A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.

A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post Number:#1  Postby Eodnhoj » September 8th, 2017, 8:50 pm

Pardon any grammatical errors, I wrote this in a coffee shop after a full day of work. This is a very, very, very, brief intro to a field of philosophy call Geometric Dimensionalism. In theory it unifies all philosophy, religion, and sciences into one. I expect debates, however with some degree of patience for I very poorly summarized 120 + pages and 200+ sources into 1-2 pages.

Philosopher's have long sought for a unifying metaphysics from which to establish a balanced understanding of not only the universe but themselves and their immediate surroundings. What we observe today with philosophy, and by extension the sciences and religions, is a continually fracturing quality where a philosophy/science/religion inevitably seem to reproduce various perspectives that mimic or reflect their previous parents.

It is in this effort to establish not only a unity, but an understanding of unity itself, that the nature of these fields of observation seem to follow a very difficult if not impossible course of action. Philosophies establish more philosophies, sciences with more sciences, religions with more religions...and the process of divergence seems to go on into a vortex whose end point, if there is any, lies more at the bottom of an abyss of materialistic flux rather than at the apex of what we deem as deep spiritual truth.

Where is unity to be found? Is their any to begin with? The answer seems to be the point, in a quite literal manner. What we understand of reality fundamentally breaks down to one irreducible axiom breaks down to a form of geometry and nothing more...nothing less.

All philosophy is founded upon the axiom, as point of self evidence whose dual nature of subjectivity and objectivity (under the "self" and "evidence") maintains a dualistic structure of continuous flux. "Truth is strictly subjective" turns itself into a statement of objectivity. "Truth is strictly objective" lends itself to a subjective understanding. Between this subjective and objective nature of the axiom we observe a continual flux between two natures, strictly because of its dualistic structure for a dualism is nothing more than an a form of opposition with that opposition erupting into a continual flux.

The synthesis of this subjective and objective nature of the axiom results in nothing more than geometric space under the guise of the "point". All subjective truth is found in and stems from the "point", along with all objective truth. It is this nature of the axiom as a point, which seems to have eluded philosophers due to its simultaneous simplicity and profundity as evidenced within the nature of its cousins the circle and sphere.

In simpler terms all axioms breakdown to a point. An observation, built upon this point, manifests structure by its reflection, relation, and synthesis of other points. It is this reflection, relation, and synthesis of axioms that in turn not only form other axioms but the very foundations of language and logic (and by extension reality) as we know it.

a) A point as a unified median, fundamentally reflects upon itself to maintain itself as a structure. It is in this self-reflection that a second point is made as an approximate of the first. In this respect that point is a causal element and the second point is an effectual element. This effectual element is fundamentally an approximate of the first point and in this respect shares the same cause nature.

b) However, due to its approximate nature to the first point it in itself is not the first point and not completely a unified. This approximate nature, as a deficiency in unity is akin to "randomness" as a "deficiency". The point as a self-reflective entity in this respect shares a dual role as a causal element and a random element through its nature as reflection. Reflection and the point are synonymous for reflection maintains the points as a unified entity with this unity equivalent in both form and function to stability or "abstraction".

c) It is from this nature of the point as a dimension of Reflection, from which we can observe Reflection as a dimension reflecting upon itself to maintain itself with its approximate as Relativity. The point becomes "deficient" in unity through the nature of gradation with this gradation of the point manifesting itself in both quantity and quality. These gradient points are fractals or particles which in turn are form of further particles. We observe this in material.

d)These particles, as deficient in unity, are subject to flux with this flux being evident in the needed relations of particles in order to exist. A particle relates to another particle other wise it does not exist. As the relation of a particle to another particle produces another particle a flux ensues with the continued relations of particles in many respects manifesting further relations, with further relations manifesting further particles. In this respect the particle has a dual nature of "potential relationships/particles" which define it. Relativity as a dimension of flux within and of itself manifests through a dual nature of actual and potential particles.

e)To step back further, what we understand of logic breaks down to a duality of Reflection (as stability/abstraction) and Relativity (as flux/physicality) which both are points within themselves. With Reflection being caused and Relativity as uncaused (for a deficiency in symmetry as flux is a deficiency in structure as causality) we observe dual dimension whose polarity is at odds and prevents and form of stability. A third dimension or point is introduced as Synthesis.

f) Reflection and Relativity, as points synthesis through a third point as themselves, each other, and the aforementioned point of synthesis that allows all logic and symmetric to maintain a triadic structure. This triadic structure, as the point itself, allows the point to:

1) maintain a dual role of stability and flux through the synthesis of dimensional limits.
2) maintain a dual role of stability and flux through the synthesis of possible dimensions limits.
3) This nature of dimensional limits, or the limit to space, is observed in the curvature of the circle or sphere while its possible dimensional limits are observe as the center point. We can observe this in Pi.

