RoccoR » March 10th, 2018, 9:55 pm wrote:RE: Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality

※→ Eodnhoj7, et al,

I can tell, this is going to be interesting, most interesting. I've bitten off more than I can chew here. I've never felt so ignorant of a subject in all my life.

Then we have a lot in common.I will understand if deduce that I'm without the prerequisite understanding to continue.

Eodnhoj7 » March 8th, 2018, 4:35 pm wrote:ψ → What do you mean by Numbers (as in Space & Numbers)?

What we understand of quality and quantity cannot be inherently separated, and where we observe them as separate are merely approximations of a whole resulting in movement conducive to a perpetual change.

(COMMENT)Change (some variation)(∆) is generally thought to be some rate of breakdown (decay) from order (organized system) to → disorder (chaos).

All instantaneous values in specific "unit" of measurements (or fractions thereof) are subject to the chain of successive approximations.

[color=#408000]Yes, you are right about the "change". I will elaborate that point further, and in the briefest of terms I can hopefully address it in.

Here will be the presented argument:

1) What we understand of cause is strictly the manifestation of order through symmetry by a mirror effect. Causality, through a mirror effect, is strictly direction as space with cause mirroring itself to maintain itself through effect. All effect is approximation of the original cause, which maintains the original cause, while simultaneously mainfesting as a new cause. The "causal" structure can be observed as synonymous to a theoretical 1d point as pure dimensionality, or space as being (space must not be confused in the mere sense of emptiness in these respects, but rather as the binding median which glues reality to together through itself as itself.) This 1d point, which are argue must be observed as a new "axiom" for geometry and mathematics is strictly, is purely theoretical and exists as the foundation for space.

2) As a causal structure, our observation of effect being both an approximation of the original cause while being cause in itself, observes the limits of the original cause. For example "1" is the cause of "2", with 2 both being and "effect" of "1", and therefore an extension of both it and a simultaneously cause of further number. Keep in mind number, as point, is inseperable from space considering the act of measurement itself is dependent upon the observation of points (even in pointless geometry where a "grid" provides the foundation for the structure through points, considering the lines that form the grid, much in the same manner we observe Euclidian space, cannot be seperate from the points themselves). These however are 0d points and are observe through the relation of 1d lines, which as as unit-particulate space.

This understand of cause and effect is fundamentally an observation of symmetry where the approximation observes the limits of the structure itself...hence randomness as an absence of structure. "2" as an effect of "1", while being an extension of one, observes the limit of unity through multiplicity where "2" is absent of "1" in one respect while simultaneously an extension of it in another.

3) This approximation as randomness observes the mirror effect as triadic, through a dualism of cause/effect and randomness (deficiency in causal structure). So we there is the mirror space/causality/randomness which exist as a trifold nature. This approximation, as randomness, is the observation of multiplicity through connection where the very face we percieve a connection implies a degree of seperation. In one respect we cannot observe "unity" in it entirety, hence we observe it through approximation. Considering the 1d point acts as a causal structure, we approximate it by observing linear connections. The 1d point is not separate however, so we approximate it through multiplicity as deficiency where the 1d points, that compose whatever structure we observe, are connected through "imaginary" lines which are negative dimensional in nature synonymous quantitatively to -1. The -1d lines connect structures and are not dimensions in themselves, considering they exist if and only if there are are 1d points. The -1d lines as negative dimensions, are absent of structure in themselves, and akin to randomness as the limit of this unity through multiplicity.

These -1d lines enable us to apply dimensions by an act of seperation of the 1d point into forms. For example a structure, such as the triangle, being three points, is strictly a geometry particle in the respect it cannot exist on its own terms with the circle, square, etc, much in the same manner 3 cannot exist without 1 or 2, etc. Mulitiplicity is akin to randomness as a form of change where a specific relativistic view point, through unit-particulate, is akin to observe continual change as the particulate cannot exist without relations.

4) This mirror effect provides the foundation for all number with the number itself being inserpable from the arithmetic function which observes it. Addition as summation through unity, is inseperable from being positive in value as what we understand of "positive" is the summation of a phenomena through the dimensions which direct that phenomena.

So +1 mirroring +1 maintains +1 in one respect. In another it mirrors into +2. In a simultaneous respect the functions mirror themselves to produce *1 and *2 (*=multiple) where multiplication observes a particulation as "time" being an approximation of unity. In these respects the mirror effect maintains all realities as one moment while observing the inherent relations of the number as inseperable. So where "+" may observe a "unity", "*" may observe "unit" as parts being an extension of "unity" but a limit of unity in itself.

The approximation of these numbers, being inseperable from points as space, observes the -1d lines which connect them by "imaging" (imaginary) a structure that gives form through multiplicity. Hence 2 as point observes 1 -1d line, as -1, connect it as "1". 3 observes -3, 4 observes -6 (considering all points must connect to eachother as all are extensions of eachother) 5 observes -10, etc. With the increase in the number of points, comes an inherent increase in the number of -1d lines connecting them, hence with the increasing multiplicity comes an increase of deficiency as potential space.

Eodnhoj7 » March 8th, 2018, 4:35 pm wrote:In a seperate respect if I view number as a literal entity that exists in its own right, we are stuck with number reducing itself to qualitative degrees that are not necessarily quantitative in their own right. For instance if number is an objective reality, and that objective reality forms the basis of consciousness and real phenomena through which I interact, it implies that number as foundational objective in turn is reflecting itself and at minimum is rooted in a spatial reality, considering all phenomena (even matter) are inseperable from space.

(COMMENT)The representation of any number must be agreed upon in advance. The "#2" is undefined in a Base Two mathematical series. Numbers and mathematical symbology only have meaning when they are defined in advance of an expression by symbols. Oddly enough, when I take the "Cuneiform Script" for the numbers 1,2,3, cut'n'paste the Cuneiform into the dialog toolbox for the "Science Chat Forum," the application immediately converts Cuneiform into the modern Arabic Numbers 1,2,3. Other applications and associated program protocols usually change it into some other key set, but not necessarily a number..

Space, on the other hand, is something entirely different. Similar to numeric values, there is a continuum of meanings; from the "least significant" to the "most significant" value. And what is "least" or "most" significant is based on a frame of reference. Since not everyone or everything is in the same frame of reference or plane of existence → the meaning may be different.

The problem of symbolism occurs in the respects that it not only acts as a median for other symbols but further abstract and physical phenomena in itself. What we understand of symbolism, which is fundamentally universal in both the abstract and physical sense, is that it is fundamentally a median and in these respects acts as a unifying space between phenomena where it glues the relations of phenomena together. A symbol such as "x" or a symbol such as a tree we observe outside, are both medial points between relations of further phenomena and in that sense glue together these phenomena by the medial point acting much in the same manner as causal symmetry through a mirror effect?

The age old philosophical question of "if a tree falls in the woods and noone is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"...Yes through a butterfly effect where we observe the sound not directly, but strictly approximately through further medians, which not only enable the sound to exist, but act as effectual structures of it in the respect it maintains this "cause" through further effects which are causes in themselves. In these respects all cause is ever present. The same applies for the symbol "x"...does "x" exist unless it is part of a series or equation? No, it exists because of its meaning, with meaning as use through the observation of symmetry.Eodnhoj7 » March 8th, 2018, 4:35 pm wrote:For example if number objectively forms consciousness, and consciousness observes number, what we observe is number as an objective origin for subjective reality and number it itself maintains an organic property in the respect it moves through itself much in the same manner as space folding upon space to form a localized phenomena.

This qualitative aspect of quantity is premised in space, considering what we quantitfy are spatial relations with quantity providing and observation of movement hence relation. The problem occurs in the respect that this "space" which is quantified provides the foundation for quantity and what we observe is space moving through itself, both objectively and subjectively, as a unifying median.[/color]

(COMMENT)I'm not sure that I understand the meaning of an "organic property;" but I do understand the association with quantitative and qualitative features. However, I haven't quite grasped the association of "qualitative aspect" as it relates to "space." While space is always has something in it, the scope and nature of space does not have a "qualitative component." Space does however → have dimensions by coordinate and shape as defined in terms of the units of measurement.

There is not such thing as empty space specifically because the observation of emptiness is the observation of an absence of a specific potential relation, however not a complete absence of relation. For instance if I have an empty cup, it is empty because no liquid is in it...or even a solid substance such as pens or dirt for a plant...however it is not empty in the respect that another relation is in it: air, or some other form of gas.

Space always has something in it as space exists through boundaries as boundaries, space is structure and what we understand of it through "dimensions" observes space being inseperable from "direction" when viewed relativistically, as an approximation of unity. From a perspective of unity, through the 1d point, space manifests itself as 1 moment of pure direction through an intradimensional nature. In these respects it may be observed as a non-moving ether through infinite movement as self-reflection.Yes, • "what we observe is space moving through itself" • I'm not sure I know what that means... While we do, intuitively" know that if you can see through any given volume of space, → that it must not be absolutely void (energy at the quantum level is constantly moving through it), it is quite difficult (if even possible) to detect a cubic inch of space, that is moving through a cubic foot of space; unless, of course, the cubic inch has some distinguishable feature in it that can be detected differently than all other space around it → within the confines of the cubic foot (under test) of otherwise void space. But theoretically, a coordinate grid within a cubic frame work if space can be established. But it would have little meaning unless it is anchored to a detectable fixed object visible through it.

All dimensions of measurements are in themselves dimensions of space which exist through direction. The question of consciousness and materiality or even spirituality for that matter are inseperable from linear and point space in the respect that this "space" not only maintains itself as everpresent but cannot be seperated from any measurement or observation without forcing it to exist through itself. Measurements are strictly the synthesis of dimensions with dimensions strictly being space.

Observing a "cubic inch" of space moving through a "cubic foot" of space would requires one to approximate its movement by applying linear connections to it. The cubic inch manifests itself through a variety of manner through a cubic foot, however to observe its movments through a cubic foot would require to view the cubic inches relations to the cubic foot approximately through a succession sequence which in themselves are linear connections of points in time. This application of boundaries to observe the movement of the cubic inch through the cubit foot, dependent on a continual process of individuation, would observe a theoretical infinite series of movements as cubic inches' movement must be observed relative to other movements, as linear demarcations, which could continually approach infinity.

This process of individuation, necessary to observe the movement of abstract structures, would require a continual movement of measurement in itself.Eodnhoj7 » March 8th, 2018, 4:35 pm wrote:• Did you mean uniform increments between events?

What we understand of increments is merely the relation of parts. What we understand of as parts are extensions of a whole. So when observing increments between events, these in turn exist as events in themselves in one respect, while being approximations of a greater whole in another. What we understand of increments, or parts, is merely an approximation of a whole through the observation of movement with time being inseparable from moving (or relativistic) space.

(COMMENT)Just maybe I understand a piece of this. (Or maybe not.)

✪ Spatially:

Increments are related to the units of measure. A cubic foot of an enclosure can be factored into it constituent cubic inches. The cubic foot enclosure can be examined in an exploded view ordered in its assembly of its various cubic inch components.

✪ Temporally:

The arrow of time, while theoretically could be frozen - or - go in reverse order, generally is only seen in forward motion. That would be an instantaneous zero point forward.

These units of measurement are inseperable from the application of space dimensional, specifically lines in these respects, with the relations of these lines (as unit particulate) providing a standard of measurement through the ratios which form them. These ratios, being inseperable from linear space, must be observed as the relation of the line folding upon itself and acting as its own standard of measurement. In these respect the process of folding is not only inseperable from measurement, but is an inherent process found within linear space that provides the foundation for all number through fractals.

This thread

viewtopic.php?f=65&t=34193

observes the nature of linear space providing the foundation for measurement. This linear space however is only an approximate of 1d point space.The flow of time is the same to all members of the same reference frame. However, time could be vastly different to outside observers. However, in a sequence of events at a uniform rate, it becomes obvious that time is the inverse of the frequency of the events.

The "flow" of time, much like we see in the movement of water, is dependent on linear structures folding through linear structures (as frequency), with each linear structure existing as a unit of time within further linear structures.

Time, as the movement of particulates as relations, is an approximation of unity in one respect. In another respect it is the manifestation of alternating linear dimensions through frequencies. As all lines are composed of further lines, all frequencies in theory, should be compose of further frequencies, until a angularization occurs in which all curvature ceases. Curvature is an approximation of angles, with angles fundamentally being the relation of linear 1d space that provide the foundation for movement. Angles are the folding of space, with 1d linear space being the foundation for relativistic (time) space. See the above thread.Eodnhoj7 » March 8th, 2018, 4:35 pm wrote:• Did you mean a representative value of some quantity?

Value is merely a means of existence, hence when I observe the value of something I am observing its connections, or means, in which one phenomena validates another. The question of meaning observe not only a connection of phenomena, and how they are unified, but simultaneously their point of origin considering a center point may be synonymous to a point of origin. The question of origin as value in turn implies how we deem value is strictly through the direction the phenomena move.

(COMMENT)The value of a number? And "strictly through the direction the phenomena move?"

I am not sure how to visualize this...

If we look at the establishment of any unit what we are observing an approximation of a whole through a part which exists in relation to those further parts.

Take for example a 12 inch ruler. We observe the inch by taking a line of specific length and dividing it into 12 parts through a process of folding where the "1" line folds upon itself to produce 12 lines. This line in turn is folding from other lines, with the line itself being a particulate of another line through a process of folding. Hence the ruler moves relative to other linear structures through which these linear structures are further divided through a process of folding, with all "folding" occuring through the application of 0d space (as an absence of dimensionality). To measure and cut an object is fundamentally to folding it according to linear dimensions.

So if I cut a piece of wood into two parts, the wood as two parts is always the same as the original except these parts now exist in relation to eachother through 0d space, or absence of connection. What changes is the movement of the wood through its relations. The 1/2 piece of wood exists in relation to other pieces of wood through relation with the 1/2 piece of "wood" maintaining its "difference" through change with change as relations. A particle of wood is always wood, but what changes are its relations. So in one respect it does not change, in another respect it does change considering it exists through ratios.

However if one were to burn the wood, this process of individuation causes a further change where the wood is dissolved into further elements. These elements, as relations of the wood, exist approximately to the wood when look at through time, however are no longer "wood" in one respect, they exist as the elements of the wood. Now the "wood" always exists through these elements being an approximation of this very same wood. From a 1d perspective both the wood and elements of the wood exist at the same time in different respects, and what we understand of the wood and elements are merely a division through time with this time as a linear structure acting as a dividing line which manifests further dimensions (such as the elements, which may eventually recycle through nature back into being "wood").

Time as a seperator observes the line as strictly an manner of division and multiplicaition through itself....I may have to elaborate further one these points later if they do not appear clear enough.Eodnhoj7 » March 8th, 2018, 4:35 pm wrote:[list]ψ → What basic assumptions are you using?

[color=#408000]That space as one of the foundations, if not "the" foundation for reality, is dependent upon a dualistic understand of "limit" and "no-limit" and in understanding this dualism we observe space as fundamentally "directional". This direction in turn give form and foundation to "dimensions". The extradimensional nature of the 1d line, existing through 0d point space, observes a foundation for movement as a unit-particulate which relates to further unit-particulate as movement, hence our understanding of time.

(COMMENT)Musing: A point has no dimension. A line only has the physical dimension of length and the temporal dimension of time at the (instantaneous appearance) of a line at the point of origin at Time Zero and then progressing through an infinite succession of points; the summation of an infinite number of points which constitutes a line. The increment between each point determines the either the rating of the definitions of the line - relative to the physical reality of the line; or the clarity of the line if envisioned mentally (outside reality).

`A 0d point has no dimension, however a theoretical 1d point would be pure dimension as infinite direction through itself alone. `

Length and time exist if and only if their is a line, hence the understanding of the nature of a line is dependent upon how it folds upon itself in 0d space. Relativistically speaking the line is its is own standard of measurement, and dimensional boundaries which form phenomena (such as time), considering it exists if and only if:

1) it relates to itself as only the line exists in 0d space relativistically speaking (it is an extension of the 1d point as a result of -1d lines folding through 0d space into 1d lines) ***I will address this point further when you have the time

2)it relates through a process of folding through the 0d point. As the line approaches point zero, if must "condense" into a fraction. These fractions in turn fold into whole numbers as lines in themselves with 1 as unit inseperable from a 1d line (even observing a unit of time, temporal reality such as the computer I am using manifests itself as a particulate in moving linearly through time, as a 1d line, with the computer itself existing as a multitude of linear relations)

3)it folds in order to exist in 0d space as it cannot project infinitely in 0d space considering there is nowhere to go.

***See the Lines and Numbers link for further clarification.

What is the "extra-dimensional" nature of line? I'm not really sure... And I am not at all sure that something like a "extradimensional object" is even relevant to the universe as we understand the laws of physics today. Now, it is possible that mentally, anyone can conjure a universe in which the likes of things magics or extradimensional observations or travel could occur; but I'm not at all sure that I could even envision what more that one space-time framework would look like with another superimposed upon the other. Or what the universe would look like if one framework was out of phase with another.

`Extradimensional is strictly a projection past the origins, hence it is space projected in 1d past its origins. Considering the universe is expanding away from its origins, this may be used an an example of the extradimensional nature of physics.`

Ironically this projection past its origins, the 0d point, cause the line to project towards its very same origins (0d point), hence the extradimensional nature of the line is characterized strictly by its relations to other 1d lines and what we can observe as "extradimensional" is a process of continual individuation which in some respect may be observed, partially at least, through entropy as a continual fractation. This fraction in turn inverts into another whole, much in the same manner a fraction of 1 inverts into a whole number, and a series of further linear structures are created which in turn invert to fractional structures and the process continues.

Similarly, I know how to determine the limit of a function f(x), but I am not sure what definition you are assigning to a "limit" (towards infinity) or "no-limit" (never ending existence of one side). At a second approximation using the variables "x" and "y", all equations have a corresponding graph that traverses all possible true solutions.

Eodnhoj7 » March 8th, 2018, 4:35 pm wrote:In simpler terms, how we understand reality is through multiple linear dimensions relating to each other to form the foundation for movement. These lines, as forming the foundation of everything from physical to conscious realities, are "1 as spatial direction moving through itself in 0d space through a process of perpetual replication". We cannot separate "1" conceptually from "1 direction [as dimension]" considering the quantification of qualitative reality in turn directs that reality.

(COMMENT)Again, I have no clue. I am totally without an understanding of whatever the description is for a "multiple linear dimension;" as applied here.

`Multiple linear dimensions...a grid, the movement of a line through frequencies, angles as the foundation for the relation of angles, the movement of an phenomena in one direction relative to a phenomena moving in a seperate, yet "1", direction.`

I'll stop here for now; as I'm not sure if we are still inside the realm of reality or the process of a developmental philosophy.

`Hopefully the above will give further clarity, underline if you need further examples:`

A question for thought, how can reality be separate from dimensions, as spatial boundaries, when the dimensions are what form reality? How can one seperate a dimension from another dimension without apply a dimension?

Most Respectfully,

R