Relative to: a relational equality

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Gem

So it sounds to me like geometry, and doesn't seem to imply any deeper meaning, or if it does mean something what is concept it represents?

Physical/energy{ aka spirit-2 } is eternally complemented by metaphysical-1 geometrical pattern/shape/form

Spirit-2 comes into play as quality more than aspect i.e. spin is dynamic/energetic.

Whereas warpage/curvature of 2D plane is closely related to dynamic/energetic, but only if the vertex oscillates through the triangular opening, then we have a 2nd primary motion.

We then have inside-outing we can add to the spin.

There are 4 more primary motions, however, and we may say that spirit-2 may not be considered reality until all 6 motions are existent.

0} 2D warpage non-dynamic---aspect quasi-quality{?}
-------------------------------------------------------
1} inside-outing---- dynamic and now 3D
2} spin of 3D
3} expansion-contraction---2D and/or 3D
4} precession----3D
5} torque----twist i.e. 3D warpage left and right of two halves of 3D thing
6} orbit---involve 2nd thing

Spirit-1 = metaphysical-1 i.e. spirit-of-intent
---------------------------------------------------
Spirit-3 = contractive gravity results in spirit-4 expansive dark energy{?}
Spirit-2 = physical/energy

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Physical/energy{ aka spirit-2 } is eternally complemented by metaphysical-1 geometrical pattern/shape/form

Spirit-2 comes into play as quality more than aspect i.e. spin is dynamic/energetic.

Whereas warpage/curvature of 2D plane is closely related to dynamic/energetic, but only if the vertex oscillates through the triangular opening, then we have a 2nd primary motion.

We then have inside-outing we can add to the spin.

There are 4 more primary motions, however, and we may say that spirit-2 may not be considered reality until all 6 motions are existent.

0} 2D warpage non-dynamic---aspect quasi-quality{?}
-------------------------------------------------------
1} inside-outing---- dynamic and now 3D
2} spin of 3D
3} expansion-contraction---2D and/or 3D
4} precession----3D
5} torque----twist i.e. 3D warpage left and right of two halves of 3D thing
6} orbit---involve 2nd thing

Spirit-1 = metaphysical-1 i.e. spirit-of-intent
---------------------------------------------------
Spirit-3 = contractive gravity results in spirit-4 expansive dark energy{?}
Spirit-2 = physical/energy

It sounds to me like you just say so, but don't explain why or provide a proof of any kind.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Gem

It sounds to me like you just say so, but don't explain why or provide a proof of any kind.

Yes I say so. Dont most humans say what they believe? Why not me?

What exactly/specifically are you questioning that has no proof?.

If you think any of my statements are invalid, then please give rational, logical common sense explanation as to why you think so.

With out such an explanation by someone, then I see no reason my comments to not be considered valid as stated.

r6

[r6r6]

Gem--The geometric expression is primary school simple,

. . . .

4 dot scenario is simple, tho not sure if tetrahedron is taught in grade school with any comprehensive depth, other than just mentioning it as a regular/symmetrical polyhedron.

Quote:
but the philosophical concept it represents is beyond logical understanding.

I think you are in error here above. All is logical and not beyond understanding. Some is beyond calculating because ultra-micro and ultra-macro sets of relationships are involved.

Quote:
One should not err in supposing that I am talking about geometry,

I think you error if you believe geometry is not involved in your dot scenarios.

Quote:
because the simple geometry is mere representation of a formless conceptualisation.

Simple or complex geometry is shape and pattern ergo metaphysical-1 form. Form boards are what carpenters used to create the shape ergo the mold/form of the concrete, or whatever medium they are attempting to constrain to specific shape/geometry

Quote:
The limitations are both physical and perceptual and a real foray into the meaning of my representation brings about no distinction between the operation of mind and perceived reality we call 'the universe'.

No dissagreement there. Physical and metaphysical-1 both have limits, contrary to those espouse infinite set of this or that.

Quote:
What is the universe other than a minds perception?

"U"niverse =
.....metaphyiscal-1 mind/intellect,
.....macro-infinite non-occupied space, and,
.....finite occupied space UniVerse i.e. fermionic matter, bosonic forces and any aggregate thereof.

Quote:
Of course, all your geometry is abstraction and numbers are only derived from geometric relation.

All occupied space is complemented by metaphysical-1 geometry/shape and number sets.

Quote:
For example, imaginary numbers are plotted on imaginary lines and have no meaning at all apart from one value as related to another.

And whatever meaning a human chooses to assign them.

Quote:
The only reason that this geometric language is universal is precisely because it is the language of relationships.

2 dots inherently are presumed to have 1 line-of-relationship.
3 dots have three lines-of-relationship as 2D/area polygon ans specifically the tri{3}angle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 dots have a quantum leap to six lines-of-relationship as 3D/volumetric polyhedron and specifically the tetra{4}hedron.
......ergo a leap from not only 3 to 6 lines of relationship, but a leap from 3 surface angles, to 12 surface angles

Quote:
It is at once an imaginary language and also a language bound by how physical relationships are in the physical dimensional context, and also by the actual function of the mind's operations of distinction.

Yes, the two are eternally complementary to each other. Same ole same ole news....eternally....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
GEm---What then is one thing?

When the 3D tetrahedron turns itself inside-out, it comes to a place of being 2D, subdivision of 2D triangle ergo a polyhedron composed of 3 smaller triangles inside a larger triangle.

This latter above allows for primary warpage or curvature i.e. when the central vertex of the subdivided triangle moves left or right out of plane of larger triangle we can say the 2D triangle is now a bent/warped/curved triangle, because it is no longer just a 2D plane.

So this is a quality or aspect that occurs purely because of the position of one vertex in relation to the other 3. See this link to this subdivided triangle


The word quality may be more specific to spin, color, texture, tasted, smell etc.... and more primary or basic may be an aspect of this or that.

Aspects being;
dot{ . }/point{ . }/nippion{ . }-- nip-it-in-the-bud so-to-say ---

yippion{ V or \/ } where two lines-of-relationship meet ex triangle

vertexion{ Y } where three lines-of-relationship meet ex tetrahedron
angles


Facts are facts irrepsective of what words, icons or symbolgies we use to convey the facts to self and to others. imho

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Yes I say so. Dont most humans say what they believe? Why not me?

What exactly/specifically are you questioning that has no proof?.

It sounds like you arbitrarily claim that there is this space and that space. Don't don't prove it or explain why.

If you think any of my statements are invalid, then please give rational, logical common sense explanation as to why you think so.

It's up to you to have rational logic. I can't see a process of logic, let alone question or find error in it.

With out such an explanation by someone, then I see no reason my comments to not be considered valid as stated.

r6

[r6r6]

Gem--It sounds like you arbitrarily claim that there is this space and that space. Don't don't prove it or explain why.

Sounds like your asking me why there is space i. why does space exist. That is differrent from asking for a proof that space exists.

Both seem like ridiculous questions, however, if you must, do a search for definitions of word space.

Here is the top of my google search list:
.."noun: space

1. 1.
   a continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied.".....

If you still need proof that space exists, then you may need help beyond what I can offer....

It's up to you to have rational logic. I can't see a process of logic, let alone question or find error in it.

If you have no rational, logical or common sense questions regarding my comments as stated, then, I can only assume you understand them enough to consider them valid.

If you still need a proof of some comment by me, then you will have to be specify what comment. Above I address the word space at your specific request.

. . . . primary, 4 dot scenario, that meet your specific criteria lead to a regular/symmetrical tetra{4}hedron ergo;

12 surface angles{ V }

6 lines-of-relationship{ ___ }

4 vertexes{ Y }

4 triangles{ /\ }

and division of Universe into three parts;
1) all of the Universe inside the tetrahedron,
2) all of the Universe outside the tetrahedron,
3) the small part of tetrahedron that defines/composes the tetrahedron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A 2ndary set of the above 4 dot scenario that does not meet your criteria--- ergo beyond your specific and less stringent ---is the subdivided triangle I previously posted link too, and, a irregular tetra{4}hedron.
. . . . 2ndary, 4 dot scenario

Any rational, logical, common sense questions?

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Sounds like your asking me why there is space i. why does space exist. That is differrent from asking for a proof that space exists.

Both seem like ridiculous questions, however, if you must, do a search for definitions of word space.

Dot theory explains space as a function of equal relation. The arrangements of 2,3 or 4 dots aren't 'different things'. The merely show that equal relation isn't a static chronology or other sort of linear function. One has to consider equal relation as a simultaneity. Space then is a discrete minimal quanta by virtue of equal relation. Not as a 4 dot tet, but as a function of equal relation. I don't just presume a space and say within this space there is a dot. Space is a function of the relationships themselves, and not prior.

Here is the top of my google search list:
.."noun: space

1. 1.
   a continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied.".....

If you still need proof that space exists, then you may need help beyond what I can offer....

Yep, I thought it sounded like you arbitrarily declare space.

If you have no rational, logical or common sense questions regarding my comments as stated, then, I can only assume you understand them enough to consider them valid.

You didn't provide a logical framework, and I can't question your logic simply because none was provided. Dot theory provided a logic, and you questioned and argued it, but I was able to point out in several ways that the dots were in equal relation and the spaces in each scenario weren't dividable. Once 5 dots are related as closely as possible, space is, not exactly divisible, but there is a line of relationship intersecting it.

If you still need a proof of some comment by me, then you will have to be specify what comment. Above I address the word space at your specific request.

You define a words. You invent a unique jargon such as 'metaphysical space (1)' (sorry if I didn't colour code it correctly) and then arbitrarlity define that term. I can accept the definition as you state it, no problem, but defining terms is not a process of logic.

. . . .

primary, 4 dot scenario, that meet your specific criteria lead to a regular/symmetrical tetra{4}hedron ergo;

12 surface angles{ V }

6 lines-of-relationship{ ___ }

4 vertexes{ Y }

4 triangles{ /\ }

and division of Universe into three parts;
1) all of the Universe inside the tetrahedron,
2) all of the Universe outside the tetrahedron,
3) the small part of tetrahedron that defines/composes the tetrahedron.

Ok, in this case a space is presumed prior. Dot theory shows space as a function of equal relation. There is no inside or outside. The function itself expresses within itself 'a quanta of space'.

George Spencer Brown made a simple representation on 'inside' and 'outside'. He called it 'the mark'. The mark was this shape:



He describes the 'marked state' as being inside and the 'unmarked state' as outside. It's the simplest representation to demark inside from outside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A 2ndary set of the above 4 dot scenario that does not meet your criteria--- ergo beyond your specific and less stringent ---is the subdivided triangle I previously posted link too, and, a irregular tetra{4}hedron.
. . . . 2ndary, 4 dot scenario

It's possibe for 3 or 4 dots to be in equal relation. Obviously they don't have be in equal relation, but they can be.

Any rational, logical, common sense questions?

r6

No, your geometry is irrefutably correct.

[r6r6]

Gem--- Space then is a discrete minimal quanta by virtue of equal relation.

No non-occupied space exists irrrespective of dots or relationship.

Not as a 4 dot tet, but as a function of equal relation. I don't just presume a space and say within this space there is a dot. Space is a function of the relationships themselves, and not prior.

Non-occupied space is not a function. Why you think it is a function is beyond me.

Yep, I thought it sounded like you arbitrarily declare space.

It is one definition of space and has nothing to do with relationship.

You didn't provide a logical framework, and I can't question your logic simply because none was provided.

I would say the opposite is true, I provide rational, logical common sense and you provide little in regards to existence of space, whether occupied or not.

Dot theory provided a logic, and you questioned and argued it, but I was able to point out in several ways that the dots were in equal relation and the spaces in each scenario weren't dividable.

Space is divisible. Why you think your 2, 3 , 4 dot scenario is not divisible makes no sense to me.

Once 5 dots are related as closely as possible, space is, not exactly divisible, but there is a line of relationship intersecting it.

Space division begins with a triangle ergo 3 dots, or corners or 3 yippions or and 3 lines of relationship. A 4th dot divides that internal space into 3 spaces within the larger space.

You define a words.

Yes, we all define words and use dictionary as the basis for our use of word definitions.

You invent a unique jargon such as 'metaphysical space (1)' (sorry if I
didn't colour code it correctly) and then arbitrarlity define that term.

Ive never color coded the term metapysical-1, and so what if I do color code a word. It is not a problem.

My defintion of metaphysical-1 based on dictionary Many words in dictionary have differrent meanings and they will be numerically listed, 1, 2, 3 etc......so I use metaphysical-1 definition to distingush it from metaphysical-2.

I clearly give defintions of all my use of metaphysical word differrentiation. There is no problem in doing so that I can see

I can accept the definition as you state it, no problem, but defining terms is not a process of logic.

I think your making and illogical irrational and not common sense statement here above in stating metaphysical-1 is not logical. Your saying something is not of a process of logic does not make so.

Ok, in this case a space is presumed prior. Dot theory shows space as a function of equal relation. There is no inside or outside. The function itself expresses within itself 'a quanta of space'.

Your 3 or more dots or any 3 or more dots of Universe, define specific space aka an area, and specifically a triangle.

George Spencer Brown made a simple representation on 'inside' and 'outside'. He called it 'the mark'. The mark was this shape:

2D triangle and 3D tetrahedron divided all of Universe into thtree parts;

inside, outside and the little part that does the definning. This rational, logical common sense and easily understandable to a 10 year old. imho

He describes the 'marked state' as being inside and the 'unmarked state' as outside. It's the simplest representation to demark inside from outside.

His definition is meaningless to me and certainly does not create inside and outside. Triangle and tetrahedron are the primary shapes/forms/patterns/geometries that shape space.

Gem, your the one who is lacking in simple rational, logical and common sense with some of your commments. imho.

When you have some rational, logical common sense comments that actually invalidated my comments as stated, I would love to hear them.

My given for 4 dots hold as stated . . . .

No, your geometry is irrefutably correct.

I rest my case as stated, that is rational, logical, common sense facts.

Some of yours are not fact, rational, logical or common sense. imho

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

No non-occupied space exists irrrespective of dots or relationship.

That what you say.

Non-occupied space is not a function. Why you think it is a function is beyond me.

It is one definition of space and has nothing to do with relationship.

That's arbitrary as a definition.

I would say the opposite is true, I provide rational, logical common sense and you provide little in regards to existence of space, whether occupied or not.

Dot theory shows space as a function of equal relation. I don't say 'there's space'. I say equal relation is a dynamic situation and space is a facet of that function.

Space is divisible. Why you think your 2, 3 , 4 dot scenario is not divisible makes no sense to me.

I already explained. If you have 3 dots in eq. triangle arrangement you can divide that space unless you add another dot. In equal relations there are no lines of relationship that intersect the space.

Space division begins with a triangle ergo 3 dots, or corners or 3 yippions or and 3 lines of relationship. A 4th dot divides that internal space into 3 spaces within the larger space.

That's right. The 3 dot relation can not divide space - you have to add a fourth dot. The fourth dot can also be places in equal relation (eq. tet), whereupon you can't intersect the space. When you add the fifth dot, you can not place them in equal relation, and space you can inevitably intersect space.

Yes, we all define words and use dictionary as the basis for our use of word definitions.

I have no issue with definitions, but they are arbitrary, not logical. Dot theory shows space as a facet of relation, using logic.

Ive never color coded the term metapysical-1, and so what if I do color code a word. It is not a problem.

Not a problem. It's arbitrarily defined. I understand the definition, but I can't question it's logic, because there is no logic.

My defintion of metaphysical-1 based on dictionary Many words in dictionary have differrent meanings and they will be numerically listed, 1, 2, 3 etc......so I use metaphysical-1 definition to distingush it from metaphysical-2.

So the definitions are arbitrary. You simply name is and define the word.

I clearly give defintions of all my use of metaphysical word differrentiation. There is no problem in doing so that I can see
I think your making and illogical irrational and not common sense statement here above in stating metaphysical-1 is not logical. Your saying something is not of a process of logic does not make so.

You just said you defined it, and that's arbitrary, not logic. Can't you even tell when you use arbitrary definitions? Like for dot theory, a dot is arbitrarily defined. How one dot relates to another, however, is not arbitrary; that's just how relations are in nature. This is where logic comes in the form of geometry constrained by the limitations of what is possible and what is not. I only define dots arbitrarily (using mathematical definition of a point).

Your 3 or more dots or any 3 or more dots of Universe, define specific space aka an area, and specifically a triangle.

exactly. The trianglular, along with linear and tetrahedral
are used to represent equal relation. (as the dots are in equal relation in all three scenarios).

2D triangle and 3D tetrahedron divided all of Universe into thtree parts;

For the nth time, the space can not be intersected in any way when dots are arranged in equal relation!

inside, outside and the little part that does the definning. This rational, logical common sense and easily understandable to a 10 year old. imho

You can not intersect space when dots are in equal relation so you can not demark space in any shape of form whatsoever. There is no way.

His definition is meaningless to me and certainly does not create inside and outside. Triangle and tetrahedron are the primary shapes/forms/patterns/geometries that shape space.

George Spencer Brown wrote The laws of Form: a Calculus by Distinction. One of the most meaningful albeit controversial works in mathematics.

Gem, your the one who is lacking in simple rational, logical and common sense with some of your commments. imho.

On the contrary. Dot theory is geometrically precise. The only arbitrary definition is a dot (what math calls a point). The geometry is a representation for a concept.

When you have some rational, logical common sense comments that actually invalidated my comments as stated, I would love to hear them.

I can't question the logic of arbitrary definitions. I agree your geometry is correct.

My given for 4 dots hold as stated . . . .



I rest my case as stated, that is rational, logical, common sense facts.

Some of yours are not fact, rational, logical or common sense. imho

r6

Nope. Every argument you made in regards to my geometric representation has been refuted.

[r6r6]

Gem---That what you say.

YEah for sure it is what I say. I cant speak for anyone else.

That's arbitrary as a definition.

Your arbitrary concerns are irrelevatn to truth/fact and rational logical common sense that Ive made great pains to clearly explain.

Dot theory shows space as a function of equal relation. I don't say 'there's space'. I say equal relation is a dynamic situation and space is a facet of that function.

Space exists whether you can say it or not. Why you cant accept the existence of space makes no sense to me.

I have no issue with definitions, but they are arbitrary, not logical. Dot theory shows space as a facet of relation, using logic.

I think your having problems with definitions, and rational logical common sense that have taken pains to clearly and specifically address all of your concerns that are relevant significance.

Not a problem. It's arbitrarily defined. I understand the definition, but I can't question it's logic, because there is no logic.
So the definitions are arbitrary. You simply name is and define the word.

Thats what you say. I disagree.

You just said you defined it, and that's arbitrary, not logic. Can't you even tell when you use arbitrary definitions?

Most if not all of the definitions have a basis in definitions in dictionaries, so again, your arbitrary concerns are irrelevant and insignificant. imho

You can not intersect space when dots are in equal relation so you can not demark space in any shape of form whatsoever. There is no way.
George Spencer Brown wrote The laws of Form: a Calculus by Distinction. One of the most meaningful albeit controversial works in mathematics.

Yeah we got that some emails back. Were beyond that now. At least I am and have given additional information that makes clearly for other readers what exactly exists that seperates where your 4 dot scenarios end, others begin.


Yours ends at a regular triangle and regular tetrahedron.

Others also contain your 4 dots and go beyond ergo irregular triangle and irregular tetrahedron continues on after your limited set ends and Ive made a few posts now that make a clear demarkation between the two.

I can't question the logic of arbitrary definitions. I agree your geometry is correct.

You appear to indirectly question everything Ive stated as having validity because it is all some how arbitrary. At least in your mind only. imho

r6