Infinity as Change

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=502690 time=1615911322 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502687 time=1615910784 user_id=15238]
A:; nothing to do with infinity
[/quote]
Except for the fact that there's infinitely many lines in any finite one?
[/quote]

There are not. After you get to the molecular level, for instance, all the lineyness goes away. If you mean two-dimensional line, you're already in fantasy territory. No two-dimensional things exist in reality, only in concept.

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=502693 time=1615911444 user_id=14533]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502672 time=1615899183 user_id=15238]
“An example of this would be one line as longer than another with both lines being composed of infinite line.”

An imaginary line is longer than another imaginary line... riiiiiight.
[/quote]

The line is found in any distance between point A and point B.
[/quote]

That's a Potential line that only actually exists internally if you imagine it and externally if you draw it. There are no a priori things.

[Eodnhoj7]

“An example of this would be one line as longer than another with both lines being composed of infinite line.”

An imaginary line is longer than another imaginary line... riiiiiight.

The line is found in any distance between point A and point B.

That's a Potential line that only actually exists internally if you imagine it and externally if you draw it. There are no a priori things.

False, it is any distance between points and the point is a priori given the point is the emptiness through which we assume a phenomenon. All observation begins with a point and the division of observation is the division of points. The distance between points are that which are observed and this observation results in the line. The line is inseperable from observation as it is what forms observation. In observing the distance between points we automatically form a line. The line exists before the senses as it is the relationship between points and the point exists prior to the senses. This occurs for concepts as well given the progression from one concept to another is linear.

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=502766 time=1615923301 user_id=14533]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502701 time=1615912983 user_id=15238]
[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=502693 time=1615911444 user_id=14533]


The line is found in any distance between point A and point B.
[/quote]

That's a Potential line that only actually exists internally if you imagine it and externally if you draw it. There are no a priori things.
[/quote]

False, it is any distance between points and the point is a priori given the point is the emptiness through which we assume a phenomenon. All observation begins with a point and the division of observation is the division of points. The distance between points are that which are observed and this observation results in the line. The line is inseperable from observation as it is what forms observation. In observing the distance between points we automatically form a line. The line exists before the senses as it is the relationship between points and the point exists prior to the senses. This occurs for concepts as well given the progression from one concept to another is linear.
[/quote]

Nope. That's not how that works. The relationships between things cannot exist except that the things themselves first exist, and to create a thing you need boundaries to distinguish it from other things, and where those boundaries are drawn is Entirely according to purpose. None of this exists outside a mind, despite that things sometimes also have an external correlate.

[Eodnhoj7]

That's a Potential line that only actually exists internally if you imagine it and externally if you draw it. There are no a priori things.

False, it is any distance between points and the point is a priori given the point is the emptiness through which we assume a phenomenon. All observation begins with a point and the division of observation is the division of points. The distance between points are that which are observed and this observation results in the line. The line is inseperable from observation as it is what forms observation. In observing the distance between points we automatically form a line. The line exists before the senses as it is the relationship between points and the point exists prior to the senses. This occurs for concepts as well given the progression from one concept to another is linear.

Nope. That's not how that works. The relationships between things cannot exist except that the things themselves first exist, and to create a thing you need boundaries to distinguish it from other things, and where those boundaries are drawn is Entirely according to purpose. None of this exists outside a mind, despite that things sometimes also have an external correlate.

No.

It exists outside the human awareness if the universe is self aware, the totality of the universe observing itself cannot be fully observed through the human mind.

The division of points results in the forms, all forms are a reflection of the singular point from which all is derived. The point is the divine mind given all patterns which are assumed do so through the emptiness of the point of awareness. The forms imprint themselves upon the empty point and then change to further forms with the change of forms being the change of connected points. The point results in further points and then reverts back to the point.

This point, from which all is derived, acts as the means of change from one phenomenon to another. This point, while existing through the human mind, exists beyond the mind and cannot be observed in its entirety therefore making it as a thing in itself.

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=502771 time=1615928898 user_id=14533]
<word salad>
[/quote]

[Eodnhoj7]

<word salad>

Projection on your part;

Again:

"It exists outside the human awareness if the universe is self aware, the totality of the universe observing itself cannot be fully observed through the human mind."

[Ferdi]

While I like the label of "word salad", the label of "infinity" cannot apply to lines because a line has essentially a starting point and a finishing point. May be that infinite lines occur in word salads.
More to this site's subject: you two, Advocate and Eodnhoj7, have ignored the infinitely-small concept of the Universe in which we live. The Swiss hadron collider has been spending a lot of effort on it.

[Skepdick]

There are not. After you get to the molecular level, for instance, all the lineyness goes away. If you mean two-dimensional line, you're already in fantasy territory. No two-dimensional things exist in reality, only in concept.

Dimensions don't exist i reality, only in concept.
Existence doesn't exist in reality, only in concept.
Reality doesn't exist in reality, only on concept.
Concepts don't exist in reality, only in concepts.

A priori/a posteriori is in relation to time. Time doesn't exist in reality, only in concepts.

You are using all those concepts a priori.

I don't mean "line" in the two-dimensional sense. I mean "line" and "dimension" in the topological sense. Whatever the topology between the two points.
After you get below the molecular, atomic, and sub-atomic level, for instance, all you have is fields.

There's a line between you and me. The communication channel we are using.

[Ferdi]

There are not. After you get to the molecular level, for instance, all the lineyness goes away. If you mean two-dimensional line, you're already in fantasy territory. No two-dimensional things exist in reality, only in concept.

Dimensions don't exist i reality, only in concept.
Existence doesn't exist in reality, only in concept.
Reality doesn't exist in reality, only on concept.
Concepts don't exist in reality, only in concepts.

A priori/a posteriori is in relation to time. Time doesn't exist in reality, only in concepts.

You are using all those concepts a priori.

I don't mean "line" in the two-dimensional sense. I mean "line" and "dimension" in the topological sense. Whatever the topology between the two points.
After you get below the molecular, atomic, and sub-atomic level, for instance, all you have is fields.

There's a line between you and me. The communication channel we are using.

One can-not put dimensions, existence, reality and concepts in a box but one can use such concepts, like time and infinity in discussions.
The communication channel we are using is a wave-length along which a signal is transmitted aimed at your aerial, specifically for your receiver.
At sub-atomic level, gravity, polarity, magnetism, light and who knows what are in action.
This site concerns infinity, which usually ignores infinitely small. I suggest that LIFE comes from there and returns to there, the dimensionless Universe in which we live.
The instant, timeless point of self-reckoning is at the instant of death.

[Skepdick]

One can-not put dimensions, existence, reality and concepts in a box but one can use such concepts, like time and infinity in discussions.
The communication channel we are using is a wave-length along which a signal is transmitted aimed at your aerial, specifically for your receiver.

That's rather ironic.

You are telling me that I can't use "dimensions", "time" and "infinity" in a box even though we have some reasonable understanding of all those concepts in terms of a bunch of formal models.

But then you appeal to Shannon's Information theory and a formal model of "communication channels", "receivers" and "transmitters".

[Ferdi]

One can-not put dimensions, existence, reality and concepts in a box but one can use such concepts, like time and infinity in discussions.
The communication channel we are using is a wave-length along which a signal is transmitted aimed at your aerial, specifically for your receiver.

That's rather ironic.

You are telling me that I can't use "dimensions", "time" and "infinity" in a box even though we have some reasonable understanding of all those concepts in terms of a bunch of formal models.

But then you appeal to Shannon's Information theory and a formal model of "communication channels", "receivers" and "transmitters".

You have a free will to fill your box, of whatever dimensions, with time and infinity. Please enlighten me about such purpose. I have not met your Shannon's Info theory. I feel that it does not appeal to me. Don't bother to enlighten me on that one.

[Skepdick]

Please enlighten me about such purpose. I have not met your Shannon's Info theory. I feel that it does not appeal to me. Don't bother to enlighten me on that one.

You may not be aware of it, but you are using the terms "communication channel", "transmitter" and "receiver".

It may strike you as a rather strange coincidence that "your very own concepts" appear on a Wikipedia page called A Mathematical Theory of Communication

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=502793 time=1615956692 user_id=17350]
Dimensions don't exist i reality, only in concept.
Existence doesn't exist in reality, only in concept.
Reality doesn't exist in reality, only on concept.
Concepts don't exist in reality, only in concepts.

A priori/a posteriori is in relation to time. Time doesn't exist in reality, only in concepts.

You are using all those concepts a priori.

I don't mean "line" in the two-dimensional sense. I mean "line" and "dimension" in the topological sense. Whatever the topology between the two points.
After you get below the molecular, atomic, and sub-atomic level, for instance, all you have is fields.

There's a line between you and me. The communication channel we are using.
[/quote]

Everything exists as concept. All things have a neutral correlate that exists in physical reality but when we say something is real that's not what is meant. Some things also exist in consensus reality, the world outside of brains and minds. 2D lines cannot exist in that part of reality.

A dimension is any scale upon which something can be measured. Leftness/rightness is not metaphysically distinct from amount of favourite colourness. any chart with an axis shows a dimension, regardless of the spacial correlation.

"Existence doesn't exist in reality..." You know this is why it's impossible to care about you, right? I was trying to give you a serious answer and then BAM!, straight into a wall of bullshit. Even your name is an ego problem that really needs to be fixed. Being a dick means you're less than human, regressive, intentionally impedimentary. Stop it, child.

[Skepdick]

Everything exists as concept. All things have a neutral correlate that exists in physical reality but when we say something is real that's not what is meant.

You don't get to prescribe what "is meant" by another person's use of language?

Some things also exist in consensus reality, the world outside of brains and minds. 2D lines cannot exist in that part of reality.

That's one way to conceptualise it! There are others. I keep asking, and you keep not telling me.

WHY are you CHOOSING to conceptualise it that way and not another way?

A dimension is any scale upon which something can be measured.

You don't even know what "measurement" is. Try measure theory.

Leftness/rightness is not metaphysically distinct from amount of favourite colourness. any chart with an axis shows a dimension, regardless of the spacial correlation.

This doesn't mean anything devoid of context. Such as the context of WHY are you saying it?

"Existence doesn't exist in reality..." You know this is why it's impossible to care about you, right?

I don't want you to care about me. I want you to tell me why anybody should care about you!

You keep saying shit. WHY? Do you even know?

I was trying to give you a serious answer and then BAM!, straight into a wall of bullshit.

Then answer the serious question. WHY are you doing what it is that you are doing.

Even your name is an ego problem that really needs to be fixed. Being a dick means you're less than human, regressive, intentionally impedimentary. Stop it, child.

Child, when you figure out how the principle of charity works and how to apply it, you might figure out that the only one impeding you and regressing here is you. What is standing in the way of your progress is precisely your ego!

You keep preaching actionable certainty, but then you get stuck in the mud wanting to talk about the ideas. WHY? Talking doesn't lead to anything actionable. It leads into the Philosophical rabbit hole. Are you going down into the hole, or coming up?

The way you "solve" Philosophy is by rejecting it.