Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

All space corresponds to various degrees of expansion with these degrees of expansion in themselves being dimensions founded within the nature of the point.

Argument:

1)The circle exists as an "infinite" number of points, stemming from one center point. This center point, as 1 in quantity and Unity in quality, reflects upon itself to form infinity through the circle. In this respect 1 as Unity (for quality exists only if their is quantity, and quantity exists only if their is quality) reflects "Infinity" with "Infinity" existing if and only if there is unity.


2)The point must therefore continual reflect unto infinity in order to maintain itself as stable, other wise it becomes finite and unstable. In this respect the point reflects all number as fundamentally numberless. Infinity is numberless point and in this respect is all points, with all being equivalent to Unity.

3) The next problem occurs as the point manifests infinite structural extensions of itself and in doing so manifests itself inseparable to infinity and in these respect equals it. With the point equivalent to infinity, the circle as an infinite structural extension of the intradimensional point simultaneously in a different respect manifests as a 1 dimensional extra-dimensional extension of the point.

4)In these respects, the point manifests as a two dimensional construct through a dualism of intradimensionality and extradimensionality. The point simultaneously expands inwards and outwards at the same time in different respects through the circle.


5) The next problem occurs in respect through the inherent dualism of the point as both a 1 intradimensional object and 1 extradimensional object through the 2 dimensional circle. A polarity resulting in an imbalance occurs through this dualism.

6) In response a synthesis occurs through the point between it as intradimensional and extradimensional resulting in the point as circle manifesting interdimensional as the “sphere”. In these respects, the 1 dimensional point gains a third dimension as interdimensional resulting in the sphere.

7) The sphere then is equitable to a 3 dimensional point as intra/extra/inter dimensional in nature with each dimension expanding in all directions as 1 in 3 and 3 in 1.
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon »

If Boscovich was a Neo-Platonist, think he would agree.

I'll break this down within a hour, to make sure my instinct here isn't correct. Also a old Pythagorean cosmology... be back.
Last edited by EchoesOfTheHorizon on Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:59 pm If Boscovich was a Neo-Platonist, think he would agree.

I'll break this down within a hour, to make sure my instinct here isn't correct.
You will have to elaborate that point for me.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Something is missing and I can't put a finger on it.
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon »

I will, but gotta eat.

Look into Boscovich's monadology, with his field theory, it was built around points in space, acting almost like how we describe Monopoles today and Unmoved Movers.

You have some pretty heavy echoes of early Pythagorean and Platonic cosmologies too.

Thing missing is probably the big mirror they slapped into the universe.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:03 pm I will, but gotta eat.

Look into Boscovich's monadology, with his field theory, it was built around points in space, acting almost like how we describe Monopoles today and Unmoved Movers.

You have some pretty heavy echoes of early Pythagorean and Platonic cosmologies too.

Thing missing is probably the big mirror they slapped into the universe.
Ah this is where I believe it gets interesting...I am arguing the mirror is built in as a spatial element in itself.

The mirroring process, I call "Reflection", is actually one of three degree of space in itself. It is not a seperate entity but is the origin of space (along with Relative Space and Synthetic Space). As the mirroring space reflecting into itself through the point, the process of movement is negated through a perpetual and infinite act of stability.
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon »

Did you consciously develop it yourself (seemingly), or are you aware of the sources it came from? I'd rather not have to do google searches for old cosmological systems, and jump into the meat of the issue. If you know, there is nothing wrong persay in revisiting it, just want to know your perspective before I gotta go on a long history explanation of old astronomical systems nobody else on this site knows about.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality

Post by Viveka »

I would agree that the point is 0-dimensional and is a reflection of a 1-dimensional circle, as a infinitely small circle makes a point, and an infinitely large point makes a circle, and one can substitute the word circle with sphere. Then, from there, there is the radius connecting the two, and it rotates about the point to 'fill' the circle into a 2-ball and 3-ball. All of these are different forms of one another, so I can understand what you mean by 'reflection'. However, how does Descartian curvilinear geometry come about except through intersection of n-balls or n-spheres? This would mean that each 1-sphere-with-point or 2-sphere-with-point or 3-ball or 2-ball are monads that fill space and make geometry such as the Flower of Life through their intersection.
Last edited by Viveka on Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon »

Alright, I just finished up my criticism of the first section, I only glanced at the later portions, so I hope it resolves them as I go.

All space corresponds to various degrees of expansion with these degrees of expansion in themselves being dimensions founded within the nature of the point.
  • 1) Rejection

    0 Dimensional space, a Point, cannot "Line" which is a 1 dimensional state of existence, with a plane being 2, our space 3, as have been agreed upon since at least the 19th Century (fan of the book Flatland, even read a few sequels). Can we even say points exist in reality as a thing in themselves, to the point of withstanding skeptical scrutiny, given a point lacks relativity to anything? Any point you "point to" is likely to be a 3-D blot.
Argument:

1)The circle exists as an "infinite" number of points, stemming from one center point.
  • 2) Rejection

    Infinite points making up a thing breaks the Laws of Thermodynamics. Objects "in possession" of being and becoming by default must lack infinite properties, be they real or misunderstood. This is default. No workaround on this. You cannot be Arjuna, given supernatural eyes by Krishna to see infinity. Not possible, you can at best see "most all that there" is in your field of vision, and a object able to be seen must be limited, and relativistic, and infinity and relativism does not mix
Unity cannot be quality, as quality is by default dualistic, inherently different in trait. 1 being used as a quantity is questionable at best (I presume a metric will be built up later) as many, including myself, do not consider 1 as a number in and of itself. 1 isn't a stand alone measurable metric, unless it is compared to another quantity, which possesses at least one other qualitative difference, however minute and seemingly unimportant that qualitative difference is subjectively. Recall Aristotle's Eternal Objects.... they moved. They had a relativistic quality, however bland (boring circle).

[/list]

This center point, as 1 in quantity and Unity in quality, reflects upon itself to form infinity through the circle.
  • 3) Rejection

    Unity cannot be quality, as quality is by default dualistic, inherently different in trait. 1 being used as a quantity is questionable at best (I presume a metric will be built up later) as many, including myself, do not consider 1 as a number in and of itself. 1 isn't a stand alone measurable metric, unless it is compared to another quantity, which possesses at least one other qualitative difference, however minute and seemingly unimportant that qualitative difference is subjectively. Recall Aristotle's Eternal Objects.... they moved. They had a relativistic quality, however bland (boring circle).
In this respect 1 as Unity (for quality exists only if their is quantity, and quantity exists only if their is quality) reflects "Infinity" with "Infinity" existing if and only if there is unity.
  • 4) Rejection

    I almost agree that quality and quantity exists mutually (one other factor too), so see rejection 3 for my reasoning. If a indefinite amount of points is extending from "unity", and supposedly bouncing off of "Circle of Infinite points", then this is essentially a kind time, one in which Unity is in a state of radioactive decay. So if Unity is in a state of Radioactive Decay with infinity thrust, hitting the infinite circle, a circle in 2D space, Unity and it's radiating points in 0 Spaced propelled by who knows what and how, is it even Unity then? Seems most certainly not a monistic particle, but one of continuous change, like a Heraclitean Stream. If Unity is Entropic, and Infinite (wow, what a radiation burn) then a quantity 1 is meaningless, 1 it isn't 1 at any given point of time to the next. In any given point to the next, it is entropic, and thus less than one, being a decimal of >1 or a fraction of one. I suspect a superstask paradox in the making, in trying to get the Unity within the overall paradox to balance out.
I really hate doing these quote stacks..... gonna go hit 2)
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon »



2)The point must therefore continual reflect unto infinity in order to maintain itself as stable, other wise it becomes finite and unstable.
  • ?) Rejection

    You just hit the Supertask Paradox, not gonna work in the long term, you need a sum geometrically increasing over that of eternity in order to keep this Orrey spinning for eternity..... which merely mentioning eternity brings up other problems in this context. The precise paradox is Thompson's Lamp, I've managed to solve it, and identified the class of mathematics the solution resides with (hint, the geometry of a circuit in relation to the ball is of the same class of the predicted projection of Mersenne Prime's. It is a conceptually simple solution requiring aggressive mapping through the traffic of possibilities before it fails (hence the supertask, but this has a geometric way around even this, but even then you still hit a even larger barrier (supertasks within supertasks) that efficieny can't solve. It is a finite solution.

    If you catch my drift, you can be No. 2 to solve Thompson's Lamp, it is inherent in your design up to this point.

    Thompson's Lamp
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson%27s_lamp

    Graph theory in relation to traffic routes
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GgmVdAD_-dg

    Graphs on the projection of where Mersenne Prime's will eventually lead to.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=project ... 46eydspArM:
In this respect the point reflects all number as fundamentally numberless. Infinity is numberless point and in this respect is all points, with all being equivalent to Unity.
  • Looks bizarre, but my Sand Reconer system of mathematics presumes this, though it uses Polygons and so still has various numerical value. We will see if you are going this way. If not, then you just said jibberish, but may be a recognition we assert numbers and properties on things. We'll see.
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon »

I can't continue, I was thinking over the earlier steps, and tried to figure out how you could avoid the supertask problem, and it ended in absurdities given your use in infinity unity and infinity circle made of points. A infinite black hole constantly nearly doubling, consuming a infinite circle is what results....

There is a reason why when dealing with positive pressure systems, you make the central unmoved mover a horse of a different color. Your system, just like our sun against the solar system and beyond, is constantly bleeding, and you'll need to keep the central "unity" moved constantly in positive pressure (pulled from where) while absorbing some reflection (like how the moon on the dark side of a crescent still reflects light). That is a incredibly high bar to maintain. We prefer in modern times to pretend to the opposite, the heat death of the universe, than continuous creation.

You also hit some nasty paradoxes on the use of space to get light from a infinite unity, to shine, with constant losss. By paradoxes, I mean Zeno Paradoxes. Your claim of unity having all dimensions in it gives you some wiggle room, but the claim the circle is infinite in dots makes it absurd.

I've spent too much time on this. Another thread tackles the same problem. They solved it by making god the omnipotent center able to do whatever he wanted to the system as a whole. Positive pressure systems are not easy to regulate, none reach perpetual perfection, and suffer energy lost in recycling especially. That super stack problem sits in the center of every perpetual motion machine (and that absolutely cannot be worked around).

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=22837&p=334859&hil ... le#p334859
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Counter arguments will be presented in numerical order corresponding their counterparts:



Counter argument 1:

The point as a zero dimensional object is not observed. The point as a 1 dimensional object mirroring into itself is the premise. Dimensionality is strictly "direction" and in this respect a point directed into itself maintains a 1 dimensionality, it is not limited to linear conceptions only.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dimension





Counter argument 2:

The circle is defined by mathematicians as infinite points. In regards to temporal realities, a 1 dimensional point as foundation for the ether would contain all realties at one moment. Rejection 2 is premised under the assumption of Relativistic space (matter/moving space).

[/list]
A point as one synthesizes both quantity and quality under one synthetic dimension of "the point". In these respects the point maintain a trinitarian nature that avoids paradox or contradiction.

The point is both quantitative (equivalent to one) and qualitative (unified, stable and ever present space). While 1 may not be considered a number by some, it paradoxically is used in arithmatic functions as a quantitative value. 1 + 1 cannot equal 2 if one is not observed as a quantity.

1 is measurable in the respect that it not only present a unified whole, but simultaneously as an individuator (under certain circumstance) allowing measurement to take place. Unity and 1 are synonymous in many respects.

All rational number is founded as composites of 1. No rational number can exist without 1 as a foundational structure in one respect, and no number can exist without reflecting other numbers (which required an ad-infinitum nature that cycles back to 1.)

In regards to aristotelian observation of reality, he does not presuppose reality existing in 1 moment (as implied through an ethereal dimension somewhat similiar to the eastern Akashic record) Aristotelean metaphysics is premised on perpetual movement as an extension of an unmoved mover...a 1 dimensional point can qualify as this "foundational space" that is unmoved.

Relativistic space does not apply to this argument (I will address relativistic space at a later time) as this is strictly an extension of Stable Ethereal Space.






Counter Argument 3:

Quality is by default dualistic through Quantity. The point as 1 is quantitative and qualitative in nature.

[/list]

In this respect 1 as Unity (for quality exists only if their is quantity, and quantity exists only if their is quality) reflects "Infinity" with "Infinity" existing if and only if there is unity. 1 manifests number ad infinitum in order to maintain stability. The point as one dimensional follows the same as it is argued "as the same". Infinity acts as stability, through 1 as the point being its foundation. 1 and the point exist if and only if they are infinite, as if they are not infinite 1/point will eventually cease to exist.

If you want to argue that 1 and the point are temporal, then fine, but you would have to argue all mathematics eventually change over time (ex: 1 + 1 may not equal two eventually)





Counter Argument 4:

Radioactive decay is movement. The point as 1, and by extension all infinite structures of it, exists as 1 eternal point. Matter is defined as movement, however if reality is viewed as 1 moment...movement ceases.



Your counter arguments fail on account they are premised in "movement". This 1 dimensional point mirroring itself into infinity as itself hold no movement. The mirror effect is simply self-stable symmetry.

