|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 31, 2019 22:30:52 GMT
The Contradictory Nature of Quantification
1. If I quantify a phenomena as X, I effectively separate it from all surrounding phenomenon, resulting in further quantities.
2. To quantify "x" is effectively to result in a dualistic number/quality as "y" fundamentally equivalent to not x, thus resulting in a dualism synthesize through "z" as both "x and y" but still subject to the same nature as "x" and "y" necessitating "a" as a variable relative to "z".
3. Cycling back to point 1 and 2, we are left with every act of quantification leading to a state of indefiniteness due to its continual nature of perpetual quantification premised in a dualistic nature, with this dualistic nature observing a state of opposition as contradiction still quantified as "2".
The paradox occurs, as "x" is subject to an infinite number of quantities, and yet the nature of number is dependent upon the "variable" as a form of "variation" and in itself is a "quantity" dependent upon an inherent qualitative number, that while existing as an through number, is not number in and of itself thus existing as a dichotomy.
The paradox extends further as itself, that while the variable exists inseparable from number itself, it is subject to an infinite variation of numbers and as such is equivalent to an "infinity" where any logical statement or equation effectively is a localization in itself; thus existing as a variable.
The variable in turn as a number, as it is quantifiable as a phenomenon in itself and existing as further quantities (ex: x=(1,2,3...) observer 1(x) and 1(1,2,3...)), is subject to multiple states where x=1, x=2, x=3,... observes y(x).
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 5, 2020 14:22:33 GMT
Ok, 1st and 2nd steps done, how from "1" – x, y, and z – can make a leap into "2"?
a. X – separation;
b. Y - the result of (a)
c. Z - (a) and (b) are taken as a whole.
Notice! that the (act of) separation, the result (of separation), and (the act of all that) taken as a whole – are what we discuss in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd steps (in your post), not about"X", "Y", and "Z". (We could name it like that, but for trying to avoid confusion it wouldn't the best way.)
Ok, if (c) allows us to take this act of getting "1" as a whole, and the 2nd step is a necessary complement to this process. What about properties of such a structure? We don't know for sure any real details of such a construction, except for it suits math expressions: we used to think/call/understand this construction as numbers without bright view of it, or without such a reaction, etc.
If such a process of creating a model (a construction, or a structure) is our application for this process – i.e. modeling, then why exactly this model must be taken as unique and especial? If such a model is an ontologically origin of it (somehow), then what can be taken as a prototype of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 5, 2020 21:43:58 GMT
In observing the distinction of one phenomenon a backdrop phenomenon occurs where the distinction of one phenomenon into another necessitates a multiplication of that phenomena. For example in observing the bird as a distinct singular entity, a tree is observed through the background. In observing one phenomenon two phenomenon are observed thus multiplying the number of phenomena observed.
In observing the second phenomena another backdrop is observed thus a third phenomena. For example in observing the bird, then the tree, a third phenomena of the field occurs thus resulting in a continual multiplication of phenomena for every act of distinction. Distinction thus results in multiplication where for every act of quantifying a phenomenon as a singularity another singularity occurs.
In observing a singularity multiple backdrop singularities occur where the act of quantification into a finite entity results in continuously produced finite entities with this continuum necessitating an irrationality given the number of singularities is always changing. The irrationality, as indefiniteness, is grounded in this perpetual change. Every act of distinction is an act of change.
