A UNIFYING THEORY OF THE TOTALITY AND THE ALL

[chikoka]

Consider the properties of operations and the set they act on:

The natural numbers are said to be closed under the operation of addition.
This simply means that if you add two natural numbers together you get another natural number.

The natural numbers are not closed under the operation of division.
I.e. you cant divide any arbitraly obtained natural number by any other and still get a natural number.

e.g. the natural number 2 divided by the natural number 3 yeilds the number 2/3 which is not in the set of natural numbers.


Now take these examples and imagine using these concepts when discussing the totality.

I beleive that we could have a set of all things (or every-thing) that is closed when using certain operations (of which i will speak later on).
Any two things when subjected to the operation will yeild another thing.
A thing being an artifact or being "constrained" by the axiom of identity.

Now what would the case be if we found an operation that was not closed in the the set of things.
We would have opened the door to the "rest" of reality.
"Things" that are not things (dont submit to the axiom of identity), imaginary things.
This would imply that the totality (imaginary and "real" things) is not the same concept as the set of all things (everything).

Two questions remain: what are the operations and how do we perform them and what is the nature of imaginary things.

Since i beleive that the axiom of identity is co-intwined with the concept of dimentionality that reffers to both traditional dimensions such as space as well as cardinal comparisons such as temperature and speed, the concept of cardinality does not apply in this realm.
Imaginary things are acardinal and so merge whith each other in a way that they dont.
Or rather using the word "they" already means that we have not understood what "they" (theres that word again) are about. (i spotted an "are" there too).

On the question of operations i am not clear though i know that the operation must have the quality of being beautiful or in other words have some aspects of symmetry. I find if i meet an equation that i havent seen before , it either strikes me as beautiful or it is wrong.
Of course that not exactly the "scientific method".
Could a quantum physicist on this site help me out by showing how mathematics (and its operatoins) describe matter and how ,matter (things) interact mathematicaly or in such a way that we can use the concept of operation in their interactions.
We also might need a broader generelisation of the higgs mechanism (which gives mass to particles) to cater for this.


Problems:

These concepts lead to the idea that perhaps there is an operation that the totality (imaginary and real things) do not have closure and so there is other "things" that are neither imaginary nor real. Ofcourse leading to an infinite regress , though i have read that all complex numbers are closed under *any* operation so theres no other numbers more allencompassing than complex ones .Though i found that *dicey* it could also apply here.

How are the real and imaginary seperated and doesnt separation imply cardinality even to acardinal (imaginary) things?
The framework on which these different "thing" realms could be "real" even though things attached to them arent.

One last problem is that language fails us when we come to explain these things and i may have gotten confused with the different tenses (not only temporal ones) of the words i used.

What do you think?

[cousinbasil]

I believe that we could have a set of all things (or every-thing) that is closed when using certain operations (of which i will speak later on).
Any two things when subjected to the operation will yield another thing.
A thing being an artifact or being "constrained" by the axiom of identity.

Right away you are being arbitrary and asking for trouble. If there is a set of all things, then it must by definition include everything, including itself. Since there is nothing it does not include, it must be closed under every operation, not merely "certain" operations.

Now what would the case be if we found an operation that was not closed in the the set of things.

You have just made a definition whereby we cannot in principle find such an operation. The set Totality contains all things A such that A=A. First you posit that is is possible to have a thing which is not in the set of all things. This is a logical contradiction and stops rational discourse right there.

"Things" that are not things (dont submit to the axiom of identity), imaginary things.
This would imply that the totality (imaginary and "real" things) is not the same concept as the set of all things (everything).

You are failing to observe the fact that such "real" things are imaginary - exist as concepts not as noumenal realities. In this sense, imaginary numbers are as real as real numbers, which are themselves abstractions as I have noted elsewhere. You do not need "magic" or any additional capacity to manipulate complex numbers - they behave just as systematically as the real numbers, and while their connection to the physical world may not be as obvious as that of the natural numbers, their connection may be in fact deeper and more profound (see Quantum Mechanics.)

