|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 13, 2022 18:42:07 GMT
The Theory of Forms was introduced by Plato. Aristotle criticized it. I. Plato's theory briefly: - forms exist;
- a form makes a thing be that thing;
- if there are no relevant form, there are no relevant thing;
- for any group of things there is a form.
II. Aristotle's critique briefly: - forms don't exist;
- for any set of forms there is another form which is leading to the infinity;
- a thing to be a thing has an essence of itself within it;
- the essence in a thing is a section of the existence of that thing.
III. Critique on Aristotle's critique: - there's no need in using either essence, or existence;
- there's no need to consider a thing to be equal to itself;
- numbers exists;
- a number may be taken as a form.
Firstly, let me explain some points and try to answer them. III.b: the whole ided (of the theory of forms) appeared, because there was a problem: how can a thing changes being itself? So, this argument says that we might have a series of changes and still this thing would be itself, not because of any inner support. Briefly, there's no need to look up for any inner idea or inner explanations in that thing. Let's have a look on this tablet: the previous form of the thing A | the next form of the thing A | function 1 | function 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
As we may see those sets as {0,0}, {0,1}, {1,0}, and {1,1} - are possible conditions or steps for the thing A. In other words, whether or not it changes. This means that either one of forms are presented in A, or neither of them, or maybe both. Let's look onto the next tablet: No | the thing A as a pig | the thing A as a rock | the thing A as space | 1. Before it appears | a number of chromosomes | SiO and other silicates | space | 2. Early beginning | a fetus | Si2O3 and SiO | space | 3. First steps | a baby pig | a conglomerate of Si, etc | space | 4. Most known form | a pig | a conglomerate of Si, etc | space | 5. After its appearing | HS and othe salts | a dust of Si, etc | space |
As you can see the last column shows that if that thing A is the space, then it hasn't been changing at all, while such things as pigs or rocks have some changes. But if you look precisely you will see that even in steps 1-5 the space can be different (let's say 1 is one space and in 4 is some other one). How anybody can prove that in all those steps the space is the same? Moreover, there's nothing that must say us that the baby pig and the pig must be one and the same. Who knows, maybe one second later I was a different one? So, this tablet aims to explain why the theory of forms can be broken even without Aristotle's metaphysics.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 13, 2022 22:43:49 GMT
The Theory of Forms was introduced by Plato. Aristotle criticized it. I. Plato's theory briefly: - forms exist;
- a form makes a thing be that thing;
- if there are no relevant form, there are no relevant thing;
- for any group of things there is a form.
II. Aristotle's critique briefly: - forms don't exist;
- for any set of forms there is another form which is leading to the infinity;
- a thing to be a thing has an essence of itself within it;
- the essence in a thing is a section of the existence of that thing.
III. Critique on Aristotle's critique: - there's no need in using either essence, or existence;
- there's no need to consider a thing to be equal to itself;
- numbers exists;
- a number may be taken as a form.
Firstly, let me explain some points and try to answer them. III.b: the whole ided (of the theory of forms) appeared, because there was a problem: how can a thing changes being itself? So, this argument says that we might have a series of changes and still this thing would be itself, not because of any inner support. Briefly, there's no need to look up for any inner idea or inner explanations in that thing. Let's have a look on this tablet: the previous form of the thing A | the next form of the thing A | function 1 | function 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
As we may see those sets as {0,0}, {0,1}, {1,0}, and {1,1} - are possible conditions or steps for the thing A. In other words, whether or not it changes. This means that either one of forms are presented in A, or neither of them, or maybe both. Let's look onto the next tablet: No | the thing A as a pig | the thing A as a rock | the thing A as space | 1. Before it appears | a number of chromosomes | SiO and other silicates | space | 2. Early beginning | a fetus | Si2O3 and SiO | space | 3. First steps | a baby pig | a conglomerate of Si, etc | space | 4. Most known form | a pig | a conglomerate of Si, etc | space | 5. After its appearing | HS and othe salts | a dust of Si, etc | space |
As you can see the last column shows that if that thing A is the space, then it hasn't been changing at all, while such things as pigs or rocks have some changes. But if you look precisely you will see that even in steps 1-5 the space can be different (let's say 1 is one space and in 4 is some other one). How anybody can prove that in all those steps the space is the same? Moreover, there's nothing that must say us that the baby pig and the pig must be one and the same. Who knows, maybe one second later I was a different one? So, this tablet aims to explain why the theory of forms can be broken even without Aristotle's metaphysics. A tablet is a form.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 14, 2022 5:12:49 GMT
The Theory of Forms was introduced by Plato. Aristotle criticized it. I. Plato's theory briefly: - forms exist;
- a form makes a thing be that thing;
- if there are no relevant form, there are no relevant thing;
- for any group of things there is a form.
II. Aristotle's critique briefly: - forms don't exist;
- for any set of forms there is another form which is leading to the infinity;
- a thing to be a thing has an essence of itself within it;
- the essence in a thing is a section of the existence of that thing.
III. Critique on Aristotle's critique: - there's no need in using either essence, or existence;
- there's no need to consider a thing to be equal to itself;
- numbers exists;
- a number may be taken as a form.
Firstly, let me explain some points and try to answer them. III.b: the whole ided (of the theory of forms) appeared, because there was a problem: how can a thing changes being itself? So, this argument says that we might have a series of changes and still this thing would be itself, not because of any inner support. Briefly, there's no need to look up for any inner idea or inner explanations in that thing. Let's have a look on this tablet: the previous form of the thing A | the next form of the thing A | function 1 | function 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
As we may see those sets as {0,0}, {0,1}, {1,0}, and {1,1} - are possible conditions or steps for the thing A. In other words, whether or not it changes. This means that either one of forms are presented in A, or neither of them, or maybe both. Let's look onto the next tablet: No | the thing A as a pig | the thing A as a rock | the thing A as space | 1. Before it appears | a number of chromosomes | SiO and other silicates | space | 2. Early beginning | a fetus | Si2O3 and SiO | space | 3. First steps | a baby pig | a conglomerate of Si, etc | space | 4. Most known form | a pig | a conglomerate of Si, etc | space | 5. After its appearing | HS and othe salts | a dust of Si, etc | space |
As you can see the last column shows that if that thing A is the space, then it hasn't been changing at all, while such things as pigs or rocks have some changes. But if you look precisely you will see that even in steps 1-5 the space can be different (let's say 1 is one space and in 4 is some other one). How anybody can prove that in all those steps the space is the same? Moreover, there's nothing that must say us that the baby pig and the pig must be one and the same. Who knows, maybe one second later I was a different one? So, this tablet aims to explain why the theory of forms can be broken even without Aristotle's metaphysics. A tablet is a form. No.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 15, 2022 23:33:22 GMT
[b Yes. It is a connection of concepts in the form of a square or rectangle. Dually this connection is a logical form. Anytime something is connected to something else a form results because boundaries are made.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 16, 2022 14:46:43 GMT
[b Yes. It is a connection of concepts in the form of a square or rectangle. Dually this connection is a logical form. Anytime something is connected to something else a form results because boundaries are made. No way. Nobody is needed in those extra spare additions. Repeating yourself all the time like a parrot is rather a parody on oneself.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 16, 2022 23:25:04 GMT
[b Yes. It is a connection of concepts in the form of a square or rectangle. Dually this connection is a logical form. Anytime something is connected to something else a form results because boundaries are made. No way. Nobody is needed in those extra spare additions. Repeating yourself all the time like a parrot is rather a parody on oneself. A number is nothing without a form as the number is a quantifier and only forms are quantifiable.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 17, 2022 7:24:01 GMT
No way. Nobody is needed in those extra spare additions. Repeating yourself all the time like a parrot is rather a parody on oneself. A number is nothing without a form as the number is a quantifier and only forms are quantifiable. Number can have no forms. There are people who feel formless numbers, and it's beautiful. Even animals can do that. Those people who unfortunately still naively believe in forms just stuck in forms, not in the reality.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 19, 2022 0:12:35 GMT
A number is nothing without a form as the number is a quantifier and only forms are quantifiable. Number can have no forms. There are people who feel formless numbers, and it's beautiful. Even animals can do that. Those people who unfortunately still naively believe in forms just stuck in forms, not in the reality. Math is symbols, symbols are forms.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 22, 2022 7:39:48 GMT
Number can have no forms. There are people who feel formless numbers, and it's beautiful. Even animals can do that. Those people who unfortunately still naively believe in forms just stuck in forms, not in the reality. Math is symbols, symbols are forms. Math isn't symbols, symbols aren't forms. Math is to calculate, symbols are to impel.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 23, 2022 23:27:17 GMT
Math is symbols, symbols are forms. Math isn't symbols, symbols aren't forms. Math is to calculate, symbols are to impel. A symbol is a set of boundaries thus is a form. Math requires symbols for proofs.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 23, 2022 23:28:21 GMT
Math isn't symbols, symbols aren't forms. Math is to calculate, symbols are to impel. A symbol is a set of boundaries thus is a form. Math requires symbols for proofs. calculation requires forms because calculation quantifies.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 24, 2022 8:10:40 GMT
A symbol is a set of boundaries thus is a form. Math requires symbols for proofs. calculation requires forms because calculation quantifies. Quantification doesn't require any forms since animals or rocks can calculate something. The word "calc" refer to a rock.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 24, 2022 23:14:50 GMT
calculation requires forms because calculation quantifies. Quantification doesn't require any forms since animals or rocks can calculate something. The word "calc" refer to a rock. Quantification requires assigning numbers to objects, objects are forms.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 25, 2022 20:41:02 GMT
Quantification doesn't require any forms since animals or rocks can calculate something. The word "calc" refer to a rock. Quantification requires assigning numbers to objects, objects are forms. All is needed to calculate are objects, because you have to calculate something, not nothing. What numbers do you need for this: decimal, hexagon, binary? You don't need any. Object is an object. You've said it by yourself saying P=P is the same as P.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 27, 2022 21:24:14 GMT
Quantification requires assigning numbers to objects, objects are forms. All is needed to calculate are objects, because you have to calculate something, not nothing. What numbers do you need for this: decimal, hexagon, binary? You don't need any. Object is an object. You've said it by yourself saying P=P is the same as P. Objects are forms as objects have limits/boundaries and limits/boundaries necessitate form. Numbers as quantifiers point to forms, the number line is evidence of this.
|
|