Global Collaboration

Steve Dufourny

yusrob
Dear Robert ,I understand your reasoning, but one thing is certain: we cannot be sure about our general philosophies, even if we are convinced by them. Philosophy, when applied, is always a hypothesis. All our philosophical assumptions are simply hypotheses about the origin of the universe, nature, matter, energy, and the fundamental objects that compose reality. We face these limitations, and that is why we cannot claim or assert our philosophies and hypotheses as absolute truths. Philosophy is built on hypotheses rather than definitive proofs. Philosophy starts from hypotheses and uses reasoning to explore their implications , that does not mean they are postulates .....To reason about ideas or assumptions is one thing but to prove them is an other thing and more difficult. Only the proved things are accepted in sciences simply , it is this I insist.
Regards

yusrob

Steve Dufourny Уважаемый Steve!
You write:
“To reason about ideas or assumptions is one thing but to prove them is an other thing and more difficult. Only the proved things are accepted in sciences simply , it is this I insis”.
I completely agree with this.

You also write:
“Philosophy is built on hypotheses rather than definitive proofs. Philosophy starts from hypotheses and uses reasoning to explore their implications , that does not mean they are postulates .....”.

I don't particularly distinguish between the concepts of “hypothesis” and “postulate” (“axiom”). All three concepts express our assumptions.
It doesn't matter what you call the foundation stones of a theory.

Take physics (excluding general relativity).
One of its foundational postulates is the assertion of the existence of natural space. You could call this a hypothesis.
But in any case, it is not a definitive proof. Physics doesn't provide such proof.

Take general relativity (GTR).
One of its foundational postulates is the assertion of the existence of natural space-time. You could call this a hypothesis.
But in any case, it is not a definitive proof. GTR doesn't provide such proof.

How does all this relate to your assertion that
“Only the proven things are accepted in science simply, that's what I insist”.

You're contradicting yourself! Do you understand that?
Sincerely,
Robert.

PS
Steve, here's my new article, check it out, it's directly related to our discussion:
Treatise on Belief (Faith) https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSTOB,
Трактат о вере https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSOSJ.

Steve Dufourny

yusrob QUANTUM GRAVITATION You Know dear Robert, the quantum gravitation is an important problem to solve inside the theoretical physics community , I don t know if you know the problem. Quantum gravitation is very difficult to renormalize. I’ve tried using non-commutativity and other approaches to eliminate the infinite quantities and make things more concrete, but the problem seems to be philosophical at its core. In my theory of spherisation and quantum spheres, I’ve tried again, but it’s not easy. The divergences drive me crazy. A non-metric system might help, but that doesn’t really solve it.
The ultraviolet (UV) problem remains: how can we renormalize spacetime when considering gravitons as quanta of gravitational waves? Maybe these gravitons don’t exist at all and are just a perturbative artifact. And we can go even further by considering that spacetime itself may not be truly fundamental. Another path could be to explore higher dimensions, but then the discussion becomes deeply philosophical about the origin of reality itself and whether gravitons and spacetime must be reconsidered.
Regards

yusrob

Steve Dufourny Dear Ulla and Steve!
How do you feel about the fact that K. Popper's criterion for the scientific validity of a theory turns out to be false and unscientific?
Here's my article on this:
My View on K. Popper's Criterion https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSOLA.

Steve Dufourny

yusrob Hi Robert,I do not contradict myself, I simply accept only the proven laws in physics, mathematics, and science. There is nothing to debate about this. When a person makes a claim or assertion, they must provide proof. You do not do this in your theory of nature , you make claims as if they were proven, but your theory of nature and its related philosophy have not been demonstrated or confirmed.

General relativity is a theory, not a hypothesis, and it has been confirmed through many experiments and observations. Your assertions and your theory of nature have not been proven or verified like general relativity. A valid theory in physics requires equations and concrete extrapolations; we cannot simply make assertions without details or evidence.
Regards

yusrob

Steve Dufourny Dear Steve!
The theory of modern physics (TMP) contains no evidence for the existence of natural space as a natural entity.
The general theory of relativity (GTR) contains no evidence for the existence of natural spacetime as a natural entity.
The theory of ether contains no evidence for the existence of ether as a natural entity.
Religious theories contain no evidence for the existence of God.

On these grounds alone, all the listed theories (plus religion) should be considered fundamentally false!
Do you disagree with these arguments? Why?

Steve Dufourny

yusrob You know dear Robert , Karl Popper’s philosophy of science centered on the idea of falsifiability , that a scientific theory must make predictions that can, in principle, be tested and proven false by observation or experiment. A theory that cannot be falsified is, according to Popper, not scientific (it may be metaphysical or philosophical).
General relativity (GR) is one of the clearest examples of a theory that meets Popper’s criterion of falsifiability. So the general relativity is in its frame concrete. It is one of the best we have actually and it acts well .If you give us a new theory and new predictions , so you must prove them and test them with experiments, observations.....it is only simple than this.Regards

Steve Dufourny

yusrob Dear Robert,
I have already explained my views on general relativity. This theory produces accurate and reliable results. In contrast, your theory of nature does not provide testable predictions. If you want your theory to be accepted, you must develop clear predictions, propose experiments, and ensure that it is testable.

