Questions underlying the structure of geometric models get to me a bit. As I see it one needs to create an infinite space in which a construct can be made, so it is all based on a primal medium in which occurance is possible, and since it rests upon this fundamental singularity it bears relevance to the truth, hence making geometric relationship possible but under a fundamental coherency to the primary empty construct. So the prerequisites are a state of 'empty' and something different by which to define 'existant', and some function of discernment must recognize the disparity, so perception becomes intergral to the black vs white formula. As I see it, four qualities result in the basic premise of reasoning. 1) Infinite location possibility (as in 'empty space') 2) Something not 'empty space' (best defined as 0d, opposite to the primary) 3) The discernment quality relating the comparitive difference. 4) The overall relationship between them. I think this fundamental basis brings coherance to physical laws and geometric relationships and concurrency between locations. :bugeye:
so (infinite) space had to exist before any event could occur because every event must have a location?
glitch, your conclusions give me a headache. If the atomic matter is arranged into a life form, the Universe is born. If that atomic matter is never alive, then nothing will ever exist for that particular piece of atomic matter, and therefore........ etc etc
I understand spelling truely represents the depths of philosophical thought and though english is my first language I learned it late in life, various conclusions can thereby be derived. We can't say before because lack time. But a medium of opportunity must preordain an event, so future is seen probabalistically as a possibility. So, a fundamental property must preclude its own definition so as to be ineffective on relativity, but represent the possibility of relationship by being fundamental to it. It exists as primary fundamental possibility ineffective as a relative definition. We say it is not this and not that, as its practical function.
I'm trying to investigate the primary foundation of structure or geometric models which is similar to the limits of mental perception. For egsample: A mind can't imagine nothing but is limited to an infinite empty set, nor can geometric model be made with out a backround to build upon, and matter and volume are bedfellows in the universe. :bugeye:
Simply not true, the elements in a geometric model are defined in relation to each other, not an external reference frame. This is why we can mathematically describe multi dimensional orthogonal matrices that we could not construct physically.
I've tried to understand geometry and it seems that it extends into areas more like fundamental principles than any visualizable construct. The problem is, a geometric relationship is reliant on two structures which are different. To best distinguish difference these two structures are extreme opposites. The first structure must be one that is irrelevent to any relationship (a field representitive of nothing) and the second structure existant as a feild representitive as 'not the first structure'. When only two basic properties exist they are by definition extreme opposites. I think this contrast of extreme opposites presents more problems, because the first is not a relative factor and the second a singular property on its own thereby being indistinguishable by definition. All we have to base any concept or construct on is the notion of extreme opposites.
geometry is based on a set of axioms. it is basically multidimensional math with an extra axiom for determining the length of the hypotenuse (which, in different geometries, is done in different ways).
basic math in turn is based on the successor function which is basically just a way to add one. but if you really want to get into it then here is Peano's axioms: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PeanosAxioms.html
Just take all form out of it and think in 'properties'. 0D has no properties and is only ever assumed having no founding definition. 1D has one defining aspect, which could be colour or distance or extreme infinites etc. provided only one defining factor exist it's 1D. (distance being congruent with apparancy) 2D could be expressed as two colours at a distance provided only two distinctions are possible, yet a form containing area is congruent to apparency. Still, as a fundamental premise any construct is based on a dual disparity one of which bears no relative quality.
I see math as being derived from graph theory. think of a number line as a one dimensional tree. each node is an integer. glitch. what you are saying might be very interesting but I cant really tell because I cant understand a word of any of your posts. could you try to be a little less obscure?
This is really about a dimensional universe having the same primary structure as the observer which effectuates the observer effect at a quantum or primal level. This really indicates that the universe is not entirely seperate from the observer but a furthur extention of perception. When identifying a primary origin point we also include an 'empty' space, or say the singularity is all locations, but the observer can't distinguish for neither has a relative, it could be either, one is absolute, which doesn't matter, there's no perceivable difference. That's what it is. Hence to even represent a singularity is futile for it can only be expressed as two possibilities, a blank page and a point there on. The 0D dimension is really consistant of two possibilities, and being a dual comparison are completely opposite, Yet only one is absolute, it simply doesn't matter. Basically I think there is fundamental logic in defining 1D as one degree of seperation, we say distance because two things can't occupy the same space, but we also premise an irrelevent 'space' to define the distance which is also 'possible locations'. 'Space' is like the observer who is aware of dual possibilities, and also is the instrument of disgression, He knows the possibilities because he can conceive of them, a simultaneous singular definition. To incorporate the observer effect into geometric formulations one can insert an imaginary observer as expereincer to create geometric foundations, instead of saying 'like there's this imaginary space to put it in.' So when a point is drawn we imagine an observer is the point and hence observes nothing therefore the primary origin is absolutely interactive with observer as dual elements, which is actually a unified element with dual purpose, because the observer is the instrument of measure and the measurer at once. There is a measure of what it is and a measure of what it isn't, all things being relative. A singular origin is expression of both. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But not entirely discernible by the observer. Only if that particular explanation is the correct one: there are other explanations. Incorrect: the primary point is there not elsewhere. It's distinguishable by that fact alone. Except that it can be done... Some confusion here, caused by your wording. No, the origin is defined as either of the two points. Now you're just wandering off into incoherency. Why do you need an "observer effect"? Nonsense.
A singularity has no defining relative and a construct of possibility preceeds any event. Any singularity can only be conceived by differentiation and there are no discerning qualities, so the premise is better expressed as dual possibility, for nothing and singularity are always co-existant. This is the same as saying only three points can be equalateral on a plane, and four can't, it is simply impossible. It is shown that observation effects results at a quantum level, so it is relevent to incorperate the perceptive observer at the point of origin, because he is influential on reality or experimental data. We put the observer on point one, he sees point 2. We put him on point 2, he sees point 1. Theres no difference. What we did is define distance as singularly definitive. Distance is imaginary space representing infinite possible locations. If we say the observer is the singular definitive, two points exist and the observer occupies one, doesn't matter which, both are the same. We actually don't need a distance function, just perceptual seperation consisting to two possibilities. Then 0D is ...... And 1D is dual having one distinction. We think of 2D as having 2 distinctions, but they must be consequential to the 1D definition and coherently constructive including the observer interactive quality.
Which is nothing to do with the point I was making. DEpends upon the nature of the singularity. Which has what to do with your comment or mine? No, the observer effect is one possible explanation out of a number. And? No, distance is on a direct line between the two points. So if there's no observer they're in the same place? No observer needed.
Oh no, there is no failing, only the realization that incorperating observer to geometric systems better resembles reality, besides, if the numbers add up there's only understanding. Our origin must be represented as 'is vs isn't' because it simply can't be singularily expressed. We investigate observer interaction between two points. He moves from one point to the other. Because of the lack of perceivable change there is no time 'experienced' hence distance is not functional. Therefore observer interactive system is not concurrent with existing models, but observer interaction is more alligned with reality. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, any expression of singularity will be dually expressed because singular representation is impossible. Actually, the space between two points can only be a straight line, but it is just imaginary possible locations. See, we just can't say two locations exist - infinite 'possible' locations also must exist. That is just not necessary, with observer interaction two locations exist as two possibilities, not infinite imaginary ones. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
