A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:43 am 'Geometric Dimensionalism, In theory it unifies all philosophy, religion, and sciences into one.'
Sorry but this is impossible. At least to my way of thinking.

Excerpt from Ernest Becker's Pulitzer Prize winning book: The Denial of Death.

"Chapter One

Introduction: Human Nature and the Heroic

In times such as ours there is a great pressure to come up with concepts that help men understand their dilemma; there is an urge toward vital ideas, toward a simplification of needless intellectual complexity."
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:43 am 'Geometric Dimensionalism, In theory it unifies all philosophy, religion, and sciences into one.'
Sorry but this is impossible. At least to my way of thinking.



Excerpt from Ernest Becker's Pulitzer Prize winning book: The Denial of Death.

"Chapter One

Introduction: Human Nature and the Heroic

In times such as ours there is a great pressure to come up with concepts that help men understand their dilemma; there is an urge toward vital ideas, toward a simplification of needless intellectual complexity."
Complexity is a relative term, and when trying to observe a "unifying" metaphysics there are a lot of different degrees to cover and in these respects it may "appear" complicated due to it's enormity however is fundamentally composed of "simples" (or at least can be broken down to them)

Take for example in determining a "constant" truth you took my argument as a "point" and a separate argument as a "point". In turn you observed the reflective properties between them to show a constant truth that implies "complexity is not always good".

Secondly in determining a "fluxing" truth you took my argument as a "particulate" of truth (a point) and a separate arguments as another particulate "point". The relations between these two "particles" of truth continue in their flux of relations as further particles of truth (introduced by both of us) continue to relate.

A third point, which solidifies the nature of these arguments, is found in a synthesis between the "constant" (or reflective truths) and the "fluxing" (or relative truths) which manifests as an "axiom". This discourse as an axiom results as an axiom in itself and further axioms from which to build.


Now take this same, example, and it is universalized in the nature of "space". Religion observes this in the nature of "being" universally observed through the natures of "light" and "darkness", both of which are fundamentally space. The physical sciences observe this so no further example is need. Politics is fundamentally the observation of groups of people with a group in itself a form of space.

It observe geometry as a base for all existence as strictly the observation of spatial properties.

Does that make more sense? Because if not, I could answer any questions you have.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by A_Seagull »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:43 am The synthesis of this subjective and objective nature of the axiom results in nothing more than geometric space under the guise of the "point".
I was pretty much with you up to this point. But this seems to be a total non-sequitor, without logical inference nor empirical evidence.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? Did you consider all possibilities?
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by A_Seagull »

Harbal wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:15 am
]...[ wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:01 pm *Can't seem to find anything...on the ENTIRE internet...?
Try googling harebrained ideas.
Nah tried that, didn't work.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

A_Seagull wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:16 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:43 am The synthesis of this subjective and objective nature of the axiom results in nothing more than geometric space under the guise of the "point".
I was pretty much with you up to this point. But this seems to be a total non-sequitor, without logical inference nor empirical evidence.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? Did you consider all possibilities?
Axioms are "dimensional limits" (limit) and "possible natures/limits" (non limit). This is fundamentally what the nature of synthesis is, the manifestation of spatial boundaries from which further spatial boundaries manifests (possibilities). We observe this in the nature of seeds, the slow "growth" of fossil fuels and arguably metals/crystals, we see this in the nature world through life.

This nature of synthesis is fundamentally a fusion of both "stability" and "flux" which maintains itself as a trifold form of space which we understand as "being". Reflection (stability) and Relativity (flux) as whole dimensions result in a polarity that leads to the philosophical predicament of "an unmovable object and unstoppable force meet... what happens?" I am arguing synthesis. All polarities, or dualities, are stabilized through a triadic element or "point". We observe this in the nature of the triangle. Since dimensions of "space" are fundamentally "points" at universal level, each dimension of space stabilizes the other.

In regards to the logical inference problem, you are going to have to be more exact.

Logic is fundamentally approximation as a maintains a dual role of clarity and non-clarity (the more precise a logical argument is in one respect, the less precise it becomes in a second respect.) It is this nature of logic as approximate, clear, and non-observed in which we can observe a trifold nature. I point this out, because just because something "does not" look logical does not mean it is not. Logic is the study of symmetry, nothing more. You can argue it is based in language, mathematics, or both however symmetry is symmetry.

In regards to the "empirical" evidence it is two fold. The above nature examples suffice. The second point is about empiricism itself. Their is no empirical argument for empiricism itself. To argue all knowledge is strictly sensory is to fundamentally make a universal abstraction of the sensory in one respect, in a separate respect any "fault" in the sense's results in a fault in knowledge making any sensory experience impossible to very as true or not true as the axiom (the senses) itself is in a state of flux.

Empiricism is an approximate philosophical perspective to Relativism, and can be observe in the "Relativistic/particulate/potential" dimension of space that is a dual to Reflectivism.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:08 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:43 am 'Geometric Dimensionalism, In theory it unifies all philosophy, religion, and sciences into one.'
Sorry but this is impossible. At least to my way of thinking.



Excerpt from Ernest Becker's Pulitzer Prize winning book: The Denial of Death.

"Chapter One

Introduction: Human Nature and the Heroic

In times such as ours there is a great pressure to come up with concepts that help men understand their dilemma; there is an urge toward vital ideas, toward a simplification of needless intellectual complexity."
Complexity is a relative term, and when trying to observe a "unifying" metaphysics there are a lot of different degrees to cover and in these respects it may "appear" complicated due to it's enormity however is fundamentally composed of "simples" (or at least can be broken down to them)

Take for example in determining a "constant" truth you took my argument as a "point" and a separate argument as a "point". In turn you observed the reflective properties between them to show a constant truth that implies "complexity is not always good".

Secondly in determining a "fluxing" truth you took my argument as a "particulate" of truth (a point) and a separate arguments as another particulate "point". The relations between these two "particles" of truth continue in their flux of relations as further particles of truth (introduced by both of us) continue to relate.

A third point, which solidifies the nature of these arguments, is found in a synthesis between the "constant" (or reflective truths) and the "fluxing" (or relative truths) which manifests as an "axiom". This discourse as an axiom results as an axiom in itself and further axioms from which to build. You can observe this nature of synthesis of Hegelian Synthesis where a Positive (Reflective Stability as Abstraction) and a Negative (Relative Flux as Physicality) synthesize to form a third "element" of both as a "composite" or "synthetic".


Now take this same, example, and it is universalized in the nature of "space". Religion observes this in the nature of "being" universally observed through the natures of "light" and "darkness", both of which are fundamentally space. The physical sciences observe this so no further example is need. Politics is fundamentally the observation of groups of people with a group in itself a form of space.

It observe geometry as a base for all existence as strictly the observation of spatial properties.

Does that make more sense? Because if not, I could answer any questions you have.
Post Reply