|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 1, 2023 10:14:10 GMT
Since Galileo "X is moving" is fair only if there exists at least imaginary point Y such that the measurement between them /i.e. the algebraic sum of changes of distances between them/ demonstrates X moves toward Y or backward Y, or circled around Y.
Actions are different, presumably not all the actions are movements, however there are theories for which it's not like that: any action at least can be described as a certain movement.
So here is a question that has two ways to attempt to solve it:
(1) are there non-relative actions? and
(2) can each action be described as a movement?
Assuming the method of preference the existential over the generalized forms, a I can say that
(A) there exist relative actions, and that
(B) lack of space&time would give us an answer, but here are another problems arises that (i) doubtfully 0d realities exist, and (ii) any 1d or more realities suppose movement in the most common interpretations of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 3, 2023 19:52:54 GMT
Since Galileo "X is moving" is fair only if there exists at least imaginary point Y such that the measurement between them /i.e. the algebraic sum of changes of distances between them/ demonstrates X moves toward Y or backward Y, or circled around Y. Actions are different, presumably not all the actions are movements, however there are theories for which it's not like that: any action at least can be described as a certain movement. So here is a question that has two ways to attempt to solve it: (1) are there non-relative actions? and (2) can each action be described as a movement? Assuming the method of preference the existential over the generalized forms, a I can say that (A) there exist relative actions, and that (B) lack of space&time would give us an answer, but here are another problems arises that (i) doubtfully 0d realities exist, and (ii) any 1d or more realities suppose movement in the most common interpretations of them. 1. Action requires form as only forms can act and all forms are actions within actions (i.e. the form of a tree is derived from the actions of atoms). 2. All forms are relative as a form requires the connection to and contrast to other forms. 3. All action is relative as action requires and is synonymous to form. 4. Nothing is absolute, no-thingness is absolute.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 4, 2023 14:44:14 GMT
Since Galileo "X is moving" is fair only if there exists at least imaginary point Y such that the measurement between them /i.e. the algebraic sum of changes of distances between them/ demonstrates X moves toward Y or backward Y, or circled around Y. Actions are different, presumably not all the actions are movements, however there are theories for which it's not like that: any action at least can be described as a certain movement. So here is a question that has two ways to attempt to solve it: (1) are there non-relative actions? and (2) can each action be described as a movement? Assuming the method of preference the existential over the generalized forms, a I can say that (A) there exist relative actions, and that (B) lack of space&time would give us an answer, but here are another problems arises that (i) doubtfully 0d realities exist, and (ii) any 1d or more realities suppose movement in the most common interpretations of them. 1. Action requires form as only forms can act and all forms are actions within actions (i.e. the form of a tree is derived from the actions of atoms). 2. All forms are relative as a form requires the connection to and contrast to other forms. 3. All action is relative as action requires and is synonymous to form. 4. Nothing is absolute, no-thingness is absolute.
Well, I accept the first three, they seem pretty argumentative, and well, but I still don't understand how did you get the 4th? Why here's Nothing, and it's absoluteness, and where did you get that no-thingness? That's an interesting remark about actions within actions as some kind of a sequence or a gradation from one actions to another, and so on. My opinion is that the actions may be reduced to the changes via the processes. If each actions is a process, and each process supposes some changes, then an action supposes some changes. And some changes is also the changes.
If we've got a planiest change it may be described as if there was A, then B came. The last one may be interpreted as one resulted in two. Seems that the changes result in numbers or similar deities. Might be that the changes are relatives (i.e. to have a sort of relation) with the natural numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 5, 2023 18:26:46 GMT
1. Action requires form as only forms can act and all forms are actions within actions (i.e. the form of a tree is derived from the actions of atoms). 2. All forms are relative as a form requires the connection to and contrast to other forms. 3. All action is relative as action requires and is synonymous to form. 4. Nothing is absolute, no-thingness is absolute.
Well, I accept the first three, they seem pretty argumentative, and well, but I still don't understand how did you get the 4th? Why here's Nothing, and it's absoluteness, and where did you get that no-thingness? That's an interesting remark about actions within actions as some kind of a sequence or a gradation from one actions to another, and so on. My opinion is that the actions may be reduced to the changes via the processes. If each actions is a process, and each process supposes some changes, then an action supposes some changes. And some changes is also the changes.
If we've got a planiest change it may be described as if there was A, then B came. The last one may be interpreted as one resulted in two. Seems that the changes result in numbers or similar deities. Might be that the changes are relatives (i.e. to have a sort of relation) with the natural numbers. Forms are relative and the absence of forms is an absence of relativity. This absence of relativity results in the absolute. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 5, 2023 19:11:46 GMT
Well, I accept the first three, they seem pretty argumentative, and well, but I still don't understand how did you get the 4th? Why here's Nothing, and it's absoluteness, and where did you get that no-thingness? That's an interesting remark about actions within actions as some kind of a sequence or a gradation from one actions to another, and so on. My opinion is that the actions may be reduced to the changes via the processes. If each actions is a process, and each process supposes some changes, then an action supposes some changes. And some changes is also the changes.
If we've got a planiest change it may be described as if there was A, then B came. The last one may be interpreted as one resulted in two. Seems that the changes result in numbers or similar deities. Might be that the changes are relatives (i.e. to have a sort of relation) with the natural numbers. Forms are relative and the absence of forms is an absence of relativity. This absence of relativity results in the absolute. Time isn't a form, but it's also relative. I don't think that the forms are the ones about relativity. Let's say there are two forms. We don't know anything about them, except for these forms are different. Since we don't know anything about them, maybe those forms are identical, or maybe there are only one form which only seems to be a twin. So, no other forms are required for us to interpret them, i.e. to claim about their relativity. This is just an example, but it provides a thought that the relativity may be assumed mathematically or conceptually, without forms. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 5, 2023 19:44:13 GMT
Forms are relative and the absence of forms is an absence of relativity. This absence of relativity results in the absolute. Time isn't a form, but it's also relative. I don't think that the forms are the ones about relativity. Let's say there are two forms. We don't know anything about them, except for these forms are different. Since we don't know anything about them, maybe those forms are identical, or maybe there are only one form which only seems to be a twin. So, no other forms are required for us to interpret them, i.e. to claim about their relativity. This is just an example, but it provides a thought that the relativity may be assumed mathematically or conceptually, without forms. Time is the divergence and convergence of spaces and as such has the most basic form of two points coming together as one or one point coming apart as two. To explain this divergence and convergence further: A tree passes through time and becomes dirt, the form diverges into another form. Dirt passes through time and joins with phenomena until it becomes a seed which turns to a tree, the form converges into another form. Both the tree and the dirt have forms thus are composed of space; the change of space is time thus time is space considering the change of space results in further space. Considering the multiplicity of forms we have to find the most basic underlying form to all these forms and this most basic form is the relation of points. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 5, 2023 20:22:14 GMT
Time isn't a form, but it's also relative. I don't think that the forms are the ones about relativity. Let's say there are two forms. We don't know anything about them, except for these forms are different. Since we don't know anything about them, maybe those forms are identical, or maybe there are only one form which only seems to be a twin. So, no other forms are required for us to interpret them, i.e. to claim about their relativity. This is just an example, but it provides a thought that the relativity may be assumed mathematically or conceptually, without forms. Time is the divergence and convergence of spaces and as such has the most basic form of two points coming together as one or one point coming apart as two. To explain this divergence and convergence further: A tree passes through time and becomes dirt, the form diverges into another form. Dirt passes through time and joins with phenomena until it becomes a seed which turns to a tree, the form converges into another form. Both the tree and the dirt have forms thus are composed of space; the change of space is time thus time is space considering the change of space results in further space. Considering the multiplicity of forms we have to find the most basic underlying form to all these forms and this most basic form is the relation of points. Time is not a form. Time is not space. I think it's a very important concept, and any attempt to reduce it fails. You can imagine whatever space you like to: 4d, 11d, 0d, etc, but there is nothing to make that space be changing (i.e. to force this space to start changing). Time is something above or below, not the same to space. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 5, 2023 20:30:43 GMT
Time is the divergence and convergence of spaces and as such has the most basic form of two points coming together as one or one point coming apart as two. To explain this divergence and convergence further: A tree passes through time and becomes dirt, the form diverges into another form. Dirt passes through time and joins with phenomena until it becomes a seed which turns to a tree, the form converges into another form. Both the tree and the dirt have forms thus are composed of space; the change of space is time thus time is space considering the change of space results in further space. Considering the multiplicity of forms we have to find the most basic underlying form to all these forms and this most basic form is the relation of points. Time is not a form. Time is not space. I think it's a very important concept, and any attempt to reduce it fails. You can imagine whatever space you like to: 4d, 11d, 0d, etc, but there is nothing to make that space be changing (i.e. to force this space to start changing). Time is something above or below, not the same to space. A person walks down the street in 30 seconds. At second 1 his body has one form. At second 2 another form. So on and so forth. Each form his body takes is a space as it is a shape; the manifestation of forms occuring at intervals is the manifestation of time as time is the changing of spaces with this change in spaces having spaces between them. The multiplication of forms is the multiplication of space. The division of forms is the division of space. Any multiplication/division of space is the manifestation of space much in the same manner the manifestation of a circle is the inner space, the outerspace and the space between the inner and outer space. To manifest space is to manifest time. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 5, 2023 20:46:32 GMT
Time is not a form. Time is not space. I think it's a very important concept, and any attempt to reduce it fails. You can imagine whatever space you like to: 4d, 11d, 0d, etc, but there is nothing to make that space be changing (i.e. to force this space to start changing). Time is something above or below, not the same to space. A person walks down the street in 30 seconds. At second 1 his body has one form. At second 2 another form. So on and so forth. Each form his body takes is a space as it is a shape; the manifestation of forms occuring at intervals is the manifestation of time as time is the changing of spaces with this change in spaces having spaces between them. The multiplication of forms is the multiplication of space. The division of forms is the division of space. Any multiplication/division of space is the manifestation of space much in the same manner the manifestation of a circle is the inner space, the outerspace and the space between the inner and outer space. To manifest space is to manifest time. That doesn't put forward anything. Again, time is not a sum of forms, not one of the forms. You're appealing again and again to space. This is not what is impossible, because you're trying to interpret it, but there is something, that beyond interpretation. So, okay, I see that you're disagree about time isn't a form. Okay, but what about an observer? A first-person mode? Qualia? This is not a sum of forms, or one of them. Existence, by the way, isn't a form either. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 5, 2023 20:51:26 GMT
A person walks down the street in 30 seconds. At second 1 his body has one form. At second 2 another form. So on and so forth. Each form his body takes is a space as it is a shape; the manifestation of forms occuring at intervals is the manifestation of time as time is the changing of spaces with this change in spaces having spaces between them. The multiplication of forms is the multiplication of space. The division of forms is the division of space. Any multiplication/division of space is the manifestation of space much in the same manner the manifestation of a circle is the inner space, the outerspace and the space between the inner and outer space. To manifest space is to manifest time. That doesn't put forward anything. Again, time is not a sum of forms, not one of the forms. You're appealing again and again to space. This is not what is impossible, because you're trying to interpret it, but there is something, that beyond interpretation. So, okay, I see that you're disagree about time isn't a form. Okay, but what about an observer? A first-person mode? Qualia? This is not a sum of forms, or one of them. Existence, by the way, isn't a form either. Time is the space between consecutive forms, the repetition of said forms (like intervals on a clock) is time...and yet this repetition requires a gap from one form to the next, just like a hand on 12 moving to 1 on a clock, this gap is time yet because it is a gap it is space. I walk from point A to point B. The time of me walking from point A to point B results in a series of forms that occurs between the points. Time is inseparable from space. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 5, 2023 20:58:49 GMT
 That doesn't put forward anything. Again, time is not a sum of forms, not one of the forms. You're appealing again and again to space. This is not what is impossible, because you're trying to interpret it, but there is something, that beyond interpretation. So, okay, I see that you're disagree about time isn't a form. Okay, but what about an observer? A first-person mode? Qualia? This is not a sum of forms, or one of them. Existence, by the way, isn't a form either. Time is the space between consecutive forms, the repetition of said forms (like intervals on a clock) is time...and yet this repetition requires a gap from one form to the next, just like a hand on 12 moving to 1 on a clock, this gap is time yet because it is a gap it is space. I walk from point A to point B. The time of me walking from point A to point B results in a series of forms that occurs between the points. Time is inseparable from space.  Imagine a sound is some kind of a form (by the way, music can disprove your theory, because essence of music is not it's form, it's something mathematical, not geometrical; architecture is formal, yes, and so be logic), and pauses - it is time. But again, a form must be place into the time. So, how can time can be a form if any forms must be placed into time? Okay, let's say is possible, but again if sounds are forms, and pauses are times, then there is no need for any form for pause to be endless. If the pause is endless, then no forms are required. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 17, 2023 17:17:36 GMT
Time is the space between consecutive forms, the repetition of said forms (like intervals on a clock) is time...and yet this repetition requires a gap from one form to the next, just like a hand on 12 moving to 1 on a clock, this gap is time yet because it is a gap it is space. I walk from point A to point B. The time of me walking from point A to point B results in a series of forms that occurs between the points. Time is inseparable from space. Imagine a sound is some kind of a form (by the way, music can disprove your theory, because essence of music is not it's form, it's something mathematical, not geometrical; architecture is formal, yes, and so be logic), and pauses - it is time. But again, a form must be place into the time. So, how can time can be a form if any forms must be placed into time? Okay, let's say is possible, but again if sounds are forms, and pauses are times, then there is no need for any form for pause to be endless. If the pause is endless, then no forms are required. Sounds are waves. The peak of one crest of the wave has a gap between it and another crest of the wave. This gap between forms allows for intervals and these intervals are time. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 17, 2023 19:08:10 GMT
Imagine a sound is some kind of a form (by the way, music can disprove your theory, because essence of music is not it's form, it's something mathematical, not geometrical; architecture is formal, yes, and so be logic), and pauses - it is time. But again, a form must be place into the time. So, how can time can be a form if any forms must be placed into time? Okay, let's say is possible, but again if sounds are forms, and pauses are times, then there is no need for any form for pause to be endless. If the pause is endless, then no forms are required. Sounds are waves. The peak of one crest of the wave has a gap between it and another crest of the wave. This gap between forms allows for intervals and these intervals are time. Do you know that now we're at the epicenter of Newton-Leibniz dialogue of Time and Space? Let's say there's no chance to register that interval – there are no clocks, no metronomes, no anything that can help us to measure it. Just think about it: if we can't measure the interval how are we supposed to know there's been an interval? Maybe there were no intervals? Indeed, if we cannot provide any measurement then the interval might be as 0 so ∞. We don't know how long it is. And because we can't do this, we can agree that there's a change between peaks or crests, not that there is an interval. Or else, the interval here must have the same meaning as 'the change'. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 17, 2023 21:47:47 GMT
Sounds are waves. The peak of one crest of the wave has a gap between it and another crest of the wave. This gap between forms allows for intervals and these intervals are time. Do you know that now we're at the epicenter of Newton-Leibniz dialogue of Time and Space? Let's say there's no chance to register that interval – there are no clocks, no metronomes, no anything that can help us to measure it. Just think about it: if we can't measure the interval how are we supposed to know there's been an interval? Maybe there were no intervals? Indeed, if we cannot provide any measurement then the interval might be as 0 so ∞. We don't know how long it is. And because we can't do this, we can agree that there's a change between peaks or crests, not that there is an interval. Or else, the interval here must have the same meaning as 'the change'. The wave is its own interval as one peak has a gap before another peak. The same occurs for a rising and setting sun, the sun rises, sets (gap), then rises again. Intervals are change. Time occurs through the observation of change, time is change. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 18, 2023 9:11:38 GMT
Do you know that now we're at the epicenter of Newton-Leibniz dialogue of Time and Space? Let's say there's no chance to register that interval – there are no clocks, no metronomes, no anything that can help us to measure it. Just think about it: if we can't measure the interval how are we supposed to know there's been an interval? Maybe there were no intervals? Indeed, if we cannot provide any measurement then the interval might be as 0 so ∞. We don't know how long it is. And because we can't do this, we can agree that there's a change between peaks or crests, not that there is an interval. Or else, the interval here must have the same meaning as 'the change'. The wave is its own interval as one peak has a gap before another peak. The same occurs for a rising and setting sun, the sun rises, sets (gap), then rises again. Intervals are change. Time occurs through the observation of change, time is change. It might be my fault, but you didn't get the message – we're unable to say if time is charge. "Time is change" is Leibniz. "Absolute time" is Newton. I think Newton has more right path here, because Newton declares – what is more important – independence of time. In Leibniz scenario, on the other hand, "time" is abstraction, a function of objects. But that breaks the floor out of out thinking – we've come to some kind of a materialism sanctuary. Leibniz thought has double flaws, since he doesn't accept objects as matter. Then his "time" is functionally subjective. Newtonian is if here's an absolute time, then objects don't create time, they are able to change. Let's look closer to this last one: if an object changes, then either at least a part of an object A changes, or at least a part of A has been moved. Having no potential ability of changing (replacement or movement) cause troubles of monistic representations of the reality (and then no movement), or to be possesed by something else i.e. being related to something else, that is a potential act. Of course we cannot register absolute time without any changes, while this view seems to be the most logically adequate. |
|
