Philosophy Now Forum

Viveka wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:29 pm Size as temporality only works with systems where force and energy are used in a way such as in a gas where the pressure increases inversely with volume,
Yes I agree, but that can be summated simply as "movement" or "relativistic space" as the process of inversion can equate to movement in itself as circulation through dualism.


and such as a fluid where pressure increases inversely with volume. I think circuits can be thought of the same way with voltage and resistance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_analogy

However, not everything is like a gas or fluid.

I understand what you are saying, and in many respects it is correct...but is it? If we take a look at the four element earth (solid), wind (gas), water (liquid) and fire (plasma) we see a similiar form and function through triangulation and wave-movements where what fundamentally differs is the "rate". "Rate" in these terms again breaks into a dualism (I apologize for "repeating" what appears to be the same thing over and over again, however these universals are difficult to ignore) of "actual movement" and "potential movement" and a triadic structure again appears and seems to either relate through itself as a process of constant individuation as seperation (hence the aforementioned elements as "degrees" of eachother).

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:28 am I'm not certain that size is dependent on "temporality" (I assume you mean space, but don't know if you are switching language due to the other discussion, which isn't wrong to do, but I don't know the difference here if a change has occurred).

Size, without question, relates through temporality however if it is limited "strictly" to temporality is a question I am still exploring. Size is temporal, I have little doubt; hence the presented argument, however if it is a "constant" is a seperate question I am still wrestling with.

The big problem I've faced when looking at size, something I've obsessed with for a while (since I lived in Hawaii) is that size might have a pattern ultimately based neither in Matter or Energy.

Reason I think this is the basic space time curvature presumption. I can accept this, dropping the concept of gravity (I don't always go along with it, as I can't prove or disprove gravity on my own to a extent I'll accept for myself) but let's say you had a very small highly dense area, like a black hole. You expect exotic particles doing weird things, the sorts of bizarre stuff that pops up on Science Fiction like Stargate Atlantis....

The weird way my brain always processes atomic and subatomic structures is in triangles, a positive, negative, and neutral..... but arranged like the pedals of a flower. Some flowers can sprout more pedals than others. They come out of a stem. When people think of exotic particles, it is a few pedals more or less than this (a exotic element) or a pedal of a size none of the Flowers we have grown popping up on our flowers.

It is a reversible, in and out motion of pedals entering and exiting stems. Everything on our side of the Big Bang has flowers/atoms that all act the same.

You start adding or subtracting a lot of size to things, you stress out the flowers, and they will either suck in or push our petals-atomic structure.
Considering flowers are defined through a potential nature, I am not sure much stress would occur as the potential nature is "size" within itself that extends further than actuality as the flower. Hence we see a flow of growth and decay relative to "potential" natures as a "boundary" of time that continually allows actuality as a "microcosm" of the "macrocosm" (potentiality).

I'm not merely talking about radiation.... a imbalance, dispersing across space, but if it gets dense enough, I think a atom can grow or shrink to compensate. Might get a basic first element that isn't Hydrogen, something heavier or lighter even (hard to imagine a atom lighter than hydrogen).

That's basically the weird way my mind has settled on the much larger universe. What we call space-time being the result of a crunch, and the result is what was uniform in that crunch is our universe, and what isn't doesn't directly interact with us.

This presumes some weird stuff about space our minds wouldn't easily accept at first. What if geometry is a side effect of the curvature signature of our universe?

Curvature implies a gradation of a whole (point/circle/sphere) and in these respects constants appear as "potential" contructs guiding the "actual" (this is considering "potentiality", as argued, is larger in the respect it maintains itself as a "guiding" space or "boundary" that extends past the actual). In these respects I agree with you in certain degrees, as "actuality" and "potentiality" maintain a dualistic process of inversion where one defines the other through "circulation".

However gradation is a two way street, as it implies itself as the "effect" of a "cause". Looking at the nature of effect, as I have argued on multiple threads, we can see it as causal in itself and in these respects is strictly "ever-present original cause". In these respects, all curvature are merely structural causes (as effect) extending from and original cause as "geometry".

When looking at space, the most common notion is to look at an "empty" plane or "vector", however this I do not believe to be the case as these things are strictly an extension of "curvature" itself. Space is curvature and curvature is energy as movement.

Infinity of space absolutely, certainly doesn't exist (it doesn't, don't slap a math symbol around, it simply doesn't exist).... but our geometry of a line presumes it does.
Temporality cannot exist on its own terms without perpetual movement, and this perpetual movement (as the manifestation of "limits" cycling through themselves) requires infinity.

Space has a limit. A size limit. We presume dots, and lines, and shapes. Many ways to construct a geometry, but the legitimacy of any rules for a geometry is.... it has to match up with out ability to see and identify shapes. So a lot of it is either a God given talent, or evolved. Let's say, we made something at great expenditure, wider than Space Time. We and all alien life just decided to make a massive super structure over a billion years, stretched the length of the universe. Would the universe stretch to accommodate? Would geometry hold true, once we disregarded relativity and made the universe contort to a absurd fashion? Would relativity snap, stop reacting the the ends of it? Would it act like it doesn't have mass at spots? Could a straigh line object even exist at the level of size?

