“But there is no end of the line.”
The end of the line rests on the argument that has expanded from meno through the geometers through the conical hyperbole of calculation, which lead to the quantic/uncertainty generated partially reconstructed Fourier series which defined the MC2 transformations.
In fact, it could not have been surmised inductively, anyway.
Meno was right, and Leibnitz through Kant showed metaphysics to have been shut reductively
So how the connect, the touted synthesis?
Maybe Russel’s sense data is right on point, after all, as right as the well repeated proposition:
‘if God does not exist, he had to be created’
The point about transformation is significant because in a sense, something does come from an appearent Nothingness, and that is the point to the underlying functional math analysis , where partial differentiations are subsumed by the calculus of indiscernibles.
So the 'end of time’s is inherent in the declaration that -(.99=1.00) ; because of the same partially derived reconstruction by Fourier transform, validates such a pro-position.
The end is transformed from a logical level, (Russel-Wittgenstein) to one that is inductively not reduceable, is subsumed by the differential levels of quantifiability.
Put it in linear language, upon whose architecture the modality of it has to accorded to: simply: the end(s) justify the means of the reconstruction- that, the original transformation can be signified,
The transformed end can not be defined within but without recourse to a reconstructed generation of progression: from meno through Leibnitz/ Kant, all the way to the missing key of Principia Mathematica:
The ‘sense data’.
This hotly contested concept, overcomes the epoche within which liberal arts still vanquishes, unable to mimic its more quantitatively able cousin , the human brain.
The end of any road is the preintegrated calculus of missing pieces minus the ones left unfilled, but such a presumption fails, unless a transformative filler can replace it.
So, the end of the road could not be in a one dimensional map, but does exist in the calculable certainty in the existence of the perfect monad.
Without that, atomism would/ could not have come about signaling the need: to overcome it.
I shared this with St.James on occasion, and I think there was some concurrent albeit partially limited agreement, there.