What does matter is that the mathematical formulation of the description of natural phenomena be rigorous, otherwise it doesn’t make sense.

Mathematical consistency is necessary for physics, it’s not sufficient.

There are many mathematically consistent field theories; the Standard Model is just one of them. So there’s no mathematical reason that singles out the Standard Model from the infinitely many mathematically consistent theories that differ only in the choice of the gauge group (taking into account the consistency conditions for the matter content). It’s experiment that leads to the result that the gauge group, up to the known energies, is SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1). It could have been another group.

Stan Nicolis, you deserve thanks. You wrote a very clear and consistent reply based on the connection between theory and experiment. Thanks.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil,

I agree that Stan Nicolis has provided a quite definite reply on physics, but what about the nature of physics, mathematics and philosophy?

I was impressed by the large vision of your question. In a sense you have asked about axioms that express the nature of Nature, as that nature plays in the physical world and in the human worlds of science, mathematics and philosophy.These latter developments have emerged from the nature of Human Nature, wonder and inquiry. Are they derived from primitive notions? That question reveals your deep awareness that order and structure may exist beyond present awareness. Your question embraces a larger world than what is contained in our measurements to date.

Euclid set a stage with his axioms, but then he needed the parallel postulate for his 29th Proposition, so he added it. Where was your sense of primitive notions (categories) in that afterthought? His other axioms work on spheres and pseudo-spheres, and thereby have closer ties to the essence of points and lines than does his plane geometry.

So, what fundamental relations can exist in the nature of physics, mathematics or philosophy? Certainly, the present confidence in the theories that have replaced the errors of past science in which the persons involved were equally confident is not sufficient, for example the 1901 confident statement about physics by William Thompson, Lord Kelvin. There is a deeper perspective worth exploring that includes rigor and consistency without being limited by it.

We are emerging into a new era. Authority, incontrovertible proofs based on our present knowledge, "it is known that," etc. are loosing ground. Reality is richer than that, and while is is imperative that we seek the rigor and consistency of Stan Nicolis' reply wherever we can find it, your primitive notions (categories) also are very important. It may be familiar, but it also is valid that: "There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in your philosophies." Hamlet - Shakespeare.

Now, the above view expressed, I reply to your question: yes! BUT, the quidance provided by primitive notions will not be so crisp. We won't have brick walls of established paradigms to lean against and use to correct errant students; "proof" will be more tenuous, and may be excluded from "science" and inconvenient for engineering; mistakes like those that permeate past science will occur again: however, the playing field will be larger and new options will trigger inspiration, and new views like having the sun at the center of the solar system will emerge - outrageous! - how wonderful!

Well, as usual, just a thought, Happy Trails, Len

Leonard Hall, as I got up in the morning and opened ResearchGate, it was a pleasure for me today to read your comment. It speaks of a person full of academic and trans-academic enthusiasm to Wisdom. Wonderful, that you are able to perceive what should be in science and philosophy beyond the "theory/experiment" paradigm.

Let me write a few first thoughts, written in a short time, and not edited to perfection at all:

Most scientists, philosophers, and common people rush after “truths”. But practically none wants to draw to the possible limits the consequences of the fact that we can at the most have ever better truths. Practically none wants to generalize upon this state of affairs beyond its epistemological consequences.

The only thinkable way to accentuate and accelerate the process is to look for the truest possible of all truths. The truest are those propositions where the principles of identity and contradiction can be applied best.

The truest are not merely epistemologically generalizable and extendable, but also metaphysically, physical-ontologically, mathematically, biologically, human-scientifically, etc.

And these are those axioms that are based on the most fundamental of all notions (Categories) and imply nothing but the implications of all that exist – that too with respect to their very existence.

These purely physical-ontological implications of existence are what I analyze in the present document. One may wonder how these purely metaphysical, physical-ontological axioms and their Categories can be applicable to sciences other than physics and philosophy.

My justification is as follows: Take for example the case of the commonality of foundations of mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language. The notions that may be taken as the primitive notions of mathematics were born not from a non-existent virtual world but instead from the human capacity of spatial, temporal, quantitative, qualitative imagination.

I have already been working so as to show qualitative (having to do with universals expressed in terms of adjectives) quantitativeness (notions somehow based on spatial imagination, where, it should be kept in mind, space-time are measuremental) may be seen to be present in their elements in mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language.

The agents I use for this are: ‘ontological universals’, ‘connotative universals’, and ‘denotative universals’. In my opinion, the physical-ontological basis of these must and can be established in terms merely of the Categories of Extension-Change, which you find being discussed briefly in my PDF upload: FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE.

Pitiably, most scientists and philosophers forget that following the physical-ontological implications of existence in the foundations of science and philosophy is the best way to approach Reality well enough in order to derive the best possible of truths and their probable derivatives. Most of them forget that we need to rush after Reality and not merely after truths.

THIS IS NOT AN ACCUSATION. IT IS A TAUNT TO CREATE FURTHER ENTHUSIASM FOR THE CREATION OF A FOUNDATIONALLY DIFFERENT DIRECTION OF GROWTH IN ALL OF THE HUMAN PROJECT OF KNOWING, EXPERIENCING, FEELING, AND FINALLY, LIVING.

First I posted these reflections in Academia.edu, where I have a discussion session on this theme. And then I added the first few sentences for you here.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Leonard Hall, if you permit me, I would happily copy these comments by you and put it up in the discussion session in Academia.edu, of course stating that it is from you. Alternatively, you could yourself do it by visiting my acdemia.edu page. (https://cives-school.academia.edu/RAPHAELNEELAMKAVILPhDDrphilWorkingonGOUNDINGANALYTICSCIENTIFICANDPHENOMENOLOGICALMETAPHYSICS).

What do you prefer? Please feel free to reply even if it is a No.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael Neelamkavil, this also was a very pleasant morning for me, Thank You! It is clear that we agree with the observation attributed to Sir Isaac Newton that what is known is but a "drop in a bucket" compared to the ocean. Present knowledge has value, but it is only an introduction. I want it applied to the bridge I cross, but not used to limit the ocean I endeavor to comprehend.

You are welcome to include my comments on your academia.edu page.

The focus in your comments on existence, on "implications of existence," reminded me of a discussion with a friend, James, after he observed that his existential philosophy, following Søren Kierkegaard, was about his existence. I realized, suggested, and he agreed that his "existing" would be a more accurate than his "existence." Predicative, not nominative, was the character of his thoughts: the process of being rather than the state of being.

The primitive notions (categories) and axioms that I see in your question apply to many areas because they express "how" and thereby go beyond "what" when they relate to being. This is a very fine sense of Nature and human nature perceiving it. I shall look further here, too.

Happy Trails, Len

Thanks, Leonard. In fact, I used to use for existence always the verbal form: To Be. If I treat of the existing of Reality as such, as whatever it is, I use To Be; and if the talk is of any specific process (be-ing) of any specific process, I speak of the 'to be' of it.

The verbal sense is more processual than the gerund, as you know from Later Heidegger. But I am more attracted by Whitehead's work in Process and Reality (PR) than by Heidegger's. As a BA student, I have read (of course, with difficulty) Whitehead's magnum opus, PR. And then I re-read it many times, made a detailed study of his works, etc., as a BA student.

ONE SET OF QUESTIONS I AM BOTHERED ABOUT IS THIS: Can the primitive notions (Categories) and axioms of the said sciences converge to take shape from a set of ontological Categories? Can these sciences together possess just one set of sufficiently common primitive notions, from which the respective primitive notions and axioms of mathematics, logic, physical and human sciences, and philosophy may be derived?

I know this is very ambitious. But I say: on the way to set up a common set of primitive notions and axioms for all sciences, based on (1) the main implications of the To Be of all that are and (2) the implications of the qualitative and quantitative aspects of existents, I believe we can also generalize so well as to explicate the so-called definitions of the common primitive notions not as fully final concepts but as concepts significative of the DIMENSIONS of the common primitive notions.

This would permit me to extrapolate upon them for theoretical purposes. We must always keep these definitions open for further deepening and broadening, and if needed for constant overhauling and finally for being overtaken by other better notions.

Kindly take a look at the draft PDF available on my Researchgate page under the title: FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE.

Raphael Neelamkavil

This is all a good question and debate, yet what is deliberate misinformation and ignorance, what is the drive for it, and can it be written about in a way so as not to promote it as being useful? The issue here is if the scientific method is involved there: Preprint The zero-dimensional physical theory (V): information, energ...

"Primitive notions" is clearly a slight/reference to how we are better and more informed, right?

Not so, Stephen Jarvis! By primitive notions we mean those basic concepts which an axiomatic system assumes as the most fundamental starting notions within that system, and which, from within the given the epistemic limits of this axiomatic system, are not clearly definable but still are most fundamental.

The easiest example that comes to mind is always that of the Euclidean system of geometry. 'Point', 'near', etc. in Euclidean geometry, and 'number', 'add', etc. in arithmetic, are such.

Hence, "primitive notions" is clearly NOT what you referred to as "a slight/reference to how we are better and more informed".

But in your paper "The zero-dimensional physical theory (V): information, energy, efficiency, and intelligence" you exhibit enough awareness of the above facts. Hence, I do not understand what else you meant by the question at the end of your comment!

Raphael Neelamkavil

Howdy Raphael, I had composed an answer, I touched something, and pffft! Sigh. My 1928 Model A Ford never did that. I do belong to a previous millennium.

I understand how you are using "To Be" and "to be," the state of being and the process of being in my words. I think that the process of being is primary, existing, while focus on the state of being "I am that I am" has vast history. As long as we have common definitions we shall communicate well. Incidentally, I am thankful for online dictionaries - your vocabulary is astounding. Clearly, you are more versed in philosophy than I.

Your return to your original question in your email evokes the same response: yes! I think that the axioms of science, mathematics and philosophy will converge. I also think that those axioms will be focused on processes and converge through a richer awareness of the nature of Nature, including human nature that produces mathematics and philosophy and the understanding of science in specific theories. My focus on process comes from my own world view and from the awareness that change involves becoming. Which came first, the chicken or the egg has been answered: the egg! Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's idea that acquired characters are inheritable was set aside by Charles Darwin's understanding of evolutionary biology, and P. B. Medawar pointed out that ailments that do not affect reproduction cannot be weeded out by evolution in his "The Uniqueness of the Individual." A new axiom will be an egg of insight, a new awareness becoming, that opens the way for convergence of the axioms.

I have read your FOUNDATIONS . . . Extension, Change/Impact Formation, Universal Causality - interesting. I find that I should explore further before commenting. I, too, have studied space, time and cause and have thoughts that I shall review along with yours. Space and time are experienced and cause is probable. However, while a brick is as empty as space, it hurts to stub your toe on one. Fields have strong attraction and repulsion, and waves! How do these phenomena fit into space, time, cause? I need insight.

Stephen Jarvis, howdy. I have read your abstract and am pleased to see another person working on number theory for natural philosophy. I also have conceived a number theory wherein the "numbers" are objects in the vein of Object-oriented Programming for computers. The objects (numbers) that represent natural structures and contain their life cycles would be defined in classes. The classes would be instantiated as numbers (objects) and partake of a phenomenon through functions. It is incomplete. I am curious about your number theory definitions and syntax, and shall read the balance of your preprint to find how you handle actual number theory activity. For instance, I wonder how your zero-dimensional space and time (point and moment) reproduce and explain Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation. A tall order I admit. It's not easy, but then, "zero" and "-1" posed great difficulty for mathematicians in their time, and many hours were spent "proving" that one could add infinitesimals to get a finite value and thereby bypass the limit concept. The future is open, who knows what will work better next?

Oh, yes, the scientific method is involved. Stam Nicolis' observations are a very strong boundary condition, rigor is imperative and must be included, but . . .

Happy Trails folks, Len

Dear Leonard Hall, first of all, here's a quick and short response. Later I will respond more elaborately. Let me repeat: It is a pleasure to read you. You are constructive of the work of others. This is very rare in the academic world. I have always tried to be this even to the worst of my students who wrote a thesis under my guidance. Also, I do not have inferiority complex in the presence of famous and accomplished scholars and scientists. I hope to contribute something, that is all.

The concepts of Extension-Change as exhaustive implications of To Be (verbal) / Being (gerund) / Existence (nominal) is never final. For them to be final, I should have occupied myself an infinite extent of time in order to define them and explain the meaning of the definitions.

Hence, I would hold that definitions and explanations belong to COMPETITIVELY STRUCTURAL FOUNDATIONALISM. The procedures of constructing suitable common structures for Reality (Extension-Change-wise continuing existents / processes) and Formal Existents (e.g., point, number, etc.) together, must be exercised competitively. Hence, none of my concepts will be perfect.

In the event of my concepts surviving the test of the future history of science, be sure, they will already have been conformed to the demands of greater understanding. This is a conceptual evolution and transformation that the ideas of each one must undergo.

In the event of my ideas getting rejected, they can boast only of having been mildly instrumental, but almost negatively, in the evolutionary perfection of ideas in science and thought.

I hope to be accepted at least for the latter. Of course, the desire is to belong to the former group. Hence, I attempt to create a few Categories that help converge the primitive notions and axioms of math, logic, physical science, biological science, human science, and philosophy together.

