A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Pardon any grammatical errors, I wrote this in a coffee shop after a full day of work. This is a very, very, very, brief intro to a field of philosophy call Geometric Dimensionalism. In theory it unifies all philosophy, religion, and sciences into one. I expect debates, however with some degree of patience for I very poorly summarized 120 + pages and 200+ sources into 1-2 pages.

Philosopher's have long sought for a unifying metaphysics from which to establish a balanced understanding of not only the universe but themselves and their immediate surroundings. What we observe today with philosophy, and by extension the sciences and religions, is a continually fracturing quality where a philosophy/science/religion inevitably seem to reproduce various perspectives that mimic or reflect their previous parents.

It is in this effort to establish not only a unity, but an understanding of unity itself, that the nature of these fields of observation seem to follow a very difficult if not impossible course of action. Philosophies establish more philosophies, sciences with more sciences, religions with more religions...and the process of divergence seems to go on into a vortex whose end point, if there is any, lies more at the bottom of an abyss of materialistic flux rather than at the apex of what we deem as deep spiritual truth.

Where is unity to be found? Is their any to begin with? The answer seems to be the point, in a quite literal manner. What we understand of reality fundamentally breaks down to one irreducible axiom breaks down to a form of geometry and nothing more...nothing less.

All philosophy is founded upon the axiom, as point of self evidence whose dual nature of subjectivity and objectivity (under the "self" and "evidence") maintains a dualistic structure of continuous flux. "Truth is strictly subjective" turns itself into a statement of objectivity. "Truth is strictly objective" lends itself to a subjective understanding. Between this subjective and objective nature of the axiom we observe a continual flux between two natures, strictly because of its dualistic structure for a dualism is nothing more than an a form of opposition with that opposition erupting into a continual flux.

The synthesis of this subjective and objective nature of the axiom results in nothing more than geometric space under the guise of the "point". All subjective truth is found in and stems from the "point", along with all objective truth. It is this nature of the axiom as a point, which seems to have eluded philosophers due to its simultaneous simplicity and profundity as evidenced within the nature of its cousins the circle and sphere.

In simpler terms all axioms breakdown to a point. An observation, built upon this point, manifests structure by its reflection, relation, and synthesis of other points. It is this reflection, relation, and synthesis of axioms that in turn not only form other axioms but the very foundations of language and logic (and by extension reality) as we know it.

a) A point as a unified median, fundamentally reflects upon itself to maintain itself as a structure. It is in this self-reflection that a second point is made as an approximate of the first. In this respect that point is a causal element and the second point is an effectual element. This effectual element is fundamentally an approximate of the first point and in this respect shares the same cause nature.

b) However, due to its approximate nature to the first point it in itself is not the first point and not completely a unified. This approximate nature, as a deficiency in unity is akin to "randomness" as a "deficiency". The point as a self-reflective entity in this respect shares a dual role as a causal element and a random element through its nature as reflection. Reflection and the point are synonymous for reflection maintains the points as a unified entity with this unity equivalent in both form and function to stability or "abstraction".

c) It is from this nature of the point as a dimension of Reflection, from which we can observe Reflection as a dimension reflecting upon itself to maintain itself with its approximate as Relativity. The point becomes "deficient" in unity through the nature of gradation with this gradation of the point manifesting itself in both quantity and quality. These gradient points are fractals or particles which in turn are form of further particles. We observe this in material.

d)These particles, as deficient in unity, are subject to flux with this flux being evident in the needed relations of particles in order to exist. A particle relates to another particle other wise it does not exist. As the relation of a particle to another particle produces another particle a flux ensues with the continued relations of particles in many respects manifesting further relations, with further relations manifesting further particles. In this respect the particle has a dual nature of "potential relationships/particles" which define it. Relativity as a dimension of flux within and of itself manifests through a dual nature of actual and potential particles.

e)To step back further, what we understand of logic breaks down to a duality of Reflection (as stability/abstraction) and Relativity (as flux/physicality) which both are points within themselves. With Reflection being caused and Relativity as uncaused (for a deficiency in symmetry as flux is a deficiency in structure as causality) we observe dual dimension whose polarity is at odds and prevents and form of stability. A third dimension or point is introduced as Synthesis.

