Meaning Something

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Meaning Something

Post by chikoka »

Hopefully D wont delete this thread.

The search for meaning is the search for the answer to aggripa.

Either a beleif system is built on :

1-Unjustified Axioms

2-circular justification

or

3-Infinite regress of justifiers.



Its seems clear that those are our only options.If you think on this it seems that everything is meaningless.There is no truth or rather there is truth...or there is neither truth nor no truth...but really there is neither "neither truth nor no truth"

We can not move nor not move nor anything , nor nor either of them under aggripa. So the search for meaning is crucial.
I plan to do this.

First we study a different philosophical topic ; Form. There is form and formlessnes. The question "how something can come from nothing" is equivalent to "how can form come from formlessness.
And can be equivalent to "how meaning can come from meaninglessnes"

Lets represent these questions in a mathematical form.
Prime numbers when represented with stones as the greeks used to do form a line.They cannot be arranged as squares as that would have meant they could be factored into the numbers that the sides of that square had, and prime numbers do not have any factors. They cannot be arranged in cubes or rectangles or any shape because that would imply factors.
Now with time the number 1 was dropped from being assumed to be prime .This means prime numbers cannot be represented even as a line , because that would mean that one side would have a width of one (with the other being the prime number) and so it would have 1 as a factor.But prime numbers have no factors besides themselves.

So really prime numbers have no *form* and only composite numbers (6,12,56...) or sqaures,cubes,rectangles...have form.

The fundamental theorm of arithmatic states that all natural numbers are built of the product of primes and prime powers (uniqely).

So we see composite numbers have form ,but that form (by the fundamental theory) is derived from formlessnes.

Perhaps this could represent how meaning can be formed out of that which is meaningless and not suffer from being formed out of unjustifiable axioms.

The prime level repressents all the *observable* universe or aggrip_asia with no meaning while meaningfulness can be derived from it and still be meaning*full*
Giving meaning to truth, and the truth of truth.

Lets examine this deeper
Lets form a cartesian product of the prime number sequence with itself, the x axis is the prime sequence while the y axis is the same.
The composite numbers 6,15,28...are to be found on the plane.The axi's represent aggripa_asia .The most we can say about them is that the axis represent the fact that prime = prime ,the axiom of identity. Form or meaning belongs on the plane.

now this representation was inspired by a search for something.Meaning. But it seems we got more than we expected.An individual number on the plane represents meaning/form but what would a curve on this plane mean?, what would the gradient of a line on this plane mean? what would the area under a curve stand for.

The meaning plane comes with these other truths [which to be honest i havent figured out], but more truths become evident when we increase the number of axi's.And we should see that to be consistent we need to increase the axi's by prime numbers. 2 is prime so we have been ok up to now with 2 axi's so the next will be 3 then five,then 7...


All this has been guided by a search for symetry.I have not justified that.The justification should come from perhaps the study of these forms of forms on these cartesian planes. Perhaps the gradients of curves or something on this plane show the true significants of trancendental numbers such as pi and the golden mean phi..which are found in the spiral of galaxies and flower petal arrangement (phi that is).

So how do we move from aggrip_asia to meaning.What would multiplication represent..

I dont know...

What do you guys think?
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Meaning Something

Post by chikoka »

What do you guys think of my thought proscesses?
Not my ideas but the engine that generates them..is it flawed in some way?
I cant determine that myself as that would be to use that engine to justify itself...which is pointless
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Meaning Something

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

chikoka wrote:What do you guys think of my thought proscesses?
They appear still rather incoherent in how you put them together on the screen. Some of it I think can follow though this time. And you haven't written yet that it's pointless. Without seriousness, without some stakes involved it would be dubious material.

There's a difference between "searching for some answers" and "seeing that searching is going on". Two different perspectives really. It's a bit like the difference between a tree "trying to reach the sky" or instead have it growing when it's the season for it. The first one has an objective to reach, the second one is just the conclusion that there's growth, that processes are manifesting. If it asks "why" it's because it would be part of that growth to ask that.

This is why many eastern or mystical philosophies start at "there is awareness", or "differentiation" or better yet: reflection already being the case. That's the absolute because nothing could be determined without it being the case. If that's circular then it's because truth is shaped circular as only way to define - itself!

But it's not faith: thinking can be determined to be about determination: to have beginnings and endings. And the Alfa and Omega are exactly that: reflection or awareness itself, as flowering, as "that what is the case". And then to see that this flowering naturally will ask, inquire, examine and desires to know itself.

Self-knowledge is not only the beginning of wisdom: it's the engine under all knowledge gathering, its prime motivator. It tries in a roundabout way to find out, getting to, mimicking, living out and delving into its own origination and effect. It stumbles upon causality.

As for form or formlessness: there's only reflection to become aware of either form or the lack of form. So there's only reflection the case. Reflection as primal mirror, the one and the other, birth of awareness and identity. Not a perfect symmetry but all creation is then a broken "symmetry" and a "scattered reflection" as a result. The tendency for multiplication in images.

Back to your Münchhausen trilemma. The answer to "how do I know that it's true?" lies in knowing the unavoidability of that question itself. It must be asked. The higher truth therefore is not the how but the principle of doubt itself -- doubling or reflecting. To doubt is then to "exist": dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum. Or in another form: your life as question mark -- an ambiguous point.

This is not that mystical or a matter of belief. It's a conversation, an existence, happening in another context than logic and mathematics. It questions and challenges the limits of system and theories of knowledge fundamentally. And that's where a philosopher continues where others might stop.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Meaning Something

Post by chikoka »

Impressive post...very

Truths justification being circular...priceless realisation!
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Meaning Something

Post by chikoka »

Can anyone else notice that i've just read a book on number theory. :)
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Meaning Something

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

chikoka wrote:Truths justification being circular...priceless realisation!
Circulation does generally have a bad rap :-)

Recently I was exploring the possibilities of a word like "re-flect". It appears to mean fold or bend back, or towards itself. Not sure if that has to be circular in geometrical terms. It's a fold, a ripple, some loop perhaps. The symbols have been used a lot, not at the least the snake biting its own tail. It's never a perfect circle though I think. Probably messier and involving more "dimensions" than our usual linear representations.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Meaning Something

Post by chikoka »

while reading on number theory i came accross a beautiful technique. Start of with a question we dont have an answer for in one context,rephrase it in another context where we know the rules for answering questions.Apply the rules to the new version of the question , and convert the answer back into the original context using the same techniques you used to translate the question.

I hope this isnt another example of incoherenceness.:)

Its like you have a question in english and you have no way of finding its answer .For some reason if it was expressed in french we could get the answer to the french version in french.
We then translate this answer back into english using the same rules we used to get the french version of the question from the english.

I used the natural numbers to represent how when you say "the natural numbers" you are talking of a set.This set is infinite and though expressed in terms of finite numbers it itself is neither a number nor not a number.If we were to divide any number by 0 we would get infinity meaning each number is literaly a 0'th of the totality .each number literaly doesnt exist with respect to the totality.When we divide by 0 or in other words try to make a thing the totality as we get to zero the new number becomes bigger and bigger , it started of with real bioundaries (form) and as we moved to ward zero the value became too big to be pin pointed or formless, or infinite.In other terms *undefined*.Undefined being another way of saying it is neither a number nor not a number.

I think my use of the word totality gives you a clue as to what i chose the natural numbers to represent.Your enquiry on reflection and your elaboration might benefit from a study of topology. Representing it that way might lead to other more salient results.Then you work out what they would mean by working backwards.

I will try and make my posts more understandable.I guess i write stuff the way i would like to read it (Remnant of my christian days lol.) and not nescesarily the way someone else would.

I still need to master techniques such as naunce and inflection , making every word "earn its keep".
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Meaning Something

Post by Bobo »

Basic geometric terms for the trilemma could be unbounded lines, bounded lines, and dots. The unbounded and bounded lines are composed of infinite dots, bounded lines have top and bottom dots. We would have an infinite number of axioms, which can be limited and associated circulary (each bounded line can be associated to a radius X, the unbounded line cannot), and analyzed in their relations.

What is implicit though is the idea that dots can be put in order (in math terms zero and the successor of), so how would someone use the idea of order (which may be foundational) without recurring to order, order from here to order there, or even disorder?
Locked