Is a Perfect Circle Real?

[Eodnhoj7]

Perhaps the point of the questioners was to say without any points the circle has no boundaries and is therefore 0 or infinite or any dimension in between. And then again it may be an octagon without any boundaries.

That is the paradox. A point is nothing. If is is negated is results in something (form). There is no-nothing as this is something. Void is voided.

We see the point voided into 1 direction under the line.

But the line is one direction, it only exists relative to other directions. Second the point, as formless, must void itself in all directions.

Thus the circle is all directions as 1 set.

[Eodnhoj7]

The issue comes into play when people claim to talk about things ‘beyond human comprehension’. Citing the such a possibility is delusional. They is literally nothing we can say beyond human comprehension ... ironically even what I’m writing is merely ‘negative’ noumenon.

Kant’s question in COPR was what we can ‘know’ prior to experience. In simple terms Kant framed ‘positive’ noumenon as a false claim by people who try to say they have experience of what is prior to experience. It may sound ridiculous but it’s a surprisingly easy trap to fall into without realising it.

Yep we can't comprehend what we can't comprehend.

That is putting it in a context and comprehending it as a negative definition...and your reasoning is circular thus a fallacy according to standard logic.

[Atla]

The issue comes into play when people claim to talk about things ‘beyond human comprehension’. Citing the such a possibility is delusional. They is literally nothing we can say beyond human comprehension ... ironically even what I’m writing is merely ‘negative’ noumenon.

Kant’s question in COPR was what we can ‘know’ prior to experience. In simple terms Kant framed ‘positive’ noumenon as a false claim by people who try to say they have experience of what is prior to experience. It may sound ridiculous but it’s a surprisingly easy trap to fall into without realising it.

Yep we can't comprehend what we can't comprehend.

That is putting it in a context and comprehending it as a negative definition...and your reasoning is circular thus a fallacy according to standard logic.

Well duh, all human thinking is ultimately circular. You just also add extra circularities where they are really not needed.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yep we can't comprehend what we can't comprehend.

That is putting it in a context and comprehending it as a negative definition...and your reasoning is circular thus a fallacy according to standard logic.

Well duh, all human thinking is ultimately circular. You just also add extra circularities where they are really not needed.

Not really, it is linear as well, thus the extra circularities are natural.

It is linear and circular...a spiral.

Try again...you speak in fallacies.

[Atla]

That is putting it in a context and comprehending it as a negative definition...and your reasoning is circular thus a fallacy according to standard logic.

Well duh, all human thinking is ultimately circular. You just also add extra circularities where they are really not needed.

Not really, it is linear as well, thus the extra circularities are natural.

It is linear and circular...a spiral.

Try again...you speak in fallacies.

The spiral is the hallmark of the lesser mind. You just never made it beyond that cognitive illusion.

[Eodnhoj7]

Well duh, all human thinking is ultimately circular. You just also add extra circularities where they are really not needed.

Not really, it is linear as well, thus the extra circularities are natural.

It is linear and circular...a spiral.

Try again...you speak in fallacies.

The spiral is the hallmark of the lesser mind. You just never made it beyond that cognitive illusion.

False, the spiral is manifest in many natural phenomenon (hurricanes, shells, genetic preservation) as well as the number line and the definition of the words you are using.

Look up any defintion in a dictionary and you are left with a spiral...thus is this form is a cognitive illusion than so are the phenomenon that manifest through it (this negates your argument under your own terms).

[Atla]

Not really, it is linear as well, thus the extra circularities are natural.

It is linear and circular...a spiral.

Try again...you speak in fallacies.

The spiral is the hallmark of the lesser mind. You just never made it beyond that cognitive illusion.

False, the spiral is manifest in many natural phenomenon (hurricanes, shells, genetic preservation) as well as the number line and the definition of the words you are using.

Look up any defintion in a dictionary and you are left with a spiral...thus is this form is a cognitive illusion than so are the phenomenon that manifest through it (this negates your argument under your own terms).

More word salad; the abstract illusion of spiralic human thinking doesn't manifest in hurricanes etc.
Look you are simply too dumb to talk to, in your math topic I wasn't trying to talk to you either.

[Eodnhoj7]

The spiral is the hallmark of the lesser mind. You just never made it beyond that cognitive illusion.

False, the spiral is manifest in many natural phenomenon (hurricanes, shells, genetic preservation) as well as the number line and the definition of the words you are using.

Look up any defintion in a dictionary and you are left with a spiral...thus is this form is a cognitive illusion than so are the phenomenon that manifest through it (this negates your argument under your own terms).

More word salad; the abstract illusion of spiralic human thinking doesn't manifest in hurricanes etc.
Look you are simply too dumb to talk to, in your math topic I wasn't trying to talk to you either.

Wow, you really are a retarded savant...

And quote it right:

I said the spiral form manifests in natural phenomenon and human thinking. S-->(N,H)



Word salad, saying abstractions are illusions and then using abstractions.

So if memory is an abstraction, is that an illusion too?

Or the meanings behind words.



Do you want a coloring book too?

Schizophrenic.

[nothing]

I'll counter.

It must exist in some capacity (ie. dimension, if even not physical) if a 'perfect circle' can be defined as:

i. containing exactly 360o of arc
ii. arcs back to a fixed p.o.i.

i. is obvious
ii. can be anything fixed: like an equinox that "equalizes" day/night duration which recurs

If one considers that:

the sun makes a 'circle' around the planet
once every 24 hours (relative to: a "fixed" observer on the surface)
(6AM - 6PM = 360o which arcs back to a "fixed" p.o.i. eg. every MAR21 spring equinox equal day/night)

the planet also makes a 'circle' around the sun
once every ~365.24 days (MAR21-MAR20 = 360o which arcs back to a fixed p.o.i.)

and the precession of the equinoxes of
~25 920 years defines another circle = 360o which arcs back to a fixed p.o.i.

I thus argue time-in-and-of-itself is a circle-in-and-of-itself "contorted" but only so relative to any observer. That is: the observer is *in* a perfect circle, but does not fully comprehend it that way.

A (contorted) folded circle (ie. figure-8) is what the sun appears to do over 365.24 days (relative to: a fixed observer on the surface) and, though not a perfect circle relative to the observer, does not necessarily mean the circle is not 'perfect' relative to/from/by another means. Because there are fixed cycles, cycles imply circles, and if it there happens to be a primordial dichotomous dipole (ie. yang and yin) whence all *imperfect* circles are made to be possible, it must certainly be perfect to annihilate one another ad infinitum.

This said I find it is a common blunder to overlook that space-time is a cohesive fabric: because time relies on gravity so much, big-bang conditions are incomprehensible relative from our static-flow-of-time-based conceptions, given time is relatively meaningless @ infinite mass. However, the planets seem just as happy to be born of chaos and start doing circles. Seems to bring about a basic order whence to infer that basic nature is basically cyclic. Does that imply a perfect circle? Perhaps not, but it certainly can not be ruled if one pays mind to the possibility of any/all currently unknown frames of reference.

[Eodnhoj7]

I'll counter.

It must exist in some capacity (ie. dimension, if even not physical) if a 'perfect circle' can be defined as:

i. containing exactly 360o of arc
ii. arcs back to a fixed p.o.i.

i. is obvious
ii. can be anything fixed: like an equinox that "equalizes" day/night duration which recurs

If one considers that:

the sun makes a 'circle' around the planet
once every 24 hours (relative to: a "fixed" observer on the surface)
(6AM - 6PM = 360o which arcs back to a "fixed" p.o.i. eg. every MAR21 spring equinox equal day/night)

the planet also makes a 'circle' around the sun
once every ~365.24 days (MAR21-MAR20 = 360o which arcs back to a fixed p.o.i.)

and the precession of the equinoxes of
~25 920 years defines another circle = 360o which arcs back to a fixed p.o.i.

I thus argue time-in-and-of-itself is a circle-in-and-of-itself "contorted" but only so relative to any observer. That is: the observer is *in* a perfect circle, but does not fully comprehend it that way.

A (contorted) folded circle (ie. figure-8) is what the sun appears to do over 365.24 days (relative to: a fixed observer on the surface) and, though not a perfect circle relative to the observer, does not necessarily mean the circle is not 'perfect' relative to/from/by another means. Because there are fixed cycles, cycles imply circles, and if it there happens to be a primordial dichotomous dipole (ie. yang and yin) whence all *imperfect* circles are made to be possible, it must certainly be perfect to annihilate one another ad infinitum.

This said I find it is a common blunder to overlook that space-time is a cohesive fabric: because time relies on gravity so much, big-bang conditions are incomprehensible relative from our static-flow-of-time-based conceptions, given time is relatively meaningless @ infinite mass. However, the planets seem just as happy to be born of chaos and start doing circles.

Same will atoms appearing out of a vaccuum, as well as the basic nature of counting where a 0d point voids itself into another 0d point resulting in the form of a line (which is inherently circular given it ends at the same point it began.)

Circularity seems to be not just he original form, but the nature of void "voiding" itself considering void is "nothing".

It is a property of double negation in intuitionist logic which is circular:
-(-P)--> P

With this resulting in Aristolian identity properties...which again are circular:

(P=P) <--> ((P-->P)<-->(P<--P))

Seems to bring about a basic order whence to infer that basic nature is basically cyclic. Does that imply a perfect circle? Perhaps not, but it certainly can not be ruled if one pays mind to the possibility of any/all currently unknown frames of reference.

[nothing]

With this resulting in Aristolian identity properties...which again are circular:

(P=P) <--> ((P-->P)<-->(P<--P))

How so very strange/interesting this should come up. From the other thread:

___
b = k - k

as in:

(-/+) 0 = (1-1)

viz.
a folded circle: infinity symbol ( anumerically: 0 becomes 8 ) with +/- as its poles
wherein (0) itself can be positive or negative (moving up or down)

(+)
(8) <-*(any theoretical antithetical dichotomy can be inserted here)
(-)

______
*primordial as in: yang-yin; antithetical as in: inverses of one another

and let them annihilate at 0 ad infinitum...[/quote]
___

I am wondering if they are equivalent:

(P=P) <--> ((P-->P)<-->(P<--P))
b = k - k
(-/+) 0 = (1-1)

if so, could time-in-and-of-itself be a folded circle distorted accordingly insofar as the polarities are not in equilibrium relative to a/the/its observer according to their own characteristic(s) in relation to whatever the equilibrium is?

Very interesting to think about in relation to the good/evil problem. It should follow that evil must tend towards less equilibrium (ie. too much positive, not enough negative and/or vice versa) and might even collapse in-on-itself if ignorance-in-and-of-itself has no real boundaries like matter in space: instead, an event horizon: if too-closey-sucky-iney-long-time.

If time is a folded circle, making the circle perfectly whole again must tend towards "good"/equilibrium (theoretically). I wonder if it is possible to test it.

If you do have time if there are flaws/errors about the ckiit please point. I won't take personally - I get off on falsification/negation so-to-speak. It means less falsity to be stuck on

[Eodnhoj7]

With this resulting in Aristolian identity properties...which again are circular:

(P=P) <--> ((P-->P)<-->(P<--P))

How so very strange/interesting this should come up. From the other thread:

___
b = k - k

as in:

(-/+) 0 = (1-1)

viz.
a folded circle: infinity symbol ( anumerically: 0 becomes 8 ) with +/- as its poles
wherein (0) itself can be positive or negative (moving up or down)

(+)
(8) <-*(any theoretical antithetical dichotomy can be inserted here)
(-)

______
*primordial as in: yang-yin; antithetical as in: inverses of one another

Being as intrinsically empty is isomorphic in nature.

For example you have 0.

0 negates itself, into 1. 1 is strictly the first form and is a cycle. We see this in the standard line as it ends with its origins (0) resulting in the 1d line as not just repetitive zeros, but a cycle because of it. The 1d line is a 2d circle on its relative side.

Thus 1 cycles again, through 0, to result in 2. 2 is a variation of one. It is also an isomorphism of unity through many. Thus 1 as intrinsically empty, considering it is a loop, inverts to another form. Form turns into a variation of itself through formlessness. We see this in all repition, one line replicates to another line through emptiness while containing emptiness. Formless, or void, is "isomorphism" itself as an intrinsic center point to being.

and let them annihilate at 0 ad infinitum...

___

I am wondering if they are equivalent:

(P=P) <--> ((P-->P)<-->(P<--P))
b = k - k
(-/+) 0 = (1-1)

if so, could time-in-and-of-itself be a folded circle distorted accordingly insofar as the polarities are not in equilibrium relative to a/the/its observer according to their own characteristic(s) in relation to whatever the equilibrium is?

Time is concentric, like a ripple, and what we see as the ripple is akin to the recurssion of circles. This recursion results in a fractal/fraction nature that is synonymous to "folding". For example I'd you fold a sheet you are manifesting a square sheet, into fractals/fractions of that square into further squares. Folding is recursive by nature.

Very interesting to think about in relation to the good/evil problem. It should follow that evil must tend towards less equilibrium (ie. too much positive, not enough negative and/or vice versa) and might even collapse in-on-itself if ignorance-in-and-of-itself has no real boundaries like matter in space: instead, an event horizon: if too-closey-sucky-iney-long-time.

Evil is the gradation of a good. Gradation is the inversion of one state into many where that one state of good (which in itself is the good and true for what is good and true is unity) exists in multiple states.

If time is a folded circle, making the circle perfectly whole again must tend towards "good"/equilibrium (theoretically). I wonder if it is possible to test it.

If you do have time if there are flaws/errors about the ckiit please point. I won't take personally - I get off on falsification/negation so-to-speak. It means less falsity to be stuck on

Dialect is an art, and as an art it manifests through practice. Practice is repitition and repitition results in coherency as unity of form. In shorter terms, just keep practicing and assume all points you observe into your own.
[/quote]

[nothing]

Time is concentric, like a ripple, and what we see as the ripple is akin to the recurssion of circles. This recursion results in a fractal/fraction nature that is synonymous to "folding". For example I'd you fold a sheet you are manifesting a square sheet, into fractals/fractions of that square into further squares. Folding is recursive by nature.

If time is concentric, like a ripple, it must follow that space(-time) is as well, likewise recursion of circles.
It should follow that space-time "folds" in/around a being according to their gravitas.
Inference is thus a common knowledge in the 'world of fractals'.

Evil is the gradation of a good. Gradation is the inversion of one state into many where that one state of good (which in itself is the good and true for what is good and true is unity) exists in multiple states.

Interesting!

Evil is the gradation of a good.

...the implications are of great immensity if true: would it allow for a spontaneous inversion, as in a pole-shift? Does evil gradate to a point of intensity such to become to a sudden annihilation expenditure that serves its counter-part good?

Gradation is the inversion of one state into many

So any/all possible state(s) exist super-imposed as a quanta of possibility?

I wonder what it is contingent on.

Dialect is an art, and as an art it manifests through practice. Practice is repitition and repitition results in coherency as unity of form. In shorter terms, just keep practicing and assume all points you observe into your own.

Dialect is an art, and as an art it manifests through practice.

It is true.

Practice is repitition and repitition results in coherency as unity of form.

It is true.

In shorter terms, just keep practicing and assume all points you observe into your own.

For one to be-anything-at-all (such as a believer), while less having knowledge-of-ones-own-ignorance, it is to certain detriment *not* to assume all points one observes into ones own. It is near the definition of hypocrisy, and it is the same hypocrisy against which I and the theorem stand: any/all belief-based ignorance enduring in an indefinite (ie. unresolved) state is certainly due to ignorance-in-and-of-itself.

If CKIIT holds (in) that the first fundamental knowledge/ignorance is of ones own self, the better one knows ones self, the better one knows ones self in relation to how (if?) others know themselves. This too, must be an art: knowing thy self in order to know the degree to which others know themselves not.

[Eodnhoj7]

Time is concentric, like a ripple, and what we see as the ripple is akin to the recurssion of circles. This recursion results in a fractal/fraction nature that is synonymous to "folding". For example I'd you fold a sheet you are manifesting a square sheet, into fractals/fractions of that square into further squares. Folding is recursive by nature.

If time is concentric, like a ripple, it must follow that space(-time) is as well, likewise recursion of circles.
It should follow that space-time "folds" in/around a being according to their gravitas.
Inference is thus a common knowledge in the 'world of fractals'.

All phenomenon are forms.

As forms they are 2 dimensional until an angle of observation changes at which point they become 3 dimensional. This 3 dimension, depth, is the change of 1 2d form into another.

If you look at a 2d form, and trace its outline, you always end where you began. Thus all forms are loops by nature.

Each form is a variation of the one form.

Evil is the gradation of a good. Gradation is the inversion of one state into many where that one state of good (which in itself is the good and true for what is good and true is unity) exists in multiple states.

Interesting!

Evil is the gradation of a good.

...the implications are of great immensity if true: would it allow for a spontaneous inversion, as in a pole-shift? Does evil gradate to a point of intensity such to become to a sudden annihilation expenditure that serves its counter-part good?

Gradation is the inversion of one state into many

So any/all possible state(s) exist super-imposed as a quanta of possibility?

I wonder what it is contingent on.

Dialect is an art, and as an art it manifests through practice. Practice is repitition and repitition results in coherency as unity of form. In shorter terms, just keep practicing and assume all points you observe into your own.

Dialect is an art, and as an art it manifests through practice.

It is true.

Practice is repitition and repitition results in coherency as unity of form.

It is true.

In shorter terms, just keep practicing and assume all points you observe into your own.

For one to be-anything-at-all (such as a believer), while less having knowledge-of-ones-own-ignorance, it is to certain detriment *not* to assume all points one observes into ones own. It is near the definition of hypocrisy, and it is the same hypocrisy against which I and the theorem stand: any/all belief-based ignorance enduring in an indefinite (ie. unresolved) state is certainly due to ignorance-in-and-of-itself.

If CKIIT holds (in) that the first fundamental knowledge/ignorance is of ones own self, the better one knows ones self, the better one knows ones self in relation to how (if?) others know themselves. This too, must be an art: knowing thy self in order to know the degree to which others know themselves not.

Will address later, out of time.