On the contrary, I have thought about it and that is exactly why I made the remarks I did about the the strictly provisional and cautious nature of any truth claims in science. In fact, it has been my experience that science generally avoids speaking about "truth". It talks about models, it talks about observations being "consistent with" theory, but it tends not to make any claims to truth as such.
I note that your overall tone seems to be one of regarding everyone but yourself as an idiot. This is generally a sign of someone who is unbalanced. I am prepared to engage in discussion with you, but would be grateful if you could try to be a little less dismissive of my attempts to grapple with whatever it is you are trying to say.
Opinions on the fundamental nature of reality.
Posted 28 September 2016 - 08:53 AM
Posted 18 October 2017 - 11:29 AM
I should probably make this my name considering I repeat this point so much: "All existence is rooted and ends in space/spatial properties".
In this respect, the mathematical equation you present (under an assumption it is correct for the sake of simplicity and argument) is rooted in "space" itself for abstraction is strictly space which does not flux, while physical space fluxes.
Numbers must be rooted in spatial qualities in the respect all reality is rooted in space. In this respect 1 would be equivalent to the "point" as both are "unified as a symmetrical whole by the act of being a center". I believe with your emphasis on the "geometry" of the problem, if I read you correctly, is the right way to go considering all reality is "space".
All number, being rooting in 1, is strictly an observation of a point consisting of 1 as a point. 1 and the point are synonymous, and in this respect 1 is a spatial property.
This point reflecting upon itself, as an act of stability, manifests further points as approximate structures (2,3,4,etc.) unto infinity. Infinity, being unity as a stable whole, in turn cycles back as "1 point". In these respects all equations are strictly the observation of geometric properties within existence (curvature, movement, etc.) as they are one and the same. This should not be considered a surprise considering all mathematical equations, in theory and so far in practice, have corresponding physical structures they describe.
In this respect, considering all reality is formed from space, what came first the "abstract equation" (as a geometric form) or the "physical entity". Considering the equation is stable (as 2 + 2 = 4 will always be 2 + 2 = 4) the physical reality is strictly just a fluxing approximate of it.
This nature of space as stable fundamentally equates to etherial space and in this space all "forms" lie in it. This etherial space would be constituted as the "point", a geometric space which forms all abstract and physical realities. In reflecting upon itself as an act of self-maintaining symmetry, it allowed fluxing space to exist as an approximate reflective structure of itself.
The greek "apieron" or "fluxing" space / chaos would be the space with which matter resides as an unstable element. In this respect of "fluxing" space we see the natures of "multiplication/division" become embodied through the propagation of materials (both organic and in organic) as they cycle through eachother as "particulate". These particulate, as gradations of a whole, exist if and only if they continue "relating" through "movement".
So we can observe ethereal space as reflective stability and apeironic space as relational flux. These dual aspects of space, much like an immovable object meeting an unstoppable force, synthesize a form of neutral medial space as +- from which all these spaces extend form. In this case space manifests in a form of 3 in 1 and 1 in 3.
So your equations emphasis on "spin", "circulation", "circles" (if I understand what you wrote correctly, as I cannot pull up the equation) is an emphasis to a degree on the universal nature of space manifesting itself through the act of "centering". In this respect, the point/circle/sphere are the constructs which form the elements of reality with
1) The point as reflective ethereal space providing stability
2) The circle as a two dimensional version of the ethereal point manifesting flux.
3) The sphere as the synthesis of the 1 dimensional point (ether) and 2 dimensional circle (aperion) manifesting the 3 dimensional sphere as the universal nature of how reality is observed as a median between stability and chaos. This median neutrality forms the axiom (or self-evidence) as the median through which reality exists.
Edited by eodnhoj7, 18 October 2017 - 11:33 AM.
Posted 29 January 2018 - 01:53 PM
eodnhoj7 makes it quite clear that he comprehends not a single thing I have said!!!!!!!!!!!!