# Thread: eodnhoj7's word salads thread

1. Is mathematics rooted in space curving upon itself as Reflection?

Here is the presented argument: The nature of math as reflective space is embodied within the very form of geometry which can be further observed in the form of number. Space and number are synonymous

As a note the argument presenting number as space is presented in green. The argument presenting mathematics, specifically arithmetic, being rooted in "Reflection" is observed in red. I wrote the corresponding formulas in english, so if due to copy and paste they are unreadable the english equivalent will translate.

Causality is synonymous to a geometric point which reflects upon itself to form a further point as effect. This cause reflecting itself produces an effect as an approximate structure or approximate point with this approximate point in itself being a point as a geometric structure or cause .

(α = ∘) ∴ (α≡α ≅ ≈α) ∧ (∘ ≡ ∘ ≅ ≈∘)

1, as a unified spatial structure, is the fullest form of numerical symmetry there is for all numbers either are composed of 1 or are approximates of it (ex: 1+1+1=3 or 1/3 or 3/1 ) . It is as the fullest form of numerical symmetry, that 1 as a spatial structure is equal to the point geometrically and as a point the causal component of all logistic structures. In these respects 1, the point, and causality are the same:

1 = ∘ = α

It is the reflection of points, as cause and effect which contains an element of deficiency in cause/effectual point as “approximation”. This deficiency, as approximation, is equivalent to a deficiency in structural integrity (or in general structure) which is randomness. Reflection is a coproduct of randomness as it is a coproduct of approximation of cause:

([≡] ∐ [≈α]) ^ {(≈α ∈ ξ) ∵ (≈ α ≠ α)} ∴ ([≡] ∐ ξ)

This deficiency of the point, as randomness, is the line for the line is the negation of curvature (embodied at its apex through the point or sphere). Linearism cannot be viewed as structure for it requires, but is not limited to:

Points to maintain it, for a line must exist between two points. This existence between two points does not however eliminate the infinite nature of the line for the extension between two centers is extension between two infinities as infinity.

Infinite space which thereby causes an infinite curvature of that space through infinite separation or composition, for to imagine an infinite line is to imagine a line either becoming infinitely larger, infinitely smaller or both. In these respects, the line is infinitely curving with this infinite curvature leading in both form and function to the circle.

c) Infinity as a spherical structure to maintain the line as an axis or center with the sphere itself being composed infinite points with infinite lines between these points; therefore infinite axis.

It is in these respects that all linearism requires curvature of some form with abstract linear constructs requiring an infinite form of curvature to exist. The line therefore cannot exist on its own but rather through approximation of some point form or function. To imagine a strict line is to imagine some other form of curvature maintaining it with this curvature inevitably resulting in circular or spherical nature as a point. It is in these respects that a linear only logic does not suffice without contradicting itself on its own grounds, for linearism is separation as its core just as a contradiction is a separation of truth. Reflection is a coproduct of linearism as it is a coproduct of approximation of points:

([≡] ∐ [≈∘]) ^ {(≈∘ ∈ ⟺) ∵ (≈ ∘ ≠ ∘)} ∴ ([≡] ∐⟺)

Just as we observe randomness through the approximation of cause and we observe the line through the approximate of points (with all approximates having at minimum a dual nature) in ⧟, randomness and linearism are equal.
([≡] ∐ [≈α]) ^ {(≈α ∈ ξ) ∵ (≈ α ≠ α)} ∴ ([≡] ∐ ξ) and ([≡] ∐ [≈∘]) ^ {(≈∘ ∈ ⟺) ∵ (≈ ∘ ≠ ∘)} ∴ ([≡] ∐⟺)

Therefore ξ= ⟺

In a simultaneous respect, it is the reflection of 1 as causal point which contains an element of deficiency as “approximation”. This deficiency, as approximation and coproduct of reflection, is equivalent to a deficiency in structural unity similar to the randomness of causality and the line of the point. It is in this respect that all reflection of 1 as causal approximations reflects a dual nature of deficiency. This deficiency of 1 is 0 as being and non-being where the non-being can be observed only if there is being or “1”. 1n contains as an element 0 because 1n does not equal 1 due to a deficiency in unity as “1”. The approximation in the example of 1 and 2, can be observed in the approximations between 1 and 2 as 1.x where x is the infinite gradation of fractal natures between 1 and 2 as [1…..2] which can be observed as negative space or absence of being which differentiates 1 and 2 as approximates.

([≡] ∐ [≈1n]) ^ {(1n∈ 0) ∵ (1n≠ 1)} ∴ ([≡] ∐ 0)

with 1 ≡ 0 ≅ -1

In this respect 0, randomness and the line are equal as 0 = ξ = ⟺

(1 = ∘ = α) share the same reflective nature through:

(1≡1 ≅ 2) ^ (2 ∈ 0) ∴ (1≡1) → 1,2,0

(∘ ≡ ∘ ≅ ≈ ∘2) ^ (≈ ∘2 ∈ ⟺ ∵ ⧟ ≈ ∘) ∴ (∘ ≡ ∘) → ∘,≈∘2,⟺

(α≡α ≅ ≈α2) ^ (≈α2 ∈ ξ) ∴ (α≡α) → α,≈α,ξ

(0=ξ= ⟺) share the same reflective nature through:

(1≡0 ≅ -1)

(∘ ≡ ⟺ ≅ ⊸)

(α≡ξ ≅ -α)

It is within this shared reflective nature that (1 = ∘ = α) and (0=ξ= ⟺) are trinitarian duals as a seventh dimension of Reflection.

[≡]〈1 = ∘ = α │0=ξ= ⟺〉 ∨ [≡]〈1│0〉 [≡]〈 ∘│⟺〉 [≡]〈α│ξ〉

It is the fullness in symmetry of 1, the point and causality which observe the nature of reflection as both structure and symmetry. It is this fullness in symmetry which observes 1, the point and cause as infinite for any temporality would imply a deficiency in structure through flux:

With: 1 → ≈2=(1,2) → ≈3 =(1,3) → ≈4=(1, 4) → ≈5=(1, 5) → ≈6= (1, 6) → …. ∞=1

And: ∞ = 1

With: ∘ → ≈∘2= ⧟ → ≈∘3= △ → ≈∘4= □ → ≈∘5= ⌂ → ≈∘6= ⎔ → …. ∞= ∘

And: ∞ = ∘

With: α = α → ≈α2 → ≈α3 → ≈α4 → ≈α5 → ≈α6 → …. ∞= α

And: ∞= α

(1 = ∘ = α) = ∞

It is the deficiency in symmetry of 0, the line and randomness which observe the dual nature of reflection as anti-symmetrical. It is in these respect that reflection maintains both a positive and negative value which is further observed through reflective addition/subtraction, reflective multiplication/division and reflection exponentiation and roots.

All arithmetic functions are congruent to degrees of reflection with addition/subtraction as the first degree, multiplication/division the second degree and exponents/roots as the third degree. These three degrees emanate from a causal point of one as Reflective Addition, Reflective Multiplication and Reflective Exponentiation. It must be noted again, for the sake of clarity, that Addition, Multiplication, and Exponentiation are not equal to their Reflective Counterparts but are congruent in structure to it. Arithmetic is Arithmetic, Reflective Arithmetic is Reflective Arithmetic.

Positive Reflective Arithmetic (Addition, Multiplication and Exponentiation) is congruent in structure to the reflection of the one causal point which maintains positive structure as the reflection of structures through a unified median as extensions of that unified median which in themselves are the unified median or “whole”. Reflective Addition is strictly causality reflecting upon itself to maintain both itself and approximations as effect. These effects as structures are in themselves caused through approximation, with these effects/approximations being structures of causality or causal elements themselves.

These reflections as both cause and effect are “curvature as space” (or structures) of the center cause, with addition being equivalent to the curvature of the unified median as causality. It is this curve/space which maintains structures/the unified median, through the reflection of these curves as structures or addition, as the unified median. The unified median reflects the structures as cause, the structures reflect the unified median as cause; therefore, causality is an observation of a stable reflective symmetry. It is in this respect that causality/curvature/space are stable through a reflective symmetry as structure.

It is this reflective symmetry as structure which is equivalent to the nature of addition, with the fullest expression of that symmetry being spherical in nature as ”1 being”, or curves as structures through 1n. Reflective Multiplication and Reflective Exponentiation can be observed as further approximate structures of Reflective addition. Reflective addition, is ethereal curvature or curvature as ether through the point. Curvature and ether are synonymous.

Reflective Addition is the first degree of reflection of causal point as one and the positive dual of Reflective Subtraction:

Example: 2 + 2 = 4

(1 ≡ 1 ) ≡ (1 ≡ 1 ) ≅ (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ) or (1 , 4)

Reflective Multiplication is an approximate structure of Reflective Addition as a second degree of reflection. Where Reflective Addition observes one reflection through (1), Reflective multiplication observes a second degree of reflection through ((1)) as a reflection of reflection.

Example: 3 x 3 = 9

((1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1)) ≡ (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1)

(1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1) ≡ (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1) ≡ (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1) ≅

(1) ≡(1)≡(1) as ((1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1)) and

(1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1) or (1 , 9)

Negative Reflective Arithmetic (Subtraction, Division and Roots) is congruent in structure to the reflection of zero random linearism which ceases structure as the derivation of structures through a cessation of the unified median as extensions of that unified median. Reflective Subtraction is a deficiency in causal reflection, or causality reflecting randomness as a deficiency in structure. As approximation is a coproduct of all reflection, approximation is a deficiency in reflection of the original cause and contains and element of randomness as “deficiency”. Reflective Subtraction can be observed as a biproduct of Reflective Addition and in this respect a dual.

Reflection maintains as a coproduct randomness and in this respect all causality reflecting randomness is a deficiency in structure as a deficiency in curvature. These reflections of both cause and randomness are a deficiency in “curvature as space” (or structures), with Reflective Subtraction being equivalent to deficiency in curvature of the unified median as causality, or in simpler terms a deficiency in causality. It is this lack of curvature, as an absence of space which maintains structure/the unified median through the absence of space. The unified median/structures, as causality, reflecting randomness is an absence of reflection as the maintenance of structure; therefore, randomness is the observation of a stable reflective symmetry as approximation through a deficiency in structure.

It is in this respect that randomness/absence of curvature(line)/absence of space are approximations of stability through the absence of reflective symmetry as structure. It is this absence of reflective symmetry as structure which is equivalent to the nature of reflective subtraction, with the fullest expression of that absence of symmetry being linear in nature as not a thing is itself but “absence of 1 being” or “0”.

Reflective Subtraction is the first degree of reflection as random linearism as zero and the negative dual of Reflective Addition:

With (1 ≡ 0) ≅ - 1

(1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1) ≡ (1 ≡ 0) ≅ (1 ≡ 1) or (1, 2)

Reflective Division is an approximate structure of Reflective Subtraction as a second degree of reflection and the negative dual of Reflective Multiplication. Reflective Division is the number of negative reflections/structures (reflected as the divisor) as a second degree of reflection (whose dual is found in multiplication) that reflect until the existing structure becomes 0 or ξ.

8/2 = 4

(1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1) ≡ {((1≡1)) ≡ 0} →

{((1≡1))≡0} ≡ {((1≡1))≡0}≡{((1≡1))≡0} ≡{((1≡1))≡0} ≅
((0)) ≡((0))≡((0))≡((0)) as 4 ((0)) and {(1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1) ≡ 0} or -8 as 1[≡] →

(1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1) ≡ {(1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1) ≡ 0} ≅ 0

****Where the answer is the number of negative Reflections, 4((0)), until everything is reduced to 0.

This lack of gradation under Reflectivism, which observes wholes as extensions of the whole further observes a lack of fractal numbers. Where division results in fractal numbers, Reflective Division results in a negative structure.

Example 8/5 = 1 3/5 :

(1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1) ≡ {((1≡1≡1≡1≡1)) ≡ 0} →

(1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1) ≡ {((1 ≡ 1 ≡1≡1≡1)) ≡ 0} ≅ 1 and (1 ≡ 1≡1) ≡ {((1 ≡ 1≡1≡1≡1)) ≡ 0} 3/5 →

1 ≡ {(1 ≡ 1≡1) ≡ {((1 ≡ 1≡1≡1≡1)) ≡ 0}} ≅ 1 3/5

2. Here is a very brief. argument that space is composed of trifold properties of:

Ether (stable reflective space)

Apeirion (fluxing relational space)

Axioms (neutral centers of measurement from which consciousness begins and end)

These trifold properties composed all reality from the physical atom to the abstract thought.

The "ether" in order to maintain itself as stable, or "deficient in flux", manifests itself through a continual self-reflection, with this reflection being synonymous to stability (think of any geometry form being stable through the reflection of "points"). This self reflection in turn not just maintains itself but manifests further structures as extensions or "approximates" of itself.

However these approximates, by their very nature as being deficient in original unity, contain an element of deficiency which is synonymous to "randomness" or "chaos". In this respect, through the self-reflection of the ether, and approximate dimension of the "apeiron" (which seems closer to what you are describing) came into being. "Came into being" is a poor word as technically it always existed as the "limit" of "limitless" ether .

(this would imply the ether by definition being best describe as a 1 dimensional point from which the 2 dimensional "circle" as "apeiron" would extend. This circle, as a sign of constant flux, evidence by the metaphor of the self- eating snake Ourboroshttps://en.wikipedia...wiki/Ouroboros)

The "apeiron", as a dual dimension to the "ether", would be one of continual flux which this flux manifested as the continual relation of "particulate" as grades of "unity" or "fractals". These particulate in turn would exist through actual relations, as a "part" cannot exist unless it moves towards "unity". defined in turned by their potential relations. In this respect we observe the nature of "time" as an extension of the "apieron" through "actual" and "potential" particulate.

This "apieron" taking on the form and function of the particles which composed it, has infinite potential (which is equivalent to "non-being", in the respect that the "time" it produces fluxes and comes to an end before another one "pops up". Time in this respect can be viewed as a particle in that it is both actual and potential and "fluxes" or is metaphorically the "beating heart of the ether".

In this respect the "apieron" fluxes in order to "relate" or "move/flux towards" the ether as an act of continual relation.

In these respects, one could argue that the "ether" is a dimension of "stable reflection" as the universal mind or Logos. The "apieron" (which is what I believe you are closer to describing, and it is easy to confused since both are highly "symmetrical") one could argue is a dimension of "fluxing relations" or "relativity" as the universal "body" as matter.

One could extend the nature of Descartes mind/body dualism to the "macro" as an example of this.

However the dualism fails as all polarities result in and "either/or" flux. The question of what happens when an "immovable object/ether" faces and "unstoppable force/apeiron" comes to mind.

The only logical result of this dualism would be "synthesis" resulting in "being" which consciousness or "axioms" as the middle points. This is an important point to observe because the processes you are observing are what inevitably resulted in the consciousness allowing our "discussion". So in many respect that nature of "space" behaving in the manner we are observing are the fundamental building blocks of not only the empirical universe but the "axioms" we develop.

This synthesis, in turn as the manifestation of axioms (or human consciousness), is simply the manifestation of both "dimensional limits" (from which order as "space" begins and ends) and "possible dimensional limits" (possible non-existing order from which "space" begins and "ends"). It is from the nature of the axiom, or "axil" of measurement/being, that we come to the understanding of the center as a "third" dimension through the "sphere" as a synthesis of the 1 dimensional reflective ethereal point and the 2 dimensional relational apeironic circle (or Ouroboros).

The nature of the ether being observed as a universal "point" (which we observe everywhere), the apeiron as a fluxing or rotating circle (which is further argued as necessary due to the spin cycles found within quantum mechanics and the cyclical nature of all "movement"), and the median point as 3 dimensional existence embodied fully through the "sphere", observes the necessity of observe all reality through the nature of the point/circle/sphere as three in 1 and one in three. These 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 "spaces" are all Universal in both form and function and show an unavoidability in observing basic geometry as the foundations for "being" itself.

3. Philosopher's have long sought for a unifying metaphysics from which to establish a balanced understanding of not only the universe but themselves and their immediate surroundings. What we observe today with philosophy, and by extension the sciences and religions, is a continually fracturing quality where a philosophy/science/religion inevitably seem to reproduce various perspectives that mimic or reflect their previous parents.

It is in this effort to establish not only a unity, but an understanding of unity itself, that the nature of these fields of observation seem to follow a very difficult if not impossible course of action. Philosophies establish more philosophies, sciences with more sciences, religions with more religions...and the process of divergence seems to go on into a vortex whose end point, if there is any, lies more at the bottom of an abyss of materialistic flux rather than at the apex of what we deem as deep spiritual truth.

Where is unity to be found? Is their any to begin with? The answer seems to be the point, in a quite literal manner. What we understand of reality fundamentally breaks down to one irreducible axiom breaks down to a form of geometry and nothing more...nothing less.

All philosophy is founded upon the axiom, as point of self evidence whose dual nature of subjectivity and objectivity (under the "self" and "evidence") maintains a dualistic structure of continuous flux. "Truth is strictly subjective" turns itself into a statement of objectivity. "Truth is strictly objective" lends itself to a subjective understanding. Between this subjective and objective nature of the axiom we observe a continual flux between two natures, strictly because of its dualistic structure for a dualism is nothing more than an a form of opposition with that opposition erupting into a continual flux.

The synthesis of this subjective and objective nature of the axiom results in nothing more than geometric space under the guise of the "point". All subjective truth is found in and stems from the "point", along with all objective truth. It is this nature of the axiom as a point, which seems to have eluded philosophers due to its simultaneous simplicity and profundity as evidenced within the nature of its cousins the circle and sphere.

In simpler terms all axioms breakdown to a point. An observation, built upon this point, manifests structure by its reflection, relation, and synthesis of other points. It is this reflection, relation, and synthesis of axioms that in turn not only form other axioms but the very foundations of language and logic (and by extension reality) as we know it.

a) A point as a unified median, fundamentally reflects upon itself to maintain itself as a structure. It is in this self-reflection that a second point is made as an approximate of the first. In this respect that point is a causal element and the second point is an effectual element. This effectual element is fundamentally an approximate of the first point and in this respect shares the same cause nature.

B) However, due to its approximate nature to the first point it in itself is not the first point and not completely a unified. This approximate nature, as a deficiency in unity is akin to "randomness" as a "deficiency". The point as a self-reflective entity in this respect shares a dual role as a causal element and a random element through its nature as reflection. Reflection and the point are synonymous for reflection maintains the points as a unified entity with this unity equivalent in both form and function to stability or "abstraction".

c) It is from this nature of the point as a dimension of Reflection, from which we can observe Reflection as a dimension reflecting upon itself to maintain itself with its approximate as Relativity. The point becomes "deficient" in unity through the nature of gradation with this gradation of the point manifesting itself in both quantity and quality. These gradient points are fractals or particles which in turn are form of further particles. We observe this in material.

d)These particles, as deficient in unity, are subject to flux with this flux being evident in the needed relations of particles in order to exist. A particle relates to another particle other wise it does not exist. As the relation of a particle to another particle produces another particle a flux ensues with the continued relations of particles in many respects manifesting further relations, with further relations manifesting further particles. In this respect the particle has a dual nature of "potential relationships/particles" which define it. Relativity as a dimension of flux within and of itself manifests through a dual nature of actual and potential particles.

e)To step back further, what we understand of logic breaks down to a duality of Reflection (as stability/abstraction) and Relativity (as flux/physicality) which both are points within themselves. With Reflection being caused and Relativity as uncaused (for a deficiency in symmetry as flux is a deficiency in structure as causality) we observe dual dimension whose polarity is at odds and prevents and form of stability. A third dimension or point is introduced as Synthesis.

f) Reflection and Relativity, as points synthesis through a third point as themselves, each other, and the aforementioned point of synthesis that allows all logic and symmetric to maintain a triadic structure. This triadic structure, as the point itself, allows the point to:

1) maintain a dual role of stability and flux through the synthesis of dimensional limits.
2) maintain a dual role of stability and flux through the synthesis of possible dimensions limits.
3) This nature of dimensional limits, or the limit to space, is observed in the curvature of the circle or sphere while its possible dimensional limits are observe as the center point. We can observe this in Pi.

From this nature of Reflection, Relation, and Synthesis we can observe briefly that all logic and observed symmetry is fundamentally 3 dimensional as a point within a point within a point and in this respects allows logic to maintain dual structure of linearism through circularity and circularity through linearism whose apex is in the axiom. It is in these respect that the study of philosophy is fundamentally the study of spatial structure or geometry and what we observe as "reason" best reflects through "rationality" as the "ratio".

From these respects, as observed through the nature of the axiom, philosophy must recommit its course to the understanding of reality through the perspective of the point (as 1 dimension and reflective) the circle (as 2 dimensional and relative) and the sphere (as 3 dimensional and synthetic) as 1 dimension in 3 and 3 in 1.

4. Time is equivalent to a gradation of ethereal space as particulate/fractals. This Ether, as stable unmoving self-reflective space, manifests as an approximate structure of itself through the nature of Reflection the Apeirion which is simply "fluxing space". From the nature of this space as flux we understand temporality, for time is simply a flux between particles which both composed the particles themselves and further particles. These particles, as parts or fractals of a "whole" or "unified space", continually "individuate" as they relate towards the unity of the ethereal space the apeiron is an approximate of. This act of individuation is what manifests further potential particles. It is in these respects that the Apeiron (as fluxing space or time) is the third dimension of a duality of "actual particle relations" and "potential particle relations".

It is through the relation of actual particle relations (which in themselves can be argued as "actual" particles considering particles are strictly "quantums of relations") and further actual particle relations that the nature of mathematical multiplication is "embodied" as the production of "potential particle relations". This is multiplication is rooted in Apeironic Space that composes both material multiplication and the abstract arithmetic version we understand.

In turn the relation of potential particulate and actual particulate that the nature of mathematical "division" is "embodied" as the production of further actual particulate. This division is rooted in Apeironic Space that composes both material division and the abstract arithmetic version we understand.

It is in these respects that time is strictly a cycle of multiplication and division that moves particulate towards a "unity" as it relates towards the stable ethereal space. Multiplication and Division are dual cycles of flux that cycle through each other and in this respect all "time" is equivalent to "cyclical flux" between dual "poles" of actuality and potentiality.

This apeiron is most likely the root space of Relativity and Quantum mechanics (https://en.wikipedia...iron_(cosmology)). In this respect the apeiron, as an observation of space as flux, is equivalent to a negative value (Relative to Ether as a positive value) as the process of "individuation" is strictly a grade of Ether.

Multiplication, and by default exponentiation, are strictly the relation of gradient spaces (particles/quantums) that propagate further space through flux. This propagated space is potential space, or time. The gradient spaces, as actualities, are positive in value while the potential spaces, as non-actuals, are negative in value. Multiplication/exponentiation are positive to negative in value for multiplication/exponentiation are strictly the propagation of gradient spaces (particles/quantums) through a median of flux which propagates further flux as potentiality. Multiplication/exponentiation is a propagation of potential particles/quantums through the relations of actual particles and relative to an ethereal median.

example: 4x2 = 8

with φ = "actual particulate", ω = "potential particulate", and ∫ = "relations of"

∫({φ ≜ (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1)}, {φ ≜ (1 ≡ 1)} ≜ { ω ≜ (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1)}

or ∫{4φ , 2φ } ≜ 8ω or ∫{φ , φ } ≜ ω

Division is strictly the relation of gradient space and time, or the separation of potential space by gradient space (particles/quantums) that propagate further space through flux. This propagated space is actual space. The positive gradient spaces, relative to the negative potential gradient spaces lead to a division/roots to manifest as a negative to positive values for division/roots are strictly the divergence of time through space. This in turn, through a median of flux, propagates further flux actual gradient space. Division/roots is a propagation of actual particles through the relations of potential and actual particles relative to an ethereal median.

example:

with (4,2) = φ and 8 = ω as 8/2 =4

∫({ω ≜ (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1)}, {φ ≜ (1 ≡ 1)} ≜ { φ ≜ (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1)}

5. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
Time is equivalent to a gradation of ethereal space as particulate/fractals.
Do you have any evidence for this? If not, the rest of your post is moot.

6. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
Is mathematics rooted in space curving upon itself as Reflection?
No.

7. The ether is and of itself stable space as unified/unifying space. It cannot change but must maintain itself through "self-reflection". From this self-reflection the ether maintains its stability while simultaneously manifesting an approximate dimension of space as flux.

In simple terms, stable space reflects upon itself and "fluxing" space manifests as an approximate. This "fluxing" space would be equivalent to the "apeiron" or "time" for time is strictly "flux". Space and time cannot be separated as Einstein claims because space composes all being and time is striclty the fluxing of space. If one is to seperate them it would be "stable space" as ether and "fluxing space" as apeiron.

Time is spatial flux and in of itself is unstable. The evidence for Hologram theory can back this up, as certain "glitches" occur. Also A professor has found that the physical universe is possibly founded in binary code. If this is true and the case then time is flux for all dualities are strictly fluxing polarities. It is in this respect as an "unstable" it is merely a grade of stability and cannot exist on its own terms but rather as in relation to the ether.

Time as flux is a deficiency of ether as stability and in this respect is a gradation as it would be equivalent to the circumferance of a circle with the ether being the center.

Take for example the nature of spinning movement, it exists if and only if their is a stable center, however stability is stability. To argue for a process of "continual flux" would be to observe "stability" and render that point as:

1) Contradictory

2) As evidence for stability.

3) Both stability and flux are dual dimensions of space as curving upon itself with this duality manifesting a further dimension of space as synthetic neutrality.

8. Good, explain why. Considering all reality both what is physical and observed as "abstract" is rooted in space what we understand of reality is strictly basic geometry. The unity of being, as presented through the nature of ether, in and of itself must consitute as a "spatial point" for the point is most unified, symmetrical, and stable structures that exist considering it is rooted in infinity as "center".

In this respect one is synonymous to a causal point from which all number reflects through and from to maintain the point through reflective symmetry. The point as 1 manifest these numbers unto infinity with infinity as unity reflecting the point as 1.

Considering all reality is composed of space, even consciousness, then number itself is a spatial entity through the point.

9. Mathematics has nothing to do with the curvature (or otherwise) of space. Other than the fact it can be used to describe curved space.

Euclidean mathematics was used for millennia before someone realised you could describe spaces that were not flat.

The rest of your post is incoherent nonsense.

10. I will take that as a "no" then.

So your incoherent drivel is just incoherent drivel. Glad we have sorted that out.

11. Originally Posted by Strange
Mathematics has nothing to do with the curvature (or otherwise) of space. Other than the fact it can be used to describe curved space.

Euclidean mathematics was used for millennia before someone realised you could describe spaces that were not flat.

The rest of your post is incoherent nonsense.

Considering all being is composed of space, the very act of description is space through consciousness (whether physical or abstract) is space curving upon itself.

I am not arguing all space is flat either, for the unity of 1 dimension reflecting upon itself, manifests 2 dimensions, 3 dimension, etc. through the act of self-reflection. I am not arguing for a strictly Euclidian approach.

12. Actually it is a yes, prove me wrong if you disagree. I don't think you have the capacity to do it except throw ad-hominums.

Is the Universe a Computer? New Evidence Emerges. | | Nova Spivack...

disinfo.com/2013/05/physicist-discovers-computer-code-embedded...

Binary code found in string theory? Interesting ...

Also, for the sake of conversation you have to establish what you mean by "evidence", because if it strictly based upon your beliefs then well it is subjective and you are going to believe what you want.

13. Originally Posted by mayflow
Is there really do you think a difference between science/physics and philosophy?

Really, do they not all speak of relativity?

General Relativity, Special Relativity, Thought experiments - is there a blurred line between Schroedinger's cat and a philosophical thought experiment?

If all things are relative to the observer, who or what is the observer? All things too?

Relativity is strictly and observation of spatial flux (with space composing all material and non material (abstract thoughts, etc.) entities). Flux exists if and only if their is a deficiency in unity and in these respects is an observation of particulate as "parts" or "fractals" of a whole. These particulate, whether they be material atoms or logistic atoms, are in themselves composed of further particulate and manifest further particulate.

In these respects particulate can be observe as "actual particulate relations" or "actual flux" and "potential particulate relations" or "potential flux". These particulate relate in order to move towards "unity" as they are deficient structures in and of themselves. In these respect they continually "individuate" through multiplication or division which the act of individuation being:

1) structural extensions as a whole being observed as individuals.

2) fractals that must relate to further fractals/parts.

This act of individuation, as a dual dimension to the whole (best represented as Ethereal Space or the greek Logos), is striclty a reflection of the whole in one respect and a relation towards it in another. Individuation in these respects is synonymous to flux as "instability" can be observe in the greek concept of Apeiron. This apeiron, as "chaos", cannot not exist in and of itself but only as an approximate to the Ether and in these respects points towards it in much the same manner that all chaos moves towards order.

Relativity is correct when viewed as a dual dimension to Ethereal Reflective Stability, however is not universal in its own right as it is striclty "absence". A simple approach to take, from the perception of logic, would be: If everything is relative then you are making a statement of consistency. This in turn proves in seperate respects:

1) Contradiction

2) That stability does exist

3) The stability and flux are duals which synthesize to form neutrality or what we observe as "being".

Relativity is a universal dimension of space in the respect that all being is composed of space. In this respect it may be observe as a negative value, with Ethereal Reflectivity as a positive and Synthetic Neutrality as +- .

In these respects Relativity is 1 dimension that points towards and is composed of 3 (as itself, Ether, and what we observe as "being" or "the axiom"). This nature of space is best observed as 3 in 1 and 1 in 3.

14. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
Considering all being is composed of space, the very act of description is space through consciousness (whether physical or abstract) is space curving upon itself.
Colourless green sheep dream furiously. Time flies like and arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

15. It does observe the nature of relativity for sure.

However it also observe a nature of Ethereal Reflective stability as all the movements, particulary in this case accelleration, can be observe through the stability of geometric forms. These geometric forms, embodied as through the point as "center", constitute the nature of reality as we observe it.

This point as a universal stable geometric structure, in reflecting upon itself manifests:

1) The line as a deficiency in structural unity through the reflection between two or more points. In these respects all observation of linearism are observations of deficiency in stability in one respect and in a seperate respect as they exist if and only if there is polarity as opposing "forces".

2) This point reflecting upon itself manifests a polarity through duality as evidenced through "cyclical motion" which is fundamentally flux relating to and reflecting from a stable center.

3) Considering the line, as a deficiency in structure, exists if and only if it is between 2 or more points, it is in and of itself a "gradation" of the point. It is a deficiency in the structure unity of point and any observation of it is an observation of points. This line as a gradation of the point may in itself be composed of further points in both quantity and quality. In this respect the "line" does not exist as it is strictly a micro or macro view of points that a grades of the original point in both quantity (a strict series of points) and quality (curvature).

4) Considering all of this, observing the nature of flux is to observe the universal ethereal nature of the point as centering. In this respect your observation has stable elements to it throught the observation of geometric forms (ethereal reflective extensions of the point) in one respect, while in a seperate respect your observation fluxes due to its deficiency and follows the same form of circulation as it moves towards stability. This would be relative space.

5) Considering your nature of observation has both stable and fluxing elements as Ethereal Reflective Stability and Apeironic Relational Flux a contradiction occurs as a duality between two opposing degrees of space manifests the observation. The question breaks down to a philosophical one of "What happens when an unmovable object meets and unstoppable force". They manifests as a third composite element of space as Synthesis. This is where we get the axiom as "self-evidence" or subjectivity (flux) and objectivity (stability). This axiom in turns constitutes as the point in one respect and manifests further points in another.

6) The "point as unity" reflecting upon itself allows an approximate structure of "multiplicity" to occur (this is where relativity is rooted in). However considering the point is infinite, as infinity is unity, the multiplicity manifests as a dual dimensional form of space to it and is there as long as the unity exists. Considering the unity is infinite, the muliplicity manifests unto infinity, which is a cycle back to unity as Synthesis. In these respects the nature of observation, through the axiom, is the nature of synthesis as "being". In a seperate respect the "relational flux" you are observing "cycles" itself out and another cycle takes its place.

16. Apparently you are observing the thought in black and white. It flickers back into color, then back into black and white. Apparently your thought is unstable. Contradictions are strictly a deficiency in stability; therefore they are observations of flux.

Or you are observing the thought in black and white however some sign or relation implies the sheep as being green.

Animals actually do dream, so the contradiction you are imply does not exist there.

Time flying like an arrow is strictly observing time as curving.

Fruit flies like banannas...so I do not know what you are trying to get at. I doubt you do either.

You can do better than this...entertain me at least.

17. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
...
Please stop spamming the forum with this crap.

18. Is mathematics rooted in space curving upon itself as Reflection?

Here is the presented argument: The nature of math as reflective space is embodied within the very form of geometry which can be further observed in the form of number. Space and number are synonymous

As a note the argument presenting number as space is presented in green. The argument presenting mathematics, specifically arithmetic, being rooted in "Reflection" is observed in red. I wrote the corresponding formulas in english, so if due to copy and paste they are unreadable the english equivalent will translate.

Causality is synonymous to a geometric point which reflects upon itself to form a further point as effect. This cause reflecting itself produces an effect as an approximate structure or approximate point with this approximate point in itself being a point as a geometric structure or cause .

(α = ∘) ∴ (α≡α ≅ ≈α) ∧ (∘ ≡ ∘ ≅ ≈∘)

1, as a unified spatial structure, is the fullest form of numerical symmetry there is for all numbers either are composed of 1 or are approximates of it (ex: 1+1+1=3 or 1/3 or 3/1 ) . It is as the fullest form of numerical symmetry, that 1 as a spatial structure is equal to the point geometrically and as a point the causal component of all logistic structures. In these respects 1, the point, and causality are the same:

1 = ∘ = α

It is the reflection of points, as cause and effect which contains an element of deficiency in cause/effectual point as “approximation”. This deficiency, as approximation, is equivalent to a deficiency in structural integrity (or in general structure) which is randomness. Reflection is a coproduct of randomness as it is a coproduct of approximation of cause:

([≡] ∐ [≈α]) ^ {(≈α ∈ ξ) ∵ (≈ α ≠ α)} ∴ ([≡] ∐ ξ)

This deficiency of the point, as randomness, is the line for the line is the negation of curvature (embodied at its apex through the point or sphere). Linearism cannot be viewed as structure for it requires, but is not limited to:

Points to maintain it, for a line must exist between two points. This existence between two points does not however eliminate the infinite nature of the line for the extension between two centers is extension between two infinities as infinity.

Infinite space which thereby causes an infinite curvature of that space through infinite separation or composition, for to imagine an infinite line is to imagine a line either becoming infinitely larger, infinitely smaller or both. In these respects, the line is infinitely curving with this infinite curvature leading in both form and function to the circle.

c) Infinity as a spherical structure to maintain the line as an axis or center with the sphere itself being composed infinite points with infinite lines between these points; therefore infinite axis.

It is in these respects that all linearism requires curvature of some form with abstract linear constructs requiring an infinite form of curvature to exist. The line therefore cannot exist on its own but rather through approximation of some point form or function. To imagine a strict line is to imagine some other form of curvature maintaining it with this curvature inevitably resulting in circular or spherical nature as a point. It is in these respects that a linear only logic does not suffice without contradicting itself on its own grounds, for linearism is separation as its core just as a contradiction is a separation of truth. Reflection is a coproduct of linearism as it is a coproduct of approximation of points:

([≡] ∐ [≈∘]) ^ {(≈∘ ∈ ⟺) ∵ (≈ ∘ ≠ ∘)} ∴ ([≡] ∐⟺)

Just as we observe randomness through the approximation of cause and we observe the line through the approximate of points (with all approximates having at minimum a dual nature) in ⧟, randomness and linearism are equal.
([≡] ∐ [≈α]) ^ {(≈α ∈ ξ) ∵ (≈ α ≠ α)} ∴ ([≡] ∐ ξ) and ([≡] ∐ [≈∘]) ^ {(≈∘ ∈ ⟺) ∵ (≈ ∘ ≠ ∘)} ∴ ([≡] ∐⟺)

Therefore ξ= ⟺

In a simultaneous respect, it is the reflection of 1 as causal point which contains an element of deficiency as “approximation”. This deficiency, as approximation and coproduct of reflection, is equivalent to a deficiency in structural unity similar to the randomness of causality and the line of the point. It is in this respect that all reflection of 1 as causal approximations reflects a dual nature of deficiency. This deficiency of 1 is 0 as being and non-being where the non-being can be observed only if there is being or “1”. 1n contains as an element 0 because 1n does not equal 1 due to a deficiency in unity as “1”. The approximation in the example of 1 and 2, can be observed in the approximations between 1 and 2 as 1.x where x is the infinite gradation of fractal natures between 1 and 2 as [1…..2] which can be observed as negative space or absence of being which differentiates 1 and 2 as approximates.

([≡] ∐ [≈1n]) ^ {(1n∈ 0) ∵ (1n≠ 1)} ∴ ([≡] ∐ 0)

with 1 ≡ 0 ≅ -1

In this respect 0, randomness and the line are equal as 0 = ξ = ⟺

(1 = ∘ = α) share the same reflective nature through:

(1≡1 ≅ 2) ^ (2 ∈ 0) ∴ (1≡1) → 1,2,0

(∘ ≡ ∘ ≅ ≈ ∘2) ^ (≈ ∘2 ∈ ⟺ ∵ ⧟ ≈ ∘) ∴ (∘ ≡ ∘) → ∘,≈∘2,⟺

(α≡α ≅ ≈α2) ^ (≈α2 ∈ ξ) ∴ (α≡α) → α,≈α,ξ

(0=ξ= ⟺) share the same reflective nature through:

(1≡0 ≅ -1)

(∘ ≡ ⟺ ≅ ⊸)

(α≡ξ ≅ -α)

It is within this shared reflective nature that (1 = ∘ = α) and (0=ξ= ⟺) are trinitarian duals as a seventh dimension of Reflection.

[≡]〈1 = ∘ = α │0=ξ= ⟺〉 ∨ [≡]〈1│0〉 [≡]〈 ∘│⟺〉 [≡]〈α│ξ〉

It is the fullness in symmetry of 1, the point and causality which observe the nature of reflection as both structure and symmetry. It is this fullness in symmetry which observes 1, the point and cause as infinite for any temporality would imply a deficiency in structure through flux:

With: 1 → ≈2=(1,2) → ≈3 =(1,3) → ≈4=(1, 4) → ≈5=(1, 5) → ≈6= (1, 6) → …. ∞=1

And: ∞ = 1

With: ∘ → ≈∘2= ⧟ → ≈∘3= △ → ≈∘4= □ → ≈∘5= ⌂ → ≈∘6= ⎔ → …. ∞= ∘

And: ∞ = ∘

With: α = α → ≈α2 → ≈α3 → ≈α4 → ≈α5 → ≈α6 → …. ∞= α

And: ∞= α

(1 = ∘ = α) = ∞

It is the deficiency in symmetry of 0, the line and randomness which observe the dual nature of reflection as anti-symmetrical. It is in these respect that reflection maintains both a positive and negative value which is further observed through reflective addition/subtraction, reflective multiplication/division and reflection exponentiation and roots.

All arithmetic functions are congruent to degrees of reflection with addition/subtraction as the first degree, multiplication/division the second degree and exponents/roots as the third degree. These three degrees emanate from a causal point of one as Reflective Addition, Reflective Multiplication and Reflective Exponentiation. It must be noted again, for the sake of clarity, that Addition, Multiplication, and Exponentiation are not equal to their Reflective Counterparts but are congruent in structure to it. Arithmetic is Arithmetic, Reflective Arithmetic is Reflective Arithmetic.

Positive Reflective Arithmetic (Addition, Multiplication and Exponentiation) is congruent in structure to the reflection of the one causal point which maintains positive structure as the reflection of structures through a unified median as extensions of that unified median which in themselves are the unified median or “whole”. Reflective Addition is strictly causality reflecting upon itself to maintain both itself and approximations as effect. These effects as structures are in themselves caused through approximation, with these effects/approximations being structures of causality or causal elements themselves.

These reflections as both cause and effect are “curvature as space” (or structures) of the center cause, with addition being equivalent to the curvature of the unified median as causality. It is this curve/space which maintains structures/the unified median, through the reflection of these curves as structures or addition, as the unified median. The unified median reflects the structures as cause, the structures reflect the unified median as cause; therefore, causality is an observation of a stable reflective symmetry. It is in this respect that causality/curvature/space are stable through a reflective symmetry as structure.

It is this reflective symmetry as structure which is equivalent to the nature of addition, with the fullest expression of that symmetry being spherical in nature as ”1 being”, or curves as structures through 1n. Reflective Multiplication and Reflective Exponentiation can be observed as further approximate structures of Reflective addition. Reflective addition, is ethereal curvature or curvature as ether through the point. Curvature and ether are synonymous.

Reflective Addition is the first degree of reflection of causal point as one and the positive dual of Reflective Subtraction:

Example: 2 + 2 = 4

(1 ≡ 1 ) ≡ (1 ≡ 1 ) ≅ (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ) or (1 , 4)

Reflective Multiplication is an approximate structure of Reflective Addition as a second degree of reflection. Where Reflective Addition observes one reflection through (1), Reflective multiplication observes a second degree of reflection through ((1)) as a reflection of reflection.

Example: 3 x 3 = 9

((1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1)) ≡ (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1)

(1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1) ≡ (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1) ≡ (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1) ≅

(1) ≡(1)≡(1) as ((1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1)) and

(1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1) or (1 , 9)

Negative Reflective Arithmetic (Subtraction, Division and Roots) is congruent in structure to the reflection of zero random linearism which ceases structure as the derivation of structures through a cessation of the unified median as extensions of that unified median. Reflective Subtraction is a deficiency in causal reflection, or causality reflecting randomness as a deficiency in structure. As approximation is a coproduct of all reflection, approximation is a deficiency in reflection of the original cause and contains and element of randomness as “deficiency”. Reflective Subtraction can be observed as a biproduct of Reflective Addition and in this respect a dual.

Reflection maintains as a coproduct randomness and in this respect all causality reflecting randomness is a deficiency in structure as a deficiency in curvature. These reflections of both cause and randomness are a deficiency in “curvature as space” (or structures), with Reflective Subtraction being equivalent to deficiency in curvature of the unified median as causality, or in simpler terms a deficiency in causality. It is this lack of curvature, as an absence of space which maintains structure/the unified median through the absence of space. The unified median/structures, as causality, reflecting randomness is an absence of reflection as the maintenance of structure; therefore, randomness is the observation of a stable reflective symmetry as approximation through a deficiency in structure.

It is in this respect that randomness/absence of curvature(line)/absence of space are approximations of stability through the absence of reflective symmetry as structure. It is this absence of reflective symmetry as structure which is equivalent to the nature of reflective subtraction, with the fullest expression of that absence of symmetry being linear in nature as not a thing is itself but “absence of 1 being” or “0”.

Reflective Subtraction is the first degree of reflection as random linearism as zero and the negative dual of Reflective Addition:

With (1 ≡ 0) ≅ - 1

(1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1) ≡ (1 ≡ 0) ≅ (1 ≡ 1) or (1, 2)

Reflective Division is an approximate structure of Reflective Subtraction as a second degree of reflection and the negative dual of Reflective Multiplication. Reflective Division is the number of negative reflections/structures (reflected as the divisor) as a second degree of reflection (whose dual is found in multiplication) that reflect until the existing structure becomes 0 or ξ.

8/2 = 4

(1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1) ≡ {((1≡1)) ≡ 0} →

{((1≡1))≡0} ≡ {((1≡1))≡0}≡{((1≡1))≡0} ≡{((1≡1))≡0} ≅
((0)) ≡((0))≡((0))≡((0)) as 4 ((0)) and {(1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1) ≡ 0} or -8 as 1[≡] →

(1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1) ≡ {(1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1) ≡ 0} ≅ 0

****Where the answer is the number of negative Reflections, 4((0)), until everything is reduced to 0.

This lack of gradation under Reflectivism, which observes wholes as extensions of the whole further observes a lack of fractal numbers. Where division results in fractal numbers, Reflective Division results in a negative structure.

Example 8/5 = 1 3/5 :

(1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1) ≡ {((1≡1≡1≡1≡1)) ≡ 0} →

(1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1≡1) ≡ {((1 ≡ 1 ≡1≡1≡1)) ≡ 0} ≅ 1 and (1 ≡ 1≡1) ≡ {((1 ≡ 1≡1≡1≡1)) ≡ 0} 3/5 →

1 ≡ {(1 ≡ 1≡1) ≡ {((1 ≡ 1≡1≡1≡1)) ≡ 0}} ≅ 1 3/5

19. Here is a very brief. argument that space is composed of trifold properties of:

Ether (stable reflective space)

Apeirion (fluxing relational space)

Axioms (neutral centers of measurement from which consciousness begins and end)

These trifold properties composed all reality from the physical atom to the abstract thought.

The "ether" in order to maintain itself as stable, or "deficient in flux", manifests itself through a continual self-reflection, with this reflection being synonymous to stability (think of any geometry form being stable through the reflection of "points"). This self reflection in turn not just maintains itself but manifests further structures as extensions or "approximates" of itself.

However these approximates, by their very nature as being deficient in original unity, contain an element of deficiency which is synonymous to "randomness" or "chaos". In this respect, through the self-reflection of the ether, and approximate dimension of the "apeiron" (which seems closer to what you are describing) came into being. "Came into being" is a poor word as technically it always existed as the "limit" of "limitless" ether .

(this would imply the ether by definition being best describe as a 1 dimensional point from which the 2 dimensional "circle" as "apeiron" would extend. This circle, as a sign of constant flux, evidence by the metaphor of the self- eating snake Ourboroshttps://en.wikipedia...wiki/Ouroboros)

The "apeiron", as a dual dimension to the "ether", would be one of continual flux which this flux manifested as the continual relation of "particulate" as grades of "unity" or "fractals". These particulate in turn would exist through actual relations, as a "part" cannot exist unless it moves towards "unity". defined in turned by their potential relations. In this respect we observe the nature of "time" as an extension of the "apieron" through "actual" and "potential" particulate.

This "apieron" taking on the form and function of the particles which composed it, has infinite potential (which is equivalent to "non-being", in the respect that the "time" it produces fluxes and comes to an end before another one "pops up". Time in this respect can be viewed as a particle in that it is both actual and potential and "fluxes" or is metaphorically the "beating heart of the ether".

In this respect the "apieron" fluxes in order to "relate" or "move/flux towards" the ether as an act of continual relation.

In these respects, one could argue that the "ether" is a dimension of "stable reflection" as the universal mind or Logos. The "apieron" (which is what I believe you are closer to describing, and it is easy to confused since both are highly "symmetrical") one could argue is a dimension of "fluxing relations" or "relativity" as the universal "body" as matter.

One could extend the nature of Descartes mind/body dualism to the "macro" as an example of this.

However the dualism fails as all polarities result in and "either/or" flux. The question of what happens when an "immovable object/ether" faces and "unstoppable force/apeiron" comes to mind.

The only logical result of this dualism would be "synthesis" resulting in "being" which consciousness or "axioms" as the middle points. This is an important point to observe because the processes you are observing are what inevitably resulted in the consciousness allowing our "discussion". So in many respect that nature of "space" behaving in the manner we are observing are the fundamental building blocks of not only the empirical universe but the "axioms" we develop.

This synthesis, in turn as the manifestation of axioms (or human consciousness), is simply the manifestation of both "dimensional limits" (from which order as "space" begins and ends) and "possible dimensional limits" (possible non-existing order from which "space" begins and "ends"). It is from the nature of the axiom, or "axil" of measurement/being, that we come to the understanding of the center as a "third" dimension through the "sphere" as a synthesis of the 1 dimensional reflective ethereal point and the 2 dimensional relational apeironic circle (or Ouroboros).

The nature of the ether being observed as a universal "point" (which we observe everywhere), the apeiron as a fluxing or rotating circle (which is further argued as necessary due to the spin cycles found within quantum mechanics and the cyclical nature of all "movement"), and the median point as 3 dimensional existence embodied fully through the "sphere", observes the necessity of observe all reality through the nature of the point/circle/sphere as three in 1 and one in three. These 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 "spaces" are all Universal in both form and function and show an unavoidability in observing basic geometry as the foundations for "being" itself.

20. Philosopher's have long sought for a unifying metaphysics from which to establish a balanced understanding of not only the universe but themselves and their immediate surroundings. What we observe today with philosophy, and by extension the sciences and religions, is a continually fracturing quality where a philosophy/science/religion inevitably seem to reproduce various perspectives that mimic or reflect their previous parents.

It is in this effort to establish not only a unity, but an understanding of unity itself, that the nature of these fields of observation seem to follow a very difficult if not impossible course of action. Philosophies establish more philosophies, sciences with more sciences, religions with more religions...and the process of divergence seems to go on into a vortex whose end point, if there is any, lies more at the bottom of an abyss of materialistic flux rather than at the apex of what we deem as deep spiritual truth.

Where is unity to be found? Is their any to begin with? The answer seems to be the point, in a quite literal manner. What we understand of reality fundamentally breaks down to one irreducible axiom breaks down to a form of geometry and nothing more...nothing less.

All philosophy is founded upon the axiom, as point of self evidence whose dual nature of subjectivity and objectivity (under the "self" and "evidence") maintains a dualistic structure of continuous flux. "Truth is strictly subjective" turns itself into a statement of objectivity. "Truth is strictly objective" lends itself to a subjective understanding. Between this subjective and objective nature of the axiom we observe a continual flux between two natures, strictly because of its dualistic structure for a dualism is nothing more than an a form of opposition with that opposition erupting into a continual flux.

The synthesis of this subjective and objective nature of the axiom results in nothing more than geometric space under the guise of the "point". All subjective truth is found in and stems from the "point", along with all objective truth. It is this nature of the axiom as a point, which seems to have eluded philosophers due to its simultaneous simplicity and profundity as evidenced within the nature of its cousins the circle and sphere.

In simpler terms all axioms breakdown to a point. An observation, built upon this point, manifests structure by its reflection, relation, and synthesis of other points. It is this reflection, relation, and synthesis of axioms that in turn not only form other axioms but the very foundations of language and logic (and by extension reality) as we know it.

a) A point as a unified median, fundamentally reflects upon itself to maintain itself as a structure. It is in this self-reflection that a second point is made as an approximate of the first. In this respect that point is a causal element and the second point is an effectual element. This effectual element is fundamentally an approximate of the first point and in this respect shares the same cause nature.

B) However, due to its approximate nature to the first point it in itself is not the first point and not completely a unified. This approximate nature, as a deficiency in unity is akin to "randomness" as a "deficiency". The point as a self-reflective entity in this respect shares a dual role as a causal element and a random element through its nature as reflection. Reflection and the point are synonymous for reflection maintains the points as a unified entity with this unity equivalent in both form and function to stability or "abstraction".

c) It is from this nature of the point as a dimension of Reflection, from which we can observe Reflection as a dimension reflecting upon itself to maintain itself with its approximate as Relativity. The point becomes "deficient" in unity through the nature of gradation with this gradation of the point manifesting itself in both quantity and quality. These gradient points are fractals or particles which in turn are form of further particles. We observe this in material.

d)These particles, as deficient in unity, are subject to flux with this flux being evident in the needed relations of particles in order to exist. A particle relates to another particle other wise it does not exist. As the relation of a particle to another particle produces another particle a flux ensues with the continued relations of particles in many respects manifesting further relations, with further relations manifesting further particles. In this respect the particle has a dual nature of "potential relationships/particles" which define it. Relativity as a dimension of flux within and of itself manifests through a dual nature of actual and potential particles.

e)To step back further, what we understand of logic breaks down to a duality of Reflection (as stability/abstraction) and Relativity (as flux/physicality) which both are points within themselves. With Reflection being caused and Relativity as uncaused (for a deficiency in symmetry as flux is a deficiency in structure as causality) we observe dual dimension whose polarity is at odds and prevents and form of stability. A third dimension or point is introduced as Synthesis.

f) Reflection and Relativity, as points synthesis through a third point as themselves, each other, and the aforementioned point of synthesis that allows all logic and symmetric to maintain a triadic structure. This triadic structure, as the point itself, allows the point to:

1) maintain a dual role of stability and flux through the synthesis of dimensional limits.
2) maintain a dual role of stability and flux through the synthesis of possible dimensions limits.
3) This nature of dimensional limits, or the limit to space, is observed in the curvature of the circle or sphere while its possible dimensional limits are observe as the center point. We can observe this in Pi.

From this nature of Reflection, Relation, and Synthesis we can observe briefly that all logic and observed symmetry is fundamentally 3 dimensional as a point within a point within a point and in this respects allows logic to maintain dual structure of linearism through circularity and circularity through linearism whose apex is in the axiom. It is in these respect that the study of philosophy is fundamentally the study of spatial structure or geometry and what we observe as "reason" best reflects through "rationality" as the "ratio".

From these respects, as observed through the nature of the axiom, philosophy must recommit its course to the understanding of reality through the perspective of the point (as 1 dimension and reflective) the circle (as 2 dimensional and relative) and the sphere (as 3 dimensional and synthetic) as 1 dimension in 3 and 3 in 1.

21. Time is equivalent to a gradation of ethereal space as particulate/fractals. The ether is and of itself stable space as unified/unifying space. It cannot change but must maintain itself through "self-reflection". From this self-reflection the ether maintains its stability while simultaneously manifesting an approximate dimension of space as flux.

In simple terms, stable space reflects upon itself and "fluxing" space manifests as an approximate. This "fluxing" space would be equivalent to the "apeiron" or "time" for time is strictly "flux". Space and time cannot be separated as Einstein claims because space composes all being and time is striclty the fluxing of space. If one is to seperate them it would be "stable space" as ether and "fluxing space" as apeiron.

Time is spatial flux and in of itself is unstable. The evidence for Hologram theory can back this up, as certain "glitches" occur. Also A professor has found that the physical universe is possibly founded in binary code. If this is true and the case then time is flux for all dualities are strictly fluxing polarities. It is in this respect as an "unstable" it is merely a grade of stability and cannot exist on its own terms but rather as in relation to the ether.

Time as flux is a deficiency of ether as stability and in this respect is a gradation as it would be equivalent to the circumferance of a circle with the ether being the center.

Take for example the nature of spinning movement, it exists if and only if their is a stable center, however stability is stability. To argue for a process of "continual flux" would be to observe "stability" and render that point as:

1) Contradictory

2) As evidence for stability.

3) Both stability and flux are dual dimensions of space as curving upon itself with this duality manifesting a further dimension of space as synthetic neutrality. This Ether, as stable unmoving self-reflective space, manifests as an approximate structure of itself through the nature of Reflection the Apeirion which is simply "fluxing space". From the nature of this space as flux we understand temporality, for time is simply a flux between particles which both composed the particles themselves and further particles. These particles, as parts or fractals of a "whole" or "unified space", continually "individuate" as they relate towards the unity of the ethereal space the apeiron is an approximate of. This act of individuation is what manifests further potential particles. It is in these respects that the Apeiron (as fluxing space or time) is the third dimension of a duality of "actual particle relations" and "potential particle relations".

It is through the relation of actual particle relations (which in themselves can be argued as "actual" particles considering particles are strictly "quantums of relations") and further actual particle relations that the nature of mathematical multiplication is "embodied" as the production of "potential particle relations". This is multiplication is rooted in Apeironic Space that composes both material multiplication and the abstract arithmetic version we understand.

In turn the relation of potential particulate and actual particulate that the nature of mathematical "division" is "embodied" as the production of further actual particulate. This division is rooted in Apeironic Space that composes both material division and the abstract arithmetic version we understand.

It is in these respects that time is strictly a cycle of multiplication and division that moves particulate towards a "unity" as it relates towards the stable ethereal space. Multiplication and Division are dual cycles of flux that cycle through each other and in this respect all "time" is equivalent to "cyclical flux" between dual "poles" of actuality and potentiality.

This apeiron is most likely the root space of Relativity and Quantum mechanics (https://en.wikipedia...iron_(cosmology)). In this respect the apeiron, as an observation of space as flux, is equivalent to a negative value (Relative to Ether as a positive value) as the process of "individuation" is strictly a grade of Ether.

Multiplication, and by default exponentiation, are strictly the relation of gradient spaces (particles/quantums) that propagate further space through flux. This propagated space is potential space, or time. The gradient spaces, as actualities, are positive in value while the potential spaces, as non-actuals, are negative in value. Multiplication/exponentiation are positive to negative in value for multiplication/exponentiation are strictly the propagation of gradient spaces (particles/quantums) through a median of flux which propagates further flux as potentiality. Multiplication/exponentiation is a propagation of potential particles/quantums through the relations of actual particles and relative to an ethereal median.

example: 4x2 = 8

with φ = "actual particulate", ω = "potential particulate", and ∫ = "relations of"

∫({φ ≜ (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1)}, {φ ≜ (1 ≡ 1)} ≜ { ω ≜ (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1)}

or ∫{4φ , 2φ } ≜ 8ω or ∫{φ , φ } ≜ ω

Division is strictly the relation of gradient space and time, or the separation of potential space by gradient space (particles/quantums) that propagate further space through flux. This propagated space is actual space. The positive gradient spaces, relative to the negative potential gradient spaces lead to a division/roots to manifest as a negative to positive values for division/roots are strictly the divergence of time through space. This in turn, through a median of flux, propagates further flux actual gradient space. Division/roots is a propagation of actual particles through the relations of potential and actual particles relative to an ethereal median.

example:

with (4,2) = φ and 8 = ω as 8/2 =4

∫({ω ≜ (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1)}, {φ ≜ (1 ≡ 1)} ≜ { φ ≜ (1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1 ≡ 1)}

22. I don't believe they contradict themselves at all considering both are concern with the study of "being" from different angles. This nature of "being" as being rooted in and composing "space" causes them to both overlap.

Relativity is strictly and observation of spatial flux (with space composing all material and non material (abstract thoughts, etc.) entities). Flux exists if and only if their is a deficiency in unity and in these respects is an observation of particulate as "parts" or "fractals" of a whole. These particulate, whether they be material atoms or logistic atoms, are in themselves composed of further particulate and manifest further particulate.

In these respects particulate can be observe as "actual particulate relations" or "actual flux" and "potential particulate relations" or "potential flux". These particulate relate in order to move towards "unity" as they are deficient structures in and of themselves. In these respect they continually "individuate" through multiplication or division which the act of individuation being:

1) structural extensions as a whole being observed as individuals.

2) fractals that must relate to further fractals/parts.

This act of individuation, as a dual dimension to the whole (best represented as Ethereal Space or the greek Logos), is striclty a reflection of the whole in one respect and a relation towards it in another. Individuation in these respects is synonymous to flux as "instability" can be observe in the greek concept of Apeiron. This apeiron, as "chaos", cannot not exist in and of itself but only as an approximate to the Ether and in these respects points towards it in much the same manner that all chaos moves towards order.

Relativity is correct when viewed as a dual dimension to Ethereal Reflective Stability, however is not universal in its own right as it is striclty "absence". A simple approach to take, from the perception of logic, would be: If everything is relative then you are making a statement of consistency. This in turn proves in seperate respects:

1) Contradiction

2) That stability does exist

3) The stability and flux are duals which synthesize to form neutrality or what we observe as "being".

Relativity is a universal dimension of space in the respect that all being is composed of space. In this respect it may be observe as a negative value, with Ethereal Reflectivity as a positive and Synthetic Neutrality as +- .

In these respects Relativity is 1 dimension that points towards and is composed of 3 (as itself, Ether, and what we observe as "being" or "the axiom"). This nature of space is best observed as 3 in 1 and 1 in 3.

23. It does observe the nature of relativity for sure.

However it also observe a nature of Ethereal Reflective stability as all the movements, particulary in this case accelleration, can be observe through the stability of geometric forms. These geometric forms, embodied as through the point as "center", constitute the nature of reality as we observe it.

This point as a universal stable geometric structure, in reflecting upon itself manifests:

1) The line as a deficiency in structural unity through the reflection between two or more points. In these respects all observation of linearism are observations of deficiency in stability in one respect and in a seperate respect as they exist if and only if there is polarity as opposing "forces".

2) This point reflecting upon itself manifests a polarity through duality as evidenced through "cyclical motion" which is fundamentally flux relating to and reflecting from a stable center.

3) Considering the line, as a deficiency in structure, exists if and only if it is between 2 or more points, it is in and of itself a "gradation" of the point. It is a deficiency in the structure unity of point and any observation of it is an observation of points. This line as a gradation of the point may in itself be composed of further points in both quantity and quality. In this respect the "line" does not exist as it is strictly a micro or macro view of points that a grades of the original point in both quantity (a strict series of points) and quality (curvature).

4) Considering all of this, observing the nature of flux is to observe the universal ethereal nature of the point as centering. In this respect your observation has stable elements to it throught the observation of geometric forms (ethereal reflective extensions of the point) in one respect, while in a seperate respect your observation fluxes due to its deficiency and follows the same form of circulation as it moves towards stability. This would be relative space.

5) Considering your nature of observation has both stable and fluxing elements as Ethereal Reflective Stability and Apeironic Relational Flux a contradiction occurs as a duality between two opposing degrees of space manifests the observation. The question breaks down to a philosophical one of "What happens when an unmovable object meets and unstoppable force". They manifests as a third composite element of space as Synthesis. This is where we get the axiom as "self-evidence" or subjectivity (flux) and objectivity (stability). This axiom in turns constitutes as the point in one respect and manifests further points in another.

6) The "point as unity" reflecting upon itself allows an approximate structure of "multiplicity" to occur (this is where relativity is rooted in). However considering the point is infinite, as infinity is unity, the multiplicity manifests as a dual dimensional form of space to it and is there as long as the unity exists. Considering the unity is infinite, the muliplicity manifests unto infinity, which is a cycle back to unity as Synthesis. In these respects the nature of observation, through the axiom, is the nature of synthesis as "being". In a seperate respect the "relational flux" you are observing "cycles" itself out and another cycle takes its place.

24. In a simple sentence, if we are composed of matter stemming from the cosmos, and this matter forms both us and the thoughts we contain, then to a degree the cosmos may have a very low degree of intelligence.

Let's take a look at the nature of intellegence what it fundamentally observes is "limits" or "boundaries". It observes how these boundaries relate to eachother, whether it be a particle or some large scale object. In this respect observing the relation of these boundaries is a boundary in and of itself that manifests further boundaries. Quantum mechanics argues that the very act of observation changes, to a degree, the very thing measured.

In this respect Observation, as a boundary, affects another boundary (as the particle) which in turn effects the observation back. A symmetry between these two "boundaries of space" further curves space. In this respect we can argue that consciousness, at least a degree of it, is strictly the curvature of space. Considering this as a dimension of consciousness, the universe by default maintains a degree of consciousness.

The idea of panpsychism has been around for awhile.

25. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
In a simple sentence, if we are composed of matter stemming from the cosmos, and this matter forms both us and the thoughts we contain, then to a degree the cosmos may have a very low degree of intelligence.
Your "then" clause does not follow from the premise. Your ability to employ logic is defective.

Let's take a look at the nature of intellegence what it fundamentally observes is "limits" or "boundaries". It observes how these boundaries relate to eachother, whether it be a particle or some large scale object. In this respect observing the relation of these boundaries is a boundary in and of itself that manifests further boundaries. Quantum mechanics argues that the very act of observation changes, to a degree, the very thing measured.
And observation has nothing to do with consciousness, which is your next step.

In this respect Observation, as a boundary, affects another boundary (as the particle) which in turn effects the observation back. A symmetry between these two "boundaries of space" further curves space.
No. Symmetry does not curve space, so it does not "further" curve it, either. You just made this up.

In this respect we can argue that consciousness, at least a degree of it, is strictly the curvature of space. Considering this as a dimension of consciousness, the universe by default maintains a degree of consciousness.

The idea of panpsychism has been around for awhile.
Your obsession with symmetry has caused you to make up nonsense. In this case, your logical transgressions include circular reasoning to a significant degree. Your argument therefore has no merit.

I repeat my earlier advice: Stop posting until you have actually studied the topics you spam about. You are painfully clueless, but utterly lacking in doubt. You are a walking poster child for Dunning-Kruger.

26. *******This is a discussion about an article. How am I breaking rules? You claim the man is insane, the author, yet he is established in the scientific community. I agree with the question he is observing.********

In a simple sentence, if we are composed of matter stemming from the cosmos, and this matter forms both us and the thoughts we contain, then to a degree the cosmos may have a very low degree of intelligence.
Your "then" clause does not follow from the premise. Your ability to employ logic is defecti

****"then to a degree the cosmos may" is "implication of possibility" not "equating too". Quantum theory allows for a "multiverse of infinite dimensions". These dimensions may exist at the quantum scale and in this respect the universe containing a "degree" of consciousness as an inherent dimension is a possibility.****

Let's take a look at the nature of intellegence what it fundamentally observes is "limits" or "boundaries". It observes how these boundaries relate to eachother, whether it be a particle or some large scale object. In this respect observing the relation of these boundaries is a boundary in and of itself that manifests further boundaries. Quantum mechanics argues that the very act of observation changes, to a degree, the very thing measured.
And observation has nothing to do with consciousness, which is your next step.

In this respect Observation, as a boundary, affects another boundary (as the particle) which in turn effects the observation back. A symmetry between these two "boundaries of space" further curves space.
No. Symmetry does not curve space, so it does not "further" curve it, either. You just made this up.

********************************************
1) Symmetry can be observed as the reflection or relation of "points" within space. In this respect, and we can observe this within geometry that the "point" is curvature. The reflection of "points" in turn forms the structure which "curves" space. Abstract geometry or physically forming a sandcastle as a structure can be both observed as examples. Particles themselves are strictly "points" composing further points. The majority of physical reality is "empty space", 94% if memory serves correctly. What is the 6%? Full Space? It is still space.

2) The observation of curvature as a form of symmetry between structure or points can be observed in Hyperbolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry, which helped in determining many of the aspects of "Relativity" follows and extends many aspects of Euclidian Geometry.

"In hyperbolic geometry, there is no line that remains equidistant from another. Instead, the points that all have the same orthogonal distance from a given line lie on a curve called a hypercycle. Another special curve is the horocycle, a curve whose normal radii (perpendicular lines) are all limiting parallel to each other (all converge asymptotically in one direction to the same ideal point, the centre of the horocycle ). Through every pair of points there are two horocycles. The centres of the horocycles are the ideal points of the perpendicular bisector of the line-segment between them. Given any three distinct points, they all lie on either a line, hypercycle, horocycle, or circle.

The length of the line-segment is the shortest length between two points. The arc-length of a hypercycle connecting two points is longer than that of the line segment and shorter than that of a horocycle, connecting the same two points. The arclength of both horocycles connecting two points are equal. The arc-length of a circle between two points is larger the arc-length of a horocycle connecting two points."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry

*****"A symmetry between these two boundaries boundaries of curved space further curves space."--------"as an axis results". This would give better definition.

-----"the quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis". https://www.bing.com/search?q=symmet...E475209161DDA0

Observation as "a boundary" and the "Observed object" as a "boundary" must maintain some form of centering between the two as quantum mechanics observes that both "relate" to eachother and effect eachother". I would arguing that the boundaries between the "observer" and "observed" may not be "fully symmetrical" but must have some degree of "symmetry" for the "relation" between the two to take place. In simpler terms: there must be a "median" that unites the two in order for this relation to take place. This median, as a form of "centering" results in the relation between the "observer" and "the observed".

All observations of "centers" is observation of the curving of space through structural symmetry.
************************************************** *

In this respect we can argue that consciousness, at least a degree of it, is strictly the curvature of space. Considering this as a dimension of consciousness, the universe by default maintains a degree of consciousness.

The idea of panpsychism has been around for awhile.
Your obsession with symmetry has caused you to make up nonsense. In this case, your logical transgressions include circular reasoning to a significant degree. Your argument therefore has no merit.

****All linear reasoning exists if and only if their are two or more points which composed the "line". It begins with a circular form of reasoning and ends with a circular form of reasoning. The "linear" form in between is "definition" as "relation" between these two or more "logistic particles". All "reason" contains as a degree "definition through relation" and in this respect has no "beginning or end" point as it striclty the relation of "truths". Even thought these "truths" may circulate around eachother the "definition" still circulates.

Take for example: a → b → c → d → a

b → c → d still exists as a linear definition. I am not arguing against linearism, however linearism is strictly a definition of relations.

However cyclic order is still order: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_order
If you don't believe that then just believe the "cited information". Cyclical order is a universally accepted form of "ratios".

************************************************** ************

I repeat my earlier advice: Stop posting until you have actually studied the topics you spam about. You are painfully clueless, but utterly lacking in doubt. You are a walking poster child for Dunning-Kruger.

Do you want more sources?

27. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
*******This is a discussion about an article. How am I breaking rules? You claim the man is insane, the author, yet he is established in the scientific community. I agree with the question he is observing.********
When did anyone say he was insane? Stop making stuff up.

In a simple sentence, if we are composed of matter stemming from the cosmos, and this matter forms both us and the thoughts we contain, then to a degree the cosmos may have a very low degree of intelligence.
Your "then" clause does not follow from the premise. Your ability to employ logic is defecti

****"then to a degree the cosmos may" is "implication of possibility" not "equating too".
It doesn't matter if you claim it is an "implication of possibility" or a "pink elephant"; it does not logically follow from the previous statements.

It is a non sequitur.

You might as well have written "if we are composed of matter stemming from the cosmos, and this matter forms both us and the thoughts we contain, then cheese is made by pixies"

IT DOESN'T FOLLOW

Quantum theory allows for a "multiverse of infinite dimensions".
No it doesn't. Stop making stuff up.

These dimensions may exist at the quantum scale and in this respect the universe containing a "degree" of consciousness as an inherent dimension is a possibility.****
Consciousness is not a dimension. Presumably you don't know what the word dimension means so you are just making stuff up to cover your ignorance. It is embarrassing to watch.

"In hyperbolic geometry, there is no line that remains equidistant from another. Instead, the points that all have the same orthogonal distance from a given line lie on a curve called a hypercycle. Another special curve is the horocycle, a curve whose normal radii (perpendicular lines) are all limiting parallel to each other (all converge asymptotically in one direction to the same ideal point, the centre of the horocycle ). Through every pair of points there are two horocycles. The centres of the horocycles are the ideal points of the perpendicular bisector of the line-segment between them. Given any three distinct points, they all lie on either a line, hypercycle, horocycle, or circle.

The length of the line-segment is the shortest length between two points. The arc-length of a hypercycle connecting two points is longer than that of the line segment and shorter than that of a horocycle, connecting the same two points. The arclength of both horocycles connecting two points are equal. The arc-length of a circle between two points is larger the arc-length of a horocycle connecting two points."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry
You quote things like this but you obviously don't have a clue what any of it means. We can tell this because your follow it with a load of irrelevant word salad. Or maybe you are using a random text generator to create your posts.

In this respect we can argue that consciousness, at least a degree of it, is strictly the curvature of space.
The technical term for this is bollocks. You saw a few buzzwords on Wikipedia and are sticking them together in ways that make no sense. Stop wasting our time (and yours).

You could use the time to actually learn something.

28. 1) If matter is the building block of consciousness and consciousness manifests matter (recycling, synthesizing, etc.), consciousness is an inherent part of the production of matter through recycling/synthesis/etc.

2) "Allowing" does not mean "equate".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking,[22] Brian Greene,[23][24] Max Tegmark,[25] Alan Guth,[26] Andrei Linde,[27] Michio Kaku,[28] David Deutsch,[29] Leonard Susskind,[30] Alexander Vilenkin,[31] Yasunori Nomura,[32] Raj Pathria,[33] Laura Mersini-Houghton,[34][35] Neil deGrasse Tyson,[36] and Sean Carroll.[37]

Scientists who are generally skeptical of the multiverse hypothesis include: Steven Weinberg,[38] David Gross,[39] Paul Steinhardt,[40] Neil Turok,[41] Viatcheslav Mukhanov,[42] Michael S. Turner,[43] Roger Penrose,[44] George Ellis,[45][46] Joe Silk,[47] Carlo Rovelli,[48] Adam Frank,[49] Marcelo Gleiser,[49] Jim Baggott,[50] and Paul Davies.[51]

3) Dimension: "an aspect or feature of a situation, problem, or thing." In this respect, from the perspective of a physicist, consiousness is an "aspect" or "grade" of the material world.

4) In regards to the Hyperbolic geometry it is a degree of evidence that curvature can form symmetry. This curvature as a form of symmetry does "shape space" and reality.

5) As Consciousness is an aspect of "matter" or "material space" it represents an aspect of "curvature" within the space itself. As measurement (the apex of all consciousness I would argue) is an aspect of matter and further curves the matter (and the matter does curve consciousness to a degree through the nature of experimentation, changing hypothesis, etc.) both "form" eachother to a degree.

6) In regards to learning, I would have to agree. I need to learn more about...well everything...that is why I ask questions and present arguments/discourses. Practice makes perfect.

29. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
1) If matter is the building block of consciousness and consciousness manifests matter (recycling, synthesizing, etc.), consciousness is an inherent part of the production of matter through recycling/synthesis/etc.
If matter is the building block of cars, cars are an inherent part of the production of matter.

See how simple it is to find out if your propositions are false? You should try it sometime. Your biggest fault is in not pausing to consider whether what you are about to say is foolish nonsense. Be self-critical. Don't assume that every Deep Thought(tm) is valid.

2) "Allowing" does not mean "equate".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking,[22] Brian Greene,[23][24] Max Tegmark,[25] Alan Guth,[26] Andrei Linde,[27] Michio Kaku,[28] David Deutsch,[29] Leonard Susskind,[30] Alexander Vilenkin,[31] Yasunori Nomura,[32] Raj Pathria,[33] Laura Mersini-Houghton,[34][35] Neil deGrasse Tyson,[36] and Sean Carroll.[37]

Scientists who are generally skeptical of the multiverse hypothesis include: Steven Weinberg,[38] David Gross,[39] Paul Steinhardt,[40] Neil Turok,[41] Viatcheslav Mukhanov,[42] Michael S. Turner,[43] Roger Penrose,[44] George Ellis,[45][46] Joe Silk,[47] Carlo Rovelli,[48] Adam Frank,[49] Marcelo Gleiser,[49] Jim Baggott,[50] and Paul Davies.[51]
A poll is not the way science proceeds, and it isn't the way to respond to Strange. It would appear that you missed his point, in any case.

3) Dimension: "an aspect or feature of a situation, problem, or thing." In this respect, from the perspective of a physicist, consiousness is an "aspect" or "grade" of the material world.
If you had ever studied any relevant maths or science, you would know that the definition of "dimension" you just offered is useless and irrelevant.

Study first, post last.

4) In regards to the Hyperbolic geometry it is a degree of evidence that curvature can form symmetry. This curvature as a form of symmetry does "shape space" and reality.
No. Hyperbolic geometry is not "a degree of evidence." It is, as implied by its name, a type of geometry.

5) As Consciousness is an aspect of "matter" or "material space" it represents an aspect of "curvature" within the space itself. As measurement (the apex of all consciousness I would argue) is an aspect of matter and further curves the matter (and the matter does curve consciousness to a degree through the nature of experimentation, changing hypothesis, etc.) both "form" eachother to a degree.
This is just a restatement of your first broken syllogism, above.

6) In regards to learning, I would have to agree. I need to learn more about...well everything...that is why I ask questions and present arguments/discourses. Practice makes perfect.
But to you, "practice" means "spouting the same stupid crap over and over again." And you're not asking questions. You're asserting idiotic nonsense repeatedly. You are not approaching perfection through your methods. Your methods are flawed, if your purpose for being here is as you state. [The evidence suggests strongly that you are not here to learn. As I've already pointed out, your posts are in the style of a monologue -- a monoblogue, if you will. You are deaf to any voice but your own.]

30. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
1) If matter is the building block of consciousness and consciousness manifests matter (recycling, synthesizing, etc.), consciousness is an inherent part of the production of matter through recycling/synthesis/etc.
Again, the second part of that is a non sequitur. If the second part were true then all matter would be conscious, which it obviously isn't.

2) "Allowing" does not mean "equate".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
None of those claim that a multiverse has infinite dimensions.

3) Dimension: "an aspect or feature of a situation, problem, or thing." In this respect, from the perspective of a physicist, consiousness is an "aspect" or "grade" of the material world.
That is not what the word "dimension" means in science. You can't just take a totally different meaning of the word and mix it in with the technical meaning. You end up with nonsense.

5) As Consciousness is an aspect of "matter" or "material space" it represents an aspect of "curvature" within the space itself.
That again is just a non sequitur. Does "red" represent curvature of space? No, it is just a colour.

6) In regards to learning, I would have to agree. I need to learn more about...well everything...that is why I ask questions and present arguments/discourses. Practice makes perfect.
But "practising" nonsense doesn't get you anywhere. You need to learn first and then ask questions. By posting gibberish (as statements not questions) you will not learn anything.

It is a bit like trying to learn English by "practising" when all you are doing is going up to English speakers and saying things like "Flurble gloop plumble? Blue widget cake bread divine pulchritude? Boo coo doo foo?" You will just get ridiculed.

There are some excellent on-line courses in basic maths and physics available. They are free. Go and study. Then come back and say something sensible.

31. Why is this spammer still here?

32. I am here to discuss these things because I have questions about them. I do not expect any of you to agree with me all the time, which is why I am here: for the seperate perspective. I want the perspective of someone who studies "specifically" and "only" physics. I have no intentions of "spamming". If the questions pose such a "threat" to you viewpoint, then the admin can "pm" me and I will stop for that specific subject.

With that be said in regards to intent, to address your points:

1) Matter is strictly space curving upon itself to form particles. These particles in turn other particles as "matter". To argue that matter forms conciousness and consciousness in turn form matter can be argued with a simple form of linear logic that does not mean these subject's "contradict".

example (with m = matter and c= consciousness): m → c → mx → cx → my → cy

"x" and "y" can equal the new forms in which matter is produced. In this respect while the equation may appear to be "circular" only, the revolutions between m and c produce a linear form and which the matter "recycles/resynthesizes/etc." In this respect, it is linear and does not contradict the linearist perspective.

2) Dimension definition: (Math) "A measurement of length in one direction".

"In Physics it can also mean any physical measurement such as length, time, mass."

Definition of Dimension

Dimension's break down to units of measurement". How is observing "degrees" or "aspects" any different than observing a dimension? In this respect considering consciousness as a "degree" or "aspect" of the material universe is not much of a stretch if any at all. The quantum physicists have to face this question as the majority of their work stems from understanding the nature of measurement.

or: "In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it".

https://www.bing.com/search?q=dimens...54C6A9B028CB61

In this respect it is the observation of units as "wholes". Measurement is the observation of different degrees of unity within and object. It is the establishment of boundaries or limits.

3) Actually the "infinity of the multiverse" is addressed as a possibility by Max Tegmark in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse. I am not arguing for or against him. I am arguing that the argument exists within the field:

"A prediction of chaotic inflation is the existence of an infinite ergodic universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions.

Accordingly, an infinite universe will contain an infinite number of Hubble volumes, all having the same physical laws and physical constants. In regard to configurations such as the distribution of matter, almost all will differ from our Hubble volume. However, because there are infinitely many, far beyond the cosmological horizon, there will eventually be Hubble volumes with similar, and even identical, configurations. Tegmark estimates that an identical volume to ours should be about 1010115 meters away from us.[25]

Given infinite space, there would, in fact, be an infinite number of Hubble volumes identical to ours in the universe.[56] This follows directly from the cosmological principle, wherein it is assumed that our Hubble volume is not special or unique."

4) Most modern science is rooted in statistic's and the agreement or disagreement of a community of people. Although science contains many objective truths, much of it is "democratic" in nature in regards to accepted theories and interpretations.

5) In regards to the hyperbolic geometry point....Geometry and mathematics enables the physicist to give definition to the material universe and understand it better. Any application of geometry or math as "definition" by default is a degree of evidence. Considering that hyperbolic geometry is used within physics, the principles imply that symmetry between objects can produce a curvature of space. In simpler terms, to objects that are symmetrical establish a relationship with the space around them and between them in turn being affected by this relationship.

If anything I am arguing for "relativity" and agreeing with you from a different angle of perception.

6) Considering all questions have a limited number of answers, to assert a question is to assert an answer. I prefer to get to the point and if someone disagrees...good...provide an argument or evidence and we can "sythesize" a new set of axioms and better understand the topic we are discussing.

If I ask a question, and someone cannot answer it, it is deemed "stupid" and "wrong". Either way I will receive criticism.

7) In regards to the "red", as far as I understand, from the perspective of physics all "color" is strictly a "wavelength" of light...which is either curved or is curved.

"In physics, redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum."
https://www.bing.com/search?q=red+in...141DB50AD2F5E0

If I am wrong, fair enough, give evidence as to why (quote, source, etc.) otherwise it appears you know about as much as I do...very little. I might as well be talking to myself.

33. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
I want the perspective of someone who studies "specifically" and "only" physics.
As I say, it would be more effective if you spent a little time studying physics yourself. Starting from a position of zero knowledge and making up nonsense IS NOT PRODUCTIVE.

If the questions pose such a "threat" to you viewpoint, then the admin can "pm" me and I will stop for that specific subject.
Oh please. A "threat"? Why would your ignorance be a threat to anyone but yourself?

1) Matter is strictly space curving upon itself to form particles.
That is what is ethnically known as "bollocks". Please go and study some basic physics.

To argue that matter forms conciousness and consciousness in turn form matter can be argued with a simple form of linear logic that does not mean these subject's "contradict".
It is not logic. It is delusional thinking.

example (with m = matter and c= consciousness): m → c → mx → cx → my → cy
Meaningless. crap.

"x" and "y" can equal the new forms in which matter is produced.
What "new forms of matter"? On second thoughts, don't answer that. It will just be more crap.

In this respect while the equation may appear to be "circular" only
It is not an equation.

, the revolutions between m and c produce a linear form and which the matter "recycles/resynthesizes/etc." In this respect, it is linear and does not contradict the linearist perspective.
Gosh, those words sound as if they mean something profound. But they don't.

Dimension's break down to units of measurement". How is observing "degrees" or "aspects" any different than observing a dimension? In this respect considering consciousness as a "degree" or "aspect" of the material universe is not much of a stretch if any at all.
Please go and study some basic physics. You are just making a fool of yourself.

or: "In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it".
Well done. You are getting there.

In this respect it is the observation of units as "wholes". Measurement is the observation of different degrees of unity within and object. It is the establishment of boundaries or limits.
And off you go again to cloud-cuckoo land. Please go and study some basic physics.

3) Actually the "infinity of the multiverse" is addressed as a possibility by Max Tegmark in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse.
IT doesn't have infinite dimensions as you originally claimed. Moving the goalposts when you find you are wrong is intellectually dishonest.

If anything I am arguing for "relativity" and agreeing with you from a different angle of perception.
The angle of an arrogant fool.

If I ask a question, and someone cannot answer it, it is deemed "stupid" and "wrong". Either way I will receive criticism.
Most of your questions are utterly meaningless because they are based on your fantasies and not science.

7) In regards to the "red", as far as I understand, from the perspective of physics all "color" is strictly a "wavelength" of light...which is either curved or is curved.
Which goes to show that you don't understand it at all.

If I am wrong, fair enough, give evidence as to why
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

You have made it quite clear that you have no interest in learning anything. You just want to repeat your made up nonsense.

I might as well be talking to myself.
That might be best. Why don't you post your inane drivel on a blog. Then you won't have anyone pointing out the uncomfortable truth that your are an ignorant fool.

Or, you could spend your time LEARNING something instead.

34. I post sources/quotes etc. If you don't like them, then fine. What "standards" are you talking about then other than your own?

1) Are you arguing that wavelengths never curve and go on in a straight line ad-infinitum? I don't understand where you are coming from.

In regards to "matter" curving, considering all (or the majority) of particles are 94% space the particle does "curve" space. When particles relate to eachother to form further particles/molecules, this internal and external space is further curved. How is this not at least a minute abstraction of the theory of relativity? Space and time curve through relations of particles, considering the particles are 94% space the curvature must also result to some other degree internally.

2) In regards to dimensions, I quoted sources above it along with quotes. The interpretation does not contradict by any of it. Dimensions are simply "units of measurement" or "measurement" itself.

3) "Quantum theory allows for a "multiverse of infinite dimensions". These dimensions may exist at the quantum scale and in this respect the universe containing a "degree" of consciousness as an inherent dimension is a possibility."

Theories are not statements of hard facts but rather possibilities. I am not arguing that their are multiple universes, but members of the quantum community (who unlike you do this for a living) are investigating these options as possibilities. Considering you take the "Theory" (not principle) of Relativity for fact certain members of the quantum community should be listened to. They don't have to be agreed with, I am not even sure I agree fully with Tegmark.

4) In regards to the "red" it is viewed as a wavelength. I quoted it, I followed forum rules. If you don't like the source I can post another in 30 seconds which say the exact same thing. You are insane. And I don't mean this as an insult, but you will take it as one.

If you disagree, you say "no" you are wrong implying some form of authority. However if I believe you, both of us commit the logical fallacy of argument from authority.

5) I need to learn more according to you: at least post some sources. Considering the forum observes "mainstream" science your options are broad. I am trying to find a common point here. If I say you are right, I am called an idiot. If I say you are wrong the thread is closed. How is this not a circle-jerk for people who can't hack it in their own field?

35. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
I5) I need to learn more according to you: at least post some sources.
Is it really beyond you to use a search for some introductory courses?

I don't know if these will be basic enough. You might need an introduction to mathematics first.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/
S20 | Certificate in Physics | The Open University
https://www.open2study.com/courses/basic-physics

36. Originally Posted by Strange
Is it really beyond you to use a search for some introductory courses?

I don't know if these will be basic enough. You might need an introduction to mathematics first.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/
S20 | Certificate in Physics | The Open University
https://www.open2study.com/courses/basic-physics
No I can look them up. Considering you disagreed with every source I presented I will use only these from now on. Now we have somewhat of a common language and the issue of "sourcing" should not be a problem.

Pick a point you believe I am wrong on (or wrongly questioned) and we can work from there.

37. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
I post sources/quotes etc.
But you put your own, non-standard and non-sensical interpretation into them, because haven't actually learned any physics, you just cherry pick quotes that seem to, but actually do not, back up your "ideas".

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
If you don't like them, then fine. What "standards" are you talking about then other than your own?
Standard scientific definitions, used in the same way as scientists use them, rather than your own way.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
1) Are you arguing that wavelengths never curve and go on in a straight line ad-infinitum? I don't understand where you are coming from.
A wavelength is the distance between two peaks of a wave. A wavelength is a single measurement of length. Length doesn't curve. A "wavelength" cannot curve.

The wavelength of light at the red end of the visible spectrum is 700 nm. 700 nm cannot curve. It is like you are saying a metre can curve or an inch can curve. You might as well be saying a temperature can explode or a density can change colour. You are talking nonsense.

STOP MANGLING SCIENTIFIC TERMS!

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
In regards to "matter" curving, considering all (or the majority) of particles are 94% space the particle does "curve" space. When particles relate to eachother to form further particles/molecules, this internal and external space is further curved. How is this not at least a minute abstraction of the theory of relativity? Space and time curve through relations of particles, considering the particles are 94% space the curvature must also result to some other degree internally.
So, space can curve. Atoms don't curve - they are atoms. Quarks don't curve - they are quarks. Matter does not curve.

Matter tells space how to curve. The curvature of space tells matter how to move. But matter itself does not curve - it can, however, move along a straight path through curved space.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
2) In regards to dimensions, I quoted sources above it along with quotes. The interpretation does not contradict by any of it. Dimensions are simply "units of measurement" or "measurement" itself.
Dimensions are the minimum number of degrees of freedom required to define a coordinate or an event. In 2 dimensions, we have the x and y directions. In 3 dimensions we have the x, y and z directions.

In order to define an event in space, we need 3 dimensions. In order to define an event in space and time, we need 4 dimensions (x,y,z,t).

STOP BENDING STANDARD DEFINITONS TO SUIT YOUR OWN MUSINGS. STOP MANGLING SCIENCE. STOP SPOUTING PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

38. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
No I can look them up. Considering you disagreed with every source I presented I will use only these from now on. Now we have somewhat of a common language and the issue of "sourcing" should not be a problem.
The point is not to use those as source of buzzwords to string together in meaningless sentences.

The point is for you to study. I expect you to come back in a year or two and be able to hold an intelligent and informed discussion about science.

Pick a point you believe I am wrong on (or wrongly questioned) and we can work from there.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

39. 1) I'll skip to the point.

a) Matter is not space according to modern physics. We can agree to that right? I am not misinterpreting or redefining anything right? As it is not space, it is an "absence" of space.

b) As it is not "space", space inevitably curves upon itself through matter.

c) Considering that:

c1) the matter inevitably curves space
c2) and all matter is strictly the "boundary" which forms the space as an atom (as the atom is mostly space (94% on average))
c3) how would matter not exist as an extension of space considering it exists if and only if their is space?

d) It would appear that all matter is striclty an extension of spatial curvature and not a thing as itself.

e) In this respect all consciousness, to go back to starting point of the thread, is a result of space curving upon itself.

2) In regards to the dimensions "misinterpretation":

a) the "minimum number of degrees to reach a coordinate" appears as move towards unity through the observation of "unit".
b) This is considering minimum number of coordinates appears as closer approximation to unity (as they are closer to center) which results in the "unit".
c) My bad, it was an issue of interpretation on my part.
d) Scientific language is not clear enough at times.

3) Point 1 is my main focus and the reason for the interest in the thread. Thanks for the patience.

40. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
1) I'll skip to the point.

a) Matter is not space according to modern physics. We can agree to that right?
Okay....

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
I am not misinterpreting or redefining anything right?
Not so far, no.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
As it is not space, it is an "absence" of space.
Well, only in the same way as plastic is an "absence" of metal. Not sure how useful that description is.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
b) As it is not "space", space inevitably curves upon itself through matter.
Space does not curve "upon itself".

At the scales involved inside an atom, space is flat. Space is always flat, "locally". It is only at larger distances that space can be said to be curved. That is why the speed of light is always c, wherever it is measured, because local to that measurement, space is flat.

So.... no.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
c) Considering that:

c1) the matter inevitably curves space.
Outside of the matter... between that matter and other matter...

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
c2) and all matter is strictly the "boundary" which forms the space as an atom (as the atom is mostly space (94% on average))
...where space is not curved inside....

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
c3) how would matter not exist as an extension of space considering it exists if and only if their is space?
You might as well ask if light is an extension of dark considering it only exists if, and only if there is dark to contrast it with. Why?

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
d) It would appear that all matter is striclty an extension of spatial curvature and not a thing as itself.
Matter might cause spatial curvature, but it does not follow that matter is an extension of spacial curvature. You are putting the cart before the horse.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
e) In this respect all consciousness, to go back to starting point of the thread, is a result of space curving upon itself.
Huh? How does that follow? All consciousness is a result of gravity?

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
2) In regards to the dimensions "misinterpretation":

a) the "minimum number of degrees to reach a coordinate" appears as move towards unity through the observation of "unit".
That's degrees of freedom. And the phrase "appears as move towards unity through the observation of "unit" makes as much sense as flergle ergle oomphliph.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
b) This is considering minimum number of coordinates appears as closer approximation to unity (as they are closer to center) which results in the "unit".
Unicorn marmalade blowpipe.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
d) Scientific language is not clear enough at times.
That's because you have to LEARN scientific language.

41. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
1) I'll skip to the point.

a) Matter is not space according to modern physics. We can agree to that right? I am not misinterpreting or redefining anything right? As it is not space, it is an "absence" of space.
It is not an absence of space because it is in space. It occupies space. Space doesn't cease to exist where the object is.

If you put a chair in a room, the chair isn't an absence of "room".

b) As it is not "space", space inevitably curves upon itself through matter.
Why is it inevitable?
If it is so inevitable, why didn't anyone notice before? You only think it is inevitable because someone told you about it.

And, to be picky, mass does nocturne space. It curves space-time.

e) In this respect all consciousness, to go back to starting point of the thread, is a result of space curving upon itself.
Still bollocks.

a) the "minimum number of degrees to reach a coordinate" appears as move towards unity through the observation of "unit".
That doesn't make any sense in any of the languages I am familiar with.

b) This is considering minimum number of coordinates appears as closer approximation to unity (as they are closer to center) which results in the "unit".
Ditto.

d) Scientific language is not clear enough at times.
The problem is not with scientific language, it is your near total ignorance of what the words mean.

42. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
1) I'll skip to the point.

b) As it is not "space", space inevitably curves upon itself through matter.
Nothing "inevitable" about it. You have a serious defect in your logic. You casually assert utter bollocks. Part of it derives from a profound ignorance, but you compound it by not even recognizing non sequiturs. Ignorance might be repaired, but broken logic is much harder to fix. Your arrogant confidence in yourself is a fundamental impediment to your not posting stupid.

c) Considering that:

c1) the matter inevitably curves space
No.

c2) and all matter is strictly the "boundary" which forms the space as an atom (as the atom is mostly space (94% on average))
Among other problems with this statement is the 94% figure. You appear to have made that up, too. It's one thing not to know the fact, but it's a far worse transgression to believe that you do know the fact. This is perhaps your most serious problem. You think you know much, much, much more than you actually do. That attitude will prevent you from learning. It's why you post interminable walls of bollocks text and then feel insulted when people here tell you that it is in fact, steaming bovine feces.

e) In this respect all consciousness, to go back to starting point of the thread, is a result of space curving upon itself.
Another total non sequitur. The fact that you don't recognize this obvious truth is another source of pessimism that you can ever grow. One cannot correct what one denies is in need of correction.

2) In regards to the dimensions "misinterpretation":

a) the "minimum number of degrees to reach a coordinate" appears as move towards unity through the observation of "unit".
You haven't a clue, despite having been given the correct definition of "dimension" as used by scientists and mathematicians. And yet you persist in spewing yet more incomprehensible bollocks.

b) This is considering minimum number of coordinates appears as closer approximation to unity (as they are closer to center) which results in the "unit".
No, no, and hell no. Stop making up bullshit nonsense. You are fooling no one. You apparently think that you are making profound utterances. You are not. Only an ignoramus would think that this verbal flatulence is rose-scented gold vapour.

d) Scientific language is not clear enough at times.
Why do you think that you have a valid opinion about a language you don't speak at all? You are incapable of clarity in English; forget about science. You are as qualified to opine about science as a language as you are about Etruscan.

43. Speedfreak:

1) Matter is not equivalent to space considering space, is one dimensional when space is viewed as "localized". This locality is the immediate surrounding of the particle. We agree right? I am not misinterpreting anything?

2) Dimensions are the minimum number of coordinate necessary to identify a point in space, in this case as an example Atom "X". Am I misinterpetting anything? Do will still agree?

3) The atom is of x dimensions, which is why it will be called Atom X. It is a multitude of dimensions greater than 1. The localized space is 1 dimensional. The matter as atom x may curve the 1 dimension of space it is local too. However the 1 dimension of space "cannot" curve the matter. The "matter" curves itself. And by curving I mean maintaining its dimensions. Are we still on the same page?

4) The space is unified as 1 dimension. The atom as "x" dimensions exists as multiple dimension of "1".
What I am confused on is:
a) If space is unified, locally, how can it curve resulting in multiple other dimensions and still maintain its stability as 1?
b) If an atom is composed of "x" dimensions, with each dimension being equivalent to 1 dimension of space, how is it not a biproduct of a unified space considering all number exists if and only if there is one.? (considering number defines physics, dimensions of space have numerical qualities?)
For example 1 reflecting 1 reflecting 1 in turn reflects as 3.

5) If matter curves space and in doing so forms further matter the curvature of space and the curvature of matter can be viewed as not either or, but rather synonymous?

6) Gravity is a force of attraction towards a center. Am I fudging anything? If I am not, this attraction towards a center in turn forms the relationships of atoms into further atoms
which in turn manifests as the "brain, neurological system, etc.". Do we still agree? This brain/neurological system/etc. in turn forms the measurements, experiments, etc. that
observe and change the nature of matter (forming different molecules, combining different elements, etc.)

7) In regards to the definition of dimensions, I was simply explaining a different perception, or in you terms "a stupid error". Considering all dimensions are form from cooridinate which are in turn 1 dimension, the observation or formation of a dimension is the observation of a multitude of cooridinates forming as "one" unit through a center.

In regards to Strange:

1) Matter is in space, but it is not space. We agree? The room/chair example doesn't work because it is an example of multiple dimensions with multiple dimensions. I want to stick with speedfreak's example since he is the administrator and, I am assuming, knows more. However, using his example of the atom in space still allows the space to be space, then what forms the dimensions of the atom (that are not space, or the other 6%). This is considering that the matter is not space, and any space originally uncurved by the matter is now curved by the matter. Would this curvature, considering curvature its a multitude of points, of a unified space cause the space to not be 1 dimensional?

2) Space curves through matter, according to speedfreak. Assuming the multidimensional nature of atom "x" manifesting itself through multiple coordinates, the multitude of coordinates exist if and only if they manifests through points of contact. Would not space curve upon itself at the intersections of these one dimensional cooridnates?

3) Mass curves space-time correct? Time is a quantity in Classical physics (agree? I am not twisting anything?), so mass would curve the nature of quantity, with this quantity in turn affecting the dimensions of the mass as they are a quantity of cooridinates? Mass changes the nature of quantity as time is quantity, however what composes the mass is a quantity, so the mass changes itself? (Am I twisting anything? If this is correct, then you are arguing with the circular reasoning you were currently arguing against.)

However the Theory of Relativity does not follow classical physics completely (am I missinterpretting anything?) as time is not absolute (if it is not absolute then it is in a state of
flux, which you disagreed with on a seperate post, considering a lack of evidence). In this respect either time is quantitative and quantities are not absolute, or it is not quantitative?

4) Me: This is considering minimum number of coordinates appears as closer approximation to unity (as they are closer to center) which results in the "unit".
Speedfreek: Unicorn marmalade blowpipe.
Strange: Ditto

Who do I listen too, you or speedfreak?

Tk: This post is long enough and considering Speedfreak and Stranger have seniority here, I value there opinions more, so no offense. You are here for advice also, if I understand correctly, so let's listen to the teachers. By the way, Speedfreek did not disagree with the 94% figure, unless I misinterpreted something so that point still stands.

44. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
1) Matter is not equivalent to space considering space, is one dimensional when space is viewed as "localized". This locality is the immediate surrounding of the particle. We agree right? I am not misinterpreting anything?
No, we don't agree. Space is three dimensional, and when viewed a small enough scale, is flat (i.e. there is no measurable gravitational gradient, or "curvature").

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
2) Dimensions are the minimum number of coordinate necessary to identify a point in space, in this case as an example Atom "X". Am I misinterpetting anything? Do will still agree?
No, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
3) The atom is of x dimensions, which is why it will be called Atom X. It is a multitude of dimensions greater than 1. The localized space is 1 dimensional. The matter as atom x may curve the 1 dimension of space it is local too. However the 1 dimension of space "cannot" curve the matter. The "matter" curves itself. And by curving I mean maintaining its dimensions. Are we still on the same page?
No, you are making absolutely no sense to me. You seem to be running away with another "idea". Try learning some physics instead please.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
4) The space is unified as 1 dimension. The atom as "x" dimensions exists as multiple dimension of "1".
Nope.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
What I am confused on is:
All of the above.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
a) If space is unified, locally, how can it curve resulting in multiple other dimensions and still maintain its stability as 1?
b) If an atom is composed of "x" dimensions, with each dimension being equivalent to 1 dimension of space, how is it not a biproduct of a unified space considering all number exists if and only if there is one.? (considering number defines physics, dimensions of space have numerical qualities?)
For example 1 reflecting 1 reflecting 1 in turn reflects as 3.
Why are you obsessed with the concept of "1" all the time? And all this nonsense with "reflecting"? Stop trolling us, please.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
5)If matter curves space and in doing so forms further matter
It doesn't form further matter. The curvature of space is what we call "gravity". Gravity does not form further matter. All gravity does is influence the density of existing matter.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
the curvature of space and the curvature of matter can be viewed as not either or, but rather synonymous?
You are talking nonsense again. All these posts will soon be moved to your "special" thread in the trash can.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
6) Gravity is a force of attraction towards a center.
Gravity is not considered a force, since Einstein redefined it.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
Am I fudging anything?
You are fudging EVERYTHING.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
If I am not, this attraction towards a center in turn forms the relationships of atoms into further atoms
which in turn manifests as the "brain, neurological system, etc.". Do we still agree?
Where do you get these stupid ideas from? How do you make the leap from gravity to brains? Actually, don't answer that.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
This brain/neurological system/etc. in turn forms the measurements, experiments, etc. that
observe and change the nature of matter (forming different molecules, combining different elements, etc.)
....

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
7) In regards to the definition of dimensions, I was simply explaining a different perception, or in you terms "a stupid error". Considering all dimensions are form from cooridinate which are in turn 1 dimension, the observation or formation of a dimension is the observation of a multitude of cooridinates forming as "one" unit through a center.
For one last time, dimensions represent the number of degrees of freedom required to describe a coordinate or event in space.

Now then, if you don't stop spouting nonsense, you will be suspended. Feel free to ask questions but stop trying to redefine established principles.

45. 1) "At the scales involved inside an atom, space is flat. Space is always flat, "locally". It is only at larger distances that space can be said to be curved. That is why the speed of light is always c, wherever it is measured, because local to that measurement, space is flat."

"No, we don't agree. Space is three dimensional, and when viewed a small enough scale, is flat (i.e. there is no measurable gravitational gradient, or "curvature").

Ok, Locally, in regards to the inside of the atom space is flat. It is viewed as 1 dimensional, when no gravitational gradient is involved. This implies, correct me if I am mistaken that there is no gravitationality gradient "inside" the atom as the scale of the atom is two small.

The atom, however is defined through dimensions as a minimum number of cooridinates. These cooridinates in themselves are 1 dimensional? In this respect when viewing the centering of the atom as 1 dimension, one moves out and the the surrounding boundary which forms the atom is of multiple coordinates, each being a position used to identify a "position" in space.

Each position exists as an extension of this 1 dimension of space with each position being defined by its relation to other positions. These relation of positions exterior to this 1 dimensional space in turn relates to other positions to form the dimensions of the atom. Am I missinterpretting anything?

46. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7

Tk: This post is long enough and considering Speedfreak and Stranger have seniority here, I value there opinions more, so no offense. You are here for advice also, if I understand correctly, so let's listen to the teachers. By the way, Speedfreek did not disagree with the 94% figure, unless I misinterpreted something so that point still stands.
No, that's not how one finds truths. No wonder you're so completely bollocksed.

Just because Speedfreak hasn't bothered to correct all of your errors does not mean that you are right. I know you'd wish that the default would be that everything you say is correct, but that's not true. But instead of relying on polls and such, simply provide a source for your figure, and by source, I do not mean some random opinion. You made up the 94% number. If you wish to refute that charge, then do so directly. Or else we can dismiss that claim of yours along all of your other nonsense.

47. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
1) Matter is not equivalent to space considering space, is one dimensional when space is viewed as "localized". This locality is the immediate surrounding of the particle. We agree right? I am not misinterpreting anything?
No. This is just more made-up nonsense. Space is three-dmensonal.

2) Dimensions are the minimum number of coordinate necessary to identify a point in space, in this case as an example Atom "X". Am I misinterpetting anything? Do will still agree?
And that minimum number is 3. Or 4 if you are dealing with space-time (or you just want to know what time to meet for dinner, as well as where.)

3) The atom is of x dimensions, which is why it will be called Atom X. It is a multitude of dimensions greater than 1.
x = 3. So why all the waffle.

The localized space is 1 dimensional. The matter as atom x may curve the 1 dimension of space it is local too. However the 1 dimension of space "cannot" curve the matter. The "matter" curves itself. And by curving I mean maintaining its dimensions. Are we still on the same page?
No. You are talking bollocks again.

I will skip the rest as it just gets increasingly nonsensical.

Who do I listen too, you or speedfreak?
Neither. Go and get a frigging education and stop spouting nonsense. Starting from zero, I would expect it to take a year or two of fairly full-time study before you are ready to have an intelligent conversation about the sort of physics you should have learned at school. Please go away and don't come back until you are ready to discuss maths and physics at, at least, the level of a school-leaver. You are just wasting everyone's time.

You have written pages of this crap and you have almost grasped the concept of dimension but you haven't even learned that space has 3 dimensions, and space-time 4. So this is not an effective way to learn. (I don't believe even you think that it is, you are just bullshitting about your motivation. I expect you to get banned as a troll quite soon.)

Tk: This post is long enough and considering Speedfreak and Stranger have seniority here,
I don't know what you base your weird ideas of "seniority" on. While I might be much older than TK421, I am certain he knows a lot more physics than I do.

But on the other hand, my cat knows more physics than you do. FFS, the bag of spanners in my garage isn't as dumb as you.

48. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
"No, we don't agree. Space is three dimensional, and when viewed a small enough scale, is flat (i.e. there is no measurable gravitational gradient, or "curvature").

Ok, Locally, in regards to the inside of the atom space is flat. It is viewed as 1 dimensional
What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you really that stupid?

You have just read a sentence telling you that space is 3 dimensional. Your response is to repeat that it is 1 dimensional. Of course it isn't.

Am I missinterpretting anything?
Yes, everything.

You are just a moron.

49. Originally Posted by tk421
No, that's not how one finds truths. No wonder you're so completely bollocksed.

Just because Speedfreak hasn't bothered to correct all of your errors does not mean that you are right. I know you'd wish that the default would be that everything you say is correct, but that's not true. But instead of relying on polls and such, simply provide a source for your figure, and by source, I do not mean some random opinion. You made up the 94% number. If you wish to refute that charge, then do so directly. Or else we can dismiss that claim of yours along all of your other nonsense.
For the record it was not poll, simply a list meant to show that their are two schools of thought in the scientific community. All of you accuse me of "redefinition" yet the majority of time you take words out of context.

Apparently looking it up it ranges from 99.9999...etc ranging from the estimates. In regards to the 94%, I remember reading somewhere that some atom, was 93.xxx% space. I was surprised because I memorized it as 99% and changed opinion. That is the simple truth whether you believe it or not.

The point is still the same as the emphasis was on the majority of the atom being composed of "space". The question occurs, then what is matter? There is no definition in modern physics, unless I am looking in the wrong direction. I look up the definition of "matter" and I get "mass". I look up the definition of "mass" and get "matter".

Here lets get to a simple question, ignored everything else and we will start from here: What is matter?

50. Originally Posted by Strange
I am certain he knows a lot more physics than I do.
On this, we have our first big disagreement, but I appreciate the generous thought.

51. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
1)Ok, Locally, in regards to the inside of the atom space is flat. It is viewed as 1 dimensional, when no gravitational gradient is involved.
Flat space is 3 dimensional. Curved space is also 3 dimensional.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
This implies, correct me if I am mistaken that there is no gravitationality gradient "inside" the atom as the scale of the atom is two small.
Good. You managed to learn something, somehow.

Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
The atom, however is defined through dimensions as a minimum number of cooridinates. These cooridinates in themselves are 1 dimensional? In this respect when viewing the centering of the atom as 1 dimension, one moves out and the the surrounding boundary which forms the atom is of multiple coordinates, each being a position used to identify a "position" in space.

Each position exists as an extension of this 1 dimension of space with each position being defined by its relation to other positions. These relation of positions exterior to this 1 dimensional space in turn relates to other positions to form the dimensions of the atom. Am I missinterpretting anything?
Yes, you are misinterpreting everything, including the rules of this forum, which you have previously been made aware of. Stop making stuff up. Stop proposing personal theories based on your misconceptions. Stop trying to redefine science in your own terms.

Just stop.

52. In regards to strange:
1)

Speedfreak: "At the scales involved inside an atom, space is flat. Space is always flat, "locally". It is only at larger distances that space can be said to be curved. That is why the speed of light is always c, wherever it is measured, because local to that measurement, space is flat."

Speedfreak: "No, we don't agree. Space is three dimensional, and when viewed a small enough scale, is flat (i.e. there is no measurable gravitational gradient, or "curvature").

Me: Ok, Locally, in regards to the inside of the atom space is flat. It is viewed as 1 dimensional, when no gravitational gradient is involved. This implies, correct me if I am mistaken that there is no gravitationality gradient "inside" the atom as the scale of the atom is two small.

Is there any room for misinterpretation?

53. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
Apparently looking it up it ranges from 99.9999...etc ranging from the estimates. In regards to the 94%, I remember reading somewhere that some atom, was 93.xxx% space. I was surprised because I memorized it as 99% and changed opinion. That is the simple truth whether you believe it or not.
The point is that you took this long to look it up. You have, at long last, acknowledged that you in fact made up the 94% figure, as charged. Rather than looking up the right answer immediately upon being informed that you were wrong, you chose instead to invoke some bizarre, self-serving rule that says "Any unchallenged utterance of mine is by default true." In short, you actively resisted learning. You aren't interested in learning, despite your claim. Every post is evidence of that charge. You are told that space is 3-dimensional, and you "agree", then immediately start prattling on about 1-dimensional space.

Your posting style is indistinguishable from that of an idiot, or troll (or idiotic troll; these are not mutually exclusive). I suspect that you are well on your way to being banned.

As they say in Los Angeles, "buh-bye."

54. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
Here lets get to a simple question, ignored everything else and we will start from here: What is matter?
The classical definition is: something that occupies space (i.e. has volume) and has inertial (or rest) mass.

The first several results in Google say exactly that. So I'm not sure why you couldn't find it. Perhaps because you were searching for "dimension reflection 1 banana" instead of "definition of matter in physics".

As for an atom being largely empty space, that is only true for the old, and incorrect, Bohr model of the atom, which had electrons orbiting the nucleus at a distance. An atom consists almost entirely of electron orbitals, with the nucleus at the centre. The concept of "empty space" becomes meaningless. Although it is still 3 dimensional.

55. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
Is there any room for misinterpretation?
No. There is no doubt: you are an ignorant moron who can't even understand that space is 3 dimensional.

Please write out 100 times: "Space is three dimensional".

56. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
Me: Ok, Locally, in regards to the inside of the atom space is flat. It is viewed as 1 dimensional, when no gravitational gradient is involved. This implies, correct me if I am mistaken that there is no gravitationality gradient "inside" the atom as the scale of the atom is two small.
Is your problem(*) that you are misinterpreting "flat" to mean "1 dimensional"? If so, this is wrong on so many levels:

1. Informally something flat, such as a piece of paper is 2 dimensional, not 1 dimensional.

2. That is not what we mean when we say space is flat (the universe is flat, but it doesn't mean we are squashed into a sheet). Flat means "not curved".

(*) Your other problem is that you need professional help.

57. Tk:

Memorized the wrong figure. I didn't make it up, as a matter of fact I was surprised when I read it.

But considering that modern science has not defined matter, and that is what is talks about...don't be a hypocrite. You can't answer the question because you don't know the answer: What is matter?

58. Strange:

Is your problem(*) that you are misinterpreting "flat" to mean "1 dimensional"? If so, this is wrong on so many levels:

1. Informally something flat, such as a piece of paper is 2 dimensional, not 1 dimensional.

2. That is not what we mean when we say space is flat (the universe is flat, but it doesn't mean we are squashed into a sheet). Flat means "not curved".

That sums up the missinterpretation.

The space inside the atom is flat, not curved..right? It is not curved by the matter, even thought the matter surrounding the space is curved....right?

59. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
Tk:

Memorized the wrong figure. I didn't make it up, as a matter of fact I was surprised when I read it.
Functionally, you made it up. I told you that you were wrong. You were so arrogantly sure of yourself that you didn't even bother to check if your memory was correct. THAT's the problem. Your self-confidence is completely without foundation. You're an ignoramus with the attitude of a savant.

Ditch your arrogance and you might have a chance of learning something.

Until then, all you do is gibber.

60. TK

I keep asking: What is matter?

I am not spouting off a "theory". Physicists study matter, okay, what is it?

You claim to have the answers, but you haven't answer this simple question...hypocrite.

61. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
TK

I keep asking: What is matter?
You keep asking because you are an arrogant moron who is not willing to learn, or even read, what is put in front of you.

Originally Posted by Strange
The classical definition is: something that occupies space (i.e. has volume) and has inertial (or rest) mass.

The first several results in Google say exactly that. So I'm not sure why you couldn't find it. Perhaps because you were searching for "dimension reflection 1 banana" instead of "definition of matter in physics".

As for an atom being largely empty space, that is only true for the old, and incorrect, Bohr model of the atom, which had electrons orbiting the nucleus at a distance. An atom consists almost entirely of electron orbitals, with the nucleus at the centre. The concept of "empty space" becomes meaningless. Although it is still 3 dimensional.
Now, go on. Ask again: "what is matter". Hopefully, you will and then you will be banned as a troll.

62. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
TK

I keep asking: What is matter?

I am not spouting off a "theory". Physicists study matter, okay, what is it?

You claim to have the answers, but you haven't answer this simple question...hypocrite.
Show me where I make this claim (you cannot), or retract it as yet another in a long pattern of your trolling.

Quit trying to move goalposts in a failed attempt to change the subject. No one here is under an obligation to answer your questions.

Please leave until you learn how to think, and how to behave.

63. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
That sums up the missinterpretation.
So, rather than ask the simple question, "what do you mean by flat" you start making stuff up. How stupid do you have to be, to think that is a good strategy?

64. Skip the insults already...you keep pointing out your intelligence through your insults. I get it your smart...good for you. You know it all...except the one question that makes physics...physics: What is matter?

You can't even answer my question, "what is matter"? This is an important question considering if reality is composed of space and matter, one has to know what they are talking about. You can argue a whole list of definitions such as energy, gravity, etc. but what is matter?

If there is space and matter, how does one not change the other?

How is matter not complex spatial curvature, considering space seems to appear more stable than matter. Space is always "there". "Matter" is not...it moves, changes, etc.

How is matter not a structural extension of space as unstable non 1 dimensional space?

65. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
Skip the insults already...you keep pointing out your intelligence through your insults.
I am not pointing out that I am smart, I am just trying to get you to understand that your posts are ignorant and stupid. Fixing that is up to you.

You can't even answer my question, "what is matter"?
I gave you an answer. Twice. Can you explain why you find it unsatisfactory?

This is an important question considering if reality is composed of space and matter, one has to know what they are talking about. You can argue a whole list of definitions such as energy, gravity, etc. but what is matter?
Matter is easier to define than energy, for example. See above. However, we don't actually need to know what these things are, we just need to know how they behave.

If there is space and matter, how does one not change the other?
Who said they don't?

"Mass tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells mass how to move." John Wheeler

How is matter not complex spatial curvature, considering space seems to appear more stable than matter.
For one thing, matter has mass (see the definition that you are pretending doesn't exist).

How is matter not a structural extension of space as unstable non 1 dimensional space?
Because structural reflection of unity isn't transgressive stability matrix space.

66. Originally Posted by eodnhoj7
What is matter?
That which occupies space and possesses rest mass.

What it is made of depends on the kind of matter you are referring to.

Moderator Note: This thread has been re-opened and this is the only place you are allowed to post in, for now. You may ask questions, but you may not make proposals until such a time as it is deemed, by myself, that you aren't simply a troll.

 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Forum Rules