Isomorphism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Isomorphism

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:02 am

ISOMORPHISM


All knowledge is the imprinting of a pattern upon a previously thoughtless state where what was once thoughtlessness now takes the form of a thought.

Knowledge as the act of acceptance is the act of imprinting, imprinting is an act of repetition; thus knowledge as assuming is knowledge as repetition.

The repetition of this imprint is the repetition of a belief as belief is the acceptance of a phenomena as the assumption of that phenomena. This repetition of a belief is the continuum of the said belief. The continuity of the pattern, as a belief, is the binding of this belief to the observer; this binding is an act of trust or confidence where trust/confidence is an act of reliability. Reliability is repetition as the continuity of a pattern.

All knowledge as assumed is all assumption as imprinting. All imprinting is an act of pattern formation, all pattern formation is an act of repetition as a pattern is the repetition of a phenomena. All repetition is a continuum, this continuum is reliability. All knowledge as belief is all knowledge as reliable as repetitous.

Knowledge as repetition is knowledge as belief as all belief is an act of trust and trust exists as reliability. Trust is repetition, repetition is belief, belief is the formation of an assertion through an assumption.

Philosophy is the art of inverting one assertion into many and many assertions into one. It is the entropy and negentropy, evolution and involution, regression and progression and expansion and contraction of definition.

As such it is the manifestation of thetical and antithetical dichotomies, which synthesize to produce further definitions. These dichotomies represent the general state of a series of particulars existing in symmetrical opposition to eachother. A contradiction is a tautology of "dualism" or "dichotomy" which necessitates an inherent seperatedness between assertions. All distinction, that which seperates one phenomenon from another is born of this tautology, specifically that of the "dichotomy". It is definition creation through the diverging and reconverging of these dualisms. There is no set rule in defining where and when to apply the application of dichotomy creation, yet this dichotomy is fundamental as a fundamental rule.

This still necessitates all contexts as having a triadic nature of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, with this triadic nature necessitating certain universal laws which not just govern philosophy but are a means through which philosophy exists. To disagree with this statement is to present an antithetical argument to these laws, thus repeating the process of dialectic in a newer form.

The dichotomy can be applied anywhere within philosophical enquiry thus necessitating philosophy as subject to not just an infinite number of thesis and antithesis, but an infinite number of synthetic definitions as well. These synthetic definitions occurs as the amalgamation between extremes. For example, the extremes of cowardess and foolhardiness synthesize as bravery.

It is the application of dichotomies, through any series of propositions, that necessitates philosophy as fundamentally undefined except as the application of dichotomies which can be represented under a continuum of further subsets of dichotomies. This further necessitates definition as a process, with this process following a set of finite rules. The manifestation of defintion is in itself defined under an infinite regress of dualisms.

What is not infinite is the fact the dichotomy, as an act of division in definitions, is the one primary principle philosophy contains. The creation of a thesis and antithesis, or positive and negative values, necessitates philosophy as founded under a principle of isomorphism. Isomorphism is the inversion of one state into an opposing, yet symmetrical, state. The thesis occurs, and Inverts into an opposing antithesis, thus grounding the dualism as a process of inversion from one state into a symmetrically opposite other.

Philosophy is thus isomorphic in nature, through the manifestation of the dichotomy. The dichotomous nature of definition is inseperable from a principle of isomorphism. Paradoxically even the application of "dichotomy" and "isomorphism", as key principles, creates a dualistic tension between the quantitative nature of a dichotomy and the qualitative nature of isomorphism.

The tension between the thesis and antithesis requires an alternation between these two stated around a center point of an absense of definition that the tension seeks to define. For example 1 and -1 are opposites grounded around 0 as the center point. Being and non-being are opposites around void. The beginning of any quality and quantity is mediated by a term which is completely absent of definition, thus even dichotomy and isomorphism are not fully defined except through the inversion of one into another.

The synthesis of these opposing states necessitate the amalgamation of the thesis and antithesis, in a synthetic state as the recursion of key variables, within the thesis, into a new form. Quality manifests into a tautology of further qualities, quantities a tautology of further quantities. A tautology being the state of one thing expressed in a variety of ways.

For example this tautology can be represented, under the variables:

(A--> (B<-->-A))

Where All definition, as the progression of one assumption to another, observes the process of a thesis invert to an antithetical state through a new definition which contains elements as to what one assertion is not.

An example of this would be "dog" progressing to "wild dog" where "wild" as descriptive of "dog" is in itself "not dog". While descriptive, and a part of "dog", "wild" is simultaneously "not dog" thus mandating with the progression of one assertion to another a negative assertion relative to the original is observed. With the progression of one assertion to a new assertion comes a simultaneous negative assertion.

It is also expressed under the quantities of:

(1-->(2<--->-1))

With the progression, on a number line, of 1 to 2 comes a difference of 1 as -1 considering as the line progresses to a new line a simultaneous negative number line occurs as as the reverse progression back to its original point.

This occurs respectively where the formless state, either the variable (• --> •) or (0-->0), is the negation of what is formless into two forms that are isomorphic to the original state of formlessness.

"•" as void inverts to a variable as pure being, "A", as
((• --> •) --> A), and "0" inverts into "1", as ((0-->0)-->1). This can be evidenced through a simple line between two points where the progression of a 0d point to a 0d point results in a qualifiable line and a quantifiable 1.


In simpler terms the isomorphism begins with a completely formless state inverting to a state of form with these forms observing another inversive state of thesis to antithesis.

The formless nature of the original assertion takes form by inverting into an opposing form, with this form occuring under another set of opposing states. 0 inverts to 1 as nothing into being under
((0 --> 0) --> 1) and ((• --> •) --> A) respectively, and 1 inverts to 2 resulting in -1 as being into non-being under ((1-->1) --> (2--> -1)) and ((A-->A) --> (B --> -A)) respectively.


Isomorphism, is thus paradoxically isomorphic. On one hand it is expressed through the dichotomy of being and nothing, dually it is expressed through the dichotomy of one being and multiple beings. Isomorphism, as a dichotomy, is expressed through a meta dichotomy with this dichotomy and meta-dichotomy being a dichotomy as well.

The resulting thesis and antithesis results in the synthetic state, as the mediation between opposites, is thus grounded in a tautology of the thesis. For example bravery exists as the synthesis of the thesis of aggression and the antithesis of cowardess, as a tautology of bravery itself.

The process of definition, through the dichotomy, is premised upon a key term which is absent in definition, by nature, which the thesis and antithesis seek to define. Using the example of "bravery" again, this assertion means nothing in except through the thetical quality of "aggression" and the antithetical quality of "cowardice". Both thesis and antithesis revolve around a term which is empty in itself thus synthesis has a reverse element where the synthetic assertion as progressing from the thesis and antithesis has meaning but if inverted in direction of progression it is absent of meaning as an empty term the thesis and antithesis revolves around. The dualism between thesis and antithesis, while defining eachother, are centered by a term which in itself has no meaning.

The synthetic term acts as a means of change into thesis and antithesis. Assertions are thus complete and consistent as dynamic entities where the process through which the assertion is formed, differs little from the assertion itself. As a dynamic process it is formless by nature as they are defined not just "by" the change from one assertion to another but "as" the change of one assertion into another. The dualistic division, of an assertion, into thesis and antithesis is dynamic, and as dynamic it is formless and above a set of rules. In simpler terms the assertion as a means of change is the act of change itself. To form an assertion is to create change resulting in further changes as further assertions. There is no guideline for forming an assertion, it is just made.


Again using the example of "bravery", the manifestation of a dichotomy leaves "bravery" as undefined except through the dualism of "aggression" and "cowardice". Without they thesis and antithesis, "bravery" is formless in definition. To make the assertion of "bravery" is to create a series of further terms through a formless one.

The application of a percieved formless definition, where a center point definition diverges into a dichotomy, underlies the nature of philosophy resulting in a loop of interplaying opposites that are determined as a means of defining it. This creation of a new term, through the manifestation of extremes, makes philosophy a dynamic process of continuing definitions where "tautology of definition", as one definition defined through a variety of ways, is as much a dynamic state as it is a static one.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: Isomorphism

Post by VVilliam » Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:36 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:02 am
ISOMORPHISM


All knowledge is the imprinting of a pattern upon a previously thoughtless state where what was once thoughtlessness now takes the form of a thought.

Knowledge as the act of acceptance is the act of imprinting, imprinting is an act of repetition; thus knowledge as assuming is knowledge as repetition.

The repetition of this imprint is the repetition of a belief as belief is the acceptance of a phenomena as the assumption of that phenomena. This repetition of a belief is the continuum of the said belief. The continuity of the pattern, as a belief, is the binding of this belief to the observer; this binding is an act of trust or confidence where trust/confidence is an act of reliability. Reliability is repetition as the continuity of a pattern.

All knowledge as assumed is all assumption as imprinting. All imprinting is an act of pattern formation, all pattern formation is an act of repetition as a pattern is the repetition of a phenomena. All repetition is a continuum, this continuum is reliability. All knowledge as belief is all knowledge as reliable as repetitous.

Knowledge as repetition is knowledge as belief as all belief is an act of trust and trust exists as reliability. Trust is repetition, repetition is belief, belief is the formation of an assertion through an assumption.

Philosophy is the art of inverting one assertion into many and many assertions into one. It is the entropy and negentropy, evolution and involution, regression and progression and expansion and contraction of definition.

As such it is the manifestation of thetical and antithetical dichotomies, which synthesize to produce further definitions. These dichotomies represent the general state of a series of particulars existing in symmetrical opposition to eachother. A contradiction is a tautology of "dualism" or "dichotomy" which necessitates an inherent seperatedness between assertions. All distinction, that which seperates one phenomenon from another is born of this tautology, specifically that of the "dichotomy". It is definition creation through the diverging and reconverging of these dualisms. There is no set rule in defining where and when to apply the application of dichotomy creation, yet this dichotomy is fundamental as a fundamental rule.

This still necessitates all contexts as having a triadic nature of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, with this triadic nature necessitating certain universal laws which not just govern philosophy but are a means through which philosophy exists. To disagree with this statement is to present an antithetical argument to these laws, thus repeating the process of dialectic in a newer form.

The dichotomy can be applied anywhere within philosophical enquiry thus necessitating philosophy as subject to not just an infinite number of thesis and antithesis, but an infinite number of synthetic definitions as well. These synthetic definitions occurs as the amalgamation between extremes. For example, the extremes of cowardess and foolhardiness synthesize as bravery.

It is the application of dichotomies, through any series of propositions, that necessitates philosophy as fundamentally undefined except as the application of dichotomies which can be represented under a continuum of further subsets of dichotomies. This further necessitates definition as a process, with this process following a set of finite rules. The manifestation of defintion is in itself defined under an infinite regress of dualisms.

What is not infinite is the fact the dichotomy, as an act of division in definitions, is the one primary principle philosophy contains. The creation of a thesis and antithesis, or positive and negative values, necessitates philosophy as founded under a principle of isomorphism. Isomorphism is the inversion of one state into an opposing, yet symmetrical, state. The thesis occurs, and Inverts into an opposing antithesis, thus grounding the dualism as a process of inversion from one state into a symmetrically opposite other.

Philosophy is thus isomorphic in nature, through the manifestation of the dichotomy. The dichotomous nature of definition is inseperable from a principle of isomorphism. Paradoxically even the application of "dichotomy" and "isomorphism", as key principles, creates a dualistic tension between the quantitative nature of a dichotomy and the qualitative nature of isomorphism.

The tension between the thesis and antithesis requires an alternation between these two stated around a center point of an absense of definition that the tension seeks to define. For example 1 and -1 are opposites grounded around 0 as the center point. Being and non-being are opposites around void. The beginning of any quality and quantity is mediated by a term which is completely absent of definition, thus even dichotomy and isomorphism are not fully defined except through the inversion of one into another.

The synthesis of these opposing states necessitate the amalgamation of the thesis and antithesis, in a synthetic state as the recursion of key variables, within the thesis, into a new form. Quality manifests into a tautology of further qualities, quantities a tautology of further quantities. A tautology being the state of one thing expressed in a variety of ways.

For example this tautology can be represented, under the variables:

(A--> (B<-->-A))

Where All definition, as the progression of one assumption to another, observes the process of a thesis invert to an antithetical state through a new definition which contains elements as to what one assertion is not.

An example of this would be "dog" progressing to "wild dog" where "wild" as descriptive of "dog" is in itself "not dog". While descriptive, and a part of "dog", "wild" is simultaneously "not dog" thus mandating with the progression of one assertion to another a negative assertion relative to the original is observed. With the progression of one assertion to a new assertion comes a simultaneous negative assertion.

It is also expressed under the quantities of:

(1-->(2<--->-1))

With the progression, on a number line, of 1 to 2 comes a difference of 1 as -1 considering as the line progresses to a new line a simultaneous negative number line occurs as as the reverse progression back to its original point.

This occurs respectively where the formless state, either the variable (• --> •) or (0-->0), is the negation of what is formless into two forms that are isomorphic to the original state of formlessness.

"•" as void inverts to a variable as pure being, "A", as
((• --> •) --> A), and "0" inverts into "1", as ((0-->0)-->1). This can be evidenced through a simple line between two points where the progression of a 0d point to a 0d point results in a qualifiable line and a quantifiable 1.


In simpler terms the isomorphism begins with a completely formless state inverting to a state of form with these forms observing another inversive state of thesis to antithesis.

The formless nature of the original assertion takes form by inverting into an opposing form, with this form occuring under another set of opposing states. 0 inverts to 1 as nothing into being under ((• --> •) --> A), and 1 inverts to 2 resulting in -1 as being into non-being under
((1-->1) --> (2--> -1))


Isomorphism, is thus paradoxically isomorphic. On one hand it is expressed through the dichotomy of being and nothing, dually it is expressed through the dichotomy of one being and multiple beings. Isomorphism, as a dichotomy, is expressed through a meta dichotomy with this dichotomy and meta-dichotomy being a dichotomy as well.

The resulting thesis and antithesis results in the synthetic state, as the mediation between opposites, is thus grounded in a tautology of the thesis. For example bravery exists as the synthesis of the thesis of aggression and the antithesis of cowardess, as a tautology of bravery itself.

The process of definition, through the dichotomy, is premised upon a key term which is absent in definition, by nature, which the thesis and antithesis seek to define. Using the example of "bravery" again, this assertion means nothing in except through the thetical quality of "aggression" and the antithetical quality of "cowardice". Both thesis and antithesis revolve around a term which is empty in itself thus synthesis has a reverse element where the synthetic assertion as progressing from the thesis and antithesis has meaning but if inverted in direction of progression it is absent of meaning as an empty term the thesis and antithesis revolves around. The dualism between thesis and antithesis, while defining eachother, are centered by a term which in itself has no meaning.

The synthetic term acts as a means of change into thesis and antithesis. Assertions are thus complete and consistent as dynamic entities where the process through which the assertion is formed, differs little from the assertion itself. As a dynamic process it is formless by nature as they are defined not just "by" the change from one assertion to another but "as" the change of one assertion into another. The dualistic division, of an assertion, into thesis and antithesis is dynamic, and as dynamic it is formless and above a set of rules. In simpler terms the assertion as a means of change is the act of change itself. To form an assertion is to create change resulting in further changes as further assertions. There is no guideline for forming an assertion, it is just made.


Again using the example of "bravery", the manifestation of a dichotomy leaves "bravery" as undefined except through the dualism of "aggression" and "cowardice". Without they thesis and antithesis, "bravery" is formless in definition. To make the assertion of "bravery" is to create a series of further terms through a formless one.

The application of a percieved formless definition, where a center point definition diverges into a dichotomy, underlies the nature of philosophy resulting in a loop of interplaying opposites that are determined as a means of defining it. This creation of a new term, through the manifestation of extremes, makes philosophy a dynamic process of continuing definitions where "tautology of definition", as one definition defined through a variety of ways, is as much a dynamic state as it is a static one.
So what I think is being communicated here is that apparently different things dance together and sometimes appear to be the same thing for brief moments as their movements mirror one another and that philosophy invents a language which describes the overall movement, and adds to that language even more language as time unfolds.

Am I getting the general gist?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Isomorphism

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:04 pm

VVilliam wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:36 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:02 am
ISOMORPHISM


All knowledge is the imprinting of a pattern upon a previously thoughtless state where what was once thoughtlessness now takes the form of a thought.

Knowledge as the act of acceptance is the act of imprinting, imprinting is an act of repetition; thus knowledge as assuming is knowledge as repetition.

The repetition of this imprint is the repetition of a belief as belief is the acceptance of a phenomena as the assumption of that phenomena. This repetition of a belief is the continuum of the said belief. The continuity of the pattern, as a belief, is the binding of this belief to the observer; this binding is an act of trust or confidence where trust/confidence is an act of reliability. Reliability is repetition as the continuity of a pattern.

All knowledge as assumed is all assumption as imprinting. All imprinting is an act of pattern formation, all pattern formation is an act of repetition as a pattern is the repetition of a phenomena. All repetition is a continuum, this continuum is reliability. All knowledge as belief is all knowledge as reliable as repetitous.

Knowledge as repetition is knowledge as belief as all belief is an act of trust and trust exists as reliability. Trust is repetition, repetition is belief, belief is the formation of an assertion through an assumption.

Philosophy is the art of inverting one assertion into many and many assertions into one. It is the entropy and negentropy, evolution and involution, regression and progression and expansion and contraction of definition.

As such it is the manifestation of thetical and antithetical dichotomies, which synthesize to produce further definitions. These dichotomies represent the general state of a series of particulars existing in symmetrical opposition to eachother. A contradiction is a tautology of "dualism" or "dichotomy" which necessitates an inherent seperatedness between assertions. All distinction, that which seperates one phenomenon from another is born of this tautology, specifically that of the "dichotomy". It is definition creation through the diverging and reconverging of these dualisms. There is no set rule in defining where and when to apply the application of dichotomy creation, yet this dichotomy is fundamental as a fundamental rule.

This still necessitates all contexts as having a triadic nature of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, with this triadic nature necessitating certain universal laws which not just govern philosophy but are a means through which philosophy exists. To disagree with this statement is to present an antithetical argument to these laws, thus repeating the process of dialectic in a newer form.

The dichotomy can be applied anywhere within philosophical enquiry thus necessitating philosophy as subject to not just an infinite number of thesis and antithesis, but an infinite number of synthetic definitions as well. These synthetic definitions occurs as the amalgamation between extremes. For example, the extremes of cowardess and foolhardiness synthesize as bravery.

It is the application of dichotomies, through any series of propositions, that necessitates philosophy as fundamentally undefined except as the application of dichotomies which can be represented under a continuum of further subsets of dichotomies. This further necessitates definition as a process, with this process following a set of finite rules. The manifestation of defintion is in itself defined under an infinite regress of dualisms.

What is not infinite is the fact the dichotomy, as an act of division in definitions, is the one primary principle philosophy contains. The creation of a thesis and antithesis, or positive and negative values, necessitates philosophy as founded under a principle of isomorphism. Isomorphism is the inversion of one state into an opposing, yet symmetrical, state. The thesis occurs, and Inverts into an opposing antithesis, thus grounding the dualism as a process of inversion from one state into a symmetrically opposite other.

Philosophy is thus isomorphic in nature, through the manifestation of the dichotomy. The dichotomous nature of definition is inseperable from a principle of isomorphism. Paradoxically even the application of "dichotomy" and "isomorphism", as key principles, creates a dualistic tension between the quantitative nature of a dichotomy and the qualitative nature of isomorphism.

The tension between the thesis and antithesis requires an alternation between these two stated around a center point of an absense of definition that the tension seeks to define. For example 1 and -1 are opposites grounded around 0 as the center point. Being and non-being are opposites around void. The beginning of any quality and quantity is mediated by a term which is completely absent of definition, thus even dichotomy and isomorphism are not fully defined except through the inversion of one into another.

The synthesis of these opposing states necessitate the amalgamation of the thesis and antithesis, in a synthetic state as the recursion of key variables, within the thesis, into a new form. Quality manifests into a tautology of further qualities, quantities a tautology of further quantities. A tautology being the state of one thing expressed in a variety of ways.

For example this tautology can be represented, under the variables:

(A--> (B<-->-A))

Where All definition, as the progression of one assumption to another, observes the process of a thesis invert to an antithetical state through a new definition which contains elements as to what one assertion is not.

An example of this would be "dog" progressing to "wild dog" where "wild" as descriptive of "dog" is in itself "not dog". While descriptive, and a part of "dog", "wild" is simultaneously "not dog" thus mandating with the progression of one assertion to another a negative assertion relative to the original is observed. With the progression of one assertion to a new assertion comes a simultaneous negative assertion.

It is also expressed under the quantities of:

(1-->(2<--->-1))

With the progression, on a number line, of 1 to 2 comes a difference of 1 as -1 considering as the line progresses to a new line a simultaneous negative number line occurs as as the reverse progression back to its original point.

This occurs respectively where the formless state, either the variable (• --> •) or (0-->0), is the negation of what is formless into two forms that are isomorphic to the original state of formlessness.

"•" as void inverts to a variable as pure being, "A", as
((• --> •) --> A), and "0" inverts into "1", as ((0-->0)-->1). This can be evidenced through a simple line between two points where the progression of a 0d point to a 0d point results in a qualifiable line and a quantifiable 1.


In simpler terms the isomorphism begins with a completely formless state inverting to a state of form with these forms observing another inversive state of thesis to antithesis.

The formless nature of the original assertion takes form by inverting into an opposing form, with this form occuring under another set of opposing states. 0 inverts to 1 as nothing into being under ((• --> •) --> A), and 1 inverts to 2 resulting in -1 as being into non-being under
((1-->1) --> (2--> -1))


Isomorphism, is thus paradoxically isomorphic. On one hand it is expressed through the dichotomy of being and nothing, dually it is expressed through the dichotomy of one being and multiple beings. Isomorphism, as a dichotomy, is expressed through a meta dichotomy with this dichotomy and meta-dichotomy being a dichotomy as well.

The resulting thesis and antithesis results in the synthetic state, as the mediation between opposites, is thus grounded in a tautology of the thesis. For example bravery exists as the synthesis of the thesis of aggression and the antithesis of cowardess, as a tautology of bravery itself.

The process of definition, through the dichotomy, is premised upon a key term which is absent in definition, by nature, which the thesis and antithesis seek to define. Using the example of "bravery" again, this assertion means nothing in except through the thetical quality of "aggression" and the antithetical quality of "cowardice". Both thesis and antithesis revolve around a term which is empty in itself thus synthesis has a reverse element where the synthetic assertion as progressing from the thesis and antithesis has meaning but if inverted in direction of progression it is absent of meaning as an empty term the thesis and antithesis revolves around. The dualism between thesis and antithesis, while defining eachother, are centered by a term which in itself has no meaning.

The synthetic term acts as a means of change into thesis and antithesis. Assertions are thus complete and consistent as dynamic entities where the process through which the assertion is formed, differs little from the assertion itself. As a dynamic process it is formless by nature as they are defined not just "by" the change from one assertion to another but "as" the change of one assertion into another. The dualistic division, of an assertion, into thesis and antithesis is dynamic, and as dynamic it is formless and above a set of rules. In simpler terms the assertion as a means of change is the act of change itself. To form an assertion is to create change resulting in further changes as further assertions. There is no guideline for forming an assertion, it is just made.


Again using the example of "bravery", the manifestation of a dichotomy leaves "bravery" as undefined except through the dualism of "aggression" and "cowardice". Without they thesis and antithesis, "bravery" is formless in definition. To make the assertion of "bravery" is to create a series of further terms through a formless one.

The application of a percieved formless definition, where a center point definition diverges into a dichotomy, underlies the nature of philosophy resulting in a loop of interplaying opposites that are determined as a means of defining it. This creation of a new term, through the manifestation of extremes, makes philosophy a dynamic process of continuing definitions where "tautology of definition", as one definition defined through a variety of ways, is as much a dynamic state as it is a static one.
So what I think is being communicated here is that apparently different things dance together and sometimes appear to be the same thing for brief moments as their movements mirror one another and that philosophy invents a language which describes the overall movement, and adds to that language even more language as time unfolds.

Am I getting the general gist?
Generally yes.

User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: Isomorphism

Post by VVilliam » Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:24 pm

Okay thanks.

Are you able to take the OP and succinctly say the same thing in one paragraph?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Isomorphism

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 10:32 pm

VVilliam wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:24 pm
Okay thanks.

Are you able to take the OP and succinctly say the same thing in one paragraph?
In simpler terms the isomorphism begins with a completely formless state inverting to a state of form with these forms observing another inversive state of thesis to antithesis.

The formless nature of the original assertion takes form by inverting into an opposing form, with this form occuring under another set of opposing states. 0 inverts to 1 as nothing into being under
((0 --> 0) --> 1) and ((• --> •) --> A) respectively, and 1 inverts to 2 resulting in -1 as being into non-being under ((1-->1) --> (2--> -1)) and ((A-->A) --> (B --> -A)) respectively.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests