Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:33 pm Reproduction as Knowledge

1) All knowledge exists through definition, with this definition being the observation of limits which in itself is knowledge.

2) This definition maintains itself through further definition with this maintanance being the reproduction of definition.

3) This reproduction of definition results in:

3a) Symmetry which maintains the structure
(example: a line replicating through another line observes a square as a constant)

3b) Symmetry which produces the structure
(example: a line replicating through another line may appear as a series of lines, relative to the seperation of time, but effectively observes a square when viewed as one moment)

3c) Symmetry which annihilates the structure (example: A line may replicate into another line however this replicated line takes precedence over the prior line and effectively eliminates it)

4) This reproduction, or replication, in itself is directive where the reproducing knowledge directs itself through further knowledge as knowledge.

5) Reproduction is the limit which gives form and function to knowledge.


Discuss.

Eugene Glus wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:01 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:33 pm Reproduction as Knowledge

1) All knowledge exists through definition, with this definition being the observation of limits which in itself is knowledge.

2) This definition maintains itself through further definition with this maintanance being the reproduction of definition.

3) This reproduction of definition results in:

3a) Symmetry which maintains the structure
(example: a line replicating through another line observes a square as a constant)

3b) Symmetry which produces the structure
(example: a line replicating through another line may appear as a series of lines, relative to the seperation of time, but effectively observes a square when viewed as one moment)

3c) Symmetry which annihilates the structure (example: A line may replicate into another line however this replicated line takes precedence over the prior line and effectively eliminates it)

4) This reproduction, or replication, in itself is directive where the reproducing knowledge directs itself through further knowledge as knowledge.

5) Reproduction is the limit which gives form and function to knowledge.


Discuss.

Definitions seems to be too linear here. Not only symmetry could happened here, if one definition went through another one set of them.
An artist may draw a line on the top-right corner, and after on the left one etc. So, he may paint it as he wants to. If he would be painting as he liked to, then he would show us something he would like to represent. He would use symbols of his understanding, he wouldn't need to use common letters and symbols like a newspaper editor. So, in the result, we would have a picture of what he wanted to demonstrate us.
His definitions about of what he saw and how he was would be reflected on that picture. But during his paint process he might make lots of definitions about a one subject or a set of some.

If I draw a tree, the trunk/leaves/branches as all of its various parts would have to be drawn where one part inevitably exists through another...the definition of one part is extended to the definition of the other where the drawing of the leaf is defined through the branch with the branch in turn being further defined though the leaf. The definition of one part is determined by the progressive definition of itself to another part where the branch replicates itself to the leaf and vice versa, with a closer inspection observing that both the branch and the leaf share the same replication of a "branching form" (one can see evidence of this in the leaf with the stem diverting to another stem and so on and so forth).



All knowledge exists through definitions.

Let's suppose that the next morning we would have woken up in the pretty different world. There were no H20 and there's no sunsets, no houses, but all the water was XYZ, and there were 9 suns and creatures lived in void. Would our knowledge come in handy if H20 would have no differences compare to XYZ, and 9 suns would have just the same effect on the Earth as the Sun, and living in a void would be very common action. I don't know is it possible to create such a world? It would be right to ask God about it.
Our definitions would have no sense in that world, 'cause we would have some gaps in our knowledge about new data.

If we woke up in world that did not exist as we know it to currently exist, then the framework we using effectively is negated and a whole different set of problems occurs through a different framework.

Relative to a void all being is possible considering the void represents an infinite sense of change relative to what we consider as order.

All water existing as XYZ observes:

1) Water inverting into some other element where "XYZ" is defined by what it is not (water) and in these respects "water" (while imaginary in this scenario) is a negative boundary of definition.

2) The inversion of water into "XYZ" observes the common bond of "element" from which "element" as a specific framework of order observes "water" and "XYZ" as extensions of this framework and hence framework in itself.

3) The two frameworks of "the world we live in" and the ulterior one you present observes both world as perceptibly separate by "void" in themselves where this "void" as seperator observes the world's effectively existing as one considering void cancel's itself out. In simpler terms by observe a relation of worlds in this scenario we still observe one world as "existence itself" and in these respects these seperate frameworks are not entirely seperate.




Knowledge of knowledge.

Socrates asks one of his followers:
- Do you know that I am a divine person, a messenger from God?
- No, Socrates, I swear a dog I don't.
- So, a sorcerer of the Delphi shrine said me that. She said that I am the one who knows the truth. And do you know what exactly did she say me?
- I would like to know it.
- She said that I said that "I know only that I don't know anything!"
- Really? Did she say something like that?
- Oh yeah! She told me these words.
- I think, Socrates, that you're a liar.
- Prove it, you ...
- ...Hold your horses. Didn't you say that you only what you know that is you don't know anything, right?
- Aye.
- So, to know what it or how to know something isn't to be knowledge?
- Well... I'a...
- I tell you what - until you know that you don't know anything, you're able to use your knowledge, because it's impossible to not know what does it mean 'to know', or how does it possible 'to know'.
- Brr...
- So, either you are able to use your ability to know something (aka knowledge ability), or you can't tell anything even about you know that you don't know anything.

Knowing nothing effectively is knowing everything as nothingness cannot exist on its own terms except as an observation of relation where all relation, percieved by the seperating nature of nothingness, is observed as 1.

Definition(s) through definition(s)

If you have two squares and you multiply them, you get four square. But if you have two ideas of squares and you multiply them, you will get either four squares, or just one square that is to be higher, or more 'privileged' to the others. Something similar is to definitions. We can't be sure about the results.

I think that's enough.


Actually we can observe that the results will replicate according to the premises as an extension of the premises where the multiplication of squares leaves a square or grade of square as a result.

This is an interesting point however, can a geometric object multiply/divide a geometric object?

The multiplication of one square through another effectively observes the square as an element of time in these respects, considering all multiplication and division is prerequisited in "time" or "times", and from these we may observe (through the example) that the square as a part is fundamentally the observation of a part as temporal or a "time zone" in itself where the relation of the angles, as parts, effectively observe inherent relations of parts (lines) which exist as directions in and of themselves and hence qualities of movement.

In simpler terms the "square" timing another "square" observes the "square" as an element of time in itself where the prerequisite square as a constant is merely an observation of relation between "finite realities" as "localized positions in time" which necessitates a square "timing" a square as time folding through time.

So 2 squares times 2 squares as four squares, observes the four squares as "time folding through time" with the four squares resulting in the time zone in itself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 7:43 pm

Eugene Glus wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:01 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:33 pm Reproduction as Knowledge

1) All knowledge exists through definition, with this definition being the observation of limits which in itself is knowledge.

2) This definition maintains itself through further definition with this maintanance being the reproduction of definition.

3) This reproduction of definition results in:

3a) Symmetry which maintains the structure
(example: a line replicating through another line observes a square as a constant)

3b) Symmetry which produces the structure
(example: a line replicating through another line may appear as a series of lines, relative to the seperation of time, but effectively observes a square when viewed as one moment)

3c) Symmetry which annihilates the structure (example: A line may replicate into another line however this replicated line takes precedence over the prior line and effectively eliminates it)

4) This reproduction, or replication, in itself is directive where the reproducing knowledge directs itself through further knowledge as knowledge.

5) Reproduction is the limit which gives form and function to knowledge.


Discuss.

Definitions seems to be too linear here. Not only symmetry could happened here, if one definition went through another one set of them.
An artist may draw a line on the top-right corner, and after on the left one etc. So, he may paint it as he wants to. If he would be painting as he liked to, then he would show us something he would like to represent. He would use symbols of his understanding, he wouldn't need to use common letters and symbols like a newspaper editor. So, in the result, we would have a picture of what he wanted to demonstrate us.
His definitions about of what he saw and how he was would be reflected on that picture. But during his paint process he might make lots of definitions about a one subject or a set of some.

If I draw a tree, the trunk/leaves/branches as all of its various parts would have to be drawn where one part inevitably exists through another...the definition of one part is extended to the definition of the other where the drawing of the leaf is defined through the branch with the branch in turn being further defined though the leaf. The definition of one part is determined by the progressive definition of itself to another part where the branch replicates itself to the leaf and vice versa, with a closer inspection observing that both the branch and the leaf share the same replication of a "branching form" (one can see evidence of this in the leaf with the stem diverting to another stem and so on and so forth).



If you can compare such things, then I can compare it with white bottles of scotch. If you drank a bottle as all of its various sorts would have to be drunk where one glass imaginary exists through another one... an image of this world would be wider than the first image, and the next images would have more dancing of the different types of the color. The definition of one glass is overflowed by the upside-down drawing of itself in a bottle again. Due to new replications of new ones applications it would have colored as many spaces as it would be able to get. Observing another different chambers would be normal if and only if definitions of a bottle would have another dimensional type of colors.

All knowledge exists through definitions.

Let's suppose that the next morning we would have woken up in the pretty different world. There were no H20 and there's no sunsets, no houses, but all the water was XYZ, and there were 9 suns and creatures lived in void. Would our knowledge come in handy if H20 would have no differences compare to XYZ, and 9 suns would have just the same effect on the Earth as the Sun, and living in a void would be very common action. I don't know is it possible to create such a world? It would be right to ask God about it.
Our definitions would have no sense in that world, 'cause we would have some gaps in our knowledge about new data.

If we woke up in world that did not exist as we know it to currently exist, then the framework we using effectively is negated and a whole different set of problems occurs through a different framework.

Actually, it's not necessary. If we had lost ourselves we would have been inverted and all the problems would be erased and completely ended.

Relative to a void all being is possible considering the void represents an infinite sense of change relative to what we consider as order.

A void represents nothing. If the void would represent us an infinite sense of change relatives of the order, it would have meant that the void wouldn't be a void anymore. If we take a dialectic void, it can be whatever it can be, and in this situation we would have dealt with something else, but not a void.

All water existing as XYZ observes:

1) Water inverting into some other element where "XYZ" is defined by what it is not (water) and in these respects "water" (while imaginary in this scenario) is a negative boundary of definition.

2) The inversion of water into "XYZ" observes the common bond of "element" from which "element" as a specific framework of order observes "water" and "XYZ" as extensions of this framework and hence framework in itself.

3) The two frameworks of "the world we live in" and the ulterior one you present observes both world as perceptibly separate by "void" in themselves where this "void" as seperator observes the world's effectively existing as one considering void cancel's itself out. In simpler terms by observe a relation of worlds in this scenario we still observe one world as "existence itself" and in these respects these seperate frameworks are not entirely seperate.




Knowledge of knowledge.

Socrates asks one of his followers:
- Do you know that I am a divine person, a messenger from God?
- No, Socrates, I swear a dog I don't.
- So, a sorcerer of the Delphi shrine said me that. She said that I am the one who knows the truth. And do you know what exactly did she say me?
- I would like to know it.
- She said that I said that "I know only that I don't know anything!"
- Really? Did she say something like that?
- Oh yeah! She told me these words.
- I think, Socrates, that you're a liar.
- Prove it, you ...
- ...Hold your horses. Didn't you say that you only what you know that is you don't know anything, right?
- Aye.
- So, to know what it or how to know something isn't to be knowledge?
- Well... I'a...
- I tell you what - until you know that you don't know anything, you're able to use your knowledge, because it's impossible to not know what does it mean 'to know', or how does it possible 'to know'.
- Brr...
- So, either you are able to use your ability to know something (aka knowledge ability), or you can't tell anything even about you know that you don't know anything.

Knowing nothing effectively is knowing everything as nothingness cannot exist on its own terms except as an observation of relation where all relation, percieved by the seperating nature of nothingness, is observed as 1.

Knowing nothing conceptually isn't possible. If it would be possible it would allow us to put ourselves into dialectical world. As soon as we would get there, we would become some kind of gods which can do whatever they would want to. Being god isn't possible as soon as it's impossible to be a god.

Definition(s) through definition(s)

If you have two squares and you multiply them, you get four square. But if you have two ideas of squares and you multiply them, you will get either four squares, or just one square that is to be higher, or more 'privileged' to the others. Something similar is to definitions. We can't be sure about the results.

I think that's enough.


Actually we can observe that the results will replicate according to the premises as an extension of the premises where the multiplication of squares leaves a square or grade of square as a result.

This is an interesting point however, can a geometric object multiply/divide a geometric object?

The multiplication of one square through another effectively observes the square as an element of time in these respects, considering all multiplication and division is prerequisited in "time" or "times", and from these we may observe (through the example) that the square as a part is fundamentally the observation of a part as temporal or a "time zone" in itself where the relation of the angles, as parts, effectively observe inherent relations of parts (lines) which exist as directions in and of themselves and hence qualities of movement.

In simpler terms the "square" timing another "square" observes the "square" as an element of time in itself where the prerequisite square as a constant is merely an observation of relation between "finite realities" as "localized positions in time" which necessitates a square "timing" a square as time folding through time.

So 2 squares times 2 squares as four squares, observes the four squares as "time folding through time" with the four squares resulting in the time zone in itself.

Time zones? No geometrical objects exist in time. None of ideal things exist in time. We can't separate one ideal thing from another one, because there's no order of them to be constructed linearly. All geometrical ideal deities exist through their all elements of their all possible proofs. All necessary elements of essence in itself allow any geometrical objects to exists as they are. They exist in oneness or in '1' through all possible numbers. '1-ness' allows any geometrical deities to exists. And it allows them to exist because '1-ness' is an attribute of all proofs.

Eugene Glus wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:21 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 7:43 pm

Eugene Glus wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:01 pm

Definitions seems to be too linear here. Not only symmetry could happened here, if one definition went through another one set of them.
An artist may draw a line on the top-right corner, and after on the left one etc. So, he may paint it as he wants to. If he would be painting as he liked to, then he would show us something he would like to represent. He would use symbols of his understanding, he wouldn't need to use common letters and symbols like a newspaper editor. So, in the result, we would have a picture of what he wanted to demonstrate us.
His definitions about of what he saw and how he was would be reflected on that picture. But during his paint process he might make lots of definitions about a one subject or a set of some.

If I draw a tree, the trunk/leaves/branches as all of its various parts would have to be drawn where one part inevitably exists through another...the definition of one part is extended to the definition of the other where the drawing of the leaf is defined through the branch with the branch in turn being further defined though the leaf. The definition of one part is determined by the progressive definition of itself to another part where the branch replicates itself to the leaf and vice versa, with a closer inspection observing that both the branch and the leaf share the same replication of a "branching form" (one can see evidence of this in the leaf with the stem diverting to another stem and so on and so forth).



If you can compare such things, then I can compare it with white bottles of scotch. If you drank a bottle as all of its various sorts would have to be drunk where one glass imaginary exists through another one... an image of this world would be wider than the first image, and the next images would have more dancing of the different types of the color. The definition of one glass is overflowed by the upside-down drawing of itself in a bottle again. Due to new replications of new ones applications it would have colored as many spaces as it would be able to get. Observing another different chambers would be normal if and only if definitions of a bottle would have another dimensional type of colors.

The bottle replicates itself through time under the movements (however slow) which compose it; hence the observation of one part (through time) inevitably leads to another part as while the bottle is a median of change the bottle in x time zone is not the same in y time zone even thought this change is very small.

In a separate respect to drink one type of scotch, would effectively to drink all types of scotch, through the scotch itself with "types" only be an approximation of the scotch as a constant medium.




All knowledge exists through definitions.

Let's suppose that the next morning we would have woken up in the pretty different world. There were no H20 and there's no sunsets, no houses, but all the water was XYZ, and there were 9 suns and creatures lived in void. Would our knowledge come in handy if H20 would have no differences compare to XYZ, and 9 suns would have just the same effect on the Earth as the Sun, and living in a void would be very common action. I don't know is it possible to create such a world? It would be right to ask God about it.
Our definitions would have no sense in that world, 'cause we would have some gaps in our knowledge about new data.

If we woke up in world that did not exist as we know it to currently exist, then the framework we using effectively is negated and a whole different set of problems occurs through a different framework.

Actually, it's not necessary. If we had lost ourselves we would have been inverted and all the problems would be erased and completely ended.

The inversion of one thing into another still observes these extremes united through the median itself. In simpler terms, up may be inverted to down, but they exist through the median of Vertice.

Relative to a void all being is possible considering the void represents an infinite sense of change relative to what we consider as order.

A void represents nothing. If the void would represent us an infinite sense of change relatives of the order, it would have meant that the void wouldn't be a void anymore. If we take a dialectic void, it can be whatever it can be, and in this situation we would have dealt with something else, but not a void.

And nothingness cannot be observed except through somethingness; hence "void" is an observation of relation and not a thing in itself.

All water existing as XYZ observes:

1) Water inverting into some other element where "XYZ" is defined by what it is not (water) and in these respects "water" (while imaginary in this scenario) is a negative boundary of definition.

2) The inversion of water into "XYZ" observes the common bond of "element" from which "element" as a specific framework of order observes "water" and "XYZ" as extensions of this framework and hence framework in itself.

3) The two frameworks of "the world we live in" and the ulterior one you present observes both world as perceptibly separate by "void" in themselves where this "void" as seperator observes the world's effectively existing as one considering void cancel's itself out. In simpler terms by observe a relation of worlds in this scenario we still observe one world as "existence itself" and in these respects these seperate frameworks are not entirely seperate.




Knowledge of knowledge.

Socrates asks one of his followers:
- Do you know that I am a divine person, a messenger from God?
- No, Socrates, I swear a dog I don't.
- So, a sorcerer of the Delphi shrine said me that. She said that I am the one who knows the truth. And do you know what exactly did she say me?
- I would like to know it.
- She said that I said that "I know only that I don't know anything!"
- Really? Did she say something like that?
- Oh yeah! She told me these words.
- I think, Socrates, that you're a liar.
- Prove it, you ...
- ...Hold your horses. Didn't you say that you only what you know that is you don't know anything, right?
- Aye.
- So, to know what it or how to know something isn't to be knowledge?
- Well... I'a...
- I tell you what - until you know that you don't know anything, you're able to use your knowledge, because it's impossible to not know what does it mean 'to know', or how does it possible 'to know'.
- Brr...
- So, either you are able to use your ability to know something (aka knowledge ability), or you can't tell anything even about you know that you don't know anything.

Knowing nothing effectively is knowing everything as nothingness cannot exist on its own terms except as an observation of relation where all relation, percieved by the seperating nature of nothingness, is observed as 1.

Knowing nothing conceptually isn't possible. If it would be possible it would allow us to put ourselves into dialectical world. As soon as we would get there, we would become some kind of gods which can do whatever they would want to. Being god isn't possible as soon as it's impossible to be a god.

Actually observing a point in space is to observe nothing, with "nothing" being an observation of relation of parts with this multiplicity of parts effectively being the foundation of movement. To if I observe a point in space, I fundamentally observe movements as parts, extending from it with this continual particulation being these movements break into further parts and fold back into nothingness as further parts.

To know "nothing" is to observe change.



Definition(s) through definition(s)

If you have two squares and you multiply them, you get four square. But if you have two ideas of squares and you multiply them, you will get either four squares, or just one square that is to be higher, or more 'privileged' to the others. Something similar is to definitions. We can't be sure about the results.

I think that's enough.

The square exists through further squares.




Actually we can observe that the results will replicate according to the premises as an extension of the premises where the multiplication of squares leaves a square or grade of square as a result.

This is an interesting point however, can a geometric object multiply/divide a geometric object?

The multiplication of one square through another effectively observes the square as an element of time in these respects, considering all multiplication and division is prerequisited in "time" or "times", and from these we may observe (through the example) that the square as a part is fundamentally the observation of a part as temporal or a "time zone" in itself where the relation of the angles, as parts, effectively observe inherent relations of parts (lines) which exist as directions in and of themselves and hence qualities of movement.

In simpler terms the "square" timing another "square" observes the "square" as an element of time in itself where the prerequisite square as a constant is merely an observation of relation between "finite realities" as "localized positions in time" which necessitates a square "timing" a square as time folding through time.

So 2 squares times 2 squares as four squares, observes the four squares as "time folding through time" with the four squares resulting in the time zone in itself.

Time zones? No geometrical objects exist in time. None of ideal things exist in time. We can't separate one ideal thing from another one, because there's no order of them to be constructed linearly. All geometrical ideal deities exist through their all elements of their all possible proofs. All necessary elements of essence in itself allow any geometrical objects to exists as they are. They exist in oneness or in '1' through all possible numbers. '1-ness' allows any geometrical deities to exists. And it allows them to exist because '1-ness' is an attribute of all proofs.

Actually geometric structures exist through time as time. I may walk to points a,b and c to more a triangle with this set of movements as a triangle being a localization of me walking to points a,b and c.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:07 pm

Eugene Glus wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:21 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 7:43 pm

Eugene Glus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:19 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:07 pm

Eugene Glus wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:21 pm

"The bottle replicates itself through time under the movements (however slow) which compose it; hence the observation of one part (through time) inevitably leads to another part as while the bottle is a median of change the bottle in x time zone is not the same in y time zone even thought this change is very small".

No, there is no bottle which replicates itself. You can sure yourself coming into one of the factories of bottles where they are reproducing. You should do it if you want to believe not to me, but to my words. The bottles are made from glass and the power of wind. Haven't you seen a wind replicates itself? If it was truth, then there wouldn't be any discussions, because perpetuate mobile would be real.

All replication occurs as movement through movement. For example, an atom replicates itself across time by circulating around another atom. The movement from position A to position B then C and back to A effectively observes the atom, as both time and space, replicating itself through its inherent movements as the Atom is defined precisely because of its position with Position A, B, C....etc.

Because the Atom is a position in space, it replicates through time according to this position.

And the same applies for all phenomena composed of and composing atoms.



"In a separate respect to drink one type of scotch, would effectively to drink all types of scotch, through the scotch itself with "types" only be an approximation of the scotch as a constant medium".

No, there's no way to have scotch through another scotch. It seems that you never have scotch so I'll help you. Scotch is an alcohol non-colored liquid, and it has strong taste. If you would have one, be careful to not drink too much at the moment.

If I drink scotch x and scotch y, but never scotch z....I may not have drank scotch Z directly but drank a grade of it through scotch x and y.


Scotch or any other substances would never be replicate from itself. Their replication is the complex mechanism of many forms. It can be compared to the community of ants, of any factory. If you visit a factory, you will understand me more good.

"The inversion of one thing into another still observes these extremes united through the median itself. In simpler terms, up may be inverted to down, but they exist through the median of Vertice".

No, of course it's not. Extremes never unite with or through medians. An extreme exists in potential, not in actual presence. And up is never inverted to down if and only if "up"="up", and "down"="down". There's no Vertice either.

If I move "UP" I move "UP" only if there is a potential for moving down. And vice versa. "UP" may be actualized relative to a potential down, and is potential relative to an actual down. In these respect's both up and down as "vertice" takes a neutral median role as both "actual/potential" as up and down. In these respects Vertice or "Vertical", takes on a dual role and is a neutral median in itself from which Up and Down exist as measurments.



"And nothingness cannot be observed except through somethingness; hence "void" is an observation of relation and not a thing in itself".

A nothingness cannot be observed, because it has no straight relations to what we observe. Relations aren't equal to nothingness, but to emptiness. Emptiness has many exclusive powers. It could have it only if it would a thing in itself.


Nothingness, through the 0d point as nothingness, exists through the line as "infinite 0d points" (standard definition, not mine).



"Actually observing a point in space is to observe nothing, with "nothing" being an observation of relation of parts with this multiplicity of parts effectively being the foundation of movement. To if I observe a point in space, I fundamentally observe movements as parts, extending from it with this continual particulation being these movements break into further parts and fold back into nothingness as further parts.
To know "nothing" is to observe change".

Change is out of observation, is in action of comparatives. (...)

And nothingness is the foundation of comparatives as "nothingness" can only be observes if and only if there is something. In these respects nothingness is a foundation of multiplicity in being, considering it cannot exist on its own terms, and observes an inherent separation in being.



"The square exists through further squares".

Not exactly, something that exists as a square exists through something that exists as further squares. As soon as something as the square exists through the other ones, there's no necessary for the square to continue to be a square further. It changes, but without ability of observation if, it's possible to get it by intellectual intuition.

The square as one size exists through a square of another size, with the difference in size being one of relation with one square existing as one size because of its relation to other phenomena (up to and including the seperate square itself). The square, as four 90 degree corners, exists as a constant through it's many sizes regardless.