Please, define what are the the "common qualities," "universals properties?" "in science and in philosophy?" Is philosophy not the science."

Yurii V Geletii, thanks. Today I have uploaded a document in RG: "PHYSICAL ONTOLOGY OF COGNITION". There I have explained the concept of universal qualities and properties separately.

As for the question about science and philosophy: I hope you have meant to ask: "Is philosophy not a science?" (Not 'the' science.)

I believe philosophy too is a science, in the sense that philosophy has some methods of procedure, although different from those of the various sciences. I have heard over the internet, many scientists belittling philosophy as some kind of metaphysics of the kind that they mean as metaphysics. They signify that their idea of metaphysics is that of a mystical and laughable knowledge of things that are meta-. Hearing such remarks, I used to laugh. Silly persons, however great Nobel prize winners they are.

TODAY PHILOSOPHY IS BEING DONE AS A SCIENCE OF ALL SCIENCES -- BUT IN VARIOUS SENSES. Persons who are trained in just one science and never ceased to be proud of their sciences as the only highest science, tend to belittle philosophy. Similarly, also mathematicians and physicists tend to call chemistry, biology, etc. as lower sort of sciences!

I know that you may not expected such a talk here from me. Suffice to say that this was to show how many scientists think about philosophy. There may be philosophers who do silly stuff. But the majority is not so. This is what I wanted to say.

I feel that all these are beyond of my intellectual capacity. I'll just follow this discussion.

Yurii V Geletii, not so. It is a matter of just digesting one little document. The said document is just 3 pages.

The same is about my understanding of chemistry. I will get frustrated if I read something in Chemistry, in which you are an expert!

Are physical properties the same as the universal attributes that we may speak of objects in their types?

Raphael Neelamkavil,

I am unsure what you mean by 'common qualities' and 'properties' in philosophy. In my view these seem to refer to characteristics assigned according to our physical reality. If by philosophy you mean the 'reality' that exists in a foundational sense below our physical reality. I call this the 'metaphysical reality' contrasted to our sense-based 'physical reality'.

If my understanding of the question is correct, then 'properties' in our 'physical reality' have a basis in the underlying 'metaphysical reality'. The converse is not always true. Laws differ somewhat for the two realities. In my view 'extension' (distance) in our physical reality has no meaning in the metaphysical reality. There is no existence or non-existence of extension. However, we must assign an imaginary extension in metaphysical reality if we wish to visualize it.

Richard Marker

Extension is not an existent. It is a general quality of all that exist. Anything that exists must be non-vacuous, and hence must have parts. HAVING PARTS IS THE MEANING OF EXTENSION. HENCE, IT IS ONE THE MOST GENERAL OF ALL QUALITIES OF EXISTENTS. Similarly, Change is another such general quality of all existents. This, again, is because nothing can be vacuous in existence.

About properties. For example, the chemical properties of a substance. It is not a general quality like Extension, Change, etc. Properties are concatenations of many other, simpler but general, qualities.

Richard Marker, kindly read this, which may be a good clarification about qualities:

By reason of their nature, the definition of ‘general’ / ‘universal’ / 'quality' can be only as adjectives, which, of course, may be rendered substantive names. Circularity is implied only in the portion of the target of the definition where generality is not directly of totalities of processual entities, but of qualities (abstract generalities) which belong to sub-totalities and to qualities (more abstract generalities) which belong to broader object sets.

Thus, ‘number’ may be termed a general term, but real numbers, a sub-set of numbers, is sub-general. While defining one kind of ‘general’ another sort of ‘general’ is involved in the definition.

An improved version of the second paragraph given above:

Thus, ‘number’ may be termed a general term, but real numbers, a sub-set of numbers, is sub-general. Clearly, it is a quality: “having one member, having two members, etc.”; and here one, two, etc., when taken as nominatives, lose their significance, and are based only on the adjectival use. Hence the justification for the adjectival (qualitative) primacy of numbers as universals. While defining one kind of ‘general’ another sort of ‘general’ may naturally be involved in the definition, insofar as they pertain to an existent process and not when otherwise.

Raphael Neelamkavil, thank you for explaining this. My understanding of these relational groupings is scant at best. I particularly like your comment about 'having parts is the meaning of extension'. 'Having parts' was the central thought in my mind when drilling down to the foundational start. I considered 'having parts' to be granularity.

If a 'particle' had features that allowed it to be identified then it had granularity and was not the start of the building process. The start of the building process consisted of many 'somethings' which had no physical characteristics whatsoever. It took me many years to realize that the concept of 'extension' had no meaning at this level.

'Something' may come from a more elementary process, but this does not seem to matter as long as we know the rules of interaction that apply between 'somethings'. Some philosophers refer to 'something' in a vague unknown sense. I refer to it as a (metaphysically) real 'particle'.

Rich

Richard Marker, I accept granularity. The reason why I used 'Extension' for 'having parts' is that Extension is the real physical-ontological aspect of all existents and this is what we reduce into this universal characteristics' merely epistemic (quantitative, measuremental, conceptual, mathematical) aspect, namely space. Both Extension and space do not exist. But Extension is the physical-ontological characteristic (must universal Category) of all non-vacuous existents, which we make silly by reducing it into an epistemic category, space.

The same is the case with Change. Any and every existent is in Change, not in time. Time is the epistemic (quantitative, measuremental, conceptual, mathematical) aspect. Change is nothing but impact-formation.

Now, Extension-Change-wise existing is causation: Any extended being has the capacity to form impacts -- of course, a finite amount at any measured time -- on other existents.

Is this not the meaning of To Be? Universal Causality is, therefore, implied in all kinds of non-vacuous existence. If any existent is vacuous -- without parts and without impact-formation, it is PURE VACUUM. You may perhaps think of the Divine as the foundation of all, and that may be why you tend further to reduce granularity into not having parts. But what is the rational ground for this, except that one tends to posit it?

If you want to go into the case of the possible existence of the Divine, please send me an email so I can know yours: [email protected]

And I shall send a book that will challenge some more other conceptions. I think reducing granularity into 'something' too does not help, because, even if our concept of 'something' may be without any form, extension, characteristics, etc., this is no guarantee that what we have in our concept should really exist! I shall suggest an alternative route, if you could send me an email to let me know your email address. And kindly read that material which I send...! I have discussed it with many cosmologists and philosophers of physics for more than 3 decades.

Raphael Neelamkavil,

Reducing granularity into 'something' is only a starting point. I never considered it as anything other than a personal view until, to my surprise, it lead to a seemingly irrefutable result.

My logic came from believing that both space and matter evolved from many identical underlying building blocks. Indeed, it was no small challenge to imagine how this start could build into anything.

Rich

Richard Marker, what is the meaning of this seemingly irrefutable conclusion, if you do not mention what the irrefutable reasons are?

And then you said: "My logic came from believing that both space and matter evolved from many identical underlying building blocks. Indeed, it was no small challenge to imagine how this start could build into anything."

But I wonder what this logic is! How can space which is a merely epistemic notion evolve with matter? And that too, from many identical building blocks! How do you rationally conclude that these are identical and underlying? Just considering it all to be so is no reason.

You have already sent me the email. Thanks. I will be able to send by email a book. I do not know if I have already sent it to you!

For tomorrow I have a lot to do. Tomorrow from early morning till evening I will be out. I will send the email late evening tomorrow.

Richard Marker, please do not feel bad that I wrote so. I was not irritated. I was just questioning. Thanks.

With respect, Raphael

Raphael,

I was not at all irritated. Rather, I prefer someone raise questions. That is the only real way to understand. Besides, I like the questions you raise.

The 'irrefutable conclusion' comes about because the underlying concept of space and matter lead almost directly to the 'ggee ratio' (see RG paper). I suspect few if any readers really understand this paper or its significance. It is very foreign to usual logic approaches. It method used to determine this ratio was developed before even looking at the ratio it produces. This combined with the accuracy and precision of the results make this difficult for people to even believe possible. The only external input is alpha-squared. This effectively means that the gravitational constant is predicted with the same precision as alpha-squared. There are no factors chosen to produce the result unless you consider alpha-squared to be one. It was not until later that I remembered the fine structure constant is also called the electron coupling constant. That makes perfect sense in this context.

Please understand that I am not trying to promote my findings on your thread. You asked, so I answered. It is these results that convince me of the correctness of the logic. Interestingly, finding the 'ggee ratio' does not require an understanding of the spatial geometry. I still struggle with that understanding. A person does not need to accept the 'ggee ratio' findings. They can simply wait until experimental values are determined more precisely to test those findings.

The view that matter represents a flaw in the fabric of space was one of the few assumptions I used in traveling this path. It is a long path so it may be best to continue this in private if you wish to understand it.

Rich

We speak of chemical properties. But these are not what we mean by a common quality of a type of things. Every type has many qualities. If a type has only one quality, it cannot exist!

Now, how to define such common qualities? Can there be most common qualities of all things? Existence is not a quality. It is the very condition of givenness of the thing we speak of.

Hence, there must be or may be other general qualities of all existent things. This is the matter I want to get clarity about.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Any_new_concept_of_motion_in_physics_beyond_those_of_STR_GTR_QM_and_QM-cosmology#view=642fe35f3f0890b7c306ad87

I think the parameters to be assumed in a unified theory OF THE MANY THEORIES OF THE UNIVERSE will in any case be different from those of ordinary physics. Such a unification might need slightly different starting points or assumptions. I have the following suggestion. Not elaborate enough to meet all possible questions on this, but a suggestion.

Experimentally, observationally, and observational-theoretically, some of the generalizations of any physical ontology of cosmology may, strictly speaking, be non-verifiable and non-falsifiable.

But the empirical method of the sciences is continuous with the theoretical. Both, together, form part of "reason". Please note also this: Reason is not equivalent to logic. There are many sorts of logic. Reason is the general set, and the various logics are sub-sets or members.

From this viewpoint, would you admit that there seems to be the possibility of obtaining SOME REASON from the suggestion that a physical ontology of cosmology be constructed?

I have developed an MMM (maximal-medial-minimal) method, where the approachable values are zero, finite, and infinite -- all others being strictly of the realm of positive sciences. Zero, finitude, and infinity may be available in the positive sciences. But in the case of zero and infinity, the attitude is that of limiting values.

Finitude is a general term. In the positive sciences there must be specific values, not generally finite values!

Of course, we do not know of infinite values in the strictest sense of the term. But on the same count we do not also know zero value except as the absence of WHAT WE CONSIDER at a given instance.

I feel that a sort of "axiomatization" is perhaps possible -- at least as a physical ontology of the cosmos.

FROM WITHIN SUCH A THEORY, PERHAPS A UNIFICATION IS THINKABLE.

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

The Irretutable Argument for Universal Causality. Any Opposing Position?

Very very short. https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irretutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position

Let me first make a claim and then explain:

Extension and Change are the highest Categorial notions / universal qualities in both philosophy and physics. But unluckily the discussions in physics and philosophy are not based on such fundamental notions today.

Now let me explain:

TIME MUST ALWAYS BE THE MEASURE OF MOTION / CHANGE. THIS IS WHAT ARISTOTLE AND THOMAS HAVE HELD. BUT TODAY PHYSICISTS AND COSMOLOGISTS MAKE RATIOCINATIONS USING TIME AND SPACE AS IF THESE WERE SOME EXISTENT STUFF. SOME EVEN SPEAK OF SPACE-TIME CURVATURE, AND NOT OF CURVATURE OF PHYSICAL PROCESSES THAT ARE IN EXTENSION-MOTION:

All impact transfers within and between entities are extended-changing. Impact transfer is nothing but the activity called Causation. Existents are in extended-changing causal process. The relation of one impact transfer process towards the constitution of another is Causality. Hence, everything is in causal process. If anything non-causal exists, it must lose contact with causal processes and cannot be connected with anything else so to result from causal processes or non-causal processes.

That is, Causality is a derivative Category pertaining to all existents. It is derived from putting together Extension and Change. Causality (the relation) and causation (the action / activity) are act-based. In general, without direct reference to the causal aspect, and with direct reference to the entity-aspect, one can say denotatively: everything is an extended-changing process. (“Everything is in process” means adjectivally: “Everything is processual”) In fact, Causation and Processuality are interchangeable; the manner of definition alone differs. But a unit process is a set of cause and effect.

To help obtain some more clarity on what we discuss here, I think the following discussion will be of use -- especially the question by Richard Marker and my reply:

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

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?

Reification of Concepts in Quantum Physics?

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

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

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.

Even in the 21st century, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity with its various versions and especially its merely mathematical interpretations 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. The mathematics did not need existence, and hence gravitation did not exist! But the same persons did not create a theory whereby the mathematics does not need the existence of the material world and hence the material world does not exist!!

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

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

I think the game that many physicists and other scientists, and of course some philosophers, are playing concerning time is with respect to the concept of 'reality'. Some take 'reality' as existent reality, and some do not consider it so. My suggestion to understand the scenario better is the following:

Reality consists of existent reality and realities that pertain to existent realities in their groups. Existent realities are clear enough to understand. Realities pertinent to existent realities are never to be taken as belonging to just one existent reality. They are always those generalities that belong to many existent realities in their respective natural kind. These generalities are what I call ontological universals.

But the most important matter here is this: there are some ontological universals which belong to all existent realities. (1) Thus, every existent is in extension. If not in extension, nothing can exist. That is, vacuous existence is no existence. But to be in Extension means to have parts. This is the first ontologically universal characteristic of all existents. (2) The second is that existents have to act. Some movement will be there in every part of extended existents. In physical existents this movement is finite. By movement, every extended existent causes a finite impact in themselves and in a finite number of others. This characteristic of all existents is termed Change.

But Extension-Change-wise existence is Causation! Hence, every existent must be causal. Moreover, in terms of the concept of Universal Causality, Extension and Change are absolutely and inseparably connected to each other.

NOW WE COME TO THE QUESTION OF TIME: The conventionally scale-based measure of Change is time. With respect to any existent, time is the measure of movement of Change. In some cases this is very fast, where time is considered to be more intense (not that a generally considered time is fast with respect to this Change), and if the Change is little, the time is considered to be less intense (not that a generally considered time is slow).

That is, time as the epistemic measure of Change, does not exist, it is not even an ontological universal. It is an epistemic universal.

Similarly, space is the measure of Extension.

If you like this sort of explanation, kindly let others read this and discuss in their circles.

As for me, this viewpoint is so strong that I am writing books by using just these notions. The time and space of physicists and other scientists must go.

Here I was trying to give my way of explanation. Others will surely have other explanations. Very good, and that is how humanity will grow. Am open to listen.

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

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_Physical-Ontological_Categories_behind_Physics

Grounded (New) Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics

Preprint THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL PHYSICA...

A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_SIMPLE_GAME-CHANGER_CAUSALITY_FOR_PHYSICS_Beyond_the_Two_Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINITION_OF_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs

DEFINITION OF THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)

THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Short Text)

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

Here a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:

NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NON-FOUNDATIONS_OF_WAVICLES_IN_EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN_PARADOX_Bases_for_Quantum_Physics_to_Evolve_Maybe_a_physical-ontological_Breakthrough

Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia

AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.

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

Preprint ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, ...

WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition

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

Preprint COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION:...

THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS

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

Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...

Preprint IS THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT SACROSANCT?

Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...

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

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution

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

Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically

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

Preprint FROM PHYSICAL ONTOLOGY TO LINGUISTICS AND INFORMATION

Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...

Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...

Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME

Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)

Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...

Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY

Preprint INEVITABILITY OF COSMOLOGICAL, ONTOLOGICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGI...

Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY

Preprint Chapter 6. COSMOGENESIS IN QUANTUM COSMOLOGY

Preprint Chapter 9. GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY Part I

Preprint GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY (22 pp.) Part II