Language is grounded Geometrically/Mathematically in Fractals/Fractions

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4485
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Language is grounded Geometrically/Mathematically in Fractals/Fractions

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:12 pm

We can also observe how one axiom projects to another, leaving us with "linearism" as the defining nature of not just the axiom but the nature of definition itself. Even looking at the nature of definition in a dictionary, where "A" is composed of "B and C", we observe that each definition effectively is a unified point of origin composed of further definition; effectively equating language to have a nature of "ratios".

In these respects language grounded in the progression of one axiom to another, with each axiom (word in this case) existing as a ratio of words in and of itself, necessitates all words existing as a potential point of unity (considering "A" word exist as through various other words which compose it and exist as continuums).

Each word as an extension from the original word effectively is a "part" of the word, or a "ratio" of it in which the original word exists through its variation but this "variation" as an inversion of the one word to "many" shows an inherent isomorphism through not just the symmetry of the words through eachother (occurs thing a circularity as both are directed towards eachother) but each "word" as a variation of the original word fundamentally existing as a "fractal" in which the words maintain a constant under line unity (no different than 1 line observing a fractal line of different size but it is still a repitition of the line itself).

This "fractal" nature of "the word" observes that in the nature of linguistic definition an inherent change in the "size" of knowledge occurs with the creation of words.

As a fractal the word exists simultaneously as a fraction

Hence each word as a potential point of unity, is equivalent (due to its potentiality) as nothing it itself considering it is fundamentally "potential". This is no different than saying 1/3 observes 1 as the potential unity of .333..., .333... and .333.. or "2" 2/3 is the potentially unity of .6666..., .6666..., .6666..., as 1(2).

As potential unity, each word exists as a point of "inversion" conducive to "nothingness in itself". Potentiality fundamentally is "void" in these respects as it acts as the means in which multiple definition exist as progressing towards eachother. This is no different than atoms in a vacuum where each "word" is a vacuum state in which other words project and exist.

A actual unity, where each word as a fractal share a common underlying symmetry (in this case progress to further axioms as linearism and the circularity of each of these axioms...ie repetitive lines and circles through variations), observes each word as connected to all other words and is "everything" through the other words.

In these respects we are left with constant axioms subject to there own nature:

1. All axioms are nothing in themselves, everything through the other; hence all axioms are points of origins (words in this case)

2. All axioms progress to further axioms, all axioms are connected through this progression; hence all axioms are linear continuums.

3. All axioms are maintained through cycles, all axioms progress to further cycles; hence all axioms are cyclical.

4. All axioms in maintaining a point,line,circle constant nature observes all axioms (words in this case) as existing through a spiral when subject to time.

5. All axioms as existing through a spiral (as observed through the munhausseen trillema resulting in a spiral of definition if graphed or seen intuitively) observes all axioms through time as manifesting through a process of quartering (each axiom in progressing to another is halved in definition with this progression with this progression of one to another.

example:

(A→A) = B therefore A → B = (A,A) observes A as effectively "halved" through "B". For example "horse" is effecitvely "halved" when it exists under the definition of "animal". One definition moves towards another. In "halving" itself into another definition the word effectively projects itself.

However considering A → B and B projects back to A as B → A (considering "animal" as defined exists through "horse" we can observe a form of circularity. (A → B and B → A)=C as "mammal". So these two halves as 1 are effectively "halved" as well through the cycle. So
Horse=Animal, Horse=Mammal, Animal=Mammal, Horse=Animal=Mammal="x" observes four definitions (the quartering of one phenomenon into four) which effectively exists through a spiral under the conditions of "time" but under timeless effectively exist as 1 perpetual "form"

This simultaneously linear and circular definition observes a "halving of halving" or "spiral" conducive to the golden ratio as "quartering" or (halving of halving" a circle in spatial forms. This halving of halving, whether through the projective nature of definition in words or "space" is conducive to the golden ratio.

Non-Relativistically (absolutely) this observes the point,line,circle as absolutes as infinite spirals observes this triad as the foundation "form(s)" of the spiral in all of its grades with the spiral existing as grades of them.

6. The axiom through the prime triad/spiral exists through process of recursion/isomorphism which is the foundation form/function of all frameworks with the framework existing as a form and function it itself; thus observing not just an extension of the observer but fundamentally the ground nature of "consciousness" itself where "self-evidence" observes a universal property in which all being shares a degree of consciousness through the "space" (triad/spiral/trillema) which forms them. Space is axiomatic, or self-evident not just to the observer but the observer as the extension of space necessitates space as "aware".


7. The "point" or "dot" is the origin of consciousness, represented through "void" or the "blanck" slate of the individual mind on its own term. As a 1 dimensional "dot" ("The All" or "the pure light of reason") the individual mind effectively as "nothing/void" inverts the "one" into many by observing "the one" through many various forms as approximations of it.

The "line" is definition through the progression of the mind to effectively "cut out" phenomenon. These cut out phenomenon, through the individual mind, exist as connected through "The One" hence reflected back definiton as "connection" and not strictly just seperation. Phenomenon exist through separation and connection.

The "circle" is "power" as the cycling of the mind to maintain both these definitions and its origins through "the One", where the individual mind as existing through cycles effectively progresses to further cycles of definition.

The regressive spiral, through the Munchhausen Trillema, can be observed under the Tower of Babel alleghory as a symbol language (a spiral to the heaven, with the "heaven's" also allegorically representing the consciousness of "man" through the "as above so below" dichotomy representing the "oneness" of "everything") showing a split in the consciousness of man in waging war against the same "divine reason" which constitutes him, resulting in a myriad of words/definition's that not only confused and separated the human condition (as we communicate and maintain unity through symbolism).

This nature of "reasoning" negates the subject object dichotomy evident in western thought due to its preemphasis on finiteness grounded in "division" through scientific deduction. The scientific method, and its inherent "circularity" conducive to the Munchhausen trillema, is further magnified in the progressive multiplication of scientific facts (conducive to the "trillema") where with each "fact" as an established truth be inversively replaced with the progression of new fact symmetrically to the increase in the application of the scientific methodology itself.

This multiplication of "truth", where the human condition and it's inherent wiring grounds itself in "truth", reflects a form of paganistic polytheism (observed in the idolization of ideas resulting in various sects of reality), rooted in the ego as akin to the "morningstar" of one's origin of measurement. In simpler terms one's existence is observed as the focal point of reality on its own terms as a focal point.

This multiplication of truth, grounded in the semantic nature of language from which science gains its roots, observes polytheism as having roots deep within the human consciousness under the "spiral" of the "Tower of Babel".

The Münchhausen Trillema and the Tower of Babel are the same form and function but observe the "Golden Ratio" as the grounding of "time" through a framework of a dualism of dualisms. As Heidegger observes time is grounded in a simple line between two points origin (a division of the "One Origin" effectively) where time exists through multiplicity grounded in dualism.

The dualism of this dualism (further elaborated by Zeno's paradox where all "measurements" exist through continual "halving" effecitively observing reality as "unmoving" in one respect however not taking into account "measurement" as an extension of "reality" thus showing a "halving of reality through perpetual halving".) observe a framework where time existing through multiplicity not only observing a process of definition in itself

This can be observe in the God/Lucifer Allgehory where God as a One dimensional Point is observed dually to another 1 dimensional point, ie "Lucifer" or "The Morningstar", in which Lucifer exists through the process of time grounded in a dualist replication of God (which does not exist on his own terms). This "Morningstar", the "light of reason" reminiscent of certain Freemason sects,

Hence we can observe this "Morningstar" represented through the Ego of the builder of the Tower of Babel effectively causing there own destruction through the same "quartering process" of division (which effectively acts as the grounding of "time") reflected upon themselves through the Absolute nature of the "Golden Rule" in which "you reap what you sow". This destruction of the identity of man, whose grounding is in "reflection" as measurement reflecting Man as Image of the Divine Architect, is a destruction in the faculties of reasoning through the fracturing of language which inherently is grounded in symbolism. All communication occurs through symbolism, with symbolism being rooted...once again...in the point, line and circle as evidenced through the trillema.

8) In these respects the "Golden Ratio" is the grounding form and function of time, as a process of individuation (division and multiplication simultaneously), and observes an inherent geometric/arithemetic (quality/quantity) nature to not just the grounding of measurement but the nature of consciousness itself.

Under these terms what we deem as "axiomatic" is form/function grounded in Platonic Forms and Aristotelian Actuality/Potentiality. The Platonic form is an infinite boundary composed of infinite individuating actual/potential states with the actual/potential state observing itself as an approximation of the one form. The "horse" example in the earlier section can be observed as an example. This Platonic/Aristotelian nature of form and function reflects a grounding nature of "consciousness" itself as having certain properties of measurement.

9) Language, under these terms, takes on a form of "reality" in and of itself as its symbolic nature reflects within the nature of all phenomenon as extensions of "The One" as symbols in themselves.

gaffo
Posts: 2311
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Language is grounded Geometrically/Mathematically in Fractals/Fractions

Post by gaffo » Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:42 am

nope,

language was/is first based on objects (nouns) - then later (I assume) - actions, verbs.

from at least a million yrs ago.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4485
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Language is grounded Geometrically/Mathematically in Fractals/Fractions

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:04 am

gaffo wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:42 am
nope,

language was/is first based on objects (nouns) - then later (I assume) - actions, verbs.

from at least a million yrs ago.
The noun is repeated through through a variation under the verb.

Take for example: "The dog ate the food".

"Food", through which the noun (passive state) is repeated under the verb (active) as an extension of "dog" (passive state/noun) observes:

"Food" is a fractal state of "dog" as a variation of the noun "dog" through which the noun exists. No different than a large triangle existing through a small triangle with the variation being "size".

Considering the definitions of all words effectively progress from one word to another, therefore observing all definitions as effectively interlinked, "food" and "dog" exist as various "sizes" of definition.

"Sizes of definition" may seem obscure at first glance, however it is the position of one word in a while list of words that effectively gives it not just a quality (as this position observes an inherent connection to specific words directly) but observes an inherent relative magnitude of information.

Dog may mean x definitions and food y definitions, but they vary in the magnitude of not just th e defintions that are attached to them but effectively are all United by some common definition from which they exists.

So dog and food may both be connected to animal (from which both exist as fractals), but dog may contain a greater density of definitions relative to "animal"(as dogs are animals), where "food" contains a lesser density of definitions relative to "animal"(not all food is composed of animals) through which both are connected.

In these respects, through the common definition of "animal" as a replicative symmetry dog is contracted into food, by the verb, and dually food is expanded in definition by the noun "dog".
What determines this expansion/contraction in definition is the relative median by which both have in common: "animal".

Change the common medial word: vegetable.

Food is defined further through "vegetable" while "dog" may effectively be connected to "vegetable" as a state of being.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest