Form is Binding Space

[Eodnhoj7]

Then a theoretical one dimensional point exists.

No. That would be a point existing for the eyes. And not one dimensional. But one point thick, and one point long. And, I suppose, one point tall as well, possibly.

A point with no dimension is intelligible somehow, but can't exist for the eyes or touch. It is observable through the inversion of one phenomenon to another, the change of one phenomenon to another. Evidence is the number line.

A single point is formless.

If formless means without dimension, that could only be true in the mind for an intelligible notion which, however, is not genuinely imaginable.

The point is 0d....this is a common axiom. Nothingness is seen through the inversion of one phenomenon into another.

A point is spatial, space is beyond a priori and a posteriori

That's to posit a space beyond the senses. Or, that space includes something only for our intelligence. This may be true, but it still excludes points from the region of the eyes alone.

[TheVisionofEr]

Then a theoretical one dimensional point exists.

No. That would be a point existing for the eyes. And not one dimensional. But one point thick, and one point long. And, I suppose, one point tall as well, possibly.

A point with no dimension is intelligible somehow, but can't exist for the eyes or touch. It is observable through the inversion of one phenomenon to another, the change of one phenomenon to another. Evidence is the number line.

A single point is formless.

If formless means without dimension, that could only be true in the mind for an intelligible notion which, however, is not genuinely imaginable.

The point is 0d....this is a common axiom. Nothingness is seen through the inversion of one phenomenon into another.

A point is spatial, space is beyond a priori and a posteriori

That's to posit a space beyond the senses. Or, that space includes something only for our intelligence. This may be true, but it still excludes points from the region of the eyes alone.

It is observable through the inversion of one phenomenon to another, the change of one phenomenon to another. Evidence is the number line.

I don't understand this dark saying.

The point is 0d....this is a common axiom.

The axiom assumes math happens in noos or the mind. That is the point of the Pythagorean cult. The things of the mind don't seem to decay, as do the external things. They go beyond what the eyes alone can grasp. They can be perfectly identical, or at least seem to be, between two persons.

Nothingness is seen through the inversion of one phenomenon into another.

What do you mean?

[Eodnhoj7]

No. That would be a point existing for the eyes. And not one dimensional. But one point thick, and one point long. And, I suppose, one point tall as well, possibly.

A point with no dimension is intelligible somehow, but can't exist for the eyes or touch. It is observable through the inversion of one phenomenon to another, the change of one phenomenon to another. Evidence is the number line.



If formless means without dimension, that could only be true in the mind for an intelligible notion which, however, is not genuinely imaginable.

The point is 0d....this is a common axiom. Nothingness is seen through the inversion of one phenomenon into another.



That's to posit a space beyond the senses. Or, that space includes something only for our intelligence. This may be true, but it still excludes points from the region of the eyes alone.

It is observable through the inversion of one phenomenon to another, the change of one phenomenon to another. Evidence is the number line.

I don't understand this dark saying.

Movement occurs through relative emptiness. For example the movement of water occurs through a place of relative emptiness such as water being poured into the emptiness of a glass or pond.

The point is 0d....this is a common axiom.

The axiom assumes math happens in noos or the mind.
Actually is doesn't as all numbers are grounded in the countability of phenomena.

That is the point of the Pythagorean cult. The things of the mind don't seem to decay, as do the external things. They go beyond what the eyes alone can grasp. They can be perfectly identical, or at least seem to be, between two persons.

All forms are relative loops as if you trace them the end point is the same as the beginning point. All numbers are grounded in counting these infinite variety of loops, as well as existing through a recursive looping (1 recursively results in 2 then 3). The act of counting is a looping between subject and object as well.

All numbers are grounded in loops.

Nothingness is seen through the inversion of one phenomenon into another.

What do you mean?

A line exists between two 0d points. The line, as cut in half by a 0d point observes one line invert into another through the void. The inversion of water taking a new form occurs through the emptiness of the container.

[TheVisionofEr]

Movement occurs through relative emptiness. For example the movement of water occurs through a place of relative emptiness such as water being poured into the emptiness of a glass or pond.

This concept of space is intelligible, but it is not there for the eyes. Air is displaced by water. That is simply an optical illusion.

Aristotle thinks space in the way as something we can not see or touch. It is a manner of understanding or a speculation (that is, something that goes beyond experience strictly speaking, or,beyond the “facts.”)

Actually is doesn't as all numbers are grounded in the countability of phenomena.

Then your “numbers” are not equal units. Units only exist in the mind. An abstraction from counting things. Perfect equality is intelligible, but does not exist for the senses.

Subitizing is a “fact” of experience. It’s not an axiom.

All numbers are grounded in loops.

Isn’t that an assertion added on to the phenomena? It’s like you're making a rule. All bishops move along the diagonal. You determine the world from your rule, which you put the world into.

A line exists between two 0d points.

There is something smaller than what we can see. At a certain limit we can’t measure anything. That’s the way it is in the world of experience. Your point has nothing to do with experience. It is a feature of your understanding.

I can see how one can say: There is something small, and if it isn’t there it is absent. The absence of that small but visible thing, the corner of a table for instance, would be real. But, there the point you name is the same thing as nothing. So, it’s not a point at all.

[Eodnhoj7]

Movement occurs through relative emptiness. For example the movement of water occurs through a place of relative emptiness such as water being poured into the emptiness of a glass or pond.

This concept of space is intelligible, but it is not there for the eyes. Air is displaced by water. That is simply an optical illusion.

Aristotle thinks space in the way as something we can not see or touch. It is a manner of understanding or a speculation (that is, something that goes beyond experience strictly speaking, or,beyond the “facts.”)

The air is empty of the form of water, thus any displacement is the relative emptiness of one form over another, void is the absence of one form in relationship to another.
The displacement of one form over another, is the inversion of one form into another given a specific position.

Actually is doesn't as all numbers are grounded in the countability of phenomena.

Then your “numbers” are not equal units. Units only exist in the mind. An abstraction from counting things. Perfect equality is intelligible, but does not exist for the senses.

Subitizing is a “fact” of experience. It’s not an axiom.

Numbers exist through the process of counting, all that is countable is forms which take the shape of loops when outlined. Numbers are inseperable from loops, as numbers are inseperable from counting. The abstraction is connected to reality by a common underlying form which determines both. Numbers are forms.

All numbers are grounded in loops.

Isn’t that an assertion added on to the phenomena? It’s like you're making a rule. All bishops move along the diagonal. You determine the world from your rule, which you put the world into.

False.

All numbers, as grounded in counting, are connected to forms whose perceivable outline is always an approximation of a loops.

Second the numbers exist recursively, thus necessitating a looping nature. For example 2 is a recursion of one, so is 3,4, etc. with the same respectively for negative numbers.

Third, all counting is a looping between subject and object where the object is inverted into another object, considering counting is seperation and summation of phenomena, through the subject.

A line exists between two 0d points.

There is something smaller than what we can see. At a certain limit we can’t measure anything. That’s the way it is in the world of experience. Your point has nothing to do with experience. It is a feature of your understanding.

The point is the mode of observation for the observer as it acts as a means of inverting one phenomena into another. For example I may see a horse, this horse is inverted t through the intrinsic emptiness of my point of view into another object, let's say a painting. The point is inherent within the nature of the observer as it is the formless space absent of thought through which we assumed (imprinted by) and project patterns. All points are means of inversion between forms, and the perspective is not seperate from this.

Second all phenomena, upon closer inspection are formed of point particles which give shape to that phenomena. Stepping back and looking at the jagged edges of a piece of glass necessitates each apex of the curve resulting in a point.

Third, all abstracts are reduced to assumptions that are inseperable from a point of view. We break down abstractions into irreducible points.

I can see how one can say: There is something small, and if it isn’t there it is absent. The absence of that small but visible thing, the corner of a table for instance, would be real. But, there the point you name is the same thing as nothing. So, it’s not a point at all.

99.99999 of physical being is formless space.

[TheVisionofEr]

For example 2 is a recursion of one, so is 3,4, etc. with the same respectively for negative numbers.

That sounds like pure mental abstraction to me. There is no difference in that and going right to five million or so forth. No relation to experience.

Third, all counting is a looping between subject and object where the object is inverted into another object, considering counting is seperation and summation of phenomena, through the subject.

Don’t know what this means.

99.99999 of physical being is formless space.

Why “formless?” What is form?

[Eodnhoj7]

For example 2 is a recursion of one, so is 3,4, etc. with the same respectively for negative numbers.

That sounds like pure mental abstraction to me. There is no difference in that and going right to five million or so forth. No relation to experience.


Recursion is the repitition of a phenomenon, inversion as the change from one state into another, and context as the summation of recursion and inversion as a self sustained loop.

1. All assumptions are contexts: (A)(B)(-A)
2. All assumptions are recursive: (A --> A)
3. All assumptions are isomorphic: (A --> A) --> (B <--> -A)
4. All assumptions are contexts: ((A-->A)-->(B<-->-A))

For example: If "A" is cat and cat directs to Dog "B", as non cat, the recurssion of variables in Dog, as cat, occurs (such as hair, teeth, 4 legs, etc.), but the Dog is not cat. So if Cat progresses to Dog, Dog and Not Cat occurs through eachother.

The same occurs numerically where 1-->2 shows the difference of 1 where if 1 is subtracted, -1, 2 reverts back to one again.

As to one and many, first there was only cat then dog occurs resulting in many contexts. 1=Cat. Many (2) = Dog and Cat.

Everytime a context progresses to another context, the new context contains elements of the old (through recursion) but the new context is not the old context and contains what the prior context is not. Thus the new context always contains an absence of the old context in one respect, due to newness of the context, while contains elements of the old at the same time.



Third, all counting is a looping between subject and object where the object is inverted into another object, considering counting is seperation and summation of phenomena, through the subject.

Don’t know what this means.

Counting is assumption of Void

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=27276



99.99999 of physical being is formless space.

Why “formless?” What is form?

Form is the opposite of formlessness, as the self negation of form. Pure form and pure formlessness are isomorphisms of eachother.

[TheVisionofEr]

Counting is assumption of Void

What does that have to do with this claim that their are points?

[Eodnhoj7]

Counting is assumption of Void

What does that have to do with this claim that their are points?

Because the point of view of the observer, as intrinsically empty, acts as a means of changing one phenomenon to another. All points of view, as assuming reality, maintain an intrinsically void nature upon which phenomenon are assumed, changed to another state, and then reprojected.

[TheVisionofEr]

What is an observer? Describe one.

[Eodnhoj7]

What is an observer? Describe one.

That which is imprinted by and projects phenomenon. Under these terms all being has some degree of awareness.

[TheVisionofEr]

So, you claim the glowing salt deposits in Uzbekistan define themselves through their so-called "awareness?"

[Eodnhoj7]

So, you claim the glowing salt deposits in Uzbekistan define themselves through their so-called "awareness?"

They are imprinted by phenomenon (winds, rain, etc.) and in turn project forms onto those phenomenon causing a change (changing the movements of the wind and rain). They would have a very low base level of awareness.

What would manifest as a higher degree of awareness would be those phenomena, which through abstractions such a memory, would be able to cause a deeper degree of change by manifesting across further dimensions (abstraction rather than strict empirical, as a higher degree of time) than other base level phenomenon.

[TheVisionofEr]

So, you claim the glowing salt deposits in Uzbekistan define themselves through their so-called "awareness?"

They are imprinted by phenomenon (winds, rain, etc.) and in turn project forms onto those phenomenon causing a change (changing the movements of the wind and rain). They would have a very low base level of awareness.

What would manifest as a higher degree of awareness would be those phenomena, which through abstractions such a memory, would be able to cause a deeper degree of change by manifesting across further dimensions (abstraction rather than strict empirical, as a higher degree of time) than other base level phenomenon.

What does "imprinted" mean?

[Eodnhoj7]

So, you claim the glowing salt deposits in Uzbekistan define themselves through their so-called "awareness?"

They are imprinted by phenomenon (winds, rain, etc.) and in turn project forms onto those phenomenon causing a change (changing the movements of the wind and rain). They would have a very low base level of awareness.

What would manifest as a higher degree of awareness would be those phenomena, which through abstractions such a memory, would be able to cause a deeper degree of change by manifesting across further dimensions (abstraction rather than strict empirical, as a higher degree of time) than other base level phenomenon.

What does "imprinted" mean?

To recieve a form and become it.