Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:28 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 1:43 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 11:45 pm

Yet a line exists between two points and is composed of infinite lines between each of these points as the line itself; the line is composed of infinite lines as infinite points with the point observing no space at all. The line exists as real given observation which produces the line is real.

Rubbish. Find a microscope far more capable than delving beyond the limits of what we can observe at the sub-atomic level and you will find that is not the case. (such a device does not and never will exist)

Put a microscope to a line and you will observe further lines; increase the power of the microscope and you will still see lines. Why?

A point is not an atom. A point is a 0d entity. Thus a line between two points, with the line being composed of further points, is a line composed of further lines. To magnify a line is to observe another sub-line then another sub-line, ad-infinitum. The division of a 0d point, as a line, results in further points. To magnify a point is to result in further points. Infinity is perpetual change where the same thing recreates itself in a new time and space; infinity is provable through the ever present "now".

The "line" at best would be broken up by dots of binary yay or nay events.

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:44 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:37 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:02 pm
That is discrete to me. The reality is discrete to me if that was what you were trying to say.

Yes, that is what I am saying - reality does not have an infinite number of points between two objects of matter.

I always thought that the number of points between 2 objects was infinite. I would like to understand the concept you referenced. Please school me.

Not sure if I can school you!

Zenos paradox could permit such a thing as an infinite number of points between two objects MATHEMATICALLY. But math is only a tool, useful in it's application when it comes to understanding reality, but does permit such things as the aforementioned paradox, and indeed infinity.

As I stated earlier, I think the true nature of reality is binary. Hence, eventually that distance point is either met or not, 1 or 0, event or not.

Time is discrete as is space and the final indivisible point between two objects therefore is either an event or not.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:37 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:44 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:37 am

Yes, that is what I am saying - reality does not have an infinite number of points between two objects of matter.

I always thought that the number of points between 2 objects was infinite. I would like to understand the concept you referenced. Please school me.

Not sure if I can school you!

Zenos paradox could permit such a thing as an infinite number of points between two objects MATHEMATICALLY. But math is only a tool, useful in it's application when it comes to understanding reality, but does permit such things as the aforementioned paradox, and indeed infinity.

As I stated earlier, I think the true nature of reality is binary. Hence, eventually that distance point is either met or not, 1 or 0, event or not.

Time is discrete as is space and the final indivisible point between two objects therefore is either an event or not.

Thanks.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 5:25 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:37 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:44 pm

I always thought that the number of points between 2 objects was infinite. I would like to understand the concept you referenced. Please school me.

Not sure if I can school you!

Zenos paradox could permit such a thing as an infinite number of points between two objects MATHEMATICALLY. But math is only a tool, useful in it's application when it comes to understanding reality, but does permit such things as the aforementioned paradox, and indeed infinity.

As I stated earlier, I think the true nature of reality is binary. Hence, eventually that distance point is either met or not, 1 or 0, event or not.

Time is discrete as is space and the final indivisible point between two objects therefore is either an event or not.

Thanks.

Phew!!

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:34 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:28 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 1:43 am

Rubbish. Find a microscope far more capable than delving beyond the limits of what we can observe at the sub-atomic level and you will find that is not the case. (such a device does not and never will exist)

Put a microscope to a line and you will observe further lines; increase the power of the microscope and you will still see lines. Why?

A point is not an atom. A point is a 0d entity. Thus a line between two points, with the line being composed of further points, is a line composed of further lines. To magnify a line is to observe another sub-line then another sub-line, ad-infinitum. The division of a 0d point, as a line, results in further points. To magnify a point is to result in further points. Infinity is perpetual change where the same thing recreates itself in a new time and space; infinity is provable through the ever present "now".

The "line" at best would be broken up by dots of binary yay or nay events.

And the distance between the broken up dots is a line; to break a line is to form another line.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 10:11 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:34 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:28 am

Put a microscope to a line and you will observe further lines; increase the power of the microscope and you will still see lines. Why?

A point is not an atom. A point is a 0d entity. Thus a line between two points, with the line being composed of further points, is a line composed of further lines. To magnify a line is to observe another sub-line then another sub-line, ad-infinitum. The division of a 0d point, as a line, results in further points. To magnify a point is to result in further points. Infinity is perpetual change where the same thing recreates itself in a new time and space; infinity is provable through the ever present "now".

The "line" at best would be broken up by dots of binary yay or nay events.

And the distance between the broken up dots is a line; to break a line is to form another line.

Depends how you define a line - an individual 'dot' is not a line.

You wrote:-

Yet a line exists between two points and is composed of infinite lines between each of these points as the line itself; the line is composed of infinite lines as infinite points with the point observing no space at all. The line exists as real given observation which produces the line is real.

..which is incorrect. There are no infinite 'dots' between two points, and these individual 'dots' in and of themselves, are NOT lines by any definition.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 2:13 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 10:11 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:34 am

The "line" at best would be broken up by dots of binary yay or nay events.

And the distance between the broken up dots is a line; to break a line is to form another line.

Depends how you define a line - an individual 'dot' is not a line.

You wrote:-

Yet a line exists between two points and is composed of infinite lines between each of these points as the line itself; the line is composed of infinite lines as infinite points with the point observing no space at all. The line exists as real given observation which produces the line is real.

..which is incorrect. There are no infinite 'dots' between two points, and these individual 'dots' in and of themselves, are NOT lines by any definition.

1. An individual dot is reducible to further dots thus multiple lines as the distance between points. An example is a dot on the horizon upon closer inspection being a horse. A dot is the time and space between (an) object(s) and an observer. Given a dot is 0d it is reducible to further 0d points as 0 dimensionality results in 0 dimensionality.

2. A line divided into another set of lines, which in turn are divided into another set of lines, ad-infinitum results in infinite dots between two starting points (which are dots).

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:49 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 2:13 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 10:11 pm

And the distance between the broken up dots is a line; to break a line is to form another line.

Depends how you define a line - an individual 'dot' is not a line.

You wrote:-

Yet a line exists between two points and is composed of infinite lines between each of these points as the line itself; the line is composed of infinite lines as infinite points with the point observing no space at all. The line exists as real given observation which produces the line is real.

..which is incorrect. There are no infinite 'dots' between two points, and these individual 'dots' in and of themselves, are NOT lines by any definition.

1. An individual dot is reducible to further dots thus multiple lines as the distance between points. An example is a dot on the horizon upon closer inspection being a horse. A dot is the time and space between (an) object(s) and an observer. Given a dot is 0d it is reducible to further 0d points as 0 dimensionality results in 0 dimensionality.

2. A line divided into another set of lines, which in turn are divided into another set of lines, ad-infinitum results in infinite dots between two starting points (which are dots).

You insist on peddling infinity exists between objects! If that were the case then EVERYTHING would remain stationary, in fact even if your brain was still functioning without such a constraint, all you would see if you were permitted to open your eyes would be BLACK.

wtf wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:38 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:02 pm
That is discrete to me. The reality is discrete to me if that was what you were trying to say.

I'm always amazed that people can convince themselves that they are personally knowledgeable about the ultimate nature of reality.

How do you know, one way or the other?

When what is 'seen' or 'said' is IRREFUTABLE, and thus could be in agreement with, and accepted by, EVERY one, then 'you' KNOW you have 'thee knowledge' about the the 'ultimate nature of reality'.

wtf wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:38 pm What do you mean that reality is discrete? That it's made up of little bowling ball-like objects, one next to the other, in a grid? What's your evidence? How do you know? How could anyone know?

How do you know you're not this guy?

'you' can not know either way. Now, if one wants to look at things this way, then there is only ONE 'thing' that can be KNOWN, for sure. But, this still does NOT detract from KNOWING the 'ultimate nature of reality'.

Now, if ANY one would like to delve into this, and discuss, further, then let us. I can SHOW how this is all possible.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:52 pm

wtf wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:38 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:02 pm
That is discrete to me. The reality is discrete to me if that was what you were trying to say.

I'm always amazed that people can convince themselves that they are personally knowledgeable about the ultimate nature of reality.

How do you know, one way or the other? What do you mean that reality is discrete? That it's made up of little bowling ball-like objects, one next to the other, in a grid? What's your evidence? How do you know? How could anyone know?

How do you know you're not this guy?

I have a few arguments against the continuous process.

Are ANY of them sound AND valid arguments?

If yes, then they would be IRREFUTABLE, which MEANS absolutely NO one could refute them.

So, PLEASE bring those arguments forward, for ALL to LOOK AT and SEE.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:52 pm By reality being discrete I mean that there is a gap between two states of affairs.

What ACTUAL physical PROOF and/or SOUND and VALID ARGUMENT do you have that 'reality', itself, is 'discrete'?

Also, there just APPEARS to be 'gaps' between two 'perceived' "states of affairs", but ACTUALLY NONE exists.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:52 pm I cannot tell whether I am that guy or not.

WHY NOT?

Are 'you' STILL wondering how to answer, properly AND correctly, the 'Who am 'I'?' question?

For when 'you' can answer that question, accurately, then 'you' will KNOW whether 'I' am 'that guy' or not.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:54 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:49 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 2:13 am

Depends how you define a line - an individual 'dot' is not a line.

You wrote:-


..which is incorrect. There are no infinite 'dots' between two points, and these individual 'dots' in and of themselves, are NOT lines by any definition.

1. An individual dot is reducible to further dots thus multiple lines as the distance between points. An example is a dot on the horizon upon closer inspection being a horse. A dot is the time and space between (an) object(s) and an observer. Given a dot is 0d it is reducible to further 0d points as 0 dimensionality results in 0 dimensionality.

2. A line divided into another set of lines, which in turn are divided into another set of lines, ad-infinitum results in infinite dots between two starting points (which are dots).

You insist on peddling infinity exists between objects! If that were the case then EVERYTHING would remain stationary, in fact even if your brain was still functioning without such a constraint, all you would see if you were permitted to open your eyes would be BLACK.

1. Or white...or gray...or nothing at all.

2. From a perspective of one totality of being everything is stationary as everything is one given all is connected from a common source; movement is relative as a perceived multiplicity yet even this multiplicity is a series of distinct singles that share the same nature of singles. Movement is the multiplicity of infinities.

3. Given the chain of being requires A then B then C all individual links are infinite given the chain is infinite. The chain of being is infinite, along with each respective part, given only being exists (there is only existence). Given only being exists then being is infinite and any subparts of said chain share the same qualities at the micro scale as that of the macro scale; the part shares the same qualities of the whole from which it is derived and the whole shares the same qualities of the part from which it is derived. Being exists through Being.

4. Another example is the number 1; it exists as infinite given the proceeding number line, which is infinite, is composed of 1s.

LOL