For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Just saw the message, my apologies for not reply sooner. Will PM.prof wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:24 am I agree. With your permission I'd like to pass some of these ideas along to readers. It is brilliant of you, Eodnhoj7, to notice that about those maxims, those moral principles.
Send me a private message, telling me your name. I will see to it then that you get credit.
Keep up the good work!
Actually symmetry is a natural phenomena as well considering we can observe certain forms reflected in nature:TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:04 am Whether the Golden Rule stems from, or has been encoded in geometry lands us into a Philosophy-of-mathematics dispute. Is mathematics invented or discovered? I lean towards the "invented" school of thought and so all of the similarities you discover in our theories are simply reflections of our own minds. You can find these marks all across the human body of knowledge.
The no-harm principle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere ) is scale-invariant ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance ). It applies at the individual scale or at the social/collective scale.
As you rightly point out it all starts with values. From the school of Protagoras and perspectivism - man is the measure of all things. And the no-harm principle is our highest value. First we wish no harm upon ourselves, and by reciprocity and scale-invariance - no harm upon the collective.
The nature of self-fulfilling prophecies is trivially demonstrated by Ergodic theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodic_theory ) certain social norms (values) are simply not sustainable and lead to systemic collapse through eradication of diversity.
This can be easily observed when one combines Game theory and Ergodic theory. There are only so many strategies that result in systemic equilibrium long-term. Neither altruism nor egoism wins in the end.
You can play the game here: The Evolution of Trust: https://ncase.me/trust/
Do observe though: symmetry is an aesthetic concern more than a naturalistic one.
Are those symmetrical? Fractal maybe?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:32 pm Actually symmetry is a natural phenomena as well considering we can observe certain forms reflected in nature:
1) Linear branching in trees, to branches to leaves as well as cracks in rock, wood and the branching of nerves, veins, etc. in organisms. This can be observed further in lightning, etc.
Again... Fractal.
Don't see it.
I don't see circularity here. I see Keppler's laws (elipses). But also - I am perfectly happy to "switch" intuitions where necessary.
Sure. Points are mandatory in Euclidian space. Or their generalizations - Hilbert spaces.
Movement? Change over time? Calculus?
Sure, but in the end monads behave exactly like black boxes with a single (uni-variate?) input.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:32 pm The question of measurement in turn stems from directed movement as limits in themselves with these limits embodied universally in the point, line and circle reminiscent of the "Monad", "Bindhu" (Indian), Nazar (Arabic/Turkish), The sun / Ra (Egyptian hieroglyphs), The sun / a day (Chinese oracle script, the modern character being 日), etc.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:52 pmAre those symmetrical? Fractal maybe?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:32 pm Actually symmetry is a natural phenomena as well considering we can observe certain forms reflected in nature:
1) Linear branching in trees, to branches to leaves as well as cracks in rock, wood and the branching of nerves, veins, etc. in organisms. This can be observed further in lightning, etc.
Lines as fractals is a very interesting, but paradoxical, subject considering a linear interpretation of time effectively necessitates time strictly as an "atomic" or "particulate" nature. All phenomena as composed of particles, where the particle projects from point A to B in a linear fashion observes time as grounded in linearism just by movement alone considering a particle exists as movement.
For example I have have a frame work where a particle moves from position A to Position B. This framework is a particle as well. Now the particle moves from point A to point B. In moving from point A to point B, the particle moves from position A to A.1 to A.2...etc. to B while we have a continual replication of A to A.10 to A.11 etc. with this further progression existing further.
In these respects each Particle, as having an inherent position, is effectively the particle multiplying itself in one respect along a time line while in a seperate respect existing as a fractal relative to its original and potential origins respectively.
The particle effectively as a time zone in itself considering its movement between A.1 and A.2 makes it a constant line of A.11 to A.1x. The particle as existing between two points, with this progression from one point to another giving it the inherent nature of directed movement which allows its existence to occur, always observes respectively the particle as being a time line in itself relative to smaller time lines.
Hence infinite replication occurs at multiple dimensions, where the particle exists fundamentally as a linear projection in one respect while in the act of projecting is constituted as always being a timeline in itself.
All linear movement is symmetrical in these respects as a form of replication where all particles (whether those ranging from empirical perspective of physics to those atomic facts observed in Wittgenstein's and Russel's work) are symmetrical through there manifestation alone.
What we observe in these "branching" patterns which show fundamentally a replication of lines as both fractals of previous lines but also the multiplication of lines, observes certain inherent movements within nature being a replication of time zones so to speak where linear time is reflected through the process of nature in various facets.
Lines, as grounded in particulate, have a dual
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=23610&p=355373&hil ... rs#p355373
Again... Fractal.
See above.
Don't see it.
If I see a triangle of x dimensions. Then that triangle dissappears and one replaces it at x.1 dimensions, where there is a slight variation from the prior triangle to the next one, and this process of various triangles continues instantaneously in change where any conception of time is strictly the relation of one triangle relative to another, both existing through various other triangles then what we observes is a form of movement. While each triangle may be a constant, as there are infinite triangles, the multiplication/division of one triangle into many is strictly an inversion where any unified phenomenon is seen through multiple parts.
Observing a mountain, what we are observing is strictly a boundary of movement so to speak where the mountain exists as one rate of movement, the hill another. This movement is composed of and composed of further movements and so on, where each movement is strictly a constant form inverting to another constant form.
The mountain or hill, as the approximation of a triangle, is strictly the observation of projective vertical movement in one respect where the horizontal flow of earth exists in tension with a verticle movement. The mountain/hill (as well as fire, wind, or water in the ocean) observes an inherent nature of "frequency" where any localized event of this frequency necessitates an inherent rising or falling as an approximation of a triangle.
Now this approximation, observed as a curve, is composed of further "frequencies" where upon closer inspection of any curve is a strict set of lines between points result in a multitude of angles.
I don't see circularity here. I see Keppler's laws (elipses). But also - I am perfectly happy to "switch" intuitions where necessary.
1. The circularity occurs through alternation where if we invert the eliptical movement, lets say a planet's orbit, to a horizontal position we observe the planet going back and forth between its relative apexes. This is a linear form of circularity through alternation. Circularity exists through projective movement as well.
2. Second, the elliptical orbit is still an approximation of the circle. As an approximation it is a "part" of the circle and as such an extension of it. Considering the above point prior to this where the circle exists through the line, the line may exist through the circle and a synthesis of these two foundations results in an extended circle as "elliptic". The question of any "fractal" nature, where an elliptic form is a fraction of a circular, observes extensions from a constant as a partial of that very same constant.
3. One can invert, or "alternate" (going back to point 1), the question and say the circle is an approximate of the elliptic where the elliptic is a constant and the circle is an approximate of it but this in turn observes the elliptic of being composed of infinite circles (much in the same manner the circle is composed of infinite elliptics) and we are left with a continual alternation going to point 1 again that progresses to point 2. We are left with the dualistic foundations of the basic line and circle summated under a third axiom of point of origin considering the orbits relative to other orbits in distance are merely point space. In these respects the nature of one orbit to another, through distance as a linear structure, leaves each orbit as a relative "point" to another.
Some times it's useful to think 'geometric circle', some times it's useful to think x*x + y*y = 1, some times it may even be useful to think of a circle as an elipse as coinciding focii: x*x/1*1 + y*y/1*1 = 1
Sure. Points are mandatory in Euclidian space. Or their generalizations - Hilbert spaces.
Points act as boundless fields as well, with any bound field (that which has specific dimensions to it) observing the dimension composing it (through recursion) as boundless fields as well with the dimensions themselves observing point space as foundational.
Do Points act as Fields?
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=23345&p=345511&hil ... 3F#p345511
Movement? Change over time? Calculus?
All movement is strictly the observation of multiple parts where one part inverts to another. Inversion effectively, on its own terms is nothing. Time, as a boundary of movement as a relation of parts in turn exists as a point of inversion in itself. For example a particle may be considering a time zone as it is a relation of parts, but this time zone inverts to further timezones as further particles. Time is subject to the term "recursion" but this recursion is a constant boundary of movement as an observation of an "infinity". Hence what we understand of one particle, as an infinity, results in the observation of multiple infinities when other particles are observed.
Multiplicity is strictly the inversion of one infinity into another.
Sure, but in the end monads behave exactly like black boxes with a single (uni-variate?) input.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:32 pm The question of measurement in turn stems from directed movement as limits in themselves with these limits embodied universally in the point, line and circle reminiscent of the "Monad", "Bindhu" (Indian), Nazar (Arabic/Turkish), The sun / Ra (Egyptian hieroglyphs), The sun / a day (Chinese oracle script, the modern character being 日), etc.
Well if we look at the black box framework of interpretation, while the input may change what is constant is the input as a progressive change due to the output. So the input/output are constant progressive change respectively where the black box is strictly a means of inversion from one state to another. The black box effectively as an inverter is effectively nothing in itself as it is observe through the constant input/output.
The input/output loop, is what it is: a loop.
Using an example where:
1. Input is 1 output is 2. (1 point divides into 2 points).
2. Input is 2 and output is 8. (2 as a set of points divides into a set of 2 points with each point following the same form and function)
3. Input is 8 output is 32 (These 8 points as 1 point divide into 2 point of 8 points with each point dividing into 2 points)
4. etc.
Results in the input/output progressing to an infinity where they observe a loop progressing towards infinity.
Now this may vary with how the inversion is applied, but we are left with observing the input/output respectively as a loop of increasing change.