Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality

Interdisciplinary science discussions. Also, if you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here.

Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality

Postby RoccoR on March 8th, 2018, 3:22 pm 

RE: Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality
※→ Eodnhoj7, et al,

As a Starting Point and Initial Interrogative:

EXCERPT: Eodnhoj7 » March 7th, 2018, 8:33 pm wrote:Currently looking at a master's in philosophy and am working on a thesis that attempts to provide a base foundation stone for understanding the phenomena of reality, at minimum, as:

2) Space and Number are inseparable.

3) Space provides one of the foundations for consciousness and reality.

(COMMENT)

I think that, at least for me, your stated eight questions are more than I can handle until I see more; and even then you might lose me. So, to explore your "philosophical approach" (as opposed to hard evidence in the scientific method) → I'll venture forth by sticking my big toe in the water...

    ψ → What do you mean by Numbers (as in Space & Numbers)?

      • Did you mean uniform increments between events?
      • Did you mean a representative value of some quantity?

    ψ → What basic assumptions are you using?

      • Is it assumed that there is some known evidence that stipulates a relationship between "space" and "numbers?"
      • Is there a requirement that makes the relationship necessary?

    ψ → Is there a "consciousness" inside and outside the boundary of "reality?"

      • Is it assumed that the boundary between the "real" and the "unreal" are identifiable?
      • Is the distinction between "consciousness" and the "unconscious" recognizable?

Most Respectfully,
R
User avatar
RoccoR
Member
 
Posts: 79
Joined: 05 Feb 2017


Re: Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality

Postby Eodnhoj7 on March 8th, 2018, 4:35 pm 

RoccoR » March 8th, 2018, 3:22 pm wrote:RE: Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality
※→ Eodnhoj7, et al,

As a Starting Point and Initial Interrogative:

EXCERPT: Eodnhoj7 » March 7th, 2018, 8:33 pm wrote:Currently looking at a master's in philosophy and am working on a thesis that attempts to provide a base foundation stone for understanding the phenomena of reality, at minimum, as:

2) Space and Number are inseparable.

3) Space provides one of the foundations for consciousness and reality.

(COMMENT)

I think that, at least for me, your stated eight questions are more than I can handle until I see more; and even then you might lose me. So, to explore your "philosophical approach" (as opposed to hard evidence in the scientific method) → I'll venture forth by sticking my big toe in the water...

There is alot to cover so if my answer's do not satisfy your questions just say so, and I will elaborate further...in simple terms bear with me...if you do not understand what I am saying it is my fault not yours...I am summarizing 100 plus pages, with the 100 plus pages most likely being only half of the argument.

To sum up my arguments intended premises, I am addressing the concepts of "unity" and "multiplicity" as non-contradictory duals, which further synthesize to form the foundation of what we percieve as dimension with dimensionality being "space as directive axioms".


    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 seperate are merely approximations of a whole resulting in movement conducive to a perpetual change.

    For instance if I take the stance that number is strictly an abstract entity whose symbolic form, as measurement, implies only a descriptive nature I am stuck in a paradox where the description in turn forms the description.

    For example if I divide an object into two parts, break it down atomically to understand its origins, I cause an inherent change in the property of that object by changing the dimensions through which it exists. So while the description, in mathematical terms, may describe the object the description simultaneously changes the object and a further description is necessitated. In simple terms by observation of the object changes the nature of that object by the observation directing the objects dimensionality. These dimensions, fundamentally as a spatial reality in itself, give the object the structure which simultaneously unifies it for what it is while in a seperate respect seperates it from any surrounding phenomena.

    In these respects objective reality provides the subjective base of description, with description merely being the application of spatial dimensions, hence the nature of symbolism takes on a form of reality in itself as a median point between other dimensions (both physical and abstract).

    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.

    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.



      • 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.

      • 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.

    ψ → What basic assumptions are you using?

    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.

    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.

    "1" is inseperable from an extradimensional line, and our understanding of "1" as a unit is "1" as extradimensional space projecting away from its origins.

    Assuming you will have question about the above points, I will move on to the next point rather briefly: the problem of extradimensional space is that it continually moves away from its origins, hence is "self-defeating". Viewing existence as completely unified would require a new axiom to geometry and math as a "1 intradimensional point", where the 1d point not only glues reality together, much like a theoretical ether, but fundamentally is the foundation for "limit" and "no-limit". The 1d point is "limit" in the respect that is is pure "direction" with direction being the foundations for all boundaries. In a seperate respect this "pure" direction is directed into itself without limit or contradiction as the direction itself is form with pure direction being relegated to a point (not in the 0d sense we common understand).

    Considering only the 1d point exists, what we observe as reality are approximations of it thorugh -1d lines which are "imaginary" (in the respect they give image and structure to reality) and negative dimensional in the respect there is not "defieciency" in the 1d point...hence no multiplicity. What we understand of as reality is merely an approximation of the 1d points as -1d lines connecting them, with the point existing as points through point. Multiplicity is merely the localization of space by applying negative boundaries which seperates that space from another space, resulting in an approximation of the original infinite space.

    In these respects Euclidian axioms are somewhat inverted, where the point is the source of dimensionality as 1 and the lines are inverted into negative dimensions. Considering this point space is completely unified, the 1d point is "1 as unity" and the -1d line is "-1 as approximation of one through gradation of absence".

    This ethereal space, or mirror space is what I call it, provides the foundations for relativistic space as 1d lines and 0d space. It does so in the respect that the mirroring process eventually results in the 0d point as an absence of mirroring, hence structure, through which the -1d line which connect the 1d points inturn invert into 1d lines...this part may be a little confusing at first so I will come later if you wish.




      • Is it assumed that there is some known evidence that stipulates a relationship between "space" and "numbers?"
      Quantity and Quality provide the foundation for measurement as a "direction" where one space is directed into or toward another to further form another space.

      From the perspective of number forming reality, we are left with the premise that number forms space.
      From the perspective of space forming reality (with matter being conducive to space moving through spaces as units of space through a continual fractating of dimensions) we are still left with the question of how matter leads to number.

      What we cannot seperate either from physical or abstract reality is that dimensions are applied through space being premised in lines and points, hence the line and point, must be inseperable from number...the question I am addressing breaks down to how lines and points are numbers in themselves.



      • Is there a requirement that makes the relationship necessary?

      The problem of axiomatic frames.

      If I frame everything from the axiom that all reality begins with objective matter, then I am left with saying that matter leads to abstract phenomena and these abstract phenomena in turn affect physical reality. A circularity inevitably evolves that contradicts the original premises [which are dependent on linear reasoning].

      If I frame everything from the axiom that all reality begins with abstract forms, then I am left with saying that abstract forms lead to physical phenomena and these physical phenomena in turn affect abstract reality. A circularity inevitably evolves that contradicts the original premises [which are dependent on linear reasoning].

      Hence I get a dual set of axioms whose further linear progression eventually leads the framework to alternate back to the original premise.

      The best alternative is to view both physical and abstract realities as synthesizing fundamentally into space, with space being the unified median of both abstract and physical realities, while contradicting neither. This leads to the basic question, considering we observe reality both qualitatively and quantitatively, "what is space?" (with the answer being dimensions as direction) and what is "number" (with the answer being 1 as "unity" being a 1d point, -1 as a negative dimensional line, 1 as "unit" being the extradimensional line and 0d point being the absence of dimensional which causes a multiplicity to occur.



    ψ → Is there a "consciousness" inside and outside the boundary of "reality?"

      • Is it assumed that the boundary between the "real" and the "unreal" are identifiable?
      Yes because both are rooted in points and lines.

      • Is the distinction between "consciousness" and the "unconscious" recognizable?
      Points and lines are the premise of both consciousness and unconsciousness.

Most Respectfully,
R


I don't know if I gave you clear enough answers, so just ask questions or underline what you want me to elaborate on.

E7.
Eodnhoj7
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality

Postby RoccoR on March 10th, 2018, 9:55 pm 

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. 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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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).

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.

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.

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.

Most Respectfully,
R
User avatar
RoccoR
Member
 
Posts: 79
Joined: 05 Feb 2017


Re: Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality

Postby Eodnhoj7 on March 12th, 2018, 11:50 am 

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
Eodnhoj7
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality

Postby Braininvat on March 12th, 2018, 11:55 am 

An abstract would helpful, for those of us unsure if we want to get into this thread.

I am reminded of German physicist Heinrich Hertz's famous quote, "One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers, that we get more out of them than we originally put in to them."
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6287
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
RoccoR liked this post


Re: Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality

Postby Eodnhoj7 on March 12th, 2018, 12:12 pm 

Braininvat » March 12th, 2018, 11:55 am wrote:An abstract would helpful, for those of us unsure if we want to get into this thread.

I am reminded of German physicist Heinrich Hertz's famous quote, "One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers, that we get more out of them than we originally put in to them."



Number as space are inseperable with our understanding of both space and number being dependent upon observing the nature of the "movements" as intradimensional (as a unified whole moving through itself) and extradimensional (as parts moving towards a unified whole).

Intradimensional space, as everything unified as "1" would be conducive to a premise of a 1d point and -1d line.

Extradimensional space, as everything existing as units of "1" (or parts) would be conducive to a premise of a 1d line and 0d point.

This extradimensional space would be conducive to viewing the line and point in Euclidian terms, with all non-euclidian definitions of the line and point being an approximation of a euclidian definition.

Considering what we understand of reality, both empirical and abstract phenomena, are inseperable from observing spatial dimensions rooted in lines and points, what we understand of reality is inseperable from the line and point.
Eodnhoj7
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality

Postby RoccoR on March 19th, 2018, 8:47 pm 

RE: Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality
※→ Eodnhoj7, Braininvat, et al,

Yes, like so many people, Heinrich Hertz want to see some empirical evidence in the Supreme Being. Such imaginative minds (Faraday, Clark, Tesla, Hertz).
    • Hertz, himself, was a member of a Ghost Club, which investigated the paranormal; later to become President of the Society for Psychical Research.

    • Charles Richet was the founder of the Annals of Psychic Research. Charles Richet, a Nobel Laureate (Physiology or Medicine, 1913) was the President of the British Society for Psychical Research in 1905. He was one of the very first to do serious work on the phenomena of "ectoplasm."

    • Sir William Crookes, a prominent physicist and discoverer of the chemical element Thallium; was known for his investigations of the physical mediums.

After Albert Einstein's personal secretary (Helen Dukas), became very frightened at séance hosted by Pulitzer Prize winner Upton Sinclair (who Eisenstein was staying with at the time), took note of the proceeding along with Richard Tolman (who would become the chief scientific advisor to the Manhattan Project) and Dr Paul Epstein, Professor of theoretical physics at Caltech; all of who where all somewhat skeptical, .

Years later, when casually asked about the experience and the ethereal plane → “Even if I saw a ghost”— Einstein once said — “I wouldn’t believe it.” and several years after that Einstein remarked wan asked about Dr JB Rhine's study outcomes (Researcher in Parapsychology at Duke University) Einstein stressed his skepticism in the findings on scientific grounds. All the relevant findings concluded that psi-forces didn’t decline with distance unlike the four known forces of nature – gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force. Einstein said that “This suggests to me a very strong indication that a non-recognized source of systematic errors may have been involved.”

Today we suggest that there → in fact → is a significant amount of "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" that is not yet recognized, difficult to detect, or understood. constituting ≈ 95% of the Universe, for which we know next to nothing about.

Eodnhoj7 » March 12th, 2018, 12:12 pm wrote:
Braininvat » March 12th, 2018, 11:55 am wrote:An abstract would helpful, for those of us unsure if we want to get into this thread.

I am reminded of German physicist Heinrich Hertz's famous quote, "One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers, that we get more out of them than we originally put in to them."

Number as space are inseperable with our understanding of both space and number being dependent upon observing the nature of the "movements" as intradimensional (as a unified whole moving through itself) and extradimensional (as parts moving towards a unified whole).

Intradimensional space, as everything unified as "1" would be conducive to a premise of a 1d point and -1d line.

Extradimensional space, as everything existing as units of "1" (or parts) would be conducive to a premise of a 1d line and 0d point.

This extradimensional space would be conducive to viewing the line and point in Euclidian terms, with all non-euclidian definitions of the line and point being an approximation of a euclidian definition.

Considering what we understand of reality, both empirical and abstract phenomena, are inseperable from observing spatial dimensions rooted in lines and points, what we understand of reality is inseperable from the line and point.

(COMMENT)

"Numbers" and "Space" are two entirely different concepts. We do not even know that the current path that mathematics is taking is, in fact, the correct path.

Numbers are a means of description. It is a form of language. As you already know that any given formula can be graphically modeled. But there is always something that is lost in the intricates used or the definitions that apply. Even something as simple as a "straight line" is not so simple. The shortest distance between to points is not always a straight line. In fact, there is a question as to whether or not there is something called a "straight line."

Space is NOT truly a description of an object; but, rather the intersection of coordinates that outline a something observable. Space is affected by many many things, so much so, that there is a question as to whether there is any such thing as "space."

Most Respectfully,
R
User avatar
RoccoR
Member
 
Posts: 79
Joined: 05 Feb 2017


Re: Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality

Postby Eodnhoj7 on March 22nd, 2018, 4:59 pm 

RoccoR » March 19th, 2018, 8:47 pm wrote:RE: Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality
※→ Eodnhoj7, Braininvat, et al,

Yes, like so many people, Heinrich Hertz want to see some empirical evidence in the Supreme Being. Such imaginative minds (Faraday, Clark, Tesla, Hertz).
    • Hertz, himself, was a member of a Ghost Club, which investigated the paranormal; later to become President of the Society for Psychical Research.

    • Charles Richet was the founder of the Annals of Psychic Research. Charles Richet, a Nobel Laureate (Physiology or Medicine, 1913) was the President of the British Society for Psychical Research in 1905. He was one of the very first to do serious work on the phenomena of "ectoplasm."

    • Sir William Crookes, a prominent physicist and discoverer of the chemical element Thallium; was known for his investigations of the physical mediums.

The problem of empirical evidence is multifaceted considering the following:

1) Empirical data is dependent not only upon a subjective sensory experience but is dependent upon a continual replication of the same data that is dependent upon a strictly abstract measuring standard. This measuring standard, embodied through variations of the scientific method, is in itself not strictly premised in sensory experience but in itself is an abstract structural form that is not only dependent upon a quasi form of circular reasoning but the completely imaginative and subjective nature of the questioning "experience".

From this the nature of "the question" comes into account considering that there is no strict measurable methodology that determines this necessary premise within the scientific method. Considering that the nature of the question in turn results in the inherent answer of the experiment (as each question can only have a finite number of answers) the question itself may have some degree of influence over the results.

2) Empiricism is premised upon an understand of what is "finite" and this dependence upon what is finite in turn not only observes finite answers but fundamentally one's conducive to "change". What is finite is subject to time, what is subject to time is fundamentally a movement. What is a movement is subject to an observation of relations. What is an observation of relations in itself is an observation of parts. What is an observation of parts, considering a "whole" truth cannot be viewed, inherently shows that empiricism is fundamentally approximation. Hence the problem of empiricism is its approximate nature, hence it must result in various degrees to approximate truths.

3) Empiricism's premise of "sensory" knowledge falls into some severe pitfalls when the question of not only "what" the nature of sensory knowledge is, but also "who" "when" "where" "how" and "why" sensory knowledge manifests itself. Sensory knowledge is dependent upon a strictly a priori axiomatic nature that is "assumed" to be universal but fails to take into account the nature of observation. What happens when one person sees one thing and one person sees another? What seperates delusion from truth? What seperates group consensus from mass hysteria? You can get the "point" from here.

To argue against the necessity of empirical knowledge would be foolish considering that it as a concept alone is self-evident. However to premise it as a universal axiom of measurement from which knowledge begins and ends lends itself to problems considering the above points.


After Albert Einstein's personal secretary (Helen Dukas), became very frightened at séance hosted by Pulitzer Prize winner Upton Sinclair (who Eisenstein was staying with at the time), took note of the proceeding along with Richard Tolman (who would become the chief scientific advisor to the Manhattan Project) and Dr Paul Epstein, Professor of theoretical physics at Caltech; all of who where all somewhat skeptical, .

Years later, when casually asked about the experience and the ethereal plane → “Even if I saw a ghost”— Einstein once said — “I wouldn’t believe it.” and several years after that Einstein remarked wan asked about Dr JB Rhine's study outcomes (Researcher in Parapsychology at Duke University) Einstein stressed his skepticism in the findings on scientific grounds. All the relevant findings concluded that psi-forces didn’t decline with distance unlike the four known forces of nature – gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force. Einstein said that “This suggests to me a very strong indication that a non-recognized source of systematic errors may have been involved.”

Today we suggest that there → in fact → is a significant amount of "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" that is not yet recognized, difficult to detect, or understood. constituting ≈ 95% of the Universe, for which we know next to nothing about.

Eodnhoj7 » March 12th, 2018, 12:12 pm wrote:
Braininvat » March 12th, 2018, 11:55 am wrote:An abstract would helpful, for those of us unsure if we want to get into this thread.

I am reminded of German physicist Heinrich Hertz's famous quote, "One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers, that we get more out of them than we originally put in to them."

Number as space are inseperable with our understanding of both space and number being dependent upon observing the nature of the "movements" as intradimensional (as a unified whole moving through itself) and extradimensional (as parts moving towards a unified whole).

Intradimensional space, as everything unified as "1" would be conducive to a premise of a 1d point and -1d line.

Extradimensional space, as everything existing as units of "1" (or parts) would be conducive to a premise of a 1d line and 0d point.

This extradimensional space would be conducive to viewing the line and point in Euclidian terms, with all non-euclidian definitions of the line and point being an approximation of a euclidian definition.

Considering what we understand of reality, both empirical and abstract phenomena, are inseperable from observing spatial dimensions rooted in lines and points, what we understand of reality is inseperable from the line and point.

(COMMENT)

"Numbers" and "Space" are two entirely different concepts. We do not even know that the current path that mathematics is taking is, in fact, the correct path.

The question of the direction of mathematics is dependent soley on its foundations with the foundations themselves, I do not believe to either be fully understood or explained entirely. Part of the reason for this problem lies in the fact as to what number is, was, and maybe. Questions occur in respect to the nature of measurement considering what we use as "description" or "meaning" in itself is not only dependent upon subjectively establishing boundaries through which we "measure", but observing a state of continual change which under its own terms is contradictory in the respect we are observing an absolute.

This observation of mathematics as strictly a tool of measurement follows the following problems:

1) The application of number to a phenomena in turn changes the phenomena into an absolute an in turn causes a contradiction in respect that the phenomena continues to change. In a separate respect the measurements may also change which in turn causes the numbers to change, making the measurement through mathematics fundamentally relativistic.

2) Point 1 observes a duality between absolute and relativistic truth hence we can observe in measurement the inherent and age old philosophical problem of "what happens when an immovable object meets an unstoppable force" or when a "positive meets a negative". The most logical, if not the only logical, answer would be a "synthetic neutrality" where the process of measurement "synthesizes" reality into a new phenomena which follows the same form and functions as the grounds upon which it was founded.

In simple terms when we measure we form both an absolute and relativistic reality simultaneously where from a perspective of 1d the new phenomena always exists while from a relatistic perspective it changes through time.

3) Following points 1 and 2 we must observe the foundations of number as both absolute and relativistic with

A) What is "absolute" being an extension of "1" through a process of mirroring in which all number and measurable phenomena are extensions of a whole. In these respects a "mirror function", I argue, is necessary as a foundation for understanding the nature of number and measurement.
viewtopic.php?f=65&t=34204

B) What is "Relative" being a individuation of "1" where "1" is approximated through a process of change. This process of "change" observes "1" as a unit or part that maintains its existence through a process of continual relations in order to maintain itself as a "unit" or "being" relative to "0" or non-being. In simpler terms all number as unit is premised through "1" folding upon itself much in the same manner the relation of fields or particles "fold" reality. In these respects number, and the inherent process of measurement, as a relativistic phenomena may be implied as a form of "folding" as "change" hence, I argue, a folding function is necessary.

viewtopic.php?f=65&t=34193




Numbers are a means of description. It is a form of language. As you already know that any given formula can be graphically modeled. But there is always something that is lost in the intricates used or the definitions that apply.
The problem with "description" and "language" is that is quite literally forms and manipulates reality or at least the "phenomena" we deem as "real". We can see this in the process mass media communication where technology synthesizes continually through the process of communication or in the simple everyday level of verbal command where a person communicate an "idea" or "feeling" to another and something is created or destroyed.

Definition is the boundary which forms reality and gives it structure, with definition itself fundamentally being various grades of symmetry as interrelated fields (we can observe this in the senses observing reality through different "fields").



Even something as simple as a "straight line" is not so simple. The shortest distance between to points is not always a straight line. In fact, there is a question as to whether or not there is something called a "straight line."

Considering hyperbolic and elliptic geometry are dependent upon curved lines, yet require Euclidian axioms, one may argue that curvature is strictly the approximation of frequencies with the frequencies in themselves being simple continuous "angles" as a set of folding lines.

Can the curved line exist without the standard Euclidian strait line as its premise? Most likely not. Curvature may be the approximation of continuous frequencies, with frequencies being standard angles. A curve in simpler terms may be an observation of "multiple" related lines as a continuous "set" of angles.


Space is NOT truly a description of an object; but, rather the intersection of coordinates that outline a something observable. Space is affected by many many things, so much so, that there is a question as to whether there is any such thing as "space."

Considering what we understand of coordinates are dependent upon the nature of "limit" and "no-limit" as the fundamental prerequisite boundaries which not only give us "dimensions" but fundamentally the order required for "being" itself to exist, the problem occurs in the respect that "coordinates" themselves as "space within space" as the question occurs would the space exist without the cooridinate? Or would the cooridinate being able to exist without space?

Considering all "emptiness", from a relativistic perspective, exists as a nature of relation (an empty cup is only empty because of its absence of fluid, it is not empty of air however) what we understand of space not as an absence of being but rather "being" itself, considering "absence" is strictly relativistic.

We can see this in the term "empty space" where a perceive phenomena is deficient in an actual relation yet in itself is observable for what it is "space". Space not only forms the boundaries of reality but may in itself be the boundary considering all boundaries are composed of further space.

Space is irreducible on its own terms as it is fundamentally a universal median that bind reality together in one respect, while in a separate it acts as a medium of potential and actual movement when viewing reality approximately through time.

Considering you have observed that "space" may be affected in these respects we may observe reality from a premise of space folding upon itself with this folding merely being an approximation of a universal 1d space. Space may not be the absence of being but the foundation of it considering it is the foundation of the dimensions which form it.


Most Respectfully,
R
Eodnhoj7
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality

Postby parsoff on May 5th, 2018, 5:24 pm 

[quote="[url=http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=334201#p334201]


[list]ψ → What do you mean by Numbers (as in Space & Numbers)?



For example if I divide an object into two parts, break it down atomically to understand its origins, I cause an inherent change in the property of that object by changing the dimensions through which it exists. So while the description, in mathematical terms, may describe the object the description simultaneously changes the object and a further description is necessitated. In simple terms by observation of the object changes the nature of that object by the observation directing the objects dimensionality. These dimensions, fundamentally as a spatial reality in itself, give the object the structure which simultaneously unifies it for what it is while in a seperate respect seperates it from any surrounding phenomena.

In these respects objective reality provides the subjective base of description, with description merely being the application of spatial dimensions, hence the nature of symbolism takes on a form of reality in itself as a median point between other dimensions (both physical and abstract).

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.


[/quote]
Very well explained.

As you were talking in 'dimensions' in another way, i wanted to say that there is no dimension at all.

Observing that goes from micro to macro(the hole object) where observing becomes analyzing with the infinite freedom to name the hole object and describe parts. That activity is not something why someone is born for as it is more work by the brain. It is an activity that is brought to life by curiosity of modern humans, not the only creature with curiosity.

Back to the subject of dimension.
With the newest space telescope there wil be no dimension found because there is none. If every point that you can know, see or feel is in the center of infinity then a line from every one of those points goes to infinity. For who did not hear or thought about it, that there is no dimension, this can be strange and when you know it stays something strange.
What that gives in the consciousness ???
parsoff
Member
 
Posts: 102
Joined: 26 Apr 2013


Re: Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality

Postby Eodnhoj7 on May 7th, 2018, 11:07 am 

parsoff » May 5th, 2018, 5:24 pm wrote:[quote="[url=http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=334201#p334201]


[list]ψ → What do you mean by Numbers (as in Space & Numbers)?



For example if I divide an object into two parts, break it down atomically to understand its origins, I cause an inherent change in the property of that object by changing the dimensions through which it exists. So while the description, in mathematical terms, may describe the object the description simultaneously changes the object and a further description is necessitated. In simple terms by observation of the object changes the nature of that object by the observation directing the objects dimensionality. These dimensions, fundamentally as a spatial reality in itself, give the object the structure which simultaneously unifies it for what it is while in a seperate respect seperates it from any surrounding phenomena.

In these respects objective reality provides the subjective base of description, with description merely being the application of spatial dimensions, hence the nature of symbolism takes on a form of reality in itself as a median point between other dimensions (both physical and abstract).

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.



Very well explained.

As you were talking in 'dimensions' in another way, i wanted to say that there is no dimension at all.

Observing that goes from micro to macro(the hole object) where observing becomes analyzing with the infinite freedom to name the hole object and describe parts. That activity is not something why someone is born for as it is more work by the brain. It is an activity that is brought to life by curiosity of modern humans, not the only creature with curiosity.

The question of the micro and the macro breaks down to objective understanding of expansion and contraction in regards to angles. We can equate the expansion and contraction of the angle to the nature of the macro and micro "perspective", considering the "perspective" itself can objectively be observed as an "angle" of awareness (we see this intuitively but even to look at the nature of persception it is premised in both form and function as an "angle" or "angles").

Take for example the 9 point problem. 9 dots exist and the question occurs how can one connect them in three lines. Creating two angles, through three lines, that become increasingly larger as they extend through space causes the relations of the 9 dots to "relativistically" shrink and fit within the angles. However if the angles are not large enough it requires more lines to connect all 9 dots. In these respects the manifestation of angles of measurement inherently determines what composes a specific framework.

The perspective takes this form in itself and determines the nature of the relations within a specific framework, which in itself composes the framework. All laws are merely boundaries which observe a specific set of relations within that boundary. The question occurs as to the most balanced, not efficient as efficiency observes a finite temporality conducive to change, manner to apply boundaries and measure a reality.


Back to the subject of dimension.
With the newest space telescope there wil be no dimension found because there is none. If every point that you can know, see or feel is in the center of infinity then a line from every one of those points goes to infinity.
Can the point be observed without the boundary of the line? Does the line exist because of the 0d point, or is the 0d point observed because of the line?

If what we observe as infinity, that which is not finite, is dependent upon finite dimensions then the dimensions which compose infinity are in themselves 1. To elaborate this point. 0 cannot be observed as a center unless an infinite number of 1d lines cycles through it. This infinite number of lines exists as 1 space in itself, with the center as absence of this very same space. The center is observed because of the infinite number of lines (whose relations exist as 1 circle, disk or sphere). While the lines may be observed on their own terms considering they are the foundations for the angle of "perspective", the 0d point cannot be observed on its own terms with the line as a form of "relation" conducive to a movement of parts.

The line may project infinitely into the 0d point, but the nature of "infinity" is dependent upon the line as a form of projection in and of itself. What is infinite is dependent upon that which is finite, in this case the line. Simultaneously that which is finite, the line again, is dependent upon a continual form of movement as "projection". Hence when we look at the alternating conceptual dependency of "infinity" and "finitness" we observe them through a neutral boundary...again in this case the "line".

Under these terms all spatial boundaries, or dimensions as spatial projection as direction through movement, provide a neutral median from which what limit and no limit exist.

The telescope, quite literally, becomes an angle of perception in the creates a framework in which relations exist within a specific angle.



For who did not hear or thought about it, that there is no dimension, this can be strange and when you know it stays something strange.
What that gives in the consciousness ???

If we look at the nature of consciousness as a means of measurement in which boundaries are applied and maintained resulting in an inherent order through definition, then consciousness can be viewed as these very same boundaries folding through themselves. For example if I measure something through a line, which results in further lines that compose the form(s) at the micro/macro level, then the line as a boundary of measurement results in further lines.

The lines may vary in their ratios, but it still is the same line folding through itself as its own standardard of measurment. In these respects consciousness as an act of measurement is fundamentally spatial boundaries folding through themselves under a continual act of movement to maintain themselves.
[/quote]
Eodnhoj7
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 02 Mar 2018
parsoff liked this post


Re: Space & Numbers ⇔ Consciousness & Reality

Postby Braininvat on May 8th, 2018, 9:25 am 

Please use quote boxes for whomever you reply to, then place your response OUTSIDE the quote box. Anything else is very hard to sort out. Thanks.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6287
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills



Return to Anything Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests