stage of evolution on Earth with these technologies , the Internet, AI, cryptos , which will harmonize many areas and most humans can find their place in it, and the higher spheres of power can understand this universal wisdom, it seems to me. We even have the potential to accelerate things and create a magnificent planet economically, psychologically, ecologically..... I repeat: we can all be well without making distinctions of culture, religion or ideology. It is actually quite simple , there is no lack of space, nor energy, nor intelligence or anything else to reach these points of equilibrium. For me, capitalism together with this universalism is the best solution if we want to reach these points of balance. Humans on the same boat , that is the truth: all humans having the same origin, the same essence, and needing to be reassured and properly cared for by the higher spheres of power and the elites. The richest can be rich it is not a problem for me, they must just consider this univversailsm and create jobs and respect several universal; fundamentals.

Best Regards

Steve Dufourny

yusrob you know Mr Yusupov,

I wanted to unite the thinkers of FQXi and convince them, because some are Nobel Prize winners and very relevant thinkers, far more competent than I am in the details of physics, even though I study every day. But it is difficult, because people follow only when they see personal interests. It is quite sad, because I am convinced that if people like Roger Penrose, Gerard ’t Hooft and others were part of the global collaboration group, along with more thinkers, we would be taken very seriously by the UN, using media and other means. I try to do my best, but it is not simple.

Some people have caused problems because of ideological extremism; that is not the solution , to be extremist in ideologies or religions. We evolve, and any sensible person knows that these limitations about the origin of the universe exist, so we cannot affirm such ideologies. I believe in this God of Spinoza, as Einstein said, but I do not impose this ideology, and I respect the choices of other thinkers, like Max Tegmark and his mathematical universe, or others.

The problem of humanity, I think, may be this vanity, and also that we have evolved while trying to adapt to an imperfect system, which sometimes implies behavioral problems. That is why improvement is essential to enhance psychology by striving to reach universal altruism, using the tools at our disposal.

Humans in the same boat, in the same universe , that is the truth. So the most important thing is to improve and harmonize what we can. Regards

Steve Dufourny

yusrob
If we analyse deeper the Problems of Das Kapital the book of Karl Marx in the Modern Context
We know that we have technological innovation and automation.
Marx analyzed capitalism in the 19th century, when industrial machines replaced manual labor but still required huge amounts of human work.
Today, with AI, robotics, and digital platforms, capital doesn’t just exploit labor; it often replaces labor altogether.So we must protect the workers indeed and the capitalism is not the problem if this consciousness is there with the responsability of richest.
Marx predicted workers’ alienation, but he did not foresee a world where production can be scaled with minimal human input. This makes his labor theory of value outdated in parts.
We are in a world with globalization and universality like the main important points.
Marx assumed that capitalism was primarily a national process (factories, industries, classes within one society) but we have evolved and the psychology also.
Now we have global supply chains and digital platforms that operate across borders. This universality makes capitalism more flexible and adaptive than Marx expected, and it has absorbed many critiques by reinventing itself. It is simply outdated this Marxism at my humble opinion, all is a question of logic and concrete adaptation.
Capitalism’s Adaptive Power contredicts so what thought Marx , the systekm will not collapse due to capitalsim but can due to human nature for me and the ideologies.
Instead, capitalism has shown resilience: it integrated welfare policies, social safety nets, and even adopted elements of socialism (public healthcare, education, social housing in many countries). So you see well that this evolution is essential and the universalism in utilising correctly the tools that we have to harmonise what we can with this said consciousness and wisdom. The Capitalism is not static but evolve. Marx has not well estimated this parameter of evolution and these actual technologies that we have created. The problem of classes and the differences can be improved in permitting to all to find its place. The richest can continue to be the richest it is not a problem, they must simply diminish these male hormons and simply be responsible in considering this universalism. It is a ethical awareness permitting a collective awareness simply. The oppressions don t come from the capitalism or communism or socialism, but from the uncconsciousness of humans in their choices and comportments.
In this logic., the capitalism is not the problem , there are good and bad people in all countries, cultures, religions, ideologies , in usa, europe, africa, russia, china.....
The capitalism is the best actual solution added to this consciousness and collectivity and collaboration with a global common aim, the well of the majority of lifes.
Trump and Putin and the elites and politicians can understand this I believe , if they are responsible universlists , so they can work together to reasure the world and find the adapted solutions for a win win for all, it is not complicated. It is just a choice .

Steve Dufourny

yusrob

Thanks for sharing Mr Yusupov, you tell us that you solved 40 fundamental problems of the foundations of nature. I’m very occupied with my theory and with studying several papers, and I also play a lot of guitar. I always avoid going to websites I don’t know well. It would be helpful if you could summarize on FQXi the main ideas of your theory and explain how you solved those 40 problems , and how you solved them ,because it sounds a bit strong to claim to have solved everything, given our philosophical, physical, and mathematical limitations.

Philosophy isn’t a problem: we should develop our ideas and arguments and explain why they’re better than others. Philosophy is an important part of life, humanity, and the sciences, including theoretical physics. Nature follows specific laws, but I repeat: we have deep limitations. So how can anyone claim to know everything and to have solved all problems and unknowns? That’s why I’d like a summary and explanations of how you solved these problems using our current mathematical and physical tools. If your theory and works are relevant or innovative, FQXi is the best place to share them if they are concrete because the members of FQXi are the best in theoretical physics, several are nobel prices, so don t hesitate to share them here on FQXi.
best regards

Jason Wolfe

Steve Dufourny Didn't you once have a sphere theory of physics?

yusrob

Steve Dufourny
Dear Mr. Dufourny!
Dear Steve!
I hear you.
I think I understand you.
I will try to respond as soon as possible.

But the very first remark is that my position on the teachings of Karl Marx (Marxism) remains unchanged.
But here I am not discussing society and its problems, nor the role of Karl Marx in history.
I do not touch on this aspect (the development of society, capitalism, socialism), or I do not delve into these issues in any depth.
I have a different interest.
The conversation is about something else.
My conversation is about NATURE, its understanding, its structure, its evolution, the algorithm of its evolution. These are questions of physics, cosmology, and questions of philosophy.
I have succeeded in solving this problem, the problem of NATURE as a whole.
I am confident of this.
Moreover, this solution was found on the basis, on the foundation, on the platform of the philosophy of dialectical materialism.
And I offer my solution to all interested people.

I am open to critical comments on the substance of the “Theory of Nature” and my other articles.
I suggest first reading my two articles, “Nature as an Objective Reality” (https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSNAA) and “Once Again about Nature and its Material Principles” (https://philpapers.org/archive/YUSOAA.pdf).
I am ready to answer any questions that arise regarding the substance of these two and my other articles.
It would be great if the FQxI forum administration could organize these discussions into a single thread. I am open to constructive and insightful dialogue.

With respect
Robert Yusupov from Vladivostok, author of the “Theory of Nature”, independent researcher, dialectical materialist, Marxist, communist

Steve Dufourny

Jason Wolfe Hi Jason,

It is not the sphere theory, It is the theory of spherisation, an optimisation evolution of the universe with quantum and cosmological spheres. I have invented the spherical topological geometric algebras for this and I try to be consistent and concrete. A theory evolves like all, me also, like you, we learn all days.
We all make mistakes, but the most important thing is to grow, and above all never to assert hypotheses. Only axioms and proven laws are accepted. My theory didn’t just fall from the sky , I have been searching for answers since I was 19, when I was at university, but I had to stop due to an epileptic coma. I took phenytoin for 12 years. I’m a little better now; I’m 50 years old today, and I continue studying.

I’m currently reading and studying in detail a great book by Bob Coecke, Quantum in Pictures. He sent me his book, and I also study his papers ,he is very insightful and innovative. I encourage you to read his work, because it is really quite amazing, and I’m convinced you’ll enjoy it.

So, I am developing my spherical, geometric, topological algebras with this kind of work , he has even develop a quantum guitare and the bloch sphere, so I study this also like I play guitar and piano and the works of Professor Miranda because the music seems essantial like the quantum mechanics for the computinng and so I develop my theory with their works and other recognized researchs. There is nothing strange about quantum spheres as fundamental quantum objects , it’s just a little different from strings or 1D points. But I do not challenge general relativity, spacetime, or quantum field theory, which we measure and observe. I’m simply trying out partitions to explain unknowns and to attempt to unify quantum and cosmological scales. And I repeat: I do not claim my assumptions as truths.

I hope you are doing well and that your work on gravitons is progressing. Perhaps you have ideas about renormalizing this quantum gravity by eliminating divergences and infinite quantities. It’s not simple, even with non-metric approaches, non-commutativity, geometric algebras, and higher dimensions.

We had some heated discussions about guns in the past, but we misunderstood each other, and we have both evolved probably . I repeat: we can have different viewpoints, but we can also develop our ideas without betraying our principles. We are not in competition, after all. I am aware that weapons have been necessary to defend causes because of human foolishness. I am only saying that it is sad that fear sometimes exists, and that we are forced to protect ourselves because of human folly or dangers. May the force be with you Jason, take care, regards

Jason Wolfe

Steve Dufourny I think you are right about spheres. I have developed an expanding sphere model. It's based on things like how the two slit interference pattern wave function looks like water ripples. Since water ripples expand at the speed of a wave in water, then these spheres must expand at the speed of light. That would allow them to explain the invariance of the speed of light and relativity. These same expanding spheres are the wave functions that are described as solutions to the Schrodinger equation. They exert positive pressure by introducing a Planck volume (L_p = 10^-34 meter)³ = 10^-102 cubic meters, which implies that there would have to be quite a large number of these expanding spheres being generated everywhere in spacetime. Funny thing is: empty spacetime expands and exerts positive pressure, which the Casimir effect hints at. When a massive object/planet/star/black hole/etc occupies empty spacetime, that positive pressure is diminished. A diminished positive pressure is equivalent to a negative pressure, which we observe as gravity. In that sense, when dark energy, which causes spacetime to expand, is obstructed by mass, the result is gravity. There is a unification between dark energy/expansion of spacetime, and gravity.

I don't hold anything against you and I regard you as a friend. IMO, guns are fun to have. I agree that you are right that it is a shame that people can be scary and dangerous, which makes having guns more than just something fun to have, but is necessary for our personal safety and security. The age of free speech has really revealed the dark side of human nature. Although if social media allows people to say mean things to each other, that is arguably better than what people used to do, physically attack and kill each other. I wish humanity could come together in some unified way. Maybe that is what the ETs are waiting for. 🙂

yusrob

Steve Dufourny
Dear Mr. Dufourny!
1). I propose that we address each other by name, if you agree.
2). The ideas of the “Theory of Nature” are presented in general and primarily in my book “Theory of Nature” (TN) and in a number of articles. The book is the foundation. My articles are primarily intended to be explanatory and are explanatory in nature. They more thoroughly explain individual parts and aspects of TN. Two articles fundamentally rewrite the part of TN devoted to explaining the mechanism of the evolution of the Universe. While these two articles are identical in content, their presentation is somewhat different.
Here are the articles:
“Nature as an Objective Reality” (https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSNAA) и “Once Again about Nature and its Material Principles” (https://philpapers.org/archive/YUSOAA.pdf).
It's advisable to read at least one article. It would help you better understand my further explanations.
Within the framework of the TN, the model of the evolution of the Universe was presented as a “Big Crunch” model (or theory). I now believe this notion was erroneous. At the same time, these two articles contain something new. This concerns the definition of NATURE, the presentation of a model for the structure and composition of nature, this concerns the evolution of nature, and this concerns the evolution of the Universe.
The evolution of NATURE, in my understanding, in my model, is a strictly periodic, harmonic process. One cycle (act) of this process constitutes the complete evolution of the Universe. After the evolution of one Universe ends, the evolution of another Universe immediately begins. These Universes are not connected in any way. With the end of the Universe's evolution, all information is lost, vanishing into oblivion. NATURE has no archives. Nature keeps no records, no bookkeeping. The evolution of a new Universe begins with a “clean slate”.
The successive evolutions of Universes represent the evolution of NATURE.
NATURE, in my view, is an objective reality existing outside of our consciousness and independent of our consciousness. This is the position of the philosophy of dialectical materialism. This is the position of the dialectical-materialist worldview. This is my position as a dialectical materialist.
Below I will present several more fundamentally important tenets of the philosophy of dialectical materialism in relation to NATURE.

