Imagination as a Negative Dimension

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on June 15th, 2018, 1:52 pm 

Why say “imagination” instead of “consciousness” or “ideation”?

How can we talk of phenomenon in terms of quality and quantity. Negative dimension?

Again, to me this says not a great deal more than “Kant cleverly pointed out an unknowable distinction and the easy error of assuming noumenon as positive experience.”

I know this already.

Husserl, like it or not, did found the philosophical movement of phenomenology. It says so in every philosophical eference you care to look at. What is more he gave more than a hint or two that he set out to deal with the impossibke task of formulating a subjective science in order to bolster objective science.

I have already said my view of phenomenon is what it is. I know it is used to refer to general experience/s, but for me that is no longer the case. I am not about to destroy my entire cosmological view, because doing so would likley result in immediate dislocation and a swift demise ... not an appealing path, sorry.

I am happy enough to take a glimpse into the abyss, but I sure as hell ain’t about to willingly jump head first into it.

To say there is a “dichotomy” necause you perceive as such is likely problem, not mine and certainly not Husserl’s.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5344
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on June 15th, 2018, 1:58 pm 

“Possiblistic”? The possible as absense of limit?

Again, why not use more familiar terms set down by Husserl, and many others. Say “infinite” and “finite”?

Note: thanks for finally finding the quote button.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5344
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on June 16th, 2018, 11:30 am 

BadgerJelly » June 15th, 2018, 1:52 pm wrote:Why say “imagination” instead of “consciousness” or “ideation”?

How can we talk of phenomenon in terms of quality and quantity. Negative dimension?

Again, to me this says not a great deal more than “Kant cleverly pointed out an unknowable distinction and the easy error of assuming noumenon as positive experience.”

I know this already.

Husserl, like it or not, did found the philosophical movement of phenomenology. It says so in every philosophical eference you care to look at. What is more he gave more than a hint or two that he set out to deal with the impossibke task of formulating a subjective science in order to bolster objective science.

I have already said my view of phenomenon is what it is. I know it is used to refer to general experience/s, but for me that is no longer the case. I am not about to destroy my entire cosmological view, because doing so would likley result in immediate dislocation and a swift demise ... not an appealing path, sorry.

I am happy enough to take a glimpse into the abyss, but I sure as hell ain’t about to willingly jump head first into it.

To say there is a “dichotomy” necause you perceive as such is likely problem, not mine and certainly not Husserl’s.


Why say “imagination” instead of “consciousness” or “ideation”?


Because "imagination" as an "imaging process" observes possible and potential phenomenon, which while phenomenon in themselves, are of a negative nature in the respect they do not exist fully through empirical phenomenon.

Imagination is an extension of consciousness and the idea, which synthesizes them into existence through a form of alternation between them. However consciousness, and ideation as the manifestation of the idea, maintain a positive nature in the respect they exist as actual phenomenon.

Imagination as possibilistic/potential observes an approximation of a unified reality by applying negative barriers which take the "incomprehensible" unity of existence and turning it into units or forms. For example. If I cannot observe the totality of "x", I apply certain forms (which exists as limits) such as "y" and "z" as images in order to observe a connection with "x".

These negative barriers are not things in themselves but rather approximations, or deficiencies, in "x" that exist if and only if "x" exists. For further example, I cannot observe a unified point in itself...I can only observe it through the limit of the line and even so it observes multiple points...but points nonetheless. This line acts as a negative barrier in the respect it observes the points as connected into one, but paradoxically results in their multiplicity...so an approximation of unity is observed.

The line is not a thing in and of itself, in these respects, but rather an observation of extension between points and in these respects maintains this same negative nature considering, in this example, we are observing the source of origin as the point through points.

The same applies to further phenomenon.


How can we talk of phenomenon in terms of quality and quantity. Negative dimension?


"Quantity" and "Quality" as measurements are phenomenon in themselves, and considering phenomeonology studies phenomenon through phenomenon (in a similar manner to its prerequisite of metaphysics), quantity and quality by default as phenomenon must manifest through themselves and eachother. In these respects there natures and their corresponding relations must be observed.



Again, to me this says not a great deal more than “Kant cleverly pointed out an unknowable distinction and the easy error of assuming noumenon as positive experience.”


Kant never observed the link in quantity or quality. Considering the imagination exists as thing in itself it maintains a dual positive nature and in these respects is inherently "neutral" as "both/and". While the imagination is dependent upon "possibility" as "no-limit", this "no-limit" as the negation of limit is still dependent upon limit itself. So while I may imagine a unicorn, it is still dependent upon the empirical limits of the horse/horn/etc. The negation of the no limit, or that which is possible, results in that which is actual. Considering no-limit, as possibility, must inherently exist through itself if left on its own terms it inevitably must negate itself and result in a limit.

Kant is wrong in these respects...but he was wrong about alot.

What is "unknowable" places a limit on what is knowable in the respect that a negative is merely a limit of a positive through which the positive exists as a thing in itself. This self-negation observes "unknowingness" as a negative boundary which approximates what is knowable.


Husserl, like it or not, did found the philosophical movement of phenomenology. It says so in every philosophical eference you care to look at. What is more he gave more than a hint or two that he set out to deal with the impossibke task of formulating a subjective science in order to bolster objective science.


Husserl however did not found the term "phenomenon" from which he derived the term "phenomenology", nor the necessary and inherent "reflective capacity" of phenomenology which extends from metaphysics as "being que being"...phenomenology is merely an approximation and extension of metaphysics in these respects and inevitably must cycle back to it. A "subjective" science (that which is objective" is equivalent to saying a "subjective-objective" truth which is equivalent to an axiom. Husserl attempted to from a system of axiomization when axiomization has already existed through metaphysics.

To form a subjective science would in effect be a form of objectifying the subjective.


I have already said my view of phenomenon is what it is. I know it is used to refer to general experience/s, but for me that is no longer the case. I am not about to destroy my entire cosmological view, because doing so would likley result in immediate dislocation and a swift demise ... not an appealing path, sorry.

I am happy enough to take a glimpse into the abyss, but I sure as hell ain’t about to willingly jump head first into it.

To say there is a “dichotomy” necause you perceive as such is likely problem, not mine and certainly not Husserl’s.


Your subjective view and an objective view of phenomenon are not always the same thing and if any unity is to be maintain this subjective science would have to be founded in universal axioms which inevitably result in limit and no-limit under spatial phenomenon such as the line.

Quoting phenomenology is true, because of Husserl, is a fallacy of authority and in itself is illogical.

On a personal note if you want to know what the "metaphorical abyss" is like: It is dark and it seers you inside and out with an intense burning that is hot and cold while being neither....that is all there is to it...that is it...nothing to be afraid of...just pain. You won't end because the abyss cannot be observed unless someone/something can observe it...in these respects it is not the be all end all Neitzche proclaimed.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on June 16th, 2018, 11:34 am 

BadgerJelly » June 15th, 2018, 1:58 pm wrote:“Possiblistic”? The possible as absense of limit?

Again, why not use more familiar terms set down by Husserl, and many others. Say “infinite” and “finite”?

Note: thanks for finally finding the quote button.


Because anaximander, hericlitus, parmenides...the pre-socratics in general beat him to it. Why could he not use pre-socratic terms?

On a personal note Anaximander and Parmenides are far more interesting, deep, and simpler than Husserl and Heidegger...then also have much more room for potential expansion and provide a better measurement point in regards to the question of origin and essence.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on June 16th, 2018, 12:16 pm 

I’ll say it again.

Either you’ve made a huge error (you’ve certainly made some in your presumptions of what I’ve been tryign to say) or this is so far over my head I cannot understand it. I go with the former btw.

This is a one-way conversation you’re having. I am sorry I cannot offer up an argument because I don’t understand what you’re saying and you seem incapable of making it clearer preferring evasion and word play.

Good luck.

Note: a read th first 3 lines of the reply and gave up trying.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5344
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on June 16th, 2018, 12:22 pm 

BadgerJelly » June 16th, 2018, 12:16 pm wrote:I’ll say it again.

Either you’ve made a huge error (you’ve certainly made some in your presumptions of what I’ve been tryign to say) or this is so far over my head I cannot understand it. I go with the former btw.

This is a one-way conversation you’re having. I am sorry I cannot offer up an argument because I don’t understand what you’re saying and you seem incapable of making it clearer preferring evasion and word play.

Good luck.

Note: a read th first 3 lines of the reply and gave up trying.



I'll make it simple: Kant, Husserl and Heidegger are wrong. The best approach would be to go back to the pre-socratic foundations of "limit" and "no-limit" as the foundation of phenomenon and extend from them.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Reg_Prescott on June 16th, 2018, 1:00 pm 

After we figure out these negative dimensions, can we cover posi...

Oops, I mean peace on Earth and goodwill to all unintelligible postmodernists with IQs of 161?
Reg_Prescott
Member
 
Posts: 244
Joined: 10 May 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Braininvat on June 16th, 2018, 5:21 pm 

MOD NOTE

Causes of thread lock (temp) and member banning (also temporary) discussed in Feedback thread.

Posts must follow forum guidelines on use of citations, prior art, intelligible terminology, and our rules for civil discourse.

Some off-topic postings may be removed, at moderator's discretion.

If anyone has actual constructive comments to render this thread more intelligible and focused on the topic ( whatever that is) you are free, as of right now, to post here or, more broadly, in feedback forum.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6697
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby dandelion on June 18th, 2018, 12:20 pm 

I don’t know but wonder if maybe some mathematical terms used in the description of views in this thread may be used to describe visualisations, like at the beginning where I enquired about negative numbers, and if so it may be less confusing if these were translated further as well into wider, more relatable language with stories such as possible applications and analogies. For example, I might be able to understand more about dimensions thorough greater descriptions of them and the roles they play.

Regarding limitlessness, as well as change as mentioned in another thread, I think that is reference to Anaximander’s fragment. How do the views expressed here align with translations of this, and is any translation closer to views expressed here than others and how so? E.g., I like a fragment of an English translation of Heidegger’s translation I’ve seen, Rapaport, 1991, including “along the lines of usage; for they let order and thereby also reck belong to one another (in the surmounting of disorder).” Heidegger’s translation has been described as executed with awareness of some extent of polyvalence and unreliability, and also it is said to be translated with some attempt to be less bound by metaphysics of Aristotle or Plato. I like the emphasis on notions about order for reasons such as relevance in a story with rather changing, circuitous retellings. Addressing problems with change and avoiding dichotic extremes, it might be possible to consider the text of the fragment as, although not original, rather unchanged for millennia, or in interpretations, changing considerably. Are notions like this consistent with any of the op’s views?
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 373
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on June 18th, 2018, 12:40 pm 

Dand -

I just hope when Eod returns he’ll start a fresh thread and address his views piecemeal whilst engaging in other topics.

I get the very strong impression that he is trying to deal with something that is extremely difficult to grasp conceptually. I know there I things I’d like to say sometimes that seem so bloody convoluted and diluted that I haev to be honest with myself and simply say “I’m still unsure about all of this, but I have a strong inclination to believe X even though I have yet to articulate it. That said, I am still open to the possibility of being misled.”

If we’re never brave enough to say something that is possibly unintelligible or outright barbarous then why the hell bother saying anything at all?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5344
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on June 20th, 2018, 2:26 pm 

BadgerJelly » June 18th, 2018, 12:40 pm wrote:Dand -

I just hope when Eod returns he’ll start a fresh thread and address his views piecemeal whilst engaging in other topics.

I have a bunch of other threads which have not been addressed so I will work them in here. If allowed, I will post a 17 point argument on the nature of "Locality (limit) as relativistic change" in the personal theories section later.

I get the very strong impression that he is trying to deal with something that is extremely difficult to grasp conceptually. I know there I things I’d like to say sometimes that seem so bloody convoluted and diluted that I haev to be honest with myself and simply say “I’m still unsure about all of this, but I have a strong inclination to believe X even though I have yet to articulate it. That said, I am still open to the possibility of being misled.”

If we’re never brave enough to say something that is possibly unintelligible or outright barbarous then why the hell bother saying anything at all?


You mean like Kant is unintelligible and barbarous?

Hello again.

I will break this down into points, along with some premises they may not have been address that may alleviate some of the confusion while starting a new chain of arguments to refresh the old.

1) Consciousness and all phenomenon cannot be seperated as both are premised in "limit" and "no-limit".

2) A limit, which can be viewed synonymous with a "boundary" or "barrier", provides the foundation for all phenomenon. Phenomenon are realities which exist abstractly, through rational faculties such as the mind, and empirical, through rational physical faculties such as the senses of sight, hearing, etc. Hence all phenomenon are composed of limits and exist in themselves as limits.

a) We can observe such boundaries abstractly such as set of lines forming an angle, with the angle existing as a boundary in itself (through the lines) through other angles to form a square, which in turn forms a further geometric shape.

b) We can observe such boundaries empirically such as one color relative to another color, through the sight, in a painting.


3) The limit as a foundation for all phenomenon, when viewed as 1 quantitatively or unified qualititatively, exists through a 1 dimensional point. This 1 dimensional point observes everything existing as 1 infinitely without limit. So if we are to take all phenomenon, every thought or empirical sensation (since the two are intertwined) and summated them into 1 total existing reality this would exist (to rehash the prior sentence) as:

a) Without seperation.
b) It must be infinite as
c) It must be unified with this unity containing all phenomenon.
d) This unity as totality necessitates no other unity and any other "relative" unity is a form of seperation.
e) Considering no seperation can occurs, and only the unified 1d point exists, it must be constant hence infinite because of this lack of seperation. Seperation is conducive to finiteness as the relation of units, and the negation of this seperation as finiteness results in the infinite.


4) A paradox occurs with the 1d point in the respect it is both limit and no-limit. The point, existing through itself as itself, is "limit" in the respect it is directed toward itself. This movement exists if and only if it is directed, hence direction is the limit through which movement exists and movement is limit as direction. Direction and Movement, exist through eachother as eachother as limit.

Any percieved seperation of these phenomenon is an approximation of 1 by observing 3 relations which cycle through eachother.

However this limit exists if and only if sub-points A,B,C,D and E are observed in Point 3. In these respects limit exists through its own negation which results in further limit. This self negation of limit, as the negation of finiteness conductive to seperation and relative units, observes an inherent nature of unity and infinity within the limit itself.

Hence the 1d point, from which all phenomenon extend, is limit without limit and maintains this pardox as infinite self-direction conducive to an absence of form resulting in a "point". The point in itself has no form, however maintains itself as a limit if and only if it is directed.

However considering the point is infinite in directions as 1 intradimensional entity it maintains its nature of no limit while dually existing as a limit in itself as quantitative 1 qualitative unity and infinity as the constant non-seperate nature of everything.

5) Because of its unity the 1d point cannot be observed except theoretically considering any percieved multiplicity is an approximation of it. This approximate understanding of a unified reality is conducive to observing change as the relation of parts. This approximation of the 1d point (everything), is in itself a limit to this phenemenon as randomness conducive to a deficiency.

6) Multiplicity stemming from randomness as approximation is the limit of unity as a negative boundary. It is not a thing in itself, considering only the 1d point exists, but rather a limit of the point. This negative boundary, as not a thing in itself, is rather an observation of connection.

So where a square (and all geometric shapes) may exist within the 1d point, the lines are merely negative boundaries which approximate the point through the square...in these respects the square (and all other phenomenon) are extensions of the 1d point as an approximation of it by observing multiple points as multiple limits.

7) This approximation of the the 1d point, through the negative limit (negative dimension observes multiple limits as all dimensions can be observed as multiple limits existing both approximately and relative to eachother...the issue of "dimension" and "limit" in standard english is merely a replication of defintions that become approximates of eachother and follow this same form and function.) observes an inherent element of connection.

8) The negative dimension as a connector, which provides the foundation of all phenomenon (as all phenomenon are composed of limits), does not exist in and of itself but rather through the 1d point. Relativistically speaking we can observe a dual symmetry where the 1d line exists through the 0d point, where "being" (rather than non-being) acts as a seperator of nothingness.

9) Considering the negative dimension provides the premise for all forms, it as an approximator, and gives image to the 1d point by observing phenomena as forms that extend from the 1d point. So the imaging process, as the synthesis of structure which mediates to both further structure and a unified totality, is presented in the consciousness as "imagination".

10) Imagination acts as a connection to what is:

a) random (with all randomness resulting in an approximation of the 1d point as movement through multiplicity which is directed towards the point itself, as all randomness moves towards unity). Causality and Randomness are the observation of unity where cause exists as a unified structure which extends through itself as a structure and randomness being the negative limit of this structure which observes causes as a postive limit as existence through itself.

b) potential (with all potentialities acting as approximations of the 1d point in one respect, and actual entities in their own right through the 1d point). Actuality and Potentiality are the observation of finiteness through seperation where the multiple "extensions" of the 1d point are observed as relating through eachother much in the same manner the 1d point moves through itself as itself.


c) possible (with all possibilities acting as approximations and potential movement of the 1d point in one respect, and causes/actual movement in their own right as what is possible exists through the 1d point.)


11) Imagination is the carving out of form, so to speak, with these forms existing either abstractly and/or empirically, and the symmetry between abstract and empirical laws determining their nature of synthesis.

For example I may imagine a unicorn based off an empirical horn and horse. Now the empirical laws which govern our reality may not be symmetrical to the abstract laws so the unicorn may be "imaged" into a crystallized form only in the abstract realm in one respect but may be empircally imaged through a drawing or possible genetic engineering down the timeline.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on June 20th, 2018, 2:30 pm 

Other thread which will build off of the point:

1 as causal

viewtopic.php?f=65&t=34247
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on June 20th, 2018, 3:55 pm 

dandelion » June 18th, 2018, 12:20 pm wrote:I don’t know but wonder if maybe some mathematical terms used in the description of views in this thread may be used to describe visualisations, like at the beginning where I enquired about negative numbers, and if so it may be less confusing if these were translated further as well into wider, more relatable language with stories such as possible applications and analogies. For example, I might be able to understand more about dimensions thorough greater descriptions of them and the roles they play.

Regarding limitlessness, as well as change as mentioned in another thread, I think that is reference to Anaximander’s fragment. How do the views expressed here align with translations of this, and is any translation closer to views expressed here than others and how so? E.g., I like a fragment of an English translation of Heidegger’s translation I’ve seen, Rapaport, 1991, including “along the lines of usage; for they let order and thereby also reck belong to one another (in the surmounting of disorder).” Heidegger’s translation has been described as executed with awareness of some extent of polyvalence and unreliability, and also it is said to be translated with some attempt to be less bound by metaphysics of Aristotle or Plato. I like the emphasis on notions about order for reasons such as relevance in a story with rather changing, circuitous retellings. Addressing problems with change and avoiding dichotic extremes, it might be possible to consider the text of the fragment as, although not original, rather unchanged for millennia, or in interpretations, changing considerably. Are notions like this consistent with any of the op’s views?


http://www.iep.utm.edu/anaximan/. Point 3 subpoint a and b (only a few paragraphs).

I will get some other stuff on pythagoras, parmenides and heraclitus when I have the time.

Keep in mind these are very primitive concepts, from which philosophy extended from and must return too.


The provided arguments are original and inspired from concepts relative to the aforementioned philosopher's that simultaneously synthesize them. It is not anyone particular philosopher. Other inspiration was founded in a book called the Kybalion. It is esoteric philosophy, so you have to take the source with a grain of salt.

Here is a source:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/kyb/index.htm

Along with counter-arguments (to give a full perspective).

http://www.nickfarrell.it/kybalion/




I don’t know but wonder if maybe some mathematical terms used in the description of views in this thread may be used to describe visualisations, like at the beginning where I enquired about negative numbers, and if so it may be less confusing if these were translated further as well into wider, more relatable language with stories such as possible applications and analogies. For example, I might be able to understand more about dimensions thorough greater descriptions of them and the roles they play.

There is a simple solution to this:

View a negative limit as a line, and a negative dimension as a set of lines. This dimension in turn relates to other dimensions to manifest a phenomena (such as an empirical or abstractly observed horse), which in turn compose other phenomena.

All of this is premised in the line with the movement of these relations across time existing as linear structures. For example while the phenomena of a horse may be composed of lines it does not look like one. However if the horse is to project itself across time, with the horse as the measuring point, the horse becomes a line in itself which relates to other phenomena which project themselves across time as multiple relative lines going in different directions.



All curved lines view as either

approximations of a Euclidian form (a circle made of infinite squares).

Or minute frequencies that consist of alternating angles that bend as specific points in the angle.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby dandelion on June 23rd, 2018, 8:42 am 

I made a mistake and had meant to say ‘imaginary’ numbers about my early post in this thread, not ‘negative’. I like that the response to my early enquiry on the first page of the thread suggests on-going, open, uncertain, incomplete notions. Badger, there are a lot of threads about this and I get lost trying to keep track of related thoughts, some of which confuse me a lot, so a restriction to one thread for now could suit me a lot better. Also, given this thread involves topics of negativity, perhaps a process of elimination already begun here is suited and could be a good way to share better understandings.

Hi again, John. The return was sooner than I expected, and it is a pretty busy time for me, but I guess that can be the case with everyone, but my apologies for tardy responses. For now, I’ll quickly say I really do appreciate the horse illustration very much, thanks. I also appreciate and response about limits, with the link that included the fragment, etc., which I hadn't read, however, still sometimes I read the op, etc., with an attitude that I like a lot of what is written and find this sort of view you describe very interesting, and sometimes I second-guess most of it and feel I don’t even slightly follow and am unable to concentrate for long. Maybe further to the horse description given, focusing on just a level of degrees of freedom, describing it more fully would help? For example, it might be you are saying something like geometry at this level and temporal causation are interdependent? And if so, say, are daily experiences similarly co-dependent? If these sorts of things are the case maybe the illustration could be broadened somehow to cover such sorts of notions?

My gut reaction to the links given, as warned, is that it seems dodgy, but can accept there could be useful parts. Regarding a process of elimination, I’m also not sure about where the op, etc., mostly leads, whether there is just variation of description of phenomena etc., that mostly agrees with scientific research, or offers some alternative approach or outcome to science, there sorts of things. If there are descriptions of some large degrees of freedom geometrically, I missed them, sorry, but are there some? Are something like Hopf fibrations involved? Perhaps also some very, very simple diagrams could help.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 373
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on June 23rd, 2018, 12:14 pm 

dandelion » June 23rd, 2018, 8:42 am wrote:I made a mistake and had meant to say ‘imaginary’ numbers about my early post in this thread, not ‘negative’. I like that the response to my early enquiry on the first page of the thread suggests on-going, open, uncertain, incomplete notions. Badger, there are a lot of threads about this and I get lost trying to keep track of related thoughts, some of which confuse me a lot, so a restriction to one thread for now could suit me a lot better. Also, given this thread involves topics of negativity, perhaps a process of elimination already begun here is suited and could be a good way to share better understandings.

Hi again, John. The return was sooner than I expected, and it is a pretty busy time for me, but I guess that can be the case with everyone, but my apologies for tardy responses. For now, I’ll quickly say I really do appreciate the horse illustration very much, thanks. I also appreciate and response about limits, with the link that included the fragment, etc., which I hadn't read, however, still sometimes I read the op, etc., with an attitude that I like a lot of what is written and find this sort of view you describe very interesting, and sometimes I second-guess most of it and feel I don’t even slightly follow and am unable to concentrate for long. Maybe further to the horse description given, focusing on just a level of degrees of freedom, describing it more fully would help? For example, it might be you are saying something like geometry at this level and temporal causation are interdependent? And if so, say, are daily experiences similarly co-dependent? If these sorts of things are the case maybe the illustration could be broadened somehow to cover such sorts of notions?

My gut reaction to the links given, as warned, is that it seems dodgy, but can accept there could be useful parts. Regarding a process of elimination, I’m also not sure about where the op, etc., mostly leads, whether there is just variation of description of phenomena etc., that mostly agrees with scientific research, or offers some alternative approach or outcome to science, there sorts of things. If there are descriptions of some large degrees of freedom geometrically, I missed them, sorry, but are there some? Are something like Hopf fibrations involved? Perhaps also some very, very simple diagrams could help.


I made a mistake and had meant to say ‘imaginary’ numbers about my early post in this thread, not ‘negative’. I like that the response to my early enquiry on the first page of the thread suggests on-going, open, uncertain, incomplete notions. Badger, there are a lot of threads about this and I get lost trying to keep track of related thoughts, some of which confuse me a lot, so a restriction to one thread for now could suit me a lot better. Also, given this thread involves topics of negativity, perhaps a process of elimination already begun here is suited and could be a good way to share better understandings.

I am assuming this is for badger.


Maybe further to the horse description given, focusing on just a level of degrees of freedom, describing it more fully would help? For example, it might be you are saying something like geometry at this level and temporal causation are interdependent? And if so, say, are daily experiences similarly co-dependent? If these sorts of things are the case maybe the illustration could be broadened somehow to cover such sorts of notions?

For example, it might be you are saying something like geometry at this level and temporal causation are interdependent?

Yes, you understand where I am heading at.

If, and this will be a very abstract example considering we are looking at the nature of origin (so you may want to ask further questions), we observe all temporal phenomenon as composed of limits and this nature of temporality (time) is in itself a limit, what we observe through all temporal phenomenon is a limit folding through a limit.

With time, being observed fundamentally as a linear structure, and the phenomenon itself being composed of a linear structures, finiteness is quite literally (at it's base core) is a line folding through itself to form further lines which exist as line in itself.

So the horse, as composed of various geometric shapes (premised in lines), moving through time (premised as a line) observes a series of lines extending from and moving through lines.

Considering the act of measurement, whether through the senses (which extends through all organisms) is dependent upon the observation of boundaries with this act of observation being the mean in which the organism moves (as a set of limits in itself), consciousness is quite literally space folding through itself.

Take another example, where I cut a piece of wood. The wood, as a set of limits, has a limit applied to it (line) which is used to measure the wood. The wood is cut according to the line, which manifests a further line in one respect while causing the wood (as a set of limits) to change form (into another set of limits).

The act of measurement in turn:

1) Observes a set of limits.

2) Applies another set of limits.

3) Which in turn results in another set of limits.

4) Limits fold through limits, with this "folding" being a form of inversion where what is unified is seperated and what is seperated in turn acts as a form of unification in itself (as the new unit).

5) Consciousness, through the limit, acts as form of unification and multiplication in these respects where this dualism (and it is a dualism because "unity" and "multiplicity" are polar extremes) results in a third aspect of the "limit itself" being the foundation of self-evidence where a thing exists for what it is as it is.

6) The nature of the axioms, is premised on the "limit" itself considering the axioms is a limit from which it extends and further manifests. (I may have to elaborate this point further).

7) Cycling back to point 1, where observation exists as the synthesis of self-evidence, the nature of observation exists as a limit in itself through complex spatial structures premised in the line.

8) This cycle, as self-maintainance, is causal in itself with causality being the observation of one structure leading to another as a structure in itself. The observation of cause and effect is the observation of structure.

9) Considering both the Consciousness and non-conscious (or low degrees of consciousness), both begin and end with the "limit" as the foundation, we can observe geometry (through the line) as the foundation of consciousness as observation through measurement as reason.

10) Limit is the foundation for objectivity and subjectivity and both are intertwined. What is objective has form, through the limit, and what is subjective has not form, through no-limit. Hence objective truth is truth with limit and subjective truth is truth with no real limit or structure. Both objectivity and subjectivity alternate through eachother.

11) Alternation is the foundation of limit in these respects, which is universal form mirroring the circle as the universal geometric shape from which all forms extend.

12) Geometric limits cannot be seperated from empirical reality considering this empirical nature of reality leads to consciousness as an act of measurement through definition under geometric forms. Empirical reality in turn moves through geometric limits. Abstract phenomena are the observation of these movements universalized.

So where, going back to the horse example, the horse's movement's exists as multiple expanding and contracting triangles, the triangle is the constant potential form with the infinite number of triangles being an approximation of this unified form through individuation as movement. (individuation in the respect that multiple triangles exist through division and multiplication as they relate through progressive movement).



Where points 1 through seven may observe the nature of the line, as a spatial reality, being dependent upon direction as a form of "projection" or "movement", the imagination is negative dimensional in the respect it is absent of movement or direction in itself. It approximates the unified nature of reality into various forms, which in turn "invert" (into actual directed movement, ie relative 1d lines) into empirical space.




My gut reaction to the links given, as warned, is that it seems dodgy, but can accept there could be useful parts. Regarding a process of elimination, I’m also not sure about where the op, etc., mostly leads, whether there is just variation of description of phenomena etc., that mostly agrees with scientific research, or offers some alternative approach or outcome to science, there sorts of things. If there are descriptions of some large degrees of freedom geometrically, I missed them, sorry, but are there some? Are something like Hopf fibrations involved? Perhaps also some very, very simple diagrams could help.

They are dodgy, so take them with a grain of salt...however they both provided inspiration and reflected back to some previously thought "original" tennets of the work.

I will get some base diagrams up eventually, specifically to the folding function (on a seperate thread, that also applies here), and post the link to the thread.


In the most simple of terms:

1) Philosophy as the premise of measurement is founded in "limit" and "no-limit".
2) This nature of "limit" provides the subjective and objective foundations for the further sciences.
3) Phenomenology as the study of phenomenon through the phenomenon of the self is an extension of metaphysics (being through being). This nature of both is premised within the limit, hence both maintain a third neutral definition of "limit through limit" form which both disciplines are preceded.
4) Limit through Limit, observes direction as the foundation of limit considering "through" is neccessitated as an observation of direction.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby dandelion on June 25th, 2018, 10:06 am 

There is no special reason to consider my thoughts and questions, of course, but I’ll offer some more. I like avoiding more anthropocentric suggestions if I possibly can, which I guess might have partially motivated an early question about imaginary numbers, whatever that might involve. And despite the terms used, I don’t know for sure how this view sits with the op, and don’t want to change anything, just thought I’d say I’d like to think of the topical dimension quite neutrally for now if that is ok, maybe closer to possibility or variability, and focus more on other parts.

Regarding other parts, I wonder about research and familiarity with varied views. For example, regarding a level of degrees of freedom and interdependence, research and familiarity about considerations of gravity or curvature, comparisons with the standard model, related equations etc., or given some notions of triangulation perhaps, familiarity with any research in any way similar?

I’ll try to look at the links again also with a grain of salt, and look forward to the simple diagrams, thanks.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 373
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on June 25th, 2018, 10:30 am 

dandelion » June 25th, 2018, 10:06 am wrote:There is no special reason to consider my thoughts and questions, of course, but I’ll offer some more. I like avoiding more anthropocentric suggestions if I possibly can, which I guess might have partially motivated an early question about imaginary numbers, whatever that might involve. And despite the terms used, I don’t know for sure how this view sits with the op, and don’t want to change anything, just thought I’d say I’d like to think of the topical dimension quite neutrally for now if that is ok, maybe closer to possibility or variability, and focus more on other parts.

Regarding other parts, I wonder about research and familiarity with varied views. For example, regarding a level of degrees of freedom and interdependence, research and familiarity about considerations of gravity or curvature, comparisons with the standard model, related equations etc., or given some notions of triangulation perhaps, familiarity with any research in any way similar?

I’ll try to look at the links again also with a grain of salt, and look forward to the simple diagrams, thanks.


In simple terms, because the imagination is dependent upon inherently rational elements it is not only possible but most likely inevitable that it can be quantified and mathematized.

This quantification, in theory, would observe a "function" for "functions" so to speak. A mathematical process inherent within the actual synthesis of symbols "appears" inevitable.


Regarding other parts, I wonder about research and familiarity with varied views. For example, regarding a level of degrees of freedom and interdependence, research and familiarity about considerations of gravity or curvature, comparisons with the standard model, related equations etc., or given some notions of triangulation perhaps, familiarity with any research in any way similar?

Elaborate on the question.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby dandelion on June 25th, 2018, 11:18 am 

Yes, I see that sounds very interesting. And for some elaboration regarding relevant equations etc., as an example maybe comparison with Friedmann's solution of the Einstein Field Equations for a homogenic and isotropic universe?
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 373
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Braininvat on June 25th, 2018, 12:27 pm 

In simple terms, because the imagination is dependent upon inherently rational elements it is not only possible but most likely inevitable that it can be quantified and mathematized.


Questionable. Simple terms can get you in trouble. A neural network could be contructed to incorporate random firings in some of its circuits which would generate chaotic imagery which an upper-level cortical interpreter would just assign arbitrary meanings. The random firings could be generated by a piece of radioisotope, or multiple pieces, lodged inside the neural net. Due to the quantum mechanical aspect of beta decay, there would be no algorithm to predict what individual neurons would fire and when.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6697
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on June 26th, 2018, 12:36 pm 

dandelion » June 25th, 2018, 11:18 am wrote:Yes, I see that sounds very interesting. And for some elaboration regarding relevant equations etc., as an example maybe comparison with Friedmann's solution of the Einstein Field Equations for a homogenic and isotropic universe?


Using these definitions as beginning point of the argument, and to observe the issue from a "qualitative" perspective:


Homogeneous (usually pronounced homo-GEE-nee-us) literally means "to be the same throughout," no matter where you are in the universe. If you look at the universe from Earth or from a galaxy a million light-years away, it will look the same.

Isotropic (pronounced eye-so-TRO-pic) means to appear the same in every direction or viewing angle. This approximation breaks down when viewing the night sky from Earth since our planet is located inside of the Milky Way, but if you were able to stand at any point outside of a galaxy the universe would look the same in all directions.



***This argument may appear confusing so it will have to further elaborated on and you may want to underline or ask question about parts which are unclear.

Now the imaging process as negative dimensional lines observes:

1) The premise of existence is 1 unified and infinite intradimensional point that mirrors itself through itself as itself. This mirroring process is the repetition of boundaries (at a rate of infinity), with each boundary observing space as movement. Movement exists if and only if it is directed. Hence all boundaries (or limits if you prefer the term in a presocratic sense), are movement as direction.

***This point may be further elaborated on.

2) Because the unity of existence cannot be observed in it totality, as what is truly unified and infinite cannot be observed in its totality, we observe it through multiple related parts. As all parts, in themselves are composed of the very same limits that provide the foundation for everything, these parts are an approximation of the unified existence as extensions of it. The limits which form these "extensions", are in themselves negative dimensional (absent of direction) and are approximations of this unified existence.

example: Seeing the form of a star

3) These negative dimensions, and the inherent approximation of the 1d point, occur through the 1d point existing in 0d space (or only the 1d point existing with the 0d point being an inversion of the 1d point).

So from the perspective of the 1d point, all boundaries are negative dimensional. The infinite negative boundaries which exist through the 1d point (but are not the 1d point) relate through the 0d point. This act of relation observes a form of simultaneously multiplication and division (I may have to elaborate further on this point) through an act of folding.

So the -1d limits, as extensions of the 1d point, fold through themselves through 0d space. To gain a better visual of this image the 1d point having infinite lines (negative dimensional) extending through it as connectors. These lines, as connectors and not directional in themselves, extend between the 1d point and the 0d point so that "being connects to nothingness".

These infinite -1d lines exist if and only if they relate when viewed from a perspective of strict 0d space as the lines are not things in themselves, but relative to 0d space (much like the 1d is intradimensional) they must fold through eachother. Hence, much in the same manner a negative multiplied/divided by a negative, the negative dimensions form positive limits premised in 1d linear space. So the 1d line, through 0d point space, becomes an approximation of 1d point space.


From the perspective of the 0d point all boundaries are 1d (basic Euclidian space, with curvature being frequencies folding. These frequencies are repeating angles and look like "curves" when relative to a larger boundary that gives an relativistic approximation of these frequencies as "curves".


The 0d point acts as a field through which the 1d point is approximated.

All "matter" (fundamentally boundaries composed of space in themselves), moving towards 0d space (entropy) is based in 1 dimensional linear space progressing past its point of origin back to its point of origin (1d space progresses from point 0 back to point 0) in the form of a continual cycling. Hence any percieved change is merely a cycling between ratios. This cycling between ratios can be observed under the example of the following localities:

a) "X" is the observation of entropic change (or to be argued matter condensing) in one specific locality. This observes the matter condensing into a series of fractals as it folds into itself to become denser. An example of this would be a line. It folding into itself to become 1/2 or 1/3 of its original form maintains the line however makes is a fraction of its original nature while denser at the same time in the respect it is composed of multiple relating lines. This entropic change can be observed as matter dissipating by becoming denser.

X = (1 → 0) = 1 → 1/2 → 1/3 → .... → 0


b) "Y" is the observation of expansive change in a separate locality where these "fractal lines" as lines in themselves expand to form individual limits (the foundation of matter).

Y = (1 → (n → ∞))


c) "X" and "Y" are seperate localities, however are connected through the same 0d point and 1d point. From the perspective of the 1d point these realities exist simultaneously all at once. However from the 0d point they exist as ratios. What happens with "x" inversely happens to "y" and vice versa to create a wobble effect between the localities (which we can see at the larger scale with the universe itself existing through a wobble).

ex: The black hole consumes so much matter and alternates by spitting the matter back out.

d) This wobble effect, fundamentally a form of alternation, in itself exists as a locality where a new locality exists in itself as "movement through direction" or "limit" (this would argue for micro black holes with the black hole being 0d point space whose size is determined not by the point itself but rather the relation of multiple 1d limits which form the boundary of the black hole):
(x ∝ y) = z

"Z" locality observes movement as direction being dependent upon alternation, so the "proportionality" or ratio of x to y exists as a boundary in itself. The ratio of movement between parts acts as part in itself, with the part being set of movements as movement. Hence the 1d linear space, as the premise for all limits which composed all phenomena (and matter), exists through a form of alternation. We can see this within the nature of the line as it projects away from its origins (0d point space) back to the same point. What allows this projection away from its origins back to further origins is the line alternating into further lines through this same 0d point space.

For example The line cannot project ad-infinitum in 0d space considering there is no where to go. It can only project somewhere if there is somewhere for it to go, hence it must fold through itself under a process of self-relation where it becomes its own standard of measurement.

Hence the 1d line inverts as the 0d point to form another line (going in an inverse direction as the line fundamentally its direction and must exist relative to other "seperate" [ie different] directions).

The 0d point is an observation of inversion in these respects, through the lines, but also inverts the 1d point by making it appear multiplicitious with the 1d lines being approximations of it. The cycling of these 1d linear limits mirrors the intradimensional nature of the point approximately.

So while the linear space provides the foundation for all forms, it is -1d space when observing all of reality as 1 unified infinite moment which is constant in itself.

The same 1 point in one spot, is the same as another spot. The movement of matter, through entropy, towards a 0d point, is fundamentally the same 0d point from which other matter expands. This condensation (entropy) and expansion is merely an observation of ratios alternating, as size is the relation of parts so to speak.

So practically speaking I may view a rectangle from one locality. However considering it is moving through time it is either shrinking or expanding...hence an dual rectangle is doing the inverse opposite somewhere else (similar to a form of quantum entanglement).

The rectangle in locality A may be larger than the rectangle in Locality B only because of the framework in which locality A exists may be smaller than the framework in Locality B. Hence the rectangle in Locality A is the same as locality B, but differs in the framework in which it exists. Hence this non-locality is the "boundary" in which other localities alternate in size. In simpler terms (and this may appear confusing" The rectangle would be the line which forms the ratio of A/B. All ratios are triadic in nature, with "A, [/], and B" being positive negative and neutral (neutral being [/]) boundaries.

Hence because of this inherent nature of ratios it may be possible to look at the galaxy from any angle and see the same thing.


****I may have to elaborate further on the above...but this should give a starting point.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on June 26th, 2018, 12:42 pm 

Braininvat » June 25th, 2018, 12:27 pm wrote:
In simple terms, because the imagination is dependent upon inherently rational elements it is not only possible but most likely inevitable that it can be quantified and mathematized.


Questionable. Simple terms can get you in trouble. A neural network could be contructed to incorporate random firings in some of its circuits which would generate chaotic imagery which an upper-level cortical interpreter would just assign arbitrary meanings. The random firings could be generated by a piece of radioisotope, or multiple pieces, lodged inside the neural net. Due to the quantum mechanical aspect of beta decay, there would be no algorithm to predict what individual neurons would fire and when.



Chaos theory observes all randomness merely as approximation, with approximation being a limit to order as disorder. So disorder, as a deficiency of order, exists if and only if there is order, with this deficiency fundamentally being a gradation of order...hence order itself.

All chaos, as gradient order, is order in itself moving towards a fully more unified degree of order. This can be observed:

"Under the right conditions, chaos spontaneously evolves into a lockstep pattern. In the Kuramoto model, four conditions suffice to produce synchronization in a chaotic system. Examples include the coupled oscillation of Christiaan Huygens' pendulums, fireflies, neurons, the London Millennium Bridge resonance, and large arrays of Josephson junctions.[34]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory


What we understand of chaos is an inversion, fundamentally speaking, of unity moving towards multiplicity and dually multiplicity moving back to unity (depending on the direction of movement (in time) from which we premised the beginning measurements).

Hence any prediction of chaos, and order, is dependent upon some form of an inversion principle as chaos is rooted in inversion.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby dandelion on June 29th, 2018, 7:02 am 

My last post was confusing and ahead of myself, so I’ll back-track and elaborate a bit differently. I wonder how these notions compare with standard models, and also how they compare with notions that seem similar, aside from the notions in the links already given. I should just leave it to the op to suggest other comparable views and how they may differ but am tempted to make some rough attempts as examples but probably making too many assumptions. The op notions seem to me like other questionable views in some ways but often in different contexts, like Wheeler’s boundary of a boundary, or discussions of dimensions could be like strings, but these seem to me to be more like other sorts of views like Bohm’s implicate and explicate order. I’ll link to that guess because if nothing else the analogies like holograms, ink and glycerine and fish tanks may be helpful even in an eliminatory way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate ... cate_order. Also, of the links previously given considered dodgy and taken with a grain of salt, and given discussion of limits, do these suggest dichotomies, dualities, etc., of the op are unimportant compared with deconstruction or synthesis or something like that?
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 373
Joined: 02 May 2014
Eodnhoj7 liked this post


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on June 29th, 2018, 2:13 pm 

Multitasking right now, but will figure out a seperate angle to address your problems.

However in the mean time, I will attempt to start with a common bond to work from.

Einsteins understanding of relativism is dependent upon basic 1 dimensional linear relations resulting in the space-time framework. "Up/Down, Left/Right, Forward/Backward" plus time itself as the fourth linear dimension.

These basic foundations are dependent upon linear structure, each progressing in one direction (so one could argue from a non-academic standpoint that his construct is really 7 dimensions assuming each direction of the line is in itself 1 dimensional).

Each direction exists as a foundation of movement that exists relative to another dimension of movement under a form of inversion. So Up exists if and only if it relates to itself. It relates to itself if and only if it inverts itself from 1 direction to 2, as all relation depends upon an inherent form of multiplicity.

This inversion of up to down results in an understanding of vertical movement as a linear dimension itself that exists as "both/and", "either/or" or "neither/nor".

This vertical movement in turn inverts into horizontal movement or depth and vice versa, depending upon the point of measurement. This process of inversion observes an inherent finiteness to it where a process of movement occurs through individuation, or one part (the line) existing through another part.

This process of inversion can be seen in the "frequency" where one direction inverts to another, with this process maintaining a degree of direction in itself as a form of replication. In simpler terms, frequency observes the same 1 directional nature of the line and from a perspective of a much larger frequency appears as a line in itself.

Part of this observation of time as a directed frequency, may be observed in the wobble effect of the galaxy, etc. (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... obble.html). This would be time so to speak as a form of constant inversion, which in itself is directional.

In these respects the lines which compose the framework of einstein's space-time continuum, in theory, should exist as frequencies which exist as lines (observed in the framework itself) relative to other dimensions of time. In simpler terms each direction is time in itself, that exists within further facets of time it self.

Time, as finiteness, would be directional as movement with this movement being a relation of parts. So Einstein's model composes itself of further models. The model can be observed as a locality in itself which is composed of and composes other localities, hence Einstein's model actual exists through itself through itself, with multiple times zones existing within multiple time zones. Now these time zones, may be fractions of further time zones, but they are time zones none the less. Einstein's model should apply not just to the universe, but exists through each particle in itself.

The problem occurs is that it leads to a highly relativistic interpretation where the model in exists through itself under a form of replication and does not necessitate any unity considering its premise of 1d lines exists as relative units through 0d point space.

The model becomes constant, in the respect if we observe it as an approximation of unity. The model exists as an extension of a unified existence. So the lines exist as negative dimensional, in the respect they do not exist in or of there own terms but rather extensions of the points.

The line, as its own standard of measurement, considering it provides the foundation of ratios through self-folding (ex: 1 line folding upon itself 1 time with the 1 infinity observe 2 equal infinities as 1/2 or "x/y" with "x" equivalent to the potential unity of the foundational line and "y" as the actual relations of it folding through itself as 2 lines that exist relative to the potential unity.), ceases to exist on its own terms as direction.

The line becomes negative dimensional in the respect it exists if and only if it exists through the 0d point as a constant unifying median. So where one line may not equal another in the respect they exist through ratios, the 0d points that form one line are the same that form another line of a different proportion. The 0d point is a constant unifying median.

The problem occurs however, in the respect that the 0d point is not a thing in itself...rather it is nothing at all and can only be observed by the directional nature of the 1d lines. However if the lines are not directional, rather negative dimensional in the respect they act as "connectors" which approximate a unified reality through form, they cannot connect what is not there. However the point must act as a unifying median in the respect it is constant no matter where it is observed.

If the 1d line is inverted to a -1d line, from direction to absence of direction, the 0d point as "nothingness" can be inverted to 1d as infinite directions through itself as itself as 1.

So where the construct of relativity is dependent upon a certain framework that must cycle through itself under a form of constant inversion, it maintains a degree of consistency as an extension of 1 as 1 where each line is an approximation of multiple points with this multiplicity of points being an approximation of the 1 point. In simple terms, time as the foundation of movement, is an approximation of unity as finiteness. What is finite exists as a unit, or approximation of a unified existence, with this unit existing relative to other units under a process of change as individuation. Unity exists through itself as itself and does not change (in the respect we are using the term).

So because the framework is constant, if inverted, viewing one framework from the perspective of another would equate to seeing the same universe no matter the angle from which one perceives it.


The model still retains itself as the same, however maintains a constant element of truth to itself as an observation of relation being a boundary in itself (if this makes sense).


Now the framework Einstein observes, being dependent upon the linear foundation observes the "curvature" of space merely being an approximation of this framework. Hyperbolic geometry is an approximation of Euclidian Geometry in these terms.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on July 3rd, 2018, 2:57 pm 

To rehash a few points, from several points earlier, in regards to the phenomenological definition of ideation and its similiarities and differences to "imagination as an imaging process".


Ideation is "the formation of ideas or concepts". ideation definition - Bing

Imagination is a an imaging process which results in limits and forms or structures from these limits. What seperates "ideation" from "imagination" (or in more specific terms "imaging" is that ideation deals with concepts and ideas alone as mental constructs. Imagination deals with "limits" which in turn not just forms abstract or physical structures but fundamentally defines the "abstract" and "empirical" as a set of limits in themselves.

So while ideation is strictly abstract, imagination as imaging is both abstract and empirical in one respect by the application of limits...in a seperate respect it is neither as it a negation of limit by observing "no-limit" as "possibility". In these respects imagination as imaging, which can be observed more objectively as "synthesis", exists under a basic triad of:

1) Limit
2) No Limit
3) Synthesis

which mirrors in both form and function, at a more universal level: Hegelian synthesis and basic aspects of synthesis in nature (ie "sex").
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby dandelion on July 4th, 2018, 3:44 am 

The feedback that you liked my last post was good, thanks. I wonder if any part of the post was close to your views. Given your last post, I guess touching on a Hegelian process could have been close. However, given some shared terms such as enfolding, I wonder what you think of Bohm’s views linked. I also wonder about your view of thermodynamics. I’m looking forward to diagrams etc., if they can be managed, too, but also feel, despite what I’d said about narrowing things down in this thread, I might be more comfortable replying to other threads about this in philosophy than this one in science. That is mostly because there are a lot of philosophical notions in this thread that I enjoy and I’m really enjoying the challenge of them being presented in unfamiliar ways. I find it very inspiring, even regardless of whether I am properly following the train of thought presented, and there could be greater freedom for addressing that more in a philosophy section.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 373
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on July 4th, 2018, 5:30 am 

Eod -

Looks like you wish to ignore phenomenon and call it physicalism? Seems strange to me that you would struggle so hard to present a delineation for the sake of explication.

Continuous conflation of terms and lack of precise definitions leaves the reader in a world I choose to call Obscurantium.

Other than that, to point out that the art of measurement measures itself is redundant without addressing “non-physical empiricism (aka the entire point of phenomenological reduction.)

The lack of clarity, and the clarity of the obscurantism here, is self-evident:

Imagination is a an imaging process which results in limits and forms or structures from these limits. What seperates "ideation" from "imagination" (or in more specific terms "imaging" is that ideation deals with concepts and ideas alone as mental constructs. Imagination deals with "limits" which in turn not just forms abstract or physical structures but fundamentally defines the "abstract" and "empirical" as a set of limits in themselves.


And you wonder why I brought up Kant? You’re presenting empiricism and calling it phenomenology. Can’t you see this?

You mean like Kant is unintelligible and barbarous?


No, he isn’t. He is overly thorough and did his best to avoid pointless and misleading analogies. He also refused to simply create new terminology unless absolutely necessary - this something the post-modernists decided to do and achieved little more than comflation of what was previously more clear terminological use so as to confound the reader, look intellectual and perhaps, on the odd occassion, bury something worthwhile among the detritus of their quarry (and that is a example of the cross-over between philosophical sophism and poetic licence the exhibit in their writings - esp. Foucault, and yourself too Eod. You may not be a self proclaimed post-modernist, but it’s becomer more and more obvious your doing little more than deconstructionism and obtuse conflation of terms to justify what appears as nothing more than laziness dressed up as non-conformity.)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5344
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby Eodnhoj7 on July 5th, 2018, 10:19 am 

BadgerJelly » July 4th, 2018, 5:30 am wrote:Eod -

Looks like you wish to ignore phenomenon and call it physicalism? Seems strange to me that you would struggle so hard to present a delineation for the sake of explication.

Continuous conflation of terms and lack of precise definitions leaves the reader in a world I choose to call Obscurantium.

Other than that, to point out that the art of measurement measures itself is redundant without addressing “non-physical empiricism (aka the entire point of phenomenological reduction.)

The lack of clarity, and the clarity of the obscurantism here, is self-evident:

Imagination is a an imaging process which results in limits and forms or structures from these limits. What seperates "ideation" from "imagination" (or in more specific terms "imaging" is that ideation deals with concepts and ideas alone as mental constructs. Imagination deals with "limits" which in turn not just forms abstract or physical structures but fundamentally defines the "abstract" and "empirical" as a set of limits in themselves.


And you wonder why I brought up Kant? You’re presenting empiricism and calling it phenomenology. Can’t you see this?

You mean like Kant is unintelligible and barbarous?


No, he isn’t. He is overly thorough and did his best to avoid pointless and misleading analogies. He also refused to simply create new terminology unless absolutely necessary - this something the post-modernists decided to do and achieved little more than comflation of what was previously more clear terminological use so as to confound the reader, look intellectual and perhaps, on the odd occassion, bury something worthwhile among the detritus of their quarry (and that is a example of the cross-over between philosophical sophism and poetic licence the exhibit in their writings - esp. Foucault, and yourself too Eod. You may not be a self proclaimed post-modernist, but it’s becomer more and more obvious your doing little more than deconstructionism and obtuse conflation of terms to justify what appears as nothing more than laziness dressed up as non-conformity.)


Looks like you wish to ignore phenomenon and call it physicalism? Seems strange to me that you would struggle so hard to present a delineation for the sake of explication.

No, all phenomenon maintain a dual nature of physical and abstract natures considering all phenomenon are not limited strictly to mental constructs but rather inherent limits which are the foundation for both mental and physical constructs.

Phenomenon cannot be limited to an either physical or abstract perspective considering phenomenon are premised in "limit" and "no-limit" with these being the foundation for physicality and abstractness.




The lack of clarity, and the clarity of the obscurantism here, is self-evident:

Imagination is a an imaging process which results in limits and forms or structures from these limits. What seperates "ideation" from "imagination" (or in more specific terms "imaging" is that ideation deals with concepts and ideas alone as mental constructs. Imagination deals with "limits" which in turn not just forms abstract or physical structures but fundamentally defines the "abstract" and "empirical" as a set of limits in themselves.


No the statement is clear, obscurity is a relativistic term projected from the individual. All phenomenon extend from limits with these phenomenon acting as limits in themselves in turn observing limit existing through limit as limit under a process of continual movement.

Phenomenon are the observation of movement, either abstract or physical, with movement being the approximation of a unified summated 1 phenomenon from which all phenomenon extend. This mirrors a qualitative understanding (not quantitative only) of pythagoreanism.

Considering all consciousness has an inherent element of measurement, and the premise of measurment is the application of limits which exist through themselves (such as a line folding through itself resulting in further lines as its own self-measuring limit while providing inherent ratios and frequencies that act as the foundation for all phenomenon).

In these respects, considering the measuring process as the foundation of consciousness exists as "limit through limit" all phenomenon contain an inherent degree of consciousness. Where a physical reality may result in abstract mental realities (such as the brain), these abstract realities (such as the line being applied to a piece of wood to cut it) in turn cycle back to the physical. The cycling between the abstract and the physical, both existing in themselves as a framework of senses hence rational in themselves, acts as limit in itself. In simpler terms "cycling", or if you prefer alternation, acts as a limit in itself from which the frameworks of "abstractness" and "physicality" extend.



You mean like Kant is unintelligible and barbarous?


No, he isn’t. He is overly thorough and did his best to avoid pointless and misleading analogies. He also refused to simply create new terminology unless absolutely necessary - this something the post-modernists decided to do and achieved little more than comflation of what was previously more clear terminological use so as to confound the reader, look intellectual and perhaps, on the odd occassion, bury something worthwhile among the detritus of their quarry (and that is a example of the cross-over between philosophical sophism and poetic licence the exhibit in their writings - esp. Foucault, and yourself too Eod. You may not be a self proclaimed post-modernist, but it’s becomer more and more obvious your doing little more than deconstructionism and obtuse conflation of terms to justify what appears as nothing more than laziness dressed up as non-conformity.)[/quote]

[b][b]The increase in definition causes a simultaneous decrease in definition in separate respects...take it up with Stanford:

"Given Kant’s reputation for developing difficult, not to say obscure, philosophical views, it will also not surprise the reader to learn that there is no consensus on how Kant’s conception of space and time ought to be characterized and explicated."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/

Kant's emphasis on space as nothing more than "intuition" causes a problem in the respect that the argument causes "intuition" to be composed of space in certain degrees where space and intuituion define eachother under a relativistic definition where "space" and "intuition" act as parts which define eachother through relations.

"Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind’s nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally. (Ak 2: 403)"

The problem is that all "objective realities" are those which exist through limits as limits and hence we are left with looking at the nature of limit. Limit, such as a line, point, circle, curve, is fundamentally spatial in itself as when a limit is broken down (or summated into further limits) still exists through itself.

The question "what is space?" can be answered by the question itself as space is "what". "What" exists as an objectification of phenomenon where what is objectivity itself where objectivity is the observation of limit which defines the phenomenon itself. The question cycles back to "limit is space?", as an approximate version of "what is space?", with the answer being "yes" considering all limit is geometric in origin.

To observe the limit of an empirical object it to observe geometric qualities with the same geometric qualities existing fundamentally in abstract natures as well considering these geometric qualities, premised in the line and point are indistinguishable from either empirical or abstract phenomenon.

Abstractness and empirical phenomenon exist as limits in themselves as simultaneously connected and seperate phenomenon in different respects with this simultaneous seperation and connected provided through limit itself as being both positive and negative.

They are seperate in the snese they observe a form of relation where one causes a change in the other through time. For example I may see something empirically, with the abstract element manifested as an abstract image. In turn I may see something as an abstract image and form it into an empirical phenomenon. This seperation observes a progression through time, with time in itself acting as a divisive limit.

However abstractness and empiricism are connected in the respect an abstract image is observed through empirical means and vice versa. Hence "observation" is connected as one through the senses with each sense being an extension of different dimensions of observation itself each measuring various limits of realities through there inherent frequencies which exist under basic lines and points as premises.
[/b]
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on July 6th, 2018, 8:31 pm 

Kant says that we don’t learn about space by sensory experience alone. Do you even grasp what he meant by “intuition?” Have you read the book?

Either way your qualms there don’t make your words any less ambiguous.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5344
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby dandelion on August 24th, 2018, 4:55 am 

Forgot this but examples of problems with Kant’s space and time might have helped, just one ongoing example being Trendelenburg’s suggestion, or even just various ongoing attempts to accommodate them.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 373
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Imagination as a Negative Dimension

Postby BadgerJelly on August 24th, 2018, 6:43 am 

dandelion » August 24th, 2018, 4:55 pm wrote:Forgot this but examples of problems with Kant’s space and time might have helped, just one ongoing example being Trendelenburg’s suggestion, or even just various ongoing attempts to accommodate them.


No idea what that means?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5344
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


PreviousNext

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests