|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 9, 2022 19:17:15 GMT
Logic doesn't help. It works with words. Words are not trustworthy. Only numbers are what we can rely on.
A0. To express a notion a word or a group of words (i.e. in a language) is required (a fact)
A1. Numbers and numerical formulas perfectly describe and define the nature (a fact of Physics)
P1. Let assume notions exist
P2. There are two types of notions: numerical (about numbers), or non-numerical (a priori fact)
P3. If a certain notion isn't numerical, a word or a group of words is required (from A0 and P2)
P4. There is no limit to use another new synonym, or there's no limit to create another new synonym (a linguistic fact)
C. There are no limits to express a notion in a non-numerical way.
Just pay attention to how you solve math and logical puzzles. If the former are formalization of different situations or event into a digital form, than the latter is to formalize the same into words. Since there are no limit to write down everything and put a dot at the end claiming - nothing else cannot be added here!, then it must be obvious that the math is the only one route to understand the world.
Yes, math does not describe us anything in the way we're using it daily, but anyway we can use it and calculate anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jan 31, 2022 1:14:23 GMT
Math was created as a language to explain things either how to build them how many of them there are so on and so forth and that's why we created numbers. Numbers didn't create us. We don't live in Matrix. Instead, we live in the brother Wachowsky's movie. I didn't object to math as a tool. It seems to be it. But that's not the whole truth. There are lots of mathematicians who workamd create stuff no physicist can apply (e.g. the Barnach-Tarski paradox). The same is about some physicists whose works has no realizations in math (e.g. the principle of addition, the Boltzano's brains). I feel like you're taking an opposite stance on the subject? At first it sounded like you were saying numbers were the end all meets all and now it sounds like you're agreeing with me that they're just a language I'm confused |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 31, 2022 7:36:42 GMT
Numbers didn't create us. We don't live in Matrix. Instead, we live in the brother Wachowsky's movie. I didn't object to math as a tool. It seems to be it. But that's not the whole truth. There are lots of mathematicians who workamd create stuff no physicist can apply (e.g. the Barnach-Tarski paradox). The same is about some physicists whose works has no realizations in math (e.g. the principle of addition, the Boltzano's brains). I feel like you're taking an opposite stance on the subject? At first it sounded like you were saying numbers were the end all meets all and now it sounds like you're agreeing with me that they're just a language I'm confused I don't know how have you come to this conclusion, but for me nothing has changed. For instance, making different inferences can be an example why numbers are the one and the only. What is necessity between "The Moon is dark" and "Waves come periodically"? If you're in math mode (as a tool, of course) g(m)=0,13 f(w)=g(x)×0.23x. What are all these "moons", "waves", "darkness"? Who is the bravest to give us an ultimately final answer? However, saying f(x)=y is possible for many if not for everything. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Feb 1, 2022 3:54:01 GMT
I feel like you're taking an opposite stance on the subject? At first it sounded like you were saying numbers were the end all meets all and now it sounds like you're agreeing with me that they're just a language I'm confused I don't know how have you come to this conclusion, but for me nothing has changed. For instance, making different inferences can be an example why numbers are the one and the only. What is necessity between "The Moon is dark" and "Waves come periodically"? If you're in math mode (as a tool, of course) g(m)=0,13 f(w)=g(x)×0.23x. What are all these "moons", "waves", "darkness"? Who is the bravest to give us an ultimately final answer? However, saying f(x)=y is possible for many if not for everything. You do realize that a long time ago we didn't have numbers right? And one day several thousand years ago we came up with a way of tracking things and so we came up with the language called numbers But the key here is that we first had a problem (things needing to be accounted for ) then we made the solution (inventing numbers and signing them to quantities) so why would you want to believe that numbers are before the things they were created to account for? It seems like a joke it's so nonsensical. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 1, 2022 14:01:40 GMT
I don't know how have you come to this conclusion, but for me nothing has changed. For instance, making different inferences can be an example why numbers are the one and the only. What is necessity between "The Moon is dark" and "Waves come periodically"? If you're in math mode (as a tool, of course) g(m)=0,13 f(w)=g(x)×0.23x. What are all these "moons", "waves", "darkness"? Who is the bravest to give us an ultimately final answer? However, saying f(x)=y is possible for many if not for everything. You do realize that a long time ago we didn't have numbers right? And one day several thousand years ago we came up with a way of tracking things and so we came up with the language called numbers But the key here is that we first had a problem (things needing to be accounted for ) then we made the solution (inventing numbers and signing them to quantities) so why would you want to believe that numbers are before the things they were created to account for? It seems like a joke it's so nonsensical. At this point you're right, none disagrees you. Is this the only level to view this? I don't think so. Sometimes people make mistakes, your one might be it. (And mine might be too.) If you're familiar with this strategy: philosophers brainstorm hypothesis firstly, and then step by step analyze them. (For to check: Popkin, Stroll "Philosophy: The Itroduction Course" 1994, Preface.) "We don't have numbers?" – Was it? How an animal live a day (1 day) without a correct dose of its meal? If a kid cannot use any simple Geometrical tasks, his life will be very short. "1 day several 1000 years ago we came up..." – Really? By which magical way people could realize it that they should use numbers? Very interesting though, however I can't even imagine how not knowing numbers one is going to find them? What they were looking for? Words? "Things needing to be accounted for" – Just amazing: why on Earth a snake should count its eggs in the nest, or a bear to count its claws? Animals – from your point of view – never use any numbers and they have been doing it for now very successfully. We had to use numbers all the time even subconsciously, because we couldn't go off limits. How was that possible? – Because nobody cares about a shape or a cover for them, the numbers were at the level of differentiation of things. And a thing itself is a product of being possible to count, or we would never know either we felt a thing or things. The plural number of words must have been lead you to this conclusion. And the so-called "The Categories" problem by Aristotle. (Check on the 10th categories of Aristotle: we cannot get rid of the form of number, gender, active/passive, so no using concepts.) |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Feb 2, 2022 0:17:34 GMT
You do realize that a long time ago we didn't have numbers right? And one day several thousand years ago we came up with a way of tracking things and so we came up with the language called numbers But the key here is that we first had a problem (things needing to be accounted for ) then we made the solution (inventing numbers and signing them to quantities) so why would you want to believe that numbers are before the things they were created to account for? It seems like a joke it's so nonsensical. At this point you're right, none disagrees you. Is this the only level to view this? I don't think so. Sometimes people make mistakes, your one might be it. (And mine might be too.) If you're familiar with this strategy: philosophers brainstorm hypothesis firstly, and then step by step analyze them. (For to check: Popkin, Stroll "Philosophy: The Itroduction Course" 1994, Preface.) "We don't have numbers?" – Was it? How an animal live a day (1 day) without a correct dose of its meal? If a kid cannot use any simple Geometrical tasks, his life will be very short. "1 day several 1000 years ago we came up..." – Really? By which magical way people could realize it that they should use numbers? Very interesting though, however I can't even imagine how not knowing numbers one is going to find them? What they were looking for? Words? "Things needing to be accounted for" – Just amazing: why on Earth a snake should count its eggs in the nest, or a bear to count its claws? Animals – from your point of view – never use any numbers and they have been doing it for now very successfully. We had to use numbers all the time even subconsciously, because we couldn't go off limits. How was that possible? – Because nobody cares about a shape or a cover for them, the numbers were at the level of differentiation of things. And a thing itself is a product of being possible to count, or we would never know either we felt a thing or things. The plural number of words must have been lead you to this conclusion. And the so-called "The Categories" problem by Aristotle. (Check on the 10th categories of Aristotle: we cannot get rid of the form of number, gender, active/passive, so no using concepts.) Your so far removed from the original state (before technology) you are a child of the technology so naturally this seems impassible for numbers to have not existed at one point in time And I don't say this in a negative way trying to offend you or anything like that It's not a "bad" thing it's just a sine of adaptive evolution But yes numbers at one point in time didn't exist just like language and the mind of man was very different hell they would probably not even be considered "human" by today's standards do to how different they would think about things when compared to modern man. Numbers seem the way they seem to you because we made them and find them to counting and quantifying reality therefore where you find reality you will find numbers but to worship numbers as if you were created by them is crazy when the reality is the opposite. An animal does not count its babies and say 1 2 3 they're all here that's what a modern man does an animal merely smells it's babies just like a hawk doesn't measure the distance between it and the mouse and know exactly what 200 mph is that's something man does the hawk just flies down there and grabs the mouse. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 2, 2022 2:39:33 GMT
At this point you're right, none disagrees you. Is this the only level to view this? I don't think so. Sometimes people make mistakes, your one might be it. (And mine might be too.) If you're familiar with this strategy: philosophers brainstorm hypothesis firstly, and then step by step analyze them. (For to check: Popkin, Stroll "Philosophy: The Itroduction Course" 1994, Preface.) "We don't have numbers?" – Was it? How an animal live a day (1 day) without a correct dose of its meal? If a kid cannot use any simple Geometrical tasks, his life will be very short. "1 day several 1000 years ago we came up..." – Really? By which magical way people could realize it that they should use numbers? Very interesting though, however I can't even imagine how not knowing numbers one is going to find them? What they were looking for? Words? "Things needing to be accounted for" – Just amazing: why on Earth a snake should count its eggs in the nest, or a bear to count its claws? Animals – from your point of view – never use any numbers and they have been doing it for now very successfully. We had to use numbers all the time even subconsciously, because we couldn't go off limits. How was that possible? – Because nobody cares about a shape or a cover for them, the numbers were at the level of differentiation of things. And a thing itself is a product of being possible to count, or we would never know either we felt a thing or things. The plural number of words must have been lead you to this conclusion. And the so-called "The Categories" problem by Aristotle. (Check on the 10th categories of Aristotle: we cannot get rid of the form of number, gender, active/passive, so no using concepts.) Your so far removed from the original state (before technology) you are a child of the technology so naturally this seems impassible for numbers to have not existed at one point in time And I don't say this in a negative way trying to offend you or anything like that It's not a "bad" thing it's just a sine of adaptive evolution But yes numbers at one point in time didn't exist just like language and the mind of man was very different hell they would probably not even be considered "human" by today's standards do to how different they would think about things when compared to modern man. Numbers seem the way they seem to you because we made them and find them to counting and quantifying reality therefore where you find reality you will find numbers but to worship numbers as if you were created by them is crazy when the reality is the opposite. An animal does not count its babies and say 1 2 3 they're all here that's what a modern man does an animal merely smells it's babies just like a hawk doesn't measure the distance between it and the mouse and know exactly what 200 mph is that's something man does the hawk just flies down there and grabs the mouse. No, there's no offenses. Thanks. Actually, as previously, I said this could be interpreted as that. Like you said – the technology products, etc. (I don't think I am. I'm not a West person. Mostly the Western people live in comfort, and seems this is their very core interest (unsurprisingly the utilitarism is so popular among English native speakers). Can't say I live in comfort, even dealing with technology. And for me the electronics haven't come closer. Oppositely, when I was a child I used to do iron soldering, fixed or broke some technical stuff, etc. I liked to read electronics very early, but each new year I came not to electronics, so the interest disappeared then. Plus to it,the technology has been increased so majorly today, I cannot even realize how would I fix my phone without addressing to some special repair companies, or I'd say more often it's easy to utile and to buy a new. This is not technology for me, honestly. I'd compare it to some dictatorship: one is surrounded by tracking systems everywhere, and many ones are nod at any new feature, not even make a little resistance against it. The dictatorship (not electronics) has swallowed up an average person's soul. Alternatively, if we were closer to electronics, no dictate was possible. Also, I was talking about not that level of math when the numbers are how we usually get them. Kant took numbers psychologically: ten fingers – the start point to calculate. Frege objected to it taking them analytically: considering 0 as the emptiness and 1 as the whole can be as well as math, and we're doing it daily not paying so much attention to it often. Pythagoreans took numbers not as we're now. (You can read about it from Schpengler's "The Decay of The West", I ch.) It was rather geometry, not symbols and algebra. Notably, Frege after his failure in logicism started geometric interpretation of math at the end of his life. For me Math is no 1... 10 or "+,-,×,/"... It's closer to something as ">" or "=" using them in common sense. And yes I think that only this way (using such a math) would lead to the truth. Our minds cannot afford overviews. All what I can do at the beginning saying "A or A implies A", the same at the end: "A/A results in ø". We divide the complex into plain, and the plain is what we're able to get. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Feb 2, 2022 9:38:17 GMT
Your so far removed from the original state (before technology) you are a child of the technology so naturally this seems impassible for numbers to have not existed at one point in time And I don't say this in a negative way trying to offend you or anything like that It's not a "bad" thing it's just a sine of adaptive evolution But yes numbers at one point in time didn't exist just like language and the mind of man was very different hell they would probably not even be considered "human" by today's standards do to how different they would think about things when compared to modern man. Numbers seem the way they seem to you because we made them and find them to counting and quantifying reality therefore where you find reality you will find numbers but to worship numbers as if you were created by them is crazy when the reality is the opposite. An animal does not count its babies and say 1 2 3 they're all here that's what a modern man does an animal merely smells it's babies just like a hawk doesn't measure the distance between it and the mouse and know exactly what 200 mph is that's something man does the hawk just flies down there and grabs the mouse. No, there's no offenses. Thanks. Actually, as previously, I said this could be interpreted as that. Like you said – the technology products, etc. (I don't think I am. I'm not a West person. Mostly the Western people live in comfort, and seems this is their very core interest (unsurprisingly the utilitarism is so popular among English native speakers). Can't say I live in comfort, even dealing with technology. And for me the electronics haven't come closer. Oppositely, when I was a child I used to do iron soldering, fixed or broke some technical stuff, etc. I liked to read electronics very early, but each new year I came not to electronics, so the interest disappeared then. Plus to it,the technology has been increased so majorly today, I cannot even realize how would I fix my phone without addressing to some special repair companies, or I'd say more often it's easy to utile and to buy a new. This is not technology for me, honestly. I'd compare it to some dictatorship: one is surrounded by tracking systems everywhere, and many ones are nod at any new feature, not even make a little resistance against it. The dictatorship (not electronics) has swallowed up an average person's soul. Alternatively, if we were closer to electronics, no dictate was possible. Also, I was talking about not that level of math when the numbers are how we usually get them. Kant took numbers psychologically: ten fingers – the start point to calculate. Frege objected to it taking them analytically: considering 0 as the emptiness and 1 as the whole can be as well as math, and we're doing it daily not paying so much attention to it often. Pythagoreans took numbers not as we're now. (You can read about it from Schpengler's "The Decay of The West", I ch.) It was rather geometry, not symbols and algebra. Notably, Frege after his failure in logicism started geometric interpretation of math at the end of his life. For me Math is no 1... 10 or "+,-,×,/"... It's closer to something as ">" or "=" using them in common sense. And yes I think that only this way (using such a math) would lead to the truth. Our minds cannot afford overviews. All what I can do at the beginning saying "A or A implies A", the same at the end: "A/A results in ø". We divide the complex into plain, and the plain is what we're able to get. You are alive during these times and you prefer the language of numbers therefore you are a byproduct of technology regardless of how barbaric you think you live in comparison to the idea you have in your head of what the "average American" is like . Technology is very dependent on the language of numbers so it's offspring will have character traits similar. I'm not interested in what dead philosophers had to say about anything because quoting dead people isn't philosophy A person has to go through something personally inorder to gain real wisdom , knowing what other people's opinions are about how they went through something does a person little to no good beyond tickling the ears. So I'm still having a hard time understanding where you stand on this subject you seem to be all one minute and meh the next , one minute you seem to completely disagree and the next were in the same page I don't get it? What are you trying to accomplish? |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 2, 2022 12:28:36 GMT
No, there's no offenses. Thanks. Actually, as previously, I said this could be interpreted as that. Like you said – the technology products, etc. (I don't think I am. I'm not a West person. Mostly the Western people live in comfort, and seems this is their very core interest (unsurprisingly the utilitarism is so popular among English native speakers). Can't say I live in comfort, even dealing with technology. And for me the electronics haven't come closer. Oppositely, when I was a child I used to do iron soldering, fixed or broke some technical stuff, etc. I liked to read electronics very early, but each new year I came not to electronics, so the interest disappeared then. Plus to it,the technology has been increased so majorly today, I cannot even realize how would I fix my phone without addressing to some special repair companies, or I'd say more often it's easy to utile and to buy a new. This is not technology for me, honestly. I'd compare it to some dictatorship: one is surrounded by tracking systems everywhere, and many ones are nod at any new feature, not even make a little resistance against it. The dictatorship (not electronics) has swallowed up an average person's soul. Alternatively, if we were closer to electronics, no dictate was possible. Also, I was talking about not that level of math when the numbers are how we usually get them. Kant took numbers psychologically: ten fingers – the start point to calculate. Frege objected to it taking them analytically: considering 0 as the emptiness and 1 as the whole can be as well as math, and we're doing it daily not paying so much attention to it often. Pythagoreans took numbers not as we're now. (You can read about it from Schpengler's "The Decay of The West", I ch.) It was rather geometry, not symbols and algebra. Notably, Frege after his failure in logicism started geometric interpretation of math at the end of his life. For me Math is no 1... 10 or "+,-,×,/"... It's closer to something as ">" or "=" using them in common sense. And yes I think that only this way (using such a math) would lead to the truth. Our minds cannot afford overviews. All what I can do at the beginning saying "A or A implies A", the same at the end: "A/A results in ø". We divide the complex into plain, and the plain is what we're able to get. You are alive during these times and you prefer the language of numbers therefore you are a byproduct of technology regardless of how barbaric you think you live in comparison to the idea you have in your head of what the "average American" is like . Technology is very dependent on the language of numbers so it's offspring will have character traits similar. I'm not interested in what dead philosophers had to say about anything because quoting dead people isn't philosophy A person has to go through something personally inorder to gain real wisdom , knowing what other people's opinions are about how they went through something does a person little to no good beyond tickling the ears. So I'm still having a hard time understanding where you stand on this subject you seem to be all one minute and meh the next , one minute you seem to completely disagree and the next were in the same page I don't get it? What are you trying to accomplish? Having no interest in other philosophies (or another people) isn't a good way in any cases. It's like a narcissistic way of thinking that only causes antipathy. So, how would you get anything skipping any ancient thoughts – perhaps I understand it lesser, than you understand me. Actually, without addressing to the immortal people – which are "the dead persons" as you called 'em – I cannot guarantee you to explain anything. Who could? If my thoughts are unclear, while "no dead philosophers allowed", how would you be so sure your point would be staying clearer? Sorry, but how can this be? Even machines uses recursive functions to recheck their work. Education facilities often start their classes repeating the previous material which is good, because good habits are needed to appear many times. Technology depends on many things, the social and the psychological factors are also here. Japanese did a great leap into technology about 50 years ago (or I shouldn't mentioned those old events?..confusing...), some companies as Google have swallowed up the smaller ones. It seems to be precisely typical for human systems: the ones still appeal to logic or kinda for everything in their lives. And what do you mean saying "technology depends on numbers language?" – You mean Romanian or Arabic, or Indian? Or you mean binary, decimal, hexagon? Being confused what's more should I add here, all I can say is that: a) people can use only numbers for creating machines, b) machines can calculate everything, c) anything that cannot be calculated by one machine can be calculated by another one d) if we still have got unsolved problems it points that either no relevant machines has been created yet, or such machines still haven't been used to solve those problems. e) there are many ways to create those machines. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Feb 2, 2022 16:30:11 GMT
You are alive during these times and you prefer the language of numbers therefore you are a byproduct of technology regardless of how barbaric you think you live in comparison to the idea you have in your head of what the "average American" is like . Technology is very dependent on the language of numbers so it's offspring will have character traits similar. I'm not interested in what dead philosophers had to say about anything because quoting dead people isn't philosophy A person has to go through something personally inorder to gain real wisdom , knowing what other people's opinions are about how they went through something does a person little to no good beyond tickling the ears. So I'm still having a hard time understanding where you stand on this subject you seem to be all one minute and meh the next , one minute you seem to completely disagree and the next were in the same page I don't get it? What are you trying to accomplish? Having no interest in other philosophies (or another people) isn't a good way in any cases. It's like a narcissistic way of thinking that only causes antipathy. So, how would you get anything skipping any ancient thoughts – perhaps I understand it lesser, than you understand me. Actually, without addressing to the immortal people – which are "the dead persons" as you called 'em – I cannot guarantee you to explain anything. Who could? If my thoughts are unclear, while "no dead philosophers allowed", how would you be so sure your point would be staying clearer? Sorry, but how can this be? Even machines uses recursive functions to recheck their work. Education facilities often start their classes repeating the previous material which is good, because good habits are needed to appear many times. Technology depends on many things, the social and the psychological factors are also here. Japanese did a great leap into technology about 50 years ago (or I shouldn't mentioned those old events?..confusing...), some companies as Google have swallowed up the smaller ones. It seems to be precisely typical for human systems: the ones still appeal to logic or kinda for everything in their lives. And what do you mean saying "technology depends on numbers language?" – You mean Romanian or Arabic, or Indian? Or you mean binary, decimal, hexagon? Being confused what's more should I add here, all I can say is that: a) people can use only numbers for creating machines, b) machines can calculate everything, c) anything that cannot be calculated by one machine can be calculated by another one d) if we still have got unsolved problems it points that either no relevant machines has been created yet, or such machines still haven't been used to solve those problems. e) there are many ways to create those machines. I try/prefer to avoid quoting dead philosophers because we humans always take the path of least resistance and so what seems to always happen is the conversation is between as long as it's philosophical it turns into a philosophical circle jerk of who can recall more about what philosopher and nothing gets accomplished and yes we have more school for people to do then possibly ever in history and yet the world is going to hell in a hand bag so what does that tell you? I don't know why people always pull that all or nothing crap when the social norm is threatened ? it's childish.. and none of it gets a person true wisdom and understanding infact the educational system is designed in such a way to where you can't get any wisdom or understanding from it because it's made to turn out cookie cutter copycats of whatever degree they have decided to go into debt for. don't you want to know thyself? |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 2, 2022 16:54:32 GMT
Having no interest in other philosophies (or another people) isn't a good way in any cases. It's like a narcissistic way of thinking that only causes antipathy. So, how would you get anything skipping any ancient thoughts – perhaps I understand it lesser, than you understand me. Actually, without addressing to the immortal people – which are "the dead persons" as you called 'em – I cannot guarantee you to explain anything. Who could? If my thoughts are unclear, while "no dead philosophers allowed", how would you be so sure your point would be staying clearer? Sorry, but how can this be? Even machines uses recursive functions to recheck their work. Education facilities often start their classes repeating the previous material which is good, because good habits are needed to appear many times. Technology depends on many things, the social and the psychological factors are also here. Japanese did a great leap into technology about 50 years ago (or I shouldn't mentioned those old events?..confusing...), some companies as Google have swallowed up the smaller ones. It seems to be precisely typical for human systems: the ones still appeal to logic or kinda for everything in their lives. And what do you mean saying "technology depends on numbers language?" – You mean Romanian or Arabic, or Indian? Or you mean binary, decimal, hexagon? Being confused what's more should I add here, all I can say is that: a) people can use only numbers for creating machines, b) machines can calculate everything, c) anything that cannot be calculated by one machine can be calculated by another one d) if we still have got unsolved problems it points that either no relevant machines has been created yet, or such machines still haven't been used to solve those problems. e) there are many ways to create those machines. I try/prefer to avoid quoting dead philosophers because we humans always take the path of least resistance and so what seems to always happen is the conversation is between as long as it's philosophical it turns into a philosophical circle jerk of who can recall more about what philosopher and nothing gets accomplished and yes we have more school for people to do then possibly ever in history and yet the world is going to hell in a hand bag so what does that tell you? I don't know why people always pull that all or nothing crap when the social norm is threatened ? it's childish.. and none of it gets a person true wisdom and understanding infact the educational system is designed in such a way to where you can't get any wisdom or understanding from it because it's made to turn out cookie cutter copycats of whatever degree they have decided to go into debt for. don't you want to know thyself? Pretty optimistical. Your speech reminded me a phrase from the movie "Supermario Bros" (1993): "Cheer up! Things will get worse!""It's childish.." - Yes. Childish. We're all the kids. Just having fun playing wordy games. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Feb 2, 2022 21:59:22 GMT
If the universe results in numbers, and the universe is a series of forms, then forms result in numbers. If the universe is made of numbers, and the universe is a series of forms, then forms are made of numbers. Numbers are inseparable from forms. Ok, let's assume this, then if something is something, then this something is something only as (the) one. While because for anything if this anything is something, it must be that something, but to be it, it has to be different to something else, or being separated from that. Otherwise, how can that something be what it is? So, it's impossible to avoid two (the two) as primary to one (or the one?), however is it correct? Because if the one is the one, and the two is the two, then the one has to be prior to the two, and the two be posterior to the one. I think I have to repeat myself: • there's no something without comparing it to something else • if something is not something, then there are no numbers (so at this level your thesis is good) • ...or if something isn't something, it is the one (the whole or the unit), but this time the number is prior to the forms. The "One" is the quantification of all forms in there totality; the "One" can be equated to the non-numerical description of "The Total". |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 2, 2022 22:19:23 GMT
Ok, let's assume this, then if something is something, then this something is something only as (the) one. While because for anything if this anything is something, it must be that something, but to be it, it has to be different to something else, or being separated from that. Otherwise, how can that something be what it is? So, it's impossible to avoid two (the two) as primary to one (or the one?), however is it correct? Because if the one is the one, and the two is the two, then the one has to be prior to the two, and the two be posterior to the one. I think I have to repeat myself: • there's no something without comparing it to something else • if something is not something, then there are no numbers (so at this level your thesis is good) • ...or if something isn't something, it is the one (the whole or the unit), but this time the number is prior to the forms. The "One" is the quantification of all forms in there totality; the "One" can be equated to the non-numerical description of "The Total". Might be. Plato's Parmenides is exactly about it. And how many Ones Plato had found? - Eight of them. Eight cases. Not just one and the only. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Feb 2, 2022 23:13:01 GMT
The "One" is the quantification of all forms in there totality; the "One" can be equated to the non-numerical description of "The Total". Might be. Plato's Parmenides is exactly about it. And how many Ones Plato had found? - Eight of them. Eight cases. Not just one and the only. Multiple atoms are connected in regards to them sharing the same nature of "atom". |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Feb 3, 2022 19:04:55 GMT
Might be. Plato's Parmenides is exactly about it. And how many Ones Plato had found? - Eight of them. Eight cases. Not just one and the only. Multiple atoms are connected in regards to them sharing the same nature of "atom". Atom is still a theory |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Feb 9, 2022 23:28:59 GMT
If the universe results in numbers, and the universe is a series of forms, then forms result in numbers. If the universe is made of numbers, and the universe is a series of forms, then forms are made of numbers. Numbers are inseparable from forms. Ok, let's assume this, then if something is something, then this something is something only as (the) one. While because for anything if this anything is something, it must be that something, but to be it, it has to be different to something else, or being separated from that. Otherwise, how can that something be what it is? So, it's impossible to avoid two (the two) as primary to one (or the one?), however is it correct? Because if the one is the one, and the two is the two, then the one has to be prior to the two, and the two be posterior to the one. I think I have to repeat myself: • there's no something without comparing it to something else • if something is not something, then there are no numbers (so at this level your thesis is good) • ...or if something isn't something, it is the one (the whole or the unit), but this time the number is prior to the forms. 1. The totality of being is without comparison. 2. If something is not something, ie P=-P, then numbers both exist and not exist considering P requires P=P and -P requires -P=-P. The numbers exist as numbers, P=P, and the numbers exist as non-numbers, P=-P, much in the same manner numbers are forms. 3. The one does not come prior to the totality and the totality does not come prior to the one because both the totality and the one equivocate. |
|