Nature is one.
Nature is an objective reality.
Nature is not an illusion, not a dream, not esotericism, not a matrix, not a simulation.
Nature exists absolutely.
Nature cannot not exist. Nature has no “non-existence” option.
Nature exists without relation to anything and/or anyone.
Nature exists on its own and evolves according to its own laws, its own logic, and its own evolutionary algorithm.
Nature is not under anyone's control.
Nature has no overseers or controllers.
Nature has no overlords.
Everything around us, and we ourselves, belong to and exist within nature.
There is nothing and no one in our world that does not belong to nature and exists outside of nature.
Nature is fundamentally material and dialectical.
The dialectical nature of nature means that everything in nature is in constant motion, change, pulsation, and evolution.
The materiality of nature means that all natural bodies, objects, things, and objects are ultimately composed of matter.
Matter is the primary principle, the primordial essence, the origin, and the primary cause of everything and everyone in nature.
Matter is the unique and only substance of nature.
Matter is the unique and only active agent of nature.
According to physics, there are minimal material bodies in nature: elementary particles (EP).
Elementary particles (EP) are the minimal material bodies that actually exist in nature.
---------
In addition to all of the above, I present my own novelty.
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that elementary particles (EP) are the ultimate limit of division of all material bodies in nature.
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that material bodies smaller than elementary particles do not exist in nature.
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that the content of elementary particles (EP) is the “pure” concrete matter of nature.
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that behind the content of elementary particles lies a quantum of matter (EUM).
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that a quantum of matter is the material “founding brick” of the universe.
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that a quantum of matter (EUM) is the smallest portion (quantity) of matter in nature.
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that a quantum of matter is not a solidified material solid, like volcanic magma (asphalt or concrete).
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that a quantum of matter is material flesh pulsating in the rhythm and tempo of nature.
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that a quantum of matter is in a constant, continuous pulsating state.
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that the pulsation of a quantum of matter is a strictly periodic, harmonic process.
I make the assumption that a quantum of matter is like a material ball, which in each cycle (act) of its pulsation process reaches its lower and upper limits of pulsation.
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that the pulsation of a quantum of matter is the internal motion of matter (quantum of matter).
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that the lower and upper limits of the pulsation of a quantum of matter are finite, and the lower limit of pulsation is not zero or a point.
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that one beat (cycle, act) of the pulsation of a quantum of matter occurs in a minimal time in nature, equal to the quantum of time (EUT).
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that the quantum of time (EUT) is the minimal temporal duration in nature.
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that all quanta of matter pulsate synchronously in the same rhythm and tempo of nature.
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that fixed moments in nature's time exist, and that adjacent fixed moments in nature's time are separated from each other by one quantum of time.
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that these fixed moments in nature's time correspond to the beginning and end of a quantum of time (EUT).
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that there is an organic, natural, and inseparable connection between the quantum of matter (EUM) and the quantum of time (EUT).
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that a quantum of time is measured by a quantum of matter: EUT = EUM.
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that at fixed moments in nature's time, the results of the execution of quanta of action are fixed. An example of a quantum of action is one beat (cycle, act) of the pulsation of a quantum of matter.
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that, in addition to internal pulsation, quanta of matter (EUM) are constantly moving externally. This is a movement of one quantum of length (EUL) in a time equal to one quantum of time (EUT). This movement is at the maximum velocity in nature (MVN). All quanta of matter move externally at the same velocity MVN.
I affirm, postulate, say, and declare that, at the lower limit of pulsation, a quantum of matter represents a grain of matter.
A grain of matter represents the material carrier of the standard units of nature: the quantum of length (EUL) and the quantum of mass (MAM).
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that the diameter of a grain of matter represents a quantum of length (EUL).
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that the mass of a grain of matter represents a quantum of mass (MAM).
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that the quantum of length (EUL) and the quantum of mass (MAM) are related by the following relationship with the quantum of matter (EUM, the minimum amount of matter in nature): MAM * EUL = EUM.
I assert, postulate, say, declare that the quantum of mass (MAM) is defined as follows: MAM=EUM/EUL, or, taking into account the identity (equality) EUT=EUM, the definition will be MAM=EUT/EUL. This is a simple consequence of the previous point.
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that a quantum of matter exists in the “grain of matter” state for a certain fixed non-zero time interval.
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that, at the upper limit of its pulsation, a quantum of matter embodies an elementary particle (EP). Moreover, these limits will be different for different types of elementary particles (proton, neutron, electron, etc.).
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that the length of the diameter of a quantum of matter at the upper limit of pulsation, which is the state of an “elementary particle (EP)” uniquely determines the type of elementary particle (proton, neutron, electron, etc.).
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that a quantum of matter remains in the state of an “elementary particle” for a certain fixed non-zero time interval proportional to the length of the diameter of the elementary particle.
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that the pulsation of a quantum of matter, the existence of a quantum of matter, is a process continuous in time.
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that the existence of a grain of matter is a process discontinuous in time and is not a process continuous in time. A grain of matter exists only when the quantum of matter is at the lower limit of its pulsation. There are intervals of existence and intervals of non-existence of a grain of matter. The midpoint of an interval of existence of a grain of matter corresponds to the midpoint between two adjacent fixed moments in nature's time.
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that the existence of an elementary particle is a process discontinuous in time and is not a process continuous in time. An elementary particle exists only when the quantum of matter is at the upper limit of its pulsation. There are intervals of existence and intervals of non-existence of an elementary particle. The midpoint of the existence interval of an elementary particle (EP) corresponds to a fixed moment in time in nature.
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that the lifetimes of a grain of matter and an elementary particle are in antiphase.
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that the intermittent existence of both a grain of matter and an elementary particle occurs against the background of the continuous existence of a quantum of matter (EUM).
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that a quantum of matter (EUM), and along with it, a grane of matter and an elementary particle (EP), are in constant external motion. And the speed of this combined motion is equal to the maximum speed in nature, MVN.
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that the quantum of matter (EUM) generates the elementary particle and underlies the elementary particle.
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that the quantum of matter (EUM) is the material carrier of nature's time, represented as the quantum of time (EUT).
I assert, postulate, say, and declare that time is the reciprocal of frequency (in fact, this is a well-known fact!). And since the quantum of matter (EUM) pulsates in the rhythm and tempo of nature, there must exist a unique constant of nature (UCN) that characterizes and determines this frequency. At the same time, a time duration equal to 1 must actually exist in nature. I call this unit time duration the natural unit of time (NUT). Then the quantum of time will receive its following definition: EUT = NUM/UCN = 1/UCN. This will be a different definition of the quantum of time (EUT), independent of the quantum of matter (EUM). This will be a quantitatively defined time. Looking ahead, I will say that within the framework of the “Theory of Nature”, it is established that
UCN = 1.210 256E+44, and 1 NUM = α s.
Here, α is the physical quantity, the fine structure constant.
In quantitative terms, we will have the following values:
NUT = 7.297 352 5643E-03 s - for the natural unit of time,
EUT = 6.029 596 37975E-47 s - for the quantum of time.
---------
It's perfectly clear that the starting point in all of my dialectical-materialistic reasoning (points 1-41) is point 3, which states a simple, clear, and unambiguous fact of nature: “the content of elementary particles (EP) is ‘pure’ concrete matter of nature”.
This fact of nature is recognized in my “Theory of Nature”.
This fact of nature lies at the foundation of my “Theory of Nature”.

But this fact of nature is not recognized today by the entire physics community, the entire party of modern physicists, the physics elite, or the physical authorities.
This failure to recognize this fact of nature is a stumbling block for modern physics.
This failure to recognize this fact of nature is the main restraining factor in the further development of physics.

For now, I will stop here.
I will stop here for now.
With respect
Robert Yusupov from Vladivostok, author of the “Theory of Nature”, independent researcher, dialectical materialist, Marxist, communist

yusrob

Steve Dufourny
Dear Mr. Dufourny!
Dear Steve!
I will simply repeat.
The main idea of my “Theory of Nature” is as follows:
“the content of elementary particles (EP) is ‘pure’ concrete matter of nature”.

yusrob

yusrob
Let me correct one inaccuracy!
Lines 12-14 from the end of my answer should read like this:

It's perfectly clear that the starting point in all of my dialectical-materialistic reasoning (points 21-60) is point 23, which states a simple, clear, and unambiguous fact of nature: “the content of elementary particles (EP) is ‘pure’ concrete matter of nature”.

Steve Dufourny

yusrob thanks for sharing and explaining dear Robert, I see clearer your theory of Nature and its generality , regards

Lorraine Ford

Jason Wolfe
I guess it makes perfect sense that someone (you) whose mind is full of stuff and nonsense about “ghosts” and “karma”, would also fill their mind with stuff and nonsense about guns.

Jason Wolfe

Lorraine Ford Anyone can have beliefs based on experiences. What is fascinating is that you find ghosts and guns so objectionable. Why is that?

Steve Dufourny

Jason Wolfe Hi Jason, me too I have nothing against you, I wish you all the best , we are friends, ps have you seen the experiment of the MIT about the most precise version of the famous double-slit experiment, using ultracold atoms and single photons to reveal the strange dual nature of light as both wave and particle. It seems that Einstein was wrong about the debate with Bohr , we cannot observe both properties at once, wave and particle. Bohr was right.

yusrob

Steve Dufourny Dear Steve!

If you take the time to read my articles:

(1). “Announcement of the Scientific Revolution” https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSAOT,
(2). “Nature as an Objective Reality” (https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSNAA), or
(3). “Once Again about Nature and its Material Principles” (https://philpapers.org/archive/YUSOAA.pdf)

then you would have the first clear understanding of my “Theory of Nature” (TN) in general and as a whole.

I'll emphasize the main point: TN is a scientific revolution in physics and cosmogony (cosmology). And this is undoubtedly a worldview (ideological!) scientific revolution.

