Parmenides, Measurement and Order

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Parmenides, Measurement and Order

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:13 pm

Parmenides, Measurement and Order

Parmenides "argued that movement was impossible because it requires moving into "the void", and [he] identified "the void" with nothing, and therefore (by definition) it does not exist."

It is within the nature of movement that an absence can be observed through "potentiality" as a form of movement in itself. This nature of movement as absence, while visible within the empirical physical world, can be observed primarily in the nature of "measurement" as a system of axioms.


"There is great confusion today concerning metrology, the history of measurement systems around the world. Beyond the child’s tales of the “foot” deriving from some king’s foot, measurement was actually part of a sacred system of knowledge established in prehistory and based on timeless truths seen in the harmony of the cosmos. Standards of measure were everywhere framed upon never-changing principles of number, in particular, the interplay of natural tension between ten and twelve, and the dimensions of the turning Earth." (Schneider)

Are the continual movement of measurement systems causing the void we seek to avoid, as the nature of measurement has no strict foundation other than mass opinion?

Measurement has been strictly reduced to mere opinion as the foundations it observes are merely the extensions of groups who cycle through themselves over time. The foundations of one time provide the foundations for another, however the nature of measurement itself appears to ebb and flow much like a particle-wave across time.

Secular and Religious Institutions weave there way through the fabric of time and deposit the axioms upon which they were founded, however these axioms seldom agree and create a tension in which further axioms are synthesized. One of the few universal constants is the observation of "being" and "non-being".


Under the "way of truth," Parmenides stated that there are two ways of inquiry: that it is, on the one side, and that it is not.[19]

In these respects we observe a dualism that occurs within all measurement systems that corresponds to a polarity. Where Parmenides observed "being" and "non-being" as duals, and "being" moving relative to "non-being", a source of division can be observed as a universal constant within the nature of measurement.

Through division measurement becomes a perpetual act of separating. The problem occurs in the respect that division inevitably results in a form of perpetual movement where measurement exists if and only if there is movement, and in these respects nothing is truly measured. Parmenides observation of the "one" existence in turn acted as a individuating line enabling a dual "nothingness" to be observed as a dual.

This is an interesting point to observe in reverse for if "nothing" (the void) is truly measured it would require the measurement systems themselves to manifest an existence in and of themselves as themselves as there is nothing other than the "measurement" itself. Measurement in these regards, relative to non-being, maintains a dual nature of "multiplication" and is self forming.

From this, in reference to Parmenides, "One" is a universal constant that acts as a boundary line of both multiplicative (positive) and divisive (negative) values. Our ability to observe "One" is the foundation for our ability to measure.

Furthermore, it must be self-reflective in nature, as an extension of a subjective nature, as it exists for what it is relative to the void. In these respects all measurement systems must be able to simultaneously measure both themselves and the environment around themselves as extensions of themselves for they exist on their own terms. From this it may be implied that a subjective measurement system measuring its subjective nature results in a dual objective nature as "truth".

From this self-reflective nature of truth Parmenides observes: "And it is all one to me / Where I am to begin; for I shall return there again. (B 5)" Parmenides, unintinentionally observes that "one" circles back to itself.

As self-reflective in nature, it may also individuate itself through an act of self-relation where as and individual it can only exist if there are other individuals to which is can relate (and therefore exist). We can observe this within the nature of measurement as a form of division relative to "the void", where existence is movement. In these respect, measurement systems maintain a constant degree of propagation through division.

This inherent act of division within measurement systems appears through a relation to the void, or in "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."(Nietzsche) In these respects the observation of nothingness causes an inherent act of division where measurement systems are individuated in order to create order.

"The mortals lay down and decided well to name two forms (i.e. the flaming light and obscure darkness of night), out of which it is necessary not to make one, and in this they are led astray. (B 8.53–4)"

The observation of duality began through the absence of self reflection and the observation of multiple directions as dimensions for in the pursuit of equality a division occurred within the "self" that is "measurement".


"Parmenides made the ontological argument against nothingness, essentially denying the possible existence of a void. According to Aristotle, this led Democritus and Leucippus, and many other physicists,[23] to propose the atomic theory, which supposes that everything in the universe is either atoms or voids, specifically to contradict Parmenides' argument."