In other words, philosophy and science may often seem at odds, but their unifying feature is that what they discuss must in some way conform to rational thought. One can not abandon the axiom of identity and then hope to maintain a rational discourse.

You have called this thread "A UNIFYING THEORY OF THE TOTALITY AND THE ALL." No theory is needed or even possible since the Totality and the All are One.

[chikoka]

chikoka wrote:
I believe that we could have a set of all things (or every-thing) that is closed when using certain operations (of which i will speak later on).
Any two things when subjected to the operation will yield another thing.
A thing being an artifact or being "constrained" by the axiom of identity.

Right away you are being arbitrary and asking for trouble. If there is a set of all things, then it must by definition include everything, including itself. Since there is nothing it does not include, it must be closed under every operation, not merely "certain" operations.

I have defined a thing as an artifact of the axiom of identity.
My point is that not all reality is. my explanation of the rest of reality involved naming its constituents things albeit imaginary ones.
I could have called them zeta's (just thought that word up) instead of "imaginary things" and what i think you are confused about would be gone.

The "set of all things" is not the same as the "set of all" the set of all also includes zeta's (name seems to have stuck).

The set of all things must by definition include everything (note the word everything uses "every" and more importantly "thing"). It includes everything but not any of the zeta's.

I think the rest of your post can be self answered since what threw you off was the "imaginary *thing* part.
And i am aware that imaginary numbers are just as objectively real as the real numbers.
My point was to show a parralel with what i am describing making these ideas more acceptable since there has been a "precedence".

[Pam Seeback]

Until an individual ascertains their subjective-objective role in the Totality, they remain as if outside the Totality looking in, causing them to devise theories about unifying that which is, and never was, divided.

Chikoka, what makes you think the Totality needs unifying?

Are you not the axiom of identity?

[jufa]

Chikoka states: "I have defined a thing as an artifact of the axiom of identity." Here you have just objectified [a thing] with a subjectified identification [artifact].

My point is that not all reality is. Here you have failed to define that which is not reality. my explanation of the rest of reality involved naming its constituents things albeit imaginary ones. Here, you have attempted to say that which is imaginary is not real. But this falls short simply because imagining makes it a reality of thought waves.
I could have called them zeta's (just thought that word up) instead of "imaginary things" and what i think you are confused about would be gone. You can call it whatsoever you wish. Nevertheless just your identification of it void any confusion as to its reality. However confusion could be claimed because of relativism and not exactness of meaning.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[chikoka]

Until an individual ascertains their subjective-objective role in the Totality, they remain as if outside the Totality looking in, causing them to devise theories about unifying that which is, and never was, divided.

Chikoka, what makes you think the Totality needs unifying?

Are you not the axiom of identity?

The threads tital was meant to say "a unifying theory of the set of all things and the set of zetas" together forming the TOTALITY.

The axiom of identity is a proper abstraction (an abstraction about abstractions) which i am not.

[chikoka]

Chikoka states: "I have defined a thing as an artifact of the axiom of identity." Here you have just objectified [a thing] with a subjectified identification [artifact].

Things are objects ,and so are artifacts though artifacts are abstract objects .I dont see where i have used anything subjective.

My point is that not all reality is. Here you have failed to define that which is not reality.

This is probably circular , but reality is all that exists, (removing and applying the relevant connotations that come with the word.)

my explanation of the rest of reality involved naming its constituents things albeit imaginary ones. Here, you have attempted to say that which is imaginary is not real. But this falls short simply because imagining makes it a reality of thought waves.

I tried to explain earlier that the term i used i.e. imaginary things caused a lot of confusion and that i used the term imaginary not intending it to have any connection with the websters definition.

could have called them zeta's (just thought that word up) instead of "imaginary things" and what i think you are confused about would be gone. You can call it whatsoever you wish. Nevertheless just your identification of it void any confusion as to its reality. However confusion could be claimed because of relativism and not exactness of meaning.

What i get from this is that you seem to be saying that just the process of naming it makes it a thing.
I explained that language fails us at this stage and i am not sure whether it is because of the language's problem or because of the theorys problem(its a load of..)
I just want to hear your ideas.

[cousinbasil]

I have defined a thing as an artifact of the axiom of identity.
My point is that not all reality is. my explanation of the rest of reality involved naming its constituents things albeit imaginary ones.
I could have called them zeta's (just thought that word up) instead of "imaginary things" and what i think you are confused about would be gone.

Here's what you are proposing: There are things and there are zetas. A thing cannot be a zeta and a zeta cannot be a thing. Things are "artifacts" of the axiom of identity. This means there exists no thing A such that A not eq A. For then it would be a zeta and not a thing.

But the very basis for rational discussion is A=A. Logically, calling a zeta an imaginary as opposed to real thing is nonsense, since all imaginary things of which one can be aware are also artifacts of the identity axiom. You have asserted that a zeta is a part of reality, but you have no demonstrable basis for making such an claim. Notice physical existence is not a requirement for thingness. Elsewhere there have been threads to this effect, that Platonic existence is sufficient. In a Platonic world "A=A AND A not equ A" cannot be true. In fact, in a Platonic world even "A not equ A" by itself cannot be true, by definition. This is not so clear in the physical realm, I admit. The world of noumena might admit "A not equ A", but as soon as we begin to discuss or observe it then discuss it, then A=A must hold, for then it exists in the mental realm.

The set of all things must by definition include everything (note the word everything uses "every" and more importantly "thing"). It includes everything but not any of the zeta's.

It must be possible to define or at least speak of a Totality and not be unclear as to what it contains. It cannot exclude anything, whether zeta or nonzeta. If a thing were found or imagined which it did not contain, then one would simply form the union of this thing and the Totality and call the result the Totality. The Totality includes zetas any whatever else you may come up with. We must start with this!

What you are attempting to do, chikoka, therefore is to postulate the existence of zeta. You are asserting it is part of reality in which A=A is merely an artifact. I am saying that when you postulate at all, your resulting paradigm exists in the mental realm - it cannot exist anywhere else. If there is a subset of the mental realm in which A=A does not necessarily hold, what can be known of it? How can a member of this subset have a property or characteristic? If it is part of the mental realm, then is has the property of being or becoming known. As soon as this happens, it can no longer be a zeta!

Am I truly the one who is confused here?

[chikoka]

Here's what you are proposing: There are things and there are zetas. A thing cannot be a zeta and a zeta cannot be a thing. Things are "artifacts" of the axiom of identity. This means there exists no thing A such that A not eq A. For then it would be a zeta and not a thing

Ok

But the very basis for rational discussion is A=A. Logically, calling a zeta an imaginary as opposed to real thing is nonsense, since all imaginary things of which one can be aware are also artifacts of the identity axiom. Y

Which is why language fails us here.
Imagine someone with a hook for an arm trying to lift up a bowl.The bowl exists but hard as he tries he cannot lift it up.
Someone comes along and offers to help but placing a handle on the bowl.
The hooked man can now lift it up.
But you know what , he is not lifting up a bowl anymore but a cup.
All his efforts to lift up the bowl failed and we could argue that as part of the process of trying to lift it up it became a cup.
That is what langauge and conceptualisation do.They change the very thing you are trying to converse about and just as the bowl really did exist before the man tried to lift it , zeta's exist before talking about them.

You have asserted that a zeta is a part of reality, but you have no demonstrable basis for making such an claim

Which was the whole point of this thread , to find an operation for which the set of all thiongs has no closure.
I was hoping i would not be the only one trying to find out what that means.

It cannot exclude anything, whether zeta or nonzeta.

