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.