More reflections later.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Dear Raphael,

We are doing just fine in my book. Were you to read the introductory comments on my ResearchGate Project, "Whence Insight," you would find a comfortable camaraderie. It is only in part what we do, it is the seeds we plant that matter, and you cannot know how far your self will reach in the accomplishments of others.

According to the anecdote, Daniel Boone was at a "tea" back in civilization when a lady asked him: "Have you ever been lost when exploring the Kentucky and Tennessee wilderness?" Dan'l replied: "No Ma'am, never lost, but on this last trip I was mighty bewildered for about three days!" Bewildered is okay.

"To do your best, and let that stand/ The record of your brain and hand."

Edgar Guest, "My Creed."

G'night, or rather G'mornin',

Happy Trails,

Len

Howdy Rafael, just a note to assure you of my affirmation of your effort to establish axioms sufficiently universal in character that science, mathematics, and philosophy may be formulated in the space they establish as coordinates. This is from a 1990 introduction to some of my thoughts for my college age offspring in the form of essays:

"Lest my simple thought be lost in the essays, I wish to state it in this introduction.

"A critic has said that Picasso sought to paint his subject rather than a single view. A Chinese proverb is translated "A path is formed by walking on it." Modern physics teaches us that nothing is really isolated. Tiger (our cat) insisted on going out during mating season with a leg so sore from a previous discussion that he wouldn't use it. A lumberjack earns pay, and his employer makes money for chopping down a thousand years of patient accumulation by life. Greek philosophers debated whether the ship used by Theseus, which was preserved for centuries by replacing rotted planks and ribs, was still Theseus' ship after restoration. Structures form in fluids, such as clouds, whirlpools, and Mother West Wind's merry little breezes that play on the green meadow. Real solutions to complex problems flash into our consciousness (Aha!) from some level of mind that meditates unobserved.

"All these phenomena, and many more, I see as the same. I think, with many severe objections from my feelings due to the obscenity of common sense and training, that significance lies in the subject, the walking, the connection, the vitality of life, the patient accumulation, the existence of ships, the forming of structures, the meditation; our historical (common sense) emphasis on the view, the path, the particles, the mating or the leg, the pay or the tree, the ship, the cloud or whirlpool, and the solution is too shallow. We wallow in trivia because it's easy and efficient to do so; we are bewildered when trivia lead only to the solution of trivial problems.

"I am confident that there is another way to think, and that there is a mathematics appropriate to that form of thought. It is different from the classical form espoused by Socrates and Plato, which is similar to the common mode of thought. They try to specify chunks and relate them to one another as separable objects of thought and natural function. Even superstition operates in this mode (sorry, Socrates); it just determines its chunks with questionable information. I think that reality is in the walking, not in the path thereby formed; and I am seeking the mathematics of walkings. The mathematics of paths has dominated our learning, but it is limited. In my view this form of thought is approached in creative work, especially art, poetry, and breakthrough concepts in science, but it is scorned in everyday groin and gullet concerns.

"So, what is this simple thought? The essence of natural process is structure formation. Structures do not interact - the processes of different structures interact. The sense may be illustrated by saying that paths do not combine, but the walkings that lead to paths combine to form a resultant path. This is obvious, of course. Don't underestimate it.

"I hope you enjoy the essays. Thanks for reading."

Well, that clarifies my focus on "to be." But like the refusal of Sherlock Holmes to speculate on insufficient data, we keep our options open, and I expect a hybrid form of state and process will emerge in the axioms that work. (The notes quoted are not "science" so I have not included them on my ResearchGate site, or the "essays" on Being, Human Being, Social Fluid Dynamics, etc.) You know, not only is the unknown as large as an ocean, but because the earth is curved we only see a fraction of it from the beach!

Happy Trails, Len

Raphael Neelamkavil , you said, "But in your paper "The zero-dimensional physical theory (V): information, energy, efficiency, and intelligence" you exhibit enough awareness of the above facts. Hence, I do not understand what else you meant by the question at the end of your comment!".

The title of this forum topic is, "Can the Primitive Notions (Categories) and Axioms of Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy Converge?". When I said, "This is all a good question and debate, yet what is deliberate misinformation and ignorance, what is the drive for it, and can it be written about in a way so as not to promote it as being useful?" I am essentially asking whether or not the primitive notions are already granted by the contemporary ideas of mathematics, physics, and philosophy. My work highlights they are not, so a clear issue in this debate is all about what is assumed and what is not. My work with zero-dimensionality assumes nothing, and thence creates a new spectrum of ideas for mathematics, physics, and philosophy which has been, is, and perhaps still will be for most.

Thanks, Stephen Jarvis. Now I get the point. Since I will go out immediately, I write a short reply now. Later we will discuss more elaborately.

Gödel has already shown that at least one axiom formed out of primitive notions in any given system is re-deeenable. One that is done, automatically there will arise the need to re-deepen or re-found the others too. This, in my opinion, is a natural necessity. But it can also be that we need only to re-define most of them, and need not always substitute them with altogether new ones. In this sense, it is possible in principle to suggest almost completely inevitable primitive notions. But their definition/s will never be adequate enough. As I have already written here in answer to another person, I need infinite time to perfect my definitions and explain them well enough.

As far as a philosophically acceptable system of axiomatic acceptance is concerned, we need to found all science on the best possible notions of existence and/or non-existents (NON-EXISTENT BUT REALITY-BASED CONCEPTS, UNIVERSALS). And I derive 2 inevitable implications of existence as primitive notions, and based on them I build the notions of non-existent REALS. And then I create a few axioms.

My short paper in Researchgate "FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE" is on that. I have already written about 190 pp. But the document in Researchgate is just a few pages. It shows only some essentials. That is all. I have already discussed this work in detail with some good philosophers of science and math. The work is in a developing stage. Moreover, since I am occupied with many other matters, it will take years to complete it into a publishable book.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Stephen Jarvis

Back in 2019 we had a disussion about time and timeflow.

http://vvoip-physics-debates.org/index.php?title=Time_and_Time_Flow#Home

You presented with your work the foundational axioms

𝑡𝐴 = 𝑡𝐵2, 𝑡𝑁 = 1, 𝑡𝑁 = 𝑡𝐴 − 𝑡𝐵

from Preprint Golden Ratio Axioms of Time and Space

This is 3 dimensions of quality time you use, while in contrast i analized that physically 2 must and only two can exist.

1 = 𝑡2 or 1= ta tb with your introduced "Zero" physical quality as quasi-Dimension becomes

tb2= ta gets tbtn = ta but must be set = 1

With my original article Article Principles of Nature: Solution to the Problem of Time Unifie...

i argued against that (as also John Ashmed did), this is not correct from point of view of physical dimensions.

I explained in my article that one dimenssion of time is proportional to mass (as well as the other is inverse proportional to mass).

Due to the ill defined time in SI system,

General Relativity works with Energy is proportional to mass

Quantum Theory works with Energy is inverse proportional to mass

In short

mQT [kg] = mGR-1 [kg-1]

that we can write as

kg2= 1 what is equal to your finding tb2= ta gets tbtn = ta =1

as Time Dimension A is proportional to mass and Time Dimension B is inverse proportional to mass.

Anyway in the end you only presemt a mathematical workaround a physical problem, that is physical. You theory contains still the problem that you set

kg = kg-1 which is in physical terms insane. That only works because you take away ALL physical dimensions exept time and end up in Zero Dimension Theory.

The problem presented in brief is that in the international system of units today, the physicalunit of time, on which all other physical units are based, has been incorrectly (circularly)defined. From this follows the situation that in the theory of relativity the mass (kilogram) isproportional to the energy and in the quantum theories the mass is inversely proportional to theenergy. This is, of course, a physically unsolvable contradiction. What has been happening forover a century now is that mathemticians are trying to resolve this contradiction throughmalpractice. Of course we can mathematically solve the equation that kilogram = kilogram-1with some very elegant and beautiful tricks that hides this fundamental contradiction. Butnature cannot be outwitted by mathematics (PDF) A Final Theory of General Relativity. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365036605_A_Final_Theory_of_General_Relativity [accessed Nov 05 2022].

Preprint A Final Theory of General Relativity

I was very surprised by the topic of the discussion that you started on your own initiative. You provoke the audience with a question to accept mathematics, physics and philosophy as a single system of perception of the surrounding world. In your discussion, I advise you to refute the information from Morris Kline's book, "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty Morris Kline". I do not think that your attempts will be successful.

Raphael Neelamkavil , a primitive notion, as an axiom, is a fundamental idea, a simplest self-evident notion, as a backdrop for a discipline, whether for physics, mathematics, or philosophy. The commonality for an axiom needs to first ask if there is an axiom hierarchy for physics, mathematics, and philosophy. It can be shown there is by the very notion of what an axiom is, and that is the hierarchy as follows: philosophy-->mathematics-->physics.

An axiom itself implies what is self-evident, and there the idea of consciousness/thought needs to come first as a philosophy, namely consciousness as the basic idea of time and space. Consciousness of what though? The next challenge is whether it is consciousness/thought of a number theory or a physical thing. Given physical phenomena is not self-evident, and is at best explained with numbers and geometry, next in the axiom hierarchy there must be mathematics. Thus, philosophy-->mathematics-->physics.

The next question is what axiom is common to all three, to philosophy, mathematics, and physics.

Absurdly, the answer is nothing, “nothing” meaning “nothing, 0”, namely a 0 idea of philosophy as 0-time and 0-space, then the 0 idea of mathematics and geometry as a 0-point for space and a moment for time, and then how all of such relates to physical phenomena. My work is central to developing the number theory for 0d time and 0d space and then scaling such to known physical scales.

That last step, namely how 0-dimensionality as numbers/geometry for time and space relates with physical reality is what Applied-Mathematicians and Physicists have yet to approach, so a discussion there on that front will require much new thought and reading. That learning will be difficult, as physics considers mass is the axiom, and that physics as an axiom base is first in line in the axiom hierarchy; all of relativity theory and quantum mechanics and the standard model consider mass as the primary axiom ahead of numbers, ahead of consciousness.

So, to consider a universal axiom for philosophy, mathematics, and physics, one really needs to address where each discipline is at currently with its axioms, and in what hierarchy. Without addressing such one will find misinterpretations and associated angst. The stumbling block in all of this is physics dominating in interest with its regard of mass being the primary axiom for anything and everything. To be a philosopher and have the support of physics in defining an axiom for physics is nonetheless something to watch with interest.

M.U.E. Pohl , in continuing with my reply to Raphael Neelamkavil , back in 2017 I considered the idea of time being more than a simple arrow (more than an arrow derived from the relative motion of mass as proposed by Eistein) and set upon a quest of determining what the axiom for time is, and thence space. Scaling wasn't the issue as it is with your work, yet the axioms for time and space. Scaling is not the "measurement problem".

Scaling should not be an issue, as it is just scaling. The measurement problem though is something else, and really requires a number theory be formulated first and then scaled to physical reality, namely as philosophy-->mathematics-->physics. That's explained here: Preprint The zero-dimensional physical theory (I): solving reality's puzzle

In referring to your question specifically, from papers 1-4 (I think from the time of that online symposium, thanks for the link), although the axiom for time I presented which represented the golden ratio equation by derivation was very useful with how it could be applied to known physical scales and those associated physical phenomena equations, I was really looking for the axiom base for time and space, namely the zero-dimensional base, that could more thoroughly derive that proposed time-equation, together with being able to map the primes and thus solve the Riemann hypothesis using a fractal algorithm (golden ratio).

Here's a link to the anthology of the papers and associated chapters so far:

Book Zero Quantum Gravity: Temporal Mechanics & Zero-dimensional ...

Paper 43 was where the zero-dimensional idea came into play. Paper 48 then acknowledged the primary philosophical basis for an axiom, paper 49 the secondary number theory (mathematical) basis, and paper 50 the physical theory basis.

Raphael Neelamkavil , M.U.E. Pohl , paper 49 is interesting in how it tackled the ideas of infinite space and infinite time, described there as a scaling issue as the 0-infinity paradox. How that was resolved lead to the proposed solution to the Riemann hypothesis and Fermat's last theorem. The description there for Fermat's last theorem is considered more solid than Andre Wile's proposal, as here the idea of infinity is covered for all primes and thence all integers.

In short, juggling axioms between the disciplines becomes a mess if not for understanding how the disciplines should fit in an axiom hierarchy and why.

Dear Stephen Jarvis and Stephen Jarvis, Thanks for the comments.

When we speak about the convergence of primitive notions of all sciences and their consolidation by their origination from a common set of notions, I do not merely mean a philosophy of mathematics or a philosophy of physics.

The primitive notions of mathematics (not the axioms of any branch of mathematics) cannot be based merely on mathematics. This is clear from the time of Gödel. Nor am I speaking of the reduction of the mathematical or physical aspects of space and time or 0-space and 0-time. I am speaking about the notions that should be originative of the foundations of mathematical, physical, and other concepts.

Could you please take a look at my PDF document in my Researchgate page, namely, FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATICS PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE…? If you could express your ideas after reading those 3 pages, the discussion would have been better. I would welcome critiques. They are my academic food. But without seeing the basic material suggested, we will be traveling across on the same route, without ever meeting each other.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael Neelamkavil , thank you for suggesting that read. Having read, I am wondering if you are suggesting that "existence" is primary to the idea of an axiom. Is for instance with your work the idea of "nothing" for the dimensions of time and space, space as a point, and time as a moment, considered a part of existence, or are they non-existence? How do you define such clearly?

May I also ask, in your studies of philosophy how much did you read of Heidegger, namely his work "Being and Time" and also perhaps Sartre's "Being and Nothingness"?

Stephen Jarvis! Exactly, this is what I wanted from your pen.

I do not say that existence is the primary notion of mathematics. The primitive notions of mathematics, physics, etc. can be shown to have philosophically more foundational notions. And these must be derived from existence, because, first of all, we and the universe are existent, and existent entities / processes must have qualities (these are not physical properties, but much more fundamental than them). These qualities include 'being zero', 'being one', etc. too. These notions are not beings, not existents. They are just abstract qualities. Epistemologically, they are essences. Physical-Ontologically, they are ontological universals. All sorts of generalities that belong to existents are realities, but non-existent realities. They are instantiated in existents, and not in non-existents!

There are also purely ontological notions exhaustively and exclusively derived from the notion of existence. These are Extension and Change, of which space and time are merely epistemic (i.e., essence-level) measuremental notions. That is, we need not speak of the epistemic notions of space and time and their 0-dimensions as exclusively of mathematics or physics. They have their more foundational aspects in REASON IN GENERAL.

These fundamental notions, Extension, Change, various ontological universals, etc. are so fundamental to all science that without them there is no knowing.

I do think that you read the whole document. But perhaps not fully. Otherwise, you would have mentioned that I argued for Extension-Change being exhaustively the implications of the notion of existence.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael Neelamkavil , despite being read, I'm still not sure what your hierarchy is there though for extension-change, namely from my previous reply today about dimensional hierarchies. Extension in space as a process of temporal change is easy to understand, yet such is not an axiom. Could you clarify there.

Indeed, although you are now clarifying beyond your paper by my replies that 0D time and 0D space can be a part of existence, and thence extension and change are features from such, yet are you confirming that 0D for time and 0D for space are the most fundamental abstract qualities, or that they are derived qualities from something more fundamental and abstract? Such was and still is not clear with your work.

Heidegger and Sartre dive into such abstract notions with their works of Being and Time and Being and Nothingness respectively. Long reads though, highlighting the required lengths of description and detail required. To condense all of that one must find a rock-bottom charting mechanism. Ideally your work needs to reference others as a condensed proposal describing your innovating charting mechanism, and presented in a way that is related to the disciplines you seek to impress upon, namely presented in a way mathematicians and physicists consider appropriate. It's a real adjustment.

In ancient times, one could have been forgiven in saying a rock or pebble is the axiom of all reality. As we evolve, atoms become an axiom as self-evident building blocks. Yet the more we understand of physics the more we understand of the need to define what a point for space and moment in time are as mathematical constructs, and why such a determination is important especially in regard to the "measurement problem" physics knows all too well about. Physics has yet to approach zero-dimensionality as a number theory. Is philosophy willing to as a zero-dimensional philosophy?

This has become a very interesting discussion to me because the focus of the discussion seems to be on products of a human mind, perceptions of space and time, etc. For me the foundation is the nature of physics and mathematics and philosophy. How do they exist and what processes of that existing do they share. After that awareness, the means to clarify each and express their similarities would follow and become the contents of a volume in "meaning space" identified by appropriate words for this inquiry. The axioms would follow and would be based on present understanding that past awareness enables, not the authority of past developments.

I have reread your FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATICS PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE and find quite basic agreement in many respects except the relative important of existing and existence, my focus and yours. I shall follow the discussion, including many learned remarks from others taking part, and see what I can learn.

Incidentally, as quoted earlier in this discussion, "A path is formed by walking on it." I think the walking is kinetic energy with its companion potential energy, "existing" and "existence" of waveforms in nature. Even human thought generating ideas and labels partakes of the process including generating mathematics and philosophy. The "paths" we produce must remain vital, not brittle, even as axioms. Len

Dear Stephen Jarvis, you said: "Extension in space as a process of temporal change is easy to understand, yet such is not an axiom."

First of all, Extension and Change are not axioms, but they are only primitive notions. Secondly, I did not mention 'extension in space'. As if space were some thing! And temporal change as if time were some sort of a thing that changes! That is, these two that you spoke about are not at all easy to understand. Just have a look at what Leonard Hall wrote soon after you wrote! I find his comment more understanding towards what I said. This, of course, need not mean that he is correct and you are wrong. What I recommend is that you please do not read extension as extension in space and temporal change....

If we derive Extension and Change from the notion of existence as the only and thus exhaustive co-implications, they are then the most fundamental notions without which no positive science and philosophy can exist.

The case of mathematics is not so. It is based on universals. Of course, I did not mention all these details in the document because it was meant to be a starter. I have in fact written more than 190 pages, but need to complete at least 500 pages more, so that I can publish it as a 700 pages, 2 volume work. (If any research or job comes up on the way, the said 2 volumes will be kept aside for a few years.)

I do not understand anything about 0-D in space and time. These are not fundamental enough, in my opinion, to be foundational for mathematics and physics, because space and time are not ontological but epistemic. Extension is a quality of existent processes. Change is another, equally important, quality of existent processes. Hence, these two are ontological. The measure extension is space, not vice versa. The measure of change is time, not vice versa.

Now about 0-dimensionality of space and time as the suggested axioms or primitive terms or anything else of mathematics and physics: I do not find these as being of any importance so long as we need to converge all sciences (not amalgamate them into one) at their foundations. 0 will be spoken of, but not 0-dimension.

The latter will at the most only be a limit concept in physical science, but without direct foundation in mathematics. In mathematics we can speak only of the qualities of 'being one, two, three, etc.', which we quantify as various measured numbers. In short, universals as qualities can be quantified, and this is the function of mathematics. Basically they too are ontological qualities. In their measuremental form as space and time, they are represented ontologically as Extension and Change. These two are not axioms (i.e., are not like the atoms that you called axioms). These are primitive notions common to all positive sciences and philosophy. Math needs the pure notions of qualities that are universals that pertain to existent processes. And thereafter mathematics can sever them from their connection with existent processes. That is another matter.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael Neelamkavil , thank you for your detailed reply. I think you've highlighted the problem I spoke about yesterday, namely assumptions and definitions. Apologies thus for deliberately filling in gaps you did not describe in your 3 page paper, yet I was merely highlighting a problem you will face in showing work without sufficient detail.

As a side note, my own work into zero-dimensionality required over 1000 pages before defining 0 dimensionality for time and space. The philosophy of zero-dimensionality then required another 200 pages before introducing in paper 48. I think I've made over 500 unique references of the works of others in all the papers combined. At the end of the day though (many days it seems), the work may be recognized with the proof it proposes, proof physics will have trouble explaining because of the axioms it uses. This is presented in paper 53: Preprint The zero-dimensional physical theory (IV): zero-point field dynamics

Another issue you will face is that ideally your work needs to reference others as a condensed proposal describing your proposed interdisciplinary axiom charting mechanism, and presented in a way that is related to the disciplines you seek to impress upon, namely presented in a way mathematicians and physicists consider appropriate.

Thank you though for proposing this question, it's a good one.

Stephen Jarvis, the final paragraph of your comment just before 5 minutes is very good for me. I will work on that. I too need a lot of time. As I said, if I get a better job, I will have to accept it and go ahead. In that case, the proposed work will take years beyond it. But I am still a beginner in the area of the proposed work. Without sufficient consideration and at least one peer review I will not think of publishing a book.

If I need to take up further studies in math and physics, I will do that too, and then, maybe after years, resume the said work. Everything is possible.

Raphael Neelamakvil

Raphael Neelamkavil , not a problem. May I suggest though despite awarding a best response and the question solved that you keep this discussion open as it seems others (including Leonard Hall) are finding this an interesting debate which may then also assist with your own work in time.

Howdy Stephen Jarvis and Raphael Neelamkavil,

I agree! This is a good inquiry that takes us into the nature of Nature, including human nature that has created formal science, mathematics and philosophy. I appreciate the kind remarks about my answer and I look forward to further exploration.

On references: "Ideas and Opinions" by Albert Einstein, the section "The Problem of Space, Ether, and the Field in Physics" (from "Mein Weltbild") is worth reading a few pages for the impression one gets of his approach to nature and the expression of it. (https://archive.org/details/ideasopinions0000eins ) It's been half a century since I read it and the 1951 volume edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, "Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist," but I suggest observing his thoughts. Originals have value. Mathematical expressions of theories are good in their own right, but his worldview was formative for me (guidance, not control.)

Happy Trails, Len

Thanks, Leonard Hall. I have already read the book Mein Weltbild in English translation when I was a Bachelor student. And read many parts of Schilpp on Einstein.

Kindly tell me (if possible) your opinions about the replies I give to other scholars who comment on my questions and replies. It is all very helpful for me to get to think more. Similarly, I enjoy reading these comments by others. I have pleasure replying to them. First of all, I understand possible areas where I may have to take more caution and try to do things in such a way that my work will be wholesome enough. Secondly, my confidence increases.

The other day I showed one of the critical comments to a friend of mine. He said he wonders if I can write a reply to that critique. I wrote one, and asked him to read it. He was happy about what I wrote. He has begun to encourage me saying, Now I am convinced you can crack it and accomplish the proposed work.

My only worry is that I will need a few years of intensive work on the book, and I will have to move into further studies and work that are being offered to me. If I do accept them, I will have to prolong the work on the suggested "More Exact Mode of Philosophizing".

I wait and see.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Good morning Raphael Neelamkavil,

I have found your replies quite appropriate and aware of others validity. Our mutual respect may be boring to others, but it does extend to all. The flimsy cloud of present knowledge needs that. I have learned a great deal in explaining my thoughts to my wife, she listens well enough and what I must clarify in my mind to express it is very valuable. Similarly, discussions here inform from within, as well as from without through the valuable views of others . Actually, exploration in this form is a delight! Your friend's response is important, and your benefit from it is good. Interaction is valuable; over-confidence is deadly stuff.

On how long your work will take: I have read that Bernhard Riemann was vainly searching for someone to pick up his work as he was dying of tuberculosis. Marcel Grossmann was instrumental in assisting Albert Einstein the use of Riemannian geometry in General Relativity a lifetime later. Do what you can as well as you can, including a job, and allow your life to take its course. Worry is seldom accurate.

I discovered the following thought this morning (half-awake mimics an analyst's couch): Fresh perspective: perhaps the fundamental axioms are that axioms exist and that nature's many forms have natures.

Science, mathematics and philosophy are human products seeking to organize experience, including human thoughts. Humans extend and enrich the content of these products of mind spontaneously like a sneeze is spontaneous. The natures of nature's forms will have analogs that become secondary axioms with nominative words appropriate to each nature like cloud, flock, number, idea along with predicative words like convection, gregariousness, integral, thinking. The convergence potential of axioms lies in the analogs among the natures of nature.

Well, it's just a thought,

Len

Leonard Hall, thanks. I am aware of the theoretical state of mind of a person when he / she insists only on experimental-science-based definitions of universal qualities of existents in their groups (i.e., what you call the natures of nature). I usually do not condemn them. Even from their comments we get enough new insights and, at least, different ways of overcoming their criticism.

I am aware that if you set out not to follow quick-fix pragmatism I will normally do not get acceptance from the scientific community and institutions. But I want to do what I put my mind on, which are notions and arguments that appear after my having spent years and decades on the problems.

I will go ahead. Regards to your beloved wife. Keep healthy. If possible, drink daily a spoon of turmeric powder (curcuma) mixed in water -- if possible, in empty stomach. Do not forget to add to the solution some pepper powder equal to just 3 or 4 peppers. This will facilitate absorption into the body. I suggest this to ensure good blood circulation into the brain (and also to eject every chemical or anomalous element from the body). I do it daily.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael Neelamkavil, I seem to have challenged your course and I certainly did not intend that. I affirm your doing what you put your mind on using the notions and arguments that ring true to you. If I have interfered instead of helping I am truly sorry. My intent always is to enlarge awareness; I affirm others' choice to use only what is of value to them. I abhor "authorities" and the prison of "it is known that!" and hope never be experienced as a perpetrator of either.

Most people want something useful, especially administrators of the scientific community and institutions. I also decline that trap. I do not follow quick-fix pragmatism and find obsession with data and obvious explanations thereof injurious to understanding in depth.

However, you have in your FOUNDATIONS ... identification of extension and change along with universal causality as axioms. Convergence of primitive notions (Categories) and axioms for physics, mathematics and philosophy will not be accomplished by pure abstraction alone since those disciplines have definite characteristics. I was merely exploring a method of discovering the latter in the waking thought. If you have completed the connection in your larger writings such exploration is unnecessary, of course. In any case, no challenge was intended,

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall, thanks. I am happy that you recognize the larger intentions as worthy of pursuance.

The one misunderstanding that I wanted to point out is worth mentioning here again. For example, you wrote:

"However, you have in your FOUNDATIONS ... identification of extension and change along with universal causality as axioms. Convergence of primitive notions (Categories) and axioms for physics, mathematics and philosophy will not be accomplished by pure abstraction alone since those disciplines have definite characteristics."

I point out my divergence of opinion here. First of all, I do not identify Extension, Change, and Universal Causality as axioms. Extension-Change are primitive notions, which are useful to form axioms. Axioms are principles defined in a sentence form. Primitive notions are just concepts. Of course, any notion can be defined somehow, and may be called an axiom. But in that case there are no primitive notions at all...! Thus, even To Be may be formed as an axiom: To Be is To Be. But such are useless in any science.

I attempt to show (also in my 2018 book, Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pages) that Extension-Change can be the highest and exhaustive implications of To Be (existence, existing). I have shown this in a very simple manner in the 3-page document I mentioned today in the previous reply -- which see in my Researchgate page.

Now about abstractions. Abstractions are always abstractions, but not absolute abstractions. Even in the best of experimental sciences there are abstractions. Anything we utter is an abstraction in some sense, because we use ontological universals in it, in terms of their conceptualizations, which latter I call connotative universals, and which Husserl calls essences. If you see the general Schema of the work, you will realize that I do mean to do abstractions within the purview of Reality-in-total and reality-in-particular. This is why I bring in not merely philosophy, mathematics, etc., but also positive sciences.

These are my clarifications about the final paragraph in your comment. In fact, I profit from both appreciations and criticisms. Both give me the opportunity to rethink my work and concepts. Hence, I am not upset. I have only tried to express my reflections with respect to what you have written.

Thanks a lot for the wonderful contribution.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Dear Leonard Hall, please be sure: I feel wonderful to read your comments. In fact, you have been very positive of my suggestions and questions!

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael, Understood. All is well. Len

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil,

My succinct response was on a Samsung S10e, SloeMobile, I use when out-of-town. I do understand, including the contributions to my mistake. Perhaps others could benefit from the latter. I was a bit mystified by the implied equivalence of the philosophic technical terms "Primitive Notions" and "Categories" and I also was focused on the convergence of the axioms. I did not take the time to understand. As noted before, you are better versed in philosophy than I. I did not associate point and line, etc., in Euclid's "Elements" and the following definitions thereof with Primitive Notions, sigh, and I remain a bit mystified about Categories. I even considered the axioms in the "Elements" primitive notions (no capitals) within the meaning of the phrase for me. I am very pleased to have your clarification and details in your FOUNDATIONS ... also have clarified for me.

In view of my own thoughts about gravitation and cosmology I shall surely check out your 2018 book you referenced, after reading another couple thousands pages on turbulence, coherent structures and the dynamical systems theory being used nowadays to treat them. I have provided an answer to a ResearchGate question about flow reversal in a reverse flow cyclone separator for dust that I must improve a great deal. Fortunately, half-time is only 84 hours/week.

Happy Trails, Len

Thanks, Leonard Hall. My MA thesis was: "Physics without Metaphysics? Categories for Second Generation Scientific Ontology". Contained my own suggestions of 3 Categories for scientific ontologies and in general for all of philosophy. But today I call these Categories as meta-metaphysical Ideals, now that I have created some metaphysical Categories proper to the sciences.

Luckily for me, during the thesis proposal defense the Guide insisted that I be permitted any number of pages, even double the number of pages, instead of the normal highest limit of 120 pages. After much argument the dissertation committee permitted it. I wrote the work in 6 months, and thus submitted 252 pages or more in A4, 1.5 line distance.

With this background, I keep myself focused continuously on the axiomatization of philosophy and the sciences, but always based on Universal Causality. By now I am convinced of causal ubiquity even in quantum physics. Thus, my first PhD work was on this.

Now that I am already into some studies (another MA), and continuous correction work for PhD dissertations (to earn a living), and want to study further mathematics and physics soon, I will not have time to complete the work on Exact Philosophy in the near future. I cannot wait for writing this book in order to begin further studies! One is getting older! Hope to keep healthy and sound and take a plunge into writing a few books. I do already have at least 6 book projects in mind. Some of them will look strange. But I proceed towards one only after having a clear picture of the arguments myself, so much that if a prospective doctoral Guide wants to discuss the matter with me, I will be ready. Financing such studies is the only little problem. If I am to be promised financial assistance for 3 years per book as a doctoral or post-doctoral student, I will accomplish a solid, well-argued, thick work on each. Here is a description:

Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph. D., Dr. phil.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Raphael-Neelamkavil

https://cives-school.academia.edu/RAPHAELNEELAMKAVILPhDDrphilWorkingonGOUNDINGANALYTICSCIENTIFICANDPHENOMENOLOGICALMETAPHYSICS

I DEVELOP:

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology (GCC).

(2) Universal Causality and Freedom in Quantum Physics, Cosmology, Neuroscience & Metaphysics.

(3) Meta-Metaphysics-Based Processual, Analytic, and Phenomenological Metaphysics.

(4) Metaphysics of Artificial Intelligence and Mind.

I STUDY:

Math, Physics, Cosmology, Philosophy of Science, and Contemporary Metaphysics + Epistemology.

PUBLICATIONS (Print- / E-books):

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

FUTURE PROJECTS:

(1) Grounding Metaphysics of Natural, Exact, and Social Sciences and Analytic Philosophy:

(2) Cosmology of Possible Worlds Ontology.

(3) Reconciling Causality and Freedom: Minimal Metaphysical Physicalism and Panpsychism.

(4) Metaphysical and Cosmological Foundations of Phenomenology.

(5) Infinite-to-Finite Inter-dynamic Pan-en-theism: Transforming the Cosmology of Theism and Pantheism.

(6) Cosmology of the Soul: A Processual Argument.

(7) Reconciling Universal Causality and Human Freedom.

(8) Restructuring the Ultimate in Vedāntic and Buddhist Metaphysics and Epistemology (2 vols.).

ACADEMIC EXPERTISE: (a) Philosophy of Science, of Physics and of Cosmology, (b) Analytic, Process, Systemic, and Continental Metaphysics and Epistemology, (c) Philosophy of Mind and AI, (d) Philosophy of God, (e) Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic.

TEACHING EXPERIENCE: 10 Years, B.A.-Level: History of Western Philosophy (all epochs, detailed courses), Philosophy of Science and Cosmology, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Research Methodology, and English Phonetics (British).

HOBBIES: (1) Quality-improvement of Doctoral and Master's Dissertations (in English, German) in all areas of Western Philosophy, Humanities, Religion, and Indology, (2) Translation of serious philosophical works into English and German.

LANGUAGES: English, Malayāḷam, German (very fluent); Italian (fluent); Hindī, Marāṭhī, Tamiḷ (need conversation practice); Spanish, French (instrumental).

Dear Leonard Hall, if you have personal questions about what I do, my studies, etc., kindly send me a personal message. Our scientific discussions can of course continue at this questions session....

Raphael Neelamkavil

Dear Leonard Hall, As I wrote in my answer, the quote "I was very surprised by the topic of the discussion that you started on your own initiative. You provoke the audience with a question to accept mathematics, physics and philosophy as a single system of perception of the surrounding world. In your discussion, I advise you to refute the information from Morris Kline's book, "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty ". I do not think that your attempts will be successful".

Mathematics, unlike philosophy and physics, has not been subject to the laws of classical logic for a long time. It's not science anymore, it's theology. For many years, physics has been moving away from science in the same false direction. If you ask why the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the distance between the interacting masses, then most will answer you, "because the distance between the masses is in the denominator."

This is a disaster in physics. I expect a subsequent attack on philosophy as well. Perhaps it has already begun. Don't you really understand the inevitability of the coming catastrophe of the perception of natural science without applying the laws of mathematics and physics.? I really appreciate your scientific outlook. We are old and we don't have much time left. Think of children and grandchildren. Sincerely, Boris.

I think that it is extremely important in the process to highlight the main thing so that in catching ants you will not be eaten by a bear.

So, I found the main forces and managed to connect them in the process of the genesis of earthquakes. But there are even smaller corrections, as always in geophysics, which I found and which must be taken into account to improve accuracy, although even what has already been done was unattainable until the connections were found in the process.

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil, Thank You for clarifying "Categories" for me as I had been appropriately mystified. The sense of something fundamental was clear but their meaning was not. I also appreciate the biographical notes and clear focus on your world view in the titles you cite. I look people up here when I interact with them but some of it and the volume of your work has been clarified. As noted, I shall certainly look deeper in due course.

Howdy Borys Kapochkin, good to read from you and I appreciate your kind observations. My scientific outlook is simply that the universe is real, detailed, and generally beyond our comprehension. I have thought about it like the little boy noted on my Selected Works site watching clear and muddy trickles of water flow into muddy and clear puddles hoping to find the movie in my mind that could reproduce them, always requiring attachment to the real universe with everything available. I also have endeavored to express what I see by eye and by mind as well as I could. I have noted that for all past generations the children and grandchildren do well on the shoulders of their antecedents and while their directions are not the same they are directions. Life is self-healing and centers from each excess.

Old(?) William Cullen Bryant's "Thanatopsis" covers that well. I especially appreciate the end that I use for a frozen squash leaf: "Like one who wraps the drapery of his couch about him and lies down to pleasant dreams."

Sincerely, Happy Trails to you,

Len

P. S. I have been concerned that we may be boring people who have come here to read about Axiom Convergence, but knowing about the minds that source replies in discussion cannot be all bad. lfh

Howdy Alexandr Yagodin, What a delight! It's Raphael Neelamkavil's question and he gets the final reply, but I am delighted. Whatever one thinks, it is likely there is more to "it" than that. Len

Thanks, Leonard Hall and Alexandr Yagodin. I have had many new insights from the discussion on this topic, while reading the opinions and questions from you all and many more, and while I wrote my own responses to your interventions.

I have now more clarity as to how to make it possible to derive all sorts of mathematical objects and primitive notions. In fact, I was thinking of a slightly different manner of doing it. But now things are clearer. I thank all of you. Further comments are further expected from all.

Raphael Neelamkavil

I believe that the axioms should be derivable from the primitive notions as direct implications. I have spoken only of 2 primitive notions. But there is a hitch here. The primitive notions (Extension, Change) of a systemic science of sciences and philosophy are the direct and exhaustive implications of existence. But will it be possible to demonstrate that all the axioms derived from these and other primitive notions in the form of exhaustive implications? I do not think so. Here we have reason for perplexity. How to solve this problem? I believe there is no final solution for it. Maybe, we can make the axioms as universal and as applicable as possible. Nevertheless, better systems will appear. My faith is that existence (To Be, existing) can only have Extension and Change as the only, exhaustive, notional derivatives. The axioms in any system -- had in the future - will be different. My effort will be to render the damages as less as possible. We are humans....

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael Neelamkavil

"make the axioms as universal and as applicable as possible"

This must be the role of philosophy, which is not seen as having much of a role in human society at large.

Very true, Kurt Engelbert. This is the plight not merely of philosophers, but also of theoretical scientists. Of course, the latter are accepted slightly more than philosophers by common people. But both philosophers of science and theoretical scientists are sure that they are toiling for humanity. Hence, being perceived as having a role is not very important. Instead, whether the well-informed and reflective community yields a good amount of intersubjective acceptance and acclaim is a matter that counts. This takes time; hence the need to wait a long time, doing the work all along the way....

Raphael Neelamakvil

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil, your present focus is next: we have claimed "whether axioms" may be answered yes; "how axioms" is still difficult.

I returned to Euclid's "Elements," translated by Sir Thomas L. Heath. I find 22 generally accepted definitions with clear wording and even find that the 23rd definition specifies "in a plane." The fuss over spherical and pseudo-spherical geometry being "excluded" was not his fault. If I say that the cow I see in a field is brown, it is a mistake to claim I have said anything about the color of the sky. That positive and negative curvatures were only discovered and treated centuries later occurred because persons overextended the definition and limited discovery (it is known that . . .). Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss did not publish his discovery because it was dangerous to write such things, and the treatment of Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky and János Bolyai proved that it was dangerous when they published their work. Following the definitions there are five Postulates and then five Common Notions. The propositions begin with constructions.

Now, the issue of axioms derived and demonstrated from Primitive Notions may lie in the likelihood that we are stopped, unless your labels "Extension" and "Change" are accompanied by definitions as starting points to track what they enable and also what they constrain. You include such information in your FOUNDATIONS... when establishing their primacy. That information would be the basis of axioms that express consequences of the larger set of Primitive Notions behind the labels. Somewhere in his writings (I could not find where in my notes or online) Albert Einstein commented on Mathematical Formalism, that in science we need also units or some other contact with the world in our discipline for the results derived there to be useful to us. Also here with Extension and Change.

Some form of inversion of the derivation of primacy of Extension and Change would be in order for the rest of us, just to get us up to speed and perhaps resolve perplexity through the thoughts that such activity would trigger for you.

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall, I liked especially this statement of yours: "Now, the issue of axioms derived and demonstrated from Primitive Notions may lie in the likelihood that we are stopped, unless your labels "Extension" and "Change" are accompanied by definitions as starting points to track what they enable and also what they constrain." This is what I will try to do.

One defect of the 3 pages document "FOUNDATIONS ..." is that I did not add there further primitive notions. I limited it to the first 2, because practically very few will read an elaborate document. This has been my experience. As the discussion progresses, let me try to add also a few more of them and upload a document of less than 10 pages.

The attempt of Euclid (and non-Euclidean mathematicians) is very much limited to the construction of the pertinents of existents. Numbers and forms (e.g., geometrical points) as quantitative have given rise to the notion that formal entities exist. In fact, these formal entities should be treated as "as-if" entities. In that case, we need to find the source of these notions within existents and their Extension and Change as non-existent but pertinent entities.

It is when, as a very young post-school student-amateur I read about strings theory in some science journals for students, that I was impressed by the need to go beyond numbers and points.

The process of existents must somehow be connected with the formal procedures connected presupposed by mathematical entities and structures. If math (and even logic) are not based merely on these abstract entities but on non-existent but existents-related ("pertinent") "structures", then points and numbers will only be structures at their lowest possible limit.

I will proceed in this manner, and if other manners of thought present themselves, I am always enthusiastic to absorb them and try further...

Good night!

Raphael Neelamkavil

The physicist Hermann Weyl attempted to base Relativity on firm conceptual foundations. He went beyond what was then (and even today) used to be called physical foundations. Einstein not only approved his efforts but also prescribed Weyl's work as meticulous and conceptually most satisfying. He also appreciated the broad foundations from which Weyl derived mathematical and physical results in Relativity.

But even after Einstein literally being a fan of Weyl, many physicists disregarded Weyl. Not because they would not agree with him, but because they did not have the philosophical knowledge and the desire to embark on the conceptually satisfying foundations of physics.

When we attempt to bring out (1) not merely a positivistic analysis (2) nor a linguistic and mathematical justification of whatever physicists think that the foundations of physics are, but (3) a re-deepening of the very concepts of space, time, matter, energy, causation, conservation, physical truth, etc. -- there is all chance that the attempt fails and carried very little weight for physics and other sciences, and also for the philosophy of the sciences.

But why not make an attempt? Seminal attempts have already been done in the form of published books in the philosophy of physics. Now we need to go beyond the positivist, pragmatic, mathematical-instrumentalist sort of -isms on the foundations of physics. We have tried them enough!

Raphael Neelamkavil

I forgot to mention an important matter here as I discussed Weyl: His was one of the first unifications of the electromagnetic theory and the theory of relativity.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Yes, that insight was important. It may be of value to a reader for me to acknowledge bewilderment for some time about Weyl's use of an affine mapping to enlarge his mathematical laboratory to one in which unification was possible. I tried to see electromagnetic theory in his affine mapping extension and it didn't compute. Then recently after several years of development starting from the unification that Weyl conceived, a professor here at USU has formulated an even larger mathematical laboratory using bi-conformal mapping. Like a first class chemical laboratory which includes a section wherein almost any specific research problem may be studied, his bi-conformal mapping space is able to support research in many areas of modern physics. I am patient, what's a few decades if one finally comprehends. (James T. Wheeler must have the last word on my observation about his work - I have expressed it to him without his objecting so far.)

This laboratory image brings us back to the core of your question, Raphael Neelamkavil, another view of it is to ask "what is the volume of meaning space with suitable coordinate axes in which primitive notions and axioms for science, mathematics and philosophy are contained and converge?" Well, as is so often the case, just a thought - I call it a philosopher leak due to bad gaskets.

Happy Trails, Len

Thanks, Leonard Hall. I hope to do it later also in the capacity of a mathematician and physicist. For the time, I try something more philosophical on the foundations, and thereafter enter the field via math and physics for finer details. Hope so. But the conceptual Categories will naturally be just generally rational, i.e., philosophical, by keeping in mind the mathematical and physical aspects.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Many mathematicians and physicists have tried to axiomatize their respective disciplines. They have had many successes. My attempt is to discover the possibly best Categories (primitive notions) and axioms that might help found the sciences, mathematics, and philosophy together. I would call it Exact Philosophy (not Exact Math or Exact Physics).

Raphael Neelamkavil

Good Morning, Raphael Neelamkavil,

You are the only one of you we will ever have to sense the best Categories in your mind and their expression for us, however constrained by communication. We may enrich what your mind includes by discussion, but the insight will come from within. To be conscious of thought is usually misleading and creates the impression that it produces insight. Wrong! Archimedes ran down the street shouting "Eureka!" (per popular legend) in response to the "a-Ha! syndrome - the whole bloomed in his mind from within and his consciousness was thereby informed - after the fact. Each of your efforts to express your attempts to discover, for instance "Exact Philosophy," is part of surface support for the inner growth of the necessary awareness. The awareness will be non-verbal and expression in any language will be an interesting problem when it surfaces. (Hence poets.)

(Please excuse that I write in declarative sentences as if I were right. It is convenient to do so and less verbose. I intend only to offer opinions to be considered, not truths.)

Happy Trails, Len

Thanks, Leonard Hall. Now that I am constrained with further work (correction of a few doctoral works), I produce less in terms of work towards the research projects. But reflections go on.

Strangely, for decades now, I get good ideas when I sit in the train or bus, or during bath. And I write them down. I hope to put these together and cite from experts too.

Raphael Neelamkavil

One wonders given the history of philosophy, and how all the great scientists of yesteryear were actually philosopher scientists, greats like Galileo and Newton, that most in physics/science presume Einstein to have already won the gold medal of pan-discipline philosophy?

The question here therefore is how far does a philosopher consider they can formulate the idea of a primitive notion or axiom shared with other disciplines without carrying the philosophical tenets of Einstein given the presupposition of Einstein being correct?

If by chance Elstein is verbally literate in trying to explain with words what he sees yet not mathematically correct there in that execution of words, would that change a "universal axiom" idea here in using Einstein as a philosopher code for a general pan-discipline axiom?

Has there been anyone who said that Einstein's work should be the final axiomatic basis for all science and philosophy?

Raphael Neelamkavil

I believe that the invariants of physics are not the quantities or proportionalities of certain quantities. The latter are called constants. But we need invariants that are non-quantities. These invariants then are qualitative. If they apply to all physical processes, they are universal. These would behave as the primitive notions that underlie all of physics and other sciences.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Howdy Stephen Jarvis and Raphael Neelamkavil,

I have been waiting for additional responses, especially to Stephen's observations.

The present paradigm that is working well enough to earn a living will remain in place until a better one is proven, then the current gold-medal awardee will be acknowledged with a "gold watch" and replaced. It is very natural for many life forms in our world to do so, and wise. Sir Isaac Newton was overused by the advocates of the age of reason to the point that George Berkeley (Bishop of Cloyne of the Anglican Church of Ireland) made a strong effort to broaden awareness of the world that was being squeezed into too small a volume in meaning space. (My version - apologies to Bishop Berkley if appropriate.) I see Raphael's expression of the importance of "qualitative invariant" in a similar light. A firm result that we can use is essential as a final result, but the path must include Dan'l Boone wilderness moments - never lost, but mighty bewildered for days at times.

Strike gold - better stand aside! We were camping. Hornets were around searching. I had choke cherry jelly on a waffle that a hornet found. It stayed for over a minute working on the jelly, its abdomen extending and retracting like a concertina. Then it flew up several inches, flew in a level complete circle, and flew away. The signs were clear. I placed the waffle and jelly on the picnic table, and watched as hornets came by for a snack, usually just one at a time but there were many visits in the next hours. Einstein's equation called "General Relativity" worked and still works with credit granted to him.

If you were to glance at my 3.13 AM 26 March 2022 piece on "Whence Insight" you would find support for Raphael's question about who is responsible, although I have little influence. Albert Einstein, on his own not what is claimed about him, sought to express with great clarity characteristics of an existing world. I have found terrible instances of scientists, and especially academics, in all ages who limit reality to what has been proven, and for which there exist equations. "The event did not occur until some human observed the outcome" does not ring true for a "real universe." Albert Einstein is my choice for Philosopher-Scientist like the earlier persons Stephen has noted. There will be new ones.

Happy Trails, Len

P. S. "Meaning Space" Imagine an excellent translator versed in two languages who is a capable writer. There is a paragraph in a language that he will translate. He reads it. The words, phrases, idioms, nuances of meaning in the original are values on axes specifying a "volume in meaning space" which he comprehends as the original paragraph. As a capable writer, he expresses the content of that volume with values on the axes appropriate to the second language. It is rare that the second description be perfect because languages differ, and there is still comprehension in the mind of the individual reading the translation. However, the "volume in meaning space" is exact in my view. Of course, there are probably details of it in the mind of the original author that he could not express perfectly in his language, either. Communication is difficult. lfh

Thanks, Leonard Hall. I pursue the ideas as and when I get time. These discussions give me enough opportunity to think further.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Stephen Jarvis added an answer

November 14, 2022

"One wonders given the history of philosophy, and how all the great scientists of yesteryear were actually philosopher scientists, greats like Galileo and Newton, that most in physics/science presume Einstein to have already won the gold medal of pan-discipline philosophy?

The question here therefore is how far does a philosopher consider they can formulate the idea of a primitive notion or axiom shared with other disciplines without carrying the philosophical tenets of Einstein given the presupposition of Einstein being correct?

If by chance Elstein is verbally literate in trying to explain with words what he sees yet not mathematically correct there in that execution of words, would that change a "universal axiom" idea here in using Einstein as a philosopher code for a general pan-discipline axiom?"

Dear Stephen Jarvis,

In fact, I had forgotten to reply in detail on that day. Just now I had a look, and here it is:

True, Galileo, Newton, Einstein etc. have tried from within their possibilities. Now I think the world progresses, and along with it also the facilities in conceptual re-deepening. Hence, it is important to rethink the basic Categories of all thought and Reality.

Maybe, it is possible to bring up further unifications at least of the basic categories of science.... As you know, there are some common scientific categories that all seem to accept as universal.

MATHEMATICAL CONTINUITY IN NATURE Vs. CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN (PARTIALLY) DISCRETE "PROCESSUAL" OBJECTS. (Have patience to read till the end.)

Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature is a mere idealization. It expects nature to obey our idealization. This is what happens in all physical and cosmological (and of course other) sciences as long as they use mathematical idealizations to represent existent objects and processes.

But mathematically following nature in whatever it is in its part-processes is a different procedure in science and philosophy (and even in the arts and humanities). This theoretical attitude accepts the existence of processual entities as what they are.

This theoretical attitude accepts in a highly generalized manner that

(1) mathematical continuity (in any theory and in terms of any amount of axiomatization of physical theories) is totally non-realizable in nature as a whole and in its parts: because the necessity of mathematical approval in such a cosmology falls short miserably,

(2) absolute discreteness (even QM type, based on the Planck constant) in the physical cosmos (not in non-quantifiable “possible worlds”) and its parts is a mere commonsense compartmentalization (from the "epistemology of box-type thinking" -- Ruth Edith Hagengruber, Uni-Paderborn): because the aspect of the causally processual connection between any two quanta is logically and mathematically alienated in the physical theory of Planck’s constant, and

(3) hence, the only viable and thus the most reasonably generalizable manner of being of the physical cosmos and of biological entities is that of CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS.

PHYSICS and COSMOLOGY even today tend to make the cosmos mathematically either continuous or defectively discrete or statistically oriented to epistemically logical decisions and determinations. Can anyone suggest here the existence of a different sort of physics and cosmology until today? A topology and mereology of CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS, fully free of discreteness-oriented category theory and functional analysis, is yet to be born. Hence, causality in its deep roots in the very concept of To Be is yet alien to physics and cosmology till today.

LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY and even its more recent causalist child, namely, DISPOSITIONALIST ONTOLOGY are (1) overly discrete about “entities” without clearly reconciling the geometrical tendency to make every physical representation continuous, (2) comatose about the impossibility of linguistically definitional approach to the logical demands of existent physical objects without first analyzing and resolving the metaphysical implications of existent objects being irreducibly in EXTENSION and CHANGE, and (3) unable to get at the causally continuous nature of the partially discrete processual objects in the physical world.

PHENOMENOLOGY has done a lot to show the conceptual structures of ordinary reasoning, physical reasoning, mathematical and logical thinking, and reasoning in the human sciences. But due to its lack of commitment to building a physical ontology of the cosmos and its purpose as a research methodology, phenomenology has failed to show the nature of causal continuity (instead of mathematical continuity) in the only physically existent objects, namely processually discrete objects, in nature.

HERMENEUTICS has just followed the human-scientific aspect of Husserlian phenomenology and projected it. Hence, it was no contender to accomplish the fete.

POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHIES qualified all science and philosophy as being perniciously cursed to be “modernistic” – by thus monsterizing all compartmentalization, rules, laws, axiomatization, discovery of regularities in nature, logical rigidity, etc. as an insurmountable curse of knowing and as a synonym for all that are unapproachable in science and thought.

THE PHILOSOPHIES OF THE SCIENCES seem today to follow the beaten paths of linguistic-analytic philosophy, physics, mathematics, and logic, which lack a FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPT OF CAUSALLY PROCESSUAL PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematical_Continuity_in_Nature_Vs_Causal_Continuity_between_Partially_Discrete_Processual_Objects_Have_patience_to_read_till_the_end

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil,

Doctors have patience, and I have read your post through three times - a few sentences more than that.

"It expects nature to obey our idealization." Humans are efficient and we proceed with working methods until something causes reflection. It is important that "something causes reflection" frequently, because the past, present AND FUTURE history of science is improvement, replacing inadequate "solutions."

"This theoretical attitude accepts the existence of processual entities as what they are." Well, yes, but I prefer "as what WE THINK they are FOR THE MOMENT."

". . . because the aspect of the causally processual connection between any two quanta is logically and mathematically alienated in the physical theory of Planck’s constant, . . ." I'll have to think about this, especially in the face of entanglement and specifications "in the physical theory."

". . .the only viable and thus the most reasonably generalizable manner of being of the physical cosmos and of biological entities . . ." I worry about any confidence that we know enough to make so strong an assertion. I an imagine a chemist advocating "phlogiston" in combustion saying, "What else could it be?" I asked whether breaking gravity waves did explain the temperature of the mesopause in the atmosphere and got that response, "What else could it be?" Well, . . .

Your post reminds me of Max Born's Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance, The Waynflete Lectures in 1949, which brings up chance. Now, my personal sense of the world does not affirm the QM version of chance or probability, and I tend to sense nature like Albert Einstein, BUT I do not have a better explanation of some measurements than QM describes, and entanglement is pretty hard to ignore these days, so I must wonder where in CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS is entanglement covered? Your "partially discrete processual objects" appeal to me in view of my concept of "indiscrete objects" that have integrity and physical interaction beyond an apparent "surface." I see "causal continuity" in interaction of these objects also, so we have a basic agreement in meanings of our words, but are we right? will Nature agree?

Else, you are far more knowledgeable than I in the other fields you have noted and I'll just take that information under advisement. I do agree that a FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPT OF CAUSALLY PROCESSUAL PHYSICAL EXISTENCE is lacking in science, but then, results of efforts to find one keep changing. Aristotle did seem to have one, didn't he? He was wrong about rockets, but rocks fell, wood floated, the Heavens moved, etc. What am I missing?

Happy Trails, Len

Leonard Hall, it is a pleasure to read your comments. Thanks.

For the time, I would express only one simple "difference" of opinion about one statement of yours: "BUT I do not have a better explanation of some measurements than QM describes, and entanglement is pretty hard to ignore these days, so I must wonder where in CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS is entanglement covered?"

I suggest that the technological advances by use of entanglement are based on the ways of manipulation of the "phenomenon" of manipulation based fully at the level of effects of luminal communication. So long as we have the capacity to bring about luminal level communication manoeuvering, humanity will have successes by use of entanglement.

But this need not mean that there are no causally trans-luminal communications between the two formerly-entangled but later-separated wavicles that are involved in the measuremental tangle in the EPR experiments!

I feel sure that you will approve the possible level of causality and the possible existence of a spectrum of values of superluminal velocities in appropriate universes or even in our own universe.

The only problem is that the use of c as the criterial velocity in the Lorentz factor in STR and GTR confounds us with the prescription that anything measured under the criterion of luminal velocity "PROVES" the criterial nature of the same luminal velocity!

This is a matter that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen could very well have told us if they were to return to life today. But those physicists who absolutize and infinitize the power of mathematics in physics and thus rest assured that the mathematics says it all, cannot understand this!

I AM FORMULATING A REVISION OF MY COMMENTS OF A FEW HOURS AGO. I shall soon contribute the new version. Maybe tomorrow. I believe things will be clearer in it.

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil,

I have enjoyed the enrichment afforded by your comments as well. I await your revisions with interest. You may wish to glance at my Q&A offering "How is entanglement in non-local events effected? " in the meantime. You will find that I consider the topic to be a possible opening to a larger worldview and suggest something like super-luminal velocities in internal communication of entanglement itself.

I hope my sense that we're on Newton's beach playing with pebbles, or watching waves playing with pebbles, is not causing problems. A weird view that occurs to me on occasion is that we are jumping from hummock to hummock in a swamp with quicksand, and portions of Pilgrim's Progress apply all too well. I prefer Newton's "ocean of truth" to be honest about it.

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy,

Just an offering for the value(?) of it from another thread [Selected short subjects?]:

"In Ray Bradbury's work 'Medicine for Melancholy' he includes a prose movie of Pablo Picasso sketching a mural in the moist sand of a long beach as the tide is coming in - just like the 'then current' theories in science presented by academics as truth, the foaming edges of the waves wash the mural away - new paradigms replace old and the human creation of science is adjusted. It is not 'nature' even now.

"M. C. Escher's 'Metamorphosis' is a great contribution to defined elements fitted together perfectly into a closed, consistent, unnatural whole. Rigorous, however independent of nature, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT that humans and their imagination are natural. I disagree with the separation of "artificial" from natural, except as a verbal convenience."

Also: "affliction of confidence." Enjoy.

Happy Trails, Len

Leonard Hall, thanks. Since you expressed your thoughts differently, I am not sure if I understood. Or, did you mean it ironically? I do not know!

MATHEMATICS AND CAUSALITY:

A SYSTEMIC RECONCILIATION

Raphael Neelamkavil

What are the bases of the problem of incompatibility of causality with mathematics and its applications? I suggest that it is the dichotomy between mathematical continuity and discreteness on the one hand and the incompatibility of applying any of them directly on the data collected / collectible from some layers of phenomena from some layers of nature. I clearly point at the avoidance, by expressions like ‘from some layers of phenomena from some layers of nature’, of the centuries of epistemological foolishness, because this is the point at which phrases and statements involving ‘data from observation’, ‘data from phenomena’, ‘data from nature’ etc. are very gross, without epistemological and ontological astuteness.

If causal continuity between partially discrete “processual” objects is the case, then the data collected / collectible cannot be the very processual objects or provide all knowledge about the processual objects. But mathematics and all other research methodologies are based on human experience and thought based on experience. Hence, it is important to define the limits of applicability of mathematics to the physics of data is the only way to approximate beyond the data and the methodologically derived conclusions beyond the data.

The same may be said also about logic and language. Logic is the broader rational picture of mathematics. Language is the symbolic manner of application of both logic and its quantitatively qualitative version, namely, mathematics, with respect to specific fields of inquiry. Here I do not explicitly discuss ordinary conversation, literature, etc. We may do well to instantiate logic as the formulated picture of reason. But reason is limited to the procedures of reasoning by brains. What exactly is the reason that existent physical processes undergo? How to get at conclusion based on but beyond data and methods? If we may call the universal reason of Reality-in-total with a name, it is nothing but Universal Causality.

How to demonstrate this as the case? ((To be developed further.))

A caveat is in place here: When I write anything here, you have the right to ask me constantly for further justifications. And if I have the right to anticipate some such questions, I will naturally attempt to be as detailed and as systemic as possible in my formulation. Each sentence is merely a part of the formulation. After reading each sentence you may pose me questions, which certainly cannot all be answered well within the sentences or after the sentences in question.

Hence, I tend to be as systemic as possible in each of the following sentences. Please do not accuse me of being too complex in my expressions. Your (and our) mathematics, physics, and logic can be very complex and prohibitive for some. But would we all accuse these disciplines or the readers if the readers find them all complex and difficult? I do not create such a state of affairs in these few sentences, but there are complexities here too. Hence, I express my helplessness in case any one of you finds these statements complex.

Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature is a mere idealization. It expects nature to obey our merely epistemic idealization where processes outside are vaguely presented primarily by the processes themselves in a natural manner, represented by the epistemic activity of the brain in a natural manner, and idealized via concepts expressed in words and sentences by the symbolizing human tendency to capture the whole of the object by use of a part of the human body-mind. The symbolizing activity is based on data, but the data are not all we have.

Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature as a natural conclusion by application of mathematics to nature is what happens in all physical and cosmological (and of course other) sciences insofar as they use mathematical idealizations to represent existent objects and processes. Logic and its direct quantitatively qualitative expression as found in mathematics are powerful tools. But, as being part of the denotative function of symbolic language, they are tendentially idealizational. By use of the same symbolizing tendency, it is perhaps possible to a certain extent to de-idealize the same symbols in the language, logic, and mathematics being used to symbolically idealize representations.

Merely mathematically following physical nature in whatever it is in its part-processes is a debilitating procedure in science and philosophy (and even in the arts and humanities), if this procedure is not de-idealized effectively. If this is possible at least to a small and humble extent, why not do it? Our language, logic, and mathematics too do their functions although they too are equally unable to capture the whole of reality in whatever it is, wholly or in in parts, too far beyond the data and their interpretations!

This theoretical attitude of partially de-symbolizing the effects of human symbolizing activity by use of the same symbolic activity accepts the existence of processual entities as whatever they are. Perhaps such a generalization can give a slightly better concept of reality than is possible by the normally non-self-aware symbolic activity in language, logic, and mathematics!

This theoretical attitude facilitates and accepts in a highly generalized manner the following three points:

(1) Mathematical continuity (in any theory and in terms of any amount of axiomatization of logical, mathematical, physical, biological, social, and linguistic theories) is totally non-realizable in nature as a whole and in its parts: because (a) the necessity of mathematical approval of any sort of causality in such a cosmology and by means of its systemic physical ontology falls short miserably in actuality, and (b) logical continuity of any kind does not automatically make symbolized representation activity adequate enough to represent the processual nature of entities as derivate from data.

(2) Absolute discreteness in nature, which, as of today, is ultimately of quantum-mechanical type based on Planck’s constant, continues to be a mathematical and physical misfit in the physical cosmos and its parts (may not of course be so in non-quantifiable “possible worlds” due to their absolute causal disconnection) and is a mere common-sense mathematical compartmentalization: (1) because the aspect of the causally processual connection between any two quanta is logically and mathematically alienated in the physical theory of Planck’s constant, and (2) by reason of the “epistemology of box-type thinking” (see Ruth Edith Hagengruber, Uni-Paderborn) implied by the non-self-aware symbolic activity of body-minds.

(3) Hence, the only viable and thus the most reasonably generalizable manner of being of the physical cosmos and of biological entities is that of existence in an extended (having parts) and changing (extended entities and their parts impacting a finite number of others in a finite amount) manner. Existence in Extension-Change-wise manner is nothing but causation. Thus, every existent is causal. There is no minute measuremental iota of time wherein such causal existing ceases in any existent. this is CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS.

The attitude of treating everything as causal my also be characterized by the self-aware symbolic activity by symbolic activity itself, in which certain instances of causation are avoided or increased or avoided incrementally. This is at the most what may be called freedom. It is fully causal, but causal not in a specific set of manners and causal in some other specific set of manners.

PHYSICS and COSMOLOGY even today tend to make the cosmos either (1) mathematically presupposedly continuous, or (2) discrete with defectively ideal mathematical status for continuity and with perfectly geometrical ideal status for specific beings, or (3) statistically indeterministic, thus considered partially causal, or even considered non-causal in the interpretation of statistics’ orientation to epistemically logical decisions and determinations based on data. If not, can anyone suggest proofs for an alleged existence of a different sort of physics and cosmology until today?

A topology and mereological physical ontology of CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS, fully free of discreteness-oriented category theory, geometry, functional analysis, set theory, and logic, are yet to be born. Hence, the fundamentality of Universal Causality in its deep roots in the very concept of the To Be (namely, in the physical-ontological Categories of Extension and Change) of all physically and non-vacuously existent processes, is yet alien to physics and cosmology till today.

LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY and even its more recent causalist child, namely, DISPOSITIONALIST CAUSAL ONTOLOGY (1) attribute an overly discrete nature to “entities” without ever attempting to touch the deeply Platonic (better, geometrically atomistic) shades of common-sense Aristotelianism, Thomism, Newtonianism, Modernism, Quantum Physics, etc., and without reconciling the diametrically opposite geometrical tendency to make every physical representation continuous, (2) logically comatose about the impossibility of linguistically definitional approach to the processual demands of existent physical objects without first analyzing and resolving the metaphysical implications of existent objects irreducibly being in finite EXTENSION and CHANGE, and (3) hence, unable to get at the CAUSALLY CONTINUOUS (neither mathematically continuous nor geometrically discontinuous) nature of the physical-ontologically “partially discrete” processual objects in the physical world.

PHENOMENOLOGY has done a lot to show the conceptual structures of ordinary reasoning, physical reasoning, mathematical and logical thinking, and reasoning in the human sciences. But due to its lack of commitment to building a physical ontology of the cosmos and due to its purpose as a research methodology, phenomenology has failed to an extent to show the nature of causal continuity (instead of mathematical continuity) in physically existent, processually discrete, objects in nature.

HERMENEUTICS has just followed the human-scientific interpretative aspect of Husserlian phenomenology and projected it as a method. Hence, it was no contender to accomplish the said fete.

POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHIES qualified all science and philosophy as being perniciously cursed to be “modernistic” – by thus monsterizing all compartmentalization, rules, laws, axiomatization, discovery of regularities in nature, logical rigidity, etc. as an insurmountable curse of the human project of knowing and as a synonym for all that are unapproachable in science and thought. The linguistic-analytic philosophy in later Wittgenstein too was no exception to this nature of postmodern philosophies – a matter that many Wittgenstein followers do not notice. Take a look at the first few pages of his Philosophical Investigations, and the matter will be more than clear.

THE PHILOSOPHIES OF THE SCIENCES seem today to follow the beaten paths of extreme pragmatism in linguistic-analytic philosophy, physics, mathematics, and logic, which lack a FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPT OF CAUSALLY CONCRETE AND PROCESSUAL PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.

Hence, it is useful for the growth of science, philosophy, and humanities alike to research into the CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE “PROCESSUAL” OBJECTS.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematical_Continuity_in_Nature_Vs_Causal_Continuity_between_Partially_Discrete_Processual_Objects_Have_patience_to_read_till_the_end

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil,

A quick response on my thoughts: No irony, just images seeking to illustrate my underlying sense of our endeavors as "mid-stream" in knowledge. In my opinion we are more ignorant of the universe and its contents than we are knowledgeable. That was Newton's point about pebbles on a beach of the ocean of truth.

In Plato's "Timaeus" it "stood to reason" that spherical humans caused so much trouble that "the gods" split them, thereby explaining hard back - soft belly and desire to join again. I like to keep up front that modern thought is not that far away from like questionable conclusions, however well they "stand to reason" nowadays.

I affirm and shall support in any way that I can your efforts to formulate a Philosophy of Science that improves human progress. There are a large number of parallel efforts ongoing as we write with some measure of value in each. Some are "more equal" than others. I find I need to stand back from my own ideas as well as the ideas of others because the "affliction of certainty" is addictive.

Incidentally, in John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, the "true path" had been written (with controversy) and one could tell when Pilgrim was going astray. In science the true path is not actually clear despite great confidences in the many paths traveled. But, paths are formed by walking on them, and some paths have proven to be of value. I strongly support allowing persons to explore their own path since we really do not know what Science will be like in 2323.

No irony, just trying to communicate. I'll look into MATHEMATICS AND CAUSALITY: A SYSTEMIC RECONCILIATION next.

Happy Trails, Len

All the activities of human science are implicitly formed in the most advanced field of philosophy! Because philosophy has always raised the most general questions, and the first motive of scientific effort is to know the world! The practical and technological achievements resulting from scientific endeavors are a secondary prize for scientific endeavor, and getting closer to knowing the world is still the best prize for true scientists! So, aren't philosophers, mathematicians, physicists, etc. focused on breaking the goal?

Thanks a lot., Leonard Hall.

On the other side, in another session (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematics_and_Causality_A_Systemic_Reconciliation#view=64453e2ef3c9b1d28a0d4ac5/1), one person has said things that I never imagined, just to criticize! He made a lot of effort to repeat his own sentences!

Seyed Mohammad Mousavi, very good response. Thanks.

No. These are separate and distinct paradigms. They form a gestalt. This gestalt is reality.

I believe it is common knowledge that mathematics and its applications cannot prove causality directly. What are the bases of the problem of incompatibility of physical causality with mathematics and its applications in the sciences and in philosophy? The main but general explanation could be that mathematical explanations are not directly about the world but are applicable to the world to a great extent. Hence, mathematical explanations can at the most only show the ways of movement of the processes and not demonstrate whether the ways of the cosmos are by causation.

No science and philosophy can start without admitting that the cosmos exists. If it exists, it is not nothing, not vacuum. Non-vacuous existence means that the existents are non-vacuously extended. This means they have parts. Every part has parts too, ad libitum, because each part is extended. None of the parts is an infinitesimal. They can be near-infinitesimal. This character of existents is Extension, a Category directly implied by To Be.

Similarly, any extended being’s parts are active, moving. This implies that every part has impact on some others, not on infinite others. This character of existents is Change. No other implication of To Be is so primary as these. Hence, they are exhaustive.

Existence in Extension-Change is what we call Causality. If anything is existent, it is causal – hence Universal Causality is the trans-science physical-ontological Law of all existents. By the very concept of finite Extension-Change-wise existence it becomes clear that no finite space-time is absolutely dense with existents. Hence, existents cannot be mathematically continuous. Since there is change and transfer of impact, no existent can be absolutely discrete in its parts or in connection with others.

Can logic show the necessity of all existents being causal? We have already discussed how, ontologically, the very concept of To Be implies Extension-Change and thus also Universal Causality.

What about the ability or not of logic to conclude to Universal Causality? In my argument above and elsewhere showing Extension-Change as the very exhaustive meaning of To Be, I have used mostly only the first principles of ordinary logic, namely, Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, and then argued that Extension-Change-wise existence is nothing but Universal Causality if everything existing is non-vacuous in existence. For example, does everything exist or not? If yes, let us call it non-vacuous existence. Hence, Extension as the first major implication of To Be. Non-vacuous means extended, because if not extended the existent is vacuous. If extended, everything has parts.

A point of addition now has been Change. It is, so to say, from experience. Thereafter I move to the meaning of Change basically as motion or impact. Naturally, everything in Extension must effect impacts. Everything has further parts. Hence, by implication from Change, everything causes changes by impacts. Thus, we conclude that Extension-Change-wise existence is Universal Causality. It is thus natural to claim that this is a pre-scientific Law of Existence.

In such foundational questions like To Be and its implications we need to use the first principles of logic, because these are the foundational notions of all science and no other derivative logical procedure comes in as handy. In short, logic with its fundamental principles can help derive Universal Causality. Thus, Causality is more primary to experience than the primitive notions of mathematics.

You may like the new discussion session: GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX. It is the kernel of an idea on which I have reflected more than 35 years by now, have presented arguments to some cosmologists, and have got support.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP

Richard Marker: One more point:

So far we have been speaking of the various laws of science / natural laws. Just one among them was causality. Now, if the very physical existence is Extension-Change-wise, and if Extension-Change-wise existence is itself Causality, then every existent must be causal. This is Universal Causality, and it becomes a pre-scientific Law. I call it a metaphysical / physical-ontological Law because IT IS THE LAW OF THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF BEING TAKEN AS PHYSICALLY EXISTENT. Extension and Change are the only and the exhaustive meanings of To Be. In that case, these two Categories must have a superior Categorial position in both philosophy and the sciences.

DOES LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY HAVE ANYTHING SO FOUNDATIONAL AS THESE? ANY FUNDAMENTAL CATEGORIES LIKE THESE? OR THE PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENCE HAVE HAD ANYTHING LIKE THEM?

I have revised the basic text of the following discussion substantially:

Criteria to Differentiate between Virtuals and Existents in Scientific Theories

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Criteria_to_Differentiate_between_Virtuals_and_Existents_in_Scientific_Theories

How to philosophize? How to philosophize in the sciences?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_philosophize_How_to_philosophize_in_the_sciences

Friends,

Kindly read the following chain-conversation between an earnest scholar with insight into philosophy, the physical sciences, and logic::::

Alessandro Rizzo added a reply

2 days ago

Logic, as we commonly understand it, is a system of thought based on the reasoning capabilities of the human mind. It allows us to take premises, apply rules, and arrive at conclusions. We view these principles as universal due to their applicability to the wide range of situations we encounter in our daily lives.

However, when we push beyond the confines of human experience and begin to probe the complexities of the universe, we find instances where these principles appear to falter. Traditional logic isn't always equipped to handle the strange, often counterintuitive phenomena observed in realms such as quantum physics.

Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously in a quantum superposition, an assertion that seems to defy the Law of Non-Contradiction. Entangled particles influence each other instantaneously over vast distances, which challenges our logical understanding of cause and effect.

These instances do not necessarily mean our logical principles are incorrect, but they highlight that our traditional logical framework may be incomplete. It's like trying to comprehend a three-dimensional object with two-dimensional understanding—our perspective is inherently limited.

While the principles of logic remain powerful tools for navigating the world as we perceive it, we must remain cognizant of their limitations. They represent one dimension of a multifaceted reality, and unlocking a more comprehensive understanding of the universe may require us to augment, or even transcend, our conventional logic.

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

2 days ago

Alessandro Rizzo,

This is a very good realization: "However, when we push beyond the confines of human experience and begin to probe the complexities of the universe, we find instances where these principles appear to falter." Mostly it is so. The whole of analytic logic is developed for just for normal life-situations, technically scientific applications, and today for direct computer applications. Of course, this need not be the case with math. Math has a wider set of background considerations today. Ordinary logic is always based on direct needs.

But the following is difficult from the viewpoint of the realistic necessities behind the formulation of the foundations of any sort of logic. "Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously in a quantum superposition, an assertion that seems to defy the Law of Non-Contradiction. Entangled particles influence each other instantaneously over vast distances, which challenges our logical understanding of cause and effect."

Either it is because such physics is extremely fragile; otherwise it is because any sort of logic cannot really apply to such physics. Even counterintuitive forms of logic falter there!

Hence, I have been following a different course of thought in order to conceptualize what basically would be problematic in quantum, statistical, and other sorts of counterintuitive physics. You can see some such works of mine in very short summary forms in some of my discussion questions (suggested at the end of this intervention).

I recognize that you are an informatics person. An information for you: Just today I have finished the work of a 200 pp. book in English and Italian:

COSMIC CAUSALITY CODE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS, MIND, AND VIRTUAL WORLDS

and

IL CODICE DI CAUSALITÀ COSMICA E L’INTELLIGENZA ARTIFICIALE: FILOSOFIA ANALITICA DI FISICA, MENTE, E MONDI VIRTUALI.

Now I must begin searching for a publisher....

Here are the said suggestions to some of my discussions in RG:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irrefutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Criteria_to_Differentiate_between_Virtuals_and_Existents_in_Scientific_Theories

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Reification_of_Concepts_in_Quantum_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematics_and_Causality_A_Systemic_Reconciliation

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Linguistic_Philosophys_Inconsistencies

Share

📷

Alessandro Rizzo added a reply

2 days ago

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil,

Your exploration of the philosophical underpinnings of quantum physics is both thought-provoking and challenging. As someone who has grappled with the mysteries of the quantum world, I appreciate your efforts to question and redefine our understanding of these complex concepts.

You rightly point out the limitations of conventional logic when applied to quantum phenomena. Indeed, the quantum world often seems to defy our everyday understanding of reality. Quantum superposition and entanglement, for instance, challenge our intuitive grasp of cause and effect, as well as the principle of non-contradiction. However, I would argue that this does not necessarily mean that these principles falter, but rather that they take on new meanings in the quantum realm.

Your concept of Universal Causality is intriguing. The notion that everything that exists is in causation, even quantum-mechanical processes, is a bold one. I would argue, however, that causality in the quantum realm may not be as straightforward as in the macroscopic world. Quantum mechanics often deals with probabilities rather than certainties, which adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of causality.

Your criteria for differentiating between "virtuals" and "existents" is an interesting approach to understanding scientific theories. The idea that anything not in Extension-Change is non-existent is a compelling one. However, I would caution against too rigid a definition of existence. The quantum world has shown us that reality can be far stranger than we might imagine.

Your discussion of reification in quantum physics raises important questions about the nature of mathematical entities like wave functions. It's true that we must be careful not to confuse our mathematical models with the physical reality they represent. However, these models have proven to be remarkably successful in predicting the behavior of quantum systems, which suggests that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality.

Finally, your analysis of potential energy and the wave function collapse is insightful. These concepts are indeed more complex than they might appear at first glance. However, I would argue that they are useful tools for understanding and predicting the behavior of physical systems, even if they do not correspond exactly to physical entities or processes.

Your exploration of these topics is a valuable contribution to the ongoing dialogue about the nature of quantum reality. However, there are a few points to discuss.

1. **Universal Causality**: While your concept of Universal Causality is intriguing, I believe that causality in the quantum realm may not be as straightforward as in the macroscopic world. Quantum mechanics often deals with probabilities rather than certainties, which adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of causality. It's not that causality doesn't apply, but rather that it may manifest in ways that are not immediately intuitive.

2. **Existence and Non-Existence**: Your criteria for differentiating between "virtuals" and "existents" is an interesting approach. However, I would caution against too rigid a definition of existence. The quantum world has shown us that reality can be far stranger than we might imagine, and phenomena that don't fit neatly into our conventional understanding of existence may still have significant physical implications.

3. **Reification in Quantum Physics**: Your discussion raises important questions about the nature of mathematical entities like wave functions. However, while we must indeed be careful not to confuse our mathematical models with the physical reality they represent, these models have proven to be remarkably successful in predicting the behavior of quantum systems. This suggests that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality, even if they don't correspond exactly to physical entities or processes.

4. **Potential Energy and Wave Function Collapse**: Your analysis of these concepts is insightful. However, I would argue that they are useful tools for understanding and predicting the behavior of physical systems, even if they do not correspond exactly to physical entities or processes. The wave function collapse, for instance, may not be a physical process in the conventional sense, but it is a crucial concept in the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I appreciate your efforts to challenge conventional wisdom and push the boundaries of our understanding. Even though we may not agree on all points, such dialogue is essential for the advancement of science.

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

2 days ago

Alessandro Rizzo, thanks a lot for the fine formulations. Very wise and thoughtful. Congrats. At the end of this intervention I give 2 of my discussions, which are on the QM and Statistical notions that are involved in physics. Let me express just a few thoughts hereunder, with an introductory statement: I have been into this field of publication at least for more than 2 decades; but by way of reading and reflection, I have been in it for more than 3 decades.

Our statistical measures, e.g., of the position of an electron at a given time, does not depend on the model of statistical interpretation that we give, but instead, they depend on the very statistically managed measurements and their proportions of certainty of discovery, prediction, determination, or definition thus achieved. Hence, the varied successes of QM and statistical physics at this level in predicting the related phenomena are all due to the application of the mathematical apparatus, and the model thus achieved, to physical instruments.

That is a sort of algorithm-driven instrumentalization, in a general sense. This, e.g., is exactly why quantum informatics and the various quantum technologies can have success stories.

Let me illustrate this sort of success with a simple example. There are two leaves on a tree at a distance of one meter, but one over the other. Drops of water fall onto the first, and get flown onto the second. We create a signaling system as the drops fall on the first and the second leaves. The nature of light signals take care of the technology behind the signaling. We do not have to bother why light signaling is the way it is!

Here we know that the drops are not exactly spherical / globular. But, for the purpose of mathematical applications, we consider them as spherical drops and reduce them even into the shape of points for the sake of "mathematical precisioning" within the context of the mathematics available -- but which does not harm the signaling. We know clearly that theoretically these are not absolute truths or models...!

The signaling system is related directly to the temporal and spatial approximations of the falling of the drops on the two leaves. As the signals fall on another electronic device (at a distance), and the signals trigger a certain motion on the device. Using this system, let us suppose that we can instrumentalize some other physical process. Whatever the actual physical process and the shapes involved in fact are, the system works and produces the expected results!

We may later give a detailed physical explanation of the approximations involved in the implementation of the theory of, say, "Water Drop Signaling". These are not merely interpretations, but also closer approximations to what is happening in the reality externally to our interpretation. Note clearly: the theoretical model and approximations used in it are all just approximations of what really is the case in nature. We are not able to delve into all the processual layers of the object set and unearth all possible explanations of the processes and all their layers.

In order to apply our theory of the specific and precisioned processes with all their complexity in physics, we need to create instruments that work in accordance with this new theory and other related these physical and other theories which work only at a certain level of instrumentation in the given case. What works at the electronic level need not work at the nano level of physical activity.

We cannot also finalize our theory by stating that whatever works at the nano level is final and that there are no deeper layers within the object set. Even as we discover deeper layers and begin to formulate methods of instrumentation at that level, the instruments can continue to work without any hindrance. The only thing is that the instruments can further be made more precisioned and more effective. This does not work as an argument against the existence of the deeper layers beyond the nano structures!

That is, this means that the first set of interpretations and their instruments can go on to work and produce technological successes. They will continue to yield successes. This is why even now Newtonian physics yields many successes, especially at the engineering level!

Similarly, the successes of QM need not suggest that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality in a very exact manner. Of course, this is the case to a certain extent (say, statistically), but this certainly at a certain narrowly real interpretational level.

The statistics here is a model, and therefore, is based on the measures of our ability to capture the causes and the processes within a given circumstance and sample. Statistics is thus the admission of the extent of reach into the exact correspondence of the truth projected by our measurements with respect to what is actually happening in the object process!

But this fact of lack of absolute truth in our models and theories does not affect the successes at the level of application of the possible experimental results of the theory! Now you see clearly that what quantum physicists call as the statistical truths of quantum physics are not truths but models, using which there are certain instruments and their theory of apparatus-wise obedience of quantum physics.

This is also the case with respect to Relativity. Just take the case of the Lorentz factor: Root of [(1 - (v-squared) divided by (c-squared)]. What does it in fact mean? That I am willing to measure the movement process (v) of a particle only in terms of the experimentally rather well determined / fixed luminal and luminally comparable energy propagations c.

But this means also (and exactly) that, since I use luminal velocity as the criterial velocity (merely because I have natural vision and instrumentational vision at the level of c at this epoch of the history of advancements in science), my calculation forbids v from exceeding the luminal velocity limit c!!!

Does this mean that there should not be superluminal velocities?

If there are real-valued (not complex-valued) superluminal velocities, whereby the superluminal velocity in question is C1, C2, etc., which can replace the c, and c can be placed at the place of v in the nominator, in the Lorentz factor. Thus, we have a real solution for the EPR problem, too!

After all, the c is not fixed or fixable as an absolute constant except by a convention that has proved it to be so in our region of the universe, and not for all the possibly existing worlds! Using this convention, we can continue to make our Water Drops Signaling work. But this success in measuring the lack of temporal lag in the working of the instrument need not mean that c is a universal constant for all the regions of the cosmos.

The cosmos may have a finite number of local universes or even an infinite number of them. In both the cases -- and in the latter case surely -- c may be replaced with C1, C2, etc. in other regional universes. That is, the highest possible velocity within a big bang local universe anywhere in the infinite-content cosmos can only be determined by the maximum density achieved at any one big bang of the given local universe, in a series of its oscillations between bangs and crunches. (I have treated this in my book of 2018 and in some discussions in RG, which will be given at the end of this reply.)

Nevertheless, miraculously clear and working precision is to be had in many scientific theories and experiments, both on earth and in the outer space, using this special theory of relativity! Even QM uses the Lorentz factor freely!

Should these successes mean that the Lorentz factor should be an eternally fixed proof for the so-called criterial limit-nature of c?

Now I believe we can think of a possible solution for the EPR problem! I have suggested one such in 3 of my works. I think, therefore, that what we need is a range of differently-valued c and the many relativity theories in terms of them.

I have discussed such questions in detail, including a detailed theoretical solution to the EPR problem, in three of my printed books (2014, 2015, and 2018).

I should salute you for your openness and genuineness of scientific spirit, which permit you to see many important points in the notion of theory formation in science and philosophy. Not merely of my ideas, but also of others ideas.

I am a mad man. I have dedicated my life to some such projects in the form of books. To avoid peer reviewers' ire is not easy. Hence, I may not get the most renowned publishers to publish my books. I should also forget about publishing articles in reputed peer-reviewed journals! This is my fate, and also my pleasure. I think some future acceptance (at least after a few years or decades of my death) is forthcoming.

And kindly take a look at the following discussion sessions. I think you will enjoy them. And thereafter I give a SET 2 of discussion links, which give the discussions on the cosmological problems suggested above.

SET 1:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_basic_insecurities_of_physics_especially_of_statistical_physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Causality_Necessary_in_Physics_Philosophy_and_Other_Sciences_in_Place_of_Statistical_Bayesian_and_Other_Theories_of_Causality

SET 2:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_the_cosmic_or_local_black_hole_singularity_be_of_infinite_density_and_zero_size

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source-Independent_Velocity_of_Pure_Energy_vs_Causality_vs_Superluminal_Velocities

https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_the_cosmos_is_1_finite-content_or_2_infinite-content_Is_there_finite_or_infinite_creation

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology

Share

• 1 Recommendation

📷

Alessandro Rizzo added a reply

1 day ago

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil,

Your thoughtful and extensive response is deeply appreciated. The time and dedication you've devoted to these intricate concepts shine through, and your perspective brings a refreshing viewpoint to our discourse.

You assert that our statistical measures in physics are heavily influenced by the mathematical models we've formulated, a position that resonates with accuracy. These models, while approximated by nature, have served as the bedrock of our comprehension of quantum mechanics, enabling us to generate predictions from this understanding. However, as you astutely pointed out, this doesn't necessarily indicate that these models encapsulate the entire scope of quantum reality. Perhaps it's more accurate to state they represent our best tools available for interfacing with and comprehending the quantum world, given our current technological capabilities and conceptual understandings.

Your analogy of abstracting water droplets to points for mathematical precision provides an excellent illustration. Fundamentally, the models we employ in physics are simplifications of reality, designed to encapsulate the most pivotal aspects of the physical phenomena we investigate. But it's crucial to avoid mistaking these models for reality itself. They merely represent our best current methods of describing and predicting reality.

Your comments concerning the Lorentz factor and the speed of light are strikingly thought-provoking. Indeed, the assumption that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the universe is underpinned by empirical observations within our observable universe and within the framework of the theory of relativity. The concept of superluminal speeds would require us to radically revise our understanding of the universe.

Your courage and determination to challenge the established scientific framework are admirable. Authentic progress in science often originates from those brave enough to question the status quo and expand the boundaries of our understanding. I'm confident that your work will find the audience and appreciation it deserves, for the truth in science has a peculiar way of making itself known, irrespective of its immediate reception.

The possibilities you suggest, such as various relativities predicated on differing c values, are genuinely captivating. This kind of innovative thinking often ushers in paradigm shifts in scientific thought.

Your ongoing commitment to these questions is inspiring, and I anticipate with eagerness the exploration of the discussions you've linked. I hold firm in my belief that science thrives on open discourse and a diversity of perspectives. Hence, although we may not concur on all points, the value of dialogue is irrefutable.

Thank you for your participation in this intellectually stimulating conversation.

Recommended

Share

• 1 Recommendation

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

19 hours ago

Alessandro Rizzo, I have revised my previous reply and detailed it further, also extending its cosmological implications. In fact, I had written the earlier version of the response in a hurry, in about 15 to 20 minutes. Hence the revision of the same.

Please see also the SET 2 list of RG discussions, given at the end of the revised response. These are the cosmological ones. Thanks.

Share

📷

Alessandro Rizzo added a reply

15 hours ago

Dear Raphael,

Embracing your insights, the light cast by statistical measures in our understanding of quantum mechanics is impressive. They serve as a beacon in the labyrinth of quantum phenomena, born from the marriage of algorithms and instrumentalization.

The water drop signaling system, as you've painted, is a vivid illustration of mathematical approximations at work. Science walks a tightrope between reality and approximation, juggling precision with pragmatic simplicity. The certainty of mathematics may not always mirror the uncertainties of reality, and vice versa.

The discussion of various levels of physical activity and the evolution of our tools to meet these levels holds significant weight. As we continue to broaden our understanding, we must also adapt and refine our toolkit. A set of tools apt for one scenario might not apply to another.

In addressing the interpretations of quantum reality, you are pushing the envelope, provoking us to reevaluate our grasp of the universe. Though we navigate the quantum realm with the compass of statistics and models, we must stay mindful that these are but the footprints of reality - giving us direction, but also concealing a sea of unknowns.

Your exploration of the Lorentz factor and the hypothesis of superluminal velocities are mind-stretching. The cosmos, in its vast expanse, may hide surprises that challenge our ingrained theories.

Your proposition of different relativities based on maximum velocities is intriguing, urging us to step outside our comfort zone. Your suggestion hints at the reality that the map we hold is not the territory, and our comprehension of this territory is in a state of perpetual evolution.

Closing my response, I am reminded of the sentiment that the tranquility between our scientific theories and the universe's phenomena is born from understanding. Our quest is to deepen this understanding, and your insightful contributions are a cornerstone of this journey.

Eager to continue this enlightening exchange,

Alessandro

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

15 hours ago

Thanks, Alessandro. Giusto adesso ho visto che sei italiano! Just 2 days ago I finished a work in English and in Italian: Cosmic Causality Code and Artificial Intelligence: Analytic Philosophy of Physics, Mind, and Virtual Worlds, circa 200 pp., and its self-made Italian version (corrected by native speakers): Il Codice di Causalità Cosmica e l’Intelligenza Artificiale: Filosofia Analitica di Fisica, Mente, e Mondi Virtuali, circa 220 pp.

I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:

FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

1. INTRODUCTION

I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.

This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.

Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.

A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.

I BELIEVE THAT THE TRADITION OF LAPPING UP WHATEVER THEY SAY BASED ON THEIR MANNER OF USING MATHEMATICS SHOULD STOP FOREVER. PHYSICISTS ARE NOT TO BEHAVE LIKE MAGICIANS, AND THEIR READERS SHOULD NOT PRACTICE RELIGIOUS FAITHFULNESS TO THEM.

Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questioning_the_Foundations_of_Physical_Constants_Properties_and_Qualities

How to Ground Science and Philosophy Together Axiomatically?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_Ground_Science_and_Philosophy_Together_Axiomatically

Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Symmetry_A_Subset_of_Universal_Causality_The_Difference_between_Cause_and_Reason

This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.

The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.

The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics

Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text

Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Causality_and_Statistics_Their_Levels_of_Effect_and_of_Explanation

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Non-Locality: Is Einstein a Monist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Is_Einstein_a_Monist

Spacetime Curvatures, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvatures_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist

The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles

For further discussions on concepts related to Gravitation, Extension-Change Categories, General Theory of Relativity, Unobservables, etc., you may consult also:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ruth-Castillo-6

If anyone wants to read about a fantastic concept of the existence of consciousness and non-existence of the cosmos, see the comments till today here, by L Kurt Engelhart.......!!! Here you can learn the meaning of solipsism.... similar to mathematical platonism creating ideas / notions into objects. ANY COMPARISON WITH THE "EXISTENCE" OF INFORMATION WORLDS???

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_philosophize_How_to_philosophize_in_the_sciences

Can what are termed "mathematically consistent" natural laws necessarily be physically consistent? If they can be, then mathematics becomes physics (and for that matter it becomes any other mathematical science). But if math is different from all these sciences, the adequacy and applicability of math to physics and other sciences cannot be 100%. If that is the case, it is very important that physics (and other sciences) be helped constantly to choose the most suitable math. This help can come from the same science/s only in a partially realizable manner. Nor can math take up this task fully well. Hence, a generic science beyond all these including math and logic must take charge of improving the remaining portions of inadequacy and inapplicability of math to physics and the sciences. Which could that science be? I hold that this most general science need not contain all that philosophy has so far understood itself to be. But something of the philosophy of these sciences combined with the philosophy of math, logic, etc. would be an ideal option.

Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Essential_Reason_in_Physicists_Use_of_Logic_And_in_Other_Sciences_Too

Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO

How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Does_Physics_Know_The_Epistemology_Presupposed_by_Physics_and_Other_Sciences

Preprint MATHEMATICAL SOURCE OF FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES: MATHE...

Preprint THE EPISTEMOLOGY PRESUPPOSED BY PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES R...

PHYSICAL-PROCESSUAL REPRESENTATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers

THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS

3.1. Traditional Physical Categories

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Ontology_behind_Physics