The philosophical core of the theory of modern physics (TMP) is the false and anti-scientific bourgeois-idealistic philosophy (BIP). This speaks to the bourgeois-idealistic (false and anti-scientific!) worldview (BIM) of the entire Party of Modern Physicists (PMP), the entire modern physics community.
The main (primary) lie of the BIP and its worldview is: “The ideal (idea) is primary, and the material (matter) is secondary in nature”.

The philosophical core of the “Theory of Nature” (as the foundation of the new dialectical-materialistic physics) is the only true and scientific philosophy of dialectical materialism (DMP). This philosophy gives rise to the dialectical-materialistic (true and scientific!) worldview (DMW).

The main (primary) truth of DMP and its worldview is: “The material (matter) is primary, and the ideal (idea) is secondary in nature”.

And it is precisely thanks to this worldview (DMM) and this philosophy (DMF) that I have achieved remarkable scientific achievements and successes. I have solved over 40 fundamental problems (questions) concerning the foundations of nature, the foundations of the universe, the foundations of physics, and the foundations of cosmogony (cosmology). Within the framework of TN, the problem of a fundamental, global systemic crisis in physics and throughout natural science has been resolved.
Here is the real power and might of dialectical materialist philosophy (DMP) and the dialectical materialist worldview (DMW)!
Feel the difference, as they say.

I'd still like to add one more remark, a clarification. These are facts from my life.
In 2011, when I turned 60 (I'm now 74), I retired. I had some free time.
I've long been interested in the concrete representation of matter in nature.

Matter is discussed within the framework of the philosophy of dialectical materialism. But there, a general abstraction and concept of “matter” is used. And by matter, they mean material bodies.
But nothing is said about the concrete representation of matter in nature. I considered (and this is objectively true) this to be a major flaw and incompleteness in the foundations of the philosophy of dialectical materialism (PDM) of the Soviet period. And I still think so.

Matter is discussed in physics. It is said that physics deals with the physical forms of motion of matter.
But again, by matter, they mean material bodies. And the concrete manifestation of matter in nature is not specified. I also considered (and continue to consider) this to be a lack and incompleteness of knowledge in the foundations of physics, the theory of modern physics (TMP).

Within the framework of “Theory of Nature”, I succeeded in solving this problem—the problem of the concrete representation of matter in nature. This happened in 2014. I elevated this problem to the forefront of physics and formulated it as the fundamental question of physics and all natural science (FQPNS).
In a certain sense, the entire edifice of “Theory of Nature” is built on the foundation of the correct and true solution to the FQPNS. This is the only correct and true solution: “The content of elementary particles (EP) is the ‘pure’ concrete matter of nature!”

Thus, for the general abstraction, category, and concept of “matter”, both for the philosophy of dialectical materialism (PDM) and for the theory of modern physics (TMP), a single real origin in nature, a single real material prototype, was found and indicated. This prototype is “the content of elementary particles”.

However, within the framework of the “Theory of Nature”, the proposition (scientific hypothesis) is substantiated that behind the content of an elementary particle (EP) lies a quantum of matter (EUM – elementary unit of matter).
It is the quantum of matter (EUM – elementary unit of matter) that is the material “first building block” of all nature.
On the one hand, a quantum of matter (EUM) is the minimal amount of matter in nature. On the other hand, a quantum of matter (EUM) represents material flesh pulsating in the rhythm and tempo of nature.

Sincerely
Robert Yusupov from Vladivostok, author of “Theory of Nature”, independent researcher, dialectical materialist, Marxist, communist

References

Nature as an Objective Reality https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSNAA,
Philosophy and Physics https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSPAP,
Theory of Nature (in Russian) https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSTON,
Announcement of the Scientific Revolution https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSAOT,
The Third Side of the Main Question of Philosophy (MQP) https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSTTS,
About the Quantum of Matter for Philosophers https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSPAT-2,
My View on K. Popper's Criterion https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSOLA,
Once Again about Nature and its Material Principles https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSOAA, https://philpapers.org/archive/YUSOAA.pdf.

Steve Dufourny

yusrob Thanks for sharing. There are still deep unknowns that we cannot reach; we can only create models and try to understand the philosophy behind the origin of these matters. In my humble opinion, these limitations are due to our physical, technological, and philosophical constraints.

Yes, we evolve, but we cannot conclude that we know everything. Strings, 1D points in spacetime at the Planck scale, or spheres as in my model , we don’t truly know the truth. Whether it’s a mathematical accident or a kind of “God of Spinoza,” we simply don’t know.

