what exactly is the law of duailty?

[Robinski78]

I seem to have come into this discussion at a late stage, whereby the original request - that regarding the law of duality - seems to has been moved sideways, being replaced by the subject of dualism...

Don't know a great deal about either, but in the brief research I have done, it appears to me, that the law of duality, pertains to the sum total of two differences, applicable to a single item/feature - call it what you will - at any given time or place...

The plus or minus of a sense; that of a coin: which starts with the head and tail then takes into account, everything in between that goes to make the entire, single object... The duality of heat and cold... An object/person can be either one or the other, but it's still only one object/person...

In a nutshell, it's the differential(s) that can or do occur, at some stage or the other, which brings about a difference in value, between the respective plus or minus points within a spectrum of being or representation...

Or have I lost the plot somewhere???

Sorry to have moved the goalposts slightly, but I was enjoying the original aspect and wondered if such was still open for discussion…

If not, I'll leave it at that and move on…

Robbie....

[r6r6]

Gem--I'm saying that a property is derived by distinction, then differentiation, each distinction, therefore, results in two different quantities.

Distinction/differrentiation/contrast appear to me to be so close to each they can almost be synonyms.

Ok, so you have clearly changed your original claims of minimal four properties of the law-of-dulism to only;

1} two properties,
..1a} your given color( frequency value ) and,
..1b} size( value-# )

We could even give size value a label of a bit value as in a bit-of-infomation. Maybe color can also be a bit-of-information, tho it may take more than one bit-of-energy/physical to express either property's/aspects value.

Since two simultaneous distinctins are required to conceive the dot, two properties (colour ans size) manifest, and each of these properties have to quantities. Therefore, 4 quantifiable properties are emergent.

Distinct/differrent/contrast:

1} background finite occupied space somethingness( value-2 ) or infinite non-occupied space as nothingness( value-oo )

2} foreground finite somethingness occupied space( value-2 )

I mean there is no manifest dualism because each component of the contrasting principle already have 2 properties each.

On-off
...value-1...value-0.......

active-inactive
...more value...less value.....

animate-inanimate
...somethingness/nothingnes.....

concave-convex
....integrative focus effect...distintegrave dispersive effect....

We can arbitrarily assign size, but size is also a relative facet, and as Planck showed, size is actually a constant discrete quantity. I also portray this discrete quantity in my model (three must possibly exist within unoccupied space, but the mind requires a four way comparison to derive any information (a binary code).

Finite occupied space Universe, does not cannot have a relative aspect except to some part of itself, or the infinite non-occupied space that embraces it.

I.e. Our finite occupied spaceUniverse for all practical matters, Universe is only relative to itself or any of its parts individually or collectively.

Ive yet to see clearly what threeness is that you keep mentioning.

Makes no difference, the background already has two properties. It's necessarily already a something. It appears as one thing to the mind, but it consists of two (discernible) properties. (More interestingly is it's inherent possibility to entail a relationship of three quantities beyond the mind's formal ability...)

Again, Ive yet to see clearly if at all what threeness is that you keep mentioning.

Two properties( color and size ) of law-of-dualism as you appear to now have conceded. Threeness not explain with clarity. imho

Two properties and four quantities. Four quantifiable properties.

1) color of foreground dot

2) foreground, finite occupied space dot/point/very short-line ergo implied/inferred size value,

3) background finite or infinite non-occupied space of nothingness with size value inferred/implied

4) color of background nothingness or somethingness

It's a comparison between tick and tock that derives the information, and these have two properties (amplitude and frequency) and four quantities (amp/freq of tick and amp/freq of tock)

I'm not having concave only, you will require four quantities at least to concieve any contrasting principle and each contrasting principle will consist of two properties and four differing quantities.

When you suggest only the consideration of on/active or off/inactive, within a inherent binary systems is indeed likened to your only considering concave aspect of curved line.

Not sure why you cannot see that with clarity.

The concave/convex model has several properties and quantities since it is more complex than a point in space.

Weel you conceded on only two properties with your dot/point scenarion, so now lets see if you can get you to acknowledge the duality of binary and curved line scenarios.

I.e you do not yet concede a inherent dualism iin these last two replies you appear to jump--- leap over --- from only being considerate of either concave, or convex and on or off, ergo only one value or property, too wanting consider three or more properties curved line.

What happen to you consideration of twoness? ;--D twoness.

( = concave-convex

O = concave-convex


Exactly. Two properties means you have four quantities. Each contrasting principle has two properties and two quantities.

Again, at least your now conceding a twoness of properties not fourness of properties. Quantity has its own duality.

1} Quantity( occupied space ),

2) non-qunatity( non-occupied space )

the model contains two properties and four quantities... what we perceive as 'two things' requires this measure... so what we see as contrasting principles is not actually a duality.

I agree four or more quantities but not four properties, and that is all ive tried to get is clarity from you regarding your four properties, over these last 4-8 back-n-forth messages. Based on you given scenario we have settled that issue of two properties only.

Now were working on your leap from consideration of only 1/2 of a inherently integrated whole binary system and and inherently integrated whole two propteries/aspects of a curved line.

r6





It's simply two properties and foru quantities... that is, if you perceive two properties, you perceive at a minimum, four quantities[/quote]

[r6r6]

HI Robin, seems to me they are inherently and intimately related i.e. if and when any of us can agree, that, a there does indeed exist a cosmic law-of-dulaity, it will certainly be related to any current and ongoing disscussions.

If are stating what the law of duality is, I'm not clear on exactly which of your sentences is specifically that law-of-duality.

If you can just state the law and specify it for us, that would help me to have a base-of-reference to disscuss any alleged law-of-duality by you or others.

For me, any alledged law-of-duality will have some self-evident basis like a law-of-existence i.e. I think about something( brain ) via a something( nervous system ) ergo I am. :--)

r6

Originally Posted by Robinski78

I seem to have come into this discussion at a late stage, whereby the original request - that regarding the law of duality - seems to has been moved sideways, being replaced by the subject of dualism...

Don't know a great deal about either, but in the brief research I have done, it appears to me, that the law of duality, pertains to the sum total of two differences, applicable to a single item/feature - call it what you will - at any given time or place...

The plus or minus of a sense; that of a coin: which starts with the head and tail then takes into account, everything in between that goes to make the entire, single object... The duality of heat and cold... An object/person can be either one or the other, but it's still only one object/person...

In a nutshell, it's the differential(s) that can or do occur, at some stage or the other, which brings about a difference in value, between the respective plus or minus points within a spectrum of being or representation...

Or have I lost the plot somewhere???

Sorry to have moved the goalposts slightly, but I was enjoying the original aspect and wondered if such was still open for discussion…

If not, I'll leave it at that and move on…

Robbie....

[Gem]

I originally used the term 'quantifiable properties', so nothing changed but I just reworded it for your convenience.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Distinction/differrentiation/contrast appear to me to be so close to each they can almost be synonyms.

Prolly.

Ok, so you have clearly changed your original claims of minimal four properties of the law-of-dulism to only;

1} two properties,
..1a} your given color( frequency value ) and,
..1b} size( value-# )

We could even give size value a label of a bit value as in a bit-of-infomation. Maybe color can also be a bit-of-information, tho it may take more than one bit-of-energy/physical to express either property's/aspects value.

I don't know what a bit of information actually is.

Distinct/differrent/contrast:

1} background finite occupied space somethingness( value-2 ) or infinite non-occupied space as nothingness( value-oo )

2} foreground finite somethingness occupied space( value-2 )



On-off
...value-1...value-0.......

active-inactive
...more value...less value.....

animate-inanimate
...somethingness/nothingnes.....

concave-convex
....integrative focus effect...distintegrave dispersive effect....



Finite occupied space Universe, does not cannot have a relative aspect except to some part of itself, or the infinite non-occupied space that embraces it.

I.e. Our finite occupied spaceUniverse for all practical matters, Universe is only relative to itself or any of its parts individually or collectively.

Ive yet to see clearly what threeness is that you keep mentioning.




Again, Ive yet to see clearly if at all what threeness is that you keep mentioning.

Two properties( color and size ) of law-of-dualism as you appear to now have conceded. Threeness not explain with clarity. imho


1) color of foreground dot

2) foreground, finite occupied space dot/point/very short-line ergo implied/inferred size value,

3) background finite or infinite non-occupied space of nothingness with size value inferred/implied

4) color of background nothingness or somethingness





When you suggest only the consideration of on/active or off/inactive, within a inherent binary systems is indeed likened to your only considering concave aspect of curved line.

Not sure why you cannot see that with clarity.


Weel you conceded on only two properties with your dot/point scenarion, so now lets see if you can get you to acknowledge the duality of binary and curved line scenarios.

I.e you do not yet concede a inherent dualism iin these last two replies you appear to jump--- leap over --- from only being considerate of either concave, or convex and on or off, ergo only one value or property, too wanting consider three or more properties curved line.

What happen to you consideration of twoness? ;--D twoness.

( = concave-convex

O = concave-convex


Exactly. Two properties means you have four quantities. Each contrasting principle has two properties and two quantities.

Again, at least your now conceding a twoness of properties not fourness of properties. Quantity has its own duality.

1} Quantity( occupied space ),

2) non-qunatity( non-occupied space )




I agree four or more quantities but not four properties, and that is all ive tried to get is clarity from you regarding your four properties, over these last 4-8 back-n-forth messages. Based on you given scenario we have settled that issue of two properties only.

Now were working on your leap from consideration of only 1/2 of a inherently integrated whole binary system and and inherently integrated whole two propteries/aspects of a curved line.

r6





It's simply two properties and foru quantities... that is, if you perceive two properties, you perceive at a minimum, four quantities

[/quote]

The threeness is derived from the dot model that has four different quantities. if you remove a single quantity from either the dot or the space, you can't conceive a dot in space, this leaves a conceptual space that entails three possible quantities...

of course the conceptual space does have two properties, the size and colour that existed in the dot model.

[Robinski78]

Well r6... In all honesty, I suppose one could attribute a connection between the two elements referred to although I still find it somewhat unlikely, with duality, being the change(s) that can take place, within one essential part and dualism, indicating a system which contains two essential parts…
The above being what brief research revealed… But I don’t want to dwell on this...

Albeit there is something that can be accepted as a ‘LAW’ I think the following ‘slightly revamped’ sentence is the closest I can get to answering your request...

In a nutshell, duality refers to the differential(s) that can or do take place (at some stage or the other) which brings about a change in value, between the respective plus or minus/negative or positive points: within a spectrum of representation or being…

Hopefully, that will explain where I’m coming from, although if not, I’ll quietly retire from the discussion… Don’t want to prolong the eventual outcome of this engrossing topic...

Robbie....

[r6r6]

Robinski---[size="1"]Well r6... In all honesty, I suppose one could attribute a connection between the two elements referred to

"two elements"? What two elemetnts. You lost me here Robin.

although I still find it somewhat unlikely, with duality, being the change(s) that can take place, within one essential part and dualism, indicating a system which contains two essential parts…
The above being what brief research revealed… But I don’t want to dwell on this...

You've lost me here also. Is your law-of-duality above somewhere?

Albeit there is something that can be accepted as a ‘LAW’ I think the following ‘slightly revamped’ sentence is the closest I can get to answering your request...
In a nutshell, duality refers to the differential(s) that can or do take place (at some stage or the other) which brings about a change in value, between the respective plus or minus/negative or positive points: within a spectrum of representation or being…

Oh ok, so that is your law-of-duality. I still dont get the details on your above is how your "duality" is that much from any dualism Gem and I were disscussing.

I think for clarities sake, it would be best if you could give example of differrentials that bring about a change in value, and any dualisms of binary, convex-convex etc.....

You appear to make it sound that law-of-duality is really the law-of change. I dunno, that is just what I glean from your above(s).

Hopefully, that will explain where I’m coming from, although if not, I’ll quietly retire from the discussion… Don’t want to prolong the eventual outcome of this engrossing topic...Robbie....

No none here asking you to retire. That would be of your choosing. I just like to have clarity, specifics, examples and analogys to helpt better understand exactly what is meant.

r6

[Gem]

To me, it doesn't matter what two elements particularly, it's just element x and element y, which have arbitrary qualities/properties. As differentiating them requires comparing them, we already know that they are interdefining, regardless of what they are in particular. That's a more abstract thought process than specifying, and even a specific example would only be a representation used to portray the principle itself.

Even what people say can be a matter of interpretation more than exactly what they mean, as their terms take on meaning by context more than they are words with highy specific meanings.

Sometimes a great deal of rigour is needed for highly specified information, but other times, the specifics don't matter as much as the general gist of it, and more reflective mindset is required to understand what's being communicated.

[Morpheus]

"What is the Matrix? - Control."

[r6r6]

Space-1 = concept{ mind/intellect } thereof that is left to interpretation until specified with contextual definition and/or examples thereof. Has no property ergo untainted and can never have a property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Space-2 --has no property but can become occupied ergo tainted with a property.

The actual non-occupied space that embraces our finite occupied space Universe, in of itself, with no other context may only infer/imply macro-micro infinite non-occupied space ergo true nothingness, the true void.

This is the scenario that has existed in complement with the Big Bang scenario of our finite Universe that came from a true nothingnesss/non-occupied space{ NOT }.

This definition of space is a space that has no properties, no finite value rather only and infiinite value--- so not really a value imho --and once again invokes the concept of a dualistic twoness, as 180 degree opposite directions, macro/OUT, and micro/IN.

Space-3
Quasi-occupied space i.e. invisible space between celestrial objects-- ex Earth and moon ---or between bed and chester drawers, or two cars i.e. and empty parking space. Space-3 is occupied by air molecules and/or electro-magnetic radiation etc type invisible to naked eye phenomena.


Space-4

Visibly occupied space ex Earth, moon, house, auto, bed, human.

Gem--The threeness is derived from the dot model that has four different quantities. if you remove a single quantity from either the dot or the space, you can't conceive a dot in space, this leaves a conceptual space that entails three possible quantities...

of course the conceptual space does have two properties, the size and colour that existed in the dot model.

[Gem]

The space which can become occupied already contains the properties that constrain the dimensions of the form that can occupy it.

I don't speak of space-1 because... well, whats there to say?

It must be space-2, which can be occupied, that entails the aforementioned constraints. That means one can not make a four cornered equalateral shape in 2D space, for example.

This is because the origin point only appears in relation to the 4 quantities I previously mentioned.

Therefore space 2 contains properties or quantities which are not formative to the mind, but proved to exist upon the conception of the origin point.

Space-3 is the space that has dimension as it exists between points. It more obviously dimensionally constrained, but that constraint pre-existed the introduction of points to the model, and was inherent in space-2 itself.

Space-4... that which we visibly see is in itself 99.999% space and consists of point like particles.

The spacial constraints I mentioned, are not inherent in the space itself per se, but a facet of space as conceived of under the formal limitations of the mind, and I think it's important to remain mindful of the fact that geometry isn't the study of form itself, but the study of form as it is conceived of, or perceived as, by the mind.