Regarding religion, I have already explained that I am not a religious person, even though I read religious texts when I was at university in Belgium. I read them out of curiosity, along with philosophical works, because I was searching for answers. I identify more with Spinoza’s concept of God, which has nothing to do with religion ,it is a God of nature, consistent with determinism.
As I have also said, nobody can legitimately claim to know the philosophical origin of the universe; at present, we only have assumptions.Regards

Steve Dufourny

yusrob Dear Robert, for example about the GR , here is a road of reasoning to see how the maths and extrapolations can imply philosophical confusions. I do not believe in singularities where the laws of physics supposedly break down in regions of our spacetime. In my view, these singularities arise from the mathematics used, which produces undefined results or infinities. It is, in my humble opinion, a consequence of the mathematical framework employed in Einstein’s equations.

Many people are fascinated by these mathematical constructions because the breakdown of the laws of physics seems to provide limits that invite speculation and extrapolation , a philosophical choice, in a sense. If spacetime curves in response to mass and energy, then when extreme conditions and mathematical extrapolations are applied, the equations predict singularities ,but all of this remains hypothetical.
Thus, we encounter the so-called Big Bang singularity and gravitational black-hole singularities. However, this depends on how we use geometric algebra, how we define volumes and scalars, and how we interpret event horizons. I believe these singularities result not from the true breakdown of physical laws, but from the limitations of the models and mathematics we employ.

In my opinion, the laws of physics themselves do not break down, rather, we need to introduce additional parameters to complete our understanding within the Standard Model (SM), Quantum Field Theory (QFT), and General Relativity (GR). The gravitational collapse, to me, is not a path toward a singularity but a bridge to new parameters. I believe there must be a finite structure beyond that bridge, which is why I consider dark energy (DE) and dark matter (DM) important in my theoretical view.

In this sense, I do not believe that singularities, as they are commonly interpreted, truly exist , not because the laws of physics are broken, but because they point toward the unknown, toward a bridge leading us to deeper physical understanding. You see it is how we intepret the philosophical choices and the generality of our laws.

Best Regards

yusrob

Steve Dufourny Dear Steve!
1). The theory of modern physics (TMP) has its own foundation, its own principles.
The list of these basics includes the following items:
<A>. The existence of space or space-time (in the general theory of relativity, GTR) is postulated, but no proof of this existence is provided. This assertion, this postulate, is accepted on belief.
<B>. In the list of fundamentals of the Theory of Modern Physics (TMP), the matter of nature is not adequately represented as the “content of an elementary particle (EP). The fact of nature that “the content of elementary particles is ‘pure’ concrete matter of nature” is not recognized. The matter of nature is not represented in the TMP as a fundamental physical quantity.
<C>. The philosophical core of the TMP is the false and anti-scientific bourgeois-idealistic philosophy (BIF).
<D>. The worldview of the overwhelming majority of modern physicists is idealism (=anti-materialism).
On this foundation (<A> & <B> & <C> & <D>) is the entire theory of modern physics (TMP).
And what is the result?
And the result is this:
<X>. The TMP is in a state of prolonged, fundamental, systemic, worldview, ideological crisis. The TMP is in a crisis swamp.
<Y>. Leading modern physicists acknowledge this crisis and predict the coming of a Revolution in physics.
<Z>. The 40 fundamental problems of the foundations of physics and cosmology (which are solved within the framework of the “Theory of Nature”) are not solved within the framework of the TMP, and they cannot be solved in principle. It's all a matter of worldview and philosophy.

Theory of Modern Physics (TMP)
-------------------------------------- = lies and pseudoscience
<A> & <B> & <C> & <D>

2). The “Theory of Nature” also has its own foundation, its own principles.
The list of these basics includes the following items:
<AA>. Hypothesis: “in nature there is no space or space-time, as such, as some kind of natural entity”.
<BB>. Hypothesis: “The content of elementary particles (EP) is ‘pure’ concrete matter of nature”. This hypothesis is also a statement of the corresponding fact of nature. This hypothesis is the correct and true answer to the fundamental question of physics. The matter of nature is recognized within the framework of TN. The matter of nature is introduced into the bosom of physics as a fundamental physical quantity.
<CC>. The philosophical core of the “Theory of Nature” is the only true and scientific philosophy of dialectical materialism.
<DD>. The author of TN's worldview is a true and scientific dialectical-materialistic worldview.
On this foundation (<AA> & <BB> & <CC> & <DD>) is the whole “Theory of Nature”.
And what is the result?
The result is this:
<XX> Physics has been brought out of the swamp of crisis.
<YY>. TN is the harbinger of a scientific revolution in physics and cosmology.
<ZZ>. Within the framework of the “Theory of Nature”, 40 fundamental problems of the foundations of physics and cosmology (which were not solved within the framework of the TMP) were solved.