However, one thing we cannot deny is that everything exists within the same universe. This implies a kind of universalism evolving from the generality of currently known laws, axioms, and equations.
Regards

yusrob

Steve Dufourny Dear Steve!
The concept of “Spinoza's God” is neither my starting position, nor my launching pad, nor my worldview.
For me, this is a false concept.
I've already said that my worldview is a dialectical-materialist one. It is entirely anti-religious, atheistic, and scientific. And this worldview is the product of the only true and scientific philosophy of dialectical materialism (PDM).
The founders of this philosophy are K. Marx and F. Engels.
V. I. Lenin made a significant contribution to the further development of this philosophy.
Soviet and Marxist philosophers also made their great, worthy, and invaluable contribution to the further development of this philosophy.
I believe that the new philosophical ideas inherent in my “Theory of Nature” (TN) represent a significant and essential contribution to the further creative development of the theory and practice of the philosophy of dialectical materialism (PDM).

Within the framework of TN, the fundamental question of physics and all natural science is clearly and openly posed and answered (the only correct and valid answer!)—the question of the concrete representation of matter in nature (the matter of nature). The answer is surprisingly simple: “the content of elementary particles is the ‘pure’ concrete matter of nature”. In essence, this answer is a statement of a natural fact. This fact is plainly visible to all physicists. This fact lies before the eyes and noses of all physicists.

But this fact is not recognized by the modern physics community, nor by the entire party of modern physicists (PMP). But this fact remains a fact, even if it is not recognized by the physics community.

This fact (its non-recognition by physicists) testifies (indicates) to many things.
1). This fact testifies to the anti-materialistic (=idealistic) nature of the worldview of the entire physical community, or the overwhelming majority of its members.
2). This fact indicates that the philosophical basis of the theory of modern physics (TMP) is a false and anti-scientific bourgeois-idealistic philosophy.
3). This fact indicates that the fundamentals of physics do not adequately represent or reflect the matter of nature. There is no physical quantity called “matter” in the fundamentals of physics.
4). This fact indicates that the theory of modern physics (TMP) is fundamentally anti-materialistic, and therefore erroneous and unscientific.
5) This fact indicates that the fundamental global systemic crisis in physics is directly related to the non-recognition of the specific representation of matter in nature by the Party of Modern Physicists (PMP).
6). This fact testifies to the extremely severe degree of degradation of the modern physical school and all physical science.

The failure to recognize this fact (on the part of the modern physics community and on the part of the Party of Modern Physicists (PMP)) lies at the basis of the modern long-term, fundamental, global, systemic crisis in physics and in general natural science.
This crisis is primarily a worldview (an ideological) one. The reason for the physics community's failure to recognize this fact is the bourgeois-idealistic worldview (BIW) of the entire physics community.

As is the philosophy, so is the worldview.
As is the worldview, so is the physics.
So, as is philosophy, so is physics.

Almost 150 years ago, F. Engels wrote:
“Natural scientists believe that they free themselves from philosophy by ignoring it or abusing it. They cannot, however, make any headway without thought, and for thought they need thought determinations. But they take these categories unreflectingly from the common consciousness of so-called educated persons, which is dominated by the relics of long obsolete philosophies, or from the little bit of philosophy compulsorily listened to at the University (which is not only fragmentary, but also a slow of views of people belonging to the most varied and usually the worst schools), or from uncritical and unsystematic reading of philosophical writings of all kinds. Hence they are no less in bondage to philosophy, but unfortunately in most cases to the worst philosophy, and those who abuse philosophy most are slaves to precisely the worst vulgarised relics of the worst philosophies.
Natural scientists may adopt whatever attitude they please, they are still under the domination of philosophy. It is only a question whether they want to be dominated by a bad, fashionable philosophy or by a form of theoretical thought which rests on acquaintance with the history of thought and its achievements.
“Physics, beware of metaphysics!” <239> is quite right, but in a different sense.
Natural scientists allow philosophy to prolong an illusory existence by making shift with the dregs of the old metaphysics.
Only when natural and historical science has become imbued with dialectics will all the philosophical rubbish—other than the pure theory of thought—be superfluous, disappearing in positive science.”

[Marx & Engels Collected Works Volume 25 pp. 490-491]
[https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/cw/volume25/index.htm]
[ https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/index.htm ]
[ https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/410.htm ]

It is worth referring to the work of F. Engels
“Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German
Philosophers”.
[Marx & Engels Collected Works Volume 2 6 p. 353 - 398 ]
[https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/cw/volume26/index.htm]

In this work, for the first time in the history of philosophy, the fundamental question of philosophy (FQP) is identified, posed and investigated.
This is a question about the relationship between being and consciousness, the material and the ideal. This is a question about the knowability of the world.
“What is primary in nature, the material (matter) or the ideal (idea)?”, “Is nature knowable?” - these are two sides of the FQP.

One or another decision of the first side of the FQP divides all philosophy into two large sections: materialism and idealism.

Today, the line of materialism is continued by the philosophy of dialectical materialism (PDM).

The idealist lineage is continued today by numerous philosophical teachings, movements, and theories, which can be grouped under the single name of bourgeois-idealist philosophy (BIP). These are entirely and completely anti-materialist philosophical theories, schools, movements, and tendencies.

According to one or another decision of this FQP, the division of philosophy into true (corresponding to nature) and false (not corresponding to nature) philosophy takes place.

True philosophy is FDM.
The FDM asserts the primacy of the material (matter) over the ideal (idea). TN (“Theory of Nature”) contributes to confirming the truth of this primacy. This confirmation is provided by providing evidence of the existence of ‘pure’ concrete matter in nature, which is the content of elementary particles (EPs).

False philosophy is BIP.
The main lie of the BIP is the statement of the primacy of the ideal (idea) over the material (matter) without presenting real evidence of the real generation of matter (quantum of matter!) by the idea, by the ideal, by consciousness.

According to one or another decision of this FQP, there is a division of philosophy into scientific (corresponding to nature and truth) and non-scientific, pseudoscientific, anti-scientific (not corresponding to nature and false) philosophy.
Scientific philosophy is FDM.
BIP is a non-scientific (pseudoscientific, anti-scientific) philosophy.

Within the framework of TN (“Theory of Nature”), a clarification is being made to the fundamental question of philosophy (FQP). This clarification involves the addition of a formulation regarding the third aspect of the fundamental question of philosophy (FQP). This formulation is: “What is the concrete representation of matter in nature?”

The correct and true, unambiguous and demonstrable answer is: “The content of elementary particles (EP) is the ‘pure’ concrete matter of nature”. And this answer is given within the framework of the only true and scientific philosophy of dialectical materialism (PDM).
The third side of the FQP is, in turn, also the fundamental question of physics and all natural science (FQPANS).

The “Theory of Nature” makes a significant contribution to the proof of the correctness and fidelity of the only true and scientific philosophy of dialectical materialism (PDM).

Within the framework of the TP (+FDM), the question of the causes and nature of the current fundamental global systemic crisis in physics and natural science has been resolved. This is, first and foremost, a worldview and ideological crisis.
Within the framework of the TMP (+BIP) this issue has not been resolved and cannot be resolved in principle.

Within the framework of TP (+FDM), the main question of physics and all natural sciences, the question of the specific representation of matter in nature, has been resolved.
Within the framework of the TMP (+BIP) this issue is not even mentioned, raised or posed.

Within the framework of TP (+FDM), paths are outlined for modern physics and all natural science to emerge from a protracted, centuries-long, fundamental systemic crisis. This is a transition to the platform of the only true and scientific philosophy of dialectical materialism (PDM). This is the formulation and solution (the only correct and true one) of the fundamental question of physics and all natural science (this is the third aspect of the fundamental question of philosophy).
Within the TMP (+BIP), this crisis continues. The TMP (+BIP) are still caught in the quagmire of this worldview crisis.
Within the framework of TP (+FDM), more than 40 fundamental problems of the foundations of physics and cosmogony (cosmology) have been solved; they are also fundamental problems of the foundations of nature and the universe.
Within the framework of the TMP (+BIP), these problems have not been resolved and cannot be resolved in principle within the framework of the false and anti-scientific bourgeois-idealistic worldview (BIW).
I think I'll stop here.

Sincerely
Robert Yusupov from Vladivostok, independent researcher, author of “Theory of Nature”, dialectical materialist, Marxist, communist

References

Nature as an Objective Reality https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSNAA,
Philosophy and Physics https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSPAP,
Theory of Nature (in Russian) https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSTON,
Announcement of the Scientific Revolution https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSAOT,
The Third Side of the Main Question of Philosophy (MQP) https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSTTS,
About the Quantum of Matter for Philosophers https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSPAT-2,
My View on K. Popper's Criterion https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSOLA.
Articles on TN on the website proza.ru [Electronic resource] URL: // http://proza.ru/avtor/yusrob,
Articles on TN on the website vixra.org [Electronic resource] URL: // https://vixra.org/author/yusrob,
Articles on TN on the website philpapers.org [Electronic resource] URL: // https://philpeople.org/profiles/robert-yusupov,
The Universe as a Function of One Variable (in Russian) https://proza.ru/2023/12/25/1093,
Once Again about Nature and its Material Principles
https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSOAA.

« Previous Page Next Page »