|
|
kof
New Member
Posts: 22
Likes: 13
|
Post by kof on Oct 5, 2020 22:54:28 GMT
In observing the distinction of one phenomenon a backdrop phenomenon occurs where the distinction of one phenomenon into another necessitates a multiplication of that phenomena. For example in observing the bird as a distinct singular entity, a tree is observed through the background. In observing one phenomenon two phenomenon are observed thus multiplying the number of phenomena observed. In observing the second phenomena another backdrop is observed thus a third phenomena. For example in observing the bird, then the tree, a third phenomena of the field occurs thus resulting in a continual multiplication of phenomena for every act of distinction. Distinction thus results in multiplication where for every act of quantifying a phenomenon as a singularity another singularity occurs. In observing a singularity multiple backdrop singularities occur where the act of quantification into a finite entity results in continuously produced finite entities with this continuum necessitating an irrationality given the number of singularities is always changing. The irrationality, as indefiniteness, is grounded in this perpetual change. Every act of distinction is an act of change. If an extremely hot chic seem to be standing at the tree. I'll ignore all the phenomenas |
|
kof
New Member
Posts: 22
Likes: 13
|
Post by kof on Oct 5, 2020 22:58:54 GMT
The Contradictory Nature of Quantification 1. If I quantify a phenomena as X, I effectively separate it from all surrounding phenomenon, resulting in further quantities. 2. To quantify "x" is effectively to result in a dualistic number/quality as "y" fundamentally equivalent to not x, thus resulting in a dualism synthesize through "z" as both "x and y" but still subject to the same nature as "x" and "y" necessitating "a" as a variable relative to "z". 3. Cycling back to point 1 and 2, we are left with every act of quantification leading to a state of indefiniteness due to its continual nature of perpetual quantification premised in a dualistic nature, with this dualistic nature observing a state of opposition as contradiction still quantified as "2". The paradox occurs, as "x" is subject to an infinite number of quantities, and yet the nature of number is dependent upon the "variable" as a form of "variation" and in itself is a "quantity" dependent upon an inherent qualitative number, that while existing as an through number, is not number in and of itself thus existing as a dichotomy. The paradox extends further as itself, that while the variable exists inseparable from number itself, it is subject to an infinite variation of numbers and as such is equivalent to an "infinity" where any logical statement or equation effectively is a localization in itself; thus existing as a variable. The variable in turn as a number, as it is quantifiable as a phenomenon in itself and existing as further quantities (ex: x=(1,2,3...) observer 1(x) and 1(1,2,3...)), is subject to multiple states where x=1, x=2, x=3,... observes y(x). Ok so that's how the affairs are of this world. Are we gonna lead up to something knowing this. Or how can we bring this information to any use? If I may ask |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 5, 2020 23:05:54 GMT
The Contradictory Nature of Quantification 1. If I quantify a phenomena as X, I effectively separate it from all surrounding phenomenon, resulting in further quantities. 2. To quantify "x" is effectively to result in a dualistic number/quality as "y" fundamentally equivalent to not x, thus resulting in a dualism synthesize through "z" as both "x and y" but still subject to the same nature as "x" and "y" necessitating "a" as a variable relative to "z". 3. Cycling back to point 1 and 2, we are left with every act of quantification leading to a state of indefiniteness due to its continual nature of perpetual quantification premised in a dualistic nature, with this dualistic nature observing a state of opposition as contradiction still quantified as "2". The paradox occurs, as "x" is subject to an infinite number of quantities, and yet the nature of number is dependent upon the "variable" as a form of "variation" and in itself is a "quantity" dependent upon an inherent qualitative number, that while existing as an through number, is not number in and of itself thus existing as a dichotomy. The paradox extends further as itself, that while the variable exists inseparable from number itself, it is subject to an infinite variation of numbers and as such is equivalent to an "infinity" where any logical statement or equation effectively is a localization in itself; thus existing as a variable. The variable in turn as a number, as it is quantifiable as a phenomenon in itself and existing as further quantities (ex: x=(1,2,3...) observer 1(x) and 1(1,2,3...)), is subject to multiple states where x=1, x=2, x=3,... observes y(x). Ok so that's how the affairs are of this world. Are we gonna lead up to something knowing this. Or how can we bring this information to any use? If I may ask Use is grounded in observing the fundamental nature of a phenomenon given this fundamental nature is that in what we build upon. In observing the nature of clay, and how it performs in different circumstances, the use of the clay is derived from how it acts as clay. As to use of what I state, the use can be derived from observing the fundamental nature of consciousness and reflecting it in the nature of meditation or psychotherapy. Consciousness has fundamental "rules". |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 5, 2020 23:07:49 GMT
In observing the distinction of one phenomenon a backdrop phenomenon occurs where the distinction of one phenomenon into another necessitates a multiplication of that phenomena. For example in observing the bird as a distinct singular entity, a tree is observed through the background. In observing one phenomenon two phenomenon are observed thus multiplying the number of phenomena observed. In observing the second phenomena another backdrop is observed thus a third phenomena. For example in observing the bird, then the tree, a third phenomena of the field occurs thus resulting in a continual multiplication of phenomena for every act of distinction. Distinction thus results in multiplication where for every act of quantifying a phenomenon as a singularity another singularity occurs. In observing a singularity multiple backdrop singularities occur where the act of quantification into a finite entity results in continuously produced finite entities with this continuum necessitating an irrationality given the number of singularities is always changing. The irrationality, as indefiniteness, is grounded in this perpetual change. Every act of distinction is an act of change. If an extremely hot chic seem to be standing at the tree. I'll ignore all the phenomenas Yet is the contrast of the forms which occur through her, ie and hips, that allow for the beauty to occur. |
|
kof
New Member
Posts: 22
Likes: 13
|
Post by kof on Oct 20, 2020 18:01:17 GMT
If an extremely hot chic seem to be standing at the tree. I'll ignore all the phenomenas Yet is the contrast of the forms which occur through her, ie and hips, that allow for the beauty to occur. i like the way u think. appreciating the beauty rather looking it through perversion |
|
