But the probing of matter has often left us with, ironically, the immaterial: voids and fields — StreetlightX
It only becomes a problem under a monist guise, because those non-dimensional points which are separated by matter must be given some real existence, as other than matter, otherwise "medium' has no meaning here. So, to say the medium is "all there is" is really contradictory, because "medium" implies the middle, between that which is not the medium. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm not sure about matter separating non-dimensional points. I've never heard of that. — frank
One of the big issues with any metaphysical ism, material or otherwise is how it handles emergence. — schopenhauer1
As inversive of being, 0d point space exists as a dual to being with being being necessitated through directed movement requiring an "inversion of inversion" as an ethereal point space. This ethereal point space, as pure infinite movement as unchanging can be equated to not just a foundational glue to being (reminiscent of the Hindu akashic record) but being itself through a 1d point.
The 0d point effectively inverts the 1d point to many points, with the 1d point existing as one point considering void is nothing (which takes into account relativity and quantum connection simultaneously) and what exists as 1 through many is effectively the same. A point in locality A is still the same point in locality B considering the composition of both points is still composed of the same points and existing within a singular point field. — eodnhoj7
While I'd like to think that yes, materialism does entail more mature, more elaborate theorizing than the various idealisms which it arrays itself against, I think you're vastly understating the influence and pervasiveness of the latter. If one accepts materialism in the sense outlined here, people like Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg become nothing other than arch-Idealists; searches for reductive 'theories of everything', where all the universe follows from a small handful of first principles, turn out to be idealist desiderata par excellence. — StreetlightX
Besides, what is medium at one level is the nuts and bolts at another, more fine-grained level. You acknowledge this yourself when you pick examples from different sciences that look at the world at different levels of detail. So where exactly is that medium that you are talking about? What is it? — SophistiCat
How could there be evolutionary biology if we could not (mostly) ignore the medium of chemistry and physics? How could we have so much success with the Big Bang theory if we could not ignore the medium of stars and pretty much everything else and idealize it as a perfect fluid?
The point projecting to a point as point results in a 1d point. For example if projected in one direction it becomes a 1 directional line. The one directional line project in all directions in one direction becomes the circle. The nature of the point is defined by its projection in one direction, in both cases. — eodnhoj7
2) Pi is a line between two points that exists from the center point of the circle to the circumference. All lines in turn exists as center points of a circle towards is circumference where all lines exist as the ratio of Pi as 3.14159... — eodnhoj7
As the mutiplication/division of a length requires another length, Pi is a constant length of a line as regardless of the size of a line relative to another line, a line is always a line. — eodnhoj7
I am fully aware it is a ratio, but this does not negate it from being a line as well. All lines exists as x length relative to the lines the are composed of or compose. Each line however as composed of infinite lines or composing infinite lines is 1. — eodnhoj7
A ratio is the number of times one phenomena fits in another, in these respects we can use a line. — eodnhoj7
The circumferance, as a length of 3.141, when unraveled, observes a line in itself that is equivalent to a diameter for one circle, with the diameter being a relative radius of another circle. — eodnhoj7
In these respects the diameter of 1 results in a circumferance of Pi, hence a line equivalent to Pi where Pi becomes a length. — eodnhoj7
Pi is a length, not just a ratio and alternates with 1 as the foundation of length.
All lines are equivalent to Pi just as all lines are equivalent to one in themselves. — eodnhoj7
I think there's a misunderstanding here: I'm not against 'big picture claims' (Gould is wonderful, as is Darwin!), and I invoked Weinberg and Dawkins not as avatars of 'big picture thinking' but because the specific ways in which they theorize the 'big picture' are severely misguided. Each, in their own way, attempts to assign full explanatory power (in physics and biology respectively) to a privileged ontological stratum so that certain parts of reality are simply reduced to epiphenomena that have no material agency.
That's the point: I'm not at all trying to furnish a 'non-reductionism physicalism' - whatever that might mean - but rather, give full 'ontological rights', if we can speak that way, to all of what is often simply dismissed as medial. The equation of the material with the medial isn't meant to reduce the medial to the material. Quite the opposite: it is meant to expand our understanding of what counts as material. — StreetlightX
The definitions you argue are correct under standard axioms of mathematics. — eodnhoj7
2) A ratio, as how many times a phenomena can fit into another phenomena, with all phenomena as directional due to time, necessitates that ratio as existing as linear. How many times 3 lines can fit into one still necessitates the three lines as 1. The same applies for how many time 3 lines can fit into 6 lines as two lines. — eodnhoj7
7. If the curved line of a circumferance is not as measurable as a straight line, then Pi is wrong because the measurement of the circumferance and diameter/straight line cannot form a ratio. — eodnhoj7
8. The curved line of a circle as irrational, neccessitates a continuum in that it is not finite. A line a 1 unit is equally irrational as a continuum. — eodnhoj7
10. The number of times a diameter goes into a circumferance necessites the circumferance as Pi. — eodnhoj7
What I would call reductive physicalism envisions a unique (but so far only hypothetical) Theory of Everything, usually identified with fundamental physics, that fixes everything in existence. All other theories and explanations, from chemistry to psychology, at best supervene on and approximate this TOE. The TOE thus has a unique status. Its ontology is the only true ontology, and its causality is the only true causality - everything else being illusory and epiphenomenal. With some variations, this is a pretty popular view among physical scientists (especially physicists, natch) and scientifically-minded laymen. — SophistiCat
You seem to be rejecting the primacy of some fundamental physical ontology and instead insisting on a multiplicity of coequal ontologies.
I am sympathetic to this view, but I might be coming to it from a somewhat different direction, one that deemphasizes ontology in favor of epistemology. To my mind, ontology is theory-dependent. Theory comes first, and whatever entities it operates with, that is its ontology.
1. Something that is linear is a line, even the linear movement of a particle from point A to point B exists through a line from point A to point B. A line is a localization of directed movement in 1 direction. A curved line, as an approximation of a straight line, can be constituted as infinite straight lines composing and composed of infinite angles. — eodnhoj7
Pi is transcendental and gives both proof and framework, as a number, that numbers exist through continuums. All lines exist as infinite continuums as well. A line can be both a quantity and quality. So can a circle and point. Numbers as spatial qualities have a trifold nature, due to there directed capacity where no number can exist unless directed to another number. — eodnhoj7
1) There is not a strict definition to a line, or anything for that matter, except through the framework built around it. — eodnhoj7
2) A line can be both composed of angles (frequency) and exist as an angle within itself without contradiction considering all angles set the premise for size. — eodnhoj7
The line, as a unit of relation, is determined by its size relative to other phenomena. — eodnhoj7
4. 1 exists as a unit, as a unit it must continue to exist through further units. It exist through 2 and 1/2, 3 and 1/3, 4 and 1/4, etc. One effectively inverts into one state, then into multiple states with each of these states being 1 number in itself. This progression of numbers manifests as a continuum as each number, composed from and as a unit of one, must follow that same nature and exist through further numbers. 1 along with all numbers composed of 1 as 1 in themselves must exist through a continuum where 1 and 1n exist through infinities as infinities. — eodnhoj7
1. The definition is subject to the framework which proves it. If memory serves in non Euclidean geometry a line is two points on a sphere. Axioms are determined by the frameworks which comes from them and the foundations of mathematics are not universally agreed upon. — eodnhoj7
2. So a line cannot change to a point relative to a much larger line? Geometric forms are determined by the framework of reference, which through the nature of the Monad (point, line and circle), is all forms as size through relation is determined by degree but most specifically quantum degrees (if one gives thought to the nature of fractal degrees). The degree, as one line relative to another, is the foundation of all size.
A line as infinite points can be observed as infinite lines. — eodnhoj7
3. If a line as infinite points is composed of infinite lines, the line is a continuum of relations...you habe not seem to understood this or much of the above argument for that matter. — eodnhoj7
4. A succession of units is a continuity of units, from which the word continuum is derived. Look it up in a thesaurus if you don't believe me. — eodnhoj7
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.