Defining; 'a line', …?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Defining; a line, …?

here, for a thought experiment I am simply going to attempt to describe what a ‘line’ is and how it is arrived at [draw a line in a void]. The essential idea is to compare what results from that description, to reality.

To begin drawing a line we create a point which continues [and so is never a point specifically] towards point X. it would be straight ~ because nothing else is making effect upon it [we only have infinity and the line existing at this point].

This line would have no limit to its extension because there is nothing else there.

Primarily it would extend to infinity, having nothing to stop it. Here we get a paradox…

First paradox; the line is both extending [yes even in this timeless thought-space] and has equally already reached infinity!

Second paradox; The line may extend either left or right ~ so must do both. Note; there is a comparison between this and how in quantum physics time is moving both from the past and from the future to meet in/as the present!

Third paradox; logically you cannot have any given speed of motion at the epicentre where the past meets the future, although the distinction between past and future is declared in the first paradox.

So far we have built our line ‘out of time’ -so to speak, as if a still mental image [1], yet we may see it as a process too. Either way, there is more than just an infinite line in existence and so we must add a given next logical step which is to add ‘time’, ~ so to take this away from a still image and obtain motion.

So far screaming between the paradoxes, the line has travelled the infinite line in every way it can. So to continue the ‘journey’ [albeit undetermined so far] it must make another action. The logical next Action can only be an action upon the line from a third person perspective [so now we have a ‘y’], so we will be creating an action or force acting at the epicentre [probably] of the until now straight line. This creates an ‘infinite curve’.

Forth paradox; logically, an infinite curve can only possibly meet at its ends forming a circle, which surely means it is created instantly as said circle.

So now our infinite line is a circle and has an epicentre assumedly in motion around it and at no particular point. The next step derives from that the previous step would have to have an opposing action [or would reach infinity and hence not be an action/motion] , and again we have another element of balance governing the appearance of the line prior to it being able to manifest [the paradoxes have not yet been resolved]. If we now imagine an equal set of arrows each applying a hypothetical force to the epicentre of the circle, they would negate and not make effect upon the line. Thence we have to have ‘an amount’ of difference between the two actions, and with this we have the next part of the process. Rinse and repeat then we arrive at a wave or otherwise a repetition ~ and the latter would stop any motion, …which we must have to >draw the line.

To continue the >motion and take another action, we then create a third option [another arrow] then a forth etc and we have something representing the universal path of a photon [perhaps?] i.e. a frequency which has no ends.

We may repeat this endlessly just as we would the drawing of the line in the first place. Then so we may fill the universe with lines [particles/waves set up in a multi-paradoxical state]!

Q. can the universe draw a line, or is it constantly stuck in the failed attempt do achieve that? :mrgreen:

[1] ‘solidity’ is most likely a product of ‘motion’, …? if you imagine reality as like a film running at normal time, fast, slow, still etc, except that when the film is still it is empty [is infinity]! …naturally a particle without action [spin, momentum] doesn’t exist.

2

I think what I am saying here is that reality is fundamentally built necessarily upon a basis of freedom! I didn’t know how to explain that other than with the above metaphor, and neither do I think it is possible to explain.

Determinism cannot exist at the primary level, it is an effect of the above rather than the cause.

3

An infinite line doesn’t “become” and infinite line. It must be defined as already there, not getting there.

4

Indeed, one cannot ‘build up to infinity’ as the general rule, yet we can have un-limitedness as infinite ~ as represented by the motion of the line being drawn [it can potentially keep being drawn forever]. The first paradox [if that is the source of your complaint] represents these two definitions of the infinite; the line extending [because it is being drawn [time]] and that it can equally be drawn at once immediately reaching infinity.

For me this is a kind of poetic philosophical basis of reality in metaphor.

We have eternity being doubly represented, which for me hints towards a better description of reality as infinite. This gets us past questions like; what’s outside of the universe, what is prior to and after it, and before/after that etc. we can perhaps imagine universe as like bends in the line [particle/wave then derives from that].

5

James is right. No it can’t be drawn forever- as in it is continuing to a definable or actual point- an infinity is already forever in time nothing less. I think you have to take the concept as all that could be and ever will be, or you get trapped in ideas that it is divisible into sub units and that defies the definition.

The Universe as an infinity is not really an uncountable infinity although it is unbounded, it is of a specific size and always has been, don’t mix mathematical concepts with reality, it does not end well.

6

This
is a line

7

I actually used similar thinking to argue for determinism and a block universe that is completely static.

The thread is here if you’re interested in reading: Time & Life

8

A line can be defined in a number of ways. It all depends upon how you choose to build your ontology.

RM:AO defines a straight line as a series of InfA^2 points void of angle between any two of them (Georg Cantor would be proud) but then goes on to prove that such a concept can’t exist in physical reality. Space then becomes 4/3πInfA^6 points upon which the rest of the understanding of the universe is formed.

That forms the “Level 1” ontology for understanding why the universe is the way it is. But to be more exact, one has to then divide each infinitesimal infinitely, and then each of those, and each again, and so on. The need for this is merely to form an immutable equation for the propagation speed of affect (or “the speed of light in a vacuum”) that is independent of measurement. And then from that, an absolute reference for time is resolved. And with enough extreme high tech equipment can be verified.

But note that the line that started all of that was already proven to not exist. The truth is that the concepts that form an ontology, such as a perfectly straight line (or squares or circles), need not exist in order to resolve what really does exist and a means to verify it.

9

the line is a metaphor representing the idea that you cant have no universe, followed by universe, followed by no universe, that’s just plain illogical. We could think of it as e.g. time.

Really we have to take the whole equation ~ what it means as the result of the thought experiment i.e. that the line has to be derived of infinity ~ given that infinity exists [and is not purely a mathematical concept]. Lets say the infinite line is tied in a knot, the knot is then ‘finite’! The universe could be seen as a bunch of knots, and we are left with no infinity paradoxes ~ apart from the limits concerning how many knots there are or can be. I haven’t considered that as yet, like you say the universe has always been the singularity.

but I don’t know how you can have a singularity just kind of hanging loose there? Or if we can have objects et al at this level?

my theory doesn’t require division [see reply to h&h above] ~ which is my main problem with math when it comes to the fundamental nature of reality. Math chops things up, nature doesn’t. …or at least a reality with an infinite base cannot. Just add ‘mind’ and we have the divine infinite [Caugant in Druidism].

On the other hand, I don’t know if infinity itself is a proper definition of reality, it could plausibly be of no dimensions at base e.g. mind alone, and then the universe is ‘imagined’ within that. Or it could be something that can be anything and is therefore not anything in particular ~ which would be impossible to describe.

A description-less base to reality is most plausible as I see it, but we still have to get from that to what we have [universe], hence the op. An ‘imagined’ or conceptual infinite line could form a basis to existence, to how singularity is derived.

_

10

I just got a blank page, is that what you meant?

11

Well if you want to define infinity as non mathematical then it can be anything, literally derived from everything that is knowable which has a lot of scope, of course it will no more reflect reality than the mathematical infinity will (it’s just a full stop that never happens), but it would be useful in exploring conceptual analysis outside of a numerical system which is bound by limits. It wont be useful in any sense in reality, but infinity even Cantors infinite maths of sets depends only on the axiom you choose, if this is logically unquestionable then it is right, of course that means almost nothing at all to reality, an axiom is not a strong foundation. if you want to divide it into something more/less than itself you can but only if you start by making up your own rules that are unquestionable, remind you of anything?

A singularity is impossible, it cannot exist as it stands which is why they say physics breaks down at the singularity, there is no rational logical explanation for infinity by anything in any real model in philosophy of science or science, ironically though it’s utility is still unquestionable, in maths and especially proofs at least. :slight_smile:

12

Mathematics is quantified reality. Hyperreal mathematics allows even the infinities to be quantitative. All “understanding” is necessarily quantitative in merely objectifying “things” that in reality that are merely centers of infinite affects. But an understanding does not require an entirely perfect model of actual situations, merely something close enough to be predictive.

“Infinity” merely means “without end”. It is not a number or a quantity, but a quality. Mathematics handles most quality issues with sufficient accuracy, although not perfectly. But how often does reality require a person to be truly perfect in order to get to the next step of getting along? There is no particle in the universe that has a perfect shape or behavior. Why should people be required to do even better?

RM:AO defines reality in terms of affects (or “Affectance”). Affect is a quality that cannot be perfectly described in quantitative terms, merely estimated. But the concepts can be perfectly coherent and that allows for a perfect “understanding” of an infinite thing. There are no mysteries in the universe for RM:AO. But trying to actually go measure anything so as to know for certain where to begin is a different story.

13

H&H

I agree with everything there [nicely explained too]. The later part; “there is no rational logical explanation for infinity” is the most important here, as that’s the aspect I want to get at.

We can think of infinity as an emptiness and as it would necessarily be base, a kind of emptiness from which all things derive, ~ everything we and the world is. Yet that involves masses of contradictions the more we look at what that ‘is’.

If the sheet of paper is not flat, then the line we draw upon it cannot be. Yet we need the sheet of paper to exist such that anything else can occur. It seems to me that we have to have an actual infinity at base although that term doesn’t explain the sheet of paper properly. It is the same with quantum mechanics – if I may, we end up with duel explanations and a seemingly illogical basis, worse still, to my mind reality does indeed have an illogical basis!

I quite like that as it is in my mind, without that base everything would be mechanistic even our thoughts, rather than the brain having plasticity and constantly changing. Its an ocean of chaos but that just makes the ship [our conscious epicentre] more fun to ride in.

James S Saint

Agreed.

This is the bit I am trying to get at with the op and many of my threads; an emptiness that contains everything in derivative form ~ somehow. I mean that is almost like magic or something lol.

_