From this nature of Reflection, Relation, and Synthesis we can observe briefly that all logic and observed symmetry is fundamentally 3 dimensional as a point within a point within a point and in this respects allows logic to maintain dual structure of linearism through circularity and circularity through linearism whose apex is in the axiom. It is in these respect that the study of philosophy is fundamentally the study of spatial structure or geometry and what we observe as "reason" best reflects through "rationality" as the "ratio".

From these respects, as observed through the nature of the axiom, philosophy must recommit its course to the understanding of reality through the perspective of the point (as 1 dimension and reflective) the circle (as 2 dimensional and relative) and the sphere (as 3 dimensional and synthetic) as 1 dimension in 3 and 3 in 1.
User avatar
New Trial Member
Posts: 18 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 11th, 2017, 2:14 pm

A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post Number:#2  Postby SimpleGuy » September 23rd, 2017, 10:30 am

The problem is the axiomatic system that you choose. Note that in projective geometry there is no angle in principle it's an incidence geometry , yet it's axion are stil valid in real life. Even for camera reconstruction systems projective geometry can be used. There are various geometries like hyperbolic , spheric and projective that can be applied to real life although in their existence even idealizing. Semi-riemannian geometry is used in relativity-theory, a manifold endowed with a lorentz-geometry has different geometrical properties than the "normal" euclidean one. Geodesics are in a semi-riemannian geometry of index one (such as in general-relativity theory) suddenly the longest connections between point and not the shortest as in euclidean geometry. Everybody of the real world would from his personal perspective agree at first to a euclidean geometrical point of view , but after einstein this is not the truth.
Posts: 60 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: A Unified Theory: Geometric Dimensionalism

Post Number:#3  Postby Eodnhoj » September 24th, 2017, 3:17 pm

Thanks for the response and the thought.

The nature of the Reflective/Abstract/Stable aspect of geometry is similar to the Euclidian Perspective and the Pythagorean. The emphasis on the "Point" as the only true universal "space" is undeniable.

The other forms of geometry, as mere gradations of that universality generally maintain their axioms through empirical analysis or observational emphasis on the material world. This observation of materiality is fundamentally an observation of flux with this flux being merely "gradation of stability" would by default observe various gradations of a "universal" geometry whose roots are found in the "point". In simple terms, and you may correct me if I am wrong, that the majority of this geometry deals with the relativitistic nature of "space" which observes space as the relation of "points" (with these points as gradations in both quantity and quality to the universal reflective point).

The relativisitic nature of this geometries, does not make them any less constant though for a point is a point and Relativism is an Approximation of Reflectivism and a dual counterpart. Flux cannot exist without stability as a Root and Relationalism needs Reflectivism with Reflectivism in turn manifestation of Relationalism as a approximate structure of itself.

Reflectivism observes the "whole" as "one" the observation of anyone of these geometries would be equivalent to observing a reflective "structure" of the whole equivalent to 2 being a reflective structure of 1 reflecting 1. It is still "1" at the end of the day yet 2 at the same time. Going further through the sequence of numbers the infinite number of reflective structures being unified under infinity as "1". It would be no stretch of the imaginiation to arguing that while these geometry's are constants they are constant's as reflections of the "constant" geometry which can be argued as rooted in Euclid, but I would argue Pythagoras.

What I am arguing, using only the examples that you provided so that we stay on the same page, is that both "Euclid" and "Einstein" are both right and are fundamentally symmetrical duals as "stability" and "flux". It is in this duality, as a form of unstable polarity, that the reduction to 1 as form of unity is required through synthesis. It is this nature of synthesis of a "Reflective stable point" and a "Relative fluxing point" which in turn is the third point as "synthesis".

This "synthesis", as a third point of "space" itself, manifests stability and flux into both "stability/flux" which may be observe as synonymous to a "neutrality". This neutrality is observe as "dimensional limits" (through which order is simultaneously maintained and divided) and "Possible dimensional limits" (a dual to the dimensional limits through which order is still simultenously maintained and divided) which composed what we understand as the "axiom".

Even within your example the nature of "everybody" as simply a grouping of "axioms" in turn provides a structure for an argument meant to negate my own for these axioms are striclty "points" that form a structure. In turn I create a structured argument as a positive and our two arguments synthesize to form a new set of axioms through which both you and I build from. The study of argument itself is the study of a complex spatial structure which both literally and metaphorically can be observed as a point or set of points.

The point as the fullest of all spatial axioms, due to it's universality in the observation of space, must simultaneously be objective and subjective at the same time for if all existence is composed of space, so is conciousness at the subjective level.

It is in this respect the geometry is the manifestation of axioms, through the nature of synthesis, and what what makes use human. What I am arguing is that geometry as the study of space breaks down to three fundamental properties of space all of which are symmetrical as a 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 and that these properties of space as universals extend into the nature of logic itself as study of universal symmetry that ranges anywhere from language, to math, to the physical sciences, politics, religions, philosophy, etc. All these "studies of proportions" break down at the end of the day to complex spatial properties.
User avatar
New Trial Member
Posts: 18 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 11th, 2017, 2:14 pm

Return to General Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST