|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 18, 2021 18:38:27 GMT
Numbers are the quantification of forms, they are inseperable from forms.
The most basic form is the loop given all phenomena, as traceable, end at the same point they begin.
These forms are the grounding of reason as reason is the manipulation (change) of forms. The change of one form to another form is reason. Reason and form are inseperable thus necessitating all phenomenon as having a rational (conscious) base behind them.
The forms behind human awareness direct human awareness as human awareness is grounded in form. Form acts as the point of change from one form to another, or rather one change to another change.
As modes of change where a form is first unobserved then observed, which is what a change in observation is: first something is unobserved then observed, numbers as forms (through the universal loop which exists through all forms) exist independent of human awareness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 24, 2021 11:26:35 GMT
Do forms directly come from languages/symbolic systems?
It's important to note that if they were, we would deal with logicism state which of math was analytic, and therefore to know/handle languages would imply to know/handle math.
As soon as the logicism failed, forms either partially, or completely independent from the forms.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2021 17:25:16 GMT
Do forms directly come from languages/symbolic systems? It's important to note that if they were, we would deal with logicism state which of math was analytic, and therefore to know/handle languages would imply to know/handle math. As soon as the logicism failed, forms either partially, or completely independent from the forms. We use a set of schematics to form the world around us, thus forms do come from symbols. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 24, 2021 20:18:08 GMT
Do forms directly come from languages/symbolic systems? It's important to note that if they were, we would deal with logicism state which of math was analytic, and therefore to know/handle languages would imply to know/handle math. As soon as the logicism failed, forms either partially, or completely independent from the forms. We use a set of schematics to form the world around us, thus forms do come from symbols. If symbols are what prior to forms, then we might take the symbols as something that also prior to language. That could be. And there is another really important note: when you say that "numbers are the quantification of forms...", then it should be obvious that any 'quantors' are pronouns, i.e. language units. That's why we have to be careful to use both 'quantification', and 'forms' to prevent making categorical mistakes or semantic errors. I guess that your thought is much deeper, and I think that when you wanted to say 'quantification', you could say 'the changing', or 'the timing'... I hope it's clear, because, well, an example: forms -> ? -> numbers forms -> some process! -> numbers forms -> from abstract to concrete -> numbers forms -> differentiation -> numbers forms -> differentiation (considering the changing or the process of change) -> numbers forms -> the timing (i.e. differentiation via changing via ontological structure appearing) -> numbers forms -> the changing -> numbers: .: we may see that the numbers here are par exellence not concrete, but abstract too, because the numbers are - generalization of those changing process + the process of further differentiation, and so on - to loops. In addition: the numbers also might be considered as the loops. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 24, 2021 20:53:22 GMT
Numbers are the quantification of forms, they are inseperable from forms. The most basic form is the loop given all phenomena, as traceable, end at the same point they begin. These forms are the grounding of reason as reason is the manipulation (change) of forms. The change of one form to another form is reason. Reason and form are inseperable thus necessitating all phenomenon as having a rational (conscious) base behind them. The forms behind human awareness direct human awareness as human awareness is grounded in form. Form acts as the point of change from one form to another, or rather one change to another change. As modes of change where a form is first unobserved then observed, which is what a change in observation is: first something is unobserved then observed, numbers as forms (through the universal loop which exists through all forms) exist independent of human awareness. To tell the truth, I do not understand what you are saying because I take the word "form" to be the translation of the Platonic "eidos" [the Idea or {conceptual} Essence of something], whereas the Aristotelian "Morph e" is in re (that which makes a thing to be what it is). Anyway, to me you seem to be saying that forms can be counted, wherefore Numbers are -- as Pythagoras would say -- the summations of forms, which you call the quantification of forms. My own view is that numbers are originally the summations of single physical things (that we touch or see). So, we have Names of numbers as well as Numerals (symbolic representations of numbers). Thus in Plato, a number is either One or the combination of many Ones. To go back to your text: I agree that numbers exist indepentently of human awareness inasmuch as there is a plurality of things indepentently of their being counted/enumerated. The numbers we name are themelves Forms inasmuch as they are sets of units, ultimately based on perceived configurations like the fingers of a hand or the stars that define the outline of a constellation, or the points that define a geometrical figure. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2021 22:15:09 GMT
Numbers are the quantification of forms, they are inseperable from forms. The most basic form is the loop given all phenomena, as traceable, end at the same point they begin. These forms are the grounding of reason as reason is the manipulation (change) of forms. The change of one form to another form is reason. Reason and form are inseperable thus necessitating all phenomenon as having a rational (conscious) base behind them. The forms behind human awareness direct human awareness as human awareness is grounded in form. Form acts as the point of change from one form to another, or rather one change to another change. As modes of change where a form is first unobserved then observed, which is what a change in observation is: first something is unobserved then observed, numbers as forms (through the universal loop which exists through all forms) exist independent of human awareness. To tell the truth, I do not understand what you are saying because I take the word "form" to be the translation of the Platonic "eidos" [the Idea or {conceptual} Essence of something], whereas the Aristotelian "Morph e" is in re (that which makes a thing to be what it is). Anyway, to me you seem to be saying that forms can be counted, wherefore Numbers are -- as Pythagoras would say -- the summations of forms, which you call the quantification of forms. My own view is that numbers are originally the summations of single physical things (that we touch or see). So, we have Names of numbers as well as Numerals (symbolic representations of numbers). Thus in Plato, a number is either One or the combination of many Ones. To go back to your text: I agree that numbers exist indepentently of human awareness inasmuch as there is a plurality of things indepentently of their being counted/enumerated. The numbers we name are themelves Forms inasmuch as they are sets of units, ultimately based on perceived configurations like the fingers of a hand or the stars that define the outline of a constellation, or the points that define a geometrical figure. The essence of something is a shape, thus the essence of form is a shape. That which makes a thing to be what it is is a form. Agree: "The numbers we name are themelves Forms inasmuch as they are sets of units, ultimately based on perceived configurations like the fingers of a hand or the stars that define the outline of a constellation, or the points that define a geometrical figure." To quantify a phenomenon is to quantify a form. The most universal form is the loop given all shapes are traceable as loops (beginning of trace is the same as the end). Number is inseperable from the loop with the most universal of all loops being the circle. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2021 22:16:47 GMT
We use a set of schematics to form the world around us, thus forms do come from symbols. If symbols are what prior to forms, then we might take the symbols as something that also prior to language. That could be. And there is another really important note: when you say that "numbers are the quantification of forms...", then it should be obvious that any 'quantors' are pronouns, i.e. language units. That's why we have to be careful to use both 'quantification', and 'forms' to prevent making categorical mistakes or semantic errors. I guess that your thought is much deeper, and I think that when you wanted to say 'quantification', you could say 'the changing', or 'the timing'... I hope it's clear, because, well, an example: forms -> ? -> numbers forms -> some process! -> numbers forms -> from abstract to concrete -> numbers forms -> differentiation -> numbers forms -> differentiation (considering the changing or the process of change) -> numbers forms -> the timing (i.e. differentiation via changing via ontological structure appearing) -> numbers forms -> the changing -> numbers: .: we may see that the numbers here are par exellence not concrete, but abstract too, because the numbers are - generalization of those changing process + the process of further differentiation, and so on - to loops. In addition: the numbers also might be considered as the loops. Symbols are forms: 1. A symbol points to a phenomenon. 2. One form results in another phenomenon thus points to said phenomenon. 3. All forms as pointing to further forms are symbols. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 25, 2021 13:51:05 GMT
xxxxxxxxxI don't understand that, previously you said: . And in the next post: , I presume there are two ways: a) the forms precede to symbols; b) the forms equal to symbols. Which one is true?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 25, 2021 19:00:58 GMT
xxxxxxxxx I don't understand that, previously you said: . And in the next post: , I presume there are two ways: a) the forms precede to symbols; b) the forms equal to symbols. Which one is true? 1. Forms do come from symbols. 2. Symbols are forms considering a symbol is that which points to a phenomenon and forms point to further forms. Forms And Symbols Share The Same Nature Of Pointing. 3. Forms come from forms. |
|
