odysseus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:40 am
Eodnhoj7
The first axiom of the argument is a simple one: what we understand of all phenomena, at minimum, is strictly an observation of space. It is the one universal axiom which exists as the limits that give structural boundaries to reality. In a separate and simultaneous respect, it is absent of the very same definition as no-limit. Space observes a dualistic nature of limit and no-limit.
Okay, I read it all. I can't respond to it all, but I can make interpretative observations.
It gives a general summary, I finished the mathematical/geometric portion of it and it equates to about 30+ pages with 120+ various algebraic expressions...in reality there is alot to be covered.
One might argue that time is more fundamental than space because time encompasses both spatial and temporal principles of thought, or, "limit". After all, when I "observe" a number, I do so in time, but is this a spatial event?
I argue in a seperate portion about relativistic space (time) which is simply space as movement, or the approximation of the ethereal unity. I think where alot of confusion comes in, partly because the paper is unfinished and is 100+ pages so far, is that we view relativity (time) and ethereal (unity) as contradictory when in reality they are seperate dimensions of the same reality.
Alot of confusion occurs in the respect that when I argue that everything is "1", they automatically assume I am arguing against relativistic multiplicity...which is not the case. While I argue, both linguistically and mathematically for a 1d point, it does not eliminate or seek to get away from that fact that 1d linear and 0d point space exist.
The summation of this philosophy is less of a "x vs y" approach but rather an "x and y" approach.
Back to your point about "time" as the foundation for space, I argue that time exists through a process of linear folding in a seperate portion. You are correct in many respects with the premise that time may be more fundamental than space (with time being synonymous to moving space) however this movement (while true in and of itself) is an approximation of the unity.
Observing time is fundamentally observing the nature of spatial movements, with each spatial movement composed of folding lines (conducive to other folding lines), hence what we understand of as time is linear movements (which act as particles, for instance if I move from X to Y that movement as a line exists relative to other linear movements I make, hence it gains its definition through the relation to those other linear movements) that relate to other linear movements by forming angles.
Angulature, as the relation of linear movements (actual movement as localized spaced and potential movement being the negative space of the angle through which the lines move), provides the foundation for temporal movement. This was not included for brevity, and because I am addressing the 1d point directly.
But there is also the position that takes our spatial understanding of all phenomena, and reduces it to the pragmatic functions of the language and logic "about" some transcendental feature of the presence of things. Talk about things as if talk, thought, logic were some mirror of nature is what Kant called dogmatic metaphysics. If your are going to make an apriori argument about what is the case that has no observable features, then you are going have to explain how language can produce what is real by argument alone.
Concepts as abstract forms, are fundamentally an approximation of a larger form. For example the concept of the square is stricly an approximation of the 1d line when observe from a relativistic standpoint. From mirror theory that square is composed of 1d points and -1d lines, with the square itself being an approximate of the unity of the 1d point, considering we can only observe true unity approximately. The -1d lines, as the approximation of the 1d points through multiplicity, are not dimensions in themselves but rather "imaginary" or "negative" dimensions which exist as connectors of the 1d points. The 1d point exists as an infinity number of points through point, and is a unified infinity in itself, however we only view it approximately.
Even abstract concepts such as "quality", are merely extensions of further concepts such as "quantity" and this dimensionality is determined by the direction they take in how they define things. Our observation of concepts are merely the observation of dimensions by how the dimensions are directed...if that makes any sense...I might have to elaborate the point further later.
Observing the definition of space, within any given dictionary source, one is placed into a paradox. A whole host of definitions are given, which include but are not limited to: “area” “volume”, “dimension”, and “limit” These definitions,summated under the last definition as “limit”, reflect back upon the process of definition as a form of limit in itself by which a phenomena exists through the inherent limits which form it. Space as limit is limit through space, with the observation of any dictionary definition resulting in a dualistic circular and linear form of reasoning where one definition leads to another while simultaneously circling back to the original. Under these terms circular rational is justified through inherent linear elements and vice versa while observing, under certain degrees, Mirimanoff’s concept of “wellfoundedness” in which the definition as a set of information contains no infinite descension further implying an original source.
This sounds like this postmodern alternative: we are faced in our intuitions about the world a paradox of infinity and finitude. Acknowledging a phenomenon is inherently limiting, for the nature of an affirmation is to set something off from something else. Affirmations are inherently "difference" that is a "deference" to the body of terminology that surrounds the term. There are no affirmations that are "stand alone" and this is the circularity of which you speak. A coherence of self referential thought, the "well foundedness" of which refers to pragmatic application. Just as the hammer makes its way to the nail successfully, and consummates its journey, so does language in conversation, in empirical examination. Limitation is the parameters of what a hammer does, what language does, in its execution. But then comes the paradox: infinity, the terminus of language, yet a presence nevertheless. Why space? Being possesses space.
Somewhat...yes. I would not say being possesses space (unless we viewing being from a relative position of parts within parts or spatial dimensions within spatial dimensions) but rather being is space, not in the sense of how we think that space is equated to emptiness. Emptiness is merely an interpretation of relation. For instance if my cup is empty, it implies it lacks a specific relation it was intended or (potentialized) for...such as coffee or water. However it is not really empty, it is full of air. Now if I take the cup and put it in a vaccuum, it may now be empty of air but it will still be full of various other waves lengths (electomagnetic, radiation, etc.)
This dualism of progressive linear and circular definition provides a limit in itself through a process of mirroring in which the further corresponding definitions in turn follow this same process. The axiom of space follows this definition process in which a limit reflects itself through a further limit, rationally in both form and function as circular, and reflects further limits, rationally in both form and function as linear, in which an observation of no-limit occurs. This observation of “no-limit” is founded inherent within the dictionary definitions of space in an immediate respect within the aforementioned definition itself. In a separate respect, function follows form where these definitions reflect through further definition ad-infinitum in a dual circular and linear regressive/progressive manner. Limit and No-Limit are dependent on a dual form of circular and linear reasoning that simultaneously manifests further definition while maintaining there own under spatial terms.
Now, this sounds like the infinite question begging of terms, for a term is inherently limiting, and circular, being part of a self referential system of logic and language.
The term is also unlimited in a seperate respect considering it mirrors and relates through further terms. Mirroring, as used in the paper, can be used as a nature of stable unity where the mirroring of one dimension to another gives structure to both. Relation is merely the observation of movement.
Take for example the nature of dictionary definitions. A leads to B with B leading to both C and back to A.
The mirroring process contains a form of circular symmetry where A exists because of B and B exists because of A. This circularity between B and A inturn circles to C....hence what we understand of definition is an approximation of unity where all terms are connected through eachother back to an original center source.
(Applying this mirror process to numbers gets some relatively crazy results such as a standard X+Y=Z turns into X+Y= (A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K))
In a seperate respect we can observe that the nature of definition projects a linear structure where A leads to B leads to C. This linear projection is an observation of continual change.
So we have an inherent circularity which is intradimensional in nature, and a linear form of progression which is extradimensional in nature. Hence what we understand of the process of definition breaks down to "direction" of movement.
Strict circularity contradicts itself on its own terms eventually...but the same applies for a strictly linear approach. Circularity and Linear reasoning must coexist for any logical stability.
The problem of logical fallacies, specifically the fallacy of circularity, is in itself fallacious when applied to itself in one respect, while at the same respect is considering a fallacy relative to certain "mainframes" of logic.
Take for instance the fallacy of circularity...circularity is false because it does not provide enough definition. The problem occurs in the respect that falsity exists because of circularity...hence what we understand of logical fallacies are premised as being fallacious if they do not "complete" a specific mainframe. This main frame in turn is linearism, however linearism is true because truth is linearism.
To the problem occurs in the respect that what we understand of fallacy and contradiction is not only relative to a specific mainframe of interpretation, but also that contradiction is lack of completion...hence in one respect all logical forms are contradictory in one respect while simultaneously not-contradictory in another.
The observation of no limit is qualified by limit; after all, to give it utterance is to contain it and reduce it to the "same", that is, to the closed, finite body of disclosing terminology.
Yes and vice versa, so we are stuck with a circularity dependent upon linearism and linearism dependent upon circularity...hence the axioms we can observe as universal from this duality is "directionality".
Let's see, the limit is circular, the No-limit is linear.
And vice versa in seperate respects, which can be observed later. What we understand as the unifying median of limit and no-limit is space as direction. Definition in these respects is fundamentally an approximation, but that in itself is consistent, hence we observe definition as both constant and approximate at the same time in different respects
But then, how does the No-limit makes its way into meaningful thought?
Because "direction" is dependent upon an infinity, whether that direction is intradimensional or extradimensional, we cannot seperate infinity from direction.
Once it is received, it is an interpretative entity. Unless you making an intuitive claim: Infinity is intuited, acknowldged in the finitude of human possibilities, but registered as infinity apriori.
The problem with apriori statements is that eventually all facts, atomically speaking, must be viewed as apriori in themselves eventually. So yes in one respect you are right. In a seperate respect the same argument applies for "finitude" also...it is apriori. The question of "apriori", and pardon the continually repetition of the point I am about to make, is one of "direction". Apriori statements, as foundational axioms from which an argument's beginning angle is defined, is dependent quite literally on the direction one looks.
This dualistic understanding of space can further be observed in many of the works of the pre-socratic including but not limited to the Pythagoreans and Anaximander. The Pythagorean Philolaus observed “that all things in the universe result from a combination of the unlimited and the limiting; for if all things had been unlimited, nothing could have been the object of cognizance.” Aristotle observed “[the Pythagoreans] plainly say that when the one had been constructed, whether out of planes or of surface or of seed or of elements which they cannot express, immediately the nearest part of the unlimited began to be drawn in and limited by the limit.” He further implied that the Pythagorean teaching of the limit and no-limit were direct results of the philosopher Anaximander who argued “(that which is) unlimited”, “boundless”, “infinite”, or “indefinite” as “Apeiron” and “peras” as “end, limit, boundary”
.
The presocratics are not helpful. I mean, I see why you refer to them, but they do not adjust for the idealism of finitude.
The provide the historical foundations for observing the what is "limit" and "no-limit", however it can (as you observe) be limited to them specifically...this is strictly a reference point.
Modern philosophical instinct and training implies the definition of space as limit and no-limit in dual linear and circular terms questionable considering one is presented with two perspectives: They are an empirical contradiction or a transcendental paradox in the respect that logic either nullifies itself or transcends pasts its origins. (quote) Neither school of thought gives any real justification as they manifest a dualism in which one perspective attempts to wrestle over the other, resulting in a Neitschian view of force embodied as “perspectivism” , Pythagorean definition where duality is conduce to change, or the problem of Wittgenstein where “[a]ll the propositions of logic are generalizations of tautologies and all generalizations of tautologies are generalizations of logic. There are no other logical propositions.”
This paradox is best taken up by Kant, Husserl, Levinas, and others, by my thinking. I believe the contradictions of finitude and infinity that tell us, for example: Being here cannot truly be, being here, given that 'here' is a local concept embedded in infinity in the last spatial analysis of being here, all finite terms yield to this one infinity; are signs of the end of philosophy. The terminus is without meaning, an empty spinning of wheels, because here is must be realized that what all the fuss was about, was really about value. Time for Zen.
I am not sure infinity and and finiteness necessarily have to be contradictory considering their definitions manifest through eachother in some manner or another. Infinity is "Limitless-Limit" while finiteness is strictly "limit". What we understand of limit, as a phenomena in itself, is that it is dependent upon an absence of limit other wise it defeats itself.
For example a line must always exist as a limit, otherwise it stops being a limit, hence limit manifests through an unlimited nature. In another respect an absence of limit is dependent upon limit itself as limit is not really a thing in itself.