Relative to: a relational equality

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Couldn't finish my reply earlier so now I'm back. So yes, previously I agreed that, regular tetrahedron is unique, in that its design does not allow for volumetrically diametric lines-of-relationship, because of only having 4 vertices.

I.e. we do not consider volumetric diameters, as you showed within the cube, and all other polyhedra of Universe, except the tetrahedron.




Yeah, any 2D polygon or polyhedron divides the "U"niverse or Universe into two;

...inside the polyhedron,
...outside the polyhedron.




Your A dot is beginning and is not exactly equal to B dot ending, because A is beginning and the the B is ending. In actuality/reality that would be two differrent times and two different locations.

Either A or B could the origin, it doesn't matter, all that matters is their relation.

An irregular tetrahedron does not follow your "equal relation" concept. Not that your saying it does.

Same goes for irregular triangle not having your meeting your equal relation" criteria.

r6

Indeed, but the fact remains that 2,3 or 4 dots are the only possible equal relations.

[r6r6]

Gem--"It is important to understand that a point is not a thing, but a place" (Math Open Reference). A dot represents non-dimension.

As Ive defined as metaphyscial-1 concept ergo mind/intellect. Not dimension, no temperature, no color, no mass, no weight etc.....

Again a conceptual point or dot can only be expressed mininmally as a triangular 2D area, or in 3D tetrahedron and both divide all of "U"niverse or Universe into two parts. Inside the polgon or polyhedron and outside.

It is a dimensional representation, but it's used represent 0D.

"OD"?

Yes A,B and C being dots - or 'points' if that's preferable ( I just use 'dots' because I call this philosophy 'Dot Theory'. In this philosophy, we aren't concerned with the triangular shape per-se.

If your going to express a dot, then it is minimally a 2D triangular area. This is not philosophy this factual truth.

The thought experiment is to imagine the dots have a gravity-like force and this makes it easy to visualise how they'd effect each other equally.

Your metaphysical-1 concepts of dots/points, expressed physical are combinations of fermionic matter and bosonic forces ergo gravity becomes involved.

A point is defined in mathematics, it has no dimension, and that definition is good enough for this philosophy.

Fermionic matter and bosonic forces involve gravity and none of those are philosophical, they are factual truths.

Where we use more than 4 dots, any dot can't be the same distance from all other dots, thus since more than one distance inevitably exists, there can't be an equal relation (see OP).

Yeah were all in agreement with this so far as a regular triangle and regular tetrahedron are concerned.

There is no before in this philosophy.

Then your philosophy, in these regards, does not really involve actual reality. imho

This philosophy shows that there are various configurations that constitute a equal relation, thus a thing in and of itself is discrete, yet has not particular shape nor size. It's more like probabalistic entity (exists in different possibilities). My use of shapes merely portrays that concept.

There are three set of three primary kinds of things;

1) existence of metaphysical-1 concepts of dots/points, { or whatever }

2) non-occupied space existence,

3) occupied space existence, as physical/reality ergo fermions, bosons and their relationship to gravity.

A dot used in representation has dimension, but it represents a non-dimensional entity. The representation is used to convey meaning only.

I have no problem with metaphysical-1 concepts of things. I have problem with the clarity of some of what it is exactly your trying to convey to others.

I got the equal relation concept as it relates to regular triangle and regular tetrahedron. Or at least as far as involment of lines-of-relationship with those specific shapes, reference to a cube,triangular dipyramid, octahedron and all other polyhedron of Universe.

Exactly - all dots (vertices) are the same distance from all others, therefore the relation is equal.

Yeah, were all on the same page with that, in regards to the regular triangle and regular tetrahedron.

And just to clarify, we have two kinds triangle and tetrahedron or whatever 'things';

1) metaphysical-1 concept of triangle, tetrahedron or whatever 'things'
...ergo no mass, no color, no temperature, no dynamic motion etc...

2) occupied space triangle, tetraheron or whatever 'things'.
..ergo has mass, has a temperature, has dynamic motion involvment....


It is worth mentioning here, that, the macro-infinte non-occupied space is shaped from within by the dynamically fluctuating shape of our finite Universe.

r6

[Riboflavin]

Of course, 2 dots affect each other equally. This philosophy goes on to demonstrate other relations between dots that have the same equal interaction.

Actually they aren't equal they only appear to be because there's no other frame of reference presented. Essentially this is circular logic. What I'm saying is that nothing like that exists in reality. If it did, the universe wouldn't have dips, beats, and rythms. Reality is more closely related to counterbalancing points instead of equal points.

[r6r6]

Gem--Either A or B could the origin, it doesn't matter, all that matters is their relation.

Ok so your reversing them in no way changes my concerns of them not being equal.

I.e fine you want to make B the beginning and A the ending, then what I stated still remains, they are not equal. Beginning is differrent from ending.

Beginning and ending in actualized reality are going to be in differrent locations and times with their occurrence.

Indeed, but the fact remains that 2,3 or 4 dots are the only possible equal relations.

Yeah, we agreed on two differrent aspects of your 2, 3 and 4 dots.

I state what I state to just to clarify to self, your and others, that, not all 2, 3 and 4 dot/point/vertice triangles and tetrahedra meet your equal relation criteria. In fact, there are many more possible 2, 3 and 4 dot shapes that do not, than do meet your equal relation criteria.

And I dont agree with the any of those set of single aspects, having equal relation, if we are to consider time and location, in the process of creating/expressing, 2, 3, and 4 dot configurations.

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Riboflavin

Actually they aren't equal they only appear to be because there's no other frame of reference presented. Essentially this is circular logic. What I'm saying is that nothing like that exists in reality. If it did, the universe wouldn't have dips, beats, and rythms. Reality is more closely related to counterbalancing points instead of equal points.

Of course two dots are equally related. There is only one relation. Indeed, there is no other reference. No, dots don't really exist. The dots are only used to represent the concept.

What do you mean by 'counter balancing points'?

[Riboflavin]

Originally Posted by Gem

Of course two dots are equally related. There is only one relation. Indeed, there is no other reference. No, dots don't really exist. The dots are only used to represent the concept.

What do you mean by 'counter balancing points'?

I'm saying the concept itself does not exist in reality. Even under laboratory conditions, you couldn't artificially create truly equal points. The nature of the universe simply wont allow it. What I mean by counter balancing points, is exactly how it sounds. The forces are not equal, but because there are many forces involved, they balance each other and find homeostasis. Of course, homeostasis isn't really "balance" so much as it is whatever you are left with when you throw a bunch of stuff together.

The very nature of physics, the elements, and the laws that govern chemical reactions have changed since the universe "began". Every few hundred million years or so. Basically I'm saying that "structure" itself on the most basic level is inherently in flux. That is why there are no equal points. Of course, to prove it I'd have to show you all the things I'll never be able to so I don't expect you to believe me on this.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Ok so your reversing them in no way changes my concerns of them not being equal.

I.e fine you want to make B the beginning and A the ending, then what I stated still remains, they are not equal. Beginning is differrent from ending.

Beginning and ending in actualized reality are going to be in differrent locations and times with their occurrence.

The premise is that a thing only exists by relation, and therefore there isn't any 'one thing' as one would normally conceive of it.

We start with two dots because it's the simplest way of representing the equal relation. The distance between them, regardless or what line segment one uses, be it straight or curved, A is to be as B is to A. I can't think of a simpler way to represent an equal relation.

Because of this, there can not be an A without a B, since a thing exists by relation, and therefore neither dot is prior to the other. We can say one begins and the other ends, but doing so assumes that the dots are two things. As I explained (and provided a mathematical definition) a dot is not a thing. It could be considered to be a 'place' (according to math definition for a point).

Furthermore, the 3 and four dot arrangements are also an equal relation, so these do not proceed from the 2 dot arrangement, but are concurrent with it. This equal relation comes with different possible arangements, but they are necessarily concurrent. The equal relation is simultaneously all 3 of these arrangements. Such is the obscure nature of a thing.

Yeah, we agreed on two differrent aspects of your 2, 3 and 4 dots.

I state what I state to just to clarify to self, your and others, that, not all 2, 3 and 4 dot/point/vertice triangles and tetrahedra meet your equal relation criteria. In fact, there are many more possible 2, 3 and 4 dot shapes that do not, than do meet your equal relation criteria.

On reason I use the thought experiment of the dots having an imaginary gravity is that attraction will draw them to their closest possible proximity, which will form equalateral shapes (simplexes). Shapes that aren't simplexes can't represent equal relations.

And I dont agree with the any of those set of single aspects, having equal relation, if we are to consider time and location, in the process of creating/expressing, 2, 3, and 4 dot configurations.

r6

One dot doesn't appear prior to any other because 2,3 or 4 dot arrangements all represent equal relations.

If we consider them to be 'co-ordinates' then one is positioned with respect to the others, in which case, any one dot is equally positioned with respect to any other.

[r6r6]

Gem--The premise is that a thing only exists by relation, and therefore there isn't any 'one thing' as one would normally conceive of it.

Where lines-of-relationship meet with angle, is called vertex, or nodal event, or conjunction, or corner, or joint, or junction, intersection, knucle, etc....

We start with two dots because it's the simplest way of representing the equal relation.

Ive showed how there is not equal relation in a line-of-relationship, because terminal beginning location and time, is not same as terminal ending time and location.

An Ive shown repeatedly to you and others that in all of the possible configurations, at best you have only two that appear to fit your equal relation.

You pretty much just ignore and do not address those facts Ive mention and continue to talk past me and on address directly my comments and meanings as stated.

The distance between them, regardless or what line segment one uses, be it straight or curved, A is to be as B is to A. I can't think of a simpler way to represent an equal relation.

Again this is irrelevant to anything Ive stated, that has directly addressed all of your comments. Getting to be kind of one sided ergo not really as disscussion addressing my comments as stated.

Ok, just means its time for me to move on from this thread.

Because of this, there can not be an A without a B, since a thing exists by relation, and therefore neither dot is prior to the other.

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...

We can say one begins and the other ends, but doing so assumes that the dots are two things.

IF you cannot relate your concept to actualize reality then what is the reason for your espousing equal relation. Really should be equal relationship. imho

As I explained (and provided a mathematical definition) a dot is not a thing. It could be considered to be a 'place' (according to math definition for a point).

Yeah and as ive repeated acknowledge that as metaphysical-1 , abstract concepts of mind/intellect. Not new news.

Furthermore, the 3 and four dot arrangements are also an equal relation, so these do not proceed from the 2 dot arrangement, but are concurrent with it.

No because lines-of-relationship with no angles cannot enclose space.
No becuase lines-of-relationship with no angles cannot have vertices, nodal events, corners, 2D quanta or 3D quanta.

This equal relation comes with different possible arangements, but they are necessarily concurrent. The equal relation is simultaneously all 3 of these arrangements. Such is the obscure nature of a thing.

I think your assessment is incorrect.

On reason I use the thought experiment of the dots having an imaginary gravity is that attraction will draw them to their closest possible proximity, which will form equalateral shapes (simplexes). Shapes that aren't simplexes can't represent equal relations.

Again, your scenario only involves two configuration of how many millions plus are possible. So wherein does the beef of equal relation exist that we can really sink our mental teeth into.

I.e. what is the point, beyond a few simple statements by that, are not truely equal relations in every sense or aspect existence, beyond a couple of metaphysical-1 abstrats you offer us?

One dot doesn't appear prior to any other because 2,3 or 4 dot arrangements all represent equal relations.

Egg is one cell and leads to many cells, if fertilized.

If we consider them to be 'co-ordinates' then one is positioned with respect to the others, in which case, any one dot is equally positioned with respect to any other.

Yeah, metaphysical-1 abstract concepts of mind/intellect, and your case a very limited set that are only partially true i.e. not cosmic absolutes in every way.

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Where lines-of-relationship meet with angle, is called vertex, or nodal event, or conjunction, or corner, or joint, or junction, intersection, knucle, etc....


Ive showed how there is not equal relation in a line-of-relationship, because terminal beginning location and time, is not same as terminal ending time and location.

I will first point out your assumptions.

1) you are treating the points as coordinates

This is not accurate in this context because a co-ordinate has (at least) 2 value references (according to Euclidian geometry). In this philosophy there are no value references apart from the way one dot relates to the other.

2) You assume one dot came first and the other came later.

This isn't the case. The philosophy is about 'one thing' and one thing doesn't come before or after itself. The dot theory is merely a representation that pertains to the thing.

An Ive shown repeatedly to you and others that in all of the possible configurations, at best you have only two that appear to fit your equal relation.

You pretty much just ignore and do not address those facts Ive mention and continue to talk past me and on address directly my comments and meanings as stated.

Not true. You said regular polyhedra are just as equal, and I pointed out the they have more than one distance relationship, thus dots at vertices are not equal reltion.

Again this is irrelevant to anything Ive stated, that has directly addressed all of your comments. Getting to be kind of one sided ergo not really as disscussion addressing my comments as stated.

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...

IF you cannot relate your concept to actualize reality then what is the reason for your espousing equal relation. Really should be equal relationship. imho

It relates to reality because in reality one can not place more than four dots where any dot is the same distance from all others (for example).

Yeah and as ive repeated acknowledge that as metaphysical-1 , abstract concepts of mind/intellect. Not new news.


No because lines-of-relationship with no angles cannot enclose space.
No becuase lines-of-relationship with no angles cannot have vertices, nodal events, corners, 2D quanta or 3D quanta.


I think your assessment is incorrect.

All lines are the same length, all angles are the same. All dots relate in the same way regardless of what type of relationship one assumes they have.

Again, your scenario only involves two configuration of how many millions plus are possible. So wherein does the beef of equal relation exist that we can really sink our mental teeth into.

We can't talk about the deeper aspects of the philosophy because you don't understand that the concept of equal relation is a formless and the dots are mere representations that show how equal relation is not singularil defined, but variously defined.

This collapses the time frame as a few states exist simultaneously, not as formal entities, but as a probable entity. Space likewise collapses because space itself is an aspect of that entity.

I.e. what is the point, beyond a few simple statements by that, are not truely equal relations in every sense or aspect existence, beyond a couple of metaphysical-1 abstrats you offer us?

You tell me any relation value that isn't equal.

There is a distance value, there is an angle value... any other values in these shapes?

Egg is one cell and leads to many cells, if fertilized.

Yeah, metaphysical-1 abstract concepts of mind/intellect, and your case a very limited set that are only partially true i.e. not cosmic absolutes in every way.

r6

I merely articulate the philosophy by using a few dots as representations.

It is 'cosmically true' in a few ways, and I already gave one example above. Another example is one does need a relation between four dots to to position a 3D space.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Riboflavin

I'm saying the concept itself does not exist in reality.

Well, that's the thing about philosophy and science for that matter, where we don't really explain how things actually are, but merely talk about abstractions.

Even under laboratory conditions, you couldn't artificially create truly equal points.

Points don't exist.

The nature of the universe simply wont allow it. What I mean by counter balancing points, is exactly how it sounds. The forces are not equal, but because there are many forces involved, they balance each other and find homeostasis. Of course, homeostasis isn't really "balance" so much as it is whatever you are left with when you throw a bunch of stuff together.

I guess my theory assumes the universe is like 'the same stuff' in various forms.

The very nature of physics, the elements, and the laws that govern chemical reactions have changed since the universe "began". Every few hundred million years or so. Basically I'm saying that "structure" itself on the most basic level is inherently in flux. That is why there are no equal points. Of course, to prove it I'd have to show you all the things I'll never be able to so I don't expect you to believe me on this.

Well dots don't actually exist at all, but there are hard facts that underpin this philosophy (2 examples in my previous post). One doesn't have to believe it, and they aren't meant to... it's more like how one looks at a painting and reflects on its impressions and meanings.