f) Reflection and Relativity, as points synthesis through a third point as themselves, each other, and the aforementioned point of synthesis that allows all logic and symmetric to maintain a triadic structure. This triadic structure, as the point itself, allows the point to:

1) maintain a dual role of stability and flux through the synthesis of dimensional limits.
2) maintain a dual role of stability and flux through the synthesis of possible dimensions limits.
3) This nature of dimensional limits, or the limit to space, is observed in the curvature of the circle or sphere while its possible dimensional limits are observe as the center point. We can observe this in Pi.

From this nature of Reflection, Relation, and Synthesis we can observe briefly that all logic and observed symmetry is fundamentally 3 dimensional as a point within a point within a point and in this respects allows logic to maintain dual structure of linearism through circularity and circularity through linearism whose apex is in the axiom. It is in these respect that the study of philosophy is fundamentally the study of spatial structure or geometry and what we observe as "reason" best reflects through "rationality" as the "ratio".

From these respects, as observed through the nature of the axiom, philosophy must recommit its course to the understanding of reality through the perspective of the point (as 1 dimension and reflective) the circle (as 2 dimensional and relative) and the sphere (as 3 dimensional and synthetic) as 1 dimension in 3 and 3 in 1.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9560
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by Harbal »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:43 am I wrote this in a coffee shop after a full day of work.
Don't you have a home to go to?
]...[
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:19 pm

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by ]...[ »

.



To the OP - Could you please provide a link to Geometric Dimensional-ism?

*Can't seem to find anything...on the ENTIRE internet...?




.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9560
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by Harbal »

]...[ wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:01 pm .





*Can't seem to find anything...on the ENTIRE internet...?




.
Try googling harebrained ideas.
]...[
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:19 pm

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by ]...[ »

.






............................................................Image








.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by HexHammer »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:43 am Pardon any grammatical errors, I wrote this in a coffee shop after a full day of work. This is a very, very, very, brief intro to a field of philosophy call Geometric Dimensionalism.
Sorry, doesn't make sense, too unspecific, you need to make some real life examples.
It's like saying "west of the moon, east of the sun" 2 very specific designations, but yet completely unspecific.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

HexHammer wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:30 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:43 am Pardon any grammatical errors, I wrote this in a coffee shop after a full day of work. This is a very, very, very, brief intro to a field of philosophy call Geometric Dimensionalism.
Sorry, doesn't make sense, too unspecific, you need to make some real life examples.
It's like saying "west of the moon, east of the sun" 2 very specific designations, but yet completely unspecific.
All "being" at its root breaks down to "space". It is this nature of space which, as a unifying median of all that is abstract and physical, manifests its nature through structures or "dimensions". When we observe any form of "being" what we are observing are spatial properties. These spatial properties manifest at their fullest symmetry through the nature of the dot (1 dimensional), circle (2 dimensional), and sphere (3 dimensional).

It is in trying to understand the universality and unity of space that we are led towards geometry as it's root through the point (1 dimensional), circle (2 dimensional, and sphere (3 dimensional) as universal constructs of 1 in 3 and 3 in 1. I emphasize this universality of the point as the nature of what we observe as logic in the west place emphasis, whether accidentally or as an extension of cultural intuition, on the necessity of linearism for the foundations of logic (and by default what we understand as symmetry and order).

The problem occurs, and forgive me for giving a very limited explanation of this, in regards to the nature of linearism:

a) an "infinite" line, in the imagination, is perpetually shrinking (or expanding) and in this regard is infinitely curving. It is this infinite curvature with is the basis of the point and in these respects circularity is unavoidable and necessary within the nature of logic.

b) a "temporal" line exists if and only if it is between two points. These two points are in themselves circular and as the line extends towards the center of these points it is "infinite" because of them. It is in these respects that not only a linear progression requires the nature of points, but even an "limited" line have "infinite" possible natures through the points.

I bring up these two axioms strictly because the nature of the axiom is the point from which all philosophical observations are form. Within the nature of the axioms we can observe.

a) That it reflects upon itself, much like a point, to form further axioms which in themselves are approximates. These points in themselves are causal elements with the approximate point both a cause and effect of the prior point axiom. It is in these respect that all axioms/points are causal elements within philosophy.

This approximation, through effect, is fundamentally a deficiency in the original point and in this respect all reflection of points result in randomness as a deficiency in structure. We observe the reflection of the points, through the line existing as a gradation of the point (for the point is the fullness of structure/being) as "randomness". So in these respect all logic, through the nature of the axiom as essentially a spatial element, is fundamentally a duality of causality (point) and randomness (linearism) with this duality culminating in the third nature as the "Reflection."

b) This nature of the point maintaining it's stability through Reflection as "the point", in itself manifests an approximation point through self-reflection as Relativity. Relativity is logistic flux for each axiom, as an extension of the universal axiom/point, is a gradation in both quantity and quality. In is in these respects that all axioms, as logistic particles/fractals, manifest further logistic particles through relation. These particles, as defined through actual particle relations in turn manifest definition under their potential relations so what we understand from the nature of the axiom as a "Relative"
breaks down to a further dual of actual axioms/particles and potential axioms/particles.

It is in these respect that Logic as Relative is a in a continuous state of flux.

C) Now if we are to step back further, we can observe the nature of the axiom as being dualistic in nature as "Reflective/stable/unitive" and "Relative/fluxing/gradient". This dualistic nature of the axiom manifests a third point as "Composite" logic through "synthesis". The Reflection of Relation, and the Relation of Reflection, both as points is further mediated or centered under the nature of the synthesis. This synthesis of
axioms, through the nature of Logic, results in the Dimensional Limits of the axiom that allow for the maintenance and propogation of structure for without limits their is no "space" or "being". In a simultaneous respect these limits, as spaces themselves manifest "Possible Natures (or Possible Dimensional LImits" for space itself is infinite. In these respects we can observe Logic as the synthesis of points and lines for all points/axioms
are in themselves and infinite number of points (just as the circle is an infinite number of points composing one point as infinity) with these infinite points manifesting an infinite number of lines.

Under Synthesis the Dimensional limit would be synonymous with the point and the possible natures (possible points) would be synonymous with the line. In these respects what we understand of being/truth breaks down to the spatial properties of geometry which can be extended further into the nature of Number (for unity, or the point, is in itself 1. 1 reflects upons itself to maintain 1 while simultaneously creating and approximate 2, etc....ad infinitum (which is in itself 1)).

In these respects Synthesis is the formation of axioms as "Reflective/Relative", "stable/fluxing", [causal/random]/[actual/potential] as Dimensional Limits and Possible natures.

D) In summary, to build off what you wrote logic breaks down to:

1)Reflection
a) causality
b) randomness
c) stability

2)Relativity
a) actual particles
b) potential particles
c) flux

3)Synthesis
a) dimensional limits
b) possible natures
c) stability/flux (or maybe neutrality as a possible term? I have to think on it) as the axiom.

4) The nature of the point and line through these through Points, with the culmination of Logic fundamentally being an expression of Pi.



E) So what we we understand of logic really breaks down to an understanding of Pi with the "3" (as a three points) being equivalent to the "Reflective/Relative/synthetic" natures of the point manifesting in all other numbers/spaces under .14159... So when one approaches the nature of logic, one is simultaneously approaching the nature of the geometry as spatial structures (which in themselves are number) which is in itself being.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Harbal wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:02 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:43 am I wrote this in a coffee shop after a full day of work.
Don't you have a home to go to?
Apparently it is in your empty head. Don't you have any actual thoughts of your own? For/Against the subject matter? It must be difficult living with yourself considering all you can do is criticize without offering any arguments. But, considering by the avatar, you must view everything as a joke...including yourself.

On a serious note, I go on these philosophy forums to discuss these subjects and I understand that their is confusion on both sides about any given issue. What I don't understand is, if one is going to delve into petty criticisms, why don't they at least practice them first? It is a philosophy forum, and the emphasis on language is abundantly clear, however the criticisms/jokes/insults/ad-hominems/etc. are very poor.

At least entertain me. Tell me a joke...considering you are one.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

]...[ wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:01 pm .



To the OP - Could you please provide a link to Geometric Dimensional-ism?

*Can't seem to find anything...on the ENTIRE internet...?





.

It's an extension of Pythagoreanism, however instead of coming from the axiom where everything is number (and technically it is, I would argue) it falls under the axiom where all reality is composed of spatial dimensions. These spatial dimensions, manifested universally as the line and point, observe a geometric nature to all "existence".

You won't find it on the internet because I am in the process, for however long it takes, of getting it published (and at the rate I am going it will probably take a few years.). That is part of the reason I am discussing it on these forums. It is to gain an understanding of what people do and do not understand, and from their find a median point from which to build a foundation from.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by Walker »

HexHammer wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:30 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:43 am Pardon any grammatical errors, I wrote this in a coffee shop after a full day of work. This is a very, very, very, brief intro to a field of philosophy call Geometric Dimensionalism.
Sorry, doesn't make sense, too unspecific, you need to make some real life examples.
It's like saying "west of the moon, east of the sun" 2 very specific designations, but yet completely unspecific.
A perfectly spinning top fits the real life ticket.
- The top is the unity of motion.
- Its movement is circular.
- Each dualistic component of the top is relative to the unity, right down to the molecules.
- The point is the stillness of balance, a dimensionless axis created by the moving components, around which they swirl and to which each element pertains, only separable from the dynamic unity of the top’s axis by imaginative concepts, motionlessness made possible only by motion.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9560
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by Harbal »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:52 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:02 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:43 am I wrote this in a coffee shop after a full day of work.
Don't you have a home to go to?
Apparently it is in your empty head. Don't you have any actual thoughts of your own? For/Against the subject matter? It must be difficult living with yourself considering all you can do is criticize without offering any arguments. But, considering by the avatar, you must view everything as a joke...including yourself.

On a serious note, I go on these philosophy forums to discuss these subjects and I understand that their is confusion on both sides about any given issue. What I don't understand is, if one is going to delve into petty criticisms, why don't they at least practice them first? It is a philosophy forum, and the emphasis on language is abundantly clear, however the criticisms/jokes/insults/ad-hominems/etc. are very poor.

At least entertain me. Tell me a joke...considering you are one.
Are you annoyed about something?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Walker wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:10 am
HexHammer wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:30 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:43 am Pardon any grammatical errors, I wrote this in a coffee shop after a full day of work. This is a very, very, very, brief intro to a field of philosophy call Geometric Dimensionalism.
Sorry, doesn't make sense, too unspecific, you need to make some real life examples.
It's like saying "west of the moon, east of the sun" 2 very specific designations, but yet completely unspecific.
A perfectly spinning top fits the real life ticket.
- The top is the unity of motion.
- Its movement is circular.
- Each dualistic component of the top is relative to the unity, right down to the molecules.
- The point is the stillness of balance, a dimensionless axis created by the moving components, around which they swirl and to which each element pertains, only separable from the dynamic unity of the top’s axis by imaginative concepts, motionlessness made possible only by motion.
Yes, great example. We are on the same "page". The nature of unity, breaks down to an observation of "space" and in this understanding of space we come to a knowledge of "structures", "particles" and "dimensions" with this nature of structure/particle/dimension comprising everything we observe in the abstract and physical world.

This nature of space as a universal median, best observed through the nature of the point/circle/sphere due to it's symmetrical nature, is "1 total existence". This "1 total existence", or Russel's/Wittgenstein's "holism", must reflect upon itself in order to maintain symmetry as a structure. It is in this nature of reflection that "the whole" maintains its own existence while simultaneously maintaining itself through approximate structures.

Take for example: 1 ≡ 1 → 2

1 reflecting 1 manifests 2, it is congruent in structure to 2, however it is not equal to 2.

1 manifests 2, as an approximate structure through self reflection. It is in these respects that 1 is simultaneously equal to a causal element. In a seperate respect, through the nature of reflection, the nature of "approximation" through the manifestation and reflection of 2, a dualism of "randomness" is found. This randomness, through the nature of approximation, is because 2 is not equal to 1 as a unified structure. Equate 1 with a point and you get a line.

Now this nature of the the "whole" as "Reflection" through the "point/one/cause" and "line/zero/randomness", manifests another approximate dual nature: Relativity.

It is this second "sphere" of space as a fluxing median best observed through the gradation of the point/circle/sphere in both quantity and quality. This "particulation" where we understand structure through the nature of "particles" and "quantums" (groups of particles which form further particles, essentially a dual nature to the particle). This "gradation of existence", "dualism", or "Russel's/Wittgenstein's "atomism", is composed of particles who must continually relate due to their "particulate" nature for a "particle" is not a "whole" but a "fractal" or "piece of something" which can only exist through relation. It is in this need to relate that space breaks down to "actual particulate" and dual "potential particulate" which manifest through a median of "flux" or "temporality".

****It is through this nature of "Relativity" we observe the multiplication/division (through the nature of "times") as structures of relativity.
I can include further examples later if you wish.

Now we have a dualism of "Holism" through "Reflection" as "point/one/cause" and "line/zero/randomness" and "Atomism" through "Relativity" as
particulate "point/one/actuality" and "line/zero/potentiality". This dualism due to it's polarity, as observed through the "Yin/Yang" is unstable unless a "third" element, or approximate point is introduced: Synthesis.

It is this third "sphere of space as a median between stability and flux that is best observed through the existence of "space" itself as a "dimensional limit" (ex: the circumferance of the circle, or the points that form a line) and "possible natures (dimensional limits)" (ex: the center of the circle, or the line itself). From dimensional limits come possible dimensions and from possible dimension come dimensional limits.

****It is in this nature of Synthesis where form and function (number and mathematical function) are the same. (example question: Does the nature of addition form 1,2,3... or do 1,2,3 form addition?)

It is in these respects that Reflection/Relation/Synthesis are 1 in 3 and 3 in 1.

Now to extend this subject further, this observation of "spatial" properties is fundamentally the observation of "symmetry". It is this nature of "symmetry" which logic is founded upon, so by extension logic operates through these three "natures" (and from their one can extend it to language, science, etc.)

This is the very, very, very brief version so if something does not make sense, it is not you it is me.

Everything breaks down to geometry, even consciousness for axioms are strictly "points" of observation.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Harbal wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:35 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:52 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:02 pm
Don't you have a home to go to?
Apparently it is in your empty head. Don't you have any actual thoughts of your own? For/Against the subject matter? It must be difficult living with yourself considering all you can do is criticize without offering any arguments. But, considering by the avatar, you must view everything as a joke...including yourself.

On a serious note, I go on these philosophy forums to discuss these subjects and I understand that their is confusion on both sides about any given issue. What I don't understand is, if one is going to delve into petty criticisms, why don't they at least practice them first? It is a philosophy forum, and the emphasis on language is abundantly clear, however the criticisms/jokes/insults/ad-hominems/etc. are very poor.

At least entertain me. Tell me a joke...considering you are one.
Are you annoyed about something?

No, I just feel bad for you. I believe if I don't pay attention to you no one else will... kind of like a crippled puppy no one ever wanted. Considering you prefer the language of "criticism", I figure that is a good place to start. Please continue with your fascinating opinions, I want to hear more.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9560
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by Harbal »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:13 pm No, I just feel bad for you.
I appreciate that but if I want to feel bad I would prefer to do it for myself.
I believe if I don't pay attention to you no one else will... kind of like a crippled puppy no one ever wanted.
Well I don't really want you either, regardless of whether you pay attention to me or not.
Please continue with your fascinating opinions, I want to hear more.
I haven't given any opinions yet but I probably will at some point.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Harbal wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:39 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:13 pm No, I just feel bad for you.
I appreciate that but if I want to feel bad I would prefer to do it for myself.
I believe if I don't pay attention to you no one else will... kind of like a crippled puppy no one ever wanted.
Well I don't really want you either, regardless of whether you pay attention to me or not.
Please continue with your fascinating opinions, I want to hear more.
I haven't given any opinions yet but I probably will at some point.

I am sending you a man hug right now... you are cool with me.
Post Reply