Theory of Nature (TN)
-------------------------------------- = truth and science
<AA> & <BB> & <CC> & <DD>

40 fundamental problems of the foundations of physics and cosmology, solved within the framework of the “Theory of Nature”, are the main asset and the main argument (proof) of the truth and scientific nature of both the “Theory of Nature” (TN) and its philosophy, the philosophy of dialectical materialism (PDM).
These same 40 fundamental problems of the foundations of physics and cosmology, not solved within the framework of the theory of modern physics (TMP), are the main factor and the main argument (proof) of the fact that TMP and its philosophy, bourgeois-idealistic philosophy (BIP) are false and anti-scientific theories.

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

yusrob

Steve Dufourny Dear Steve!
Since I'm completely ignorant of the general theory of relativity (GTR), I can't offer anything concrete or substantive in response to your message. The only substantive comment I can make is regarding the foundations of GTR. Specifically, GTR postulates the existence of four-dimensional space-time. But there's no real proof of this postulate within GTR! And this is precisely the big problem with GTR. Only on this basis alone can we confidently and correctly assert that GTR is a false and unscientific theory. A second, and perhaps even more important, fact is that GTR (as throughout physics) fails to recognize the natural fact that “the content of elementary particles is ‘pure’ concrete matter of nature”. This is the main argument directly testifying to the false nature of the foundations theory of modern physics (TMP) and the general theory of relativity (GTR). And the falseness of the foundations of a theory (TMP or GTR) testifies to the unscientific nature of the entire theory.
Best wishes
Good bye!

Ulla Mattfolk

yusrob I think you debate in the wrong channel here, we discuss GLOBAL COLLABORATION, and as a true communist we want your opinion, not on an obscure 'Theory of nature'.
If you simply define your nature first, is it Moskow, North pole, the rain forest or the ocean?You see your difficulties, I hope. So pls STOP.
Ulla,

Steve Dufourny

yusrob Dear Robert,
You say that you have solved these 40 problems and that modern physics has not succeeded in doing so. However, I find it difficult to follow your unproven assertions , they appear to be philosophical assumptions, much like your overall theory, which is neither falsifiable nor testable. This is the main problem. I understand that you may have worked seriously on this, but what we need are concrete proofs.

You also say that you do not want to discuss politics, yet you use terms taken from Marx and socialism, such as bourgeois-idealistic philosophy. This makes the issue more philosophical and political than physical. In a sense, you seem to reject much of what comes from our scientific and cultural tradition. You reject capitalism, just as you seem to reject the sciences developed within our systems.
Regards

yusrob

Ulla Mattfolk Dear Ulla, I believe that science, including physics, are important areas for global cooperation between people.
But if you insist, I'll leave this topic.

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny we must remember many good scientists come from Russia, good thinkers. TOM is not such a theory, sorry to say. Try some philosophical forum. Ulla.

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny Grigori Perelmann as instance. He solved one of the million price problems, still rejected the prise. Why? He wanted to stay poor and incognito. That is a Russian attitude?

Ulla Mattfolk

Ulla Mattfolk Correction: Steve Dufourny and Robert; we must remember many good scientists come from Russia, good thinkers. TON is not such a theory, sorry to say. Try some philosophical forum, Robert. Ulla.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk indeed maybe it is a kind of rejection of the capitalism , it is sad for perelman because money is just a tool, the problem is the human comportments. I agree that Robert could try to develop his assertions and philosophical ideas on a philosophical forom instead than on a platform of physics even if the gropu is about global collaboration.

Ulla Mattfolk

Correction: "Steve and Robert; we must remember many good scientists come from Russia, good thinkers. TON is not such a theory, sorry to say. Try some philosophical forum, Robert.
Ulla.

Steve Dufourny

yusrob Dear Robert,
Ulla just said that your theory of nature is not about physics but about philosophy. It might be relevant to elaborate your marxist communist ideas on the Global Collaboration Forum, since the foundation of your philosophy seems to be the rejection of everything that comes from capitalism. Indeed, you use Karl Marx’s expression “bourgeois-idealistic philosophy.”
Regards

Steve Dufourny

yusrob Dear Robert,
I have nothing against you. I just think that when someone makes assertions or claims such as those about bourgeois-idealistic physics or modern physics under capitalism ,and says they have solved 40 problems , those claims must be proven, elaborated, and discussed in detail.

The idea of the pure concrete matter of nature is, at this stage, only an assumption, Robert. It needs evidence and proof before it can be claimed as valid. It’s very simple,modern science, just like the science of the past, works this way. We cannot simply assert assumptions , they must be tested and demonstrated. It has always been like this. Regards

Ulla Mattfolk

yusrob Good Luck. When you have found someting testable you can return.
Maybe worthwile to study some of the theories you critic? Remember GR can be tested and has been tested. It is evolving too. But the postulates claim is true for both GR and QM. If you read Einsteind Nobel speech you maybe understand better?
In physics itis important to begin from first principles, remember.
Like I said we would gladly discuss your attitude as communist. It would be valueable here. As a country at war with west it would be interesting. There the philosophy would sit.
Thanks, Ulla.

« Previous Page