There you go using the word anything made up of "any" and "thing". The word anything by definithion has to talk about *things* of which zeta's are not.

understand that even the term zeta's is wrong as it implys descreetnes and plurality concepts that do not apply in this "realm".

How can a member of this subset have a property or characteristic? If it is part of the mental realm, then is has the property of being or becoming known. As soon as this happens, it can no longer be a zeta!

i take you back to the bowl example.

[Pam Seeback]

Until an individual ascertains their subjective-objective role in the Totality, they remain as if outside the Totality looking in, causing them to devise theories about unifying that which is, and never was, divided.

Chikoka, what makes you think the Totality needs unifying?

Are you not the axiom of identity?

The threads tital was meant to say "a unifying theory of the set of all things and the set of zetas" together forming the TOTALITY.

The axiom of identity is a proper abstraction (an abstraction about abstractions) which i am not.

You are right, you are not an abstraction about abstractions, so why then, do you abstract about abstractions? Why do you choose to identity with what you are not, rather than with what you are?

[cousinbasil]

This is probably circular , but reality is all that exists

In order for it to be real, it must exist in some fashion, in some realm. David and Kevin use the notion of a square circle as something that does not exist, so therefore in no sense can be real. "The square circle" is a way to verbally represent a logical contradiction. All logical contradictions are equivalent. This does seem a bit circular, in that you are saying you imagine there is something that cannot be imagined. Since you cannot, it therefore cannot exist in any sense, and so cannot be a part even of imaginary reality. Mathematically it is like multiplying zero by infinity. Is there any sense in which this "operation" can lead to a rational discussion?

[chikoka]

You are right, you are not an abstraction about abstractions, so why then, do you abstract about abstractions? Why do you choose to identity with what you are not, rather than with what you are?

Its fun.

[chikoka]

n order for it to be real, it must exist in some fashion, in some realm. David and Kevin use the notion of a square circle as something that does not exist, so therefore in no sense can be real. "The square circle" is a way to verbally represent a logical contradiction.

Say you have a 3d cartesian "plane".
I think it is impossible for us to imagine how we can add another line o axis at right angles to the three you already have.
Why is this?
Because our reality is 3D (space wise).
But we all know that you can keep adding planes of axis to an arbitrary number.
We cant imagine it but non the less it is possible.

Square circles seem impossible to us because our "reality" is real as opposed to imaginary (zeta's) and so the slot in our heads for where the concept fits is not there.

If we had the slot we would see the rest of reality and even though we might not ever have the slot it does not mean they cannot exist.

Just as the slot in our heads for a 4D cartesian plane does not exist never the less we approached the problem using other slots and discoverd that it can exist.

I am aiming at generality here .
If i was you i would maybe put more effort into showing that the term "exist" has unremovable connotations of "objectivity" (thingness).

[chikoka]

Mathematically it is like multiplying zero by infinity. Is there any sense in which this "operation" can lead to a rational discussion?

That operation is not irrational but simply undefined. And it might just be the thing that i'm looking for.
Since the operation does not bring anything meaningful in this reality , and the concepts : zero , infinity and multiplication are all defined , as well as the complex numbers being the end of cardinality in *this* realm , it must yield an acardinal quantity , or a zeta.

I agree that it cant lead to "rational" discussion if you use the traditional definition of rational , but maybe we could adapt the definition so it does not have to based on the axiom of identity

[cousinbasil]

Because our reality is 3D (space wise).
But we all know that you can keep adding planes of axis to an arbitrary number.
We cant imagine it but non the less it is possible.

Square circles seem impossible to us because our "reality" is real as opposed to imaginary (zeta's) and so the slot in our heads for where the concept fits is not there.

I see where you are going with this , chikoka. However, this is not what I mean.

It is relatively straightforward to extend analysis to dimensions higher than 3. Once one abandons the traditional Cartesian plane methods by which one was taught calculus, say, one realizes the axes on a multidimensional plane need not represent distance. That is, many physics and engineering problems require max/min analysis when the variable could represent resistance, capacitance, length, density, etc. all in one equation.

In other words, even if you can't picture n-dimensional space, analysis shows you do no need to in order to work with it.

You are getting caught up in the imagery of what "square circle" might conjure in your head. This is where you are not getting my point. Forget the term "square circle" then. Let's call it Marvin. Marvin is impossible simply because Marvin is the name I have given to anything that is logically impossible. Once we agree it is logically not possible, then it is Marvin.

You, chikoka, seem to be implying that calling anything Marvin is a mistake, some kind of mental limit which is artificial and not universal.

I can't agree with this. The square circle tag distresses you because you are aware of historical instances in which men were ridiculed and even put to death for thinking outside the box, for invoking "irrational" numbers or non-Euclidean geometry.

But you cannot fail to accept that some things are intrinsically logically impossible. Reductio ad absurdum is proof by contradiction and would be entirely useless if you never arrived at a logical impossibility. Again, Marvin if "square circle" seems too evocative for you.

I am aiming at generality here .

I am aware of that. I am cautioning you against throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.

If i was you i would maybe put more effort into showing that the term "exist" has unremovable connotations of "objectivity" (thingness).

I am also aware that "existence" like any other word may carry connotations with which one can experiment.

Enter Gödel. I have tried many times to follow different translations of his famous Incompleteness Theorem. I confess getting lost, and only understand it to the degree that I do because I have had people explain it to me who have had the patience to follow its strikingly general and original detail. The upshot is this. In any formal system of analysis, there must exist true statements that cannot be proved to be true. This is because there exist statements that are formally undecidable. Since one cannot in principle disprove any of these statements, one cannot logically declare them all to be false. Therefore, at least some must be true.

However, this does not equate to calling a moratorium on declaring any statements false! Any statement that is logically a contradiction is what I meant by square circle - which is why I said that all logical contradictions are equivalent.

[jufa]

This is probably circular , but reality is all that exists

In order for it to be real, it must exist in some fashion, in some realm. David and Kevin use the notion of a square circle as something that does not exist, so therefore in no sense can be real. "The square circle" is a way to verbally represent a logical contradiction. All logical contradictions are equivalent. This does seem a bit circular, in that you are saying you imagine there is something that cannot be imagined. Since you cannot, it therefore cannot exist in any sense, and so cannot be a part even of imaginary reality. Mathematically it is like multiplying zero by infinity. Is there any sense in which this "operation" can lead to a rational discussion?

I can understand the surface of the hypothesis "The square circle" and it format from the posit presented, but in order for it not to exist as stated, nothing circular can be found within its bounds. If at any point a circle can be measured from the center outwards, the hypothesis looses idealization of logic by the simply truth the squared corners are an extension added to the perimeter which does not change the originality of the circle, just the framework from a visual viewing.

From this standpoint, "The square circle" is a circular reality.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[cousinbasil]

From this standpoint, "The square circle" is a circular reality.

But then is it also a square reality? No - because then that would be a different standpoint.

You can be as creative as you want, but you are just succeeding at avoiding the simple central point altogether. A thing cannot be a square and a circle at the same time. Why there is any discussion about this is completely beyond me.

Maybe the example of a logical contradiction should be even simpler. How about this one: Take two positive whole numbers such that they are not equal. Call them a and b. It cannot be true that a>b AND a<b.

You can perform a deformation on a square and call the result a "square circle." But the result would neither be a perfect square nor a perfect circle (unless it was either one, but it could not be both, that is the whole point.)

All logical contradictions are equivalent. A statement that is formally undecidable is not the same as a logical contradiction, because then it would be decidable.

[jufa]

From this standpoint, "The square circle" is a circular reality.

But then is it also a square reality? No - because then that would be a different standpoint.

You can be as creative as you want, but you are just succeeding at avoiding the simple central point altogether. A thing cannot be a square and a circle at the same time. Why there is any discussion about this is completely beyond me.

Maybe the example of a logical contradiction should be even simpler. How about this one: Take two positive whole numbers such that they are not equal. Call them a and b. It cannot be true that a>b AND a<b.

You can perform a deformation on a square and call the result a "square circle." But the result would neither be a perfect square nor a perfect circle (unless it was either one, but it could not be both, that is the whole point.)

All logical contradictions are equivalent. A statement that is formally undecidable is not the same as a logical contradiction, because then it would be decidable.

The point here is not whether a square or circle exist at the same time, they do, for they exist here in this post at the same time. And it is not about being creative. It is showing your below statement is not as you have presented: see highlights

In order for it to be real, it must exist in some fashion, in some realm. David and Kevin use the notion of a square circle as something that does not exist, so therefore in no sense can be real. "The square circle" is a way to verbally represent a logical contradiction. All logical contradictions are equivalent. This does seem a bit circular, in that you are saying you imagine there is something that cannot be imagined. Since you cannot, it therefore cannot exist in any sense, and so cannot be a part even of imaginary reality. Mathematically it is like multiplying zero by infinity. Is there any sense in which this "operation" can lead to a rational discussion?

The central point here is whether a square or circular circle exist and are real or not.

Is a square circle real or not, is what I put to you?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[ForbidenRea]

[*the] void. Like, who needs friends. Don't you think that the Totality is a make up of billions of light years of stars.
If and when, there is a seemingly proof of that. The circle is stable when you bond those together, a circle bewidth.
Aliens aren't human. The humane species_ or as Otto Weininger put it, " without, a forshadow I am empty inside" As an end.
For, like, the the millionth and and a half-century, no-doubt. Stars surround us...

[chikoka]

It is relatively straightforward to extend analysis to dimensions higher than 3. Once one abandons the traditional Cartesian plane methods by which one was taught calculus, say, one realizes the axes on a multidimensional plane need not represent distance. That is, many physics and engineering problems require max/min analysis when the variable could represent resistance, capacitance, length, density, etc. all in one equation.

Non the less , there are different variants of string theory that have more than 3 space dimensions , up to 8 or 11, i beleive.
Can you imagine that.
If you cant then its not the theory thats at fault but your imagination.

In other words, even if you can't picture n-dimensional space, analysis shows you do no need to in order to work with it.

Just as you can't picture a square circle and my type of analysis aims at showing you do not need to to work with it.

You are getting caught up in the imagery of what "square circle" might conjure in your head. This is where you are not getting my point. Forget the term "square circle" then. Let's call it Marvin. Marvin is impossible simply because Marvin is the name I have given to anything that is logically impossible. Once we agree it is logically not possible, then it is Marvin.

You, chikoka, seem to be implying that calling anything Marvin is a mistake, some kind of mental limit which is artificial and not universal.

You mean Marvin = (equivalent to) anything_logically_impossible.

You dont seem to notice the terminology you choose to use.
You have used two words "loosely".
Anything (any thing) and logic, both of which are based on the axiom of identity.

Marvins are logically impossible because they are *things* (you used any*thing* in your definition of marvin:anything_logically impossible)

Marvin is the name I have given to any*thing* that is logically impossible

But you cannot fail to accept that some things are intrinsically logically impossible. Reductio ad absurdum is proof by contradiction and would be entirely useless if you never arrived at a logical impossibility. Again, Marvin if "square circle" seems too evocative for you.

"some things are intrinsically logically impossible" , because they are things.

My definition for logical impossible is not_having_closure_in_its_realm.
So some things realy are logicaly impossible when the domain of the entiteis under consideration , together with the operation under consideration lead to results that dont lead to closure in that domain (as range).

E.g. If you use the natural numbers as the domain and co domain and the function is division say, then a result such as 2/3 is absurd (as in reducto absurdum).

If we lived in a "natural" world , then any proof leading to irrational numbers would be considered absurd just as you think zeta's are absurd.

Enter Gödel. I have tried many times to follow different translations of his famous Incompleteness Theorem. I confess getting lost, and only understand it to the degree that I do because I have had people explain it to me who have had the patience to follow its strikingly general and original detail. The upshot is this. In any formal system of analysis, there must exist true statements that cannot be proved to be true. This is because there exist statements that are formally undecidable. Since one cannot in principle disprove any of these statements, one cannot logically declare them all to be false. Therefore, at least some must be true.

However, this does not equate to calling a moratorium on declaring any statements false!

Using prime numbers to represent the elements of statements , godel built a statement that goes like this

: "I am true but unprovable"

This is known as a godel statement.

I take you however to "agrippas trilema" (its also known with other names).

:No system can be proved to be true in an objective way since all proofs are either circular, derived from unproved axioms (assumptions) or involve an infinnite regress.

You attempts to dis*prove* me involve circular reasoning though i dont think you are doing it on purpose.
You use terms that reffer to things (e.g every*thing* and any*thing) to prove that the all consists of *things*.

Try going into my world (zeta's) and create a reducto absurdum from within.(implosion)
It would also have to be of infinite regress (dominoes) to all "worlds" since all i would do would be to introduce another world where that reducto absurdum is not valid.
A proof from you involving an infinite regress would not leave me with any room to do this.

A thing cannot be a square and a circle at the same time. Why there is any discussion about this is completely beyond me.

Heres a classic example:

A *thing* (not zeta) cannot be a square and a circle at the same time.
Zeta's (because they are not things can be).

All logical contradictions are equivalent. A statement that is formally undecidable is not the same as a logical contradiction, because then it would be decidable.

I am aware of that.I'm not using statements that are undecidable.
The statements i use are defined.(by me).

[chikoka]

. A thing cannot be a square and a circle at the same time.

But it *can* (be a square and a circle) at different times?

What gives time the magical ability to be able to do this?

Cant other conditions lead to this magical result ; a square thats a circle?

May sound stupid but if you approach this from a philosphical stand point
and not as a layman you will see that it is a good point:

"A square circle *can* exist..........at different times.....and in different realms".

Also if the univerese is flat and infinite then it is a square and a circle and any shape imaginable at the same time

[chikoka]

I'm not sure if i will be able to have consistent dialogue with you guys due to circumstances out of my control.
I'll try as hard as i can ,however, to do so.

[Cahoot]

Interesting. To say that a round square cannot exist on the basis that the mind of man currently lacks the capacity to conceive of a round square, and lacks the capacity to conceive of the conditions under which a round square can manifest, is to say that thought is a necessary condition for the existence of a round square.

Sri Nisargadatta said, “I Am is true, all else is inference.”

Based on this statement:

- Time, it can be inferred, is categorized as “all else.”

- Because a round square is not I Am, and because limitations of mans’ capacity currently prevent a round square from being an inference, then a round square cannot be classified as either “true” or “all else.” Round square is not true. Round square is not inference.

- However, given the premise that “all else” first exists within infinite potentiality and then manifests when and if changeable conditions permit, even when those conditions have never before existed and cannot be anticipated, then the potential for a round square to manifest does exist.

- Since thought is a necessary condition for inference, then thought is a necessary condition for all else other than I Am.

[jufa]

Interesting. To say that a round square cannot exist on the basis that the mind of man currently lacks the capacity to conceive of a round square, and lacks the capacity to conceive of the conditions under which a round square can manifest, is to say that thought is a necessary condition for the existence of a round square.

Sri Nisargadatta said, “I Am is true, all else is inference.”

Based on this statement:

- Time, it can be inferred, is categorized as “all else.”

- Because a round square is not I Am, and because limitations of mans’ capacity currently prevent a round square from being an inference, then a round square cannot be classified as either “true” or “all else.” Round square is not true. Round square is not inference.

- However, given the premise that “all else” first exists within infinite potentiality and then manifests when and if changeable conditions permit, even when those conditions have never before existed and cannot be anticipated, then the potential for a round square to manifest does exist.

- Since thought is a necessary condition for inference, then thought is a necessary condition for all else other than I Am.

Even an inference is grounded and find its Principled Substance and Patterned Essence in the law of the Spirit of thought. To think it is reality beyond inference. Thus, the following is the reality of this discussion. How? because I am the thinker thinking the thought of "The square circle". And the thinker cannot be separated from the thought he/she is thinking making the thought the reality.

Reality is never the object or subject of the thought, it is the thought itself which is the reality of the life of the object and subject. Dealing with the effect does not change the reality of what I am thinking in originality of the architect. This is beyond inference.

I can understand the surface of the hypothesis "The square circle" and it format from the posit presented, but in order for it not to exist as stated, nothing circular can be found within its bounds. If at any point a circle can be measured from the center outwards, the hypothesis looses idealization of logic by the simply truth the squared corners are an extension added to the perimeter which does not change the originality of the circle, just the framework from a visual viewing.

From this standpoint, "The square circle" is a circular reality.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[cousinbasil]

In other words, even if you can't picture n-dimensional space, analysis shows you do no need to in order to work with it.

Just as you can't picture a square circle and my type of analysis aims at showing you do not need to to work with it

Except n-dimensional space is logically consistent and a square circle is not, by definition. You are acting as if the axiom of identity has been felled. If so, when did that happen - ?

Non the less , there are different variants of string theory that have more than 3 space dimensions , up to 8 or 11, i believe.
Can you imagine that.
If you cant then its not the theory thats at fault but your imagination.

Again, you seem to be pinning your argument on what you perceive is my faulty imagination. String theory is simply that - a theory, and it is logically consistent. And by the way - most string theorists picture the mechanics, not the numerous dimensions the theory requires, which they will all admit is beyond them for the most part.

You mean Marvin = (equivalent to) anything_logically_impossible.

Yes.

You dont seem to notice the terminology you choose to use.
You have used two words "loosely".
Anything (any thing) and logic, both of which are based on the axiom of identity.

Marvins are logically impossible because they are *things* (you used any*thing* in your definition of marvin:anything_logically impossible)

I am unaware of any fruitful field of research or inquiry that totally abandons the usually implicitly agreed upon "axiom of identity."

You are letting a basic word such as "thing" keep you from seeing my point, chikoka. Let me try to help you with this. How about we let Marvin be equivalent to any logical contradiction, or logical impossibility?

No need to use the word anything, which you seem to want to break down into any_thing and in so doing alter its intended meaning. In English, anything is all-encompassing and need not refer to things at all.

A thing cannot be a square and a circle at the same time.
But it *can* (be a square and a circle) at different times?
What gives time the magical ability to be able to do this?

You are trying to find a loophole in what I am saying, but you seem to be aware that you are not finding one but inventing one. Time has nothing to do with Platonic realities - I am sure at some level you know this. Time cannot change a circle into a square. Circle and square are logical constructs. If you want to call them things, fine, if you want to call them zetas, be my guest. The point is unassailable, however: the properties of a circle are not those of a square. A square, for instance, has four sides and a circle does not. You are postulating the possibility of a "zeta," which has four sides AND does not have four sides. Whatever you are smoking, save me some and I will PM you with my mailing address!

Also if the univerese is flat and infinite then it is a square and a circle and any shape imaginable at the same time

And composed entirely of Banana Peels...

I'm not sure if i will be able to have consistent dialogue with you guys due to circumstances out of my control.
I'll try as hard as i can ,however, to do so.

Please do! I quite enjoy our exchanges!