"Aristotle himself reasoned, in opposition to atomism, that in a complete vacuum, motion would encounter no resistance, and "no one could say why a thing once set in motion should stop anywhere; for why should it stop here rather than here? So that a thing will either be at rest or must be moved ad infinitum, unless something more powerful get in its way."[23]


In these respects, with the formation of measurement systems is observed a duality of multiplicity and unity, where unity is a thing in and of itself and multiplicity exists merely as an absence of unity and relates through atomism as "negation".

In these respects, what we understand of measurement through Parmenides, and some presocratics can be observed as trifold in nature as:

1) Reflectivism reflects logic through being only, within non-being as outside of this being and not a thing in itself. This maintains itself ad-infinitum.

2) Relationalism relates logic through grades of being at atoms and voids. This moves ad-infinitum.

3) Compostitism synthesizes logic through primordial creation and destruction as boundaries (that maintain both existence and non-existence as neutral space) and possible boundaries. This equates to "Infinity".

In these respects all measurement, beginning with Parmenides "1" manifests a trifold nature of +1, 1 and -1 through "1" as "3". This nature of "1" as neutral provides the foundations for the nature of the axiom as synthetic measurement. "What was really new in Parmenides was his axiomatic-deductive method, which Leucippus and Democritus turned into a hypothetical-deductive method, and thus made part of scientific methodology."[27]

Nick_A
Posts: 2960
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Parmenides, Measurement and Order

Post by Nick_A » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:52 pm

In these respects all measurement, beginning with Parmenides "1" manifests a trifold nature of +1, 1 and -1 through "1" as "3". This nature of "1" as neutral provides the foundations for the nature of the axiom as synthetic measurement. "What was really new in Parmenides was his axiomatic-deductive method, which Leucippus and Democritus turned into a hypothetical-deductive method, and thus made part of scientific methodology."[27]
If you are interested in the connection between 1 and 3 you may find this following explanation of the Law of the Included Middle meaningful. IMO it will be the foundation for the eventual unification of the linear line of science with the vertical line of being. Yes, modern society is not yet ready for it but it may provide the awakening influence that will save humanity from self destruction.

http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b15c4.php

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Parmenides, Measurement and Order

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:42 am

Interesting article, I did a brief run through and will reread it when I have the time.

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:52 pm
In these respects all measurement, beginning with Parmenides "1" manifests a trifold nature of +1, 1 and -1 through "1" as "3". This nature of "1" as neutral provides the foundations for the nature of the axiom as synthetic measurement. "What was really new in Parmenides was his axiomatic-deductive method, which Leucippus and Democritus turned into a hypothetical-deductive method, and thus made part of scientific methodology."[27]
If you are interested in the connection between 1 and 3 you may find this following explanation of the Law of the Included Middle meaningful. IMO it will be the foundation for the eventual unification of the linear line of science with the vertical line of being. Yes, modern society is not yet ready for it but it may provide the awakening influence that will save humanity from self destruction.

http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b15c4.php
"The entire difference between a triad of the included middle and an Hegelian triad is clarified by consideration of the role of time. In a triad of the included middle the three terms coexist at the same moment in time. On the contrary, each of the three terms of the Hegelian triad succeeds the former in time. This is why the Hegelian triad is incapable of accomplishing the reconciliation of opposites, whereas the triad of the included middle is capable of it. In the logic of the included middle the opposites are rather contradictories : the tension between contradictories builds a unity which includes and goes beyond the sum of the two terms. The Hegelian triad would never explain the nature of indeterminacy."

This is a good point considering Hegel's emphasis was on understanding "change" (which is probably one the reasons he is considered by most as obscure), however the article's emphasis on the dialectec being unsolvable is premised on the theory that only one time zone exists and micro temporal realities are not already interracting through a form of synthesis.

The law of the excluded middle's emphasis on stable realities paired with the Hegelian dialectic observe synthesis dualisitic in nature (one of constant and one of change).

Observing neutral space, as synthetic in nature, the dualitiy of dimensional limits (existing boundaries which both maintain and seperate realities) and possible dimensional limits (unactualized existing boundaries) corresponds to this same duality of stability and change. The problem occurs in the respect that neutral synthetic space is either both stable and changing (dimenionsal limit) or neither stable or changing (possible dimensional limits).

So in these respects the law of excluded middle and Hegel's dialectic have to be maintained dual elements of a what we deem of as neutral space (or "boundaries" as both "limit" and "possible"). I disagree with the article's statement that they disagree, as they are inherent duals.

"The open structure of the unity of levels of Reality is in accord with one of the most important scientific results of the 20th century concerning arithmetic, the theorem of Kurt Gödel [8]. Gödel's theorem tells us that a sufficiently rich system of axioms inevitably lead to results which would be either undecidable or contradictory. The implications of Gödel's theorem have considerable importance for all modern theories of knowledge. First of all it does not only concern the field of arithmetic but also all mathematics which includes arithmetic. Now, obviously the mathematics which underlies theoretical physics include arithmetic. This means that all research for a complete physical theory is illusory."

This is an interesting point with Godel's incompleteness theorems and physics.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Parmenides, Measurement and Order

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:18 pm

daramantus wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:57 pm
there are objects and the void that separates objects, no substance of "being" ever found anywhere. But being refers to who is aware of this question, which is a person with a body. Moving meansnthe object is moving through empty space. Parmenides was depersonalized and thought he was having a great insight.
His oneness theory is pure mythology
You are observing the multiple nature of reality. In these respects, the individuation of objects as both things in themselves and seperate from other things, through this very same act of individuation, implies that "one" has a dual role of unity and multiplicity.

We can observe the unified nature of 1 in its own respects. Through all further number (2,3,4...infinity) we can observe numbers as striclty extensions of 1 being that they are composed of one. Considering all number exists through other number, all of which are composed of one, we can observe this cycle extending ad-infinitum through 1 reflecting itself ad-infinitum as infinity.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Parmenides, Measurement and Order

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:26 pm

daramantus wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:22 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:18 pm
daramantus wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:57 pm
there are objects and the void that separates objects, no substance of "being" ever found anywhere. But being refers to who is aware of this question, which is a person with a body. Moving meansnthe object is moving through empty space. Parmenides was depersonalized and thought he was having a great insight.
His oneness theory is pure mythology
You are observing the multiple nature of reality. In these respects, the individuation of objects as both things in themselves and seperate from other things, through this very same act of individuation, implies that "one" has a dual role of unity and multiplicity.

We can observe the unified nature of 1 in its own respects. Through all further number (2,3,4...infinity) we can observe numbers as striclty extensions of 1 being that they are composed of one. Considering all number exists through other number, all of which are composed of one, we can observe this cycle extending ad-infinitum through 1 reflecting itself ad-infinitum as infinity.
There is no unified nature anywhere. And if you use this number analogy, you're also wrong. It starts with ZERO (which isn't infinity)
0 = 1 , 2, 3 .......
it's not unified. one, two, three.. MANY

Nothing starts with zero because zero is nothing. 0 is fundamentally an observation of 1n through -1n mirroring zero. -1n is observed through 1n mirroring zero.

Infinity goes both ways, so the starting point can only be observed as "center".

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Parmenides, Measurement and Order

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:25 pm

daramantus wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:40 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:26 pm
daramantus wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:22 pm


There is no unified nature anywhere. And if you use this number analogy, you're also wrong. It starts with ZERO (which isn't infinity)
0 = 1 , 2, 3 .......
it's not unified. one, two, three.. MANY

Nothing starts with zero because zero is nothing. 0 is fundamentally an observation of 1n through -1n mirroring zero. -1n is observed through 1n mirroring zero.

Infinity goes both ways, so the starting point can only be observed as "center".
wrong.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=27417

"The FACT that we are 'alive' assures that we are biased to judge the very system from within the very system we are trying to interpret.
Under these axioms, you validify your system as having no rational base, as it is rooted in nothing.
Kurt Gödel devised a theorem called, the "Incompleteness Theorem" which indirectly addresses this. It initially addresses a form of Liar's Paradox"

"Nothingness" is the result of "1" reflecting itself as a causal element through effect (as simultaneous cause). 1 reflecting 1 as 2 would equivocate 2 to this "effect" (and cause in the respect it is composed of 1) As effect, it is approximate to 1 and this approximation results as a deficiency conducive to -1 (as -1 is the seperation of 1 and 2).

-1, as approximation, equivocates to a negative dimension and as a negative dimension it is imaginary. This is considering 1 is also a dimension, that is intradimensional and self-reflecting in nature.

So from 1 reflecting itself, you get 1,2,-1. Following this same form and function one reflects upon itself through (1,2,-1) ≡ (1,2,-1) ≅ (-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4). (with ≡ equivalent to "mirroring" and ≅ equivalent to "equal in mirroring".)

In these respects we get 0 as 1 reflecting -1 and 1 being approximate to -1.

In these respect what we understand of 0 is the result of an absence of 1 mirroring itself (through 1,-1) and through "approximation as a deficiency in structural definition" through 1 ≈-1.

In these respects, through 0 as a divider we observe all linear forms, Zero exists as a deficiency in being relative to the 1 as stable and unmoving, by acting as multiplicity and movement. In these respects, through 1 and 0 we can observe dual dimensions of perpetual stability and perpetual movement that act as duals.

The question that occurs next is: What happens when you have an unmovable object versus and an unstoppable force? The resulting third element is neutrality. In these respects you have being/unity/positive , deficiency in being/multiplicity/negative, and both/neither as neutral. A triadic relationship is observed in which oneness and multiplicity synthesize to form infinite neutrality. This infinite neutrality in turn provides the foundations for oneness and multiplicity to be infinite.


and there is no "infinity" (unless you can prove)
http://ronaldbrichardson.com/metafictio ... -infinity/
Infinity is defined as limitless limit or in corresponding mathmatical terms:

"In general, infinity is the quality or state of endlessness or having no limits in terms of time, space, or other quantity. In mathematics, infinity is the conceptual expression of such a "numberless" number."
https://www.bing.com/search?q=infinite+ ... 47D516DAE2

In these respects, infinity is not full defined except as limitless limit. In these respects, by default he has to argue against the existence of everything.

You can observe infinity in its totality through the "1 dimensional point as center" as the absence of deficiency would not allow you to seperate any objects within infinity (such as atoms, etc.) and you could see them in one moment. In a seperate respect considering all things are composed of points as centers, reality maintains this common median as the 1dimensional point which unifies it.

In regards to the photon argument, it depends what he means by "smallest":
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-photon-the ... e-universe

In many respects one cannot even see a photon.

Is argument against infinity is premised on empirical analysis, "seeing is believing", the problem occurs however that "empiricism" is rooted in abstract methodology along with the scientific argument and no physical proof can justify it other than at the subjective level.

In a seperate respect: "The most common versions of philosophy of science accept that empirical measurements are always approximations—they do not perfectly represent what is being measured."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approximation

In these respects, to further reflect the above points made, the physical universe is can be observed as an approximation of an abstract one.

You also have to respond to the common sense question of: "If everything is made of particles; therefore our thoughts are made of particles. If our thoughts are made of particles, then did the physical universe come up with the concept of infinity?"

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Parmenides, Measurement and Order

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:27 am

daramantus wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:06 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:25 pm

Infinity is defined as limitless limit or in corresponding mathmatical terms:

"In general, infinity is the quality or state of endlessness or having no limits in terms of time, space, or other quantity. In mathematics, infinity is the conceptual expression of such a "numberless" number."
https://www.bing.com/search?q=infinite+ ... 47D516DAE2

Yet, there is no infinity
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ ... g-physics/

read it CAREFULLY, until you got it. there is NO infinity in physics and anywhere and you cannot prove it with math.
Yeah, I get it....do you? Because if you do, then even this argument will pass, and because it will pass it cannot be consider concrete proof. The gyst of the article is the infinity is ruining "physics", hence the obvious title. However who said physics it the cornerstone of the sciences? What proof it there in that? What is the evidence they are refering to exactly, the determines truth? Because they did not provide the definition, other than a subjective interpretation that is relativistic. Physics is the study of the temporal, that which moves, and it finite. How could it be equipped to study infinity?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:25 pm
In these respects, infinity is not full defined except as limitless limit. In these respects, by default he has to argue against the existence of everything.
and how do you know the existence of everything? you do not even know what is outside your house, let alone outside your city, or outside the planet, we still don't know shit about quantum physics and we keep discovering quanta entities and the unknown goes even beyond. and do you even wanna talk about everything?
I know everything exists because existence is everything. Regardless of it's degree of truth, an existing entity is an existing entity. Even lies, absences of truth, contain truths as foundations in them. How do you know everything does not exist? You demand proof, but what is this proof (other than subjective interpretation) you ask? It is a regressive argument on your part, as you do not give an axioms for what "proof" or "evidence" is...other than "I say so".

Can physics even exist without "measurement as math"?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:25 pm
You can observe infinity in its totality through the "1 dimensional point as center"
seriously??? how do you do that???
No, you are not observing infinity, you are imagining a "1 dimensional point as center" and labelling it as "infinity", which is not.
And centers are not ad-infinitum? What about the center of a circle?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:25 pm
as the absence of deficiency would not allow you to seperate any objects within infinity (such as atoms, etc.)
there is nothing "within" infinity, because there is no infinity to begin with, atom is not "within" any "infinity", it's like arguing for god or that an atom is inside "god" "flying spaguetti monster" "infinity".
You claim infinity does not exist, fine. But you have to provide a definition for what it is, in order to negate it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:25 pm
In regards to the photon argument, it depends what he means by "smallest":
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-photon-the ... e-universe
any quantum physicisist will tell you that whey they say "particle" is just for pratical use of language, it isn't even a particle, the way some people imagine. actually isnt even a particle, quanta of light would be the word.
Then how can he argue about seeing a photon in its entirety? I just had a conversation elsewhere, on this thread, with a guy who studies physics who claims light is not even a thing in itself...it that is true then:
Do physicists have any agreeable definitions as to what something is/not...or do they just continually pull definitions from "nothing"?...you might like that.
And second, a quanta is a measurement, how can you argue that an abstraction such as measurement is real, and then argue against other abstractions such as infinity?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:25 pm
Is argument against infinity is premised on empirical analysis, "seeing is believing", the problem occurs however that "empiricism" is rooted in abstract methodology along with the scientific argument and no physical proof can justify it other than at the subjective level.
First to argue against infinity is nonsense, because you're arguing over a concept that doesn't even make sense or we have no way to prove or disprove, actually it doesn't even exist.
You claim it is a concept, then that means their are boundaries to it. If that is the case, the "limitless, limit" or "numberless number' are concepts we can observe as medial points between the thing itself and us. Number without number...is still number, and the same argument for limit applies also.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:25 pm
In these respects, to further reflect the above points made, the physical universe is can be observed as an approximation of an abstract one.
actually, the universe is not entirely physical, but there are physical parts in it. and btw, dark "matter" (which isn't even matter) is a proof we still don't know anything
Well if it not entirely physical, then how can a "physicist" claim to argue for things outside of his field? Hypocritical? Yes. Besides, nobody has seen dark matter (because it is in the dark...duh...I had to throw that joke in.) so how can you have a strictly empirical argument for it?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:25 pm
You also have to respond to the common sense question of: "If everything is made of particles
everything is obviously not made of particles, and you seem to not even understand what particles are. And at quantum level there are no particles, only fields. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf
A particle, is "a part of" or "fraction" of something. Unless the fields are universal, and they cannot be according to you otherwise they would be infinite, they are part of other fields and in these respect can be argued as "part of' something.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:25 pm
therefore our thoughts ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶m̶a̶d̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶p̶a̶r̶t̶i̶c̶l̶e̶s̶.̶
huh??????? are you trolling? or joking? tell me you're joking, cuz you must be
"huh??????? are you trolling? or joking? tell me you're joking, cuz you must be." What so you're thoughts are made of fields instead? If that is the case did these fields help form the concept of infinity?

Try again, I have seen way better arguments on this forum.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Parmenides, Measurement and Order

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:45 pm

daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:42 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:27 am
daramantus wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:06 pm


Yet, there is no infinity
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ ... g-physics/

read it CAREFULLY, until you got it. there is NO infinity in physics and anywhere and you cannot prove it with math.
Yeah, I get it....do you? Because if you do, then even this argument will pass, and because it will pass it cannot be consider concrete proof. The gyst of the article is the infinity is ruining "physics", hence the obvious title. However who said physics it the cornerstone of the sciences? What proof it there in that? What is the evidence they are refering to exactly, the determines truth? Because they did not provide the definition, other than a subjective interpretation that is relativistic. Physics is the study of the temporal, that which moves, and it finite. How could it be equipped to study infinity?


and how do you know the existence of everything? you do not even know what is outside your house, let alone outside your city, or outside the planet, we still don't know shit about quantum physics and we keep discovering quanta entities and the unknown goes even beyond. and do you even wanna talk about everything?
I know everything exists because existence is everything. Regardless of it's degree of truth, an existing entity is an existing entity. Even lies, absences of truth, contain truths as foundations in them. How do you know everything does not exist? You demand proof, but what is this proof (other than subjective interpretation) you ask? It is a regressive argument on your part, as you do not give an axioms for what "proof" or "evidence" is...other than "I say so".

Can physics even exist without "measurement as math"?



seriously??? how do you do that???
No, you are not observing infinity, you are imagining a "1 dimensional point as center" and labelling it as "infinity", which is not.
And centers are not ad-infinitum? What about the center of a circle?


there is nothing "within" infinity, because there is no infinity to begin with, atom is not "within" any "infinity", it's like arguing for god or that an atom is inside "god" "flying spaguetti monster" "infinity".
You claim infinity does not exist, fine. But you have to provide a definition for what it is, in order to negate it.


https://www.quora.com/Is-the-photon-the ... e-universe
any quantum physicisist will tell you that whey they say "particle" is just for pratical use of language, it isn't even a particle, the way some people imagine. actually isnt even a particle, quanta of light would be the word.
Then how can he argue about seeing a photon in its entirety? I just had a conversation elsewhere, on this thread, with a guy who studies physics who claims light is not even a thing in itself...it that is true then:
Do physicists have any agreeable definitions as to what something is/not...or do they just continually pull definitions from "nothing"?...you might like that.
And second, a quanta is a measurement, how can you argue that an abstraction such as measurement is real, and then argue against other abstractions such as infinity?



First to argue against infinity is nonsense, because you're arguing over a concept that doesn't even make sense or we have no way to prove or disprove, actually it doesn't even exist.
You claim it is a concept, then that means their are boundaries to it. If that is the case, the "limitless, limit" or "numberless number' are concepts we can observe as medial points between the thing itself and us. Number without number...is still number, and the same argument for limit applies also.


actually, the universe is not entirely physical, but there are physical parts in it. and btw, dark "matter" (which isn't even matter) is a proof we still don't know anything
Well if it not entirely physical, then how can a "physicist" claim to argue for things outside of his field? Hypocritical? Yes. Besides, nobody has seen dark matter (because it is in the dark...duh...I had to throw that joke in.) so how can you have a strictly empirical argument for it?


everything is obviously not made of particles, and you seem to not even understand what particles are. And at quantum level there are no particles, only fields. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf
A particle, is "a part of" or "fraction" of something. Unless the fields are universal, and they cannot be according to you otherwise they would be infinite, they are part of other fields and in these respect can be argued as "part of' something.


huh??????? are you trolling? or joking? tell me you're joking, cuz you must be
"huh??????? are you trolling? or joking? tell me you're joking, cuz you must be." What so you're thoughts are made of fields instead? If that is the case did these fields help form the concept of infinity?

Try again, I have seen way better arguments on this forum.
Try again? Look the stupid shit you just wrote? you can't be that dumb, srsly.
Obviously you are if that is your best comeback....try again, I like to be entertained at least. They say a fool who persists in his folly eventually becomes wise...I want to see if that is true.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Parmenides, Measurement and Order

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:15 pm

daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:51 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:45 pm
daramantus wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:42 pm


You can't even perceive the difference between a particle, and a quanta of light, let alone the difference between dark matter (which has no particles) ,
The physicists can barely agree on their dimensional foundations:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pdf

Particulate, is strictly an observation of "partial" or "fractal" dimensions.


let alone discuss thoughts, our mind, our self.... which has nothing to do with any of it, how can I take your argument seriously?
Dude, if you believe in infinity, you must prove it, you didnt prove shit, but I did prove that infinity doesn't exist with physics. Why dont you accept it?
If you observe dimensions, rooted in 1, then by default the evidence for infinity exist, as 1 dimension continually relates through itself as the 1 dimensional line. Sure you can argue it is a "measurement", however measurements are strictly the observation of symmetry reflecting itself through dimension as rooted in 1. We measure through the application of 1 as an individuator, and in turn these measurements reflect back and form our perceptions. 1 and dimension are inseperable as they reflect through themselves as the process of measurement...ad-finitum. Because the universe is composed of 1 dimensional lines (through the wave as "direction'), which manifest the inherent symmetry required for structure, the universe can be observe as self-measuring through the manifestation of perpetual symmetry.

The one dimensional line is strictly space folding upon itself through the wave function and we apply the "dimension" in order to observe and manifest structure. Consciousness, as universal and varies in degrees, is the process of measurement through the application of symmetry through dimensionality.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests