Metaphysics, Language and It Geometric Nature

[John DoeParticipant 743]

The nature of a noun is a classification, quality or concept of a percicevably stable object which exists as a boundary of change.

For example a cat is composed of a variety of movements ranging from cell replication to behavior patterns.

The noun is fundamentally a stable verb, however we do not use nouns as verbs due to grammatical context. We do not use the word “catting” to observe the movement patterns of an animal but rather use “cat like”.

All verbs as actions exist as forms. We are more lenient relative to this as “the fall” or “t he rise” observe forms. An action cannot exist without A form.

In these respects all nouns exists as both nouns and forms and verbs exist as both forms and nouns where both respectively are directed movements as form and function.

The statement of (C -> F) observes the cat as a cause and fall as effect.

The form of falling exists as an effect of the cats movements.

Inverting the statement to (F -> C) observes the fall as a cause resulting in the cat as an effect. This is considering the cat exists if it moves and the falling is a movement which resulted in the form of the cat.

Both statements can be observed as “The cat falls”, “The cat fell”, etc. however what we can observe is that one form/function results in another form/function. One replicates to another.

The question occurs relative to “->” as a directed movement in itself. This observes the replication of one phenomena into another.

So the “cat” replicating “fall” observes a continual set of forms and functions resulting in the cat and falling.

The cat as directed towards falling observes the cat existing through another form and function and progressing towards it. The cat is directed towards the form/function of fall with an infinite progression of “cats” and “falls” where a fractal nature of one existing through the other occurs.

Cat exists as a cause for “fall” with the progression of one to another observing the cause and effect as separate in this respect (as one leads to another).

Cat and fall, while embodied in language and logic as separate are fundamentally structural extensions of a single axiom of both form and function.

Language as Geometric

The Geometric Nature of Language can be observed through the “Prime-Triadic Laws of the Axiom” observed below or the following thread:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25507

The nature of language is determined not just by its self-evident under axioms, but how these axioms exist in accords to language as an “axiom” in itself. While these laws are not limited strictly to language, they exist through them, and hence are laws of language and logic as well.

1. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.

As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws

If I look at the sentence:

“The dog ate the cat.” These words are inhernent axioms as points of origin in themselves and effectively exist as point space.

Using “(x)∙” as a symbol for point space, which as an axiom is in itself a point of reference to the observer denoting that these laws are not just limited to language but language as symbolism is not just limited to the written word but thoughts within the observer, the sentence can be observed geometrically as:

(The)∙ (dog)∙ (ate)∙ (the)∙ (cat)∙

This sentence in itself is an axiom as a point of origin and can be observed as:

((The)∙ (dog)∙ (ate)∙ (the)∙ (cat)∙)∙

While the same applies to the letters which form the sentence:

(((T)∙(h)∙(e)∙)∙ ((d)∙(o)∙(g)∙)∙ ((a)∙(t)∙(e)∙)∙ ((t)∙(h)∙(e)∙)∙ ((c)∙(a)∙(t)∙)∙)∙

And The paragraphs, pages, etc. as well (this will not be observed for brevity).

2. All axioms are progressive linear definition; point 1 and 3 progress to point 2 as respective points of origin observed in point 1 while this linear progression from one to another through alternation and exists as circulation between points 1 and 3 to point 2 and point 2 progressing to points 1 and 3.

Point 2 is definitive and defines points 1 and 3 with points 1 and 3 defining point 2.

As definitive Points 1,2,3 progress from one to another and are inherently seperate. As seperating one from another they are connected under a common function of “seperation”; hence are defined as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.

If I look at the sentence:

“The dog ate the cat.” These words are inhernent axioms as lines of definition in themselves and effectively exist as linear space.

Using “(x)∙→” as a symbol for projective linear space and “(x)∙⇄” as a symbol for connective linear space,

which as an axiom is directed to and from the observer, while connected with the observe from a difference reference point, denoting that these laws are not just limited to language but language as symbolism is not just limited to the written word but thoughts within the observer, the sentence can be observed geometrically as:

(The)∙→ (dog)∙→ (ate)∙→ (the)∙→ (cat)∙

(The)∙⇄ (dog)∙⇄ (ate)∙⇄ (the)∙⇄ (cat)∙

This sentence in itself is an axiom as a projective/connection and can be observed as:

((The)∙→ (dog)∙→ (ate)∙→ (the)∙→ (cat)∙→)∙→ (Y)∙
((The)∙⇄ (dog)∙⇄ (ate)∙⇄ (the)∙⇄ (cat)∙⇄)∙⇄ (Y)∙

(Y)∙ = next sentence.

While the same applies to the letters which form the sentence:

(((T)∙→(h)∙→(e)∙)∙→ ((d)∙→(o)∙→(g)∙)∙→ ((a)∙→(t)∙→(e)∙)∙→ ((t)∙→(h)∙→(e)∙)∙→ ((c)∙→(a)∙→(t)∙→)∙)∙→ (Y)∙
(((T)∙⇄(h)∙⇄(e)∙)∙⇄ ((d)∙⇄(o)∙⇄(g)∙)∙→ ((a)∙⇄(t)∙⇄(e)∙)∙⇄ ((t)∙⇄(h)∙⇄(e)∙)∙⇄ ((c)∙⇄(a)∙⇄(t)∙⇄)∙)∙⇄ (Y)∙

And The paragraphs, pages, etc. as well (this will not be observed for brevity).

3. All axioms are maintain through a circularity, as linear alternation through point 2, and points of origin as point 1, with point 1 and 2 circulating through each other as point three while circulating through themselves as each other. Point 3 maintains itself as circular and maintains points 1 and 2 as circular while points 1,2 and 3 circulating through eachother maintain eachother.

Point 3 is circular and exists through 1 and 2 as 1 and 2.

As circular Points 1,2,3 are maintained through eachother as eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously dissolving into further axioms as eachother; hence they circulate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.

Considering the sentence, is dependent upon the projective nature in which it is written and read, the nature of the circularity in sentences observes certain inherent characteristics:

It observes the maintenance, or inseparability of certain axioms, where descriptors cycle with the quality being described:

Example:

The brown dog ate the yellow cat.
((The)∙→ ((brown)∙ ⟲ (dog)∙)∙→ (ate)∙→ (the)∙→ ((yellow)∙ ⟲(cat)∙)∙)∙→ (Y)∙

These order of these descriptors changes relative to language as the descriptor may be equally involved in form the quality, and the quality may be equally observed as forming the descriptor. For example in English “Good Man” may be observed in Hebrew as “Man Good”.

It also observes that the sentence does not necessarily have to be observed in the same order to have the same meaning.

Observing each progression of one axiom to another, other this circularity in a different manner where a sentence can be arranged in many different ways and yet mean the same thing.

The brown dog ate the yellow cat.

(((The)∙→((Brown)∙⟲(Dog)∙)∙)∙→(Ate)∙⟲ (The)∙→((Yellow)∙⟲(Cat)∙)∙)∙⟲)∙→ (Y)∙

[JVBParticipant]

Yawn.

Peace is > piece.

[JB BooksParticipant 3182]

Uh, yeah. Whatever you say, pal.

We just don't realize life's most significant events while they're happening. Back then, I thought, "Well, there'll be other days". I didn't realize that that was the only day. - "Moonlight" Graham

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Would posting coloring books be more suitable for you gentlemen?

[Anonymous 1]

All language can be reduced to its binary components. Just like a computer language.

You are talking about objects “Dogs and Cats” and Functions “Eating.” These can ultimately be reduced to nothing more than a 1 or a 0.

We operate on machine code and as such we can be programmed by any master of language.

This is why human beings are dualistic in their outlook as you mentioned in previous threads. Its a natural consequence of our binary programming.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Anonymous wrote:

All language can be reduced to its binary components. Just like a computer language.
You are talking about objects “Dogs and Cats” and Functions “Eating.” These can ultimately be reduced to nothing more than a 1 or a 0.
We operate on machine code and as such we can be programmed by any master of language.
This is why human beings are dualistic in their outlook as you mentioned in previous threads. Its a natural consequence of our binary programming.

Not really because language, programming or otherwise, requires a directional component in writing, or translating it.

One character progresses to another, and this directional quality determines the language.

This varies from one language to another, some are left to right, right to left, up to down, zig zag, etc. The nature of language is determined by its directional nature.

Dualistic code does not take into account triadic variables such as possibility statements. 1,0 and possible 1 or 0 observes an inherent synthetic quality where the actual 1 or 0 exists through a potential 1 or 0 as another 1 or 0.

This “possibility” variable effectively is directional in nature as it observes a linear progress.

[iMickey503Participant 12465]

If language was indeed geometric, explain Navajo.

Even Sanskrit and Japanese symbols (Kanji) do not have this. If it did, the programs to translate one into another would work perfectly, or you would have programed and IME Interpreter.

Fibonacci theory does not explain all things. But it’s a nice ruler.

You are all alone. If you have been falsely accused of RAPE, DV, PLEASE let all men know about the people who did this. http://register-her.net/web/guest/home

[John DoeParticipant 743]

iMickey503 wrote:

If language was indeed geometric, explain Navajo.
Even Sanskrit and Japanese symbols (Kanji) do not have this. If it did, the programs to translate one into another would work perfectly, or you would have programed and IME Interpreter.
Fibonacci theory does not explain all things. But it’s a nice ruler.

Modern computer programming is dependent upon geometry but does not take it into account. As far as I understand it is heavily dependent upon type theory as a form of linear progression.

Relative to the other points:

Have what exactly. One symbol directed towards the next in the text? They have that.

Or the symbols being composed of basic lines? They have that.

Navajo? They have an alphabet.

Are you referring to hieroglyphs or oral tradition? In that case the hieroglyphs have not just a directional quality but a cyclical nature where they can be viewed as extensions of a whole.

[bstoffParticipant 4863]

What are you getting at, here?
I don’t see the point you are trying to get across.
Are you showing us your school paper or something?

[iMickey503Participant 12465]

Modern computer programming is dependent upon geometry but does not take it into account. As far as I understand it is heavily dependent upon type theory as a form of linear progression.

Not really. Look up Unix. Its does not have this as it was programmed through a compiler. If you took the compiler out of the mix, the language would be useless. And breaks the theory you are presenting.

Same with COBAL. BASIC and JAVA SCRIPT however does seem to have this.

Are you referring to hieroglyphs or oral tradition? In that case the hieroglyphs have not just a directional quality but a cyclical nature where they can be viewed as extensions of a whole.

The actual Test is a Logographic. So as written, it does not have an exact geometry since the geometric shape can change. Once you change the points they hypothesis of geometric perfection no longer holds water.

Example:

So in the Apple newton, there was this Hand writing software. There is a reason the guy killed himself. No one person has the same writing. But it is recognizable to the human eye. So, that has to do with Pattern recognition. But if we are talking numbers here, it is not repeatable.

For example Binary is a steadfast rule. If it is not his, it is thrown out or interpreted as something else. And there is a moderator of time.

Now take a symbol. If it is written, then it does not have the same points.

Take these shapes.

They are actually accurate and can be scaled. That’s important.

But take these shapes. Now you and I can see that these relate to Disney characters. But how?

See, the thing is if it was all based on numbers, then this would all equally translate and be able to be broken down into binary and hex.

But all we are doing when we take that image and make it #digital is encoding. But the meaning is always different.

Your argument is that Nature is Geometric. Sure, but human thought is not. If it was, we would all be able to come to the same endings if the rules are all the same. But they are not.

Here is a good example. We have about 5 active Black members here. They say they are black, but as we all know, There are no real black people and there is no real white people. But we say this only due to similarities. But there is no real similarity between color matching based on race and identity. These two things exist on their own.

So how do you apply geometric nature theory to color? It also does not work for language.

For example, Auditory language and is based on Frequency of sound. But it is also based on pitch rhythm etc. So you CAN take that and compress that to Numbers. But then you lose the meaning. For example,

ME GUSTA! The meaning of that can not be encoded. It can mean so many other things that can not be quantified by geometric Nature theory. (Really Fibonacci Principle)

Just like a joke has a different meaning to other people.
Hence why Ashtrays are not so popular that look like VW’s if you happen to be Jewish.

So. I think you are on a right path, but I still don’t see the relation. More data is required.

Nice to talk about something other than women for a change. 🙂

You are all alone. If you have been falsely accused of RAPE, DV, PLEASE let all men know about the people who did this. http://register-her.net/web/guest/home

[iMickey503Participant 12465]

Anonymous wrote:

All language can be reduced to its binary components. Just like a computer language.
You are talking about objects “Dogs and Cats” and Functions “Eating.” These can ultimately be reduced to nothing more than a 1 or a 0.
We operate on machine code and as such we can be programmed by any master of language.
This is why human beings are dualistic in their outlook as you mentioned in previous threads. Its a natural consequence of our binary programming.

I really don’t see the relation to Binary logic and humans. I think it’s more based on Quantum entanglement then binary logic. I’m really out of my element here, but it just does not seem correct to say humans can be reduced down to Binary without throwing a ton of information out.

Sure on the cellular level, its possible, but that does not account for everything. Quantum theory seems to be more appropriate here. And Damn, I have one HELL of a hard time explaining that. I barely grasp Quantum computing. Therefore, humans must be a quantum entity.

You are all alone. If you have been falsely accused of RAPE, DV, PLEASE let all men know about the people who did this. http://register-her.net/web/guest/home

[RhinoParticipant 3477]

Here is some information that you would be wise to consider. I cannot go into great detail but will give you clues as to what some of you are arguing above are missing. First consider what Tesla wrote throughout his life.

“If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.”

A lot of people have tried over the years to figure this out. Some people like in this link are partially on the right track but lack the necessary tools to complete the picture because they view the problem only from a scientific binary language standpoint because our left brain can only compute information like a computer. The right side of the brain is your super computer, the spiritual aspect of your being where emotions and consciousness reside among other things which I will provide further information on the further you read. This is the part Tesla was referencing when he said:

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”

So do you want to know what has been hidden from us for thousands of years and why Tesla was ahead of his time and silenced for the information he knew?

Recently declassified you can now have a better understanding of our true nature. Page 25 is missing in the document for a reason that will not be declassified anytime soon. Please read this it is a 26 page document by a alphabet agency that I will not post but the document is declassified and you are able to read it or download it without getting into trouble. This is some deep stuff and will take time to process.

Link to source.

The PDF file link you need to read. You can also find the PDF file that is clickable in the above link provided. This will be taking the red pill to another level if you decide to read this and I encourage everyone to do so.

[RhinoParticipant 3477]

Here is some information that you would be wise to consider. I cannot go into great detail but will give you clues as to what some of you are arguing above are missing. First consider what Tesla wrote throughout his life.

“If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.”

A lot of people have tried over the years to figure this out. Some people like in this link are partially on the right track but lack the necessary tools to complete the picture because they view the problem only from a scientific binary language standpoint because our left brain can only compute information like a computer. The right side of the brain is your super computer, the spiritual aspect of your being where emotions and consciousness reside among other things which I will provide further information on the further you read. This is the part Tesla was referencing when he said:

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”

So do you want to know what has been hidden from us for thousands of years and why Tesla was ahead of his time and silenced for the information he knew?

Recently declassified you can now have a better understanding of our true nature. Page 25 is missing in the document for a reason that will not be declassified anytime soon. Please read this it is a 26 page document by a alphabet agency that I will not post but the document is declassified and you are able to read it or download it without getting into trouble. This is some deep stuff and will take time to process.

Link to source.

The PDF file link you need to read. You can also find the PDF file that is clickable in the above link provided. This will be taking the red pill to another level if you decide to read this and I encourage everyone to do so.

[RhinoParticipant 3477]

There really needs to be a delete option when the website double posts while editing or posting in general.

[MonkParticipant 16978]

Rhino wrote:

This is the part Tesla was referencing when he said: “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”

5000 years later, the West finally catches on.

[Anonymous 1]

iMickey503 wrote:

I really don’t see the relation to Binary logic and humans. I think it’s more based on Quantum entanglement then binary logic. I’m really out of my element here, but it just does not seem correct to say humans can be reduced down to Binary without throwing a ton of information out.

No you are misunderstanding what I meant. I said Language can be reduced to Binary. I never said nor do I believe that “humans” can be reduced to Binary. The English Language is what I had in mind particularly.

All the elements are there. We have Nouns (Objects). We have verbs (Functions). We have conditional statements (And Or). So on and so forth, Language is a form of programming.

[Anonymous 1]

Rhino wrote:

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”

So do you want to know what has been hidden from us for thousands of years and why Tesla was ahead of his time and silenced for the information he knew?

Tesla believed in very different theories than the Physicists of the 20th Century. He did not believe in “empty” space.

He believed that Electric and Magnetic forces were interactions with a invisible “fluid” called the Aether (Ether). Modern Physics rejects that theory in favor of “empty space.” Electromagnetic waves are claimed to require no medium to propagate at a fixed velocity.

Personally, I think Tesla was on to something much bigger than anyone has yet realized.

[CarnageParticipant 22113]

Damn mickei, hats off, that was brilliant.

Carnage dont like you.

To those following me, be careful, I just farted. Men those beans are killers.

[RhinoParticipant 3477]

Anonymous wrote:

Tesla believed in very different theories than the Physicists of the 20th Century. He did not believe in “empty” space.He believed that Electric and Magnetic forces were interactions with a invisible “fluid” called the Aether (Ether). Modern Physics rejects that theory in favor of “empty space.” Electromagnetic waves are claimed to require no medium to propagate at a fixed velocity. Personally, I think Tesla was on to something much bigger than anyone has yet realized.

It has already been realized I just gave you the key with the link above all you had to do was press the link to unlock it. Here let me give it to you again and READ it to understand what Tesla was talking about. Click here.

I also wrote science cannot explain everything you have to access the right side of your brain that is a super computer to access what Tesla called the Aether it is all explained in the document. Maybe I didn’t write it well perhaps I should just make a new thread on this entire subject it is one of the most important discoveries mankind has ever made and most people are skimming past what I wrote.

[Dark KenshiParticipant 2132]

The main component of it all, that you Brothers seem to be missing is the electrical nature of the information processing in both human brain and a CPU unit. It is impulse/no impulse, on/off, 0/1, it is fundamentally binary.

Yes, the brain is capable of deep Quantum entanglement, that is how we can do things that a CPU (for now) cannot, because our brain is capable of “skipping” some “lines of code”, when the pattern recognition analyzes the problem and deem our solution unfit for the problem. That is what is called “intuition”, which is nothing more than a big “skip” of hypothesis that will not fit the problem, as a solution.

Maurice Conti explained that process very brilliantly in his TED Talk (available in Youtube).

Everything in Universe can be explained and reduced to binaries: No atom, no element. Add one electron to an atom of Hydrogen, and you get Helium. Add another, and you get Lithium. Add another and you get Beryllium and so forth. Vibration is also explained in binaries and so forth, for example, the duration of a peak or a valley depends on how much time the frequency has been applied, making the sinusoidal motion as on/off. Remember that frequency is also binary, and can be translated for our understanding as how fast has the “on” or “1” state has been repeated.

To finish my thought, everything, from speech to physics, are binary.

"Young was I once, I walked alone, and bewildered seemed in the way; then I found me another and rich I thought me, for man is the joy of man." Odin, Hàvamàl, stanza 47.

[Author]

Posts