Space is Order; Reason and Meaning are Inevitable
Space is Order; Reason and Meaning are Inevitable
Considering all phenomena are dependent upon spatial axioms as both the foundation of order, in the respect they all exist as "limits" in themselves, then all irrational numbers as expanding space are expanding order.
The question of "expansion" of space leads to a problem in the respect all movement requires a movement from one space to another as space. If spaces expands, it requires a space to expand to, thus space does not expand as it must exist as a constant for it to expand to.
Dually if one space, I will use the term "locality", moves to another (let's say point A to point B); then Point A may be observed as "expanding" but simultaneously Point B may be observed as "expanding" if used as the starting point. Points A and B relativistically contract.
So point A is a expanding and point B is contracting. This requires that both points, moving simultaneously, exist in a framework of space themselves hence with the simultaneous expansion and contraction of points A,B; thus necessitating Points (A,B) to exist within a framework of Points (A1,B1).
So Points A and B moving towards each other effectively meet at the center of the frameworks of Points (A1, B1), where Points A and B as Point (A,B) exists as a center point from Points (A1,B1).
So the points A1,B1 effectively move closer to eachother as points (A,B) move towards eachother. This is observed if Points A1 and B1 exists as a foundational framework. As points (A,B) move towards eachother a resulting set of movements occurs. Points A1,B1 exist as 1/1000, then 1/100, then 1/10 (observing infinite grades of fractions/fractals between them) until eventually Point (A,B) as one point in the center observes a distance of 2 that separates points A1 and B1. As Points (A,B) move, then effectively create further points with these further points effectively becoming closer as Points (A,B) move closer.
The two points of A1 and B1 exist through the proceeding linear distances where the line is strictly the point in a dualistic state of extradimensional projection where they exist in a state of relation through a synthetic center point which may converge or diverge.
In these respects space exists effectively as order.
"Expansion" and "Contraction" exist as dual contradictory statements when premised on a movement from either point A to B or point B to point A.
This contradiction of expansion and contraction is synthesized when Point A and Point B are moving towards each other simultaneously, thus necessitating a replicated framework of Points A1 and B1. A converge of points (A,B) results in a divergence from points (A1, B1); hence point the points exist through an inherent spontaneous synthesis where there continual expansion/contraction and convergence/divergence results in space existing as a continual "order" which exists through a synthetic nature that effectively is spontaneous, with the spontaneous nature existing through an inherent "rationality" observed by the ratiotic linear movements of the points.
The question of "expansion" of space leads to a problem in the respect all movement requires a movement from one space to another as space. If spaces expands, it requires a space to expand to, thus space does not expand as it must exist as a constant for it to expand to.
Dually if one space, I will use the term "locality", moves to another (let's say point A to point B); then Point A may be observed as "expanding" but simultaneously Point B may be observed as "expanding" if used as the starting point. Points A and B relativistically contract.
So point A is a expanding and point B is contracting. This requires that both points, moving simultaneously, exist in a framework of space themselves hence with the simultaneous expansion and contraction of points A,B; thus necessitating Points (A,B) to exist within a framework of Points (A1,B1).
So Points A and B moving towards each other effectively meet at the center of the frameworks of Points (A1, B1), where Points A and B as Point (A,B) exists as a center point from Points (A1,B1).
So the points A1,B1 effectively move closer to eachother as points (A,B) move towards eachother. This is observed if Points A1 and B1 exists as a foundational framework. As points (A,B) move towards eachother a resulting set of movements occurs. Points A1,B1 exist as 1/1000, then 1/100, then 1/10 (observing infinite grades of fractions/fractals between them) until eventually Point (A,B) as one point in the center observes a distance of 2 that separates points A1 and B1. As Points (A,B) move, then effectively create further points with these further points effectively becoming closer as Points (A,B) move closer.
The two points of A1 and B1 exist through the proceeding linear distances where the line is strictly the point in a dualistic state of extradimensional projection where they exist in a state of relation through a synthetic center point which may converge or diverge.
In these respects space exists effectively as order.
"Expansion" and "Contraction" exist as dual contradictory statements when premised on a movement from either point A to B or point B to point A.
This contradiction of expansion and contraction is synthesized when Point A and Point B are moving towards each other simultaneously, thus necessitating a replicated framework of Points A1 and B1. A converge of points (A,B) results in a divergence from points (A1, B1); hence point the points exist through an inherent spontaneous synthesis where there continual expansion/contraction and convergence/divergence results in space existing as a continual "order" which exists through a synthetic nature that effectively is spontaneous, with the spontaneous nature existing through an inherent "rationality" observed by the ratiotic linear movements of the points.
Re: Space is Order; Reason and Meaning are Inevitable
Where does reason and meaning become as an inevitable result of the order of space?
I like to think from order springs logic, from logic function, from that reason, and from reason meaning.
But its a big jump from physical to reason and meaning. I invoke the abstract as reality. And sense is made from senselessness. Reason exists in the abstract of reality. And form from reason where the physical and the abstract meet and join.
Perhaps reason has its own life apart from the living.
I always wondered can mind exist without being alive
I like to think from order springs logic, from logic function, from that reason, and from reason meaning.
But its a big jump from physical to reason and meaning. I invoke the abstract as reality. And sense is made from senselessness. Reason exists in the abstract of reality. And form from reason where the physical and the abstract meet and join.
Perhaps reason has its own life apart from the living.
I always wondered can mind exist without being alive
Re: Space is Order; Reason and Meaning are Inevitable
The Munchhausen Trillema is the Solution for a Universal Philosophical foundations.
Logic, as contradictory in nature, is rooted in spatial axioms by the Munchhausen.
1. All logic is negated through the Munchhausen Trillema, and as "negated" by this Trillema necessitates that all logic is fundamentally formed by this Trillema where logic itself is formed by "what it is not" or a "negative boundary". This "negative nature" of logic in turn observes its primary potential where the Trillema in observing what "logic" is "not" observes it simultaneously for fully what it can be or "effectively" "is" when given a property span of time.
2. The axioms of all logical foundations are rooted in "assumption" where "selfevidence" necessitates a point of awareness in which the "subjectobject" dichotomy is negated under the terms of "quality". Quality fundamentally is a degree or standard against which something else is measurement. All qualities are "assumed" for what they are, hence the quality is an act of assumption in and of itself where any perceived boundary between the subjectobject dichotomy is negated.
The axiom effectively, while quantifiable, is always simultaneously qualifiable because of this assumptive form/function where it exists as without "proof". However "proof", as an axiom in itself subject to the Trillema, necessitates "proof is assumed" and the nature of what we deem as "selfevident" is grounded in "assumption".
Paradoxically we are left with "assumption" as an axiom in and of itself; hence "assumption" is "assumed" necessitating a grounds in the "subjectobject" dichotomy, where the subjective nature of "assumption" is reduced to an "objective" state by the trillema alone. In these respects assumption exists as a process of "imprinting" where one axiom effective imprints itself through another axiom by the nature of "assumption" alone. "Assumption", under these terms necessitates a "formless" state of truth/not truth where we are left with an inherent element of "as isness" to all truth; thus all axioms necessitate a nature of "assumptive qualities" with "quality existing as assumptions".
This nature of "assumption" where an object is "assumed" as true, necessitates a raising of the axiom to the psyche of the observer which effectively forms the perspective of the observer as a progression and cycling of axioms. Thus the "axiom" as assumed requires assumption as an inherent aspect of knowledge itself subject to certain laws or progression and circularity by with "assumption" alone takes on a rational nature or one of "ratios".
However considering the "axiom" as qualitative, observing a negation of the subjectobject dichtomy, necessitates a form of "raising up"; the observer in turn is "raised up" through the act of axiomization at an intuitive and intellectual level. But considering "this raising up" of the "self through the self" requires a dual state of regression away from a lower nature; the act of axiomization causes an inherent act of a expansion of "selfevidence" necessitating an inherent projective nature within all axioms themselves that is original within the axiom itself.
3. The axiom is always rooted, by definition alone, to a regression to further axioms. Thus what we find as "finite" is grounded in continuity that justifies the finite state.
This observes that while the axiom is percievably separated from further axioms, that fact that this seperation observes a continuum necessitates the axiom as existing through a progressive movement. While axiom A may progress to Axiom B, Axiom A/B consist of further axioms that regress while Axiom A/B are always a part of some other axiom as part of a progress in and of itself.
So while I may observe Axiom A regress to B then to C, etc. adinfinitum this "regress" in itself is Axiom (AxZx)1 and as such is goes to point 1. The continual regress, or continuum, of axioms is there by not only "assumed" but exists as a point of origin through the observer for "definition" where a seperation/connection is observed. "Assumption" effectively exists as a point of origin within "selfevidence" where a truth is observed "as is" setting the foundation of "proof" in one respect while existing as a proof in and of itself.
Assumption takes on a dichotomous nature of "proof" and "noproof" where all axiomization is a formation of reality in which the subjectobject dichotomy is "nullified" by a process of "definition" alone setting the foundation for "quality".
4. The axiom is always rooted, by its assumptive and defined state, in a form of circularity where the axiom is justified through its one circulation in one respect and the circulation of other axioms (which justify both the axioms and the axioms effectively being "justified"). All axioms maintain a dual state of "finiteness" and "continuity" in these respects.
Because the axiom progresses to further axioms but this progress necessitates all new axioms are reverting back to its prior axioms, as origins which effectively define it, all axioms are cycles fundamentally.
Thus the cyclical nature of all axioms, as assumed in accordance with the first point in the trillema, necessitates "assumption" as fundamentally requiring a property of maintenance where we perceive "truth" by a continual act of assumption that cycles through itself under a variety of axioms.
"Assumption" takes on an inherently rational role in these respects where the nature of assumption fundamentally is the act of reasoning itself; then necessitating all reason through "assumption" being premised in an inherent boundless formlessness conducive to "space" and exemplified axiomatically through a "dot".
5. Each axiom exists as a center point to further axioms, but this nature of "origin" can only be observed by a dichotomy of progress/cycling as both recursions and isomorphisms of the other. This does not necessitate "originality" is only a "dichotomy" however as this "dichotomy" in itself is axiomatic; thus necessitation "assumption" as not only an origin of "knowledge" but fundamentally a foundation for measurement.
The progression of Axiom A to Axiom B, with Axiom B progressing back to Axiom A as both are defined by each other, observes all regression existing as an isomorphism of recursion. All axioms as cyclical in turn observes a continual recursion of isomorphism. Continuity is original in these respects where
6. The Munchauseen Trillema, takes on a deterministic paradigm in these respects where one law effectively is a cause for another, hence an affect, thus necessating a simultaneous cause/effect paradigm where Trillema is a grounds for determinism as having an inherent nature of "spatial" axioms inseperable from the nature of cause/effect itself. Thus what we observed within the laws is a "causality" as structure where a perpetual continuum of forms/function is its own form/function; thus absolute and true.
7. Simultaneously the Munchausseen Trillema, takes on an acausal paradigm where the actualization of one law is observed in a manner where the other "law" exists as a potential state through which the law effectively is actualized. Again for example "All axioms as assumed" is further actualized by "All axiomized as regressive", but this regression of "All axioms as assumed" is a potential state. Thus what we observe within the laws is an "acausality" as absence of structure where a relativistic boundless movement occurs by a perpetual change in which "no real structure" is observed.
8. The Munchausseen Trillema as having a dual nature of Absolute Cause as Structure and Relative Uncaused Absence of Structure necessitates the trillema existing as synthetically as "both" "neither" and "as is" where the common foundational axiomatic nature is it's spatial characteristics. Space, is both "One and Many" and is selfevident from both the perspective of the observer and the form/function of "space" itself as having a conscious nature where consciousness is various movements of movement as movement.
9. The Trillema sets the axiomatic grounds for all metaphysics, and its corresponding branching philosophical/religious/scientific paradigms, as "space".
Re: Space is Order; Reason and Meaning are Inevitable
I must be a foundationalist. As i hold that there are axioms that really do present themselves.
But i wonder if science merely paint pictures of reality that are useful but have no explanatory power in actuality.
Causal relationships appear at an intuitive level. But underlying those causal relationships i wonder if uncaused events are at the heart of reality, where there is no reason for an event and everything falls into senselessness at the roots of reality; at zero energy. So cause and effect only exist within a certain range of reality.
Omnipresence and non locality i find very interesting. And perhaps space accumulates from spaceless dimensions where location is utterly meaningless. At zero energy reality becomes so unstable that at a maximum zero point, you might then begin to accumulate densities of energies until you reach maximum densities and the whole of a singularity gathers til it explodes out into expansion. So the unstable imbalance at zero energy actually ignites energy back into accumulative points of singularity.
So at the roots of reality is infinitesmal accumulations of information and the information cycles and starts to react at maximum density starting from zero until maximum density is achieved. So information exists in vast amounts.
Information starts out abstract and begins to create space and matter and energy.
But i wonder if science merely paint pictures of reality that are useful but have no explanatory power in actuality.
Causal relationships appear at an intuitive level. But underlying those causal relationships i wonder if uncaused events are at the heart of reality, where there is no reason for an event and everything falls into senselessness at the roots of reality; at zero energy. So cause and effect only exist within a certain range of reality.
Omnipresence and non locality i find very interesting. And perhaps space accumulates from spaceless dimensions where location is utterly meaningless. At zero energy reality becomes so unstable that at a maximum zero point, you might then begin to accumulate densities of energies until you reach maximum densities and the whole of a singularity gathers til it explodes out into expansion. So the unstable imbalance at zero energy actually ignites energy back into accumulative points of singularity.
So at the roots of reality is infinitesmal accumulations of information and the information cycles and starts to react at maximum density starting from zero until maximum density is achieved. So information exists in vast amounts.
Information starts out abstract and begins to create space and matter and energy.

 Posts: 2746
 Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: Space is Order; Reason and Meaning are Inevitable
But would zero energy not invalidate the First Law Of Thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be createdosgart wrote:
At zero energy reality becomes so unstable that at a maximum zero point you might then begin to accumulate densities
of energies until you reach maximum densities and the whole of a singularity gathers till it explodes out into expansion
So the unstable imbalance at zero energy actually ignites
Must there not always be some energy no matter how infinitesimal even when maximum entropy has been reached
Even in a state of absolute nothing virtual particles come into existence from borrowed energy so it is always there
 Speakpigeon
 Posts: 783
 Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Re: Space is Order; Reason and Meaning are Inevitable
Logic comes from reality. I'm less certain of the existence of space as such than I have to be of the existence of logic. So...
EB
EB
Re: Space is Order; Reason and Meaning are Inevitable
And logic exists in accords to spatial forms/function; ie the Munchhausen Trillema.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:33 pmLogic comes from reality. I'm less certain of the existence of space as such than I have to be of the existence of logic. So...
EB
 Speakpigeon
 Posts: 783
 Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Re: Space is Order; Reason and Meaning are Inevitable
If there's no space, then logic cannot accord with space.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:45 pmAnd logic exists in accords to spatial forms/function; ie the Munchhausen Trillema.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:33 pmLogic comes from reality. I'm less certain of the existence of space as such than I have to be of the existence of logic. So...
EB
EB
Re: Space is Order; Reason and Meaning are Inevitable
The negation of space effectively results in further space. If I divide a volume, it results in further volumes. A line...further lines...etc.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:04 pmIf there's no space, then logic cannot accord with space.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:45 pmAnd logic exists in accords to spatial forms/function; ie the Munchhausen Trillema.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:33 pmLogic comes from reality. I'm less certain of the existence of space as such than I have to be of the existence of logic. So...
EB
EB
Second try stating that sentence without a linear form.
Third; try assuming that statement (no thought) without an empty mind.
 Speakpigeon
 Posts: 783
 Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Re: Space is Order; Reason and Meaning are Inevitable
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:07 pmThe negation of space effectively results in further space.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:04 pmIf there's no space, then logic cannot accord with space.
Negation? I didn't talk about any "negation", whatever that means.
If there's no space, then logic cannot accord with space.
Divide? What does this have to do with anything. I didn't talk about any "division".
If there's no space, then logic cannot accord with space.
Prove to me that the apparent linear form of sentences is real.
It seems instead that any notion of space is essentially a mental construct, like everything else.
Sorry, you're not even making sense here.
EB
 planetlonely23
 Posts: 31
 Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:32 am
Re: Space is Order; Reason and Meaning are Inevitable
Whereas the axioms are not "perceptions" but also a formula established in contrast to the demonstrations of nature. We must guide ourselves to those limits that break the chains to discover the real limits, not the limits that we put in our mind. So, if we define those limits in space, we can really describe and expand our measurements, by means of the scope that our mind projects, but we do not reach the appropriate relativism, for this reason the axioms are blocked by themselves, we should try to determine them through of external perception.osgart wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:47 amI must be a foundationalist. As i hold that there are axioms that really do present themselves.
But i wonder if science merely paint pictures of reality that are useful but have no explanatory power in actuality.
Causal relationships appear at an intuitive level. But underlying those causal relationships i wonder if uncaused events are at the heart of reality, where there is no reason for an event and everything falls into senselessness at the roots of reality; at zero energy. So cause and effect only exist within a certain range of reality.
Omnipresence and non locality i find very interesting. And perhaps space accumulates from spaceless dimensions where location is utterly meaningless. At zero energy reality becomes so unstable that at a maximum zero point, you might then begin to accumulate densities of energies until you reach maximum densities and the whole of a singularity gathers til it explodes out into expansion. So the unstable imbalance at zero energy actually ignites energy back into accumulative points of singularity.
So at the roots of reality is infinitesmal accumulations of information and the information cycles and starts to react at maximum density starting from zero until maximum density is achieved. So information exists in vast amounts.
Information starts out abstract and begins to create space and matter and energy.
 Speakpigeon
 Posts: 783
 Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Re: Space is Order; Reason and Meaning are Inevitable
Human beings are fundamentally very similar to ants. We humans all mostly behave alike but we're nonetheless free to roam the space of ideas so that our discoveries come to contribute to the survival of the species. You are all free to roam. Do people need someone to tell them that? And is there anything else at all we would need beyond the freedom to roam? It seems to me the number of people engaged in roaming is substantial. A small minority but this seems in order and more than ever before. The point is, we can all do it if we want to.planetlonely23 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:30 amWhereas the axioms are not "perceptions" but also a formula established in contrast to the demonstrations of nature. We must guide ourselves to those limits that break the chains to discover the real limits, not the limits that we put in our mind. So, if we define those limits in space, we can really describe and expand our measurements, by means of the scope that our mind projects, but we do not reach the appropriate relativism, for this reason the axioms are blocked by themselves, we should try to determine them through of external perception.
EB
 planetlonely23
 Posts: 31
 Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:32 am
Re: Space is Order; Reason and Meaning are Inevitable
Exploring within the limits that we impose on ourselves, it is easy, everything is determined and composed in a way that logic allows us to believe that everything is just like that. But the conception of freedom of which you speak also tells us that yes!!, it is true!!, we can go further and see if those limits are real. Or we can discover more things not only, from my point of view, to achieve survival but also to explain our origin and see if its formulation a pripori verifies what we think(our perception let us to reach to see) or what it really is.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:42 pmHuman beings are fundamentally very similar to ants. We humans all mostly behave alike but we're nonetheless free to roam the space of ideas so that our discoveries come to contribute to the survival of the species. You are all free to roam. Do people need someone to tell them that? And is there anything else at all we would need beyond the freedom to roam? It seems to me the number of people engaged in roaming is substantial. A small minority but this seems in order and more than ever before. The point is, we can all do it if we want to.planetlonely23 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:30 amWhereas the axioms are not "perceptions" but also a formula established in contrast to the demonstrations of nature. We must guide ourselves to those limits that break the chains to discover the real limits, not the limits that we put in our mind. So, if we define those limits in space, we can really describe and expand our measurements, by means of the scope that our mind projects, but we do not reach the appropriate relativism, for this reason the axioms are blocked by themselves, we should try to determine them through of external perception.
EB
Re: Space is Order; Reason and Meaning are Inevitable
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:46 pmEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:07 pmThe negation of space effectively results in further space.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:04 pm
If there's no space, then logic cannot accord with space.
Negation? I didn't talk about any "negation", whatever that means.
"If there is no space" is a negation of space. If one is to take the stance that there is no space, therefore logic cannot accords with it, we are still left with space being an axiom because of the nature of logic stemming from three spatial axioms grounded in the Munchhausen trillema.
1. All axioms as assumed, required a mindless acceptance where no thought hence no definition is given. The assumption of all axioms requires in simple terms a "blankness" where the axiom exists as it. It effectively becomes a point of awareness and we are left with an element of point space being the foundation of all axiom by the nature of "awareness" as "empty mindnessness" required in the nature of all assumptions.
2. All axioms exist through a linear regress...again this regression requires a linear nature of one axiom effectively projecting to another.
3. All axioms exist through a circularity...all axioms in projecting to further axioms effectively exist through cycles.
The nature of logic, and its grounding in the trillema, requires "space" as a foundation that even if cancelled out still results in space as a foundational "form" to logic.
If there's no space, then logic cannot accord with space.Divide? What does this have to do with anything. I didn't talk about any "division".
If there's no space, then logic cannot accord with space.
All negation is a form of division. To negate one axiom is effectively to result in further axioms. If I negated "being" with "nonbeing" I am required to divide the axiom of "being" into another axiom: "nonbeing".
Prove to me that the apparent linear form of sentences is real.
Easy you are reading this sentence from left to right...it is one directional.
It seems instead that any notion of space is essentially a mental construct, like everything else.
Actually the argument, because it requires a sequential linear nature of mind → space still requires the mind not only to exist through a spatial nature but effectively can be argued in a dual circular manner as your argument is relative to a point in time. It may also be argued as: space → mind. This results in a circularity.
Now "space" and "mind" may simply just be assumed. They, as both words and abstracts, require no further thought until they are connected to further axioms. As "without thought" these axioms effectively are blanck slates in the mind on there own terms. They are empty on their own terms...void. They exist as everything through the other axioms. In these respects both axioms, as "blank", are fundamentally unbounded and infinite as points of awareness.
Space and mind are one and the same.
Sorry, you're not even making sense here.
EB
All assumptions require no thought, no thought is empty mind.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests