Relative to: a relational equality

[Riboflavin]

Points don't exist.

I was talking about the impossibility of any two particles being exactly the same, or equal, hence the impossibility of equal points. Basically individuations of a single thing. etc. I suppose it doesn't really matter though except in how one looks at things.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Riboflavin

I was talking about the impossibility of any two particles being exactly the same, or equal, hence the impossibility of equal points. Basically individuations of a single thing etc. I suppose it doesn't really matter though except in how one looks at things.

Yep, there are no points in fact, and it's entirely on how one looks at things; however, this philosophy does explain factual things through its representations.

[Riboflavin]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yep, there are no points in fact, and it's entirely on how one looks at things; however, this philosophy does explain factual things through its representations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx31y1KKK3E -2:30

Also a case for predeterminism. Which I think were you suggesting in your first post.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Riboflavin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx31y1KKK3E -2:30

Also a case for predeterminism. Which I think were you suggesting in your first post.

Ok thanks. I watched both parts.

Yep. Predeterminism. I think the difference is, dot theory doesn't presuppose space by 'god making a sphere', it shows space as a function of 'equal relation'. The other thing dot theory does that Sacred Geometry does not is, dot theory shows how 5 dots can only express 2 different relations, yet that also comes in two possible configurations:





or alternatively:



The latter shape, which is the more 'stable' of the two (using imaginary gravity dots would arrange in latter formation), expresses two different relations (different distances between vertices). This isn't included in sacred geometry either.

If one considers my dots to be circles or spheres, then dot theory is similar to Sacred Geometry, though in dot theory, form begins its distinction with the 5 dot relation. Sacred geometry misses this step.


When we come to the 6 dot relation we have the octrahedron, which then puts us back in step with Sacred Geometry:



Note, this is two '5 dot pyramids' stuck together and it expresses 3 relations.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Ok, just means its time for me to move on from this thread.
Mother exists before/prior to child.
Trees exist before/prior to lumber.
Air pumps exist before/prior to a ball filled with air
Steam engine exists before/prior to gas engine.
Walking exists prior/before running, riding bicycle, climbing trees etc...
r6

Dot as philosophical representation of mother, trees, air, stream, walking etc.....all are prior to dot as representation of another event, as shown above.

Cause > effect

A dot > B dot when we recite our ABC's. most often.

Some letters probably came into existence in language before others.

Same with words.

Same with concepts.

Fuller states that, the first spoken word, most likely came about from some dire set of circumstances.....I use the following example....a person i sinking in quicksand and sees some passing by nearby, so they shout, ...hey dude, can you HELP me out of here....ha, ha of course I exaggerated, but you get the gist of it.

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Dot as philosophical representation of mother, trees, air, stream, walking etc.....all are prior to dot as representation of another event, as shown above.

Not exactly. The dots are only used as representations to portray the underlying concept. The concept is, a thing only exists as a relationship, and since different numbers of dots can be arranged in such a way that that any one relates equally to all others, a thing is obscured by it's different, but simultaneous, possiblities.

Cause > effect

Cause and effect are arbitrarily defined in any given interaction. If A acts on B, B reacts equally, so we can equally say B acts on A - because in that moment of interaction the same force effects both equally.

A dot > B dot when we recite our ABC's. most often.

Some letters probably came into existence in language before others.

Same with words.

Same with concepts.

Fuller states that, the first spoken word, most likely came about from some dire set of circumstances.....I use the following example....a person i sinking in quicksand and sees some passing by nearby, so they shout, ...hey dude, can you HELP me out of here....ha, ha of course I exaggerated, but you get the gist of it.

r6

I do, but fail to see its relevance to dot theory.

[r6r6]

Gem, your not really saying much of anything of significance with your concept.

You might as well be saying we have a conceptual line _____________

Line has beginning A and ending B locations and if we divide the line in half both halves are equal.

Yeah, so what?

Your concept is no differrent than saying we have a conceptual 3D sphere or 2D circle, O and if we say conceptually that is divided into two equal halves then those two halves A and B, are 2 equal. So what?

I see my comments as having more points of significance than yours over all.

Please do not take this as negative criticism, only that it has been difficult from the beginning to understand what exactly the message is your trying convey, but once we get there, I repeat so what, two halves are equal?

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Gem, your not really saying much of anything of significance with your concept.

You might as well be saying we have a conceptual line _____________

Line has beginning A and ending B locations and if we divide the line in half both halves are equal.

Yeah, so what?

I use inter-related dots, and don't mention lines. The thought experiment basically entails imagining that dots have a gravity-like force. This enables us to see that any one dot affects all others equally in the relationships I describe.

If we do replace that imaginary gravity with imaginary lines, then the distance of any dot from all the others is equal. If we assert the relationships are values by angles at vertices, again, all are equal.

The arrangements are such that any quality of relationship, be it gravity-like, distance, angular, area of face or volume will be equal. This is because the dots, as arranged, relate to each other equally. Thus my term "equal relation".

Your concept is no differrent than saying we have a conceptual 3D sphere or 2D circle, O and if we say conceptually that is divided into two equal halves then those two halves A and B, are 2 equal. So what?

Mainly, a circle is a dimensional object requiring an assumption of space. A dot is not dimensional and dot theory expresses space (doesn't assume it) as a facet of 'equal relation'.

I see my comments as having more points of significance than yours over all.

Your arguments basically attempt to say that the dots are not in equal relation, but any value type applied to the model, be it distance, angle, area of face or volume, or any other, will necessarily be a single quantity - because the dots are equally related to each other.

Please do not take this as negative criticism, only that it has been difficult from the beginning to understand what exactly the message is your trying convey, but once we get there, I repeat so what, two halves are equal?

r6

The concept itself is simple. 'One thing' is an equal relation. Dot theory shows that equal relation has various possible states, therefore 'one thing' is an obscure entity as opposed to being measurable. The theory does, however, express how space is discrete because space is a function of the relation, and not assumed prior to it.

[r6r6]

Gem---I use inter-related dots, and don't mention lines.

It is irrelevant whether you mention them or not. As Ive clearly presented previously a dot is shorter line. . and can be 2D of any shape.

____________ is longer dot ergo a line-of-relationship and specific line-of-relationship between A and B dots.

all are equal.

Yeah, read several f my posts.

The arrangements are such that any quality of relationship, be it gravity-like, distance, angular, area of face or volume will be equal. This is because the dots, as arranged, relate to each other equally. Thus my term "equal relation".

Yeah, thats what I said only using the word equal whether dots, lines-of-relationships, half circles half spheres etc....

Mainly, a circle is a dimensional object requiring an assumption of space. A dot is not dimensional and dot theory expresses space (doesn't assume it) as a facet of 'equal relation'.

Irrelevant too any two being equal ergo your more confusiing equal relations. There all equal. So what?

Your arguments basically attempt to say that the dots are not in equal relation, but any value type applied to the model, be it distance, angle, area of face or volume, or any other, will necessarily be a single quantity - because the dots are equally related to each other.

I was not offering argument, I was offerring the use of word equal only to say what your saying is true with any set of two, or in some cases more, that you I or anyone assign as being equal.

The concept itself is simple. 'One thing' is an equal relation.

Yeah, one long or short line, has two ends and two equal halves. Yeah it is simpler than you have explained it. imho ergo my use of the word equal assigned to any two halves of one thing.

For that matter you can have the word equal assigned to any number of parts of one thing being equal. So what?

Dot theory shows that equal relation has various possible states, therefore 'one thing' is an obscure entity as opposed to being measurable. The theory does, however, express how space is discrete because space is a function of the relation, and not assumed prior to it.

There is space between beginning of line-or-relationship ,dot A, and ending of line-of-relationship, dot B.

Again, Gem, it appears to me you have made what is simple and rather pointless because of lack of significance, and made it more complicated.

All parts of somethings can be concived as being equal.

Two dots....or 4 dots
Two dots as a line---ergo line-of-relationship.....or even 20 linear dots can be said assigned and all are equal status.

Two hallves of a circle....or many subdvided parts of circle can be assigned equality.

Two halves of sphere...or many subdivided parts of a sphere can be assigned equality.

So your special-case of equality is limited too dots, line, circle, sphere and one regular-only polyhedron, the regular tetra{4}hedron.

Your special-case of equality includes the only on version of tetrahedron for two reasons;

1) becuase it is regular/symmetrical,

2} because it is the only polyhedron of Universe that has its vertexes opposite its triangular faces/openings/planes/surfaces ergo it does not allow for diametric lines-of-relationship between opposing vertexes across its volume.

So that is your equality as one thing, list for your special-case set of equalities. I think that;

1) Ive elaborated upon them--added linear set of dots---

2) clarified them,

3) and simplified your labeling of equal parts of one thing.

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

It is irrelevant whether you mention them or not. As Ive clearly presented previously a dot is shorter line. . and can be 2D of any shape.

I have repeatedly explained that a dot is non-dimensional, and I have provided you the mathematical definition of a point.

____________

is longer dot ergo a line-of-relationship and specific line-of-relationship between A and B dots.

As you can see, a line segment is denoted by two end points.

Yeah, read several f my posts.


Yeah, thats what I said only using the word equal whether dots, lines-of-relationships, half circles half spheres etc....

As I just explained, one has to presume a space in order to have a sphere. A dot is not dimensional (please look up the definition of a point). In dot theory space is not preumed. Space is expressed as a function of equal relations in dot theory.

Irrelevant too any two being equal ergo your more confusiing equal relations. There all equal. So what?

So dot theory expresses various arrangements that are all 'equal relation'.

I was not offering argument, I was offerring the use of word equal only to say what your saying is true with any set of two, or in some cases more, that you I or anyone assign as being equal.

Not exactly. Indeed the use of dots is an arbitrary representation, but chosen because of their precise geometric relationships. We can't assign them as equal but we can show that they do relate equally. On the other hand, once we have more than four dots, there is no way to express them as equally related, and the model then necessitates more than, one distance and more than angle, value. This is bound by the limitations of the 3D space occupy, and is thus a fact of nature. Dot theory basically a philosophical formula about that fact

Yeah, one long or short line, has two ends and two equal halves. Yeah it is simpler than you have explained it. imho ergo my use of the word equal assigned to any two halves of one thing.

Dot theory expresses a thing. The minimum unit which can not be halved. As such, dot theory represents something which is formless, but also expresses that there is a discrete space which requires a 4 part relation. It cant be divided because the only lines of relationship between the dots are the edges. Once we have 5 dots, then the space is divisible because there is a line of relationship across the volume.

For that matter you can have the word equal assigned to any number of parts of one thing being equal. So what?

Repeat, in 2D (is simpler) the equalateral arrangement of dots can not be divided because there is no line of relationship across the area. If one did imagine a dividing line, they'd require a fourth dot. It's then possible for the fourth dot to be arranged in equal relation to the other 3 (tet) and again there is no line of relation across any face area or the volume, hence this is indivisible. To divide that one requires a 5th dot to mark the dividing line - which will inevitably enable that space to be divided.

There is space between beginning of line-or-relationship ,dot A, and ending of line-of-relationship, dot B.

A dot doesn't occupy any space because it is non-dimensional (instead of incorrectly arguing that, please look up the definition of a point) One could say that space exists between dots. This means that the 2 dot relation only permits a 1D linear space, which makes sense as the relation is a singular distance. One can presume a 2D space and curve a line segment, but without that presumption the space is defined by the relation between the dots.

Again, Gem, it appears to me you have made what is simple and rather pointless because of lack of significance, and made it more complicated.

All parts of somethings can be concived as being equal.

As I demonstrated, and then repeated several times, It is impossible to arrange 5 in equal relation. I'm glad we got passed this and have now begun to show how 5 dots necessarily requires a line through the volume of space.



Two dots....or 4 dots
Two dots as a line---ergo line-of-relationship.....or even 20 linear dots can be said assigned and all are equal status.

Two hallves of a circle....or many subdvided parts of circle can be assigned equality.

Two halves of sphere...or many subdivided parts of a sphere can be assigned equality.

So your special-case of equality is limited too dots, line, circle, sphere and one regular-only polyhedron, the regular tetra{4}hedron.

Your special-case of equality includes the only on version of tetrahedron for two reasons;

1) becuase it is regular/symmetrical,

2} because it is the only polyhedron of Universe that has its vertexes opposite its triangular faces/openings/planes/surfaces ergo it does not allow for diametric lines-of-relationship between opposing vertexes across its volume.

So that is your equality as one thing, list for your special-case set of equalities. I think that;

1) Ive elaborated upon them--added linear set of dots---

2) clarified them,

3) and simplified your labeling of equal parts of one thing.

r6[/quote]