Philosophy is created by belief!

[Eodnhoj7]

Yeah, and several aspects of this theorem (an assumed definition of reality) argue (from the mathematical analysis section):

1. There is no methodology to find a fixed point.
2. The fix point can be approximated.
3. Thus, and I am arguing this, the fix point is assumed.

This argument is relative to the mathematical analysis section of the wiki page.

The observer is the fixed point.
The observer is also your oracle machine.

Not necessarily, that is a relativistic statement.

The observer is grounded in an assumptive nature where an axiom is received without thought given to it. This emptyminded state is grounded in an absense of boundaries considering thought gives definition to phenomenon.

The mind is grounded, in its assumption nature, in point space considering this absense of boundaries is fundamentally what a point is.

The point, on the other hand is the purest axiom that exists...it just "is". The subjective state of the observer, as point space, is by extension an approximation of the one point of existence or "All", "God", "Divine Reason", "Nirvana (as the ceasing of illusion)", etc.

The observers awareness, grounded in point space, observes it as an approximation of the one point where it may be simultaneously argued that the point is the grounding of awareness as an objective entity.

[Sculptor]

I meant to say axiomatic, not idiomatic, sorry.
But I'd say that your thinking on this thread is axiomatic generally and so seem caught in the circles of logic that can never fully represent nature except approximately. It might seem paradoxical that the maths/logic used to represent nature is resisted by the cold hard reality. Nature is always that oak leaf, never able to fully replicate without what the axiomatic thinkers regard as experimental error, but is, in realty the truth that the axioms and "laws" never quite fit the truth.
Science is like that always making pronouncements of absolutely certain factual reality, yet one day the earth gets thrown off its place and starts to go round the sun rather than the sun going round the earth.

What logical system does not represent nature approximately? Linear logic results in a continual divergence.

And what axioms/laws never quite fit the truth?

All of them, of course.
Take Euclid. We do not live in a 2D world. We live in a 3D world in constant motion.
Do you take parallel lines as definitive - or do you admit that they might meet at some point?
Do we stick with Euclid, or accept Russell's challenge to his trigonometry?
When Newton formalised gravity, we later had Einstein who pointed out he did not get it right. Who shall challenge Einstein.
The history of science is the history of working out how to "save the appearances", yet we keep getting tripped up by more observation ,and more cosmologies emerge.
Right now there is a confusion of cosmologies - possibly there are more now than at any time in the history of science.

I understand where you are going, and I agree with it...for the most part. However we are left with a paradox of certain constants still existing.

These are artefacts of the axiomatic method

Relative truths are approximations of constant truths.

We can assume the existence of the noumenal world, but never have direct access to it. We are forever stuck with the phenomenal world and it seems always to resist those all to clear axioms.

[Eodnhoj7]

I meant to say axiomatic, not idiomatic, sorry.
But I'd say that your thinking on this thread is axiomatic generally and so seem caught in the circles of logic that can never fully represent nature except approximately. It might seem paradoxical that the maths/logic used to represent nature is resisted by the cold hard reality. Nature is always that oak leaf, never able to fully replicate without what the axiomatic thinkers regard as experimental error, but is, in realty the truth that the axioms and "laws" never quite fit the truth.
Science is like that always making pronouncements of absolutely certain factual reality, yet one day the earth gets thrown off its place and starts to go round the sun rather than the sun going round the earth.

What logical system does not represent nature approximately? Linear logic results in a continual divergence.

And what axioms/laws never quite fit the truth?

All of them, of course.
Take Euclid. We do not live in a 2D world. We live in a 3D world in constant motion.
Do you take parallel lines as definitive - or do you admit that they might meet at some point?
Do we stick with Euclid, or accept Russell's challenge to his trigonometry?
When Newton formalised gravity, we later had Einstein who pointed out he did not get it right. Who shall challenge Einstein.
The history of science is the history of working out how to "save the appearances", yet we keep getting tripped up by more observation ,and more cosmologies emerge.
Right now there is a confusion of cosmologies - possibly there are more now than at any time in the history of science.

Actually the physicists argue the possibility of everything being flat. The third dimension may be one of changing 2d relations.

We can live in both a 2d and 3d world.

I understand where you are going, and I agree with it...for the most part. However we are left with a paradox of certain constants still existing.

These are artefacts of the axiomatic method

⊙ so this is an artifact?

Relative truths are approximations of constant truths.

We can assume the existence of the noumenal world, but never have direct access to it. We are forever stuck with the phenomenal world and it seems always to resist those all to clear axioms.

False, all empirical phenonemon are reduced to points at a distance and composed of point particles up close. Even our awareness, such as looking at a specific point empirically, or localizing objects into points to which we count requires point space.

Our assumptive nature is defined by an empty minded state synonymous to point space and exists as the grounding of our ability to axiomize and is an axiom in itself.

[Sculptor]

What logical system does not represent nature approximately? Linear logic results in a continual divergence.

And what axioms/laws never quite fit the truth?

All of them, of course.
Take Euclid. We do not live in a 2D world. We live in a 3D world in constant motion.
Do you take parallel lines as definitive - or do you admit that they might meet at some point?
Do we stick with Euclid, or accept Russell's challenge to his trigonometry?
When Newton formalised gravity, we later had Einstein who pointed out he did not get it right. Who shall challenge Einstein.
The history of science is the history of working out how to "save the appearances", yet we keep getting tripped up by more observation ,and more cosmologies emerge.
Right now there is a confusion of cosmologies - possibly there are more now than at any time in the history of science.

Actually the physicists argue the possibility of everything being flat. The third dimension may be one of changing 2d relations.

We can live in both a 2d and 3d world.

I understand where you are going, and I agree with it...for the most part. However we are left with a paradox of certain constants still existing.

These are artefacts of the axiomatic method

⊙ so this is an artifact?

Relative truths are approximations of constant truths.

We can assume the existence of the noumenal world, but never have direct access to it. We are forever stuck with the phenomenal world and it seems always to resist those all to clear axioms.

False, all empirical phenonemon are reduced to points at a distance and composed of point particles up close. Even our awareness, such as looking at a specific point empirically, or localizing objects into points to which we count requires point space.

Our assumptive nature is defined by an empty minded state synonymous to point space and exists as the grounding of our ability to axiomize and is an axiom in itself.

If you are going to hit up on the first word of the post with "FALSE" you need to refute something that I have said. You failed to address my point completely.
But I'll show you something in your response that is utterly false.
We have no need of "point space", even if we did know where it is, it would be a useless objective. We can only use out subjective POV. Point space is an ever changing noumenal position; rotation about the earth, rotating about the sun, and hurtling through the galaxy around the central hub (proabably) and there may well be other things it consider such an universal expansion; none of it is usually of any interest, as we are more interested pragmatically in the phenomenal world. As humans and other animals, for millions of years, we have been making clear judgements about our environment without so much as a sniff of the concept of space and without a single axiom.

[Eodnhoj7]

All of them, of course.
Take Euclid. We do not live in a 2D world. We live in a 3D world in constant motion.
Do you take parallel lines as definitive - or do you admit that they might meet at some point?
Do we stick with Euclid, or accept Russell's challenge to his trigonometry?
When Newton formalised gravity, we later had Einstein who pointed out he did not get it right. Who shall challenge Einstein.
The history of science is the history of working out how to "save the appearances", yet we keep getting tripped up by more observation ,and more cosmologies emerge.
Right now there is a confusion of cosmologies - possibly there are more now than at any time in the history of science.

These are artefacts of the axiomatic method

We can assume the existence of the noumenal world, but never have direct access to it. We are forever stuck with the phenomenal world and it seems always to resist those all to clear axioms.

False, all empirical phenonemon are reduced to points at a distance and composed of point particles up close. Even our awareness, such as looking at a specific point empirically, or localizing objects into points to which we count requires point space.

Our assumptive nature is defined by an empty minded state synonymous to point space and exists as the grounding of our ability to axiomize and is an axiom in itself.

If you are going to hit up on the first word of the post with "FALSE" you need to refute something that I have said. You failed to address my point completely.

You relegating your argument to a point just justifies mine. In the nature of phenomenology the constants are form, thus all knowledge has a specific grounding.


But I'll show you something in your response that is utterly false.
We have no need of "point space", even if we did know where it is, it would be a useless objective.

Use in what context? Point space sets the grounding for all knowledge ranging from science, philosophy to religion. It tackles the problems of the fallacies in philosophies, all extensions of the Munchauseen trillema.

We can only use out subjective POV.

"Point of View"...still necessitated we can only use a point. Thus how we perceive reality effectively forms the successes and solutions to our problems.

The understanding of point space necessitated not only an understand of the elimination between subject and object, but how we measure, the groundings of morality, and our origins...thus our futures.


Point space is an ever changing noumenal position; rotation about the earth, rotating about the sun, and hurtling through the galaxy around the central hub (proabably) and there may well be other things it consider such an universal expansion; none of it is usually of any interest, as we are more interested pragmatically in the phenomenal world.

Not really, because this is still an assumed point of observation observing continual cycles existing recursively.

The point is always a point.



Pragmaticism failed. We already created tools to feed and entertain us, now we are bored...and boredom is one step away from chaos.

We create multiple distractions, which divide our ability to focus, thus resulting in the same problems we seek to avoid. No point in taking nature if we cannot tame our own. The simple truth is that the majority of pragmaticism is about achieving want instead of need.

As humans and other animals, for millions of years, we have been making clear judgements about our environment without so much as a sniff of the concept of space and without a single axiom.

Wow...that is actually stupid.

The hunters, we assume we evolved from, measured space for projective weapons, understanding the seasons by observing the stars and there movements, observed time as the movement of one phenomemon to another (requiring space), reflected internally on the movements of there emotions and how they projected and cycled through eachother, used math and geometry to give solution (and cause) problems in the world, seek salvation in religion by trying to be absorbed into some expanse or made (spatial qualities), etc.

Even the basic foundation of symbolism requires a simple dot projecting to a form.

Address the origins of man and we rebalance and give form to the chaos whether of the individual or group.