Looks like you have summed up Pre-Socratic philosophy in two posts, Eodnhoj7. Here's something I wrote for the magazine on that stuff:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches It puts it all in chronological order. For the benefit of anyone trying to follow this, it's basically like this:
1. The Milesians. Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes.
Thales usually gets the credit for being the first philosopher. He was the first to hammer a wedge between religion and science, by rejecting mythological explanations and seeking natural causes. One of the Milesians' main concerns was what the universe is made of. Thales thought it was water, Anaximenes thought it was air and other philosophers argues for earth or fire. Anaximander had one of the most brilliant insights of all time. He pointed out that we cannot know the actual nature of the Greek elements, we only know that by their properties; which he gave as hot/cold and wet/dry. The fundamental point is still true today. Although we can say that water is made of oxygen and hydrogen, and that the atoms are made of quarks and electrons, we don't know what those are made of. Anyway, Anaximander believed that these properties inhered in some infinite/unbounded stuff he called the
apeiron.
2. The Eleatics. Parmenides and Zeno.
Not content with only knowing the properties, Parmenides claimed that you could know the nature of things by thinking hard enough about them. The plan was to come up with something that was undeniably true, and logically construct a description of the universe, based on this solid foundation. He started well enough by pointing out that there is something. It is logically flawless, since it cannot be said, without it necessarily being true. His next step was to argue that, therefore, there is not nothing, which in one sense is not controversial, but he took it to mean that is no nothing anywhere; at which point, everything went pear shaped. Since there is no nothing, the universe is infinite and static, because, said Parmenides, movement requires an empty space to move into.
3. The Pythagoreans. Pythagoras (obviously). Philolaus. Archytus.
They agreed that there is some unbounded, or unlimited, stuff, but didn't particularly care what it is. What they were interested in, is the ways that unlimited stuff is limited-by shapes, sizes, proportions, amounts; mathematics, in other words.
Anyway, as I'm sure you realise, you have started with the Pythagoreans:
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 amWhat we understand of reality, is merely dimensions of space. These dimensions are limits, which form further limits, as "direction". Take the line for example, it is strictly a direction between two zero dimensional points, with the line itself being the relation of the zero dimensional points.
Then:
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 amThese zero dimensional points are not things in and of themselves but absence of "being" as continual movement. Movement is a deficiency in structure as it implies a separation.
Which, in essence, is what Parmenides said was impossible, despite the fact that it quite clearly happens.
Anyway, back to Pythagoras:
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 amThe relation of lines, as spatial dimensions of direction, in turn forms the various forms and movements we see. The particulate wave, movements of stars, etc are merely the relation of spatial dimensions, all stemming from "1" as direction.
So is there more to it than that any shape and any movement can be describe by lines mapped on a 3D grid?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 amRelativistically we see this as the line, as extradimensional in nature (directed away from itself). Etc.
Do you mean "relativistically"? In what sense?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 amIn a seperate respect, under a theoretical ether, we would see this as a 1 dimensional point relfecting into itself as "intradimensional".
That really depends on the properties you ascribe to this "theoretical ether". And frankly, all bets are off when it comes to intradimensional.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 amIn these respects what we understand of dimension is spatial limit as "direction".
Well, up/down, left/right, back/forward are what we understand as spatial dimensions anyway.
From what I gather, you are trying to interpret Anaximander in a Pythagorean light. Nothing wrong with that. The usual interpretation of Anaximander is that he perceived the apeiron as the primary substance; the stuff which everything is made of, and that it is spatially infinite, rather than being zero dimensional. Dimensions are all very well, mathematically, but if a physical object has less than three spatial dimensions, can it actually exist?