|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 19, 2020 2:44:18 GMT
Isomorphism is the inversion of one thing into another symmetrical state.
The 1st degree of isomorphism is the inversion of no-thingness into somethingness.
The 2nd degree is the inversion of one pattern, as somethingness, invert into another pattern as many patterns.
The 3rd degree of isomorphism is the first and second degrees of isomorphism in turn inverting one into the other.
This inversion, as a cycle occurs repeatedly, where recursion occurs simultaneously alongside isomorphism as a symmetrical state which is the 4th degree of isomorphism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 19, 2020 7:37:02 GMT
Inversion is, for example, "a and b" to "b and a", i.e. there must be some particles, objects to invert something. There's nothing to invert as long as there are no particles or objects.
Metaphysically - I do not understand the necessity in the inference of the first degree. Why "no-thingness" should be transposed/inverted into "somethingness"? I'd like to say: "no-thingness" implies "no-thingness". And the consequent isn't to be more full, complete or sorta, than its antecedent.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 21, 2020 0:28:26 GMT
Inversion is, for example, "a and b" to "b and a", i.e. there must be some particles, objects to invert something. There's nothing to invert as long as there are no particles or objects. Metaphysically - I do not understand the necessity in the inference of the first degree. Why "no-thingness" should be transposed/inverted into "somethingness"? I'd like to say: "no-thingness" implies "no-thingness". And the consequent isn't to be more full, complete or sorta, than its antecedent. Void does not exist, it exists as a statement of multiplicity at best. Void voids itself, so only being exists. It is like starting with: (-A --> -A) --> A Instead of: (A --> A) --> B More accurately it would be: (• --> •) --> (A, -A) |
|
|
|
Post by Calliope on Jan 21, 2020 9:33:16 GMT
Reminds me the work of Suhawardi, The Shape of Light. A trustfull work of philosophical clarification. It's a good work to meditate about. But I believe that it cannot supply with definitive arguments about anything. Even results generate doubts, I don't think that the skeptical way of delusion can be unassembled whitout a extreme and radical reversion of certain propositions of the skeptical common discourse. It's a very strong position in the chessboard of contemporary philosophy. But not impossible to derrocate. It's takes a lot of time and patience. It takes a life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calliope on Jan 21, 2020 9:36:42 GMT
Even the evidence becames doubtful. A doubtful evidence it's not a aparent contradiction originated in the crude kantian dialects?
Greetings.
|
|
