|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 12, 2023 23:17:10 GMT
1. A line is divided by a line.
2. The lines divided by a line are in turn divided by a line.
3. Each line is a space thus space divides space.
4. The division of a space by another space is further a space.
5. Space is contradictory as it is simultaneously self-negating and self-progressing.
6. All forms are composed of space thus all forms are contradictory.
7. If it exists it has form, thus all existence is contradictory.
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Apr 13, 2023 17:06:02 GMT
3. "Each line is a space thus space divides space." Hmmm, a line is in a space. It is not space itself.
4. "The division of a space by another space is further a space." Please explain how space can divide space.
5. "Space is contradictory as it is simultaneously self-negating and self-progressing." Please explain how "space" negates itself.
6. "All forms are composed of space thus all forms are contradictory." Once again, "forms" exist in "space", they are not composed of "space". Yes, forms have space within them, but that space existed before the "form" was formed.
7. "If it exists it has form, thus all existence is contradictory." Without explaining or proving 3 through 6, number seven holds no meaning, in space or anywhere else.
As I have said in the past, I am not trying to be difficult to live with, but throwing out word salads does not make your statements true. Maybe I am just too thick headed.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 14, 2023 18:17:54 GMT
3. "Each line is a space thus space divides space." Hmmm, a line is in a space. It is not space itself. 4. "The division of a space by another space is further a space." Please explain how space can divide space. 5. "Space is contradictory as it is simultaneously self-negating and self-progressing." Please explain how "space" negates itself. 6. "All forms are composed of space thus all forms are contradictory." Once again, "forms" exist in "space", they are not composed of "space". Yes, forms have space within them, but that space existed before the "form" was formed. 7. "If it exists it has form, thus all existence is contradictory." Without explaining or proving 3 through 6, number seven holds no meaning, in space or anywhere else. As I have said in the past, I am not trying to be difficult to live with, but throwing out word salads does not make your statements true. Maybe I am just too thick headed. 3. If a line is a space, and this space is divided by further space (with this division being a space as well), then space is self-referential and all there is is space. 4. A line cuts a line in half thus resulting in two lines. The two lines, which are spaces, are divided by a space (i.e. the line that runs through them). Space divides space. 5. See point 2. One space cuts another space in two thus resulting in the negation of the unity/continuity of the space which is now two; one space is negated and two results. 6. A square is a form. It is composed of the space within it and the space outside of it. It is also composed of the space of the lines itself. Space is form. 7. Calling it a "word salad" only proves you do not understand what was being written.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 14, 2023 20:32:26 GMT
I got it. It's true.
It can be said in this way also:
1. Either X is X, or X is not X; 2. It results in being a certain form X is separated from something that is not X; 3. Anything that separates X from not X is a certain form Y; 4. Either Y is Y...
I guess there's no need to write the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 14, 2023 20:38:58 GMT
3. "Each line is a space thus space divides space." Hmmm, a line is in a space. It is not space itself. 4. "The division of a space by another space is further a space." Please explain how space can divide space. 5. "Space is contradictory as it is simultaneously self-negating and self-progressing." Please explain how "space" negates itself. 6. "All forms are composed of space thus all forms are contradictory." Once again, "forms" exist in "space", they are not composed of "space". Yes, forms have space within them, but that space existed before the "form" was formed. 7. "If it exists it has form, thus all existence is contradictory." Without explaining or proving 3 through 6, number seven holds no meaning, in space or anywhere else. As I have said in the past, I am not trying to be difficult to live with, but throwing out word salads does not make your statements true. Maybe I am just too thick headed. Seven is true due to different other facts as: if space isn't a form, then whatever it is it must be what is it to be itself. And "being itself" means "to copy", or "to repeat", or "to double", – actually either that space is identical to itself, or not. It has a form if just for a tiniest time (an act of change, or movement, etc) it is what it is during this period. To say that something is a form is just another (more complexed) way to say that that something lasts itself for a certain time. To explain that last line a quite further: "X has a certain form A" means "X shares a form Y, so does A". That 'Y' might be also 'X', and if it is we perform the previous condition, namely that – X lasts for a certain time (during X "transforms" into Y; truly or imaginary). I hope that my explanation can reveal some implicit meaning behind "space" and "forms". Actually, I might be less wordy by proposing only a thought that if we view the reality as Geometry followers we see it as being made by triangles, squares, rounds – the forms. And how else could we see it if not in this geometric way?
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Apr 16, 2023 1:35:38 GMT
Once again I disagree with this premise: (3) If a line is a space, and this space is divided by further space (with this division being a space as well), then space is self-referential and all there is is space. "If a line is a space" starts the trouble. A line is NOT space, it exist IN space. I am not alone in this thought. The link below presents a very good exposition on Emmanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, he talks about space and time. He also brings up the point I think you are trying to make about space and geometry. It is a short and good read. Cheers! plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/#:~:text=In%20the%20first%20argument%20of%20the,representation%20of%20space%20cannot%20be%20empirical%3A&text=In%20the%20first%20argument,space%20cannot%20be%20empirical%3A&text=first%20argument%20of%20the,representation%20of%20space%20cannot
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 16, 2023 3:28:34 GMT
Once again I disagree with this premise: (3) If a line is a space, and this space is divided by further space (with this division being a space as well), then space is self-referential and all there is is space. "If a line is a space" starts the trouble. A line is NOT space, it exist IN space. I am not alone in this thought. The link below presents a very good exposition on Emmanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, he talks about space and time. He also brings up the point I think you are trying to make about space and geometry. It is a short and good read. Cheers! plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/#:~:text=In%20the%20first%20argument%20of%20the,representation%20of%20space%20cannot%20be%20empirical%3A&text=In%20the%20first%20argument,space%20cannot%20be%20empirical%3A&text=first%20argument%20of%20the,representation%20of%20space%20cannot I read Kant (must say I often criticized him, than was quite neat. Perhaps it happened, because before reading CoPR I read lots about it), and I don't like his version of time and space, even despite that fact he was logical. I can't remember the exact links or pages to Schopenhauer, but in few works he criticized that Kant view. Mainly it was about time: for Kant (putting away all that inner form of our experience, etc) if after one object another came, there's time. (And space is when both co-exist.) So, Schopenhauer asked how did we know about the existence of the previous object after it was gone (transformed or changed)? According to him we either should reformulate that time definition, or to accept that we cannot assume the co-existence. Also to add here: a line exist in space, but how it exists there? If there is one a line in space, there must be infinite potential lines. Why so? Because, let's say a line is AB, then there must be BC, CD,... WA and so on. And that fact that we assume AB is line is just a deliberate act: obviously that AC, BC, WA, etc are also lines. And if there are these lines, then our space are lines or consist of lines. Actually to clarify a little the last argument: by accepting the space we cannot refuse its bunch of potential properties, and one of such is that – there's an endless ways to draw lines there. Surely it doesn't really suppose that contradiction appears there, but our viewing the line is rather imaginary or something.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 19, 2023 21:43:09 GMT
3. "Each line is a space thus space divides space." Hmmm, a line is in a space. It is not space itself. 4. "The division of a space by another space is further a space." Please explain how space can divide space. 5. "Space is contradictory as it is simultaneously self-negating and self-progressing." Please explain how "space" negates itself. 6. "All forms are composed of space thus all forms are contradictory." Once again, "forms" exist in "space", they are not composed of "space". Yes, forms have space within them, but that space existed before the "form" was formed. 7. "If it exists it has form, thus all existence is contradictory." Without explaining or proving 3 through 6, number seven holds no meaning, in space or anywhere else. As I have said in the past, I am not trying to be difficult to live with, but throwing out word salads does not make your statements true. Maybe I am just too thick headed. Seven is true due to different other facts as: if space isn't a form, then whatever it is it must be what is it to be itself. And "being itself" means "to copy", or "to repeat", or "to double", – actually either that space is identical to itself, or not. It has a form if just for a tiniest time (an act of change, or movement, etc) it is what it is during this period. To say that something is a form is just another (more complexed) way to say that that something lasts itself for a certain time. To explain that last line a quite further: "X has a certain form A" means "X shares a form Y, so does A". That 'Y' might be also 'X', and if it is we perform the previous condition, namely that – X lasts for a certain time (during X "transforms" into Y; truly or imaginary). I hope that my explanation can reveal some implicit meaning behind "space" and "forms". Actually, I might be less wordy by proposing only a thought that if we view the reality as Geometry followers we see it as being made by triangles, squares, rounds – the forms. And how else could we see it if not in this geometric way? 1. If space repeats then there is a gap between what repeats and this is a space as well. 2. The form of a circle has inner and out space. This inner/outer space is divided by the circle as well and this division is a space between said spaces.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 19, 2023 21:44:07 GMT
Once again I disagree with this premise: (3) If a line is a space, and this space is divided by further space (with this division being a space as well), then space is self-referential and all there is is space. "If a line is a space" starts the trouble. A line is NOT space, it exist IN space. I am not alone in this thought. The link below presents a very good exposition on Emmanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, he talks about space and time. He also brings up the point I think you are trying to make about space and geometry. It is a short and good read. Cheers! plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/#:~:text=In%20the%20first%20argument%20of%20the,representation%20of%20space%20cannot%20be%20empirical%3A&text=In%20the%20first%20argument,space%20cannot%20be%20empirical%3A&text=first%20argument%20of%20the,representation%20of%20space%20cannot 1. A line is the distance between points, this distance is a space.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 19, 2023 23:39:11 GMT
1. A line is divided by a line either by one being horizontally within the other or a vertical one crossing a horizontal one.
2. The lines divided by a line are in turn divided by a line when viewed as one horizontal line within the other. The lines divided through the vertical one crossing through the horizontal one are in turn divided by a line as two lines result from the one being divided with this division between the two new lines being a line as the ending point of the first line differs from the beginning point of the second upon closer inspection. This second point, i.e. the vertical lines crossing the horizontal line thus resulting in a line between what is divided, is debatable.
3. Each line is a space, as the distance between two points is a space, thus space divides space.
4. The division of a space by another space is further a space.
5. Space is contradictory as it is simultaneously self-negating and self-progressing. It is negating in the respect that a line divided results in shorter lines however the manifestation of shorter lines is the multiplication of lines. Dually a point divided is a point multiplied and a point multiplied is a point divided.
6. All forms are composed of space thus all forms are contradictory; Example 1: The form of a circle has inner and out space. This inner/outer space is divided by the circle as well and this division is a space between said spaces, the circle is a contradiction as it is opposing spaces with this opposition of spaces resulting in the space between them (i.e. the circle) being a form (in other terms, the opposition of spaces results in a space between them with this space being a form).
Example 2: A square is a form. It is composed of the space within it and the space outside of it. It is also composed of the space of the lines itself as the lines are the distance, thus space, between two points. Space is form and yet the space inside of the square stands apart from the space outside the square through the space of the lines. Dually the space of the square form itself contradicts, i.e. stands apart from, the inner and outer space.
Space divides/multiplies into further space with this division/multiplication of space being a space.
7. If it exists it has form, thus all existence is contradictory as forms are contradictory as forms are composed of space and space contradicts itself. Space is pure contradiction.
|
|
lamburk
Full Member
Posts: 227
Likes: 80
|
Post by lamburk on Apr 21, 2023 11:55:20 GMT
1. A line is divided by a line. 2. The lines divided by a line are in turn divided by a line. 3. Each line is a space thus space divides space. 4. The division of a space by another space is further a space. 5. Space is contradictory as it is simultaneously self-negating and self-progressing. 6. All forms are composed of space thus all forms are contradictory. 7. If it exists it has form, thus all existence is contradictory.This. In fact, the so called 'EXISTENCE' is actually MAYA, or an illusion. If anything has a form, then it has to exist. But, how can we say about soul, which has no material form, yet it exists, and keep on transmigrating? But souls do exist. Therefore, whatever material objects we see, in reality are an illusion, and just happens to be a point in space.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 21, 2023 19:11:20 GMT
1. A line is divided by a line. 2. The lines divided by a line are in turn divided by a line. 3. Each line is a space thus space divides space. 4. The division of a space by another space is further a space. 5. Space is contradictory as it is simultaneously self-negating and self-progressing. 6. All forms are composed of space thus all forms are contradictory. 7. If it exists it has form, thus all existence is contradictory.This. In fact, the so called 'EXISTENCE' is actually MAYA, or an illusion. If anything has a form, then it has to exist. But, how can we say about soul, which has no material form, yet it exists, and keep on transmigrating? But souls do exist. Therefore, whatever material objects we see, in reality are an illusion, and just happens to be a point in space. 1. Existence occurs through forms. 2. Forms are relative. 3. That which is relative is an illusion (partial truths). 4. Existence is an illusion. The soul is a thing when inhabiting a thing, the soul is no-thing when it moves beyond inhabiting forms. The soul fundamentally is space as awareness; without sense we observe space, with the senses we observe space. This act of observation is space itself considering space allows for the imprinting or rather assuming of things upon itself. Space underlies everything as everything is space. The transmigration of the soul is the soul exhausting all forms before it moves to a state of formlessness. This is considering space, i.e. no-thing, is potentiality and as potentiality must exhaust all possibilities if it is to remain changeless as the exhaustion of every possibility is the same as nothingness.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 22, 2023 15:33:27 GMT
I love how xxxxxxxxx never says "perhaps" or "you might be right" or "maybe" but instead like a troll he just insists that he is 100% right without hesitation no matter how many people agree that he is making word salad it doesn't faze him like a fat kid with Asperger's disease in karate class he thinks he's always right
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 26, 2023 17:42:05 GMT
I love how xxxxxxxxx never says "perhaps" or "you might be right" or "maybe" but instead like a troll he just insists that he is 100% right without hesitation no matter how many people agree that he is making word salad it doesn't faze him like a fat kid with Asperger's disease in karate class he thinks he's always right False as usual, I was saying the same thing he said in different words and expanding upon it...that and I 'liked' his post. The 'like' is proof of this and his 'like' is another proof. What I don't understand is if why you disagree with me so much why do you just not ignore me? Don't you have anything better to do?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 26, 2023 19:29:24 GMT
Seven is true due to different other facts as: if space isn't a form, then whatever it is it must be what is it to be itself. And "being itself" means "to copy", or "to repeat", or "to double", – actually either that space is identical to itself, or not. It has a form if just for a tiniest time (an act of change, or movement, etc) it is what it is during this period. To say that something is a form is just another (more complexed) way to say that that something lasts itself for a certain time. To explain that last line a quite further: "X has a certain form A" means "X shares a form Y, so does A". That 'Y' might be also 'X', and if it is we perform the previous condition, namely that – X lasts for a certain time (during X "transforms" into Y; truly or imaginary). I hope that my explanation can reveal some implicit meaning behind "space" and "forms". Actually, I might be less wordy by proposing only a thought that if we view the reality as Geometry followers we see it as being made by triangles, squares, rounds – the forms. And how else could we see it if not in this geometric way? 1. If space repeats then there is a gap between what repeats and this is a space as well. 2. The form of a circle has inner and out space. This inner/outer space is divided by the circle as well and this division is a space between said spaces. Plenty of apologies for not answering in time. Last weeks had fatigue and had no stamina to do anything useful. Two these things are truly additional. If we assume a certain A is A (whatever A is), then A to itself has a gap. That's ridiculous, but seems true. I don't believe a perfect circle exists, so can't say that circles are circles, however anyway anything that belongs to a certain deity, let's call it 'circle' is Circle, and what doesn't belong to it, it's not Circle. If Circle had all the deities, then it had itself and the bigger deities, which would be impossible, so Circle has only what belongs to it.
|
|