For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
So a thing is a thing and there is no other way to define it? It is a thing because it is a thing?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:43 pmThat's right!
I would never have said it that way, but it is certainly true enough. It's very similar to Aristotle's A is A, a thing is what it is.
But isn't quality of continuum of things? One thing to another or one thing continuing as a thing? Isn't that which continues a form by nature as it projects from one position to another?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:35 pmI would never have said it that way, but it is certainly true enough. It's very similar to Aristotle's A is A, a thing is what it is.
But, what I think you are really getting at is, "what is a thing?" It's true enough to say, "a thing is what it is," but what exactly is a thing?
That is the question I answer in my introductory article on ontology, one version on this site: Ontology Introduction, another version online here: Ontology—A Brief Introduction.
Briefly, I'll say that any existent is whatever it's "qualities," (i.e., "characteristics," "attributes," "properties," "aspects," and "states") are.
Can you rephrase the question? A, "quality," is any attribute of an existent." I have no idea what you mean by a, "continuum," or, "one thing to another." What to you mean by, "form?" Do you mean, "shape," or are you thinking about Platonic, "forms?"Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:47 pmBut isn't quality of continuum of things? One thing to another or one thing continuing as a thing? Isn't that which continues a form by nature as it projects from one position to another?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:35 pmI would never have said it that way, but it is certainly true enough. It's very similar to Aristotle's A is A, a thing is what it is.
But, what I think you are really getting at is, "what is a thing?" It's true enough to say, "a thing is what it is," but what exactly is a thing?
That is the question I answer in my introductory article on ontology, one version on this site: Ontology Introduction, another version online here: Ontology—A Brief Introduction.
Briefly, I'll say that any existent is whatever it's "qualities," (i.e., "characteristics," "attributes," "properties," "aspects," and "states") are.
Isn't a quality a set of attributes that continue in any given thing?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:07 pmCan you rephrase the question? A, "quality," is any attribute of an existent." I have no idea what you mean by a, "continuum," or, "one thing to another." What to you mean by, "form?" Do you mean, "shape," or are you thinking about Platonic, "forms?"Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:47 pmBut isn't quality of continuum of things? One thing to another or one thing continuing as a thing? Isn't that which continues a form by nature as it projects from one position to another?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:35 pm
I would never have said it that way, but it is certainly true enough. It's very similar to Aristotle's A is A, a thing is what it is.
But, what I think you are really getting at is, "what is a thing?" It's true enough to say, "a thing is what it is," but what exactly is a thing?
That is the question I answer in my introductory article on ontology, one version on this site: Ontology Introduction, another version online here: Ontology—A Brief Introduction.
Briefly, I'll say that any existent is whatever it's "qualities," (i.e., "characteristics," "attributes," "properties," "aspects," and "states") are.
No. A quality is any characteristic, attribute, or property of an existent. For example, some qualities of gold are:
Yet the attributes must continue therefore making quality a continuum of attributes. For example the quality of silver's color, given conditions of being tarnished or untarnished, must continue within the given conditions.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:54 pmNo. A quality is any characteristic, attribute, or property of an existent. For example, some qualities of gold are:
Color: Bright Yellow
Luster: It has a shine or glow
Ductility: It can be beaten into extremely thin sheets of gold leaf
Malleability: Capable of being shaped or bent
Conductivity: Good electrical conductor
Solubility: Dissolves in Aqua regia
Hardness: A relatively soft metal.
Density: It is a dense metal
Melting point: It melts at 1065°C
Activity: Gold is chemically inactive, it's extremely resistant to chemical action
Isotopes: It has one stable isotope, 197Au
Reactivity: Gold reacts with halogens to forms halides
Yet all phenomenon exist through spatial curves.nothing wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:54 am Space has no properties, it only has the attribute of being the reciprocal of time.
The point of A = A "a thing is what it is" is grossly inadequate
to capture even the basic universal phenomena of relative motion:
to move in towards, or away from. ±
I recently found the universal identity which equals both 1 and Φ³ at the same time.
This means that the only difference between '1' and Φ³ (4.23606797...) is "polarity"
viz. one single ±. The expression is generally in the form:
aπ² + bπ² ± cπ² / dπ²
And indicates the beginning/end of the real number system, which collapses into -12/144 (-1/12).
To give an example: take (1+√5)/2 (this is phi: 1.618...) and replace '1' with 'π' to make (π+π√5)/2π resulting in the same.
Doing it this way removes the need to introduce one's own '1' and instead let Φ/π do it, as squaring (π+π√5)/2π yields Φ + 1 (2.618...)
And from here the identity can eventually be constructed which yields 1 and Φ³ as the "same identity" less: ± on the c term.
The identity clarifies the Reimann Hypothesis in that all real number values have a value of 1/2 given all primes are encoded by this identity.
It does this by clarifying that "imaginary" numbers are not actually imaginary: they are the "operations" of Φ as they relate to the "real" unit circle whose relative datum is simply '1' hence: 1/2 for real values, as there is no other real value beside the imaginary one.
Space does not curve:Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:57 amYet all phenomenon exist through spatial curves.nothing wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:54 am Space has no properties, it only has the attribute of being the reciprocal of time.
The point of A = A "a thing is what it is" is grossly inadequate
to capture even the basic universal phenomena of relative motion:
to move in towards, or away from. ±
I recently found the universal identity which equals both 1 and Φ³ at the same time.
This means that the only difference between '1' and Φ³ (4.23606797...) is "polarity"
viz. one single ±. The expression is generally in the form:
aπ² + bπ² ± cπ² / dπ²
And indicates the beginning/end of the real number system, which collapses into -12/144 (-1/12).
To give an example: take (1+√5)/2 (this is phi: 1.618...) and replace '1' with 'π' to make (π+π√5)/2π resulting in the same.
Doing it this way removes the need to introduce one's own '1' and instead let Φ/π do it, as squaring (π+π√5)/2π yields Φ + 1 (2.618...)
And from here the identity can eventually be constructed which yields 1 and Φ³ as the "same identity" less: ± on the c term.
The identity clarifies the Reimann Hypothesis in that all real number values have a value of 1/2 given all primes are encoded by this identity.
It does this by clarifying that "imaginary" numbers are not actually imaginary: they are the "operations" of Φ as they relate to the "real" unit circle whose relative datum is simply '1' hence: 1/2 for real values, as there is no other real value beside the imaginary one.
Space is the curve.nothing wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:52 pmSpace does not curve:Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:57 amYet all phenomenon exist through spatial curves.nothing wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:54 am Space has no properties, it only has the attribute of being the reciprocal of time.
The point of A = A "a thing is what it is" is grossly inadequate
to capture even the basic universal phenomena of relative motion:
to move in towards, or away from. ±
I recently found the universal identity which equals both 1 and Φ³ at the same time.
This means that the only difference between '1' and Φ³ (4.23606797...) is "polarity"
viz. one single ±. The expression is generally in the form:
aπ² + bπ² ± cπ² / dπ²
And indicates the beginning/end of the real number system, which collapses into -12/144 (-1/12).
To give an example: take (1+√5)/2 (this is phi: 1.618...) and replace '1' with 'π' to make (π+π√5)/2π resulting in the same.
Doing it this way removes the need to introduce one's own '1' and instead let Φ/π do it, as squaring (π+π√5)/2π yields Φ + 1 (2.618...)
And from here the identity can eventually be constructed which yields 1 and Φ³ as the "same identity" less: ± on the c term.
The identity clarifies the Reimann Hypothesis in that all real number values have a value of 1/2 given all primes are encoded by this identity.
It does this by clarifying that "imaginary" numbers are not actually imaginary: they are the "operations" of Φ as they relate to the "real" unit circle whose relative datum is simply '1' hence: 1/2 for real values, as there is no other real value beside the imaginary one.
what pi is to angular momentum,
phi is to linear unit length r such
that the two co-create ad infinitum.
It is therefor silly to create flaccid tautologies with numbers:
it is not the number that counts, it is how you "numerate".