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:25 pm


2)The point must therefore continual reflect unto infinity in order to maintain itself as stable, other wise it becomes finite and unstable and both 1 and point are conducive to change.





Counter Argument 5:

The point, circle and sphere are not spinning. There is no movement as the mirroring is not movement but rather stability as absence of movement. The one dimensional point directing itself into itself is absent of movement




In this respect the point reflects all number as fundamentally numberless. Infinity is numberless point and in this respect is all points, with all being equivalent to Unity.


All geometric shapes are mirrored in one moment, time is not applicable in ethereal space.

You cannot continue because you applied axioms into the argument which did not exist within the argument, specifically that the point is 0 dimensional, when it was clearly stated as 1 dimensional, and that there is "movement", when clearly stated no movement existed.

There is not bleeding as the point, through points as structural extensions simultaneously, is directed into itself as 1 point.


Unity contains all dimensions as structural extensions of one, manifested ad infinitum. Infinity mirrors itself back into one.



You may want to reread the text before presenting a counter-argument again.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:40 am, edited 3 times in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:26 am I can't continue, I was thinking over the earlier steps, and tried to figure out how you could avoid the supertask problem, and it ended in absurdities given your use in infinity unity and infinity circle made of points. A infinite black hole constantly nearly doubling, consuming a infinite circle is what results....

There is a reason why when dealing with positive pressure systems, you make the central unmoved mover a horse of a different color. Your system, just like our sun against the solar system and beyond, is constantly bleeding, and you'll need to keep the central "unity" moved constantly in positive pressure (pulled from where) while absorbing some reflection (like how the moon on the dark side of a crescent still reflects light). That is a incredibly high bar to maintain. We prefer in modern times to pretend to the opposite, the heat death of the universe, than continuous creation.

You also hit some nasty paradoxes on the use of space to get light from a infinite unity, to shine, with constant losss. By paradoxes, I mean Zeno Paradoxes. Your claim of unity having all dimensions in it gives you some wiggle room, but the claim the circle is infinite in dots makes it absurd.

I've spent too much time on this. Another thread tackles the same problem. They solved it by making god the omnipotent center able to do whatever he wanted to the system as a whole. Positive pressure systems are not easy to regulate, none reach perpetual perfection, and suffer energy lost in recycling especially. That super stack problem sits in the center of every perpetual motion machine (and that absolutely cannot be worked around).

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=22837&p=334859&hil ... le#p334859
Counter arguments are presented above. Arguing about zero dimensional points, when a 1 dimensional point is being observed as "intradimensional" (hence the title), considers many of the above arguments moot. Reading the axioms of the argument is always a good start before arguing against them.

Also I am not discussing relativistic (or moving) space but rather 1 dimensional space that would be synonymous to an ether or eastern akashic record.

You can try the aristotelian arguments at a later time when I present a dual argument founded upon the point as zero dimensional...your criticism may be justified there.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:40 pm I would agree that the point is 0-dimensional and is a reflection of a 1-dimensional circle, as a infinitely small circle makes a point, and an infinitely large point makes a circle, and one can substitute the word circle with sphere. Then, from there, there is the radius connecting the two, and it rotates about the point to 'fill' the circle into a 2-ball and 3-ball. All of these are different forms of one another, so I can understand what you mean by 'reflection'. However, how does Descartian curvilinear geometry come about except through intersection of n-balls or n-spheres? This would mean that each 1-sphere-with-point or 2-sphere-with-point or 3-ball or 2-ball are monads that fill space and make geometry such as the Flower of Life through their intersection.
What if the point was directed into itself?
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Intradimensionality, Extradimensionality, and Interdimensionality

Post by Viveka »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:46 am
Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:40 pm I would agree that the point is 0-dimensional and is a reflection of a 1-dimensional circle, as a infinitely small circle makes a point, and an infinitely large point makes a circle, and one can substitute the word circle with sphere. Then, from there, there is the radius connecting the two, and it rotates about the point to 'fill' the circle into a 2-ball and 3-ball. All of these are different forms of one another, so I can understand what you mean by 'reflection'. However, how does Descartian curvilinear geometry come about except through intersection of n-balls or n-spheres? This would mean that each 1-sphere-with-point or 2-sphere-with-point or 3-ball or 2-ball are monads that fill space and make geometry such as the Flower of Life through their intersection.
What if the point was directed into itself?
Then it would still be a point?

Also, a circle consisting of an infinite number of points isn't quite correct, but close, as the Circle contains C amount of points, as does a surface area, as does a volume, etc.
Last edited by Viveka on Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply