Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:06 am What we understand of physical reality breaks down to a basic observation of the particle wave.


Waves, particle and otherwise, are merely angles found in zero dimension points that manifest alternating 1 dimensional lines. The dimensional nature of the wavelength is number as dimensions and number are synonymous.

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:26 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:06 am What we understand of physical reality breaks down to a basic observation of the particle wave.


Waves, particle and otherwise, are merely angles found in zero dimension points that manifest alternating 1 dimensional lines. The dimensional nature of the wavelength is number as dimensions and number are synonymous.

Ummmm..... impossible. Can't have a 1 Dimensional line "manifested" from a 0 Dimensional point, under the principles laid out in general Dimensional mechanics.

The zero dimensional point, as a divisor, manifests the line through the line as "division" as the line is merely relation through zero dimensional points (which do not exist in themselves except through the 1 dimensional line.

"Lines" don't even exist, much less points to begin with, and the concept of lines and points don't mesh together. The physics is supposed to be fundamentally different, only bad science fiction writers try to mesh the two worlds together in emulation of the book Flatland. You'll also want to consider the drive you have with Unity contrasted against Wolfham's concept of patterned Chaos in his "A New Kind Of Science".
http://wolframscience.com

Lines are merely space, space is space and all existence is rooted in it.


The last episode of The Orville tried this, with a ship from 3-D fly through 2-D space (which wasn't that 2-D, the special effects made little balls fly above the 2-D world, and the Orville shouldn't even of been able to see it, but whatever). Makes no sense, but the glossed over this, forcing a logic on it anyway, a predictability that gave it a sense of physics.

I'm afraid as fun as it is to conceptualize multiple dimensions, they have absolutely no proof of existence.
Dimensions are merely "direction as structure" and in these respect multiple dimensions exist. You are not still pushing the stoic metaphysics are you? Its been addressed on multiple occasions as "deficient". The measurement systems they use are relativistic and demand a continual compounding of measurements to manifest further measurements.

Entire Doctorates have been written using amazing mathematics, and it was all mesmerizingly complex bullshit of universes hiding out in folded space smaller than the ball on the bottom of a pulled butthair, in which entire civilizations of higher or lower beings can exist completely unknown to us, if only we had some pimped out metal detector/Dimensional detector able to scan for these places, we would know.

Using a tool to observe a reality automatically changes that reality to a certain degree as the measurements its uses "rooms" of the reality into a little world of its own that exists relative to the dimensions the devices applies to measure it.

But we don't. It is far more likely a dot is just the end result of how our optical system focuses upon orienting to something in the plane of our vision. Orient --> Observe --> Decide --> Act [OODA Loop].

Line is a metric applied via our vision to space, equal to the Pythagorean Table's concept of Left-Right, a basic component of conscious calculation.

The measurement, as the line, reflects the reality it measures and simultaneously forms the line for what it is. In simplere terms to use the "line" as a method of measurement, actualizes the line through the measurement itself considering the "measured" reality is observed (and actualized to a degree) through it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Opposites

Technically, contrast precedes 0-Dimension of point if we are considering what can be observed and visualized.
Contrast is individuation through difference and in these respects manifests the line as an "individuator" similiar if not equal to a "dividing" line.

Contrast
Point
Line (Left to Right)
Angle (think you mean crookedness)


Do we put motion prior to angle, or prior to line in your thinking?

Stability and motion are dualistic aspects of space with stability (non-movement) as "unity" and motion as "individuation/multiplicity". Motion is not prior to stability, but rather an approximate of stability that exists as the limit of it, with stability being ad-infinitum through a theoretical ethereal space

Contrast
Point (Zero Dimension)
Motion
Line (One Dimension)
Crookedness

So what is two dimension, as per Pythagorean mathematics?
Movement through polarity.

Square/Oblong?
Square/Oblong would have the characteristics of Aeon, what you call Unity? All that is contained in it? Then no, prior to that finite/infinite would have to order it, and One/Many prior to that. Where?

Suppose then

Light/Darkness (Contrast)
One/Many (Zero Dimension)
Rest/Motion
Line (One Dimension)
Straight/Crooked
Finite/Infinite
Odd/Even
Square/Oblong (Two Dimension)
Good/Evil

Pythagoreans held perfect shapes as good. Something irregular not so hot about.

In order to visualize something geometrically, you gotta go through these hypnagogic stages. It is a essential part of the structure of every dream. If you are lacking in any of these functions, you do not progress.
Been there, done that.

That is the actual foundations of Dimensional mathematics. Our initial modes of visualization, in but a pattern of dependency, where one stage is dependent upon the previous functions to exist, all going back to previous levels, till you get that one, most basic of patterns.

In art, the simplest we can drawl is a dot, but a dot isn't without dimension upon close inspection, it is a blob, irregular.
A dot as intradimensional, is pure dimension as 1 directed into itself and provides a foundation for "absence of movement".

It is the economy of the simplicity we base the rules of geometry on, but geometry intuitively doesn't follow our rules for it, but rather the above. The Pythagoreans figured that much out. Our modern methods of counting space isn't anywhere as exacting, now is it? Funny we missed all those dimensions within dimensions. We presumed they were external to geometry, operands and operators. Fact is they are essential. You can't have a geometry without them.

You visualize a image (observe) known from intial stimuli (orient) and continue to observe "it" till it's "itness" is better known. It is a basic decision cycle. Accepting it is a final act of that process, unless you incorporate it elsewhere in a larger comparison.

Aristotle right, Descartes Wrong. Your eye project the object, not the object reflecting the stimuli. Orientation is instinctive, the aesthetics of beauty all too often the stimuli we instinctively seek out to spot danger and resources. We look for it before we cognitively register the "itness" in a very disorganized manner.

This is how geometry works at the most fundamental. It is timeless, not to be discarded.
Not discarding anything, strictly expanding it and considering the Circle through Pi is ever expanding, geometric axioms should follow the same form and function.
It is how we not only see, but imagine. Nothing mystical, just the simplicity of a new born opening it's eyes for the first time, or someone with their eyes closed observing lighted phenomena of indiscriminate fuzzy nothingness building into forms, into things, into dreamscapes.

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:15 am Consider what he is doing here with morphological topography, it is advanced just a little bit beyond the Table of Opposites:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k8Rxep2Mkp8

Fun little exercise, but he can't do any of that 3-D calculating without the Table of Opposites. However, it isn't fully listed as above, and I don't believe anyone has ever fully mapped it all out. Leibniz offered a path foreward, and I was going to mention this to Plato's Rock a few days ago, but had to leave early at 8 (sorry) and lost where that post was.

The table of opposite can be viewed numerical as dimensions such as: +1 and -1 or 1 and 0.

Calculus ratiocinator
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_ratiocinator

The biggest problem as a Boydian I have if figuring out how people are processing the information that builds up their ideas, and the confusion on my part not merely regarding the anatomy of ideas, how they interrelate, but also how people know they end. It isn't always obvious to me it does. The dialectic continues on, after all, the history of ideas show us this.

Not everything is a pretty duality of a polarity, sometimes the mind utilizes more complex feedback loops. You also have neural inhibitors strangling the imagination, and principles presuming our imagination projects far beyond what we are actually observing, be it visually external, or even within our imagination. Our imagined world is rarely as perfect as movies like Inception suggest it can be, severe limitations are in play.

Example, where does color come into play in the Table of Opposites?
White and black with the multiple color schemes being grades of white and recombined form into black.

It doesn't, as they sought how to establish perfect shapes. But to see color, all three (only three, sorry) you'll have to work them in. What about when whole complex chains of thinking act dualistically?
The dualism being a one dimensional line and a zero dimensional point result in the motion we can observe in the real world where all "geometric shapes" are merely approximates that if frozen in one time exist as multiple dimensional relative to eachother.


Instead of continuing a chain of these Opposites, we switch the order. Do I push or pull, add or subtract? Is that essentially the same neurological function of the mind when it can't be reduced anymore in either way? Would it share a joint place in the cytoarchitecture of the mind.... if I know one function connects to another, do they connect in the mind, always active, or sometimes as a unconscious or a super ego humming in the background, beckoning us to explore?

This brings us to Pure Mathematics:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics

How independent is any thought? Idea? How reduced and how related must a concept be mathematically before it can be it's own thing? Do we observe them, or project them abstractly on things observed, knowing and recognizing it as such in a seeming instant? John Ruskin once beheld Jade, and knew instantly without reflection it was beautiful. How?

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:58 pm Alright, another deeply disturbing twist....

A elderly couple pays me to sleep at their house at night to watch the husband, who is 91 and senile. She is 89 and weights like, 3 pounds, and they have a elderly cat.

I couldn't sleep during the night (eastern standard time) and awoke about half a hour ago to tackling a badly animated 3-D slightly golden shadowy figure, using 1990's era graphic processing, from the early half of that decade. I tackled it between my army's (sleep on the floor by the doorway) and was growling/yelling.

Was the old lady, and I've completely shit myself. Nothing about her was that color scheme, and only in the most superficial of ways did I pick up on her form. That is the most embarrassing thing I've done in years. What we see isn't really what we see. We project a lot of the colors we see on things, define shape to things as we study them and react. It isn't as apparent when you are walking around awake and thinking, but I assure you, thinking I was fighting a creature allowed me to see just fine.

The wrote it off as PTSD, but I've never showed a trait of it before effecting my sleep. She weighs nothing, and got out of hitting her (just my arms came out from both directions pinning her to the ground).

So I suck terribly now, and will never risk sleeping around another person never ever ever, but gives you insight to the visual process as it builds. Most of the Pythagorean Table is useful universally in building space, and it is ALL active in seeing and imagining a real world environment instantly. As soon as you wake up, no way I could of done that in under a second without triggering it all. However, you can via volition trigger each stage (and do try it out of order, a little flexibility exists) to make visual tasks occur. The rules of dimensionality are abstract a priori rules,
Dimension as direction is fundamentally space, in these regards it is not limit to apriori rules but allows for empirical one's also.

but those rules play with the physics not of reality (we've never observed a dimension save 3) but from tephe visual process, and it is full of kinks and oddities, no mathematician likes to hear this, but take solace the guide comes from the greatest mathematicians in history, the Pythagorean. No shame in them still showing up philosophers every now and again, still to this era.

When I say most of the Pythagorean list, Male/Female is added to many, nobody knows when that happened. Isn't very useful at this early of a stage in vision, and many have shown skepticism. A lot of later systems have expanded far beyond these early concepts. Vision is not restricted to them alone, but this is the bare minimum build you follow to create a perfect 3-D shape from nothing, along what we would today call dimensions.

And for the damnest, I was dreaming about this thread when this happened. Wasn't a bad dream. She didn't get hurt, but now I'm hating myself. Never had that happen before. She tried sneaking past me silently, even her cat makes more noise. Once she was a foot to my head.... I suck as a human being, was less than one second..... we don't usually have a image of implied vision burned into our head, we see in hindsight. Luckily her husband is far louder, can hear him before he even gets out of bed. One of the little oddities in the physics of subject-object recognition. The Pythagorean obviously spent a long time nailing the most essential points in our visual network to process basic mathematics. A guide to the OS that geometry is formed in. Pretty good insight on their part. Today we insist on it backwards, thinking the constructs we design by mathematical principles are the basis for unfolding reality, that points, lines, shapes actually exist. Odd. We insist on it with cultural references. There is a underlining concept of recognizing some basic shapes, like circles and squares and triangles, that gives validity to geometry, not the other way around, built into our minds, but we don't inherit the entire corpus. It works axiomatically in play to our rule base we have for defined geometric constructs. We define what a dot it separate from how we see it, and do a lot from it, building from a questionable rule base. It gets ever so slightly corrected definition to match other stuff we can plainly see. Occasionally the empirical evidence builds we see illusions, like overestimate the steep grade of hills consistently by 15 degrees. A lot of it goes unnoticed save for a keen optomitrist looking for cues in our vision, to compare abnormal to normal sight. Hundreds of little syndromes exist.