what exactly is the law of duailty?

I would say this place exists as paradox. It is a finite space with an infinite number of viewpoints. Anything can be observed yet not be completely seen. Every particle is in motion relative to everything else yet one exists as a point in space observing everything moving around.

The whole thing is set up as a motion machine that only operates when you put in your dime, in effect when you perceive it.

This all has the effect of a marvelous game that so long as one stays inside cannot be completely figured out. One has fun at Disneyland because all the pieces of the rides are not visible.

So everything has an inherent duality if you choose to see it. You don't have to. Which is another duality.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by KevinO

I would say this place exists as paradox. It is a finite space with an infinite number of viewpoints. Anything can be observed yet not be completely seen. Every particle is in motion relative to everything else yet one exists as a point in space observing everything moving around.

The whole thing is set up as a motion machine that only operates when you put in your dime, in effect when you perceive it.

This all has the effect of a marvelous game that so long as one stays inside cannot be completely figured out. One has fun at Disneyland because all the pieces of the rides are not visible.

So everything has an inherent duality if you choose to see it. You don't have to. Which is another duality.

We really have to assume 'the dime effect' because the only validation that there is a universe is the conscious perception of it. In my own theorising I operate on the premise that our study of form (geometry) is not actually the study of dimension and objects, but the study of perception. It suggests that there are no 'actual' objects, and deals with the nature of subjectivity, leading to an 'uncertainty principle' that can't be reconciled by formal thought.

[r6r6]

What is possible is limited by finite occupied space Universe and finite set of cosmic laws/princples.

Those who state, that, anything is possible, do not understand the concept of integrity, finite and systemic. imho

Eternally existent perpetual-motion-machine Universe, existed before I became cognizant of it.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed ergo existent irrespective of human consciousness.

We are cognizant of dawning awareness of anticpatory future and a fading past.

>>>>>forward >>>conceptual arrow-of-time>>>>>>>>>>>

<<<flow-of-time<<past<[color="Purple"])|([/COLOR
]<<<future<<<<<<
>>>>>forward>>>>conceptual arrow-of-time>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

)|( = 2D cross-section, bisection of time, reality, energy/physical existence.


)(* * )( * * )( * * )( * * )(

Originally Posted by Gem

We really have to assume 'the dime effect' because the only validation that there is a universe is the conscious perception of it. In my own theorising I operate on the premise that our study of form (geometry) is not actually the study of dimension and objects, but the study of perception. It suggests that there are no 'actual' objects, and deals with the nature of subjectivity, leading to an 'uncertainty principle' that can't be reconciled by formal thought.

I very much agree that the study is of perception and all perception is subjective. I suggest that one can postulate a "basic" universe that has a stable gravity effect, of particles held in equidistant space, as in a gel, and another universe that we affect by perception, creating the galaxies and solar systems and immediate motion. Both universes exist in the now.
At least that's how I see it.

[hybrid]

duality was originally proposed by Descartes.
that is the distinction between the body and mind.
today duality can be applied to anything where boundary conditions exist.

.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by Gem

We really have to assume 'the dime effect' because the only validation that there is a universe is the conscious perception of it. In my own theorising I operate on the premise that our study of form (geometry) is not actually the study of dimension and objects, but the study of perception. It suggests that there are no 'actual' objects, and deals with the nature of subjectivity, leading to an 'uncertainty principle' that can't be reconciled by formal thought.

objects exists. this is easy to qualify.
its how objects will appear from one's perspective that is technically dependent on perception.

i dont know how subjectivity can lead to Uncertainly principle. AFAIK, not knowing all the property of objects at the same time is an inherent property of quantum systems and not some lack of our ability to know.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by hybrid

objects exists. this is easy to qualify.
its how objects will appear from one's perspective that is technically dependent on perception.

i dont know how subjectivity can lead to Uncertainly principle. AFAIK, not knowing all the property of objects at the same time is an inherent property of quantum systems and not some lack of our ability to know.

They can't be qualified, they are a given assumed upon the basis of perception. Otherwise, please explain how they are verified.

Subjectivity is based in uncertainty, like we don't really know what red is... there is only technical information such as wavelengths and the experience of it as qualia.

Quantum mechanics is also based in uncertainty and only explicable by probability.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by KevinO

I very much agree that the study is of perception and all perception is subjective. I suggest that one can postulate a "basic" universe that has a stable gravity effect, of particles held in equidistant space, as in a gel, and another universe that we affect by perception, creating the galaxies and solar systems and immediate motion. Both universes exist in the now.
At least that's how I see it.

Just because perception is a fundamental to knowing the universe doesn't mean the universe can be any old how. I theorise that perception entails process of distinction, so as you pay attention to something you begin to notice finer details of it. It's not like you create those extra refinements, you only notice them upon further examination.

The process of distinction one of division, breaking things down in finer details and noticing more subtle nuances... so yeah, it's fundamentally dualistic, but the uncertainty is based on the fact that a primary distinction doesn't result in two things... because two things alone do not provide enough information for the mind to differentiate between them.

In my own theorising I define the universe as the space in which thoughts occur, that simplifies things quite a bit and it isn't necessary to categorise matter and thoughts separately in this case.

[r6r6]

2D here and now < OUT )|( IN <

Tangentals of past and future define here and now, with a minimal closed triangle to maximal closed circle as the 2D cross-section, bisection we conceptually assign as the only absolute true reality to be existent, since future is not here and now, and past is not here and now.

At best, our cognizance is an intersecting set of 2D bisections of reality/physical/energy, that, we entertain as a wonderful 3D illusion of recall of past and anticipation of a future to come.

/\/\ = frequency of 4 cross-sectional plane of reality

XX = 4 cross-sectional planes of reality

< )|( < )|( < )|( < )|( < = 4 cross-sectional planes of reality tangent to past and future

Geometrical space's perfect of vectors--- lines-of-relationship as vectors ---equlibrium occurs, with the 6 squares and 8 triangles as the faces of the asyymetrical, cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron, that can be defined by, its potentially existent, 4 equalaterally bisecting, great planes.

These internal 4 great planes surface area are slighlty more than the convex surface area of the polyhedron, however, Archimedes disovered, that if the 4 planes are circles, then the both the convex surface area and the 4 great planes have the exact same surface area.

There are two sides to each of the internal planes, and there is two sides-- convex and concave --of the polyhedron we using called the cubo-octahedron aka vector Equilibrium.

This next link shows a 60 degree coordinate, tetra{4}hedron, going to zero volume---think black hole singularity type ideas ---while maintaining its four surface planes, and we see that eventually defines the cubo-octahedron--- with 4 cross-sectional hexa{6}gonal planes.

And extended external to polyhedron is the 4 triangle wing tips. I like to think of those as EMRadiation that is evaporating from a black hole as it goes toward singularity of as the zero-volume tetrahedron.

r6

>>>>>forward >>>conceptually linear arrow-of-time>>>>>>>>>
<<flow-of-time<<past<< out )|( IN << future<<<<<<<<
>>>forward>>>conceptually linear > arrow-of-time >>>>>>>>>
)|( = 2D cross-section, bisection of time, reality, energy/physical existence.
)(* * )( * * )( * * )( * * )(

[quote=Gem]Just because perception is a fundamental to knowing the universe doesn't mean the universe can be any old how. I theorise that perception entails process of distinction, so as you pay attention to something you begin to notice finer details of it. It's not like you create those extra refinements, you only notice them upon further examination.

I would say the universe can and is any old thing subject to the limit of creation. I don't know that limit but suspect it is pretty broad. I agree that any old thing across multiple viewpoints must be accurate. In other words in an incident where a camera shows one particularity and 20 bystanders tell 20 different particularities, the camera wins.
However to solve this universe one may need all 20 viewpoints. This place is not what the camera sees but what all see. My viewpoint, anyway.
I also think we co-create, with God, (or Full Awareness or whatever you want to call it) what we see, on an individual basis, so all refinement is creation as well as refinement.