Philosophy Now Forum

Numbers are the quantification of forms, they are inseperable from forms.

The most basic form is the loop given all phenomena, as traceable, end at the same point they begin.

These forms are the grounding of reason as reason is the manipulation (change) of forms. The change of one form to another form is reason. Reason and form are inseperable thus necessitating all phenomenon as having a rational (conscious) base behind them.

The forms behind human awareness direct human awareness as human awareness is grounded in form. Form acts as the point of change from one form to another, or rather one change to another change.

As modes of change where a form is first unobserved then observed, which is what a change in observation is: first something is unobserved then observed, numbers as forms (through the universal loop which exists through all forms) exist independent of human awareness.

Eodnhoj7, are you using a buzz-phrase generator?

homo mensura - Protagoras

-Imp

I think you have got it wrong way around:

Numbers are the quantification of forms, they are inseperable from forms.

The most basic form is the loop given all phenomena, as traceable, end at the same point they begin.

These forms are the grounding of reason as reason is the manipulation (change) of forms. The change of one form to another form is reason. Reason and form are inseperable thus necessitating all phenomenon as having a rational (conscious) base behind them.

The forms behind human awareness direct human awareness as human awareness is grounded in form. Form acts as the point of change from one form to another, or rather one change to another change.

As modes of change where a form is first unobserved then observed, which is what a change in observation is: first something is unobserved then observed, numbers as forms (through the universal loop which exists through all forms) exist independent of human awareness.

I think you probably meant to say that the phenomenon (singular, not plural, your first error) is a form traceable as a point of change in human awareness, working from a beginning point, inseparable from forms; with manipulation as a mode of change, dependent upon human awareness obviously, to the extent that this is a phenomenon dependent upon grounding in a universal form. Have I got that right?

alan1000 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 24, 2022 4:18 pm I think you have got it wrong way around:

Numbers are the quantification of forms, they are inseperable from forms.

The most basic form is the loop given all phenomena, as traceable, end at the same point they begin.

These forms are the grounding of reason as reason is the manipulation (change) of forms. The change of one form to another form is reason. Reason and form are inseperable thus necessitating all phenomenon as having a rational (conscious) base behind them.

The forms behind human awareness direct human awareness as human awareness is grounded in form. Form acts as the point of change from one form to another, or rather one change to another change.

As modes of change where a form is first unobserved then observed, which is what a change in observation is: first something is unobserved then observed, numbers as forms (through the universal loop which exists through all forms) exist independent of human awareness.

I think you probably meant to say that the phenomenon (singular, not plural, your first error) is a form traceable as a point of change in human awareness, working from a beginning point, inseparable from forms; with manipulation as a mode of change, dependent upon human awareness obviously, to the extent that this is a phenomenon dependent upon grounding in a universal form. Have I got that right?

1. A phenomenon is observed.
2. This phenomenon is a form.
3. The observation of said phenomenon is the repetition of said phenomenon (ie the phenomenon imprints itself on the observer).
4. This repetition is a form as it circular.
5. Human awareness occurs through forms as in the form is the context through which human awareness occurs.
6. Human awareness is aware of human awareness continually thus necessitating a form (the loop of human awareness) existing beyond human awareness (ie the continuity of awareness of awareness necessitates a form beyond it as one is not fully aware of awareness due to an infinite regress resulting in indefiniteness.)

This obviously leads into a loop, within which each observed phenomenon becomes a form, and each observed form becomes a phenomenon in its own right, which leads to a further form. As you rightly observe, this leads to an infinite regress. Butwe cannot see to the end of it because we do not have an infinity of time to pursue the enquiry. What remedy do we have?

If they are independent of human awareness then Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent

Since you are not silent then it is likely you are wrong about this.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 7:37 pm Numbers are the quantification of forms, they are inseperable from forms.

The most basic form is the loop given all phenomena, as traceable, end at the same point they begin.

These forms are the grounding of reason as reason is the manipulation (change) of forms. The change of one form to another form is reason. Reason and form are inseperable thus necessitating all phenomenon as having a rational (conscious) base behind them.

The forms behind human awareness direct human awareness as human awareness is grounded in form. Form acts as the point of change from one form to another, or rather one change to another change.

As modes of change where a form is first unobserved then observed, which is what a change in observation is: first something is unobserved then observed, numbers as forms (through the universal loop which exists through all forms) exist independent of human awareness.

You've got some wild postings, hombre.

A further qualification, discrimination, which is isolation within a context, which is clarification as a principle, is the relationship of form to form, of frequency resonating according to the natural ordering principle of the universe, which is perceived amongst the chaos, of patterns of vibration that mathematically resonate according to the natural, innate sense of order that mirror’s God’s creation and reifies the universe. Once individuality gets burned away by the brilliance of the absolute, all that remains is the inevitability of natural physical laws, some of which hoomans can perceive and ride to physical, survival for-the-species advantage. However, the nature of advantage is far more complex than any particular ego can encompass, given the limitations of form as compared to the abstract of existence. Sometimes advantage passes silently and unseen.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 5:33 pm If they are independent of human awareness then Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent

Since you are not silent then it is likely you are wrong about this.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" is to speak about what one cannot speak about.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 9:25 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 5:33 pm If they are independent of human awareness then Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent

Since you are not silent then it is likely you are wrong about this.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" is to speak about what one cannot speak about.

Exactly, yet you try to do it whilst pretending that you cannot.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:46 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 9:25 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 5:33 pm If they are independent of human awareness then Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent

Since you are not silent then it is likely you are wrong about this.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" is to speak about what one cannot speak about.

Exactly, yet you try to do it whilst pretending that you cannot.

Your absence of silence is hypocritical....that and the statement "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" is a self-contradiction, which is fine with me because my premises are in contradictions but not for you.

This leads to a question for you:

"What is not a contradiction?"

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:59 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:46 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 9:25 pm

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" is to speak about what one cannot speak about.

Exactly, yet you try to do it whilst pretending that you cannot.

Your absence of silence is hypocritical....that and the statement "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" is a self-contradiction, which is fine with me because my premises are in contradictions but not for you.

This leads to a question for you:

"What is not a contradiction?"

You are confused.
One minute my silence is hypocritical then my absence of silence is hypocritical - make up your mind!
I always speak whereof I may. It's just that you have lost contact with reality as your posts clearly show.

It's all a unique perception. There is not "human awareness" like if it is diferent from something else. All is percepction, always.

And there are forms. That's all. The "numbers" are the abstractions we create in ours minds to generate the understand of an universal movements of forms.

We see form A, and B, and C, and D, and we diference that from AA, BBBBBB, CCC, or DDDDDDDDDD. That diference we call "one" and "many".

Then we understand the "two" and the "three".

But always is just forms that we observe and compare.

So... when we think about the origin of the universe, the first form, the first movement, we must know that in that moment is where the "logic" or "racionality" begins.

We cannot think the first movement and say for example that "is irracional to become from nothing".

Why? if the racional begins in the first form, not before...

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:33 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:59 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:46 pm
Exactly, yet you try to do it whilst pretending that you cannot.

Your absence of silence is hypocritical....that and the statement "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" is a self-contradiction, which is fine with me because my premises are in contradictions but not for you.

This leads to a question for you:

"What is not a contradiction?"

You are confused.
One minute my silence is hypocritical then my absence of silence is hypocritical - make up your mind!
I always speak whereof I may. It's just that you have lost contact with reality as your posts clearly show.

It is both hypocritical and not-hypocritical as it, that is your absence of silence, is relative to context. This "both" should come as no surprise to you as my previous posts takes a "both/and" approach when observing what seems to be an opposition.

And again:

"What is not a contradiction?"

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 7:37 pm Numbers are the quantification of forms, they are inseperable from forms.

There is the following problem with this view.

Finite set theory and arithmetic theory are bi-interpretable. You can find this result elaborated in detail in "On Interpretations of arithmetic and set theory", by Kaye and Wong, 2007.

Hence, numbers may quantity forms, but so do sets.

Everything you can express with numbers, you can also express with sets. Therefore, numbers are perfectly separable from forms because you can completely replace numbers by sets.

The theory chosen is therefore more like a query definition on the database of forms.

Depending on what query you choose, the query results, consisting of theorems about the forms, will be expressed as numbers, sets, functions, combinators, types, or any other object type that can been constructed from the theory that you have chosen.

In other words, we do not know what the forms truly look like, because we always deal with them through the lens of a theory which in turn chooses what shape it will give to these forms.

Hence, these unknown forms may be fundamental but numbers are just one interchangeable representation for them.