Proposal for an ontological view of the Universe

Vladimir Rogozhin

Valerie Burks
Thank you! A very important and interesting essay for finding a way to overcome the conceptual and paradigm crisis in the metaphysical/ontological basis of fundamental science (mathematics, physics, cosmology).
Yes, at the basis of knowledge it is necessary to build a New Ideality, "new absolutes".
I think that first of all, a new understanding of matter and its absolute (unconditional) forms of existence (absolute states) is needed.
Here we recall the philosophical precept of John Archibald Wheeler, "unsung paragon of science":
“We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself."
Is there an "absolute rest" of matter in your model of the World (Universe)?

Have you ever tried to build an ontological triad "Being-Nothing/Otherbeing-Becoming", i.e. give it a geometric image?
Do you agree that the physical (metaphysical origin of the Universe) is a structureless "singularity" and "Big Bang"?
What is the original structure of the Universe as an integral process of generating more and more new meanings, forms and structures?
If there are so many Big Questions in the foundations of fundamental science, then why are the models called "standard"?
If we recall the testament of the philosopher Pavel Florensky - "We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding", then should we take a fresh look at the "absolute space" in connection with the new ontological understanding of matter as an holistic generating process with memory?

Valerie Burks

Vladimir Rogozhin Thank you for your discerning read and rousing questions. A full examination of the matters you raise would require a full essay (or, more likely, several essays). It is your first query, though, that most intrigues and will occupy these comments: “Is there an ‘absolute rest’ of matter?”

As a concept, “absolute rest” represents a state of pure being, of unchanging existence: time is stopped, change has ceased. Absolute rest is the complete absence of emergence. Historically, there is a certain “self-evidence” to the idea of pure or perfect being. In fact, the idea of pure being (or absolute rest) is the origin of the mono-ontological urge—namely, of God. Could such a state exist in our Universe? No—it is a “pure” idea as opposed to a “practical” idea in the Kantian sense. Our Universe is a dynamic system where existence is balanced and matched by emergence, held in equilibrium. Absolute rest would imbalance the system towards being; it therefore cannot be.

Now, this is where things get difficult. What is the concept of perfect or pure emergence? Alas, here is a concept with no self-evidence. We understand change—the most jabbering babe instinctively knows this preceptive effect—yet we assume that once difference comes-to-be it will acquire a certain stillness, a certain temporal permanence, or at least exist for two consecutive and linked “moments” we might say. The very possibility of constant change (of non-momentous matter) boggles and dizzies the mind.

Approaching physics from the standpoint of an outsider, this is what appears at-once so miraculous and noteworthy about the Standard Model: it presents an unassailable material explication of emergence—it explains how objects come-to-be; it explains change in form. That which has so entangled every modern philosopher is managed and administered with insouciance by the physicist. How can those of us who tiptoe in the realm of ideas not marvel at their sure-footedness?

But this success has become a trap, of sorts, for it has enticed physics to regard all principles as subsumable under the Standard Model. For instance, the attempt to shoehorn gravity into the model is a futile endeavor, for gravity is a force of existence and not emergence. Gravity measures and regulates the temporal stability (i.e., the being) of objects; it apportions existence in object-specific terms: this object has more gravity (and hence, more stability of being) than that object. Gravity cannot be understood in a model that frames becoming. And I humbly assert that unless and until the duality and equilibrium of existence and emergence are properly accounted for in a material theory of the Universe, true progress will flag.

Apologies must be offered, as the fertile ground you prepared was harrowed and sowed in a rather haphazard manner.

Alaya Kouki

"The dynamic system works to simultaneously push objects apart (through boundary energy) and
pull objects closer (through the fundamental interactions), with the net effect resulting in a stable
equilibrium between the opposing functions of existence and emergence"
I think it is a good image to describe the essence of matter and its presentation. Space time have no meaning if there is not a full relationship with matter inside. Space time is not a theater where motion happen. In low quantum levels fundamental interactions are acting and when the scale of observation becomes big the quantum level itself becomes very high as like everything is continuous to percept only the interaction of gravitation. It is the same image in Bohr principle of correspondance which is considered as a quantum principle and it is valid any quantum level. Which the author mean that ther is a luck of something to describe everything in clear terms: this is also an open question. We don't know which is this something but it is probably a concept limit between physics and mathematics.

Valerie Burks

Alaya Kouki Thank you for your observations linking these concepts to other pressing questions. If the universe is indeed a system at equilibrium, then there are some possible expansions of this framework into prediction.

One of the more conspicuous areas for future consideration concerns the role of dark matter in maintaining the physical equilibrium of the system, an idea that should yield clues into the particular properties of this phenomenon. Thus, we can suppose that at the origin of the Universe the quantity of autochthonic emergent particles (particles from which new objects can be formed) equaled the quantity of autochthonic non-emergent particles (particles which do not form new objects, but which are necessary for the equilibrium of the system). From this foundation, we may glean precisely how much emergent matter was lost to the destructive processes of becoming (i.e., matter-antimatter annihilation).

Valerie Burks

Erickson Tjoa—Thank you for your thoughtful read. Your comment about “free quarks” is certainly worth dwelling on. From a philosophical standpoint, we are schooled to think of existence in time frames that do not make sense from the standpoint of science. Philosophy tends to speak of “being” as a concept that more or less reaches towards the eternal—trans-generational, trans-historical, trans-epochal. However, it is more helpful (and better reconciled with observation) if we think of “being” as temporally quantifiable: things may exist for a very short amount of time, or they may exist for a very long period of time. But the fact that an object may exist only for a short period of time does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, the most stable isotopes of the heaviest known elements (e.g., Tennessine or Oganesson) have an incredibly short half-life; this does not equate, though, to “non-existence”—at least science recognizes the short-duration existence of objects.

Thus, the idea that “we do not see ‘free quarks’ in everyday life” is probably better understood as “we do not see ‘free quarks’ with any temporal stability within the system.” This much is quite true. Yet, it can be suggested that there are in fact “free quarks” which are characterized by a quite fleeting existence. This is from Ethan Siegel, “There are no free quarks”: “Every once in a while, we’ll see a huge “jet” of particles (usually two, sometimes three or four) that fly off from the high-energy collision point. How do you get so many baryons, antibaryons and mesons together in one place? Because for a very brief moment, you created a quark (or antiquark) that was ‘too free.’”

Using the idea of boundary energy to interpret this moment, we may speculate that a free quark (which has no ontological stability) educes considerable energy from the system in an isolated or unbound state. In essence, interacting forces work in an attempt to generate spatial stability for the autonomous quark which, given the nature of the strong force, is temporally fleeting. Still, for that “moment” there was a free quark. Thus, the larger question becomes one of how we measure existence against the backdrop of time.

As to your other comment—"how would this picture explain phase transition (e.g., melting ice) or synchronizations in non-linear dynamics (chaos), since it is part of a bigger story of emergence in physics?”—two comments are offered, certainly without the intention of being glib, though that may be the seeming effect. First, not all change is emergence; second, not all spatial distance is differentiation. That is really more of a preface to a complete answer, which will be (for now) kept in abeyance in the interest of brevity.

Sue Lingo

Thank you for your contribution of an alternative Space-Time Energy model, that is to a great degree consistent with the model I am using to explore the emergence of a Intelligent Universe (https://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php])

In regard to the specifics of your model, as presented in your essay, I have a few questions and comments:

"In fact, we find it helpful to characterize this operation in aphoristic terms: the space belongs to the object, but the energy belongs to the system."

_sl Is space structurally quantized... i.e. comprised of minimum addressable units?

_sl Is energy physical substance... i.e. addressable spatial occupancy defined?

_sl Dynamics of system energy as substance, requires a momentum mechanism, and substance distribution mechanix are necessarily a consequence of structural dictates.

"Space is not an emptiness in which objects exist. On the contrary, the entirety of space is accounted for by objects and their boundary energies."

_sl Are "objects" given form as a consequence of substance containment?

_sl Spatial containment of energy necessarily manifest as a consequence of momentum mechanism driven dynamics within the geometric structure of the specified spatial quantization.

"There are two ontological classifications for objects: autonomous and heteronomous. An autonomous object has ontological standing in the system and generates spatial boundary energy that suffices its mass, charge, and momentum (e.g., the free electron). By contrast, a heteronomous object—or an object-within-an-object—has spatial boundary energy determined by its mass, charge, and momentum relative to the other composing objects in the encompassing autonomous object (e.g., the electron in the hydrogen atom).

_sl Given an Intelligent Universe the system is the top tier of hierarchical degrees of ontological autonomy, and all degrees of ontological autonomy are manifest as a consequence of resolve of energy distribution over time... i.e. on every Q-tick of the momentum mechanism...throughout the entire system, as dictated by the structural quantization of space.

With regard to FQXi rejection of my 2023 FQXi Essay (https://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php) in that one could reasonably argue that your essay is essentially an alternative "theory of everything", being offered as the foundational directive for the FUTURE of Science, rather than a discussion of "How Science COULD BE different", FQXi reviewer determination of your essay's competition compliance, exposes the capricious nature of review.

May your essay be influential!

S. Lingo
UQS Author/Logician
www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Valerie Burks

Sue Lingo Thank you for your close read and probing questions. Does the proposal constitute a “theory of everything”?—absolutely not. The essay is, as prefaced, a thought experiment from the perspective of one situated outside the field—a “what if” analysis asking how our view of science could be different if we regarded the Universe as a dynamic system at stable equilibrium between the opposing forces of emergence (mechanically described by the Standard Model) and existence (mechanically explored by introducing the idea of “boundary energy’). In principle, the proposal considers the possibility that the Universe is a dialectically fluctuating but balanced system of being and becoming in the full Hegelian sense. A “theory of everything”—as I would define it—would offer a complete material causality of observation expressed in mathematical terms. At most, I would hope these ideas might stimulate those who are versed at translating concepts into formulae (a skill I do not have) into considering fundamental questions from a different vantage.

As to the arbitrary nature of review: to be sure, there is an element of caprice in all human endeavors. It is the natural consequence of the well-intentioned attempt to effect order in a clamorous world. Nevertheless, I have faith that even in an age of noisy discord, sound ideas resonate and will rise from the cacophony. The din no doubt delays reception, but that which harmonizes with the understanding “pleases universally.” In the end, the onus falls on us (those who venture to propose) to make each utterance more clear than the last, and remain ever-sensitive to when our soundings fall flat.

Sue Lingo

Valerie Burks

Hi alias EcruScorpion...
_sl Your insightful response stimulated more probing questions, and hopefully relevant commentary.

Thank you for your close read and probing questions. Does the proposal constitute a “theory of everything”?—absolutely not.

_sl Is a geometry structure a "theory"?...or a logic framework from which theory can be assessed??

The essay is, as prefaced, a thought experiment from the perspective of one situated outside the field—a “what if” analysis asking how our view of science could be different if_we regarded the Universe as a dynamic system at stable equilibrium between the opposing forces of emergence (mechanically described by the Standard Model) and existence (mechanically explored by introducing the idea of “boundary energy’). In principle, the proposal considers the possibility that the Universe is a dialectic ally fluctuating but balanced system of being and becoming in the full Hegelian sense._

_sl The Standard Model as a description of "mass, charge, and momentum" differentials measured over time, verifyies substance and dynamics, but to resolve the underlying mechanics of the differentials, requires a mechanical description of emergence fundamentals... i.e. a momentum mechanism and geometry of a substance distribution structure.

_sl Does "existence" as a "boundary energy" force in opposition to the force of emergence as a consequence of a specified momentum mechanism and substance distribution structure, necessitate additional emergence fundamentals?

_sl In any case "boundary energy" requires a precise definition of "energy".

_sl Is "energy" as herein used, referenced to some convenient unit of measurement associated with the perceivable effect of an event?... or a physical.... i e. occupies space... substance??

_sl If given " energy" in units of a measurable event effect... e.g. temperature... would "energy boundaries" have a spatially defined mechanical process to explore?... or only temporally differentiated measurement states from which to theorize an underlying process?

_sl If in reference to "energy" as a physical substance, does "energy" have a minimum /indivisible physical form... i.e. can be defined in terms of a spatially dimension ed "energy" distribution unit ... as the irreducible Quantum of Energy (QE)?

A “theory of everything”—as I would define it—would offer a complete material causality of observation expressed in mathematical terms.

_sl In the case of "energy" as a quantitative measurement of event effect, in that substance is required to verify causality of substance dynamics, a "complete model of material causality" will need to resolve a unifying substance that exhibits properties from which mass, charge, and momentum can be derived... e g. a QE.

_sl To verify causality of substance/entity dynamics within a specified structure, requires a spatial definition of entity, a structural geometry that facilitates a non-perturbative analysis environment, and a momentum mechanism.

_sl My rejected 2023 FQXi Essay demonstrates a methodology to generate and utilize these elements to establish a logic framework in which scientist of all disciplines could seamlessly mesh their observations of environment, and there in establish a "theory of everything".

_sl Geometry as the basis of all spatial mathematical analysis, precludes many of the conundrums of mathematical syntax... i.e. equations... and I rely heavily on visual illustration to eliminate the necessity for "concept to formulae translations".

_sl Fortunately digital CAD SIMulations... ie. animated process... are highly suited to investigate causality of substance dynamics within a specified virtual structural environment.

_sl I applaud your willingness to address the issues associated with composite entities, and I think I can equate your concept of an "ontological" hierarchy to my concept of consciousness hierarchy.

_sl In that entity boundary mechanisms are manifest as a consequence of the framework onto which QE are distributed, I graphically illustrate examples of boundary hierarchy within the framework.

_sl By extension of fundamental entity boundary mechanism, I can define the "I Am" in terms that facilitate application of model derived functions to the human condition.

_sl In that our "proposals" have many similarities, I am not surprised that universal harmony has emerged as a prioritized element in your dialog.

At most, I would hope these ideas might stimulate those who are versed at translating concepts into formulae (a skill I do not have) into considering fundamental questions from a different vantage.

_sl In that translation of concept to formulae is highly applicable to technological advances... e g. the Star Trek Replicator... I hope conceptual horizons of those "versed at translating concepts into formulae" (a skill I do not prioritize in my work) will be expanded by visual assimilation of a digital animated emergence process.

As to the arbitrary nature of review: to be sure, there is an element of caprice in all human endeavors. It is the natural consequence of the well-intentioned attempt to effect order in a clamorous world. Nevertheless, I have faith that even in an age of noisy discord, sound ideas resonate and will rise from the cacophony.The din no doubt delays reception, but that which harmonizes with the understanding “pleases universally.” In the end, the onus falls on us (those who venture to propose) to make each utterance more clear than the last, and remain ever-sensitive to when our soundings fall flat.

_sl Thanks for the "utterance" opportunity our dialog offers.

_sl If you get a chance to read my rejected 2023 FQXi Essay (https://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php) ... know that I consider "probing questions" essential to refinement.

_sl May your essay stimulate enhanced conceptualization, and thereby "make a difference in science".

S. Lingo

Steve Dufourny

Congrats for your essay ontologically and philosophically speaking, I liked how you approach these differences, the origin of the life........ , it is interesting how you analyse these outside the box and these opposite forces. I am intrigued a lot about these deeper parameters, the DM and DE and I believe that they are foundamental at all scales, regards

Aleksandr Maltsev

Thank you. Lots of new and interesting things. I'll add my opinion:
In reality, matter is the unity of mass and volume. Newtonian physics is mass at a point. Quantum physics, mass in volume.

Vladimir Rogozhin

Sue Lingo
<<In that entity boundary mechanisms are manifest as a consequence of the framework onto which QE are distributed, I graphically illustrate examples of boundary hierarchy within the framework.>>

"Truth should be drawn..." (A. Zenkin "SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS")
[http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm]
Any "formulas" are clippings from the existence of the Universe as an holistic generating process.
And what is your original / primordial structure of the Universe?
The link does not open, unfortunately (antivirus does not allow)

Sue Lingo

Sue Lingo
Link correction: (http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php)

Sue Lingo

Vladimir Rogozhin
Hi Vladimir Rogozhin...

_sl Thanks for you insightful correlation between my statement:
<<In that entity boundary mechanisms are manifest as a consequence of the framework onto which QE are distributed, I graphically illustrate examples of boundary hierarchy within the framework.>>
... and such an adamant assertion that:
"Truth should be drawn...
(A. Zen kin "SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS")
[http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm]
Any "formulas" are clippings from the existence of the Universe as a holistic generating process."

_sl Loved it!!! ... and herein, for the benefit of the FQXi community, I expand your excerpt from the A.Zenkin link:
"... truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to "an unlimited circle" of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence (see http://www.com2com.ru/alexzen).
If it is really the Truth, and if my neighbor is not a colour-blind person, we (and all other people around) shall see the same. And nobody, at all desire, will be ever able, using as a cover a "Bourbaki" camouflage, to pose a falsehood as a truth, and an empty place as an outstanding scientific achievement."

"Infinitum Actu Non Datur" - Aristotle.
"Drawing is a very useful tool against the uncertainty of words" - Leibniz."

And what is your original / primordial structure of the Universe?
The link does not open, unfortunately (antivirus does not allow)

_sl Thanks for the heads up!!!
_sl Link correction to my rejected 2023 FQXi Essay:
(http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php)

_sl A Space-Time Energy emergence single point source, facilitates a Logic Domain Singularity which differentiates a Spaceless-Timeless Energy Logic Domain, in which space and time are not variables of the domain's energy functions, from a Space-Time Energy Logic Domain from which questions of beginning, size, location etc., are inappropriately posed with regard to a Spaceless-Timeless Energy Intelligence.

_sl May a perturbative conceptual framework enable utilization of "cognitive computer visualization technology" to achieve a structural change in human consciousnesses.

S. Lingo
UQS Author/Logician
http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

NADJA MAGALHAES

EcruScorpion, your ideas do motivate quite a discussion. I personally feel that the phenomena that are "explained" with DM require more investigation with GR or other alternative theories of gravitation, as DM may reveal itself as a gravitational effect rather than a kind of matter.

PS: I invite you all to kindly read and rate my essay: "More diversity and creativity for a different science". I'd like to send this invitation in a separate thread but I was unable to start a new discussion in the forum so far.
https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/entry/2330#control_panel

Steve Dufourny

NADJA MAGALHAES It is the big question indeed about this DM, must we modify this newtonian mechanic or this GR, personally I consider that they are the real quanta of mass and so we must modify this GR, it is what I have made in my model, and the higgs mechanism so must be completed with deeper particles and fields . The MONDs are actually considered but why to modify a newtonian mechanic wich works well at slow velocities, we need in all cases to have more datas and proofs from experiments, the LHC makes some experiments, hope we shall have datas soon , regards

NADJA MAGALHAES

NADJA MAGALHAES Just an update on my PS above. There is now a thread on my essay, which I invite you to read: "More diversity and creativity for a different science":

https://forums.fqxi.org/d/4028-more-diversity-and-creativity-for-a-different-science/2

I'll appreciate your comments and ratings.

Dan Costin

An interesting thought experiment but it isn't clear in what way science would be different if we look at the world through object oriented ontology. In the last sentence of the essay the author points out that scientific observation and math are still required to validate or clarify the hypotheses put forward. Every scientific discovery requires a new way of looking at things, objects or phenomena but it doesn't imply that the way we do science chances.
I'm also not sure the statement "... the faster an object moves, the more likely it is to remain free." can be considered true. Intuitively the faster something moves the more likely it should be for it to interact with something that might absorb or disintegrate it. Furthermore looking at the neutronic cross section of any isotope will cleanly show that it doesn't necessarily decrease with the increase in the neutron's energy.
Although there is an argument to be made that object oriented ontology in a way predicts the emergence of living entities, the essay isn't very clear in how the geometry of the double helix molecule lies at the origin of life since life also requires triple strand DNA that serve specific functions. Furthermore the DNA has a very complex geometry if we take into account the way it wraps onto histone to form nucleosomes that then coil themselves up to form chromatin fibers and so on.