Here is a thread address the nature of "limit" and infinity: Unity, Multiplicity and Infinity
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=23138

How small can we make a straight line, a triangle, a square?
These are good questions. "I" argue:

Considering size is perpetual movement, in theory it would be "ever approaching zero" as (1 → 0) with the movement being equivalent to infinite gradation as infinite fractals or: [→] ≜ (1/x) with "x" = (∀1n > 1) ∴ ∞

Infinite "smallness" is proportional to infinite expansion (largeness expressed as: (∀1n > 1) ∴ ∞) or:

..........1.......... ∝ ........... (∀1n > 1)..............
```(∀1n > 1)````````````````````1

However the "points" as zero dimensional objects would maintain themselves as equal in nature (so no matter how small the line or geometry shape, the points they are composed of would always remain the "same size".) In these respects, the lines as linear movements would expand and shrink as "time dilates or expands" for "time is movement expressed through linear dimensionality".

In these respects movement, as linear dimensionality, is equivalent to "size". To compare the size of the line would fundamentally be to compared the number of points that divide it and in these respects size manifests itself the number of divisions between objects.

Size in these respects equates to ratio of zero dimensional points as divisors.



An infinite line would strictly be infinitie "potential curvature" as it moves towards the center of a zero dimensional point.

What size does such shapes stop mattering as a patterned force?

In theory, none, as the ratios extend ad-infinitum relative to eachother. In mathematical terms some fractals would be infinitely small. The problem occurs that the smaller equivalent geometry shapes get (lets use triangles), the higher the gravitational pull as the relations between the 0 dimensional points are closer to centering as 1 (they never do however) and the smaller they get the "higher" the tension in theory.

So with infinite gradation comes increasing tension as "flux". The smaller of the two triangles would exist in its own time zone and cease to be observed yet simultaneously manfiest a quantum effect with the larger triangle where the movement in one (as their are various grades of triangle) would cause a change in the other through the gravitational pull as a common degree of movement through which they relate.

Both triangles would exist in seperate dimensions, with possibly the smaller one manifesting further "sub-dimensions" almost like a "hair effect" through gravitational waves as micro-sub structural relations of further triangles.

Can geometry as we know it only express itself at certain sizes?
Considering the premise of the one dimensional line as temporal movement, size is relative to the number of zero dimensional points dividing it and these points would maintain ratios between themselves as "small" and "large". In these respects, to observe one triangle would be to observe potentially infinite number of larger and smaller triangles.

Size, in these respects, through the zero dimensional point as a foundational structure becomes irrelevant and geometric figures (through infinite micro and macro propogation) exist outside of "size" by observing infinite "sizes".

Is there classes of sizes possible beyond the current configuration of the universe, had the Big Bang been different?

If the big bang was center through "points", size would be irrelevant until multiple points began to relate. The first moment of the big bang would have no size.

I don't know this. I just know the geometry we use to hunt small animals can pilot a space craft, and detect space time wobbles, and our ability to adjust to the whimsy of prey allow us to detect and acknowledge this change.
It shows at an intuitive level that all forms of consciousness, using animals as an example, are aware of geometric constructs.

Our approach pragmatically for now is correct. How correct though, is a different matter all together. I'm increasingly uncertain after setting out on this course of thinking that I accept ideas like universal constants, much like Descartes who worried about the Evil Demon, I worry that we might be in a lot more fluctuation that we otherwise imagine.... like how pond scum maintains it's integrity in slow moving water.... a few ripples are unnoticed to a otherwise flat world, and all our geometric tests, and particle shooting, and astronomy might not pick up on other hidden aspects in the universe. We would have to look elsewhere, deep in the subatomic soup for the weird sub atomic particle that just sometimes acts funny for no relativistic reason that we can think of. Quantum Intanglement might also suggest a hidden aspect of size and thus geometry.

I don't expect anyone to accept my triangles and flowers analogy,
Actually I think it is good idea.


just how my brain processes space, it is my fallback point I usually go to when a theory fails to hold merit in my mind. If size is a force chosen by forces more than just the relativity of space, then it complicates things considerably.
Relativistic space is strictly perpetual movement.

We view the universe as Space-Time, placed our whole theory of cognition of Left Hemisphere Time, Right Space thinking. Adding a new aspect to it might through a lot of chaos into the current orthodoxy of thinking. How much, hard to say, but it is something that has bothered me for years. I doubt as a society, as a civilization, we will really care about such theories like this for a very, very long time. No really pressure to explore the limitations of size, in either extreme. As long as we can putter around in space, we can afford a general ignorance of this idea, so expect the concept to die with me as a novelty. But it is something I've struggled with. Don't think it fits too nicely in with the various theories out there. I don't believe in things like 4th dimension being time, or hypercubes, etc. It plays out differently in my mind, and I'm not certain why the instinct to do so exists, as I can't possibly know otherwise. I just favor it, the question and thought got into my head one day, and has eaten at me ever since. I really don't have anyway to test it one way or another.