|
Equality
Jan 23, 2022 23:39:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 23, 2022 23:39:44 GMT
All objects are different due to a multiplicity of positions in time and space. Because of this equality cannot be exact sameness but rather the sharing of some qualities, ie the objects are equal in what they share thus equal in these respects.
|
|
|
Equality
Jan 23, 2022 23:41:09 GMT
via mobile
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 23, 2022 23:41:09 GMT
All objects are different due to a multiplicity of positions in time and space. Because of this equality cannot be exact sameness but rather the sharing of some qualities, ie the objects are equal in what they share thus equal in these respects. Because of this universal equality exists if things come from a single source.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 24, 2022 19:43:35 GMT
I'd agree with the first claim. However, I wouldn't agree neither with that there are same qualities things share, nor with there are one sourse all the things rooted in. Both last ones - are metaphysical, the first is a mathematical point.
Indeed, we can divide everyting to the Cartesian net or to the Descartes's coordinate system. There each particle would have its place and by that place that relevant particle would be determined. Even QM doesn't help here, because no probability is needed here. All the event can be calculated by its historical narration, I mean as the sequence, or as the order, or as some kind of the Universe chronology.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 24, 2022 21:12:26 GMT
I'd agree with the first claim. However, I wouldn't agree neither with that there are same qualities things share, nor with there are one sourse all the things rooted in. Both last ones - are metaphysical, the first is a mathematical point. Indeed, we can divide everyting to the Cartesian net or to the Descartes's coordinate system. There each particle would have its place and by that place that relevant particle would be determined. Even QM doesn't help here, because no probability is needed here. All the event can be calculated by its historical narration, I mean as the sequence, or as the order, or as some kind of the Universe chronology. Even 1 and 1, as 1=1, have inequality within them as they point too two ones. Each 1 is a different position in the statement while in real life break down a single object into a dyad, ie myself equals myself observes two myselves. Equality requires two
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 25, 2022 21:09:24 GMT
I'd agree with the first claim. However, I wouldn't agree neither with that there are same qualities things share, nor with there are one sourse all the things rooted in. Both last ones - are metaphysical, the first is a mathematical point. Indeed, we can divide everyting to the Cartesian net or to the Descartes's coordinate system. There each particle would have its place and by that place that relevant particle would be determined. Even QM doesn't help here, because no probability is needed here. All the event can be calculated by its historical narration, I mean as the sequence, or as the order, or as some kind of the Universe chronology. Even 1 and 1, as 1=1, have inequality within them as they point too two ones. Each 1 is a different position in the statement while in real life break down a single object into a dyad, ie myself equals myself observes two myselves. Equality requires two I agree that any two 1's occupies some different locations, etc. Let's say someone is trying to object it saying that: this might be some kind of mirage, or the mirroring effect? This might be, but I think that even such tricks that person might use are indeed useless. Why? Because at the nanolevel or at the very narrow time those two sparks within our skulls - are two different phenomena, not the one. But this proves there are no forms. Because every new form - is just another replicate or another duplicate of the previous thing. We will never capture any forms, instead we're multiplying them endlessly.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 27, 2022 21:35:06 GMT
Even 1 and 1, as 1=1, have inequality within them as they point too two ones. Each 1 is a different position in the statement while in real life break down a single object into a dyad, ie myself equals myself observes two myselves. Equality requires two I agree that any two 1's occupies some different locations, etc. Let's say someone is trying to object it saying that: this might be some kind of mirage, or the mirroring effect? This might be, but I think that even such tricks that person might use are indeed useless. Why? Because at the nanolevel or at the very narrow time those two sparks within our skulls - are two different phenomena, not the one. But this proves there are no forms. Because every new form - is just another replicate or another duplicate of the previous thing. We will never capture any forms, instead we're multiplying them endlessly. If a form is a duplicate of a previous form, and forms multiply, then forms exist as they act (action necessitates existence).
|
|
|
Equality
Jan 28, 2022 12:53:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 28, 2022 12:53:28 GMT
I agree that any two 1's occupies some different locations, etc. Let's say someone is trying to object it saying that: this might be some kind of mirage, or the mirroring effect? This might be, but I think that even such tricks that person might use are indeed useless. Why? Because at the nanolevel or at the very narrow time those two sparks within our skulls - are two different phenomena, not the one. But this proves there are no forms. Because every new form - is just another replicate or another duplicate of the previous thing. We will never capture any forms, instead we're multiplying them endlessly. If a form is a duplicate of a previous form, and forms multiply, then forms exist as they act (action necessitates existence). I agree that forms exists through some kind of an action. But is an action linked to the existence as a cause and a reason? I think that before an action there has to be some "spot" or "a place" for it. Let's say that the existence is this sequence: __________________________________________________ then, if one event has to become or to be realized, then a) ___________0 b) _____0_____ c) 0__________ in b and c it can happen, while in a it can't, because for 0 (as some event) there are no place further. I mean - to what everything is changing? If there is nothing, to what that something (or everything) can go, then no changes are possible. So, the changes are before action, but "the spots" or "the places" are before the changes. I don't know what kind of deities those spots or places are, but I reckon they exist, and this can be that those pre-existence places don't exist. As an option, I think it's possible for a thing (if there's nothing except it), it has to change into itself. However, maybe a thing doesn't have outer, maybe it has inner spots.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Feb 2, 2022 21:38:36 GMT
If a form is a duplicate of a previous form, and forms multiply, then forms exist as they act (action necessitates existence). I agree that forms exists through some kind of an action. But is an action linked to the existence as a cause and a reason? I think that before an action there has to be some "spot" or "a place" for it. Let's say that the existence is this sequence: __________________________________________________ then, if one event has to become or to be realized, then a) ___________0 b) _____0_____ c) 0__________ in b and c it can happen, while in a it can't, because for 0 (as some event) there are no place further. I mean - to what everything is changing? If there is nothing, to what that something (or everything) can go, then no changes are possible. So, the changes are before action, but "the spots" or "the places" are before the changes. I don't know what kind of deities those spots or places are, but I reckon they exist, and this can be that those pre-existence places don't exist. As an option, I think it's possible for a thing (if there's nothing except it), it has to change into itself. However, maybe a thing doesn't have outer, maybe it has inner spots. An actual state cannot exist except for some prior potential state through which the current actual exists. This current actual state has another potential state through which a future actual may occur. A current actual is a past potential and exists through a current potential given change is continuous. Because of this continuity of change potentiality and actuality occur simultaneously.
|
|