|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 3, 2021 3:11:56 GMT
The concept of the perfect circle continually repeats across multiple observers thereby making the perfect circle infinite.
It is the continual repetition of a phenomenon which makes it infinite.
For example a continually progressive function of the number line necessitates 1 existing in perpetual variation given each number is the number one repeating itself. Under this number line progression 1 exists as perpetually changing thus 1 is repeating in newer and newer variation through the numbers which follow from it.
1 as perpetually changing is 1 as an action. One as a continual action is 1 as infinite.
Infinity is perpetual change as action and can never be observed in its entirety except through the source which repeats itself under newer and newer variation. Infinity can be observed in the number 1 given 1 is infinite through perpetual change.
Infinity thus can be observed through the finite where the finite is the point of change from one phenomenon to another. Each finite object is infinite through its continual change with this change from one finite phenomenon to another being multiple infinities.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 3, 2021 11:27:04 GMT
I would say your interpretation is closer to non-multisets. The multiset is a set in which a formula
{a, a, a, ..., a} = {a} (i)
doesn't work. And instead work this one:
{a, a, a, ..., a} = {n × a} (ii) .
So, in your interpretation in all the infinities are (ii), and n=∞. In turn, your definition is circled.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 3, 2021 18:23:00 GMT
I would say your interpretation is closer to non-multisets. The multiset is a set in which a formula {a, a, a, ..., a} = {a} (i) doesn't work. And instead work this one: {a, a, a, ..., a} = {n × a} (ii) . So, in your interpretation in all the infinities are (ii), and n=∞. In turn, your definition is circled. The progression of the number line is the progressive change of one into a newer and newer form. This progressive change of 1 is continuous thus 1 is infinite through continuous change. (1)-->(1+1)-->(1+1+1).... The change of one is a continuous cycle of one through itself with this continuous cycle observing the circle circling itself perpetually. 1 exists through an infinite cycle which contains further cycles.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 3, 2021 18:40:57 GMT
I would say your interpretation is closer to non-multisets. The multiset is a set in which a formula {a, a, a, ..., a} = {a} (i) doesn't work. And instead work this one: {a, a, a, ..., a} = {n × a} (ii) . So, in your interpretation in all the infinities are (ii), and n=∞. In turn, your definition is circled. The progression of the number line is the progressive change of one into a newer and newer form. This progressive change of 1 is continuous thus 1 is infinite through continuous change. (1)-->(1+1)-->(1+1+1).... The change of one is a continuous cycle of one through itself with this continuous cycle observing the circle circling itself perpetually. 1 exists through an infinite cycle which contains further cycles. All these functional terms like through, cycles, changes, the ones, etc - must exist either on the same level as the ones, or on some above or below levels. You said the ones /or the progressions of the number line/ changes, but what is that change that allows the sequence to do something or being done with something? If everything that exists is just that the one, than there's no other changes or the progressions or cycles, and all these terms /changes, progressions.../ are just words or names.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 3, 2021 18:57:13 GMT
The progression of the number line is the progressive change of one into a newer and newer form. This progressive change of 1 is continuous thus 1 is infinite through continuous change. (1)-->(1+1)-->(1+1+1).... The change of one is a continuous cycle of one through itself with this continuous cycle observing the circle circling itself perpetually. 1 exists through an infinite cycle which contains further cycles. All these functional terms like through, cycles, changes, the ones, etc - must exist either on the same level as the ones, or on some above or below levels. You said the ones /or the progressions of the number line/ changes, but what is that change that allows the sequence to do something or being done with something? If everything that exists is just that the one, than there's no other changes or the progressions or cycles, and all these terms /changes, progressions.../ are just words or names. 1. They exist through the 1. 2. Change is the one mirroring Nothingness where the one as changing perpetually is the one mirroring nothing. The mirroring of nothing is the division of the 1 into parts given nothing can only be observed through the multiplicity of parts given void is the relationship of parts. Void is the negation of one into many. The one thus results in the many with the many being extensions of the one. As extensions of the one, the variations of one, are still composed of one thus are one. One exists through the many and the many exist through the one. 3. Infinite change appears as no change given the infinite repetition of parts necessitates the continuity of the phenomenon. Variation is repetition much in the same manner 3 is a variation of 1, as 1+1+1, yet it is composed of 1 nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 3, 2021 20:29:46 GMT
All these functional terms like through, cycles, changes, the ones, etc - must exist either on the same level as the ones, or on some above or below levels. You said the ones /or the progressions of the number line/ changes, but what is that change that allows the sequence to do something or being done with something? If everything that exists is just that the one, than there's no other changes or the progressions or cycles, and all these terms /changes, progressions.../ are just words or names. 1. They exist through the 1. 2. Change is the one mirroring Nothingness where the one as changing perpetually is the one mirroring nothing. The mirroring of nothing is the division of the 1 into parts given nothing can only be observed through the multiplicity of parts given void is the relationship of parts. Void is the negation of one into many. The one thus results in the many with the many being extensions of the one. As extensions of the one, the variations of one, are still composed of one thus are one. One exists through the many and the many exist through the one. 3. Infinite change appears as no change given the infinite repetition of parts necessitates the continuity of the phenomenon. Variation is repetition much in the same manner 3 is a variation of 1, as 1+1+1, yet it is composed of 1 nonetheless. Ok, but this time you've talking about the mirroring or the parts. What the parts? What the mirroring? There are no mirrorings or no parts, if there is the one and the only one. Ok, I can agree that the Nothingness exists as an addiction to the one, and the draw line between the one and the Nothingness, but as the line, so the NothingnessI, so the One - are just names; we do not know what are they. All what we can assume is what we can guess about them. You've said that all our assumptions are empty at the start, so this is it. And that's why there's no the mirroring or the parts. If there is the one, and the one exists through itself, it does not exist, but it ones through the one by the one, etc. In other words: 11 (11 (11 ...(11(...)...)) and something like that. You can't extract from the one anything you want, except for you take the one from the concept of Parmenides - which had been described by Plato.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 4, 2021 0:09:24 GMT
1. They exist through the 1. 2. Change is the one mirroring Nothingness where the one as changing perpetually is the one mirroring nothing. The mirroring of nothing is the division of the 1 into parts given nothing can only be observed through the multiplicity of parts given void is the relationship of parts. Void is the negation of one into many. The one thus results in the many with the many being extensions of the one. As extensions of the one, the variations of one, are still composed of one thus are one. One exists through the many and the many exist through the one. 3. Infinite change appears as no change given the infinite repetition of parts necessitates the continuity of the phenomenon. Variation is repetition much in the same manner 3 is a variation of 1, as 1+1+1, yet it is composed of 1 nonetheless. Ok, but this time you've talking about the mirroring or the parts. What the parts? What the mirroring? There are no mirrorings or no parts, if there is the one and the only one. Ok, I can agree that the Nothingness exists as an addiction to the one, and the draw line between the one and the Nothingness, but as the line, so the NothingnessI, so the One - are just names; we do not know what are they. All what we can assume is what we can guess about them. You've said that all our assumptions are empty at the start, so this is it. And that's why there's no the mirroring or the parts. If there is the one, and the one exists through itself, it does not exist, but it ones through the one by the one, etc. In other words: 11 (11 (11 ...(11(...)...)) and something like that. You can't extract from the one anything you want, except for you take the one from the concept of Parmenides - which had been described by Plato. This can be expressed through number. 1 mirroring nothing results in multiple parts as gaps between 1 phenomenon and itself. This results in 2 or 3 or more parts. However each part is a variation of the original 1 thus exists as an extension of it. An example of this can be seen within multiple circles. Multiple circles observe the same circle repeated thus only one circle exists in multiple states. These multiple states are variations of the one, yet these variations exist as extensions of eachother. The gaps between circles are a veil of the one circles. Manyness is the mask of the one. Parmenidos observed the distinction between fact and opinion thus breaking down the one to a dualism. One exists through many and many exists through one. The one and many dualism is triadic under the third element of "being" itself. Reality is triadic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2021 22:29:18 GMT
Kind of nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 8, 2021 22:00:40 GMT
And what is not nonsense given nothing can be viewed in its entirety?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 30, 2021 22:58:30 GMT
Bump
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 5, 2021 17:32:20 GMT
It cannot works. A brillant idea, which I never explored, is the mottus perpetuus, the perpetual motor. But I have no energy for that, but is really incredible. And why can it not work?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 5, 2021 23:30:30 GMT
When it can works but never do what preserves the essence. The essence can be a kind of fashion, but is the true meaning of working on things that efectively do certain things. Essence is action, all phenomenon exist through action. This common bond of action resulting in existence necessitates a common source.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 6, 2021 1:44:50 GMT
Essence comes to the ver essere, to be. Essence and being are the same. Being is action.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 28, 2021 0:30:10 GMT
Bump.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 28, 2021 17:02:48 GMT
xxxxxxxxxNo, it's not that bump. Usually some write a program or a strategy to obtain something, or to reach the goal. I disagree with all those Clossovsky and the rest postmodernists that no programs left. By the way, do you have any articles or ideas about or on postmodernistic ideas? Or any other social philosophy problems?
|
|