Redefinition of Energy?
- Eodnhoj
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: March 11th, 2017, 2:14 pm
Redefinition of Energy?
Argument Set 1
1) All structures, whether physical or abstract must manifest stability because all
structures require stability to maintain structure.
2) All stabilizing dynamics, whether physical or non-physical, must have a degree of reflective properties to maintain itself. These reflective properties manifest
further possible stability.
3) As all structures require stability, all structures require a degree of reflectivity to maintain structure. This manifests
further possible structures.
4) All reflective acts are acts of flux that manifest inherent stability of a structure while simultaneously manifesting new structures.
Argument Set 2
1) "1" is equal in definition to a structure because "1" reflects a degree of stability in both form and function, and is a stabilizer.
2) "1" can be observed has a highly primitive structure, because it is deficient in definition as all definition is an inherent flux.
3) All structures that lack definition must be inherently self-reflective so as to manifest stability.
4) All stable structures have a degree of self-reflectivity; therefore "1" is self reflective.
5) All reflection is equal to the propagation of structures/stability through flux; therefore possible reflections of "1" are equal to the propagation of "1". This is through the manifestation
of rational numbers as complex structures of one.
ex: 1≡1≡1 = 3
1≡1≡1≡1≡1 = 5
6) These complex structures of "1" self-reflecting are equivalent to rational numbers.
7) All reflections of "1" manifests as further possible "1"'s equivalent to rational numbers.
8 ) All flux is curvature; therefore all rational numbers, as reflections of "1", are curvature of "1" reflecting upon itself.
Argument Set 3
1) The "line" is equal in definition to a structure because the "line" reflects a degree of stability in both form and function, and is a stabilizer.
2) The "line" can be observed has a highly primitive structure, because it is deficient in definition as all definition is an inherent flux.
3) All structures that lack definition must be inherently self-reflective so as to manifest stability.
4) All stable structures have a degree of self-reflectivity; therefore the "line" is self reflective.
5) All reflection is equal to the propagation of structures/stability through flux; therefore possible reflections of a "line are equal to the propagation of a "line". This is through the manifestation
of wave functions as complex structures of the "line".
ex: ⟺≡⟺≡⟺ = ⇶
⟺≡⟺≡⟺≡⟺≡⟺ = ⇶
6) These complex structures are equivalent to a wave functions/forms.
7) All reflection of lines manifests further possible lines equivalent to wave functions.
8 )All flux is curvature; therefore all wave functions/forms, as reflections of the line, are curvature.
Argument Set 4
1) The line is equal in definition to "1" because the line is reflective in structure to "1".
2) The line is equal to "1"; therefore all rational numbers are wavelengths.
3) All wave functions/forms are equivalent to energy as a flux; therefore all rational numbers reflect energy.
4) As all rational numbers are abstract; All Energy has abstract qualities.
5) As all energy is physical; All rational numbers have physical qualities.
6) The reflectivity of the abstract and physical is equal to a unifying dimension or dimensional ether.
-
- Posts: 44
- Joined: February 11th, 2013, 12:50 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Kant
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
- Contact:
Re: Redefinition of Energy?
One other thing that occurs to my mind, beyond the fact that I desire to see these arguments elaborated and applied, is the question of the ontological status of both matter and energy. This might be the same as asking what is the universe at bottom. But then it seems indecent in a way to ask such
-- Updated April 20th, 2017, 6:47 pm to add the following --
Another question that comes to mind was one that arose once when I was making an argument for idealism. I was claiming that the laws of the universe are more "real" than their phenomena, . . .this was going back to the old argument seen in the Vedic philosophy and also in Spinoza's work that the cause contains more reality than the effect. The phenomena are mere appearance, changing, etc. whereas the cause being the rational structure underlying all phenomena is what is truly real. How might your argument relate to this old proposition?
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023